Effect of two insect meals on the gut commensal microbiome of healthy sea trout (Salmo trutta vr. trutta).
Fish
Mealworm
Metagenome
Microbiome
NGS
Next generation sequencing
Sea trout
Superworm
Journal
BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
Titre abrégé: BMC Vet Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101249759
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Aug 2023
14 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
29
09
2022
accepted:
21
07
2023
medline:
16
8
2023
pubmed:
15
8
2023
entrez:
14
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The balance of the intestinal commensal microbiome of fish and other animals plays an important role in the physiological processes of healthy animals, contributes to the defense against pathogens, stimulates the immune system and facilitates nutrient metabolism. In the last decade, the interest in the application of the insects in fish nutrition increased, although little is known regarding the effects of insect meals on the gastrointenstinal tract microbiome of the sea trout fingerlings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two diets containing mealworm (MW) and superworm (SW) on the microbiome of the digesta of sea trout fingerlings and the relative abundances of different taxa among communities under controlled conditions. The insect meals produced a similar weight gain and survival rate to sea trout fed fishmeal. The most abundant bacterial phylum in all the treatment groups was Firmicutes followed by Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria, and significant differences in the amount of Cyanobacteria were observed in the SW group. The insect meals did not produce differences in the three most abundant phyla in the sea trout digesta. However, the effect of each type of meal on the lower taxonomic levels was evident, particularly in the case of the superworm meal. These microbiome differences indicated that mealworm meal was more related to fishmeal than superworm meal. Our results highlight the potential effects of insect meals, such as mealworm and superworm meals, on the microbiota of sea trout.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The balance of the intestinal commensal microbiome of fish and other animals plays an important role in the physiological processes of healthy animals, contributes to the defense against pathogens, stimulates the immune system and facilitates nutrient metabolism. In the last decade, the interest in the application of the insects in fish nutrition increased, although little is known regarding the effects of insect meals on the gastrointenstinal tract microbiome of the sea trout fingerlings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two diets containing mealworm (MW) and superworm (SW) on the microbiome of the digesta of sea trout fingerlings and the relative abundances of different taxa among communities under controlled conditions.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The insect meals produced a similar weight gain and survival rate to sea trout fed fishmeal. The most abundant bacterial phylum in all the treatment groups was Firmicutes followed by Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria, and significant differences in the amount of Cyanobacteria were observed in the SW group.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The insect meals did not produce differences in the three most abundant phyla in the sea trout digesta. However, the effect of each type of meal on the lower taxonomic levels was evident, particularly in the case of the superworm meal. These microbiome differences indicated that mealworm meal was more related to fishmeal than superworm meal. Our results highlight the potential effects of insect meals, such as mealworm and superworm meals, on the microbiota of sea trout.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37580683
doi: 10.1186/s12917-023-03671-8
pii: 10.1186/s12917-023-03671-8
pmc: PMC10424358
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
124Subventions
Organisme : Narodowe Centrum Nauki
ID : POIR 4.4
Organisme : Narodowe Centrum Badań i Rozwoju
ID : TEAM TECH no. POIR.04.04.00-00-204E/16-00
Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan 7;41(1):e1
pubmed: 22933715
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 6;13(3):e0193652
pubmed: 29509788
PLoS One. 2017 May 12;12(5):e0177735
pubmed: 28498878
Microorganisms. 2019 Dec 30;8(1):
pubmed: 31905993
Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(21):7188-96
pubmed: 17947321
Scand J Infect Dis. 2006;38(1):59-62
pubmed: 16338840
ISME J. 2014 Mar;8(3):541-551
pubmed: 24132079
J Appl Microbiol. 2013 Jun;114(6):1763-71
pubmed: 23473548
Sci Rep. 2016 Aug 03;6:30893
pubmed: 27485205
Animals (Basel). 2019 Apr 02;9(4):
pubmed: 30987067
Nat Methods. 2010 May;7(5):335-6
pubmed: 20383131
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 20;9(1):2339
pubmed: 30787388
Microb Cell Fact. 2021 Feb 16;20(1):45
pubmed: 33593360
Animals (Basel). 2020 Mar 30;10(4):
pubmed: 32235462
Nutrients. 2019 Jun 19;11(6):
pubmed: 31248152
Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2014 Apr;172(7):3402-13
pubmed: 24532445
Front Microbiol. 2016 Dec 20;7:2037
pubmed: 28066360
J Appl Microbiol. 2008 Dec;105(6):2203-12
pubmed: 19120666
Mycobiology. 2016 Dec;44(4):302-309
pubmed: 28154488
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019 Jan 24;10:9
pubmed: 30733706
Cell Host Microbe. 2012 Sep 13;12(3):277-88
pubmed: 22980325
Microb Pathog. 2016 Aug;97:213-20
pubmed: 27317856
J Appl Microbiol. 2008 Feb;104(2):605-12
pubmed: 17927755
Biotechnol Adv. 2020 Jul - Aug;41:107537
pubmed: 32199980
Mol Ecol Resour. 2014 Nov;14(6):1183-97
pubmed: 24774752
Aquaculture. 2017 Jan 20;467:149-157
pubmed: 28111483
Front Microbiol. 2018 May 04;9:873
pubmed: 29780377
AMB Express. 2020 Feb 27;10(1):40
pubmed: 32107652
Front Microbiol. 2018 Aug 03;9:1791
pubmed: 30123208
Animals (Basel). 2020 Sep 22;10(9):
pubmed: 32971778
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Aug 07;15(8):
pubmed: 30087270
Microorganisms. 2019 Sep 04;7(9):
pubmed: 31487912