Advertisement

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 112, Issue 2, pp 225–235 | Cite as

Characterisation of the bacterial community in the gastrointestinal tracts of elk (Cervus canadensis)

  • Jong-Hui Kim
  • Sung Wook Hong
  • Beom-Young Park
  • Jae Gyu Yoo
  • Mi-Hwa OhEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The resident bacteria of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and the behaviour of these microbes have been poorly characterised in elk as compared to other ruminant animal species such as sheep and cattle. In addition, most microbial community studies of deer gut have focused on rumen or faeces, while other parts of the GIT such as the small and large intestine have received little attention. To address this issue, the present study investigated the diversity of the GIT bacterial community in elk (Cervus canadensis) by 16S rRNA pyrosequencing analysis. Eight distinct GIT segments including the stomach (rumen, omasum, and abomasum), small intestine (duodenum and jejunum), and large intestine (cecum, colon, and rectum) obtained from four elks were examined. We found that bacterial richness and diversity were higher in the stomach and large intestine than in the small intestine (P < 0.05). A total of 733 genera belonging to 26 phyla were distributed throughout elk GITs, with Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and Proteobacteria identified as the predominant phyla. In addition, there was spatial heterogeneity in the composition, diversity, and species abundance of microbiota in the GIT (P < 0.0001). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to characterise bacterial communities from eight GIT regions of elk by 16S rRNA pyrosequencing.

Keywords

Gastrointestinal tract Elk (Cervus canadensis16S rRNA pyrosequencing Bacterial community 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. PJ01199301) and the Postdoctoral Course Program of National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration (Korea).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The use and care of the animals used in this study were approved by the Animal Care and Experimentation Committee of the National Institute of Animal Science.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10482_2018_1150_MOESM1_ESM.docx (34 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 33 kb)

References

  1. Aguirre M, Venema K (2015) Does the gut microbiota contribute to obesity? Going beyond the gut feeling. Microorganisms 3:213–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Masaudi S, El Kaoutari A, Drula E et al (2017) A metagenomics investigation of carbohydrate-active enzymes along the gastrointestinal tract of Saudi sheep. Front Microbiol 8:666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ash RW (1964) Abomasal secretion and emptying in suckled calves. J Physiol 172:425–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg RD (1996) The indigenous gastrointestinal microflora. Trends Microbiol 4:430–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cann I, Bernardi RC, Mackie RI (2016) Cellulose degradation in the human gut: Ruminococcus champanellensis expands the cellulosome paradigm. Environ Microbiol 18:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cersosimo LM, Lachance H, St-Pierre B et al (2015) Examination of the rumen bacteria and methanogenic archaea of wild impalas (Aepyceros melampus melampus) from Pongola, South Africa. Microb Ecol 69:577–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chun J, Kim KY, Lee JH, Choi Y (2010) The analysis of oral microbial communities of wild-type and toll-like receptor 2-deficient mice using a 454 GS FLX Titanium pyrosequencer. BMC Microbiol 10:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa MC, Silva G, Ramos RV et al (2015) Characterization and comparison of the bacterial microbiota in different gastrointestinal tract compartments in horses. Vet J 205:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Oliveira MNV, Jewell KA, Freitas FS et al (2013) Characterizing the microbiota across the gastrointestinal tract of a Brazilian Nelore steer. Vet Microbiol 164:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dehority BA (1969) Pectin-fermenting bacteria isolated from the bovine rumen. J Bacteriol 99:189–196Google Scholar
  11. Dehority BA, Orpin CG (1997) Development of, and natural fluctuations in, rumen microbial populations. In: Hobson PN, Stewart CS (eds) The rumen microbial ecosystem. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  12. Dodd D, Moon YH, Swaminathan K, Mackie RI, Cann IK (2010) Transcriptomic analyses of xylan degradation by Prevotella bryantii and insights into energy acquisition by xylanolytic bacteroidetes. J Biol Chem jbc-M110:141788Google Scholar
  13. Fang W, Fang Z, Zhou P, Chang F et al (2012) Evidence for lignin oxidation by the giant panda fecal microbiome. PLoS ONE 7:e50312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernando SC, Purvis HT, Najar FZ, Sukharnikov LO et al (2010) Rumen microbial population dynamics during adaptation to a high-grain diet. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:7482–7490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frey JC, Pell AN, Berthiaume R et al (2010) Comparative studies of microbial populations in the rumen, duodenum, ileum and faeces of lactating dairy cows. J Appl Microbiol 108:1982–1993Google Scholar
  16. Garrett WS, Gallini CA, Yatsunenko T, Michaud M et al (2010) Enterobacteriaceae act in concert with the gut microbiota to induce spontaneous and maternally transmitted colitis. Cell Host Microbe 8:292–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griswold KE, White BA, Mackie RI (1999) Diversity of extracellular proteolytic activities among Prevotella species from the rumen. Curr Microbiol 39:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gruninger RJ, Sensen CW, McAllister TA, Forster RJ (2014) Diversity of rumen bacteria in Canadian cervids. PLoS ONE 9:e89682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guan Y, Yang H, Han S, Feng L et al (2017) Comparison of the gut microbiota composition between wild and captive sika deer (Cervus nippon hortulorum) from feces by high-throughput sequencing. AMB Express 7:212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henderson G, Cox F, Ganesh S et al (2015) Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Sci Rep 5:14567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huber T, Faulkner G, Hugenholtz P (2004) Bellerophon: a program to detect chimeric sequences in multiple sequence alignments. Bioinformatics 20:2317–2319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ishaq SL, Wright ADG (2012) Insight into the bacterial gut microbiome of the North American moose (Alces alces). BMC Microbiol 12:212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ishaq SL, Wright ADG (2014) High-throughput DNA sequencing of the ruminal bacteria from Moose (Alces alces) in Vermont, Alaska, and Norway. Microb Ecol 68:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kamra DN, Agarwal N, Chaudhary LC (2006) Inhibition of ruminal methanogenesis by tropical plants containing secondary compounds. Int Congr Ser 1293:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim OS, Cho YJ, Lee K et al (2012) Introducing EzTaxon-e: a prokaryotic 16S rRNA gene sequence database with phylotypes that represent uncultured species. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 62:716–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. KOSIS, Korean Statistical Information Service (2015) Index Open Data list. http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1AG15501&conn_path=I2&language=en. Accessed 7 May 2018
  27. Li W, Godzik A (2006) Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 22:1658–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li ZP, Liu HL, Li GY, Bao K et al (2013) Molecular diversity of rumen bacterial communities from tannin-rich and fiber-rich forage fed domestic Sika deer (Cervus nippon) in China. BMC Microbiol 13:151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li Z, Zhang Z, Xu C et al (2014) Bacteria and methanogens differ along the gastrointestinal tract of Chinese roe deer (Capreolus pygargus). PLoS ONE 9:e114513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li Z, Wright ADG, Liu H, Bao K et al (2015a) Bacterial community composition and fermentation patterns in the rumen of sika deer (Cervus nippon) fed three different diets. Microb Ecol 69:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li Z, Wright ADG, Liu H, Fan Z et al (2015b) Response of the rumen microbiota of sika deer (Cervus nippon) fed different concentrations of tannin rich plants. PLoS ONE 10:e0123481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li Z, Wang X, Zhang T, Si H, Nan W et al (2018) The development of microbiota and metabolome in small intestine of sika deer (Cervus nippon) from birth to weaning. Front Microbiol 9:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lozupone C, Knight R (2005) UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:8228–8235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mao S, Zhang M, Liu J, Zhu W (2015) Characterising the bacterial microbiota across the gastrointestinal tracts of dairy cattle: membership and potential function. Sci Rep 5:16116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Donnell MM, Harris HM, Ross RP et al (2017) Core fecal microbiota of domesticated herbivorous ruminant, hindgut fermenters, and monogastric animals. Microbiologyopen 6:e00509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Purushe J, Fouts DE, Morrison M, White BA (2010) Comparative genome analysis of Prevotella ruminicola and Prevotella bryantii: insights into their environmental niche. Microb Ecol 60:721–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tan H, Deng Q, Cao L (2014) Ruminant feces harbor diverse uncultured symbiotic Actinobacteria. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 30:1093–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taschuk R, Griebel PJ (2012) Commensal microbiome effects on mucosal immune system development in the ruminant gastrointestinal tract. Anim Health Res Rev 13:129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walker A, Pfitzner B, Harir M, Schaubeck M et al (2017) Sulfonolipids as novel metabolite markers of Alistipes and Odoribacter affected by high-fat diets. Sci Rep 7:11047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang J, Soininen J, He J, Shen J (2012) Phylogenetic clustering increases with elevation for microbes. Environ Microbiol Rep 4:217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang J, Fan H, Han Y, Zhao J, Zhou Z (2017) Characterization of the microbial communities along the gastrointestinal tract of sheep by 454 pyrosequencing analysis. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 30:100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yeoman CJ, Ishaq SL, Bichi E, Olivo S et al (2018) Biogeographical differences in the influence of maternal microbial sources on the early successional development of the bovine neonatal gastrointestinal tract. Sci Rep 8:3197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zielinska S, Kidawa D, Stempniewicz L et al (2016) New insights into the microbiota of the Svalbard reindeer Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus. Front Microbiol 7:170Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Animal ScienceRural Development AdministrationWanju-gunKorea
  2. 2.World Institute of KimchiGwangjuKorea

Personalised recommendations