| Literature DB >> 22844227 |
Yu-heng Luo1, Yong Su, André-Denis G Wright, Ling-li Zhang, Hauke Smidt, Wei-yun Zhu.
Abstract
The diversity of fecal methanogens of Erhualian (obese type) and Landrace (lean type) pigs was examined using separate 16S rRNA gene libraries for each breed. A total of 763 clones were analyzed; 381 from the Erhualian library and 382 from the Landrace library were identified belonging to the genus Methanobrevibacter. Others were identified belonging to the genus Methanosphaera. The two libraries showed significant differences in diversity (P < 0.05) and composition (P < 0.0001). Only two operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were found in both libraries, whereas six OTUs were found only in the Erhualian library and 23 OTUs were found only in the Landrace library. Real-time PCR showed that the abundance of fecal methanogens in Landrace pigs was significantly higher than that in Erhualian pigs (P < 0.05). Results showed that the Landrace pig (lean) harbored a greater diversity and higher numbers of methanogen mcrA gene copies than the Erhualian pig (obese). These differences may be related to the fatness or leanness in these two pig breeds. The results provide new leads for further investigations on the fat storage of pigs or even humans.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22844227 PMCID: PMC3403511 DOI: 10.1155/2012/605289
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Archaea Impact factor: 3.273
16S rRNA sequences from feces of Erhualian and Landrace pigs.
| Erhualian | Landrace | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16S phylotypes | No. clones | OTU# | 16S phylotypes | No. clones | OTU# |
| LGM-Er1 | 19 | 11 | LGM-La1 | 11 | 17 |
| LGM-Er2 | 49 | 11 | LGM-La2 | 15 | 20 |
| LGM-Er3 | 6 | 11 | LGM-La3 | 5 | 7 |
| LGM-Er4 | 13 | 1 | LGM-La4 | 12 | 16 |
| LGM-Er5 | 4 | 11 | LGM-La6 | 2 | 20 |
| LGM-Er6 | 7 | 11 | LGM-La7 | 6 | 19 |
| LGM-Er7 | 5 | 2 | LGM-La8 | 25 | 20 |
| LGM-Er8 | 81 | 3 | LGM-La9 | 2 | 20 |
| LGM-Er9 | 6 | 11 | LGM-La10 | 2 | 20 |
| LGM-Er10 | 15 | 4 | LGM-La11 | 8 | 17 |
| LGM-Er11 | 50 | 11 | LGM-La12 | 6 | 8 |
| LGM-Er12 | 6 | 5 | LGM-La13 | 4 | 9 |
| LGM-Er13 | 9 | 6 | LGM-La14 | 5 | 10 |
| LGM-Er14 | 111 | 13 | LGM-La15 | 4 | 11 |
| LGM-La16 | 2 | 12 | |||
| LGM-La19 | 89 | 13 | |||
| LGM-La20 | 43 | 14 | |||
| LGM-La21 | 5 | 15 | |||
| LGM-La22 | 5 | 16 | |||
| LGM-La23 | 2 | 20 | |||
| LGM-La24 | 5 | 20 | |||
| LGM-La25 | 11 | 20 | |||
| LGM-La27 | 2 | 18 | |||
| LGM-La28 | 2 | 20 | |||
| LGM-La29 | 4 | 19 | |||
| LGM-La30 | 4 | 20 | |||
| LGM-La31 | 10 | 20 | |||
| LGM-La32 | 1 | 20 | |||
| LGM-La33 | 12 | 21 | |||
| LGM-La34 | 7 | 22 | |||
| LGM-La35 | 6 | 23 | |||
| LGM-La36 | 6 | 24 | |||
| LGM-La37 | 2 | 25 | |||
| LGM-La38 | 3 | 26 | |||
| LGM-La39 | 1 | 27 | |||
| LGM-La40 | 46 | 28 | |||
| LGM-La41 | 2 | 29 | |||
| LGM-La42 | 4 | 30 | |||
| LGM-La43 | 1 | 31 | |||
Comparison of OTUs between Erhualian and Landrace pigs.
| OTU | No. of sequences | Nearest valid taxon∗ | % Seq. identity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erhualian | Landrace | |||
| 1 | 13 | — |
| 96.3 |
| 2 | 5 | — |
| 96.9 |
| 3 | 81 | — |
| 97.1 |
| 4 | 15 | — |
| 97.1 |
| 5 | 6 | — |
| 97.4 |
| 6 | 9 | — |
| 97.8 |
| 7 | — | 5 |
| 95.3 |
| 8 | — | 6 |
| 93.9 |
| 9 | — | 4 |
| 98.8 |
| 10 | — | 5 |
| 95.1 |
| 11 | 141 | 4 |
| 98.8 |
| 12 | — | 2 |
| 97.0 |
| 13 | 111 | 89 |
| 99.9 |
| 14 | — | 43 |
| 97.1 |
| 15 | — | 5 |
| 94.6 |
| 16 | — | 17 |
| 95.7 |
| 17 | — | 19 |
| 94.9 |
| 18 | — | 2 |
| 94.2 |
| 19 | — | 10 |
| 97.2 |
| 20 | — | 81 |
| 98.1 |
| 21 | — | 12 |
| 95.5 |
| 22 | — | 7 |
| 97.4 |
| 23 | — | 6 |
| 94.5 |
| 24 | — | 6 |
| 94.2 |
| 25 | — | 2 |
| 95.5 |
| 26 | — | 3 |
| 97.4 |
| 27 | — | 1 |
| 98.5 |
| 28 | — | 46 |
| 96.8 |
| 29 | — | 2 |
| 96.7 |
| 30 | — | 4 |
| 95.3 |
| 31 | — | 1 |
| 95.3 |
|
| ||||
| Totals | 381 | 382 | ||
∗Nearest valid taxon is represented by the type strain of the designated species.
Figure 1Phylogenetic relationship of archaeal 16S rRNA gene sequences retrieved from fecal samples of Erhualian and Landrace pigs. Evolutionary distances were calculated using the Neighbor-Joining method. The tree was bootstrap resampled 1000 times.
Coverage and Shannon Index calculated using MOTHUR1 for each methanogen 16S rRNA gene clone library.
| Clone library | OTUs observed | CHAO 1 OTU estimate | % OTU coverage2 | Shannon index ± 95% confidence limits | Libshuff analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erhualian | 8 | 8 | 100 | 1.51 ± 0.08a |
|
| Landrace | 24 | 24.2 | 99.2 | 2.38 ± 0.11b |
|
1Schloss et al. [21].
2Good's [22] coverage (C) according to the equation C = 1 − (n/N), where n is the number of sequences represented by a single clone and N is the total number of clones in the library.
a,bThere is significant difference between these values.