| Literature DB >> 22963241 |
Hsiao-Pei Lu1, Yu-bin Wang, Shiao-Wei Huang, Chung-Yen Lin, Martin Wu, Chih-hao Hsieh, Hon-Tsen Yu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Animals co-evolve with their gut microbiota; the latter can perform complex metabolic reactions that cannot be done independently by the host. Although the importance of gut microbiota has been well demonstrated, there is a paucity of research regarding its role in foliage-foraging mammals with a specialized digestive system.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22963241 PMCID: PMC3527328 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-466
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Mean ± SD anatomical features of 3 intestinal compartments of the white-faced flying squirrel (N = 4)
| Weight (g) | 81.75 ± 18.93 | 143.00 ± 31.51 | 66.00 ± 12.41 |
| Length (cm) | 182.75 ± 28.44 | 48.53 ± 2.07 | 171.95 ± 7.76 |
| W/L (g/cm) | 0.45 ± 0.08 | 2.93 ± 0.56 | 0.38 ± 0.06 |
Comparison of the phylogenetic composition of bacteria
| | |||||||||||||
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (0.48) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| 9 | 3.60 | 40 | 4.17 | (8.19) | 6 | 1.71 | 20 | 1.79 | 1 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.04 | |
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (0.06) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (2.60) | 56 | 15.95 | 325 | 29.02 | 92 | 13.63 | 347 | 12.34 | |
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (0.00) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.04 | |
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (0.45) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (1.77) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (1.48) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (0.39) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| 231 | 92.40 | 892 | 92.92 | (60.78) | 284 | 80.91 | 764 | 68.21 | 554 | 82.07 | 2083 | 74.08 | |
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (0.80) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (0.06) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.30 | 2 | 0.07 | |
| 5 | 2.00 | 10 | 1.04 | (11.85) | 3 | 0.85 | 9 | 0.80 | 7 | 1.04 | 352 | 12.52 | |
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (1.48) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (0.00) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.04 | |
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (0.77) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | |
| 1 | 0.40 | 14 | 1.46 | (8.77) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.30 | 2 | 0.07 | |
| Candidate division OP10 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (0.00) | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.04 |
| Candidate division TM7 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | (0.00) | 1 | 0.28 | 1 | 0.09 | 6 | 0.89 | 9 | 0.32 |
| Unclassified bacteria | 4 | 1.60 | 4 | 0.42 | (0.06) | 1 | 0.28 | 1 | 0.09 | 8 | 1.19 | 13 | 0.46 |
| Total | 250 | 100.00 | 960 | 100.00 | (100.00) | 351 | 100.00 | 1120 | 100.00 | 675 | 100.00 | 2812 | 100.00 |
“Flying squirrel” represented combined data for cecal mircrobiota of 2 flying squirrels (FS1 and FS2). "Mouse" represents combined data for cecal microbiota of 3 lean mice [14]. "Cattle" represents combined data for rumen microbiota of 3 cattle [15]. Numbers of phylotypes (OTUs) for each phylum were given for analyses of 16S rRNA gene libraries. Numbers in parentheses for “Flying squirrel” were relative abundances estimated by fosmid end-sequences from 1 flying squirrel (FS5).
Figure 1Relationships of gut bacterial communities using principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) of the UniFrac metric matrix. Data included sequences from fermentation chambers (flying squirrels, cattle and mice) and from mammalian fecal samples [13]. The scores for the first 2 dimensions (P1 and P2) are plotted. Data for the cattle and mice were derived from [15] and [14], respectively.
Figure 2Functional profile of the cecal microbiota of the flying squirrel according to the SEED Subsystem Hierarchy 1.
Candidate fosmid clones containing enzymes for plant polysaccharide degradation
| pLC07_F01 | GH2 | Beta-galactosidase | 51 | CBM32 |
| pEB10_E10 | GH3 | Beta-glucosidase | 38 | |
| pEB09_F10 | GH3 | Beta-glucosidase | 42 | |
| pEB07_A10 | GH3 | Beta-N-acetylhexosaminidase | 48 | |
| pEB15_H04 | GH9 | Cellobiohydrolase | 42 | CBM3 |
| pEB13_G01 | GH13 | 4-alpha-glucanotransferase | 36 | |
| pLC07_G02 | GH13 | 1,4-alpha-glucan branching enzyme | 57 | CBM48 |
| pLC07_A12 | GH18 | Predicted glycosyl hydrolase | 67 | |
| pLC07_G03 | GH18 | Predicted glycosyl hydrolase | 69 | |
| pEA02_E01 | GH20 | Beta-N-acetylhexosaminidase | 32 | |
| pEB01_A03 | GH20 | Beta-N-acetylhexosaminidase | 36 | |
| pEB04_D05 | GH20 | Beta-N-acetylhexosaminidase | 33 | |
| pEA03_F02 | GH23 | Soluble lytic murein transglycosylase | 82 | |
| pEB14_G10 | GH23 | Soluble lytic murein transglycosylase | 91 | |
| pLC08_D10 | GH23 | Soluble lytic murein transglycosylase | 88 | |
| pLC09_B04 | GH23 | Soluble lytic murein transglycosylase | 51 | |
| pLD06_F11 | GH23 | Soluble lytic murein transglycosylase | 91 | |
| pLD10_C02 | GH23 | Soluble lytic murein transglycosylase | 89 | |
| pLD10_D11 | GH29 | Alpha-L-fucosidase | 58 | CBM32 |
| pEB14_G12 | GH29 | Alpha-L-fucosidase | 40 | |
| pLC06_A10 | GH29 | Alpha-L-fucosidase | 58 | |
| pLC04_G11 | GH31 | Alpha-glucosidases | 57 | |
| pLD09_H03 | GH33 | Neuraminidase (sialidase) | 37 | |
| pLC03_A09 | GH35 | Beta-galactosidase | 44 | CBM32 |
| pEB17_F07 | GH39 | Beta-xylosidase | 38 | |
| pLC08_F09 | GH73 | Glucosaminidase (YG repeat) | 48 | |
| pLD05_E02 | GH73 | Muramidase (flagellum-specific) | 62 | |
| pLC09_H11 | GH77 | 4-alpha-glucanotransferase | 33 | |
| pLC09_B03 | GH84 | Hyaluronidase | 46 | CBM32 |
| pLD05_D12 | GH110 | Alpha-1,3 galactosidase | 49 | CBM51 |
| pEB16_A07 | CE4 | Predicted xylanase/chitin deacetylase | 30 | |
| pEB20_C02 | CE4 | Predicted xylanase/chitin deacetylase | 31 | |
| pLD04_D08 | CE4 | Predicted xylanase/chitin deacetylase | 44 |
Figure 3Gene structures of 2 fosmid inserts: Scaffold_56 (GenBank: JQ335997) and Scaffold_90 (GenBank: JQ335998). The ORFs are colored and labeled according to the COG functional categories as C (energy production and conversion), E (amino acid transport and metabolism), G (carbohydrate transport and metabolism), J (translation, ribosomal structure, and biogenesis), K (transcription), L (replication, recombination, and repair), O (posttranslational modification, protein turnover, chaperones), R (general function prediction only), S (function unknown), T (signal transduction mechanisms), and V (defense mechanisms). Further details of the putative function for each ORF are presented in Additional file 5.
Figure 4Distance dendrogram of glycoside hydrolases. Data included the deduced amino acid sequences of 6 GHs in Scaffold_56 and Scaffold_90 and their homologs from databases. The tree was constructed by the neighbor-joining method with 1,000 bootstrap replications using MEGA 5 software. Numbers near nodes indicate bootstrap values.