| Literature DB >> 27887575 |
Yingying Zhu1,2, He Li1, Xinglian Xu1, Chunbao Li3, Guanghong Zhou4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meat protein in the diet has been shown to be beneficial for the growth of Lactobacillus in the caecum of growing rats; however, it is unknown whether gut microbiota in middle-aged animals have the same responses to meat protein diets. This study compared the composition of the gut microbiota between young and middle-aged rats after being fed 17.7% chicken protein diet for 14 days.Entities:
Keywords: Aging; Chicken protein; Gut microbiota; Old rats
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27887575 PMCID: PMC5124274 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-016-0895-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Fig. 1Diversity estimation of gut bacteria in rat feces. a Average number of usable raw reads (bars represent standard deviations); b Average number of OTUs at the 97% similarity level (bars represent standard deviations); c Rarefaction curves at the 97% similarity level. Each curve represents one biological sample; d Shannon–Wiener diversity index curves at the 97% similarity level. Each curve represents one biological sample
Fig. 2OTU principal component analysis of gut bacteria
Fig. 3Relative abundances of gut bacteria by phylum and genus. a Phylum; b Genus
Relative abundance of primary phyla in rat feces
| Young-0d | Middle-aged-0d | Young-14d | Middle-aged-14d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firmicutes | 41.48% ± 7.88% | 72.07% ± 11.60% | 57.66% ± 21.12% | 58.11% ± 17.99% |
| Bacteroidetes | 41.28% ± 8.10% | 20.47% ± 12.04% | 29.61% ± 15.15% | 31.18% ± 19.54% |
| Fusobacteria | 10.58% ± 9.84% | 0.01% ± 0.01% | 5.25% ± 3.72% | 0.06% ± 0.16% |
| Tenericutes | 0.61% ± 1.01% | 5.85% ± 6.13% | 0.25% ± 0.34% | 7.99% ± 9.27% |
| Proteobacteria | 3.27% ± 4.12% | 1.31% ± 1.45% | 0.60% ± 0.40% | 2.09% ± 2.00% |
| Spirochaetae | 1.21% ± 0.88% | 0.00% ± 0.00% | 4.84% ± 5.64% | 0.00% ± 0.00% |
| Other | 1.58% ± 1.19% | 0.28% ± 0.36% | 1.80% ± 2.66% | 0.57% ± 0.53% |
Relative abundance of primary genera in rat feces
| Young-0d | Middle-aged-0d | Young-14d | Middle-aged-14d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 7.0% ± 8.1% | 40.9% ± 14.3% | 28.5% ± 24.8% | 6.2% ± 10.0% |
|
| 10.7% ± 4.3% | 17.6% ± 8.7% | 5.1% ± 4.1% | 22.9% ± 19.3% |
|
| 8.9% ± 5.1% | 9.9% ± 6.3% | 9.6% ± 10.7% | 16.3% ± 6.9% |
|
| 11.9% ± 6.0% | 0.4% ± 0.6% | 8.0% ± 4.6% | 7.0% ± 4.5% |
|
| 7.6% ± 3.1% | 1.1% ± 1.1% | 6.3% ± 6.5% | 0.0% ± 0.1% |
|
| 10.6% ± 9.8% | 0.0% ± 0.0% | 5.2% ± 3.7% | 0.1% ± 0.2% |
|
| 1.4% ± 2.2% | 12.7% ± 12.0% | 0.9% ± 0.7% | 1.4% ± 1.1% |
|
| 8.0% ± 6.5% | 0.1% ± 0.1% | 6.2% ± 5.7% | 0.4% ± 0.8% |
|
| 2.1% ± 1.0% | 0.0% ± 0.0% | 0.7% ± 0.6% | 12.2% ± 7.5% |
|
| 0.6% ± 1.0% | 5.8% ± 6.1% | 0.2% ± 0.3% | 8.0% ± 9.3% |
|
| 4.0% ± 2.5% | 0.6% ± 0.4% | 1.8% ± 1.2% | 2.8% ± 2.5% |
|
| 1.4% ± 3.8% | 0.8% ± 1.3% | 0.0% ± 0.1% | 1.3% ± 1.9% |
|
| 2.9% ± 3.8% | 1.1% ± 0.8% | 3.1% ± 4.0% | 0.2% ± 0.2% |
|
| 1.2% ± 0.9% | 0.0% ± 0.0% | 4.8% ± 5.6% | 0.0% ± 0.0% |
|
| 1.6% ± 1.2% | 1.0% ± 0.4% | 0.8% ± 0.5% | 3.3% ± 3.2% |
|
| 1.7% ± 1.8% | 0.4% ± 0.3% | 2.0% ± 2.0% | 1.9% ± 1.0% |
|
| 1.8% ± 1.7% | 0.0% ± 0.0% | 0.9% ± 0.4% | 1.1% ± 0.7% |
|
| 0.6% ± 0.2% | 0.0% ± 0.0% | 0.7% ± 1.2% | 1.1% ± 1.4% |
| Other | 0.0% ± 5.4% | 0.0% ± 1.5% | 0.0% ± 5.2% | 0.0% ± 6.5% |
Fig. 4Specific phylotypes of gut bacteria in response to age using LEfSe. a Day 0; b Day 14. The left histogram shows the LDA scores computed for features at the OTU level. The right heatmap shows the relative abundance of OTU (log 10 transformed). Each column represents one animal and each row represents the OTU corresponding to left one. The color intensity scale showed the relative abundance of OTU (log 10 transformed), yellow denotes an high relative abundance of OTU while black denotes a low relative abundance of OTU
Fig. 5Specific phylotypes of gut bacteria in response to diet shift using LEfSe. a Young group; b Middle-aged group. The left histogram shows the LDA scores computed for features at the OTU level. The right heatmap shows the relative abundance of OTU (log 10 transformed). Each column represents one animal and each row represents the OTU corresponding to left one. The color intensity scale showed the relative abundance of OTU (log 10 transformed), yellow denotes an high relative abundance of OTU while black denotes a low relative abundance of OTU