| Literature DB >> 28182658 |
Edward J Crowley1, Jonathan M King2, Toby Wilkinson1, Hilary J Worgan1, Kathryn M Huson1, Michael T Rose1, Neil R McEwan1.
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the microbial composition of faeces from two groups of caecotrophagic animals; rabbits and guinea pigs. In addition the study aimed to determine the community present in the different organs in the rabbit. DNA was extracted from seven of the organs in wild rabbits (n = 5) and from faecal samples from domesticated rabbits (n = 6) and guinea pigs (n = 6). Partial regions of the small ribosomal sub-unit were amplified by PCR and then the sequences present in each sample were determined by next generation sequencing. Differences were detected between samples from rabbit and guinea pig faeces, suggesting that there is not a microbial community common to caecotrophagic animals. Differences were also detected in the different regions of the rabbits' digestive tracts. As with previous work, many of the organisms detected were Firmicutes or unclassified species and there was a lack of Fibrobacteres, but for the first time we observed a high number of Bacteroidetes in rabbit samples. This work re-iterates high levels of Firmicutes and unclassified species are present in the rabbit gut, together with low number of Fibrobacteres. This suggests that in the rabbit gut, organisms other than the Fibrobacteres must be responsible for fibre digestion. However observation of high numbers of Bacteroidetes suggests that this phylum may indeed have a role to play in digestion in the rabbit gut.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28182658 PMCID: PMC5300138 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165779
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Total number of OTUs detected in each sample group.
| Actinobacteria | Bacteroidetes | Chloroplast | Fibrobacteres | Firmicutes | Proteobacteria | Tenericutes | Unclassified | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guinea Pig Faeces (n = 6) | 2 | 183 | 1 | 1 | 104 | 7 | 1 | 116 |
| Domesticated Rabbit Faeces (n = 6) | 10 | 67 | 2 | 0 | 239 | 8 | 0 | 184 |
| Wild Rabbit Rectum (= 5) | 12 | 98 | 2 | 0 | 378 | 10 | 1 | 284 |
| Wild Rabbit Stomach (= 5) | 7 | 113 | 2 | 1 | 245 | 9 | 0 | 154 |
| Wild Rabbit Jejunum (= 5) | 12 | 63 | 2 | 0 | 313 | 9 | 1 | 209 |
| Wild Rabbit Appendix (= 5) | 12 | 54 | 2 | 0 | 365 | 9 | 1 | 258 |
| Wild Rabbit Caecum (= 5) | 12 | 58 | 2 | 0 | 363 | 8 | 1 | 266 |
| Wild Rabbit Proximal Colon (= 5) | 12 | 38 | 2 | 0 | 355 | 9 | 0 | 254 |
| Wild Rabbit Distal Colon (= 5) | 12 | 43 | 2 | 0 | 355 | 8 | 1 | 252 |
Fig 1Percentage of each phylum present in fresh faecal samples collected from domesticated rabbits and guinea pigs together with the percentage of sequences which could not be classified within a particular phylum.
Fig 2Percentage of each phylum present in fresh faecal samples collected from domesticated rabbits and rectal samples collected from wild rabbits together with the percentage of sequences which could not be classified within a particular phylum.
Fig 3Percentage of each phylum present in samples collected from the stomach, jejunum, caecum, appendicular caecum, proximal colon, distal colon and rectum of wild rabbits together with the percentage of sequences which could not be classified within a particular phylum.
Data presented are the mean values of 5 samples per region.