| Literature DB >> 28383519 |
Mao Li1, Hanlin Zhou1, Xiangyu Pan2, Tieshan Xu1, Zhenwen Zhang1, Xuejuan Zi3, Yu Jiang2.
Abstract
Geese are extremely adept in utilizing plant-derived roughage within their diet. However, the intestinal microbiome of geese remains limited, especially the dietary effect on microbial diversity. Cassava foliage was widely used in animal feed, but little information is available for geese. In this study, the geese were fed with control diet (CK), experimental diet supplemented with 5% cassava foliage (CF5) or 10% (CF10) for 42 days, respectively. The cecal samples were collected after animals were killed. High-throughput sequencing technology was used to investigate the microbial diversity in the caecum of geese with different dietary supplements. Taxonomic analysis indicated that the predominant phyla were distinct with different dietary treatments. The phyla Firmicutes (51.4%), Bacteroidetes (29.55%) and Proteobacteria (7.90%) were dominant in the CK group, but Bacteroidetes (65.19% and 67.29%,) Firmicutes (18.01% and 17.39%), Proteobacteria (8.72% and 10.18%), Synergistete (2.51% and 1.76%) and Spirochaetes (2.60% and 1.46%) were dominant in CF5 and CF10 groups. The abundance of Firmicutes was negatively correlated with the supplementation of cassava foliage. However, the abundance of Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria were positively correlated with the supplementation of cassava foliage. Our study also revealed that the microbial communities were significantly different at genus levels. Genes related to nutrient and energy metabolism, immunity and signal transduction pathways were primarily enriched by the microbiome.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28383519 PMCID: PMC5382919 DOI: 10.1038/srep45697
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Diversity estimation of the 16S rRNA gene libraries of the goose gut from the sequencing analysisa.
| Sample ID | Reads | OTU | Chao | Ace | Shannon | Simpson |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK-1 | 83,124 | 11,804 | 33,282 | 59,669 | 6.51 | 0.0076 |
| CK-2 | 79,931 | 11,567 | 33,033 | 60,570 | 6.35 | 0.0122 |
| CK-3 | 75,341 | 10,869 | 31,631 | 60,520 | 6.18 | 0.0187 |
| CK-4 | 70,146 | 10,116 | 29,761 | 56,110 | 6.08 | 0.0160 |
| CK-5 | 73,894 | 9,730 | 25,895 | 47,235 | 5.90 | 0.0188 |
| CK-6 | 73,334 | 11,210 | 31,269 | 56,040 | 6.41 | 0.0102 |
| CF5–1 | 75,345 | 12,296 | 33,400 | 58,588 | 6.55 | 0.0095 |
| CF5–2 | 71174 | 10524 | 30621 | 54,201 | 6.17 | 0.0129 |
| CF5–3 | 73,430 | 11,785 | 33,281 | 59,620 | 6.44 | 0.0114 |
| CF5–4 | 77291 | 13,036 | 36,996 | 66,589 | 6.58 | 0.0098 |
| CF5–5 | 79482 | 12116 | 33277 | 60234 | 6.38 | 0.0102 |
| CF5–6 | 84,883 | 10,372 | 26,924 | 44890 | 6.24 | 0.0101 |
| CF10–1 | 81,096 | 12,829 | 36,135 | 65,404 | 6.54 | 0.0095 |
| CF10–2 | 76,117 | 10,685 | 28952 | 52,824 | 6.05 | 0.0164 |
| CF10–3 | 80,438 | 8,885 | 22,792 | 39,794 | 5.81 | 0.0169 |
| CF10–4 | 74,099 | 10,327 | 29,455 | 53,691 | 5.97 | 0.0204 |
| CF10–5 | 80,233 | 11,205 | 30,620 | 52,934 | 6.19 | 0.0135 |
| CF10–6 | 78,459 | 11,009 | 29,683 | 52,174 | 6.15 | 0.0156 |
aOTUs were defined at 3% dissimilarity. The richness estimators (ACE and Chao) and diversity indices (Shannon and Simpson) were calculated.
bSamples in the CK group included CK1, CK2, CK3, CK4, CK5 and CK6; samples in the CF5 group included CF5–1, CF5–2, CF5–3, CF5–4, CF5–5 and CF5–6; samples in the CF10 group included CF10–1, CF10–2, CF10–3, CF10–4, CF10–5 and CF10–6.
Figure 1Shannon value and rarefaction curves of OUTs clustered at 97% sequence identity across different samples.
Figure 2Effects of cassava foliage on the relative abundance (%reads) of (A) the most dominant phylum and (B) the most dominant genus in the cecal microbiome of geese. Error bars represent the SD of three samples. Boxes with a different letter above the error bars are significantly different at P < 0.01 by t-test analyses.CK represents control diet group; CF5 represents experimental diet which supplemented with 5% cassava foliage on the base of control diet; CF10 represents experimental diet which supplemented with 10% cassava foliage on the base of control diet. The same as below.
Figure 3Genus-level composition of the cecal microbiome of geese.
A color-coded bar plot shows the average bacterial genus distribution in different treatment groups.
Figure 4A heat map of the microbial composition in the caecum of geese at the genus level.
The heat map indicates the relative abundance of each genus in different treatment groups.
Figure 5LEfSe identified the most differentially abundant taxons between CK and CF5 (A1,B1), CK and CF10 (A2,B2), CF5 and CF10 (A3,B3). Taxonomic cladogram obtained from LEfSe analysis of 16 S sequences (relative abundance ≥0.5%). (Red) CF5-enriched taxa, (Green) taxa enriched in CK (B1); (Red) CK-enriched taxa (B2); (Red) CF5-enriched taxa (B3). The brightness of each dot is proportional to its effect size. CK-enriched taxa are indicated with a positive LDA score (green), and taxa enriched in CF5 have a negative score (red) (A1); taxa enriched in CK have a negative score (red) (A2); taxa enriched in CF5 have a negative score (red) (A3). Only taxa meeting an LDA significant threshold >2 are shown.
Figure 6KEGG enrichment analysis of the difference groups.
(A): CK-VS-CF5; (B): CK-VS-CF10; (C): CF5-VS-CF10. Rich Factor: The ratio of the number of differentially expressed genes and the total number genes which located in the pathway genes. The greater the Factor Rich, the higher the degree of enrichment. P-value closer to 0, the more significant enrichment.
Ingredient and nutrient composition (%, as feed) of the experimental diets.
| Items | CK | CF5 | CF10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ingredient (%) | |||
| Corn | 62 | 58.5 | 50.3 |
| Soybean meal | 22 | 21 | 20 |
| Wheat bran | 9 | 7.5 | 7 |
| Cassava foliage | 5 | 10 | |
| Vegetable Oil | 0.5 | 1.5 | 4 |
| Fish meal | 3 | ||
| Limestone powder | 2 | 2 | 1.5 |
| Calcium hydrogen phosphate | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| DL-Met | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Premix compound | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Nutrient composition | |||
| ME (MJ/kg) | 11.27 | 11.3 | 11.34 |
| CP (%) | 16.48 | 16.53 | 16.47 |
| CF (%) | 3.04 | 5.01 | 6.93 |
| Lys (%) | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Met (%) | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.45 |
| Ca (%) | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| P (%) | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
ME: Metabolizable energy, CP: Crude protein, CF: Crude fiber, Lys: lysine, Met: Methionine, Ca: Calcium, P: Phosphorus.