| Literature DB >> 28558792 |
Kristin M V Herstad1, Karina Gajardo2, Anne Marie Bakke2, Lars Moe3, Jane Ludvigsen4, Knut Rudi4, Ida Rud5, Monika Sekelja4,6, Ellen Skancke3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diet has a major influence on the composition of the gut microbiota, whose importance for gut health and overall well-being is increasingly recognized. Knowledge is limited regarding health implications, including effects on the faecal microbiota, of feeding a diet with high content of red meat to dogs, despite some owners' apparent preference to do so. The aim of this study was to evaluate how a diet change from commercial dry food to one with a high content of boiled minced beef and vice versa influenced the faecal microbiota, and short chain fatty acid profile in healthy, adult, client-owned dogs.Entities:
Keywords: Client-owned dogs; Faecal microbiota; High throughput sequencing; Minced beef; Short chain fatty acids
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28558792 PMCID: PMC5450340 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-017-1073-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Demographic overview of the 11 client-owned dogs included in a seven-week dietary intervention study
| Dog no.a | Breed | Sex | Age (years) | Body weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female F/Male M | ||||
| 1 | English Springer Spaniel | F | 8 | 19.5 |
| 2 | Mixed breed | F | 3 | 15.4 |
| 3 | Small Munsterlander | F | 6 | 21.5 |
| 4 | Eurasier | F | 1.5 | 17.7 |
| 5 | Irish Setter | M | 4 | 21.5 |
| 6 | Mixed breed | M | 5 | 14.7 |
| 7 | English Setter | M | 5 | 28 |
| 8 | English Cocker Spaniel | M | 3 | 19 |
| 9 | Mixed breed | F | 6 | 28.7 |
| 10 | English Cocker Spaniel | F | 8 | 10.3 |
| 11 | German Shorthaired Pointer | F | 3 | 19.9 |
aDog no. 2, 8 and 9 did not complete all the diet periods
Ingredients and nutrient composition of the rations during the seven-week dietary intervention study
| Rations | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CD | LMB | MMB | HMB | MB | |
| Ingredients, % of fresh weight in ration | |||||
| CD | 100 | 61 | 34 | 15 | - |
| MB | - | 39 | 66 | 85 | 100 |
| Nutrient composition, g/100 g DM | |||||
| Crude protein | 27.1 | 32.5 | 38.9 | 46.2 | 55.3 |
| Crude lipid | 16.3 | 21.0 | 26.7 | 33.1 | 41.2 |
| NFE | 48.3 | 39.1 | 28.1 | 15.6 | 0 |
| Crude fibre | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0 |
| Fibre (NSP) | 10.4 | 8.4 | 6.1 | 3.4 | 0 |
| Ash | 7.0 | 6.4 | 5.6 | 4.7 | 3.5 |
| ME (MJ/100 g DM) | 1.80 | 1.93 | 2.09 | 2.28 | 2.50 |
| DM in ration, as fed | 92.2 | 69.5 | 53.8 | 42.7 | 34.0 |
Abbreviations and diet codes: CD commercial dry food (Felleskjøpet’s Labb adult), DM dry matter, HMB high minced beef, LMB low minced beef, MB minced beef (retail sourced, Norway), ME metabolizable energy, MJ megajoules, MMB moderate minced beef, NFE nitrogen-free extract, NSP non-starch polysaccharides
Median♦ faecal pH, water, consistency, diversity index and observed species from the dietary intervention study
| Diet periods | Signed-Ranks test | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| CD1 | LMB | MMB | HMB | CD2 | CD1 vs. HMB1 | CD2 vs. HMB1 | |
| pH2 | 6.51 [6.22–7.07] | 6.55 [6.2–6.77] | 6.67 [6.46–6.91] | 6.72 [6.66–7.03] | 6.49 [6.03–6.83] | 0.016* | 0.063** |
| Water (%) | 46 [39–64.6] | 45.2 [40.3–67.6] | 46.6 [40.8–62.6] | 46.6 [40.5–68.6] | 50.22 [40.3–68.6] | 0.7 | 0.9 |
| Consistency score | 2.5 [2.2–3] | 2,9 [2–3] | 2.5 [2.3–3.5] | 2.5 [2.5–3] | 2.6 [2–3] | >0.9 | 0.6 |
| Shannon diversity index | 4.4 [3.38–5.06] | 4.42 [3.76–4.85] | 4.36 [3.09–4.7] | 4.27 [3.15–4.76] | 4.49 [3.22–4.72] | 0.03* | 0.08** |
| Observed species | 73 [49–102] | 74 [48–90] | 77 [48–98] | 79 [46–104] | 78 [50–90] | 0.57 | 0.55 |
♦Maximum and minimum values are provided in brackets.
Abbreviations and explanation: The diet periods were as follows: CD1 for week 1 and 2, during which all dogs were acclimated to commercial dry food (CD; Felleskjøpet’s Labb adult), followed by incremental substitution of the CD diet with minced beef − LMB low minced beef for week 3, MMB moderate minced beef for week 4, and HMB high minced beef for week 5 – and finally, CD2 for week 6 and 7, during which the dogs were reintroduced to the CD diet.
1Wilcoxon-matched sign rank test without correction for multiple comparisons. P-value for CD1 vs. HMB was determined for 9 dogs and P-value for CD2 vs. HMB was determined for 8 dogs.
2P–values for faecal pH was determined for seven dogs (CD1 vs. HMB) and five dogs (CD2 vs. HMB), due to missing values.
*Considered statistically significant; ** Considered a trend
Median♦ faecal short chain fatty acids (relative amounts) from the seven-week dietary intervention study
| Diet periods | Signed-Ranks test | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | |||||||
| CD1 | LMB | MMB | HMB | CD2 | CD1 vs.HMB | CD2 vs.HMB | |
| Acetic acid | 53.2 [50.8–58.3] | 52.9 [49.4–57.1] | 52.5 [48.5–59.2] | 52.0 [48.2–52.3] | 55.4 [50.5–56.9] | 0.4 | 0.01* |
| Butyric acid | 11.1 [8–13] | 11.1 [7.9–15.4] | 11.0 [9.0–12.7] | 10.9 [9.2–13.2] | 10.5 [7.0–12.5] | 0.5 | 0.01* |
| Propionic acid | 32.8 [29.4–37] | 32.9 [26.6–38.9] | 33.1 [26.2–37] | 32.7 [28–35.2] | 32.5 [29.5–36.4] | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Isovaleric acid | 3.6 [1.3–4.4] | 3.3 [1.3–5.6] | 3.5 [2.2–4.1] | 3.9 [1.7–5.9] | 3.0 [1.6–4.0] | 0.05* | 0.02* |
♦Maximum and minimum values are provided in brackets.
Abbreviations and explanation: The diet periods were as follows: CD1 for week 1 and 2, during which all dogs were acclimated to commercial dry food (CD; Felleskjøpet’s Labb adult), followed by incremental substitution of the CD diet with minced beef − LMB, low minced beef for week 3, MMB, moderate minced beef for week 4, and HMB, high minced beef for week 5 – and finally, CD2 for week 6 and 7, during which the dogs were reintroduced to the CD diet.
1Wilcoxon-matched sign rank test without correction for multiple comparisons. P-value for CD1 vs. HMB was determined for 9 dogs and P-value for CD2 vs. HMB was determined for 8 dogs.
*Considered statistically significant
Fig. 1Mean relative abundances of the 15 most common operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at genus level. Data are from faecal samples taken following different diet periods from 11 healthy, client-owned dogs during the seven-week dietary intervention study. The diet periods were as follows: CD1 for week 1 and 2, during which all dogs were acclimated to commercial dry food (CD; Felleskjøpet’s Labb adult), followed by incremental substitution of the CD diet with minced beef − LMB, low minced beef for week 3, MMB, moderate minced beef for week 4, and HMB, high minced beef for week 5 – and finally, CD2 for week 6 and 7, during which the dogs were reintroduced to the CD diet
Fig. 2Principal Coordinate analysis (PCoA) on weighted UniFrac distance metric from QIIME using Primer PERMANOVA. Data are from faecal samples taken following different diet periods from 11 healthy client-owned dogs, during the seven-week dietary intervention study. A mean value of the three samples collected from each of the dogs in each of the diet periods were used for this analysis. The diet periods were as follows: CD1 for week 1 and 2, during which all dogs were acclimated to commercial dry food (CD; Felleskjøpet’s Labb adult), followed by incremental substitution of the CD diet with minced beef − LMB, low minced beef for week 3, MMB, moderate minced beef for week 4, and HMB, high minced beef for week 5 – and finally, CD2 for week 6 and 7, during which the dogs were reintroduced to the CD diet. The data are displayed across the two main principal coordinates (PCO 1 and 2). Each point represents the total bacterial community within one sample and each colour represents different diet period. Closer clustering between points indicate higher relative commonality with respect to bacterial community (more bacterial taxa in common). Concomitantly, larger distances between points indicate lower relative commonality in bacterial taxa. The different coloured points represent individual samples from dogs fed the different diets. CD1 (turquoise points), CD2 (purple points), HMB (green points). PERMANOVA for HMB vs. CD1, p = 0.04, t = 1.57 and HMB vs. CD2, p = 0.04, t = 1.61. No significant differences were detected between CD1 or CD2 vs. LMB or MMB and are therefore not included in the figure
Fig. 3Circular cladogram representation of linear discriminant analysis effect size, LEfSe, of the 16S rRNA gene sequences. The sequences were obtained from faecal samples taken following different diet periods from 11 healthy, client-owned dogs during the seven-week dietary intervention study. A mean value of the three samples collected from each of the dogs in each of the diet periods were used for this analysis. The diet periods were as follows: CD1 for week 1 and 2, during which all dogs were acclimated to commercial dry food (CD; Felleskjøpet’s Labb adult), followed by incremental substitution of the CD diet with minced beef − LMB, low minced beef for week 3, MMB, moderate minced beef for week 4, and HMB, high minced beef for week 5 – and finally, CD2 for week 6 and 7, during which the dogs were reintroduced to the CD diet. The data points represent OTUs identified at phylum level in the centre of the circle (name not given), and genus level in the outer circle. The OTUs present in differential relative abundances in samples from the diet periods − red: CD1 and CD2, and green: HMB − are listed in the upper right corner. The yellow points indicate OTUs that are not present in differential relative abundances in samples from diet periods. Figure (a) depicts data from CD1 vs. HMB, and (b) depicts data from CD2 vs. HMB and (α = 0.05, LDA score > 2.0). P-value for CD1 vs. HMB was determined for 9 dogs and P-value for CD2 vs. HMB was determined for 8 dogs. No significant differences were detected between CD1 or CD2 vs. LMB or MMB and are therefore not included in the figures