Literature DB >> 29318340

Evaluating Protocols for Porcine Faecal Microbiome Recollection, Storage and DNA Extraction: from the Farm to the Lab.

Anixa Muiños-Bühl1, Oscar González-Recio1, María Muñoz2, Cristina Óvilo1, Juan García-Casco2, Ana I Fernández3.   

Abstract

There is a growing interest in understanding the role of the gut microbiome on productive and meat quality-related traits in livestock species in order to develop new useful tools for improving pig production systems and industry. Faecal samples are analysed as a proxy of gut microbiota and here the selection of suitable protocols for faecal sampling and DNA isolation is a critical first step in order to obtain reliable results, even more to compare results obtained from different studies. The aim of the current study was to establish in a cost-effective way, using automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis technique, a protocol for porcine faecal sampling and storage at farm and slaughterhouse and to determine the most efficient microbiota DNA isolation kit among those most widely used. Operational Taxonomic Unit profiles were compared from Iberian pig faecal samples collected from rectum or ground, stored with liquid N2, room temperature or RNAlater, and processed with QIAamp DNA Stool (Qiagen), PowerFecal DNA Isolation (Mobio) or SpeedTools Tissue DNA extraction (Biotools) commercial kits. The results, focused on prokaryote sampling, based on DNA yield and quality, OTU number and Sørensen similarity Indexes, indicate that the recommended protocol for porcine faecal microbiome sampling at farm should include: the collection from porcine rectum to avoid contamination; the storage in liquid N2 or even at room temperature, but not in RNAlater; and the isolation of microbiota DNA using PowerFecal DNA Isolation kit. These conditions provide more reliable DNA samples for further microbiome analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29318340     DOI: 10.1007/s00284-017-1429-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Microbiol        ISSN: 0343-8651            Impact factor:   2.188


  23 in total

1.  Genotype is a stronger determinant than sex of the mouse gut microbiota.

Authors:  Amir Kovacs; Noa Ben-Jacob; Hanna Tayem; Eran Halperin; Fuad A Iraqi; Uri Gophna
Journal:  Microb Ecol       Date:  2010-12-23       Impact factor: 4.552

2.  Molecular diversity studies of bacterial communities of oil polluted microbial mats from the Etang de Berre (France).

Authors:  Guillermina Hernandez-Raquet; Hélène Budzinski; Pierre Caumette; Patrick Dabert; Karyn Le Ménach; Gerard Muyzer; Robert Duran
Journal:  FEMS Microbiol Ecol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.194

3.  Phylogenetic network analysis applied to pig gut microbiota identifies an ecosystem structure linked with growth traits.

Authors:  Yuliaxis Ramayo-Caldas; Nuria Mach; Patricia Lepage; Florence Levenez; Catherine Denis; Gaetan Lemonnier; Jean-Jacques Leplat; Yvon Billon; Mustapha Berri; Jöel Doré; Claire Rogel-Gaillard; Jordi Estellé
Journal:  ISME J       Date:  2016-05-13       Impact factor: 10.302

4.  The gut microbiota as an environmental factor that regulates fat storage.

Authors:  Fredrik Bäckhed; Hao Ding; Ting Wang; Lora V Hooper; Gou Young Koh; Andras Nagy; Clay F Semenkovich; Jeffrey I Gordon
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-10-25       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 5.  The human gut microbiome: a review of the effect of obesity and surgically induced weight loss.

Authors:  Timothy E Sweeney; John M Morton
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 14.766

6.  Inflammasome-mediated dysbiosis regulates progression of NAFLD and obesity.

Authors:  Jorge Henao-Mejia; Eran Elinav; Chengcheng Jin; Liming Hao; Wajahat Z Mehal; Till Strowig; Christoph A Thaiss; Andrew L Kau; Stephanie C Eisenbarth; Michael J Jurczak; Joao-Paulo Camporez; Gerald I Shulman; Jeffrey I Gordon; Hal M Hoffman; Richard A Flavell
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Early methanogenic colonisation in the faeces of Meishan and Yorkshire piglets as determined by pyrosequencing analysis.

Authors:  Yong Su; Gaorui Bian; Zhigang Zhu; Hauke Smidt; Weiyun Zhu
Journal:  Archaea       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 3.273

8.  Dysbiosis of the gut microbiota in disease.

Authors:  Simon Carding; Kristin Verbeke; Daniel T Vipond; Bernard M Corfe; Lauren J Owen
Journal:  Microb Ecol Health Dis       Date:  2015-02-02

9.  Effect of DNA extraction methods and sampling techniques on the apparent structure of cow and sheep rumen microbial communities.

Authors:  Gemma Henderson; Faith Cox; Sandra Kittelmann; Vahideh Heidarian Miri; Michael Zethof; Samantha J Noel; Garry C Waghorn; Peter H Janssen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Sample storage conditions significantly influence faecal microbiome profiles.

Authors:  Jocelyn M Choo; Lex E X Leong; Geraint B Rogers
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  4 in total

1.  Improving the standards for gut microbiome analysis of fecal samples: insights from the field biology of Japanese macaques on Yakushima Island.

Authors:  Takashi Hayakawa; Akiko Sawada; Akifumi S Tanabe; Shinji Fukuda; Takushi Kishida; Yosuke Kurihara; Kei Matsushima; Jie Liu; Etienne-Francois Akomo-Okoue; Waleska Gravena; Makoto Kashima; Mariko Suzuki; Kohmei Kadowaki; Takafumi Suzumura; Eiji Inoue; Hideki Sugiura; Goro Hanya; Kiyokazu Agata
Journal:  Primates       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 2.163

Review 2.  Gut microbiota and meat quality.

Authors:  Binlong Chen; Diyan Li; Dong Leng; Hua Kui; Xue Bai; Tao Wang
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2022-08-23       Impact factor: 6.064

3.  Impact of Ambient Temperature Sample Storage on the Equine Fecal Microbiota.

Authors:  Michelle Martin de Bustamante; Caryn Plummer; Jennifer MacNicol; Diego Gomez
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 2.752

4.  Taxonomy and Functional Diversity in the Fecal Microbiome of Beef Cattle Reared in Brazilian Traditional and Semi-Intensive Production Systems.

Authors:  Patricia Spoto Corrêa; Carolina Rodriguez Jimenez; Lucas William Mendes; Caroline Rymer; Partha Ray; Luciana Gerdes; Vagner Ovani da Silva; Elisabete Aparecida De Nadai Fernandes; Adibe Luiz Abdalla; Helder Louvandini
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 5.640

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.