E N Kashinskaya1, E P Simonov1,2, M R Kabilov3, G I Izvekova4, K B Andree5, M M Solovyev1,6. 1. Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia. 2. Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk, Russia. 3. Institute of Chemical Biology and Fundamental Medicine, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Science, Novosibirsk, Russia. 4. Papanin Institute for Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences, Borok, Nekouzskii raion, Yaroslavskaya oblast, Russia. 5. IRTA-SCR, San Carlos de la Rapita, Tarragona, Spain. 6. Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this work was to study the gut microbial diversity from eight species of wild fish with different feeding habits, digestive physiology (gastric vs agastric) and provide comparative structural analysis of the microbial communities within their environment (food items, water, sediments and macrophytes). METHODS AND RESULTS: The microbiota of fish gut and their prey items were studied using next generation high-throughput sequencing of the 16S ribosomal RNA genes. A scatter plot based on PCoA scores demonstrated the microbiota formed three groups: (i) stomach and intestinal mucosa (IM), (ii) stomach and intestinal content (IC), and (iii) prey and environment. Comparisons using ANOSIM showed significant differences among IC of omnivorous, zoobenthivorous, zooplanktivorous-piscivorous fishes (P ≤ 0·1). No significant difference was detected for mucosa from the same groups (P > 0·1). CONCLUSIONS: Neither the interspecies differences in fish diet nor their phylogenetic position had any effect on the microbiome of the IM, but diet did influence the composition of the microbiota of the IC. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The data demonstrate that fish harboured specific groups of bacteria that do not completely reflect the microbiota of the environment or prey.
AIMS: The aim of this work was to study the gut microbial diversity from eight species of wild fish with different feeding habits, digestive physiology (gastric vs agastric) and provide comparative structural analysis of the microbial communities within their environment (food items, water, sediments and macrophytes). METHODS AND RESULTS: The microbiota of fish gut and their prey items were studied using next generation high-throughput sequencing of the 16S ribosomal RNA genes. A scatter plot based on PCoA scores demonstrated the microbiota formed three groups: (i) stomach and intestinal mucosa (IM), (ii) stomach and intestinal content (IC), and (iii) prey and environment. Comparisons using ANOSIM showed significant differences among IC of omnivorous, zoobenthivorous, zooplanktivorous-piscivorous fishes (P ≤ 0·1). No significant difference was detected for mucosa from the same groups (P > 0·1). CONCLUSIONS: Neither the interspecies differences in fish diet nor their phylogenetic position had any effect on the microbiome of the IM, but diet did influence the composition of the microbiota of the IC. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The data demonstrate that fish harboured specific groups of bacteria that do not completely reflect the microbiota of the environment or prey.