| Literature DB >> 30191255 |
Andrea M Tarnecki1, Nathan P Brennan2, Ryan W Schloesser2, Nicole R Rhody3.
Abstract
The skin-associated microbiota of fish competes against pathogens for space and nutrients, preventing colonization by harmful bacteria encountered during environmental transitions such as those faced during stock enhancement. Thus, alterations in bacterial community structure during release of cultured fish have important implications for health of these individuals. This study investigated microbiota structure during acclimation of juvenile hatchery-reared common snook Centropomus undecimalis to the wild by comparing skin-associated microflora among snook in captivity, after 48 h of acclimation at release sites, and from the wild. After two days of acclimation, the microbiota of hatchery-reared snook mirrored that observed on wild snook. Relative abundances of potential pathogens were higher in captive fish, whereas acclimated and wild fish harbored bacterial taxa influenced by geographical factors and water quality at release sites. Predicted microbiota function of acclimated and wild fish showed higher production of protective amino acids and antimicrobials, identifying a mechanism for microbial supplementation of the immune defense of these fish. The two-day transition to wild-type microbiota suggests a temporal scale of hours associated with bacterial succession indicating that the microbiota, whose structure is vital to fish health, aids in acclimation of fish to new environments during stock enhancement efforts.Entities:
Keywords: Centropomus undecimalis; Common snook; Immunity; Microbiota; Stock enhancement
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30191255 PMCID: PMC6469608 DOI: 10.1007/s00248-018-1252-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Ecol ISSN: 0095-3628 Impact factor: 4.552
Total length ± standard deviation (mm) of fish in this study. Superscripts denote significance as determined using ANOVA (α = 0.05)
| Fish group | Total individuals sampled (number of replicates) | Total length (mm ± SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Capt1 | 30 (10) | 198 ± 18.2a |
| Capt2 | 24 (8) | 124 ± 19.7c |
| Accl1-H | 30 (10) | 195 ± 17.3a |
| Accl2-H | 24 (8) | 141 ± 6.26bc |
| Wild-H | 24 (8) | 164 ± 33.6ab |
| Accl1-W | 30 (10) | 200 ± 17.5a |
| Accl2-W | 24 (8) | 121 ± 12.7c |
| Wild-W | 24 (8) | 123 ± 55.4bc |
Water quality parameters measured at each sampling point
| Sample | Salinity (psu) | Temperature (°C) | Dissolved oxygen (mg L−1) | pH | Turbidity (FNU) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capt1 | 32.30 | 28.85 | 6.63 | 8.17 | – |
| Capt2 | 34.55 | 27.30 | 6.44 | 8.59 | – |
| Accl1-H | 32.58 | 31.30 | 3.00 | 7.94 | 15.80 |
| Accl2-H | 30.34 | 28.30 | 2.93 | 8.05 | 180.6 |
| Wild-H | 30.60 | 32.05 | 6.01 | 8.05 | 20.55 |
| Accl1-W | 28.18 | 30.95 | 2.91 | 7.78 | 4.700 |
| Accl2-W | 27.88 | 29.30 | 2.78 | 8.06 | 183.0 |
| Wild-W | 28.39 | 33.68 | 7.26 | 7.99 | 30.79 |
Fig. 1Rarefaction curves from sequencing of the skin microbiota of common snook juveniles
Fig. 2Innate immune parameters and diversity indices of common snook juveniles. Richness was determined by number of OTUs and evenness by Shannon’s Evenness Index. Significance as determined by ANOVA is indicated by letters
Fig. 3Multidimensional scaling plot indicating similarity between skin microbiota structures of common snook juveniles
Fig. 4Relative abundance by percent of lowest possible taxonomic classification identified in sequencing of the skin microbiota of juvenile common snook
Number of OTUs in each discriminatory taxon between fish groups as determined by LEfSe
| OTU ID | Captive | Acclimated | Wild |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Alphaproteobacteria | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Bacteroidetes | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
| C111 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Candidatus | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Comamonadaceae | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Cryomorphaceae | 0 | 3 | 1 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Flavobacteriaceae | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| GMD14H09 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Helicobacteraceae | 0 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Microbacteriaceae | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Oleiphilaceae | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| OM60 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Pelagibacteraceae | 0 | 2 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Planococcaceae | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Rhodobacteraceae | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Rhodospirillaceae | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Rhodospirillales | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Saprospiraceae | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| SHA-20 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
Fig. 5Heatmap of predicted metagenome functions of the skin microbiota of common snook juveniles as determined by PICRUSt analysis