| Literature DB >> 30294603 |
Amy S Biddle1, Jean-Francois Tomb2, Zirui Fan2.
Abstract
Due to modern management practices and the availability of energy dense feeds, obesity is a serious and increasingly common health problem for horses. Equine obesity is linked to insulin resistance and exacerbation of inflammatory issues such as osteoarthritis and laminitis. While the gut microbiome is thought to play a part in metabolic status in horses, bacterial communities associated with obesity have yet to be described. Here we report differences in metabolic factors in the blood of obese, normal and lean horses correlated with differences in gut microbiome composition. We report that obese horses had higher levels of leptin, triglycerides, glucose, and cortisol in their blood, and more diverse gut microbiome communities with higher relative abundance of Firmicutes, and lower numbers of Bacteroidetes and Actinobacteria. Network analyses of correlations between body condition, blood analytes, and microbial composition at the genus level revealed a more nuanced picture of microbe-host interactions, pointing to specific bacterial species and assemblages that may be signatures of obesity and leanness in the horse gut. In particular, bacteria groups positively associated with two blood analytes and obesity included Butyrivibrio spp., Prevotellaceae, Blautia spp., two members of Erysipelotrichaceae, and a Lachnospiraceae taxa. These results are an important first step in unraveling the metabolic differences between obese and lean horse gut communities, and designing targeted strategies for microbial intervention.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA; equine gut microbiome; glucose; insulin; leptin; network analysis; obesity; triglycerides
Year: 2018 PMID: 30294603 PMCID: PMC6158370 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00225
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Demographics of horses included in this study (for complete horse list, see Table S1).
| IU | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| UM | 14 | 0 | 4 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 14 | 0 |
| VM | 25 | 0 | 17 | 8 | 4 | 21 | 11 | 0 | 14 | 25 | 0 | 0 |
| PO-DE | 18 | 0 | 14 | 4 | 15 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| PO-NH | 15 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 15 |
| Total | 78 | 3 | 43 | 32 | 30 | 48 | 24 | 17 | 37 | 31 | 14 | 33 |
Farm: University of Illinois (UI), University of Massachusetts (UM), Private Owner (PO state), VA-MD Regional College of Veterinary Medicine (VM). BCS: (1-9) according to the Hennecke scale. BCS cat: 1-5.5 (Lean), 6-6.5 (Normal), 7+ (Obese). Feed: Pasture (P), Hay (H), Hay/Concentrate (HC). Age: 10 years or less (Y), and over 10 years (M).
16S rRNA sequence counts after removal of low quality and short reads.
| Number of samples | 78 |
| Minimum count | 4165 |
| Maximum count | 102594 |
| Median count | 44498.5 |
| Mean count | 40361.795 |
| Std. dev. | 21151.638 |
Taxa identified and the total relative abundance in the obese, normal, and lean horse samples.
| Bacteria; Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Bacteroidales;f__;g__ | QE | 16.244410 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Ruminococcaceae;g__ | LK | 15.893878 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Lachnospiraceae;g__ | OJ | 14.452446 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__;g__ | QI | 11.473584 |
| Unassigned;Other;Other;Other;Other;Other | AA | 3.780830 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Ruminococcaceae;g__Ruminococcus | OK | 3.094827 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Mogibacteriaceae;g__ | BL | 2.678472 |
| Bacteria; Spirochaetes; Spirochaetes; Spirochaetales;f__Spirochaetaceae;g__Treponema | FR | 2.670410 |
| Bacteria; Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Bacteroidales;f__Prevotellaceae;g__Prevotella | DF | 2.435187 |
| Bacteria; Fibrobacteres; Fibrobacteria; Fibrobacterales;f__Fibrobacteraceae;g__Fibrobacter | EH | 2.356017 |
| Bacteria; Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Bacteroidales;f__Paraprevotellaceae;g__CF231 | KF | 1.715601 |
| Bacteria; Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Bacteroidales;f__Paraprevotellaceae;g__YRC22 | LF | 1.563672 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Lachnospiraceae;Other | NJ | 1.352235 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Veillonellaceae;g__Phascolarctobacterium | UK | 1.251141 |
| Bacteria; Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Bacteroidales;f__Paraprevotellaceae;g__ | JF | 1.212778 |
| Bacteria; Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Bacteroidales;f__RF16;g__ | EF | 1.168953 |
| Bacteria; Actinobacteria; Coriobacteriia; Coriobacteriales;f__Coriobacteriaceae;g__ | YD | 1.071085 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Lachnospiraceae;g__Coprococcus | SJ | 1.030847 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Clostridiaceae;g__Clostridium | ZI | 1.009161 |
| Bacteria; Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Bacteroidales;f__Bacteroidaceae;g__BF311 | UE | 0.882039 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Bacilli; Lactobacillales;f__Streptococcaceae;g__Streptococcus | MI | 0.845326 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Lachnospiraceae;g__Blautia | QJ | 0.732944 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Lachnospiraceae;g__Pseudobutyrivibrio | YJ | 0.666919 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Clostridiaceae;g__ | VI | 0.659299 |
| Bacteria; Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Bacteroidales;f__BS11;g__ | RE | 0.642893 |
| Bacteria; Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Bacteroidales;f__Paraprevotellaceae;g__Prevotella | MF | 0.582616 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Ruminococcaceae;g__Oscillospira | NK | 0.550106 |
| Bacteria; Actinobacteria; Coriobacteriia; Coriobacteriales;f__Coriobacteriaceae;g__Adlercreutzia | ZD | 0.497567 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Christensenellaceae;g__ | TI | 0.466590 |
| Bacteria; Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Bacteroidales;f__Porphyromonadaceae;g__Paludibacter | XE | 0.443382 |
| Bacteria; Proteobacteria; Alphaproteobacteria; f__;g__ | MM | 0.410118 |
| Bacteria; Cyanobacteria; 4C0d-2; YS2;f__;g__ | NG | 0.404619 |
| Bacteria; Tenericutes; Mollicutes; RF39;f__;g__ | CS | 0.361142 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Mogibacteriaceae;g__Mogibacterium | DL | 0.351654 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Erysipelotrichi; Erysipelotrichales;f__Erysipelotrichaceae;g__RFN20 | WL | 0.324342 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia;Clostridiales;f__Eubacteriaceae;g__Pseudoramibacter_Eubacterium | JJ | 0.306375 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;Other;Other | PI | 0.260408 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Erysipelotrichi; Erysipelotrichales;f__Erysipelotrichaceae;g__ | PL | 0.255276 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Veillonellaceae;g__ | RK | 0.223319 |
| Bacteria; Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Bacteroidales;f__S24-7;g__ | HF | 0.217790 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Lachnospiraceae;g__Dorea | TJ | 0.214578 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Bacilli; Lactobacillales;f__Lactobacillaceae;g__Lactobacillus | KI | 0.210029 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Lachnospiraceae;g__Epulopiscium | UJ | 0.202495 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Clostridiaceae;Other | UI | 0.190916 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Erysipelotrichi; Erysipelotrichales;f__Erysipelotrichaceae;g__p-75-a5 | BM | 0.185225 |
| Bacteria; Spirochaetes; Spirochaetes; Sphaerochaetales;f__Sphaerochaetaceae;g__Sphaerochaeta | DR | 0.170744 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Erysipelotrichi; Erysipelotrichales;f__Erysipelotrichaceae;g__Eubacterium | YL | 0.160846 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Lachnospiraceae;g__Ruminococcus | BK | 0.157950 |
| Bacteria; Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Bacteroidales;f__Bacteroidaceae;g__Bacteroides | VE | 0.122171 |
| Bacteria; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales;f__Lachnospiraceae;g__Roseburia | ZJ | 0.119148 |
| Bacteria; Tenericutes; Mollicutes; Anaeroplasmatales;f__Anaeroplasmataceae;g__Anaeroplasma | AS | 0.106584 |
Two-letter codes designations used in the network analysis and total relative abundance over 0.10% are shown. For all taxa, see Table .
Figure 1Comparison of firmicutes and bacteriodetes from lean, normal, and obese horses. (A) Relative abundance of each Phla. (B) Firmicutes /Bacteriodetes ratio. Error bars represent standard error. Significantly different groups (two tailed t-test assuming unequal variances) art indicated*.
Differentially abundant taxa.
| Firmicutes;Clostridiaceae;SMB53 | AJ | 29 | 0.01 | X | |||
| Anaeroplasmataceae;Anaeroplasma | AS | 10 | 0.11 | X | X | ||
| Actinobacteria;Coriobacteriaceae;Collinsella | BE | 74 | 0.01 | X | |||
| Actinobacteria; Microbacteriaceae;Microbacterium | CC | 109 | 0.01 | X | X | ||
| Firmicutes;Peptococcaceae;g__ | CK | 56 | 0.03 | X | |||
| Firmicutes; Mogibacteriaceae;Mogibacterium | DL | 76 | 0.35 | X | |||
| Bacteroidetes;Bacteroidales;RF16 | EF | 23 | 1.17 | X | |||
| Fibrobacteraceae;Fibrobacter | EH | 9 | 2.36 | X | |||
| Firmicutes;Lactobacillales;Other | EI | 19 | 0.00 | X | |||
| Firmicutes;Clostridiales;f__EtOH8 | EJ | 5 | 0.01 | X | |||
| Spirochaetaceae;Treponema | FR | 15 | 2.67 | X | |||
| Firmicutes;Peptostreptococcaceae;g__ | HK | 38 | 0.01 | X | |||
| Verrucomicrobia;RFP12;g__ | HS | 23 | 0.03 | X | X | X | |
| Actinobacteria;Micrococcaceae;g__ | IC | 102 | 0.03 | X | |||
| Bacteroidetes;Paraprevotellaceae;Other | IF | 17 | 0.01 | X | |||
| Bacteroidetes;Paraprevotellaceae;g__ | JF | 19 | 1.21 | X | X | X | |
| Firmicutes;Bacillaceae;Bacillus | JH | 88 | 0.02 | X | X | ||
| Firmicutes;Streptococcaceae;Streptococcus | MI | 27 | 0.85 | X | |||
| Cyanobacteria;YS2;f__;g__ | NG | 25 | 0.40 | X | |||
| Firmicutes;Ruminococcaceae;Oscillospira | NK | 65 | 0.55 | X | X | ||
| Firmicutes;Clostridiales;Other;Other | PI | 3 | 0.26 | X | |||
| Bacteroidetes;Bacteroidales;f__;g__ | QE | 69 | 16.24 | X | X | ||
| Firmicutes;Veillonellaceae;g__ | RK | 74 | 0.22 | X | X | X | |
| Actinobacteria;Nocardiaceae;Rhodococcus | TC | 119 | 0.01 | X | X | ||
| Firmicutes;Lachnospiraceae;Epulopiscium | UJ | 28 | 0.20 | X | |||
| Firmicutes;Erysipelotrichaceae;Eubacterium | YL | 48 | 0.16 | X | X |
Taxa identified in whole group and pairwise comparisons (padj < 0.05) using linear binomial distribution in DESeq. Network connectivity is estimated by numbers of connections in correlation network.
Figure 2Differently abundant bacterial taxa between lean, normal, and obese horses as determined using a negative binomial distribution, p-value <0.05. Taxa with relative abundance ≥ 0.01 % are shown.
Figure 3Alpha diversity of bacterial communities from obese, normal, and lean horses. (A) chaol, (B) PD_whole _tree, (C) observed OTUs, (D) Shannon Index. Error bars represent standard error. Significantly different groups (two tailed t-test assuming unequal variances) art indicated*.
Summary of blood analyte measurements based on BCS category.
| BCS | 4.56 | 0.60 | 6.16 | 0.24 | 7.46 | 0.48 |
| Insulin (uIU/ml) | 10.78 | 8.64 | 15.74 | 9.76 | 15.49 | 16.33 |
| ACTH (pg/ml) | 21.53 | 8.84 | 20.21 | 7.12 | 24.21 | 10.63 |
| Cortisol (ug/dL) | 3.73 | 1.55 | 3.49 | 1.44 | 4.67 | 1.33 |
| Leptin (ng/ml) | 4.32 | 1.94 | 6.56 | 4.64 | 12.63 | 7.59 |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 86.00 | 7.39 | 90.71 | 8.14 | 93.92 | 8.80 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 23.26 | 7.93 | 30.06 | 12.36 | 36.24 | 12.84 |
Figure 4Keyboard analytes from obese, normal, and lean horses (A) Corsitol, (B) Leptin, (C) Triglycerides, (D) Glucose. Error bars represent standard error. Significantly different groups (two tailed t-test assuming unequal variances) art indicated*.
Figure 5Linear models of key blood analytes from obese, normal, and lean horses. (A) Insulin vs. Glucose. (B). Triglycerides vs. Leptin. Gray region represents 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 6First-neighbors networks of significant pairwise correlations for body condition score, blood analytes and age with differentially abundant (DA) taxa highlighted. Among All BCS*, between L/O horses*, L/N horses*, and O/N horses*.
Figure 7First-neighbor network for Spearman significant pairwise correlations of all differentially abundant (DA) taxa among all BCS categories.
Figure 8Network of bacteria with positive associations with both blood analytes in each connected pair. Taxa in bold were positively correlated with BCS_O. Starred taxa were positively associated with the older age group. No bacterial taxa was positively associated with BCS_O, BCS_N and any pair of analytes. No bacterial taxa was positively with insulin and any other analyte.
Spearman correlations between owner, metadata factors and bacteria.
| Age | 0.164 |
| Feed | 0.508* |
| BCS | 0.294 |
| Insulin | 0.113 |
| ACTH | −0.135 |
| Cortisol | −0.110 |
| Leptin | −0.223 |
| Glucose | 0.176 |
| Triglycerides | −0.007 |
| Bacteroidetes,Paraprevotellaceae,YRC22 (LF) | 0.332* |
| Bacteroidetes,Rikenellaceae (FF) | 0.332* |
| Firmicutes,Lactobacillales,Streptococcus (MI) | −0.367* |
Only bacteria uniquely correlated with owner are shown. Significant correlations (coefficients >0.3 or <-0.3) are indicated .