| Literature DB >> 30598660 |
Sajesh Puthenpurackal Krishnankutty1,2, Megha Muraleedharan1, Rajadurai Chinnasamy Perumal1, Saju Michael1, Jubina Benny1, Bipin Balan1, Pramod Kumar1, Jishnu Manazhi3, Bangaruswamy Dhinoth Kumar1, Sam Santhosh1, George Thomas2, Ravi Gupta4, Arun Zachariah3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The oral cavities of snakes are replete with various types of bacterial flora. Culture-dependent studies suggest that some of the bacterial species are responsible for secondary bacterial infection associated with snakebite. A complete profile of the ophidian oral bacterial community has been unreported until now. Therefore, in the present study, we determined the complete bacterial compositions in the oral cavity of some snakes from India.Entities:
Keywords: Hypervariable region; Microbial community; Next-generation sequencing; Venomous snake
Year: 2018 PMID: 30598660 PMCID: PMC6303853 DOI: 10.1186/s40409-018-0181-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Venom Anim Toxins Incl Trop Dis ISSN: 1678-9180
Fig. 1Photographs of venomous and non-venomous species of snakes used for the oral sample collection. a King Cobra (Ophiophagus hannah); b Indian Python (Python molurus); c Indian Cobra (Naja naja); d Oral sample collection from a snake using commercially available sterile cotton-tipped swab stick
Data and analysis summary of snake oral samples
| Category | Cobra | King Cobra 1 | King Cobra 2 | Python |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Reads (R1 + R2) | 1,155,180 | 1,085,952 | 1,065,656 | 1,404,982 |
| Average Phred Score | 35.85 | 35.35 | 36.01 | 35.96 |
| Average GC (%) | 52.51 | 56.41 | 53.68 | 55.56 |
| Total V3 sequences | 417,478 | 355,250 | 395,623 | 515,755 |
| Chimeric Filters | 369 | 3140 | 1755 | 21,147 |
| Total OTUs | 870 | 4506 | 2510 | 20,709 |
Fig. 2Taxonomy relative abundance plot of Cobra, King Cobra and Python oral samples. a The bar plot represents the relative OTU abundance of Cobra, King Cobra 1 (KC1), King Cobra 2 (KC2) and Python samples at the phylum level. In total, about 88% of OTUs were assigned to a known phylum while 12% of OTUs were designated as unknown. Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria were predominantly present in all the samples; b The bar plot shows percentage-wise relative OTU abundance at the species level. Escherichia coli, Bacteroides fragilis and Propionibacterium acnes were the most dominant species among the samples; c The plot shows the percentage of known and novel species identified after OUT-based clustering and annotation. Forty percent of the total OTUs were classified into a known genus. Likewise, 10% of OTUs were assigned a known species taxonomy classification. Here: novel species = unclassified or unknown species, known species = taxonomy information is available in the database
Fig. 3Venn diagram and heat-map representation of bacterial species identified among snake oral samples. a Venn diagram shows the number of common and uniquely identified species. There are 31 bacterial species commonly present (out of total 147 bacterial species) among Python, Cobra, King Cobra 1 and King Cobra 2; b Heat map indicates the most abundant bacterial genera among these snakes; c Heat map shows top 15 commonly abundant bacterial species in descending order
Top ten bacterial species present in oral cavities of three snake species in India
| SI No | Cobra | King Cobra 1 | King Cobra 2 | Python |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
|
|
Fig. 4Alpha and beta diversity analysis of snake oral samples. a The rarefaction curve plotted using Shannon metrics to observe the species richness and evenness within the samples. The Shannon diversity index, estimated as 8.12 based on observed OTU abundances, indicates that the Python oral cavity (green asterisk) contains a higher number of species than the other samples; b Principal Coordinate Analysis of bacterial communities among the samples. The plot indicates that the King Cobra 1 and King Cobra 2 samples share a common taxon. Python and Cobra were uniquely distributed. All metrics were calculated using the software QIIME v1.8
Fig. 5Metagenomic profile comparisons of Python, Cobra and King Cobra oral samples determined using STAMP analysis. The comparison includes highly significant phylum to species level. Corrected P-values were calculated based on Fisher’s exact test method using Storey’s FDR approach. P-values < 0.05 were taken for comparison. The bar plot indicated in blue or orange shows a positive or negative difference between read proportions. Differences between samples are shown at 95% confidence intervals a Taxon comparison between Cobra and KC1 samples. Corynebacterium is present in greater abundance in Cobra and lesser abundance in KC1 with positive differences (blue dot), whereas Moraxellaceae is less abundant in Cobra and more abundant in KC1 with negative differences (yellow dot); b Comparison of Cobra and KC2. The most abundant taxon includes Corynebacterium, Bacteroides fragilis and streptophyta, all with positive proportion differences; c Comparison between Cobra and Python samples. Corynebacterium, Propionibacterium acnes and serratia marcescens are highly abundant with positive differences, whereas the species group including Xanthomonadaceae, Streptophyta and Enterobacteriaceae are in greater abundance with negative differences. Here, KC1: King Cobra 1 and KC2: King Cobra 2