| Literature DB >> 30770764 |
Rachael E Antwis1, Katie L Edwards2, Bryony Unwin3, Susan L Walker4, Susanne Shultz5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Host microbiomes play a role in hormone production and subsequent fertility in humans, but this is less well understood in non-model organisms. This is of particular relevance to species in zoo-based conservation breeding programmes, as relationships between host microbiome composition and reproductive output may allow for the development of microbial augmentation strategies to improve success. Here, we characterise faecal bacterial communities of breeding and non-breeding eastern black rhino (Diceros bicornis michaeli) using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and quantify progestagen and glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations through enzyme immunoassays to identify such relationships.Entities:
Keywords: Conservation breeding programmes; Faecal metabolites; Glucocorticoids; Indicator analysis; Progestagens
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30770764 PMCID: PMC6377766 DOI: 10.1186/s40168-019-0639-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
Fig. 1NMDS plots of rhino microbiomes plotted according to a ID, b institution, c reproductive success and d cycle phase. Smaller dots indicate individual samples and larger filled circles indicate group centroids
Fig. 2Relative abundance of bacterial phyla association with black rhino according to a institution, b reproductive success and c cycle phase
Results of indicator analysis showing bacterial genera with significantly greater prevalence in breeding or non-breeding black rhinos. The average relative abundance of each genera across all rhinos, along with the percent variation with faecal progestagen (fPMC) and faecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations (fGMC), is provided for context
| Breeding status | Bacterial genus | Indicator analysis test statistic | Average relative abundance (% ± S.E.) | % relationship with fPMC | % relationship with fGMC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breeding |
| 0.289 | 0.050 | 0.01 (± < 0.01) | 21.8 | 8.2 |
| Breeding |
| 0.257 | 0.045 | 0.02 (± 0.01) | 9.8 | 0.2 |
| Breeding |
| 0.398 | 0.020 | 0.03 (± 0.01) | 18.1 | 1.2 |
| Breeding |
| 0.370 | 0.020 | 0.01 (± < 0.01) | 20.4 | 1.3 |
| Breeding |
| 0.471 | 0.005 | 0.01 (± < 0.01) | 28.2 | 10.2 |
| Non-breeding |
| 0.559 | 0.040 | 1.45 (± 0.47) | − 2.3 | − 7.8 |
| Non-breeding |
| 0.500 | 0.050 | 0.04 (± 0.01) | − 2.4 | − 0.7 |
Indicator analysis results identifying bacterial genera associated with different cycle phases, pregnancy and post-parturition. The average relative abundance of each genera across all rhinos, along with the percent variation with faecal progestagen (fPMC) and faecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations (fGMC), are provided for context
| Indicative phase | Bacterial genus | Indicator analysis test statistic | Average relative abundance (% ± S.E.) | % relationship with fPMC | % relationship with fGMC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luteal |
| 0.474 | 0.040 | 0.02 (± < 0.01) | -3.1 | -4.5 |
| Luteal and follicular |
| 0.785 | 0.005 | 0.06 (± < 0.01) | -13.8 | -8.0 |
| Luteal and follicular |
| 0.663 | 0.005 | 0.10 (± 0.02) | -22.7 | -14.8 |
| Luteal and pregnant |
| 0.399 | 0.030 | 0.03 (± < 0.01) | 16.9 | 11.5 |
| Luteal and pregnant |
| 0.532 | 0.030 | 0.04 (± < 0.01) | 18.2 | -6.8 |
| Luteal and post-parturition |
| 0.415 | 0.025 | 0.23 (± 0.09) | 8.2 | -14.2 |
| Luteal, follicular and post-parturition |
| 0.686 | 0.010 | 0.07 (± 0.01) | -13.2 | -6.9 |
| Pregnant |
| 0.397 | 0.020 | 0.01 (± < 0.01) | 21.8 | 8.2 |
| Pregnant |
| 0.381 | 0.010 | 0.01 (± < 0.01) | 14.3 | -2.9 |
| Pregnant |
| 0.330 | 0.045 | 0.02 (± < 0.01) | 16.6 | 13.7 |
| Pregnant |
| 0.614 | 0.005 | 0.05 (± 0.01) | 26.4 | -10.4 |
| Pregnant |
| 0.447 | 0.020 | 0.05 (± 0.03) | 25.0 | 17.3 |
| Post-parturition |
| 0.595 | 0.040 | 0.01 (± < 0.01) | -4.5 | -13.5 |
| Post-parturition |
| 0.653 | 0.005 | 0.03 (± 0.01) | 18.1 | 1.2 |
| Post-parturition |
| 0.534 | 0.005 | 0.01 (± < 0.01) | 2.5 | -4.7 |
| Post-parturition |
| 0.359 | 0.045 | 0.01 (± < 0.01) | 2.5 | 3.9 |
| Post-parturition |
| 0.490 | 0.040 | 0.02 (± < 0.01) | -3.6 | -6.9 |
| Post-parturition |
| 0.568 | 0.040 | 0.10 (± 0.07) | 1.0 | 2.1 |
| Post-parturition |
| 0.707 | 0.040 | 0.01 (± < 0.01) | 6.8 | 2.0 |
| Pregnant and post-parturition |
| 0.436 | 0.015 | 0.01 (± < 0.01) | 20.4 | 1.3 |
| Pregnant and post-parturition |
| 0.391 | 0.015 | 0.01 (± < 0.01) | 19.2 | 24.3 |
| Pregnant and post-parturition |
| 0.458 | 0.015 | 0.01 (± < 0.01) | 28.2 | 10.2 |
Fig. 3Relationship between log faecal progestagen and log faecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations according to the two cycle phases, pregnancy, and post-parturition
Fig. 4Heatmap showing correlation coefficient between relative abundance of bacterial genera and faecal hormone metabolite measures. Only genera with coefficient > ± 0.10 for one or both hormones are shown (a blank tile indicates this genus did not have a prevalence of > ± 0.10 for a given hormone)