| Literature DB >> 31477004 |
Wenpeng Gu1,2, Pinfen Tong1, Chenxiu Liu1, Wenguang Wang1, Caixia Lu1, Yuanyuan Han1, Xiaomei Sun1, De Xuan Kuang1, Na Li1, Jiejie Dai3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tree shrew is a novel laboratory animal with specific characters for human disease researches in recent years. However, little is known about its characteristics of gut microbial community and intestinal commensal bacteria. In this study, 16S rRNA sequencing method was used to illustrate the gut microbiota structure and commensal Enterobacteriaceae bacteria were isolated to demonstrate their features.Entities:
Keywords: Commensal Enterobacteriaceae; Gut microbiota; Proteus spp.; Susceptible age groups; Tree shrew
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31477004 PMCID: PMC6721287 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-019-1581-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Fig. 1The characteristics of gut microbiota composition for tree shrew. a The constituent ratios of microbial communities at five levels. b Relative abundance of all samples at phylum level. Age groups: I (infant), Y (young), M (middle) and S (senile). Gender: F (female), M (male). c Relative abundance of all samples at genus level. Age groups: I (infant), Y (young), M (middle) and S (senile). Gender: F (female), M (male). d Venn diagram showing different OTUs between gender groups. e Venn diagram showing different OTUs between age groups
The alpha diversity estimation of sequencing results in this study
| Variables | Groups | Indexes (mean ± STD) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Numbers of OTUs | Chao1 | Shannon entropy | Simpson’s index | ||
| Gender | Male | 763.90 ± 183.57 | 1415.49 ± 358.88 | 4.25 ± 0.95 | 0.85 ± 0.11 |
| Female | 658.03 ± 217.81 | 1290.31 ± 412.13 | 3.97 ± 1.18 | 0.78 ± 0.16 | |
| T-test | 2.04 | 1.96 | 1.85 | 1.91 | |
| P value | 0.046 | 0.058 | 0.079 | 0.061 | |
| Age groups | Infant | 477.44 ± 224.85a | 828.44 ± 375.96a | 3.19 ± 1.23b | 0.72 ± 0.19 |
| Young | 697.10 ± 147.22 | 1263.44 ± 280.52 | 4.10 ± 1.01 | 0.80 ± 0.17 | |
| Middle | 719.78 ± 184.83 | 1318.21 ± 356.67 | 4.19 ± 1.05 | 0.83 ± 0.12 | |
| Senile | 806.09 ± 168.54 | 1503.51 ± 330.79 | 4.57 ± 0.93 | 0.85 ± 0.11 | |
| F (ANOVA) | 7.26 | 8.65 | 3.91 | 2.04 | |
| P value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.118 | |
athe numbers of OTUs and Chao1 indexes of infant group had statistical significance (P < 0.05) with both young, middle and senile groups. No significant difference was found between young, middle and senile groups.
bShannon entropy index of infant group had statistical significance (P < 0.05) with middle and senile group, but no significant difference were found between young, middle and senile groups
Fig. 2Beta diversity analysis of tree shrew fecal samples. a PCoA plot based on weighted unifrac distance of the male and female group. b PCoA plot based on unweighted unifrac distance of the male and female group. c UPGMA dendrogram of gender groups for all the samples. Blue samples indicated male, and pink represented female. d Anosim analysis between male and female group. e PCoA plot based on weighted unifrac distance of the four age groups. f PCoA plot based on unweighted unifrac distance of the four age groups. g UPGMA dendrogram of age groups for all the samples. Yellow samples were infant group; reds were young group; blues were middle group; pinks were senile group. h Anosim analysis between infant, young, middle and senile group
Fig. 3Indicator microbial groups and phylogenetic distribution of microbial communities between age and gender groups for tree shrew. a Indicator microbial groups in the four age group samples with LDA scores higher than 3.0. b Cladogram indicated the phylogenetic distribution of microbial communities associated with four age groups; lineages with LDA values of 3.0 or higher as determined by LEfSe were shown. Differences were represented by the color of the most abundant class. Red indicated infant group, purple young group, green middle group, and blue senile group; yellow represented insignificant difference. c Cladogram indicated the phylogenetic distribution of microbial communities associated with gender groups; lineages with LDA values of 3.0 or higher as determined by LEfSe were shown. Differences were represented by the color of the most abundant class. Red indicated female group; green represented male group. d Indicator microbial groups in the gender group samples with LDA scores higher than 3.0
Fig. 4The characteristics of isolated Enterobacteriaceae bacteria from tree shrew. a The isolation results of fecal samples for tree shrew. b PFGE cluster results of 71 Proteus spp. in this study. The yellow area was P. vulgaris strains, blue area indicated ESBL isolates for P. mirabilis. c PFGE cluster results of 25 E. coli in this study. Blue area indicated ESBL isolates for E. coli
The antibiotics resistant results of isolated Enterobacteriaceae bacteria in this study
| Antibiotics | Interpret |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain numbers | Percent (%) | Strain numbers | Percent (%) | ||
| ESBL | Resistant (R) | 12 | 16.90% | 10 | 40.00% |
| Sensitive (S) | 59 | 83.10% | 15 | 60.00% | |
| OX | R | 71 | 100.00% | 25 | 100.00% |
| S | – | – | – | – | |
| CTX | R | 2 | 2.80% | – | – |
| S | 69 | 97.20% | 25 | 100.00% | |
| CAZ | R | 1 | 1.40% | – | – |
| S | 69 | 97.20% | 25 | 100.00% | |
| Intermediate (I) | 1 | 1.40% | – | – | |
| IPM | R | 8 | 11.30% | – | – |
| S | 49 | 69.00% | 25 | 100.00% | |
| I | 14 | 19.70% | – | – | |
| MEM | R | 1 | 1.40% | – | – |
| S | 70 | 98.60% | 25 | 100.00% | |
| CIP | R | 2 | 2.80% | 8 | 32.00% |
| S | 69 | 97.20% | 15 | 60.00% | |
| I | – | – | 2 | 8.00% | |
| CN | R | 3 | 4.20% | 2 | 8.00% |
| S | 68 | 95.80% | 23 | 92.00% | |
| AK | R | – | – | – | – |
| S | 71 | 100.00% | 25 | 100.00% | |
| E | R | 71 | 100.00% | 9 | 36.00% |
| S | – | – | 13 | 52.00% | |
| I | – | – | 3 | 12.00% | |
| TE | R | 67 | 94.40% | 6 | 24.00% |
| S | 4 | 5.60% | 19 | 76.00% | |
The antimicrobial resistant-associated genes detected in this study
| Resistant antibiotic | Genes |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Numbers | Percent (%) | Numbers | Percent (%) | ||
| ESBL |
| 5 | 41.67% | 8 | 80.00% |
|
| 3 | 25.00% | 2 | 20.00% | |
| Unknown | 4 | 33.33% | – | – | |
| CTX and CAZ | Unknown | 2 | 100.00% | – | – |
| IPM |
| 8 | 100.00% | – | – |
| CIP |
| – | – | 3 | 37.50% |
|
| 2 | 100.00% | 4 | 50.00% | |
|
| – | – | 1 | 12.50% | |
| CN |
| 1 | 33.33% | – | – |
|
| 2 | 66.67% | 2 | 100.00% | |
| E |
| 39 | 54.93% | 1 | 11.11% |
|
| 12 | 16.90% | 3 | 33.33% | |
|
| 4 | 5.63% | 3 | 33.33% | |
| Unknown | 16 | 22.54% | 2 | 22.23% | |
| TE |
| 3 | 4.48% | 6 | 100.00% |
|
| 5 | 7.46% | – | – | |
|
| 47 | 70.15% | – | – | |
|
| 12 | 17.91% | – | – | |