| Literature DB >> 31703624 |
Hongling Wei1, Huan Wang2,3, Lei Tang1, Changkao Mu1,4, Chunyu Ye5, Lizhi Chen6, Chunlin Wang7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scylla paramamosain is a commercially important mud crab. The microbiota is a community that inhabits the crab intestine, and is important for physiological functional and host health.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA; Core gut microbiota; Illumina MiSeq sequencing; Scylla paramamosain
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31703624 PMCID: PMC6842235 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-019-6219-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Overview of sequencing data and alpha-diversity of samples from the nine coastal regions of southern China
| Group | Valid contigs | OTU | Shannon | Simpson | Chao 1 | Good’s coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HL-F | 26,157 ± 1969 | 215 ± 57 | 3.48 ± 0.216 | 0.84 ± 0.030 | 338 ± 125.87 | 0.995 ± 0.0016 |
| HL-M | 26,168 ± 2337 | 755 ± 148 | 5.44 ± 0.993 | 0.91 ± 0.021 | 858 ± 109.83 | 0.988 ± 0.0008 |
| HP-F | 27,904 ± 860 | 154 ± 53 | 3.42 ± 0.495 | 0.80 ± 0.040 | 189 ± 52.33 | 0.997 ± 0.0008 |
| HP-M | 26,118 ± 2418 | 453 ± 280 | 4.29 ± 1.123 | 0.88 ± 0.070 | 527 ± 317.45 | 0.992 ± 0.0047 |
| SM-F | 28,219 ± 821 | 286 ± 176 | 4.57 ± 2.047 | 0.89 ± 0.080 | 318 ± 150.82 | 0.997 ± 0.0014 |
| SM-M | 27,103 ± 1061 | 270 ± 113 | 3.41 ± 0.367 | 0.79 ± 0.066 | 353 ± 146.69 | 0.994 ± 0.0025 |
| RA-F | 27,495 ± 1216 | 318 ± 193 | 4.79 ± 1.872 | 0.90 ± 0.079 | 385 ± 133.53 | 0.996 ± 0.0015 |
| RA-M | 25,757 ± 2074 | 179 ± 43 | 3.85 ± 0.594 | 0.86 ± 0.075 | 213 ± 65.40 | 0.997 ± 0.0011 |
| ST-F | 26,952 ± 1164 | 174 ± 66 | 3.09 ± 1.118 | 0.75 ± 0.143 | 248 ± 107.24 | 0.996 ± 0.0015 |
| ST-M | 27,729 ± 2215 | 429 ± 30 | 4.84 ± 1.043 | 0.92 ± 0.045 | 596 ± 91.95 | 0.991 ± 0.0022 |
| TS-F | 22,555 ± 3723 | 530 ± 242 | 3.55 ± 0.896 | 0.76 ± 0.075 | 617 ± 269.36 | 0.990 ± 0.0044 |
| TS-M | 26,197 ± 1560 | 186 ± 97 | 3.55 ± 0.579 | 0.84 ± 0.071 | 266 ± 170.60 | 0.996 ± 0.0030 |
| XP-F | 28,377 ± 698 | 87 ± 14 | 2.47 ± 0.471 | 0.70 ± 0.068 | 129 ± 57.67 | 0.998 ± 0.0006 |
| XP-M | 26,811 ± 1415 | 92 ± 43 | 2.43 ± 0.984 | 0.66 ± 0.217 | 153 ± 103.13 | 0.998 ± 0.0015 |
| YJ-F | 26,447 ± 657 | 594 ± 368 | 5.12 ± 2.241 | 0.89 ± 0.086 | 695 ± 394.79 | 0.991 ± 0.0054 |
| YJ-M | 21,993 ± 5211 | 378 ± 80 | 5.52 ± 1.623 | 0.92 ± 0.077 | 394 ± 70.29 | 0.998 ± 0.0016 |
| YX-F | 25,662 ± 2052 | 219 ± 186 | 4.74 ± 1.923 | 0.91 ± 0.066 | 242 ± 167.04 | 0.998 ± 0.0004 |
| YX-M | 25,138 ± 6631 | 480 ± 8 | 6.98 ± 0.149 | 0.98 ± 0.003 | 487 ± 15.34 | 0.998 ± 0.0004 |
Fig. 1The 15 most abundant phyla and genera. a Bar-plots showing the abundance and distribution of the 15 most abundant phyla. b Bar-plots showing the abundance and distribution of the 15 most abundant genera
The core genera identified in samples
| Phylum | Genus | Relative abundance (%) | Range (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tenericutes | Candidatus_Hepatoplasma | 16.89 | 0.000–74.325 |
| Proteobacteria | Arcobacter | 6.89 | 0.058–40.186 |
| Proteobacteria | Photobacterium | 6.81 | 0.000–42.027 |
| Proteobacteria | Vibrio | 4.48 | 0.074–22.604 |
| Bacteroidetes | Carboxylicivirga | 3.94 | 0.004–29.438 |
| Bacteroidetes | Bacteroides | 3.70 | 0.000–47.259 |
| Spirochaetae | Spirochaeta_2 | 3.48 | 0.000–35.887 |
| Proteobacteria | Shewanella | 0.85 | 0.000–7.066 |
| Firmicutes | Lactobacillus | 0.73 | 0.000–11.112 |
| Firmicutes | Romboutsia | 0.68 | 0.000–17.830 |
| Proteobacteria | Desulfovibrio | 0.36 | 0.000–4.543 |
Fig. 2Core gut microbiota composed of 11 bacterial genera in S. paramamosain in nine regions samples. a The proportion of each genus in all sequences combined. b The abundance and distribution of 11 core genera. c Correlation matrix showing the Spearman’s rank correlations among the collective core, which ranges from − 1 to 1, corresponding to a strongly positive to a strongly negative correlation, respectively
The core genera identified in female samples
| Phylum | Genus | Relative abundance (%) | Range (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tenericutes | Candidatus_Hepatoplasma | 22.71 | 0.000–54.672 |
| Proteobacteria | Photobacterium | 6.12 | 0.000–40.127 |
| Proteobacteria | Arcobacter | 5.88 | 0.083–28.949 |
| Bacteroidetes | Bacteroides | 5.55 | 0.000–47.259 |
| Bacteroidetes | Carboxylicivirga | 4.78 | 0.206–29.438 |
| Spirochaetae | Spirochaeta_2 | 4.54 | 0.000–35.887 |
| Proteobacteria | Vibrio | 3.05 | 0.074–18.715 |
| Firmicutes | Defluviitaleaceae_UCG_011 | 1.59 | 0.000–7.729 |
| Firmicutes | Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1 | 0.70 | 0.000–4.331 |
| Firmicutes | Clostridium_sensu_stricto_11 | 0.52 | 0.000–6.029 |
| Firmicutes | Romboutsia | 0.41 | 0.000–6.419 |
| Proteobacteria | Shewanella | 0.39 | 0.007–3.808 |
| Firmicutes | Lactobacillus | 0.37 | 0.000–3.316 |
| Proteobacteria | Desulfovibrio | 0.29 | 0.007–1.440 |
| Tenericutes | Candidatus_Bacilloplasma | 0.24 | 0.000–1.511 |
The core genera identified in male samples
| Phylum | Genus | Relative abundance (%) | Range (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tenericutes | Candidatus_Hepatoplasma | 11.07 | 0.007–74.325 |
| Proteobacteria | Arcobacter | 7.91 | 0.058–40.186 |
| Proteobacteria | Photobacterium | 7.51 | 0.000–42.027 |
| Proteobacteria | Vibrio | 5.90 | 0.098–22.604 |
| Fusobacteria | Psychrilyobacter | 3.19 | 0.000–21.912 |
| Bacteroidetes | Carboxylicivirga | 3.09 | 0.004–14.964 |
| Spirochaetae | Spirochaeta_2 | 2.42 | 0.000–23.831 |
| Bacteroidetes | Bacteroides | 1.84 | 0.000–16.469 |
| Firmicutes | Defluviitaleaceae_UCG_011 | 1.47 | 0.000–12.943 |
| Proteobacteria | Shewanella | 1.32 | 0.000–5.223 |
| Firmicutes | Lactobacillus | 1.10 | 0.004–11.112 |
| Firmicutes | Romboutsia | 0.94 | 0.000–17.830 |
| Firmicutes | Lactococcus | 0.70 | 0.000–3.718 |
| Firmicutes | Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1 | 0.60 | 0.000–4.932 |
| Proteobacteria | Desulfovibrio | 0.43 | 0.000–4.543 |
Fig. 3Core genera identified in male and female samples
Fig. 4Principal coordinate analysis and circular tree plot of all samples using the weighted UniFrac distance matrices. a Principal coordinate analysis of the microbial communities in all samples; b Circular tree plot of all samples using the weighted UniFrac distance matrices
Fig. 5Principal coordinate analysis and circular tree plot of female or male samples using the weighted UniFrac distance matrices. a Principal coordinate analysis of the microbial communities in female samples; b Principal coordinate analysis of the microbial communities in male samples; c Circular tree plot of female samples using the weighted UniFrac distance matrices; d Circular tree plot of male samples using the weighted UniFrac distance matrices