| Literature DB >> 32321508 |
S Rimoldi1, E Gini1, J F A Koch2, F Iannini1, F Brambilla3, G Terova4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the effects of partial substitution of dietary fishmeal (FM) with either fish protein hydrolysate (FPH) or autolysed dried yeast (HiCell®, Biorigin, Brazil) on intestinal microbiota of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata). A total number of 720 fish of 122.18 ± 6.22 g were fed for 92 days with three different diets in triplicate (3 tanks/diet). A diet based on FM/vegetable meal was used as control. The other two diets were formulated by replacing FM with 5% of either FPH or HiCell®. To analyze the gut microbiota associated to autochthonous and allochthonous microbial communities, the Illumina MiSeq platform for sequencing of 16S rRNA gene and QIIME pipeline were used.Entities:
Keywords: Aquaculture; Fish protein hydrolysate, autolyzed yeast; Gut microbiota; Single cell proteins, fish nutrition
Year: 2020 PMID: 32321508 PMCID: PMC7178574 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02335-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Alpha diversity metrics of gut microbial communities in sea bream fed with three experimental diets
| Items | Ctrl | DIETS | AY |
|---|---|---|---|
| FPH | |||
| Reads | 52,248 ± 14,709 | 49,553 ± 17,950 | 53,334 ± 15,413 |
| Observed OTUs | 53.0 ± 4.2 | 47.4 ± 8.8 | 49.0 ± 6.1 |
| Good’s coverage | 0.99 ± 0.00 | 0.99 ± 0.00 | 0.99 ± 0.00 |
| PD whole tree | 6.1 ± 0.4ab | 5.4 ± 1.0b | 6.5 ± 0.9a |
| Chao1 | 56.2 ± 4.9 | 49.6 ± 9.4 | 52.5 ± 7.9 |
| Shannon | 1.8 ± 0.2a | 1.7 ± 0.1ab | 1.6 ± 0.2b |
| Simpson | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.0 | 0.5 ± 0.1 |
All data are reported as mean values (n = 15) ± SD. Different superscript letters on the same row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Fig. 1Venn diagram representing unique and shared Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) among all three dietary groups, regardless of diet
Fig. 2Relative abundance (%) of the overall most prevalent bacterial phyla in each dietary groups. In the figure, all taxa with an overall abundance of ≥1% were reported
Fig. 3Relative abundance (%) of the overall most prevalent bacterial families in each dietary groups. In the figure, all taxa with an overall abundance of ≥1% were reported
Fig. 4Relative abundance (%) of the overall most prevalent bacterial genera in each dietary groups. In the figure, all taxa with an overall abundance of ≥0.5% were reported
Fig. 5Beta diversity metrics. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of unweighted (a) and weighted (b) Unifrac distances of gut microbial communities associated to different diet. The figures show the 3D plot of individual fish according to their microbial profile at genus level
Results of Analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) and permutational multivariate analysis of variance (Adonis) based on Unweighted and Weighted UniFrac distances
| Unweighted | Weighted | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R value | R value | |||
| Ctrl vs FPH | 0.144 | 0.199 | 0.028 | |
| Ctrl vs AY | 0.514 | 0.489 | ||
| FPH vs AY | 0.480 | 0.341 | ||
| R2 | R2 | |||
| Ctrl vs FPH | 0.08 | 0.285 | 0.04 | |
| Ctrl vs AY | 0.19 | 0.38 | ||
| FPH vs AY | 0.18 | 0.30 | ||
Significant p-values (p < 0.05) are reported in bold.
Percentages of the most abundant taxa (mean ± SEM) found in all dietary groups
| Phylum | Ctrl | FPH | AY | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 58.6 | ± | 2.9 | 54.6 | ± | 4.3 | 41.5 | ± | 2.9 | ||
| 39.7 | ± | 3.1 | 41.5 | ± | 4.5 | 49.4 | ± | 2.9 | ||
| 1.1 | ± | 1.1 | 3.3 | ± | 2.8 | 2.5 | ± | 1.2 | ||
| 73.5 | ± | 3.9 | 66.2 | ± | 6.2 | 72.2 | ± | 3.9 | ||
| 1.0 | ± | 0.2 | 2.1 | ± | 0.6 | 2.5 | ± | 0.7 | ||
| 1.2 | ± | 0.3b | 3.6 | ± | 1.8b | 1.8 | ± | 0.6a | * | |
| 21.9 | ± | 4.1 | 23.3 | ± | 6.0 | 17.1 | ± | 4.5 | ||
| 1.5 | ± | 1.4 | 3.8 | ± | 3.3 | 4.0 | ± | 1.8 | ||
| 1.9 | ± | 0.2b | 2.3 | ± | 0.4ab | 3.7 | ± | 0.5a | ** | |
| 71.5 | ± | 3.9 | 63.9 | ± | 6.1 | 68.4 | ± | 3.6 | ||
| < 1.0b | 2.0 | ± | 0.6ab | 2.5 | ± | 0.6a | * | |||
| < 1.0 | 3.3 | ± | 1.7 | 1.3 | ± | 0.6 | ||||
| 2.0 | ± | 0.5a | < 1.0b | 1.1 | ± | 0.2a | *** | |||
| 0.6 | ± | 0.2ab | < 1.0b | 1.1 | ± | 0.2a | *** | |||
| 0.8 | ± | 0.2 | 1.0 | ± | 0.2 | 1.0 | ± | 0.2 | ||
| 18.2 | ± | 4.1 | 21.9 | ± | 6.1 | 13.6 | ± | 4.6 | ||
| 1.4 | ± | 1.4 | 3.8 | ± | 3.2 | 3.9 | ± | 1.2 | ||
| < 0.5b | n.d. | 0.8 | ± | 0.3a | *** | |||||
| 1.1 | ± | 0.2b | 1.2 | ± | 0.4b | 2.8 | ± | 0.5a | ** | |
| 70.9 | ± | 3.9 | 63.6 | ± | 6.1 | 67.8 | ± | 3.7 | ||
| 0.5 | ± | 0.0 | 1.6 | ± | 0.6 | 1.0 | ± | 0.5 | ||
| n.d. | n.d. | 1.2 | ± | 0.2 | *** | |||||
| 0.7 | ± | 0.3 | 3.30 | ± | 1.8 | 1.3 | ± | 0.6 | ||
| 2.0 | ± | 0.5a | < 1.0b | 1.1 | ± | 0.2a | *** | |||
| 0.6 | ± | 0.2ab | < 1.0b | 1.1 | ± | 0.2a | *** | |||
| 0.7 | ± | 0.1 | 1.0 | ± | 0.2 | 1.0 | ± | 0.2 | ||
| 1.0 | ± | 0.2a | 1.1 | ± | 1.0b | < 0.5b | ** | |||
| 17.2 | ± | 4.1 | 20.8 | ± | 5.9 | 13.5 | ± | 4.6 | ||
| 1.4 | ± | 1.4 | 3.8 | ± | 3.2 | 4.0 | ± | 1.8 | ||
| n.d. | n.d. | 0.8 | ± | 0.3 | *** | |||||
| 0.9 | ± | 0.2b | 1.5 | ± | 0.4b | 2.3 | ± | 0.6a | ** | |
| < 0.5 | 0.8 | ± | 0.1 | 0.8 | ± | 0.2 | ||||
| 70.9 | ± | 3.9 | 63.6 | ± | 6.1 | 67.8 | ± | 3.7 | ||
| < 0.5 | 1.3 | ± | 0.6 | 0.8 | ± | 0.5 | ||||
| n.d. | n.d. | 1.2 | ± | 0.3a | *** | |||||
| < 0.5 | < 0.5 | 0.6 | ± | 0.2 | ||||||
| 2.0 | ± | 0.5a | < 0.5b | 1.1 | ± | 0.3a | *** | |||
| < 0.5ab | < 0.5b | 0.6 | ± | 0.2a | ** | |||||
| 0.7 | ± | 0.1 | 0.9 | ± | 0.3 | 1.0 | ± | 0.3 | ||
| 0.9 | ± | 0.2a | < 0.5b | < 0.5b | *** | |||||
| 12.4 | ± | 4.2 | 20.2 | ± | 5.8 | 10.9 | ± | 4.4 | ||
| 4.7 | ± | 1.3a | 0.5 | ± | 0.2b | 2.5 | ± | 0.7a | *** | |
“n.d.” means not detected. Statistical significance: (*) p < 0.05; (**) p < 0.01; (***) p < 0.001
Different superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences (Dunn’s post hoc test, p < 0.05)
Diet formulation and proximate composition (modified from Fronte et al. [27])
| DIETS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Ctrl | FPH | AY | |
| Fishmeal | 22.25 | 17.80 | 17.80 |
| Corn gluten meal | 17.80 | 16.91 | 17.71 |
| Guar germ meal | 15.13 | 14.03 | 17.68 |
| Soybean meal | 10.70 | 10.68 | 10.68 |
| Soy Protein Concentrate | 9.38 | 9.79 | 10.04 |
| Wheat middling | 7.45 | 8.90 | 7.12 |
| Fish oil 92 | 6.93 | 6.93 | 6.93 |
| Fish protein hydrolysed | 4.60 | ||
| HiCell® – autolysed yeast | 4.60 | ||
| Pea meal | 4.45 | 4.45 | 1.53 |
| Cameline oil | 2.42 | 2.42 | 2.42 |
| Mineral/Vitamin supplement | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 |
| Rapeseed oil | 1.49 | 1.49 | 1.49 |
| Crude protein | 46.00 | 46.10 | 46.10 |
| Crude fat | 16.20 | 16.10 | 16.10 |
| Crude fibre | 2.10 | 2.00 | 2.20 |
| Ash | 6.20 | 5.80 | 6.00 |
| Gross Energy (MJ/kg) | 18.70 | 18.80 | 18.60 |