| Literature DB >> 33228646 |
Ada Rota1, Michela Corrò2, Ilaria Patuzzi2, Chiara Milani3, Stefania Masia2, Eleonora Mastrorilli2, Sara Petrin2, Alessandra Longo2, Angela Del Carro4, Carmen Losasso2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical sterilization is the most effective method of contraception for dogs. It also prevents pyometra and reduces the risk of mammary tumour development. However, this procedure also has negative effects, such as urinary incontinence. Steroid hormone deprivation following gonadectomy could also affect canine vaginal mucosa conditions and the microbial community colonizing the vaginal tract. This hypothesis was tested by comparing the vaginal cytology and microbial community of two groups of bitches, including 11 in anoestrus and 10 sterilized bitches (post-pubertal sterilization in the last 4 years). Bacteria were identified through metataxonomic analysis, amplifying the V3-V4 regions of 16S rRNA gene, and culturing methods.Entities:
Keywords: Bacteria culture; Dog; Metataxonomic analysis; Sterilization; Vaginal microbial community
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33228646 PMCID: PMC7684734 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02670-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1Microbial community composition (genus level) of samples from anoestrous (left) and sterilized (right) bitches. Each sample (S*) is present as two biological replicates (“_A” or “_B”)
Fig. 2Boxplots presenting alpha diversity values calculated in anoestrus (red) and sterilized (blue) samples. On the left, a plot of richness (observed ASVs) values is reported, whereas the evenness Pielou index is presented in the plot on the right
Fig. 32d plots of the first three PCoA components based on Bray-Curtis distance. Anoestrus samples are shown in red, and sterilized samples are presented in blue
Comparison between the number of anoestrous and sterilized bitches in which each selected genus was identified (metataxonomic analysis). The percentages are reported in parenthesis. In the third column, the P-values obtained from chi-square tests are reported
| Genus | Anoestrus | Sterilized | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (9%) | 2 (20%) | 0.4755 | |
| 5 (45%) | 5 (50%) | 0.835 | |
| 3 (27%) | 3 (30%) | 0.8901 | |
| – | – | – | |
| 0 | 2 (20%) | 0.1189 | |
| 0 | 1 (10%) | 0.2825 | |
| 6 (55%) | 4 (40%) | 0.5051 | |
| 1 (9%) | 2 (20%) | 0.4755 | |
| 0 | 3 (30%) | 0,0497 | |
| 1 (9%) | 0 | 0.3286 | |
| 1 (9%) | 5 (50%) | 0.0382 | |
| 5 (45%) | 5 (50%) | 0.835 | |
| 9 (82%) | 10 (100%) | 0.1563 | |
| 9 (82%) | 8 (73%) | 0.9156 | |
| 1 (9%) | 1 (10%) | 0.9435 |
aGreengenes database does not discriminate Escherichia from Shigella genera
Fig. 4Frequency of isolation of different bacteria species in the two groups of healthy bitches
Comparison between the number of anoestrous and sterilized bitches in which each genus was found (bacteria culture). The percentages are noted in parenthesis. In the third column, the P-values were obtained using a chi-square test
| Genus | Anoestrus | Sterilized | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (9%) | 0 | 0.3286 | |
| 1 (9%) | 0 | 0.3286 | |
| 0 | 1 (10%) | 0.2825 | |
| 4 (36%) | 3 (30%) | 0.7574 | |
| 4 (36%) | 3 (30%) | 0.7574 | |
| 4 (36%) | 2 (20%) | 0.4071 | |
| 0 | 1 (10%) | 0.2825 | |
| 2 (18%) | 0 | 0.1563 | |
| 1 (9%) | 1 (10%) | 0.9435 | |
| 1 (9%) | 0 | 0.3286 | |
| 2 (18%) | 1 (10%) | 0.5926 | |
| 0 | 1 (10%) | 0.2825 | |
| 7 (64%) | 9 (90%) | 0.1566 | |
| 7 (64%) | 2 (20%) | 0.0436 | |
| 1 (9%) | 0 | 0.3286 | |
| 1 (9%) | 0 | 0.3286 |
Age, breed and parity of anoestrous and sterilized bitches; type of surgery and years since surgery in the sterilized ones
| Breed | Age | Parity | Surgery type | Years from surgery | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ys | Ms | |||||
| 1 | Golden Retriever | 2 | 1 | 0 | ||
| 2 | Lagotto | 1 | 3 | 0 | ||
| 3 | Crossbreed | 6 | 6 | 0 | ||
| 4 | Am.Staffordshire Terrier. | 3 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 5 | Staffordshire Bull Terrier. | 7 | 0 | 4 | ||
| 6 | English Bulldog | 2 | 5 | 0 | ||
| 7 | Bloodhound | 1 | 2 | 0 | ||
| 8 | Welsh Corgi | 5 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 9 | Boxer | 5 | 0 | 2 | ||
| 10 | Bolognese | 1 | 5 | 0 | ||
| 11 | BelgianShepherd | 2 | 5 | 0 | ||
| 1 | Newfoundland | 8 | 1 | 1 | OVH | 2.5 |
| 2 | Crossbreed | 3 | 1 | 0 | OV | 2.5 |
| 3 | Newfoundland | 4 | 1 | 0 | OVH | 1 |
| 4 | San Bernardo | 1 | 6 | 0 | OVH | 1 |
| 5 | Cocker Spaniel | 3 | 3 | 0 | OVH | 2.5 |
| 6 | Jack Russell Terrier | 10 | 5 | 0 | OVH | 3 |
| 7 | Cocker Spaniel | 11 | 9 | 0 | OVH | 3 |
| 8 | Crossbreed | 5 | 0 | 0 | OV | 4 |
| 9 | Cattle Dog | 6 | 0 | 0 | OVX | 2 |
| 10 | AustralianShepherd | 9 | 0 | 3 | OV | 0.5 |