| Literature DB >> 33389354 |
Simona Rimoldi1, Micaela Antonini1, Laura Gasco2, Federico Moroni1, Genciana Terova3.
Abstract
With demands and reliance on aquaculture still growing, there are various challenges to allow sustainable growth and the shift from fishmeal (FM) to other protein sources in aquafeed formulations is one of the most important. In this regard, interest in the use of insect meal (IM) in aquafeeds has grown rapidly. Accordingly, the aim of the present study was to assess the effects of dietary IM from Hermetia illucens (Hi) larvae included in a low-FM diet on gut microbial communities of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), in terms of both composition and function of microbiome. A feeding trial was conducted using 192 trout of about 100-g mean initial weight. Fish were fed in quadruplicate (4 tanks/diet) for 131 days with two diets: the control (Ctrl) contained 20% of FM as well as other protein sources, whereas the Hi diet contained 15% of Hi larvae meal to replace 50% of the FM contained in the Ctrl diet. High-throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA gene was used to identify the major feed and gut bacterial taxa, whereas Phylogenetic Investigation of Communities by Reconstruction of Unobserved States (PICRUSt) analysis was performed on gut bacterial genomes to identify the major active biological pathways. The inclusion of IM led to an increase in Firmicutes, mainly represented by Bacilli class and to a drastic reduction of Proteobacteria. Beneficial genera, such as Lactobacillus and Bacillus, were enriched in the gut of fish fed with the Hi diet, whereas the number of bacteria assigned to the pathogenic Aeromonas genus was drastically reduced in the same fish group. The metagenome functional data provided evidence that dietary IM inclusion can shape the metabolic activity of trout gut microbiota. In particular, intestinal microbiome of fish fed with IM may have the capacity to improve dietary carbohydrate utilization. Therefore, H. illucens meal is a promising protein source for trout nutrition, able to modulate gut microbial community by increasing the abundance of some bacteria taxa that are likely to play a key role in fish health.Entities:
Keywords: Aquaculture; Hermetia illucens; Insect meal; Intestinal microbiota; Metagenomics; Rainbow trout
Year: 2021 PMID: 33389354 PMCID: PMC8026480 DOI: 10.1007/s10695-020-00918-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Fish Physiol Biochem ISSN: 0920-1742 Impact factor: 2.794
Ingredients (g kg−1) and proximate composition of the experimental diets
| Ingredients | Ctrl | Hi15 |
|---|---|---|
| Fishmeala | 200.0 | 100.0 |
| 0.0 | 150.0 | |
| Wheat gluten | 130.0 | 130.0 |
| Soybean meal | 200.0 | 200.0 |
| Porcine haemoglobin | 92.0 | 82.0 |
| Wheat starch | 233.9 | 193.9 |
| Fish oil | 69.8 | 69.8 |
| Soybean oil | 69.8 | 69.8 |
| Mineralsc | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| Vitaminsd | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Chemical analysis | ||
| Dry matter (g 100 g−1) | 97.15 | 96.56 |
| Ash (g 100 g−1, as fed) | 5.83 | 5.45 |
| Crude protein (g 100 g−1, as fed) | 45.60 | 46.14 |
| Ether extract (g 100 g−1, as fed) | 14.91 | 14.32 |
| Gross energy (MJ kg−1, as fed)e | 22.43 | 22.56 |
aPurchased from Corpesca S.A. (Santiago, Chile). bProvided by MUTATEC, Caumont-sur-Durance, France (https://mutatec.com/). cMineral mixture: provided by Skretting. dVitamin mixture provided by Skretting. eDetermined by calorimetric bomb
Chemical analysis values are reported as mean of duplicate analyses
Fig. 1Relative abundance (%) of the most prevalent bacteria in Ctrl and feeds at phylum (a), family (b), and genus (c) taxonomic level. Only bacteria with an overall abundance of 0.5% were reported. Bacteria with lower abundance were pooled and indicated as “others”
Alpha diversity metrics (rarefied at 10,780 sequences) of feed microbial communities. All data are reported as mean values (n = 3) ± SD
| Item | Ctrl feed | Hi15 feed | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observed OTUs | 340.67 ± 3.51 | 346.33 ± 9.24 | 0.48 |
| Chao 1 | 368.91 ± 4.95 | 368.00 ± 21.28 | 0.94 |
| Faith-PD | 5.11 ± 0.32 | 5.60 ± 0.37 | 0.12 |
| Shannon | 6.00 ± 0.08 | 5.82 ± 0.06 | 0.05 |
| Evenness | 0.71 ± 0.01 | 0.69 ± 0.01 | 0.05 |
Fig. 2Relative abundance (%) of the most prevalent intestinal bacterial phyla (a), families (b), and genera (c) in each trout dietary group. In the figure, all taxa with an overall abundance of ≥ 0.5% were reported. Bacteria with lower abundance were pooled and indicated as “others”
Alpha diversity metrics (rarefied at 10,780 sequences) of gut microbial communities of trout fed with Ctrl or Hi15 diets. All data are reported as mean values (n = 8) ± SD. Significant p values are in italic
| Item | Ctrl | Hi15 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observed OTUs | 229.25 ± 57.68 | 370.50 ± 131.84 | |
| Chao 1 | 259.13 ± 70.03 | 421.93 ± 142.40 | |
| Faith-PD | 4.52 ± 1.21 | 5.48 ± 1.77 | 0.11 |
| Shannon | 4.85 ± 0.42 | 5.39 ± 0.82 | 0.09 |
| Evenness | 0.62 ± 0.05 | 0.64 ± 0.05 | 0.60 |
Fig. 3PCoA plot of unweighted (a) and weighted (b) UniFrac distances of gut microbial communities associated to two experimental dietary groups. Each dot represents an individual sample according to its microbial profile at genus level
ANOSIM and PERMANOVA test results for comparisons of gut microbiota composition between Ctrl and Hi15 feeding groups. Significant q-values (< 0.05) are shown in italic
| Statistical test | Unweighted | Weighted | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ctrl vs Hi15 | 0.42 | 0.247 | 0.06 | |
| Ctrl vs Ctrl diet | 0.45 | 0.915 | − 0.22 | |
| Hi15 vs Hi15 diet | 0.46 | 0.174 | 0.47 | |
| Ctrl diet vs Hi15 diet | 0.095 | 1.00 | 0.247 | 1.00 |
| Ctrl vs Hi15 | 3.32 | 0.279 | 1.46 | |
| Ctrl vs Ctrl diet | 4.87 | 0.346 | 1.22 | |
| Hi15 vs Hi15 diet | 4.26 | 6.21 | ||
| Ctrl diet vs Hi15 diet | 0.119 | 9.02 | 0.228 | 58.18 |
Mean relative abundance (%) ± SE (n = 8) of the most prevalent phyla, orders, classes, families, and genera found in the intestine of trout fed with two experimental diets. Significant p values (< 0.05) are shown in italic
| Ctrl | Hi15 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Phylum | |||
| Firmicutes | 7.58 ± 4.32 | 54.08 ± 14.58 | |
| Proteobacteria | 42.95 ± 10.61 | 7.58 ± 1.42 | |
| Spirochaetes | 1.29 ± 0.83 | 2.63 ± 1.64 | 0.563 |
| Tenericutes | 45.39 ± 11.44 | 29.56 ± 13.50 | 0.411 |
| Fusobacteria | 1.39 ± 0.68 | 5.42 ± 4.28 | 0.958 |
| Bacteroidetes | 1.14 ± 0.72 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | |
| Class | |||
| Clostridia | 0.86 ± 0.63 | 3.59 ± 0.98 | |
| Alphaproteobacteria | 10.77 ± 5.86 | 4.65 ± 1.25 | 0.793 |
| Betaproteobacteria | 10.92 ± 6.65 | 1.35 ± 0.92 | 0.103 |
| Gammaproteobacteria | 21.09 ± 11.45 | 1.59 ± 0.69 | |
| [Brevinematae] | 1.29 ± 0.98 | 2.63 ± 1.84 | 0.563 |
| Mollicutes | 45.39 ± 11.56 | 29.55 ± 14.60 | 0.411 |
| Bacilli | 5.98 ± 3.53 | 50.35 ± 13.73 | |
| Fusobacteriia | 1.39 ± 0.93 | 5.41 ± 4.82 | 0.958 |
| Flavobacteriia | 1.12 ± 0.93 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | |
| Order | |||
| Clostridiales | 1.40 ± 1.10 | 3.81 ± 1.07 | 0.083 |
| Neisseriales | 9.84 ± 6.74 | 0.72 ± 0.56 | 0.178 |
| Aeromonadales | 17.76 ± 11.21 | 0.31 ± 0.20 | |
| Enterobacteriales | 1.57 ± 0.98 | 0.49 ± 0.22 | 0.371 |
| [Brevinematales] | 1.36 ± 1.01 | 2.40 ± 1.57 | 0.636 |
| Mycoplasmatales | 49.22 ± 10.94 | 29.37 ± 14.71 | 0.320 |
| Lactobacillales | 9.27 ± 6.10 | 14.62 ± 4.60 | 0.339 |
| Erysipelotrichales | 1.02 ± 0.70 | 0.14 ± 0.06 | 0.220 |
| Fusobacteriales | 1.92 ± 1.35 | 4.74 ± 4.09 | 0.958 |
| Vibrionales | 1.44 ± 0.85 | 0.10 ± 0.07 | 0.215 |
| Stramenopiles | 0.77 ± 0.76 | 1.88 ± 1.88 | 0.543 |
| Flavobacteriales | 1.21 ± 1.01 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | |
| Burkholderiales | 1.13 ± 0.63 | 0.23 ± 0.08 | 0.956 |
| Bacillales | 0.02 ± 0.02 | 38.90 ± 11.18 | |
| Family | |||
| Neisseriaceae | 9.84 ± 6.74 | 0.72 ± 0.56 | 0.149 |
| Aeromonadaceae | 17.76 ± 11.21 | 0.31 ± 0.20 | |
| Enterobacteriaceae | 1.57 ± 0.98 | 0.49 ± 0.22 | 0.371 |
| Brevinemataceae | 1.36 ± 1.01 | 2.40 ± 1.57 | 0.636 |
| Mycoplasmataceae | 49.23 ± 10.95 | 29.37 ± 14.71 | 0.173 |
| Aerococcaceae | 0.65 ± 0.58 | 0.97 ± 0.66 | 0.122 |
| Enterococcaceae | 3.16 ± 1.64 | 2.45 ± 0.80 | 0.902 |
| Lactobacillaceae | 4.30 ± 3.01 | 7.78 ± 2.48 | 0.226 |
| Streptococcaceae | 0.54 ± 0.49 | 1.30 ± 0.41 | 0.067 |
| Clostridiaceae | 1.09 ± 0.88 | 2.66 ± 0.68 | 0.083 |
| Erysipelotrichaceae | 1.02 ± 0.70 | 0.14 ± 0.06 | 0.220 |
| Fusobacteriaceae | 1.92 ± 1.35 | 4.74 ± 4.09 | 0.958 |
| Moraxellaceae | 0.05 ± 0.04 | 0.60 ± 0.52 | 0.717 |
| Vibrionaceae | 1.44 ± 0.85 | 0.08 ± 0.05 | 0.215 |
| Carnobacteriaceae | 0.26 ± 0.20 | 1.69 ± 0.95 | |
| Flavobacteriaceae | 1.21 ± 1.01 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | |
| Oxalobacteraceae | 0.81 ± 0.46 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | 0.629 |
| Bacillaceae | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 25.17 ± 7.16 | |
| Paenibacillaceae | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 7.40 ± 2.25 | |
| Genus | |||
| | 8.26 ± 6.57 | 0.61 ± 0.56 | 0.178 |
| | 10.04 ± 6.66 | 0.11 ± 0.07 | |
| | 0.56 ± 0.20 | 0.89 ± 0.35 | 0.439 |
| | 0.55 ± 0.22 | 3.02 ± 1.03 | |
| | 0.02 ± 0.02 | 0.60 ± 0.31 | |
| | 0.60 ± 0.43 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | |
| | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 7.27 ± 2.12 | |
| | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 1.09 ± 0.28 | |
| | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 2.65 ± 0.76 | |
| | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 4.12 ± 4.11 | |
Fig. 4Predicted functional metagenomic pathways of trout gut microbiome, as identified by PICRUSt. The extended error bar graph and statistical analysis were made using STAMP bioinformatics software