Kasun H Bodawatta1, Katerina Puzejova2,3, Katerina Sam2,3, Michael Poulsen4, Knud A Jønsson5. 1. Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. bodawatta@snm.ku.dk. 2. Biology Centre of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Entomology, Branisovska 31, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic. 3. Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branisovska 1760, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic. 4. Section for Ecology and Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive studies of wild bird microbiomes are often limited by difficulties of sample acquisition. However, widely used non-invasive cloacal swab methods and under-explored museum specimens preserved in alcohol provide promising avenues to increase our understanding of wild bird microbiomes, provided that they accurately portray natural microbial community compositions. To investigate this assertion, we used 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing of Great tit (Parus major) gut microbiomes to compare 1) microbial communities obtained from dissected digestive tract regions and cloacal swabs, and 2) microbial communities obtained from freshly dissected gut regions and from samples preserved in alcohol for 2 weeks or 2 months, respectively. RESULTS: We found no significant differences in alpha diversities in communities of different gut regions and cloacal swabs (except in OTU richness between the dissected cloacal region and the cloacal swabs), or between fresh and alcohol preserved samples. However, we did find significant differences in beta diversity and community composition of cloacal swab samples compared to different gut regions. Despite these community-level differences, swab samples qualitatively captured the majority of the bacterial diversity throughout the gut better than any single compartment. Bacterial community compositions of alcohol-preserved specimens did not differ significantly from freshly dissected samples, although some low-abundant taxa were lost in the alcohol preserved specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that cloacal swabs, similar to non-invasive fecal sampling, qualitatively depict the gut microbiota composition without having to collect birds to extract the full digestive tract. The satisfactory depiction of gut microbial communities in alcohol preserved samples opens up for the possibility of using an enormous resource readily available through museum collections to characterize bird gut microbiomes. The use of extensive museum specimen collections of birds for microbial gut analyses would allow for investigations of temporal patterns of wild bird gut microbiomes, including the potential effects of climate change and anthropogenic impacts. Overall, the utilization of cloacal swabs and museum alcohol specimens can positively impact bird gut microbiome research to help increase our understanding of the role and evolution of wild bird hosts and gut microbial communities.
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive studies of wild bird microbiomes are often limited by difficulties of sample acquisition. However, widely used non-invasive cloacal swab methods and under-explored museum specimens preserved in alcohol provide promising avenues to increase our understanding of wild bird microbiomes, provided that they accurately portray natural microbial community compositions. To investigate this assertion, we used 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing of Great tit (Parus major) gut microbiomes to compare 1) microbial communities obtained from dissected digestive tract regions and cloacal swabs, and 2) microbial communities obtained from freshly dissected gut regions and from samples preserved in alcohol for 2 weeks or 2 months, respectively. RESULTS: We found no significant differences in alpha diversities in communities of different gut regions and cloacal swabs (except in OTU richness between the dissected cloacal region and the cloacal swabs), or between fresh and alcohol preserved samples. However, we did find significant differences in beta diversity and community composition of cloacal swab samples compared to different gut regions. Despite these community-level differences, swab samples qualitatively captured the majority of the bacterial diversity throughout the gut better than any single compartment. Bacterial community compositions of alcohol-preserved specimens did not differ significantly from freshly dissected samples, although some low-abundant taxa were lost in the alcohol preserved specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that cloacal swabs, similar to non-invasive fecal sampling, qualitatively depict the gut microbiota composition without having to collect birds to extract the full digestive tract. The satisfactory depiction of gut microbial communities in alcohol preserved samples opens up for the possibility of using an enormous resource readily available through museum collections to characterize bird gut microbiomes. The use of extensive museum specimen collections of birds for microbial gut analyses would allow for investigations of temporal patterns of wild bird gut microbiomes, including the potential effects of climate change and anthropogenic impacts. Overall, the utilization of cloacal swabs and museum alcohol specimens can positively impact bird gut microbiome research to help increase our understanding of the role and evolution of wild bird hosts and gut microbial communities.
Authors: M Alexandra García-Amado; Hakdong Shin; Virginia Sanz; Miguel Lentino; L Margarita Martínez; Monica Contreras; Fabian Michelangeli; María Gloria Domínguez-Bello Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christian Quast; Elmar Pruesse; Pelin Yilmaz; Jan Gerken; Timmy Schweer; Pablo Yarza; Jörg Peplies; Frank Oliver Glöckner Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Kasun H Bodawatta; Irena Klečková; Jan Klečka; Kateřina Pužejová; Bonny Koane; Michael Poulsen; Knud A Jønsson; Katerina Sam Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ana Sofia Reboleira; Kasun H Bodawatta; Nynne M R Ravn; Stein-Erik Lauritzen; Rannveig Øvrevik Skoglund; Michael Poulsen; Anders Michelsen; Knud Andreas Jønsson Journal: Environ Microbiome Date: 2022-08-08