Literature DB >> 33499947

An observational field study of the cloacal microbiota in adult laying hens with and without access to an outdoor range.

Janneke Schreuder1, Francisca C Velkers2, Ruth J Bouwstra3, Nancy Beerens4, J Arjan Stegeman2, Willem F de Boer5, P van Hooft5, Armin R W Elbers6, Alex Bossers7, Stephanie D Jurburg7,8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laying hens with access to outdoor ranges are exposed to additional environmental factors and microorganisms, including potential pathogens. Differences in composition of the cloacal microbial community between indoor- and outdoor-housed layers may serve as an indicator for exposure to the outdoor environment, including its pathogens, and may yield insights into factors affecting the chickens' microbiota community dynamics. However, little is known about the influence of outdoor housing on microbiota community composition in commercial layer flocks. We performed a cross-sectional field study to evaluate differences in the cloacal microbiota of indoor- vs outdoor-layers across farms. Eight layer flocks (four indoor, four outdoor) from five commercial poultry farms were sampled. Indoor and outdoor flocks with the same rearing flock of origin, age, and breed were selected. In each flock, cloacal swabs were taken from ten layers, and microbiota were analysed with 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing.
RESULTS: Housing type (indoor vs outdoor), rearing farm, farm and poultry house within the farm all significantly contributed to bacterial community composition. Poultry house explained most of the variation (20.9%), while housing type only explained 0.2% of the variation in community composition. Bacterial diversity was higher in indoor-layers than in outdoor-layers, and indoor-layers also had more variation in their bacterial community composition. No phyla or genera were found to be differentially abundant between indoor and outdoor poultry houses. One amplicon sequence variant was exclusively present in outdoor-layers across all outdoor poultry houses, and was identified as Dietzia maris.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that exposure to an outdoor environment is responsible for a relatively small proportion of the community variation in the microbiota of layers. The poultry house, farm, and rearing flock play a much greater role in determining the cloacal microbiota composition of adult laying hens. Overall, measuring differences in cloacal microbiota of layers as an indicator for the level of exposure to potential pathogens and biosecurity seems of limited practical use. To gain more insight into environmental drivers of the gut microbiota, future research should aim at investigating community composition of commercial layer flocks over time.

Entities:  

Keywords:  16S rRNA; Laying hen; Microbiota; Outdoor range; Poultry

Year:  2020        PMID: 33499947      PMCID: PMC7807755          DOI: 10.1186/s42523-020-00044-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anim Microbiome        ISSN: 2524-4671


  27 in total

1.  Cross-sectional study of the prevalence of feather pecking in laying hens in alternative systems and its associations with management and disease.

Authors:  L E Green; K Lewis; A Kimpton; C J Nicol
Journal:  Vet Rec       Date:  2000-08-26       Impact factor: 2.695

2.  Environmental transmission of low pathogenicity avian influenza viruses and its implications for pathogen invasion.

Authors:  Pejman Rohani; Romulus Breban; David E Stallknecht; John M Drake
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-06-03       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Species-diversity and pattern-diversity in the study of ecological succession.

Authors:  E C Pielou
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  1966-02       Impact factor: 2.691

4.  DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data.

Authors:  Benjamin J Callahan; Paul J McMurdie; Michael J Rosen; Andrew W Han; Amy Jo A Johnson; Susan P Holmes
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 28.547

5.  Comparison of fecal and cecal microbiotas reveals qualitative similarities but quantitative differences.

Authors:  Dragana Stanley; Mark S Geier; Honglei Chen; Robert J Hughes; Robert J Moore
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 3.605

6.  Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2.

Authors:  Michael I Love; Wolfgang Huber; Simon Anders
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 13.583

7.  High-throughput sequencing technology to reveal the composition and function of cecal microbiota in Dagu chicken.

Authors:  Yunhe Xu; Huixin Yang; Lili Zhang; Yuhong Su; Donghui Shi; Haidi Xiao; Yumin Tian
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 3.605

8.  phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data.

Authors:  Paul J McMurdie; Susan Holmes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-22       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Heterogeneity of the gut microbiome in mice: guidelines for optimizing experimental design.

Authors:  Debby Laukens; Brigitta M Brinkman; Jeroen Raes; Martine De Vos; Peter Vandenabeele
Journal:  FEMS Microbiol Rev       Date:  2015-08-30       Impact factor: 16.408

10.  Limited changes in the fecal microbiome composition of laying hens after oral inoculation with wild duck feces.

Authors:  Janneke Schreuder; Francisca C Velkers; Ruth J Bouwstra; Nancy Beerens; J Arjan Stegeman; Willem F de Boer; Armin R W Elbers; Pim van Hooft; Anneke Feberwee; Alex Bossers; Stephanie D Jurburg
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 3.352

View more
  5 in total

1.  Temporal Dynamics of Cloacal Microbiota in Adult Laying Chickens With and Without Access to an Outdoor Range.

Authors:  Janneke Schreuder; Francisca C Velkers; Alex Bossers; Ruth J Bouwstra; Willem F de Boer; Pim van Hooft; J Arjan Stegeman; Stephanie D Jurburg
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 5.640

2.  Cecal Microbiota of Free-Range Hens Varied With Different Rearing Enrichments and Ranging Patterns.

Authors:  Md Saiful Bari; Sarbast K Kheravii; Yadav S Bajagai; Shu-Biao Wu; Chake Keerqin; Dana L M Campbell
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2022-02-11       Impact factor: 5.640

3.  Choice of Commercial DNA Extraction Method Does Not Affect 16S Sequencing Outcomes in Cloacal Swabs.

Authors:  Emily Van Syoc; Natália Carrillo Gaeta; Erika Ganda
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 2.752

4.  Increased Microbial Diversity and Decreased Prevalence of Common Pathogens in the Gut Microbiomes of Wild Turkeys Compared to Domestic Turkeys.

Authors:  Julia Craft; Hyrum Eddington; Nicholas D Christman; Weston Pryor; John M Chaston; David L Erickson; Eric Wilson
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 5.  Considerations and best practices in animal science 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing microbiome studies.

Authors:  Margaret D Weinroth; Aeriel D Belk; Chris Dean; Noelle Noyes; Dana K Dittoe; Michael J Rothrock; Steven C Ricke; Phillip R Myer; Madison T Henniger; Gustavo A Ramírez; Brian B Oakley; Katie Lynn Summers; Asha M Miles; Taylor B Ault-Seay; Zhongtang Yu; Jessica L Metcalf; James E Wells
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 3.159

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.