| Literature DB >> 33841373 |
Hong Wu1,2, Fang-Ting Wu1, Qi-Hai Zhou2, Da-Peng Zhao1,2.
Abstract
The oriental white stork (Ciconia boyciana) is considered an endangered species based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. This study presents the first evidence on comparative analysis of gut microbial diversity of C. boyciana from various breeding conditions. To determine the species composition and community structure of the gut microbiota, 24 fecal samples from Tianjin Zoo and Tianjin Qilihai Wetland were characterized by sequencing 16S rRNA gene amplicons using the Illumina MiSeq platform. Firmicutes was found to be the predominant phylum. Analysis of community structure revealed significant differences in the species diversity and richness between the populations of the two breeding conditions. The greatest α-diversity was found in wild C. boyciana, while artificial breeding storks from Tianjin Zoo had the least α-diversity. Principal coordinates analysis showed that the microbial communities were different between the two studied groups. In conclusion, this study reveals the species composition and structure of the gut microbiota of oriental white storks under two breeding conditions, and our findings could contribute to the integrative conservation of this endangered bird.Entities:
Keywords: conservation; gut microbiota; high-throughput sequencing; microbial diversity; oriental white storks
Year: 2021 PMID: 33841373 PMCID: PMC8027120 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.649466
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Basic information on experimental samples.
| Sample group | Collection location | Collection time | Sex composition | Age composition |
| Tianjin Zoo | 2019/10/31, 2019/11/20 | 8 males and 4 females | The age ranges from 4 years old to 30 years old, with an average age of 15 years old | |
| Tianjin Qilihai Wetland | 2019/12/3 | unknown | unknown |
DNA yield and DNA purity (absorbance ratios of 260/280 nm) of four different DNA extraction methods.
| CTAB extraction | SDS extraction | GuSCN extraction | TIANamp Stool DNA Kit | |
| DNA yield (ng/μl) | 28.95 ± 2.96 | 16.89 ± 2.35 | 101.02 ± 1.45 | 98.12 ± 2.43 |
| Abs 260 nm/280 nm | 1.32 ± 0.58 | 1.53 ± 0.41 | 1.81 ± 0.35 | 1.79 ± 0.95 |
Estimated OTU richness and diversity indices for each fecal sample of oriental white storks.
| Sample ID | Sobs | ACE | Chao1 | Shannon | Simpson | Coverage (%) |
| Z1 | 582 | 660.8866 | 646.901 | 3.3475 | 0.098 | 0.9983 |
| Z2 | 571 | 710.6577 | 685.8542 | 2.9449 | 0.1824 | 0.9968 |
| Z3 | 245 | 285.3304 | 279.45 | 2.9651 | 0.1116 | 0.999 |
| Z4 | 534 | 644.1314 | 619.6827 | 1.4346 | 0.6281 | 0.9974 |
| Z5 | 279 | 415.1391 | 436.814 | 1.4611 | 0.3824 | 0.9974 |
| Z6 | 208 | 456.6761 | 346 | 1.3184 | 0.3959 | 0.9983 |
| Z7 | 1459 | 1764.5793 | 1744.6276 | 4.621 | 0.046 | 0.991 |
| Z8 | 1284 | 1552.5374 | 1530.0135 | 3.8731 | 0.0896 | 0.9924 |
| Z9 | 1580 | 1886.014 | 1860.5814 | 4.3103 | 0.0946 | 0.9926 |
| Z10 | 1106 | 1180.2196 | 1211.6117 | 5.0927 | 0.0197 | 0.9967 |
| Z11 | 1244 | 1411.9333 | 1384.2027 | 3.321 | 0.2654 | 0.9951 |
| Z12 | 792 | 880.9801 | 888.6757 | 2.956 | 0.1936 | 0.9971 |
| W1 | 2783 | 3584.8701 | 3612.0146 | 6.1687 | 0.0099 | 0.9805 |
| W2 | 2664 | 3493.8137 | 3403.4703 | 5.606 | 0.0212 | 0.9805 |
| W3 | 3000 | 3469.189 | 3424.9702 | 6.1289 | 0.0108 | 0.9877 |
| W4 | 1091 | 2267.6478 | 1819.1977 | 3.6838 | 0.0633 | 0.9905 |
| W5 | 2720 | 3713.3214 | 3695.4599 | 5.4219 | 0.0189 | 0.9848 |
| W6 | 1604 | 2125.7942 | 2123.18 | 4.7485 | 0.0315 | 0.9893 |
| W7 | 664 | 1397.0354 | 1014.0273 | 3.5062 | 0.0916 | 0.9937 |
| W8 | 2406 | 3072.3858 | 3009.0795 | 5.7545 | 0.0114 | 0.9842 |
| W9 | 1968 | 2459.6551 | 2446.1631 | 5.1929 | 0.0249 | 0.9873 |
| W10 | 2958 | 3645.6935 | 3586 | 6.1753 | 0.0128 | 0.983 |
| W11 | 2134 | 2353.736 | 2381.8266 | 5.8923 | 0.0106 | 0.9925 |
| W12 | 2878 | 3662.8558 | 3666.8014 | 6.3666 | 0.0055 | 0.9833 |
FIGURE 1Microbial structure of all fecal samples at phylum and genus levels. (A) Bar-plots showing the abundance and distribution of the 11 most abundant phyla. (B) Bar-plots showing the abundance and distribution of the 11 most abundant genera.
Mean relative abundance of the 10 most abundant genera for each sample group.
| Sample group | Genus (%) |
| Z group | |
| W group | |
FIGURE 2Community heatmap analysis at genus level and α-diversities of gut microbiota among the two populations. (A) Community heatmap analysis on genus level. (B) Bacterial community richness (measured by Sobs index) in the Z and W groups. (C) Bacterial community diversity (measured by Shannon index) in the Z and W groups. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. ***P ≤ 0.001.
FIGURE 3Clustering analysis of the gut microbiotas and PCoA plots analysis. (A) Clustering analysis of the evolution of gut microbiotas in the Z and W groups. Gut microbiota trees were generated based on the Bray–Curtis distances generated by mothur. (B) PCoA plots based on weighted UniFrac distances of gut microbiome of oriental white storks. (C) PCoA plots based on unweighted UniFrac distances of gut microbiome of oriental white storks.
FIGURE 4LEfSe analysis of gut microbiota and comparison of core gut microbiotas. (A) LEfSe analysis based on characterizing discriminative features of OTUs. (B) Top five abundant core phyla in two groups of oriental white storks. (C) Top five abundant core genera in two groups of oriental white storks.
FIGURE 5Heatmap of predictive KEGG functions in each sample.