| Literature DB >> 34025998 |
Yaqiu Liu1,2, Xinhui Li1,2, Jie Li1,2, Weitao Chen1,2.
Abstract
Black Amur bream (Megalobrama terminalis), a dominant species, resides in the Pearl River basin, known for its high plasticity in digestive ability. During spawning season, M. terminalis individuals with large body size and high fertility undergo a spawn migratory phase, while other smaller individuals prefer to settlement over migration. It is well known that gut microbial community often underpins the metabolic capability and regulates a wide variety of important functions in fish. However, little was known about how the gut microbiomes affect fish breeding migration. To investigate the variations in the gut microbiome of M. terminalis during the migration, we used high-throughput 16S rRNA gene sequencing to reveal the distinct composition and diversity of the whole gut microbiome of migrated and nonmigrated population during period of peak reproduction, respectively. Our results indicated that nonmigrated population in estuary had a higher alpha diversity than that of migrated population in main stem. Additionally, an obvious abundant taxa shift between the gut microbiota community of nonmigrated and migrated M. terminalis was also observed. Change of dominant gut taxa from nonmigrated to migrated population was thought to be closely related to their degradation enzymes. Our results suggested that amino acid metabolism and lipid metabolism in migrated population were higher than that in nonmigrated population, providing a line of evidence for that M. terminalis change from partial herbivorous to partial carnivorous diet during breeding migration. We further concluded that, in order to digest foods of higher nutrition to supply energy to spawning migration, M. terminalis regulate activities of the gut microbiome and degradation enzymes, considered to be a key physiological strategy for reproduction.Entities:
Keywords: Megalobrama terminalis; enzymes; gut microbial community; metabolism; migration
Year: 2021 PMID: 34025998 PMCID: PMC8131771 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.7407
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
FIGURE 1Sampling map showing the locations of Megalobrama terminalis. Black circles were shown as spawning ground of M. terminalis in Pearl River
Basic environmental information, biological information, and alpha diversity results of gut microbial community pertaining for the different group studied of Megalobrama terminalis
| Nonmigration | Migration | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | S2 | S3 | Overall | M1 | M2 | M3 | Overall | ||
| Environmental information | Sample period | July 23–29 | July 17–23 | July 11–16 | July 4–10 | June 27–July 3 | June 20 to 26 | ||
| Temperature (℃) | 28.8 ± 0.2 | 28.1 ± 0.3 | 28.2 ± 0.4 | 28.4 ± 0.3 | 28.7 ± 0.4 | 28.6 ± 0.3 | 28.9 ± 0.3 | 28.7 ± 0.3 | |
| Salinity (‰) | 0.15 ± 0.03b | 0.09 ± 0.02ab | 0.08 ± 0.02ab | 0.11 ± 0.02 | 0.01 ± 0.00a | 0.01 ± 0.00a | 0.01 ± 0.00a | 0.01 ± 0.00 | |
| pH | 8.1 ± 0.1 | 8.1 ± 0.1 | 7.9 ± 0.2 | 8.0 ± 0.1 | 8.2 ± 0.2 | 8.3 ± 0.2 | 7.8 ± 0.2 | 8.1 ± 0.2 | |
| DO (mg/L) | 6.6 ± 0.1a | 6.3 ± 0.2a | 6.8 ± 0.2ab | 6.6 ± 0.2 | 7.1 ± 0.1b | 7.7 ± 0.2b | 6.9 ± 0.2ab | 7.2 ± 0.2 | |
| Biological information | SL ± | 174 ± 22.6a | 186 ± 16.6a | 225 ± 22.3ab | 205 ± 18.4 | 244 ± 28.4b | 265 ± 21.1b | 256 ± 14.4b | 255 ± 21.8 |
| Wt ± | 96.8 ± 21.3a | 120 ± 33.2a | 257 ± 29.1b | 158 ± 27.5 | 359 ± 25.5c | 395 ± 35.1c | 352 ± 26.3c | 369 ± 28.4 | |
| GSI (%) | 0.7 ± 0.1a | 0.9 ± 0.1a | 5.3 ± 1.3b | 3.4 ± 0.5 | 5.9 ± 1.4b | 8.4 ± 2.3b | 5.6 ± 0.9b | 6.6 ± 1.5 | |
| HSI (%) | 1.4 ± 0.12a | 2.2 ± 0.15b | 2.6 ± 0.13c | 2.1 ± 0.14 | 2.1 ± 0.12bc | 1.2 ± 0.11a | 1.0 ± 0.11a | 1.4 ± 0.11 | |
| K | 1.7 ± 0.12a | 2.0 ± 0.16ab | 2.1 ± 0.21ab | 1.9 ± 0.16 | 2.2 ± 0.24b | 2.3 ± 0.23b | 2.2 ± 0.16b | 2.2 ± 0.21 | |
| Sex mature ratio (%) | 0 | 0 | 23.7 | 7.9 | 83.9 | 100 | 100 | 94.6 | |
| Alpha diversity estimates | OTUs | 1,261 ± 348.83b | 1,876 ± 293.36b | 1,305 ± 617.70ab | 1,478 ± 405.61 | 1,226 ± 392.15ab | 802 ± 224.39a | 576 ± 174.29a | 868 ± 232.56 |
| Observed_species | 1,258 ± 156.72a | 1,663 ± 228.77a | 1,304 ± 272.17a | 1,408 ± 232.11 | 1,184 ± 146.49a | 732 ± 112.91ab | 586 ± 74.97b | 834 ± 117.21 | |
| Chao1 | 1,396.89 ± 168.89a | 1,881.23 ± 238.08a | 1,512.20 ± 282.11a | 1,596 ± 230.82 | 1,383.45 ± 146.75ab | 852.21 ± 124.78b | 749.69 ± 117.29b | 995.11 ± 128.97 | |
| Shannon | 7.12 ± 0.58a | 6.77 ± 0.61a | 5.27 ± 0.67ab | 6.39 ± 0.63 | 4.82 ± 0.24b | 4.87 ± 0.37b | 4.38 ± 0.27b | 4.69 ± 0.29 | |
Different superscript letters indicate significant differences in different groups, p < .05.
Abbreviations: DO, dissolved oxygen; GSI, gonadosomatic index; HSI, hepatosomatic index; K, Fatness; SL, standard length; Wt, body weight.
Means significant difference between two populations, p < .05.
FIGURE 2Comparison of the bacterial community in the different group studied of Megalobrama terminalis. (a) Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) of bacterial community compositions the different group studied of M. terminalis based on the unweighted UniFrac distance matrix. The individual samples are color‐coordinated according to the different group. (b) Dominant gut microbiota composition in the different M. terminalis groups at phylum level. Each bar represents average relative abundance of each bacterial taxon within a group at phylum level
PERMANOVA analysis of the unweighted UniFrac for the different group studied of Megalobrama terminalis
| Pair‐wise test |
|
|---|---|
| Nonmigration versus Migration | .001 |
| S1–S2 | .329 |
| S1–S3 | .746 |
| S1‐M1 | .009 |
| S1‐M2 | .007 |
| S1‐M3 | .008 |
| S2–S3 | .289 |
| S2‐M1 | .009 |
| S2‐M2 | .011 |
| S2‐M3 | .012 |
| S3‐M1 | .008 |
| S3‐M2 | .011 |
| S3‐M3 | .008 |
| M1‐M2 | .192 |
| M1‐M3 | .478 |
| M2‐M3 | .295 |
Means significant difference between two populations (p < .05).
Means very significant difference between two populations (p < .01).
FIGURE 3Shared and unique gut microbial populations in the different group studied of Megalobrama terminalis. (a) Venn diagram displays the number of shared and unique OTUs between M. terminalis nonmigration and migration population. (b) Venn diagram displays the number of shared and unique OTUs among six groups distributed in migration channel of M. terminalis. (c) Cladogram indicating LEfSe results presenting the recognized OTUs distributed according to phylogenetic characteristics around the circle. The dots in the center showed the OTUs at phylum level, whereas the outer circle of dots showed the OTUs at species level. The color of the dots and sectors present most abundant OTUs different groups studied of M. terminalis respectively. Yellow color indicates OTUs that showed similar abundance in all compartments. The colored sectors give information on phylum (full name in outermost circle, given only for phylum showing significant difference between groups, class, order, family that were significantly different between groups are showed at the right side of figure)
FIGURE 4MetaStat analysis of the relative abundance of gut microbiota between nonmigrated and migrated Megalobrama terminalis population in genera level. (a) The relative abundance of Massilia between nonmigrated and migrated M. terminalis population. (b) The relative abundance of Fibrobacter between nonmigrated and migrated M. terminalis population. (c) The relative abundance of Glycomyces between nonmigrated and migrated M. terminalis population. (d) The relative abundance of Sphingonmonas between nonmigrated and migrated M. terminalis population. (e) The relative abundance of Kosakonia between nonmigrated and migrated M. terminalis population. (f) The relative abundance of Stenotrophomonas between nonmigrated and migrated M. terminalis population. "*" means significant difference between two populations (p < .05), "**" means very significant difference between two populations (p < .01)
FIGURE 5Comparison of the relative abundance of PICRUSt functional analysis of between nonmigrated and migrated Megalobrama terminalis population. Significant differences between nonmigrated and migrated M. terminalis population in gene categories at level 3 (t test, p < .05)
Gut content enzymes activities for the different group studied of Megalobrama terminalis
| Distribution Zone | Gut content enzymes activities | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trypsin | Amylase | lipase | Cellulase | ||
| Nonmigration | S1 | 10.96 ± 2.27a | 39.50 ± 4.78b | 3.64 ± 1.12a | 28.75 ± 5.04a |
| S2 | 12.54 ± 3.14a | 33.65 ± 3.11b | 2.98 ± 0.97a | 29.11 ± 6.49a | |
| S3 | 22.40 ± 2.32b | 30.28 ± 4.66b | 4.29 ± 0.75ab | 20.12 ± 3.16ab | |
| Overall | 16.43 ± 5.47 | 34.59 ± 6.25 | 3.69 ± 1.09 | 24.15 ± 5.74 | |
| Migration | M1 | 34.50 ± 4.04c | 12.18 ± 1.21a | 5.84 ± 1.87b | 13.54 ± 2.19a |
| M2 | 29.46 ± 3.11c | 12.86 ± 3.06a | 5.54 ± 1.47b | 10.82 ± 1.92a | |
| M3 | 29.43 ± 3.65c | 12.93 ± 3.69a | 5.71 ± 1.49b | 10.45 ± 1.57a | |
| Overall | 31.13 ± 4.16 | 12.66 ± 2.67 | 5.70 ± 1.51 | 11.60 ± 2.27 | |
Different superscript letters indicate significant differences in different groups, p < .05.
Means significant difference between two populations, p < .05.
FIGURE 6Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) showed the correlation between the gut microbial compositions of the different group studied of Megalobrama terminalis and their enzyme activities