Strategies to combat microbiota-associated health problems are of high interest in pig production. Successful intervention strategies with beneficial long-term effects are still missing. Most studies on pig microbiota have been conducted under standardized experimental conditions, but the situation in commercial farms differs dramatically. This study describes the fecal microbiota in German commercial pig farms under practical conditions. The study is part of the larger project "Optibiom" that aims to use bacterial composition and farm metadata to formulate tailor-made solutions for farm-specific health maintenance strategies. Special consideration is given to the sow-piglet relationship. Fecal samples from sows and their piglets were collected at two time points each in 20 different farms (sows ante- and postpartum and piglets before and after weaning). The extracted DNA was sequenced with Illumina 16S rDNA sequencing. For data analysis and visualization, differential abundance analyses, as well as hierarchical clustering and nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) were performed. A new "family unit" was implemented to compare farms based on the association between the microbiota in sows and their offspring. There are distinct changes in the microbial communities in sows before and after birth as well as in suckling and post-weaning piglets. The suckling pig microbiota is particularly different from all other groups and shows a lower bacterial diversity. While dominant genera in antepartum sows further displace the abundance of non-dominant genera postpartum, the opposite was true for piglets, where non-dominant bacteria in the suckling phase became dominant after weaning. The family unit for sows and their piglets led to separate cluster formation for some farms. The results indicate that the sow-piglet relationship is one driving force for the observed differences of the pig farms. The next step in the analysis will be the combination of metadata (feeding, housing and management practices) to find farm-specific differences that can be exploited to formulate a farm-specific health maintenance strategy.
Strategies to combat microbiota-associated health problems are of high interest in pig production. Successful intervention strategies with beneficial long-term effects are still missing. Most studies on pig microbiota have been conducted under standardized experimental conditions, but the situation in commercial farms differs dramatically. This study describes the fecal microbiota in German commercial pig farms under practical conditions. The study is part of the larger project "Optibiom" that aims to use bacterial composition and farm metadata to formulate tailor-made solutions for farm-specific health maintenance strategies. Special consideration is given to the sow-piglet relationship. Fecal samples from sows and their piglets were collected at two time points each in 20 different farms (sows ante- and postpartum and piglets before and after weaning). The extracted DNA was sequenced with Illumina 16S rDNA sequencing. For data analysis and visualization, differential abundance analyses, as well as hierarchical clustering and nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) were performed. A new "family unit" was implemented to compare farms based on the association between the microbiota in sows and their offspring. There are distinct changes in the microbial communities in sows before and after birth as well as in suckling and post-weaning piglets. The suckling pig microbiota is particularly different from all other groups and shows a lower bacterial diversity. While dominant genera in antepartum sows further displace the abundance of non-dominant genera postpartum, the opposite was true for piglets, where non-dominant bacteria in the suckling phase became dominant after weaning. The family unit for sows and their piglets led to separate cluster formation for some farms. The results indicate that the sow-piglet relationship is one driving force for the observed differences of the pig farms. The next step in the analysis will be the combination of metadata (feeding, housing and management practices) to find farm-specific differences that can be exploited to formulate a farm-specific health maintenance strategy.
Research into the intestinal microbiota of sows and their offspring has intensified
during the last years, as a link between animal health and their microbiota has been
established [1]. No strategy
has yet been identified to successfully use microbiota modifications to guard pigs
against typical problems in commercial pig production, such as high mortality of
suckling piglets or post-weaning diarrhea. A new health strategy would not be
limited to disease prevention, but also involve economic limits of farms,
environmental concerns, and animal welfare. The first step to formulate such a
strategy for future pig farming is obviously the description of the microbiota under
practical farm conditions.In recent years, microbial transmission between sow and offspring has been recognized
as an important factor in the development of the microbiota in piglets [2]. One of the primary factors
that govern this unique mother-child ecosystem in pigs is the close contact of the
piglet with maternal microbiota during birth, and the suckling phase [3].In piglets, the most critical phases for disease susceptibility are the suckling
period and the weaning period. Already shortly after birth, neonatal diarrhea can
occur, whereby the intestinal microbiota seems to play a key role [4, 5]. In the suckling period, a dysbiosis and
overgrowth of bacteria like pathogenic Escherichia coli and
Clostridium difficile are a major cause of severe diarrhea and
piglet losses [6, 7]. Weaning stress, the
introduction of solid feed and new husbandry conditions are accompanied by a shift
in the intestinal microbiota composition. This can lead to strong post-weaning
diarrhea [8, 9], which is most probably due
to microbiota-induced susceptibilities [10]. Since early microbial colonization
influences later health and performance [11], the link between sow and piglet microbiota
is not to be disregarded. In this study, we, therefore, introduce a novel
computational analysis of “family unit” that defines the mother-child relationship
based on their fecal microbiome. To describe the fecal microbiota in sows and their
offspring, 16S rDNA sequencing was performed with the intent to learn more about the
mother-child relationship. Due to its comparably low costs, 16S rDNA sequencing
today can be considered as a practical application for future routine diagnostics of
commercial pig farms. Although a more in-depth analysis of the fecal microbiota
would have been advantageous, the high sample number in this study prohibited a true
metagenomic approach. Combined with a bioinformatic analysis via amplicon sequence
variants (ASV) [12] and
correlation to available metadata from individual farms (feeding, housing,
environment, genetics), 16S rDNA sequencing may become a central parameter to
describe and potentially resolve health problems in commercial pig farms. Challenges
to this concept are not only the multiple factors affecting the microbiota but also
the interpretation of the large amount of data. Explorative data analysis is a first
step to discover possible similarities within the investigated parameters. In this
regard, nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) has proven to be a more robust
ordination method for microbiome data compared to other popular ordination
techniques such as principal component analysis and principal coordinate analysis
[13]. The standard for
detection of taxonomic shifts across different samples is still the comparison of
relative abundance data. However, there are high false discovery rates that lead to
unreliable estimation of the real ecosystem composition [14, 15], because an increase/ decrease of the
relative abundance of a given bacterial genus is, not quantitative and noise
impaired. The recently presented method of differential abundance analysis
circumvents associated problems of simple before/after comparison of relative
abundance by introducing a reference frame that is used to express quantitative fold
changes in microbiota composition [16]. Therefore, the differential abundance analysis is better suited to
identify true changes in microbiota composition.Besides difficult interpretation of sequencing results, studies of microbial shifts
in sows [17, 18] and piglets [19, 20] are mostly done under standardized
experimental conditions, which do not fully reflect conditions under commercial
practice and their outcome on the pig microbiota [21]. As there is a lack of studies
investigating the microbiome of different pig farms, effects of interventions on the
microbiota cannot be determined. Therefore, in an effort to formulate tailor-made
health maintenance strategies, the project “Optibiom” aims to combine farm metadata
and microbial composition to elucidate possible interventions to increase health in
specific farms. Within that project, the present study aimed to describe the
existing situation in pig farms in Germany as a necessary first step. Data of this
study will provide a basis for further investigations regarding the impact of
individual farm practices.
Methods
Ethics statement
The present study is not an animal experiment as defined by the German Animal
Welfare Act (TierSchG 2006). Fecal samples were collected non-invasively.
Farm selection
This study was performed by selecting 20 pig farms in Germany that volunteered to
cooperate in the project Optibiom for a longer sampling period and that had a
steady farm structure (either a closed system or fixed supplier relationships).
Furthermore, enough sows had to be available for the production cycle to
guarantee a sufficient number of samples for different phases of animal
production. Different situations of general intestinal health of the animals as
well as performance evaluation were considered to approximate a typical field
situation in Germany. The management or husbandry conditions of the farms were
not changed or adapted because of the study.
Study design and sampling
The study design was based on sampling the same sows and their offspring over a
period of seven weeks during the production cycle (sows 15 ± 3d antepartum and
11 ± 3 d postpartum, piglets at the age of 11±3 d and 34±3 d). A total of 802
fresh fecal samples were acquired from 10 ± 1 sows and 10 ± 1 piglets from 20
different piglet production and rearing farms. The selection of one piglet per
sow took place immediately after birth of the whole litter. The person in charge
of the sows was instructed to select the strongest piglet (body condition and
group rank for teats) for the study. This was to avoid a possible loss or
necessary supplementary feeding due to weakness in the further course of the
study. The sex was not considered for selection.Fresh fecal samples were taken at spontaneous defecation, shock frozen in liquid
nitrogen, and stored at -20°C until further processing. Due to biosecurity
considerations (time interval between appointments in different farms) and
matching of sampling appointments to the production rhythms of the different
farms, the entire sampling period lasted nine months.
DNA extraction and 16S rDNA sequencing
Total DNA was extracted from 0.25 g feces with a commercial extraction kit
(QIAamp PowerFecal Pro DNA Kit, Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions with an additional lysis step at 65°C. Furthermore,
due to the high fat content in feces of suckling piglets, the amount of the
lysis buffer was increased by 200 μl in the first step. For the homogenization
step the FastPrep-24TM 5G (M.P. Biomedicals LLC, Santa Ana,
California, USA) was used at speed of 6 m/s for 10 min (4 times 5 x 30 s and 15
s pause time). DNA content was determined via fluorometry and extracts were
stored at –30°C until further analysis. DNA extracts were subjected to amplicon
sequencing using an Illumina NextSeq500 sequencer (LGC, Berlin, Germany) with
150 bp-paired reads using 16S rDNA primers 341f and 785r. Demultiplexing was
achieved with Illumina bcl2fastq (v. 2.17.1.14); combination of paired reads was
done with BBMerge (v. 34.48).
Bioinformatic analysis
The resulting 16S-rDNA sequences were analyzed using the QIIME2 pipeline [22] and the SILVA SSU
database [23]. Quality
control and determination of sequence counts were performed using the DADA2
[24]. Further details
were previously described [25]. The bacterial diversity measures Richness, Shannon index, and
Evenness were calculated from ASV level data.
Relative abundance analyses
Results for relative abundance are comprehensively presented as means and
standard deviations in S1–S6 Tables. Due to the non-normal distribution
of the data, the Mann–Whitney test was chosen to compare the relative abundances
for sow and piglet data. Statistical procedures were performed using the IBM
SPSS Statistics software Version 25 (IBM, Chicago, USA). A level of 95%
confidence was deemed as significantly different.The shared number of genera between the four examined animal groups were
calculated using the Software Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corporation, Santa
Rosa, California, USA) and Fig
1 was drawn up with the online software Lucidchart (Lucid Software
Inc. 2020, Utah, USA,).
Fig 1
Venn diagram of genus distribution between different groups of
animals.
AP = Sows antepartum, PP = sows postpartum, SP = suckling piglets, PW =
post-weaning piglets, *Total number of genera; **Number of unshared
genera.
Venn diagram of genus distribution between different groups of
animals.
AP = Sows antepartum, PP = sows postpartum, SP = suckling piglets, PW =
post-weaning piglets, *Total number of genera; **Number of unshared
genera.
Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) and hierarchical clustering
Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) was opted as an ordination method to
visualize genus level data using the R package “Vegan”. Counts were normalized
using Trimmed Mean of M-values method (TMM) [26], implemented in R package “EdgeR” with
a trimming threshold of 30% [26]. The matrix of pairwise dissimilarities between samples was
calculated based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity measure [27]. Hierarchical clustering was applied to
detect clusters among observations. Agglomeration on each step was performed
with Ward linkage method [28]. Optimal number of clusters was chosen based on Silhouette
coefficient [29].To account for information about the close relationship between mother and its
offspring, a new “family unit” was generated. Since the link between sampled
sows and piglets was followed, this was exploited, and the sow-piglet ’family’
was introduced as a new unit of analysis. To obtain each family unit, three
vectors of microbiome samples were pooled together: a vector of microbiome
counts from a sow postpartum (PP), a vector of microbiome counts from the
suckling piglet (SP) born from that sow, and a vector of microbiome counts from
the same piglet post-weaning (PW). Before stacking together, each microbiome
sample was normalized with TMM procedure as described above. Thus, a long vector
was obtained containing the information about the microbiome composition of a
sow sampled after birth and its piglet sampled after birth and after weaning.
This long vector is referred to as a family unit. The aim of this approach is to
neglect the differences between samples explained by individual animal
characteristics and to capture the part of the variation in microbiota that can
be explained by some metafactors such as farm affiliation.A more detailed statistical protocol on NMDS and hierarchical clustering methods
is described in the supporting information (S1
Protocol).Family relations of sows and piglets, vectors containing information about genera
counts of animals related to one family were stacked together. Thus, the
resulting vector associated with each family unit contains information about the
microbiome composition of a sow sampled before farrowing and its piglet sampled
after birth and after weaning.
Differential abundance analysis
Differential abundance analysis was performed with “DESeq2”
package [30] on the genus
level separately for sows and piglets to detect differences in microbiome
composition in animals sampled at two production stages. Significance of
log-fold changes was tested with Wald test and the correction for multiple
testing was performed with the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure [31]. For sows, the
antepartum group and for piglets the suckling piglet group was set as reference,
which shows changes in the microbial community after birth and weaning. For both
tested groups, the significance threshold was chosen to be 0.01 after
Benjamini-Hochberg correction. A more detailed protocol of differential
abundance analysis is described in the supporting information (S2
Protocol).
Results
Quantitative analysis of the fecal microbiota of sows and piglets
Comparative analysis
For the quantitative analysis of the bacterial composition of the feces
samples, a total of 1.7 x 107 quality combined sequence reads
(19,405 ± 5635/ sample) of 802 samples with a mean read length of 284
nucleotides were used. The taxonomic assignment of all sequences revealed a
total of 20 phyla, 53 orders, and 416 genera. A comprehensive overview of
the relative abundance data is given in the supporting information (S1–S6 Tables). At the genus level, only
dominant genera (>1%) and those detected in at least 5% of the examined
samples are listed.
Phylum level
At the phylum level, Firmicutes (86%) followed by Bacteroidetes (11%) and
Actinobacteria (1%) heavily dominated the sow feces samples before and after
birth. A significant reduction of relative abundance from before to after
birth was observed for 5 out of 19 phyla. Bacteroidetes and Actinobacteria
showed the highest significant decrease in abundance, while Firmicutes and
Proteobacteria increased significantly after birth. Furthermore, a trend for
increased relative abundance of Fusobacteria, and Tenericutes was seen in
sows after birth. In piglet samples, Firmicutes had a significantly lower
and Actinobacteria a significantly higher relative abundance compared to
sows. Nevertheless, together with Bacteriodetes these three phyla also
dominated in piglet samples. Additionally, the phyla Proteobacteria,
Fusobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, Spirochaetes, and Tenericutes were dominating
in piglet samples with mean relative abundances >1%. Firmicutes
significantly increased their abundance after weaning, while Actinobacteria
and Proteobacteria displayed a significant decrease in abundance.
Tenericutes and Fusobacteria showed a trend for decreased relative abundance
after weaning. The phylum Chlamydiae was detected in piglets, but not in
sows.
Order level
Clostridiales followed by Lactobacillales
and Bacteroidales dominated in all samples, but
Clostridiales showed a lower relative abundance in
piglet samples compared to sow samples. In sow samples, relative abundance
of Clostridiales, Betaproteobacteriales,
Coriobacteriales and
Erysiperlotrichales increased significantly after
birth. Overall, ten different orders significantly decreased their abundance
after birth in sow samples. Most notably, a significant decrease was
observed for the dominating Bacteroidales,
Lactobacillales as well as for
Selenomonadales. The order
Micromonosporales, Pasteurellales,
and Streptomycetales were only detected in sow samples
after birth.In piglet samples, Clostridiales,
Erysipelotrichales, Selenomonadales,
and Bradymonadales significantly increased their abundance
after weaning. The highest decrease was seen for
Lactobacillales and Enterobacteriales.
A total of ten orders were only detected in post-weaning piglets. Generally,
only dominant orders showed significant changes between before and after
weaning. Furthermore, the number of significantly changed orders was less
pronounced in piglets than in sows.
Genus level
In sow samples, genera of the Clostridiales order
(Clostridium sensu stricto 1,
Terrisporobacter spp., Romboutsia
spp.), the Bacteroidales (unknown
Bacteroidales BS11 gut group) and the
Lactobacilliales (Lactobacillus spp.,
Streptococcus spp.) were highly dominant before and
after birth (>4% abundance). Significant increases in abundance were
observed for Christensenellaceae R-7 group,
Clostridium sensu stricto 1, Terrisporobacter
spp., and Turicibacter spp., while
significantly lower abundances after birth were noted for ten other genera,
most notably for the dominant Lactobacillus spp.,
Blautia spp., Intestinibacter spp. as
well as for some ASV belonging to the Lachnospiraceae. Some
genera were only detected before (Alloprevotella spp. and
Holdemanella spp.) or after birth
(Lachnospiraceae ND3007 group).Piglet samples were heavily dominated by Lactobacillus spp.
followed by Bacteroides spp.,
Bifidobacterium spp. and Clostridium sensu
stricto 1. After weaning Blautia spp.,
Christensenellaceae R-7 group, Clostridium
sensu stricto 1 and an unknown Lachnospiraceae
significantly increased their relative abundance. The most drastic decrease
in abundance after weaning was noted for Bacteroides spp.
and Lactobacillus spp.. In total, nine dominant genera
showed significantly reduced abundances after weaning. Ten genera were only
detected as dominant in post-weaning piglets, while one genus
(Clostridium sensu stricto 2) was only detected in
samples from suckling piglets.
Differential abundance analysis of the fecal microbiota of ante- and
postpartum sows as well as suckling and post-weaning piglets
The most pronounced quantitative changes for sows and piglets were calculated
with the differential abundance analysis. The top 10 log2 fold-changes for
increased as well as decreased abundances are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Log2 fold-change of bacterial genera in ante- and postpartum sows
as well as suckling and post-weaning piglets.
Sow
Mean relative abundance
antepartum*
Mean relative abundance
postpartum
Log2 fold- change
unknown
Christensenellaceae
0.165
0.797
2.87
Clostridiales vadin BB60
group
0.115
0.093
2.25
Clostridium sensu stricto
13
0.114
0.102
2.14
unknown Bacteroidales
F082
0.217
0.629
1.79
unknown Clostridiales
0.128
0.217
1.48
Turicibacter spp.
2.379
7.172
1.32
Romboutsia spp.
4.039
8.771
0.80
Terrisporobacter spp.
8.585
12.512
0.12
Enterorhabdus spp.
0.116
0.039
-4.27
Lachnospiraceae
UCG-006
0.092
0.018
-4.30
Fusicatenibacter spp.
0.186
0.089
-4.51
Faecalibacterium spp.
1.057
0.219
-4.61
Dialister spp.
0.692
0.114
-4.77
Tyzzerella 3
0.220
n.d.
-4.81
Subdoligranulum spp.
1.719
0.268
-4.86
Lachnospira spp.
0.313
0.093
-4.91
Coprococcus 2
0.297
0.108
-5.83
Streptococcus spp.
5.416
0.712
-9.29
Piglet
Mean relative abundance suckling
phase*
Mean relative abundance
post-weaning
Log2 fold-change
Prevotella 9
0.250
3.681
7.94
Agathobacter spp.
0.076
2.962
7.79
Faecalibacterium spp.
0.187
1.530
6.39
Lachnospiraceae NK4A136
group
0.536
1.773
6.37
Ruminococcaceae
UCG-008
0.096
1.074
6.10
Catenibacterium spp.
0.154
1.682
6.04
Lachnospiraceae ND3007
group
n.d.
1.309
5.95
Lachnospiraceae XPB1014
group
0.035
0.869
5.79
Ruminococcus 1
0.168
0.982
5.74
Fusicatenibacter spp.
0.106
1.002
5.62
Peptostreptococcus
spp.
0.859
3.910
-4.28
Tyzzerella 4
0.534
n.d.
-4.29
Butyricimonas spp.
0.607
0.120
-4.31
Streptococcus spp.
3.203
0.607
-4.41
Bacteroides spp.
10.052
1.000
-4.59
Enterococcus spp.
2.468
0.910
-5.09
Fusobacterium spp.
3.101
2.942
-5.51
Bifidobacterium spp.
3.094
1.687
-5.53
Clostridium sensu stricto
2
2.206
0.509
-7.08
Actinomyces spp.
2.668
0.304
-7.09
1 = not detected
*reference group.
1 = not detected*reference group.The most striking changes in abundance in sows after birth occurred for
previously low abundant genera (unknown
Christensenellaceae, unknown Clostridiales
vadin BB60 group and Clostridium sensu stricto
13). However, some genera that were already dominant before birth further
increased their abundance after birth (Terrisporobacter
spp., Romboutsia spp. Turicibacter spp.).
Regarding previously more dominant genera, only
Streptococcus spp., Subdoligranulum
spp., and Faecalibacterium spp. showed a drastic decrease
in abundance. Interestingly, the most significant reductions in abundance
occurred to already subdominant genera.In piglets, similar changes before and after weaning occurred for genera that
increased their abundance. Thus, mostly non-dominant genera like
Agathobacter spp., Prevotella 9 and
Faecalibacterium spp. considerably increased their
abundance to become dominant genera. In contrast to sows, a decline in
abundance was observed for genera that were dominant before weaning
(Bacteroides spp., Streptococcus spp.
and Fusobacterium spp., Enterococcus spp.,
Bifidobacterium spp., Actinomyces
spp., and Clostridium sensu stricto 2).
Qualitative analysis of the fecal microbiota of sows and piglets
Genus distribution between different groups of animals
A total of 416 genera were detected in this study. Fig 1 shows a Venn diagram of the number
of shared genera between four groups: sows antepartum (AP), sows postpartum
(PP), suckling piglets (SP), and piglets post-weaning (PW). A core
microbiota of 171 or 41% of all genera was found in all samples.
Post-weaning piglets showed the highest number of genera (315), while the
lowest number of genera was determined in sows postpartum (270). Differences
between sows before (285 different genera) and after birth as well as
between pre- (270 different genera) and post-weaning piglets (315 different
genera) were only marginal. Pre- and post-weaning piglets showed the highest
number of shared genera (241). Interestingly, sows and post-weaning piglets
(215 different genera) share nearly 10% more genera than sows with suckling
piglets (180 different genera). The number of shared genera between all
piglets and sows antepartum (189) is nearly the same as the number shared
between all piglets and sows postpartum (187). The most unshared genera were
observed in suckling piglets and the lowest number in postpartum sows.
Microbiota diversity
Table 2 shows diversity
indices on the ASV level of the different animal and age groups. While sows
displayed a significant reduction in diversity after birth, a different
outcome was visible for piglets, as number of dominant genera, as well as
diversity, drastically increased after weaning. The changes in Evenness and
Shannon index were similar in all groups.
Table 2
Diversity indices of the microbiota in sows and piglets at
different time points.
Animal
Richness
Shannon
Evenness
Sow
Antepartum
156 ± 58 b
3.61 ± 0.57 b
0.724 ± 0.083b
Postpartum
132 ± 45 a
3.19 ± 0.42 a
0.661 ± 0.065 a
Piglet
Suckling piglets
99 ± 26a
3.39 ± 0.38 a
0.743 ± 0.065 a
Post-weaning
159 ± 60 b
3.91 ± 0.62 b
0.783 ± 0.08 b
a,b denotes significant difference for animal type
(p≤0.05), Mann-Whitney Test.
a,b denotes significant difference for animal type
(p≤0.05), Mann-Whitney Test.
NMDS and hierarchical clustering
The NMDS analysis of different animal groups showed a distinct formation of
clusters (Fig 2).
Differences between ante- and postpartum sows were less evident than for
piglet data, which formed very different pre- and post-weaning clusters.
Visually, there is a clear distinction between antepartum sows and post-
weaning piglets. Both groups have a broadly distributed formation. The
postpartum sows are located within the antepartum sows but are less broad
distributed.
Fig 2
NMDS and hierarchical clustering of different animal
groups.
AP = sows antepartum, PP = sows postpartum, SP = suckling piglets, PW
= post-weaning piglets. Filled circles and filled triangles
visualize different cluster formation according to the optimal
cluster formation method (S1 Fig).
NMDS and hierarchical clustering of different animal
groups.
AP = sows antepartum, PP = sows postpartum, SP = suckling piglets, PW
= post-weaning piglets. Filled circles and filled triangles
visualize different cluster formation according to the optimal
cluster formation method (S1 Fig).
NMDS and hierarchical clustering on “family units” at genus level
To describe the mother-child relationship in individual farms, a new unit of
observation was included in the analysis, which describes the relation of
one sow with one of its piglets. Thus, 10 (9 for farm A, H, and Q,
respectively) family units were calculated per farm. The NMDS analysis of
this dataset shows some differentiation for individual farms (Fig 3). Most notably,
family units of farm P and Q formed a separate cluster. In comparison, NMDS
analysis of sampling time points for sows and piglets separately did not
show the clear clustering that was observed for family units (S4–S6 Figs). Overall, visual inspection
shows that most family units from each farm clustered more closely together,
but some individual outlier existed for many farms.
Fig 3
NMDS and hierarchical clustering on family units.
Each data point visualizes connected data of the sampling time points
PP, SP and PW for each sow and its piglet in each farm. A–T =
Individual farms. Different colors visualize cluster formation
according to the optimal cluster formation method (S2
Fig).
NMDS and hierarchical clustering on family units.
Each data point visualizes connected data of the sampling time points
PP, SP and PW for each sow and its piglet in each farm. A–T =
Individual farms. Different colors visualize cluster formation
according to the optimal cluster formation method (S2
Fig).
Discussion
This study is part of the larger project Optibiom that aims to combine farm metadata
and microbial composition to elucidate possible interventions to increase health in
specific farms. Thus, we compared the fecal microbial composition in sows and their
piglets in 20 commercial piglet production and rearing farms in Germany. The aim was
to create bacterial fingerprints for different stages of production as a first step
that may help to develop health strategies when combined with farm-specific metadata
like feeding, husbandry, antibiotic use, and other relevant metadata.One limit of such a large study (over 800 samples) is the sampling scheme. As farms
could not be asked to change production cycles for this study, time gaps between
farrowing dates and birth dates of the piglets were inevitable. Therefore, a rather
long sampling period of nine months was necessary to collect a sufficient number of
samples.Overall, differences between the sow fecal microbiota before and after birth in all
20 farms showed rather drastic changes in the bacterial composition based on
quantitative comparison as well as NMDS cluster formation. It is known that the
microbiota of pregnant sows shifts over time [18] and that birth itself imposes stress on the
animal and can lead to a modified microbiota [17]. In this study, significant changes at the
genus level occurred mainly for non-dominant genera (<1% of sequences) that
either increased or decreased their relative abundance. Notable exceptions were
observed for the Firmicutes genera Clostridium sensu stricto 1,
Romboutsia spp., Turicibacter spp., and
Terrisporobacter spp. Together, these genera combined for over
60% of all sequences in postpartum sow samples. This explains the significant
increase in the phylum Firmicutes after birth. Except for
Terrisporobacter spp., these genera are known for their
excellent capacity to break down carbohydrates [32-34]. Diets for lactating sows contain a high
concentration of highly digestible carbohydrates and protein, most often in the form
of soybean or corn meal. Undigested carbohydrates from these feed components will be
fermented in the hindgut and thus one can speculate that the above-mentioned
carbohydrate fermenting bacteria gained an additional advantage, as they were
already dominant before birth. Their position within the microbiota will therefore
further increase, possibly at the expense of Bacteroidetes
bacteria. A similar effect on the reduction of Bacteroidetes has
been shown in a study comparing the effect of wheat bran, a highly fermentable
carbohydrate, in pregnant sows [35].Contrary to the increase of a few members of the Firmicutes, the significant decrease
of the Bacteroidetes after birth extended to genera that were not recognized as
dominant before birth, except for Alloprevotella spp. and ASV
belonging to the Prevotellaceae. Thus, the response of the
otherwise dominating Bacteroidetes was much more diverse. The increased dominance of
the few major Firmicutes genera consequently led to an overall lower bacterial
diversity in postpartum sow samples.A different trend was observed for the comparison of the microbiota development in
suckling and post-weaning piglets. Here, suckling piglets displayed a much lower
bacterial diversity than post-weaning piglets. This effect is part of the natural
development of the microbiota in pigs [36-38] and other animal species that always show a
long-term increase in diversity. Consequently, non-dominant bacteria that were
probably present as contaminants from the maternal microbiota enhanced their
relative abundance, while some previously dominant bacteria experienced a sharp drop
in abundance. Interestingly, although the abundance of the genus
Bacteroides spp. drastically decreased after weaning, no
significant differences were observed for the Bacteroidales or the
Bacteroidetes. As no other dominant
Bacteroidetes genera were present in suckling piglets, the
increase of non-dominant Bacteroidetes may reflect the increased diversity that was
also observed for the increase in diversity indices.The significant decrease in abundance of the lactic acid bacteria
(Lactobacilli, Streptococci,
Enterococci, Bifidobacteria) is a direct
response to the change in diet. Lactic acid bacteria quickly become dominant
especially in the small intestine of suckling piglets [36], as nutrient-rich components in milk,
especially lactose, are readily available for fermentation. In contrast,
post-weaning piglets consume solid feed with high amounts of
non-starch-polysaccharides (NSP) that are not easily fermented. Consequently, NSP
fermenting bacteria increase after weaning.A core microbiota of 171 genera was observed in all animal groups; this represents
41% of all genera found. This is a lower proportion than that determined in previous
studies [20, 38]. The study by Kim et al.
[38] detected more
commonalities between sows and post-weaning piglets than between sows and suckling
piglets based on OTU analyses. This was also found in the present study based on
genus level analysis. In addition, the number of unshared genera was found to be the
highest in suckling piglets. This seems to be a temporary condition as the
microbiota is still in development and the diet is milk-based, consistent with the
lower richness of ASV. After a certain stabilization, weaned piglets and sows harbor
a higher number of shared genera. This transient position of suckling piglets is
also reflected in the NMDS analysis, where samples of suckling piglets are clearly
contained in a separate cluster (Fig
2).In conclusion, the shift in microbiota composition observed in sows and piglets
followed a general trend that has been observed in other microbiota studies on this
topic [17–20, 39], but there are a few distinguishing aspects
of the present study. The animal microbiota of the different farms shows some degree
of variability, which is expected, as practical conditions such as environment,
antibiotic use, feeding, and management have an impact on the microbiota [21, 36, 40]. However, the differences with other
studies may be due to the different methods used alone, as the comparability of
microbiome studies is known to be very low [41].Overall, the numerical trends in relative abundance are mostly consistent with the
log2 fold-change trends. Not all top10 log2 fold-changes are also classified as
significant changes by the Mann-Whitney test. For instance,
Fusicatenibacter spp., ASV of Lachnospiraceae
NK4A136 group in piglets, and ASV of Lachnospiraceae UCG-006 in sows show
significant changes between the different time points according to the differential
abundance analysis of log2 fold-change, but all are considered non-significant by
the Mann-Whitney test. The differences in ASV of the Clostridiales
vadin BB60 group and the genus Clostridium sensu stricto 13 in sows
are even more apparent. Both show numerically lower abundance after birth, but
according to their log2 fold-change, they have increased significantly. In piglets,
the situation is similar for Peptostreptococcus spp. It increased
numerically after weaning compared to the suckling period but decreased
significantly according to log2 fold-change. Such biases have been described before
for compositional data [15].
Thus, the differential abundance method seems to be the more accurate one also based
on our data. Finally, the log2 fold-changes for sows and piglets did not follow the
same trend. This points to the different microbiota composition between sow and
piglet. While the sow contains a more stable microbiota, which is perturbed by the
birth experience, the developing microbiota in piglets encounters a drastic impact
due to weaning.Despite the differences, there seem to be some consistent patterns in microbiota
changes in sows before and after birth as well as in suckling and post-weaning
piglets, respectively. However, these overall changes may mask individual,
farm-specific differences. The first premise of the study was that the microbiota in
sows and piglets hold farm-specific differences, which will be important to define
future tailored strategies for individual farms. This premise is closely tied to our
second premise that acknowledges the intimate association between sow and their
offspring regarding microbiota development in the piglets. This hypothesis has been
shown to be valid in other studies [20, 42] and also
in human studies [43, 44], although there are
contradictory findings in the literature for pigs [45, 46] as well. Due to the close contact of the
mother with their suckling piglets and given sanitary conditions, feces represent an
important vector for the transfer of the maternal microbiota [2, 3]. In fact, the introduction of the novel
“family unit” to describe the mother-child ecosystem showed, although not deduced by
mathematical analysis, that some farms formed a separate cluster that did not
converge with the majority of farms examined. This implies that there are
farm-specific differences in microbiota composition that defy the idea of an
applicable generalized health concept, which may indicate that the mother-child
relation is also dependent on individual conditions on each farm.
Conclusions
The intestinal microbiota changes significantly during the production period in sows
and piglets. Cluster-specific or, in some cases, even farm-specific microbiomes of
sows and piglets indicate that the relationship between sows and piglets can also be
specific at the microbiota level and within a farm. This leads to the assumption
that generalized health maintenance strategies influencing the microbiota will have
limited success under these conditions. For a deeper interpretation of these
differences between farms, animals, and production times, a comprehensive analysis
of the feeding, housing, and management measures of the different farms will be
investigated in further studies.
Additional statistical information on NMDS and hierarchical clustering
methods.
(PDF)Click here for additional data file.
Additional information on differential abundance analysis.
(PDF)Click here for additional data file.
Mean relative abundance at phylum level in sows at different time
points.
(PDF)Click here for additional data file.
Mean relative abundance at phylum level in piglets at different time
points.
(PDF)Click here for additional data file.
Mean relative abundance at order level in sows at different time
points.
(PDF)Click here for additional data file.
Mean relative abundance at order level in piglets at different time
points.
(PDF)Click here for additional data file.
Mean relative abundance of dominant genera (samples >1%) in sows at
different time points that were detected in >5% of samples.
(PDF)Click here for additional data file.
Mean relative abundance of dominant genera (samples >1%) in piglets at
different time points that were detected in >5% of samples.
(PDF)Click here for additional data file.
Silhouette plot for hierarchical clustering of different animal
groups.
Optimal number of clusters (dashed line) for different animal groups from
microbiome data of sows and piglets.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.
Silhouette plot for hierarchical clustering of family units.
Optimal number of clusters (dashed line) for obtained family units from
microbiome data of sows and their piglets at different production time
points.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.
NMDS and hierarchical clustering on sow units.
Each data point visualizes connected data of the sampling time points AP and
PP for each sow in each farm. A–T = Individual farms. Different colors
visualize cluster formation according to the optimal cluster formation
method (S4
Fig).(TIF)Click here for additional data file.
Silhouette plot for hierarchical clustering of sow units.
Optimal number of clusters (dashed line) for obtained sow units (AP and PP)
from microbiome data of sows each farm.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.
NMDS and hierarchical clustering on piglet units.
Each data point visualizes connected data of the sampling time points SP and
PW for each piglet in each farm. A–T = Individual farms. Different colors
visualize cluster formation according to the optimal cluster formation
method (S6
Fig).(TIF)Click here for additional data file.
Silhouette plot for hierarchical clustering of piglet units.
Optimal number of clusters (dashed line) for obtained piglet units (SP and
PW) from microbiome data of piglets each farm.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.
Authors: Caroline Thum; Adrian L Cookson; Don E Otter; Warren C McNabb; Alison J Hodgkinson; Jolon Dyer; Nicole C Roy Journal: J Nutr Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Evan Bolyen; Jai Ram Rideout; Matthew R Dillon; Nicholas A Bokulich; Christian C Abnet; Gabriel A Al-Ghalith; Harriet Alexander; Eric J Alm; Manimozhiyan Arumugam; Francesco Asnicar; Yang Bai; Jordan E Bisanz; Kyle Bittinger; Asker Brejnrod; Colin J Brislawn; C Titus Brown; Benjamin J Callahan; Andrés Mauricio Caraballo-Rodríguez; John Chase; Emily K Cope; Ricardo Da Silva; Christian Diener; Pieter C Dorrestein; Gavin M Douglas; Daniel M Durall; Claire Duvallet; Christian F Edwardson; Madeleine Ernst; Mehrbod Estaki; Jennifer Fouquier; Julia M Gauglitz; Sean M Gibbons; Deanna L Gibson; Antonio Gonzalez; Kestrel Gorlick; Jiarong Guo; Benjamin Hillmann; Susan Holmes; Hannes Holste; Curtis Huttenhower; Gavin A Huttley; Stefan Janssen; Alan K Jarmusch; Lingjing Jiang; Benjamin D Kaehler; Kyo Bin Kang; Christopher R Keefe; Paul Keim; Scott T Kelley; Dan Knights; Irina Koester; Tomasz Kosciolek; Jorden Kreps; Morgan G I Langille; Joslynn Lee; Ruth Ley; Yong-Xin Liu; Erikka Loftfield; Catherine Lozupone; Massoud Maher; Clarisse Marotz; Bryan D Martin; Daniel McDonald; Lauren J McIver; Alexey V Melnik; Jessica L Metcalf; Sydney C Morgan; Jamie T Morton; Ahmad Turan Naimey; Jose A Navas-Molina; Louis Felix Nothias; Stephanie B Orchanian; Talima Pearson; Samuel L Peoples; Daniel Petras; Mary Lai Preuss; Elmar Pruesse; Lasse Buur Rasmussen; Adam Rivers; Michael S Robeson; Patrick Rosenthal; Nicola Segata; Michael Shaffer; Arron Shiffer; Rashmi Sinha; Se Jin Song; John R Spear; Austin D Swafford; Luke R Thompson; Pedro J Torres; Pauline Trinh; Anupriya Tripathi; Peter J Turnbaugh; Sabah Ul-Hasan; Justin J J van der Hooft; Fernando Vargas; Yoshiki Vázquez-Baeza; Emily Vogtmann; Max von Hippel; William Walters; Yunhu Wan; Mingxun Wang; Jonathan Warren; Kyle C Weber; Charles H D Williamson; Amy D Willis; Zhenjiang Zech Xu; Jesse R Zaneveld; Yilong Zhang; Qiyun Zhu; Rob Knight; J Gregory Caporaso Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Robin B Guevarra; Jun Hyung Lee; Sun Hee Lee; Min-Jae Seok; Doo Wan Kim; Bit Na Kang; Timothy J Johnson; Richard E Isaacson; Hyeun Bum Kim Journal: J Anim Sci Biotechnol Date: 2019-01-14
Authors: Izaskun García-Mantrana; Marta Selma-Royo; Sonia González; Anna Parra-Llorca; Cecilia Martínez-Costa; María Carmen Collado Journal: Gut Microbes Date: 2020-03-13