| Literature DB >> 35049773 |
Haibo Fu1,2,3, Wenjing Li1,2.
Abstract
The division of hard and soft feces is an effective digestion strategy in the order Lagomorpha. Although previous studies have reported that hard and soft feces differ in morphology and component, the discrepancy in the microbiome remains unclear. This study explored the microbiomes of hard and soft feces in plateau pikas by sequencing the V3 and V4 regions of 16S rDNA. We found that hard feces harbored higher Firmicutes, while soft feces harbored higher Akkermansia. Increased rare bacterial taxa were observed in hard feces compared with soft feces. Moreover, hard and soft feces displayed a greater difference in terms of core operational taxonomy units (OTUs) compared to the total OTUs. The soft feces showed enhancements in all predicted Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) functions, indicating an advancing microbial metabolism compared to hard feces. The significantly upregulated pathways in soft feces were mainly enriched in metabolism of energy and carbohydrate, glycan biosynthesis, cofactors and vitamins, and amino acids-all of which are associated with increased contents of microbial proteins, vitamins, and short-chain fatty acids. Our study reports, for the first time, the differential microbiomes between hard and soft feces of pikas and provides direction for the future studies on cecotrophy.Entities:
Keywords: cecotrophy; gut microbiota; hard feces; plateau pika; soft feces
Year: 2022 PMID: 35049773 PMCID: PMC8772556 DOI: 10.3390/ani12020149
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Figure 1(a) plateau pikas (b) hard and soft feces.
Figure 2Composition of gut microbiota of hard feces and soft feces in plateau pikas. (a) Relative abundance of gut microbiota taxa at phylum level. (b,c) The dominant phyla; asterisks indicate the levels of statistical significance (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05). (d) The relative abundance of top 25 genera.
Figure 3Alpha and beta diversity across all samples; asterisks indicate the levels of statistical significance between groups (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: * p < 0.05). (a) The Chao1 diversity index. (b) The observed species diversity index. (c) The Shannon–Wiener index. (d) Rarefaction curve. (e) Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) based on Bray–Curtis distance. (f) Bray–Curtis dissimilarities cluster.
Figure 4Core operational taxonomy units (OTUs) in hard (H) and soft feces (S); the “Hard core” and “Soft core” represent the core OTUs in hard and soft feces, respectively. (a) The shared OTUs between hard and soft feces based on the total OTUs. (b) The shared OTUs between hard and soft feces based on the core OTUs. (c,d) The dominant phyla (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: * p < 0.05).
Figure 5Significantly different KEGG functional pathways. The significance was measured in STAMP v2.1.3 using White’s nonparametric test (p < 0.05). (a) K-numbers based on the total OTUs. (b) K-numbers based on the core OTUs. (c) KEGG pathways based on the total OTUs. (d) KEGG pathways based on the core OTUs. (e) Annotated KEGG pathways based on the K-numbers of core OTUs. (f) Enrichment analysis based on the K-numbers of core OTUs (p < 0.05).