| Literature DB >> 35193707 |
Ruth Eunice Centeno-Martinez1, Natalie Glidden1, Suraj Mohan2, Josiah Levi Davidson2, Esteban Fernández-Juricic3, Jacquelyn P Boerman1, Jon Schoonmaker1, Deepti Pillai4, Jennifer Koziol5,6, Aaron Ault7, Mohit S Verma2,8,9, Timothy A Johnson10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is an ongoing health and economic challenge in the dairy and beef cattle industries. Multiple risk factors make an animal susceptible to BRD. The presence of Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, Histophilus somni, and Mycoplasma bovis in lung tissues have been associated with BRD mortalities, but they are also commonly present in the upper respiratory tract of healthy animals. This study aims to compare the cattle nasal microbiome (diversity, composition and community interaction) and the abundance of BRD pathogens (by qPCR) in the nasal microbiome of Holstein steers that are apparently healthy (Healthy group, n = 75) or with BRD clinical signs (BRD group, n = 58). We then used random forest models based on nasal microbial community and qPCR results to classify healthy and BRD-affected animals and determined the agreement with the visual clinical signs. Additionally, co-occurring species pairs were identified in visually BRD or healthy animal groups.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA gene; Bovine respiratory disease; Cattle nasal microbiome; qPCR
Year: 2022 PMID: 35193707 PMCID: PMC8862248 DOI: 10.1186/s42523-022-00167-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anim Microbiome ISSN: 2524-4671
Fig. 1Alpha diversity of the nasal microbiome in cattle that are apparently healthy or display BRD clinical signs (BRD). Observed ASVs (a) and Chao 1 (b) measure the richness of the microbiome community. Evenness was measured with Pielou (c), and the phylogenetic relationship was measured with Faith’s PD (d). An asterisk (*) and horizontal line represent a statistical difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the two groups. Colored circles and lines represent the means and standard error of the BRD and healthy groups, respectively, and the gray dots represent the raw data of each group
Fig. 2Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of Weighted UniFrac distances (a) and Bray–Curtis dissimilarity (b) between BRD and healthy animals. Ellipses indicate a 95% confidence interval of individuals belonging to each health status group. Axis 1 represents the axis that explains the greatest amount of the variation followed by Axis 2. Larger points indicate the centroids of the ellipses. Distances of the centroids between the two groups are indicated in the caption below each plot
Fig. 3Differentially abundant taxa (ASVs) between animals with BRD clinical signs (BRD) and healthy animals. Bar plot shows the taxa with a log2 fold change greater than 2 or less than − 2 and p ≤ 0.05. Those with a log2 fold change > 2 were those enriched in BRD animals, while a log2 fold change < − 2 were those decreased in the BRD animals. Taxa names contain numbers in parenthesis if multiple ASVs were assigned the same taxonomy
Fig. 4Prevalence of BRD pathobionts in the nasal microbiota of Holstein steers (n = 133) and between healthy (n = 75) and BRD (n = 58) Holstein steer pen-mates according to clinical signs. Prevalence of Pasteurella multocida (a), Mannheimina haemolytica (b), Histophilus somni (c) and Mycoplasma bovis (d)
Fig. 5Difference in bacterial abundance per sample (200 µl of extracted DNA) for Mycoplasma bovis (a), Mannheimia haemolytica (b) and Histophilus somni (c) between animals with (BRD) and without (Healthy) BRD clinical signs (n = 133). An asterisk (*) and horizontal line represent a statistical difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the two groups. Colored circles represent the means of the BRD, and healthy group, vertical lines indicate the standard error of the means, and the gray dots represent individual samples of each group
Fig. 6Probability of classifying animals as BRD or healthy (< 0.5 = healthy, > 0.5 = BRD) using Random Forest analysis. Classification of the animals was based on the microbial community composition (ASV table) and quantification of BRD pathobionts, 16S rRNA gene abundance and age (qPCR). The color indicates the initial animal classification based on the BRD clinical signs. Shape indicates if the animal classification agreed between the three methods: visual classification based on BRD clinical signs (V), microbial community composition (ASV Table) and quantification of BRD pathobionts and 16S rRNA gene abundance (qPCR)
Co-occurrence analysis summary for BRD (n = 57) and Healthy (n = 74) groups
| Group | ASV pair associations | ASV pair associations not included | ASV pairs remained | ASV pair associations (+) | ASV pair associations (−) | Random unclassified ASV pair combinations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRD | 763,230 | 60,569 | 702,661 | 92,500 | 15,313 | 594,848 |
| Healthy | 763,230 | 41,783 | 721,447 | 147,864 | 15,177 | 558,406 |
BRD pathobiont primers and probes sequences for PCR and qPCR reactions
| Target | Target gene | Primer name | Sequence (5′–3′) | Size (bp) | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mh-SGF | AGCAGCGACTACTCGTGTTGGTTCAG | 26 | [ | ||
| Mh-SGR | AAGACTAAAATCGGATAGCCTGAAACGCCTG | 31 | [ | ||
| Mh-BV1P* | TTCAACCGCTAACCAGGACAACCCAC | 26 | [ | ||
| 16S rRNA | Pm-TMF | CGCAGGCAATGAATTCTCTTC | 21 | [ | |
| 16S rRNA | Pm-TMR | GGCGCTCTTCAGCTGTTTTT | 20 | [ | |
| 16S rRNA | Pm-TMP* | ACTGCACCAACAAATGCTTGCTGAGTTAGC | 30 | [ | |
| 16S rRNA | Hs-TMF | AGGAAGGCGATTAGTTTAAGAGATTAATT | 29 | [ | |
| 16S rRNA | Hs-TMR | TCACACCTCACTTAAGTCACCACCT | 25 | [ | |
| 16S rRNA | Hs-TMP* | ATTGACGATAATCACAGAAGAAGCACCGGC | 30 | [ | |
| PMB996-F | TCAAGGAACCCCACCAGAT | 19 | [ | ||
| PMB1066-R | AGGCAAAGTCATTTCTAGGTGCAA | 24 | [ | ||
| Mbovis1016* | TGGCAAACTTACCTATCGGTGACCCT | 26 | [ |
*Probe fluorophore and double quencher: 5′ 6-FAM/ZEN/3′ IBFQ