| Literature DB >> 35405869 |
Jiangbo Cheng1, Weimin Wang1, Deyin Zhang2, Yukun Zhang1, Qizhi Song1, Xiaolong Li1, Yuan Zhao1, Dan Xu1, Liming Zhao1, Wenxin Li1, Jianghui Wang1, Bubo Zhou1, Changchun Lin1, Xiaoxue Zhang1.
Abstract
Fat deposition is the key factor affecting the efficiency of animal husbandry production. There are many factors affecting fat deposition, in which the gastrointestinal microbiota plays an important role. Therefore, the body mass index (BMI) was introduced into the evaluation of sheep fat deposition, and the different microbiota and functional pathways of the sheep gastrointestinal tract in different BMI groups were analyzed. We selected 5% of individuals with the highest and lowest BMI from a feed test population (357 in whole group). Microorganisms in 10 sites of the gastrointestinal tract in 36 individuals (18 in each group) were evaluated by 16S rRNA V3-V4 region sequencing. There were differences (p < 0.05) in fat deposition traits between different BMI groups. In the 10 parts of the gastrointestinal tract, the diversity and richness of cecal microflora in the high-BMI group were higher than those in low-BMI Hu sheep (p < 0.05). Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) showed that there was separation of the cecum between groups, and there were differences in the cecal microbial community. Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) showed that most biomarkers were in the cecum. On the basis of an indepth study of cecal microorganisms, 26 different bacterial genera were obtained (p < 0.05). Correlation analysis between them and the characteristics of fat deposition in sheep showed that Colidextribacter, Alloprevotella, and Succenivibrio were positively correlated with fat deposition, while Lachnospiraceae_ND3007_Group was negatively correlated (p < 0.05). The above results show that the cecum may be an important part leading to the difference of BMI in sheep, and its microorganisms may affect the level of fat deposition.Entities:
Keywords: body mass index; fat deposition; functional prediction; gastrointestinal microorganisms; sheep
Year: 2022 PMID: 35405869 PMCID: PMC8996880 DOI: 10.3390/ani12070880
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Correlation analysis between BMI and fat deposition traits in sheep.
| Characteristics | BMI |
|---|---|
| Correlation | |
| GR value, cm | 0.37 ** |
| Thickness of backfat, cm | 0.23 ** |
| Perirenal fat weight, kg | 0.41 ** |
| Relative weight of perirenal fat, % | 0.29 ** |
| Mesenteric fat weight, kg | 0.47 ** |
| Relative weight of mesenteric fat, % | 0.33 ** |
| Tail fat weight, kg | 0.41 ** |
| Relative weight of tail fat, % | 0.14 ** |
| Total fat weight, kg | 0.54 ** |
| Relative weight of total fat, % | 0.33 ** |
** means p < 0.01.
Description of fat traits and grouping difference test of high- and low-BMI Hu sheep.
| Characteristics | All | Low BMI | High BMI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 89.99 ± 8.36 | 74.26 ± 3.32 | 106.34 ± 2.93 | <0.01 |
| Body weight, kg | 48.66 ± 7.23 | 37.08 ± 4.28 | 55.33 ± 4.91 | <0.01 |
| Body length, cm | 73.38 ± 3.87 | 70.56 ± 3.42 | 72.06 ± 2.48 | 0.14 |
| GR value, cm | 2.61 ± 0.52 | 1.95 ± 0.40 | 2.86 ± 0.63 | <0.01 |
| Thickness of backfat, cm | 0.63 ± 0.24 | 0.36 ± 0.12 | 0.75 ± 0.43 | <0.01 |
| Perirenal fat weight, kg | 0.69 ± 0.36 | 0.37 ± 0.17 | 0.87 ± 0.45 | <0.01 |
| Relative weight of perirenal fat, % | 1.39 ± 0.66 | 0.94 ± 0.35 | 1.57 ± 0.78 | <0.01 |
| Mesenteric fat weight, kg | 1.22 ± 0.49 | 0.79 ± 0.39 | 1.51 ± 0.49 | <0.01 |
| Relative weight of mesenteric fat, % | 2.47 ± 0.86 | 2.07 ± 0.93 | 2.73 ± 0.72 | <0.01 |
| Tail fat weight, kg | 1.56 ± 0.49 | 1.11 ± 0.54 | 1.87 ± 0.62 | <0.01 |
| Relative weight of tail fat, % | 3.17 ± 0.85 | 2.91 ± 1.41 | 3.38 ± 1.00 | 0.13 |
| Total fat weight, kg | 3.48 ± 1.06 | 2.27 ± 0.91 | 4.25 ± 1.10 | <0.01 |
| Relative weight of Total fat, % | 7.03 ± 1.69 | 5.91 ± 2.11 | 7.69 ± 1.59 | <0.01 |
Statistical data expressed as mean ± standard deviation. p < 0.05 indicates statistical significance.
Figure 1Gastrointestinal structure of Hu sheep. Principal coordinate analysis was performed on the basis of unweighted UniFrac distances to identify differences in microbial community structure across taxa. Sheep with high BMI showed round points, and sheep with low BMI showed triangular points.
Analysis of differences between MRPP groups.
| Group | A | Observed Delta | Expected Delta | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1–L2 | −0.0005 | 0.5305 | 0.5303 | 0.5090 |
| W1–W2 | 0.0160 | 0.6165 | 0.6266 | 0.0030 |
| B1–B2 | 0.0104 | 0.6158 | 0.6223 | 0.0170 |
| Z11–Z12 | 0.0024 | 0.5789 | 0.5803 | 0.2320 |
| S1–S2 | −0.0032 | 0.6752 | 0.6730 | 0.7090 |
| K1–K2 | 0.0056 | 0.5623 | 0.5654 | 0.1230 |
| H1–H2 | 0.0101 | 0.6228 | 0.6292 | 0.1350 |
| M1–M2 | 0.0482 | 0.4297 | 0.4514 | 0.0010 |
| J1–J2 | 0.0251 | 0.4257 | 0.4367 | 0.0010 |
| Z21–Z22 | 0.0091 | 0.5706 | 0.5758 | 0.0340 |
Observed delta represents size of intragroup differences, expected delta represents difference between groups; a value less than 0 represents that intergroup differences were less than intragroup differences, and significance < 0.05 represents that intergroup differences are significant.
Figure 2Histogram of gastrointestinal relative abundance in different groups at phylum level, and UPGMA clustering tree based on weighted UniFrac distance.
Figure 3Venn diagram of differential biomarkers based on LEfSe analysis in cecum, colon, and rectum.
Figure 4Dfferences in microbes at cecal phylum level in Hu sheep with different BMI. * means p < 0.05, *** means p < 0.001. (A) Phylum level; (B) difference in ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes.
Significant differences in cecum microbiota of sheep with different BMI at genus level.
| Taxonomic Name | Relative Abundance | Trend | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low BMI | High BMI | |||
|
| 11.248% | 14.814% | 0.008 | + |
|
| 4.791% | 2.114% | 0.040 | − |
|
| 3.833% | 1.706% | 0.005 | − |
|
| 0.059% | 0.695% | 0.005 | + |
|
| 1.774% | 0.552% | 0.008 | − |
|
| 1.283% | 0.543% | 0.005 | − |
|
| 0.177% | 0.022% | 0.017 | − |
|
| 0.442% | 0.724% | 0.005 | + |
|
| 0.002% | 0.153% | 0.005 | + |
|
| 0.458% | 0.590% | 0.022 | + |
|
| 0.124% | 0.003% | 0.005 | − |
|
| 0.111% | 0.297% | 0.005 | + |
|
| 0.352% | 0.497% | 0.011 | + |
|
| 0.198% | 0.046% | 0.005 | − |
|
| 0.179% | 0.420% | 0.005 | + |
|
| 0.414% | 0.542% | 0.005 | + |
|
| 0.154% | 0.053% | 0.029 | − |
|
| 0.072% | 0.146% | 0.017 | + |
|
| 0.144% | 0.049% | 0.044 | − |
|
| 0.076% | 0.178% | 0.019 | + |
|
| 0.048% | 0.142% | 0.005 | + |
|
| 0.218% | 0.303% | 0.014 | + |
|
| 0.149% | 0.006% | 0.005 | − |
|
| 0.110% | 0.050% | 0.011 | − |
|
| 0.113% | 0.034% | 0.005 | − |
|
| 0.077% | 0.114% | 0.040 | + |
Species with an average relative abundance of less than 0.1% in both groups were excluded. Up-regulated bacteria in Hu sheep with high BMI shown with “+”; otherwise, they are shown with “−”.
Figure 5Correlation analysis. Correlation network analysis diagram constructed according to annotation results. Correlation network deduced from the first 50 genera. Each point represents a genus, and the size of the point is directly proportional to the relative abundance of the genus. Lines between points indicate correlation relationship between genera: red is positive correlation, blue is negative correlation, and only lines with correlation greater than 0.6 are displayed. (A) Correlation analysis between cecal differential microorganisms and fat deposition traits of Hu sheep. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01. (B) Correlation network diagram of genus-level microorganisms in cecum of low-BMI Hu sheep group. (C) Correlation network diagram of genus-level microorganisms in cecum of high-BMI Hu sheep group.
Figure 6Differences of known functional pathways were compared. Tax4Fun used to evaluate functional contribution of cecal microorganisms.