| Literature DB >> 35506233 |
K Yarlagadda1, A J Zachwieja2, A de Flamingh3, T Phungviwatnikul4, A G Rivera-Colón5, C Roseman6, L Shackelford1, K S Swanson4, R S Malhi1,3,5,6.
Abstract
Canine microbiome studies are often limited in the geographic and temporal scope of samples studied. This results in a paucity of data on the canine microbiome around the world, especially in contexts where dogs may not be pets or human associated. Here, we present the shotgun sequences of fecal microbiomes of pet dogs from South Africa, shelter and stray dogs from India, and stray village dogs in Laos. We additionally performed a dietary experiment with dogs housed in a veterinary medical school, attempting to replicate the diet of the sampled dogs from Laos. We analyse the taxonomic diversity in these populations and identify the underlying functional redundancy of these microbiomes. Our results show that diet alone is not sufficient to recapitulate the higher diversity seen in the microbiome of dogs from Laos. Comparisons to previous studies and ancient dog fecal microbiomes highlight the need for greater population diversity in studies of canine microbiomes, as modern analogues can provide better comparisons to ancient microbiomes. We identify trends in microbial diversity and industrialization in dogs that mirror results of human studies, suggesting future research can make use of these companion animals as substitutes for humans in studying the effects of industrialization on the microbiome.Entities:
Keywords: ancient DNA; canine; industrialization; microbiome
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35506233 PMCID: PMC9065982 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2022.0052
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Biol Sci ISSN: 0962-8452 Impact factor: 5.530
Figure 1Chao1 alpha diversity of all study populations, broken down into the most discrete grouping available within countries. Populations A, B and C refer to the dogs from the US-fed baseline, HPLC or LPHC diets from the Coelho et al. study respectively. Populations D and E are dogs from the US-fed high- and low-protein diets, respectively, from the Witt et al. study [75]. Population F is the coprolites from the Witt et al. study [75]. Populations G and H are the dogs from the US fed the kibble and imitation diet, respectively. Population I are the dogs from Laos. Populations J and K are the dogs from India, from the shelter and strays, respectively. Population L is the dogs from South Africa. Populations are rarely significantly different from one another when separated; the dogs from South Africa are significantly less diverse than the dogs from the Coelho et al. study and the dogs from Laos (p < 0.0001), and the shelter dogs from India are significantly less diverse than the dogs from Laos (p < 0.0001).
Figure 2SourceTracker results when partitioning microbial results from the coprolites. (a) Original plot from Witt et al. [75] with the same coprolites re-analysed in this study, listed across the x-axis. Modern Dog reflects both the HP/LP fractions separated in (b). (b) SourceTracker results with additional populations from this study. Missing populations (dogs from India and South Africa, US dogs on the kibble and Laotian imitation diet, and US dogs fed a baseline diet from Coelho et al. [24]) were omitted due to having no assigned partitions. In comparison to (a), fractions shift noticeably to the dogs from Laos across coprolites.
Figure 3PCoA of all samples in the study, based on Bray–Curtis distances calculated from taxonomic dissimilarities. Soil refers to samples used as controls in the coprolite study. The US population is an aggregate of the US dogs from this study, the dogs from the Witt et al. paper and the dogs from the Coelho et al. study [24,67,75]. The percentage of variation explained in the dataset by each axis is provided in the brackets. Despite sequencing methodology changes between the coprolites and most of the US samples, they generally cluster by population based on taxonomic distance, though no population is specifically discrete from another.