| Literature DB >> 35966667 |
Lei Chen1, Di Xu1, Mengyao Sun1, Ying Li2, Shen Wang1, Ying Gao2, Zenghao Gao1, Yuying Shi1.
Abstract
Intestinal microbes are important symbiotes in the gastrointestinal tract of mammals, which are affected by food, environment, climate, genetics, and other factors. The gut microbiota of felines has been partially studied, but a comprehensive comparison of the gut microbiota of Panthera species was less reported. In this study, we compared the gut microbial composition and diversity of five species of Panthera (Panthera tigris, Panthera leo, Panthera onca, Panthera pardus, and Panthera uncia) by 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) amplicon sequencing. The results showed that Firmicutes was the most abundant phylum among all the Panthera species, followed by Actinobacteria, Fusobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, Acidobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, Gemmatimonadetes, and Euryarchaeota. There were significant differences in observed species of fecal microbiota among different Panthera animals (P < 0.05), indicating that there is species specificity among Panthera fecal microbiota. When the samples were further grouped according to sampling locations, the comparison of the alpha diversity index between groups and beta diversity analysis showed that there were significant differences in the fecal microflora of animals from different sampling locations. Cluster analysis showed that fecal microbes of animals from the same sampling location were clustered, while gut microbes of animals of the same species, but from different sampling locations, were separated. These results indicate that environment may have more influence on mammals' fecal microbial diversity than genetic relationships.Entities:
Keywords: Panthera animals; diversity analysis; genetic relationship; gut microbiota; sampling environment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35966667 PMCID: PMC9366613 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.938900
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Sample information and grouping.
| Sample | Species name | Sampling location | Group 1 (species) | Group 2 (location) | Sample | Species name | Sampling location | Group 1 (species) | Group 2 (location) |
| leo1M |
| Ji’nan | P_leo | JN | pardus1M |
| Ji’nan | P_pardus | JN |
| leo2M |
| Ji’nan | P_leo | JN | pardus2M |
| Ji’nan | P_pardus | JN |
| leo3F |
| Ji’nan | P_leo | JN | pardus3M |
| Weihai | P_pardus | WH |
| leo4F |
| Ji’nan | P_leo | JN | pardus4M |
| Weihai | P_pardus | WH |
| tigris1M |
| Ji’nan | P_tigris | JN | pardus5F |
| Ji’nan | P_pardus | JN |
| tigris2M |
| Ji’nan | P_tigris | JN | pardus6F |
| Weihai | P_pardus | WH |
| tigris3F |
| Ji’nan | P_tigris | JN | pardus7F |
| Linyi | P_pardus | LY |
| tigris4F |
| Ji’nan | P_tigris | JN | pardus8F |
| Linyi | P_pardus | LY |
| onca1M |
| Ji’nan | P_onca | JN | pardus9F |
| Linyi | P_pardus | LY |
| onca2M |
| Weihai | P_onca | WH | pardusXM |
| Linyi | P_pardus | LY |
| onca3M |
| Weihai | P_onca | WH | uncia1M |
| Ji’nan | P_uncia | JN |
| onca4M |
| Weihai | P_onca | WH | uncia2F |
| Ji’nan | P_uncia | JN |
Alpha diversity indices of Panthera animals’ intestinal microbiota (mean value).
| Observed species | Shannon | Simpson | Chao1 | ACE | Goods coverage | PD whole tree | |
| P_leo | 136 | 3.938 | 0.899 | 150.558 | 159.719 | 1 | 14.962 |
| P_tigris | 169 | 3.805 | 0.882 | 182.552 | 187.284 | 1 | 17.511 |
| P_onca | 221 | 4.659 | 0.931 | 256.572 | 256.741 | 0.999 | 32.326 |
| P_pardus | 245 | 4.591 | 0.898 | 273.118 | 275.372 | 0.999 | 29.406 |
| P_uncia | 131 | 3.766 | 0.887 | 166.908 | 158.375 | 1 | 17.529 |
FIGURE 1NMDS analysis of fecal microbiota among species groups (A) and sampling location groups (B).
FIGURE 2The UPGMA clustering analysis of fecal microbiota based on unweighted UniFrac distance.
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test of the alpha diversity indices among species groups and among location groups (P-values, P < 0.05 indicates significant difference and P < 0.01 indicates extremely significant difference).
| Observed species | Shannon | Simpson | Chao1 | ACE | Goods coverage | PD whole tree | |
| P_leo vs. P_onca | 0.029 | 0.087 | 0.266 | 0.017 | 0.012 | 0.11 | 0.007 |
| P_leo vs. P_pardus | 0.018 | 0.179 | 0.512 | 0.009 | 0.010 | 0.127 | 0.009 |
| P_leo vs. P_tigris | 0.602 | 0.958 | 0.624 | 0.483 | 0.512 | 1.000 | 0.414 |
| P_onca vs. P_pardus | 0.813 | 0.456 | 0.490 | 0.833 | 0.627 | 0.694 | 0.450 |
| P_onca vs. P_tigris | 0.083 | 0.079 | 0.116 | 0.071 | 0.047 | 0.111 | 0.040 |
| P_pardus vs. P_tigris | 0.067 | 0.161 | 0.221 | 0.053 | 0.055 | 0.127 | 0.077 |
| JN vs. LY | 0.001 | 1.000 | 0.368 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.066 | 0.006 |
| JN vs. WH | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.005 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.148 | 0.000 |
| LY vs. WH | 0.469 | 0.014 | 0.004 | 0.418 | 0.469 | 0.576 | 0.144 |
FIGURE 3LDA value distribution histogram shows the representative biomarkers in different species groups (A) and different sampling location groups (B).
FIGURE 4Relative functional abundances of fecal microbes annotated at the KEGG level 2.