4.7 Article

Comparison of bacterial communities between midgut and midgut contents in two silkworms, Antheraea pernyi and Bombyx mori

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-69906-y

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. China Agriculture Research System [CARS-18]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31672493, 31301663]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bacterial communities living inside the midgut of insects have been attracting increasing interest. Previous studies have shown that both the midgut and midgut contents harbor bacterial communities. However, whether the bacterial communities of the insect midgut are similar to those of the insect midgut contents (including the peritrophic membrane, food particles, and digestive fluids secreted by the midgut in this study) remains unknown. In the present study, we analyzed two economically important silkworms, the Chinese oak silkworm Antheraea pernyi (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) and the mulberry silkworm Bombyx mori (Lepidoptera: Bombycidae), through Illumina MiSeq technology to address this issue. In A. pernyi larvae, 17 phyla and 162 genera were found in the midgut, while 7 phyla and 36 genera were found in the midgut contents. For B. mori larvae, 30 phyla and 465 genera were found in the midgut, but 22 phyla and 344 genera were found in the midgut contents. This evidence from the two silkworms suggests that the bacterial composition and diversity in the midgut are more diverse than those in the midgut contents. Principal component analysis revealed a significant difference in the bacterial community structure between the midgut and midgut contents of B. mori. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the bacterial communities between the midgut and midgut contents in insects, and the results will provide useful information for probing the functional differentiation within the midgut in the future.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available