4.5 Article

Comparison of the fecal microbiomes of healthy and diarrheic captive wild boar

Journal

MICROBIAL PATHOGENESIS
Volume 147, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104377

Keywords

Bacterial microbiota; Diarrheic; Sus scrofa; 16S-rRNA gene sequencing; Prediction of function

Funding

  1. Biodiversity Survey, Observation and Assessment Programme of Ministry of Ecology and Environment, The Second National Survey of Terrestrial Wildlife Resources in China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diarrhea caused by Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) is one of the most common clinical diseases observed in captive wild boars, is usually caused by an imbalance in the gut microbiome, and is responsible for piglets significant mortality. However, little research has been undertaken into the structure and function of the intestinal microbial communities in wild boar with diarrhea influenced by enterotoxigenic E. coli. In this study, fecal samples were collected and 16S-rRNA gene sequencing was used to compare the intestinal microbiome of healthy captive wild boar and wild boar with diarrhea on the same farm. We found that the intestinal microbial diversity of healthy wild boar (HWB) was relatively high, while that of diarrheic wild boar (DWB) was significantly lower. Line Discriminant Analysis Effect Size showed that at the genus level, the abundance of Escherichia-Shigella and Fusobacterium was significantly higher in DWB. Phylogenetic Investigation of Communities by Reconstruction of Unobserved States analysis showed that the expression of genes in pathways including infectious diseases: bacterial, metabolism of amino acids, membrane transport, and signal transduction was significantly higher in DWB. In summary, this study provides a theoretical basis for the design of appropriate means of diarrhea treatment in captive wild boar.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available