4.6 Article

Comparative Analysis of the Gut Microbiota Composition between Captive and Wild Forest Musk Deer

Journal

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01705

Keywords

gut microbiota; symbioses; functional analysis; Firmicutes; Bacteroidetes; forest musk deer

Categories

Funding

  1. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [168033, 2016M591094]
  2. Zhangzhou Pien Tze Huang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd [2015HXFWBHQ-LSQ-001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The large and complex gut microbiota in animals has profound effects on feed utilization and metabolism. Currently, gastrointestinal diseases due to dysregulated gut microbiota are considered important factors that limit growth of the captive forest musk deer population. Compared with captive forest musk deer, wild forest musk deer have a wider feeding range with no dietary limitations, and their gut microbiota are in a relatively natural state. However, no reports have compared the gut microbiota between wild and captive forest musk deer. To gain insight into the composition of gut microbiota in forest musk deer under different food-source conditions, we employed high-throughput 16S rRNA sequencing technology to investigate differences in the gut microbiota occurring between captive and wild forest musk deer. Both captive and wild forest musk deer showed similar microbiota at the phylum level, which consisted mainly of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, although significant differences were found in their relative abundances between both groups. alpha-Diversity results showed that no significant differences occurred in the microbiota between both groups, while beta-diversity results showed that significant differences did occur in their microbiota compositions. In summary, our results provide important information for improving feed preparation for captive forest musk deer and implementing projects where captive forest musk deer are released into the wild.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available