4.5 Article

Comparison of the gut microbiota composition between wild and captive sika deer (Cervus nippon hortulorum) from feces by high-throughput sequencing

Journal

AMB EXPRESS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1186/s13568-017-0517-8

Keywords

Sika deer (Cervus nippon hortulorum); Gut microbiota; 16s rRNA gene; High-throughput sequencing

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31210103911, 31421063, 31470566, 31270567]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The gut microbiota is characterized as a complex ecosystem that has effects on health and diseases of host with the interactions of many other factors together. Sika deer is the national level for the protection of wild animals in China. The available sequencing data of gut microbiota from feces of wild sika deer, especially for Cervus nippon hortulorum in Northeast China, are limited. Here, we characterized the gastrointestinal bacterial communities of wild (7 samples) and captive (12 samples) sika deer from feces, and compared their gut microbiota by analyzing the V3-V4 region of 16S rRNA gene using high-throughput sequencing technology on the Illumina Hiseq platform. Firmicutes (77.624%), Bacteroidetes (18.288%) and Tenericutes (1.342%) were the most predominant phyla in wild sika deer. While in captive sika deer, Firmicutes (50.710%) was the dominant phylum, followed by Bacteroidetes (31.996%) and Proteobacteria (4.806%). A total of 9 major phyla, 22 families and 30 genera among gastrointestinal bacterial communities showed significant differences between wild and captive sika deer. The specific function and mechanism of Tenericutes in wild sika deer need further study. Our results indicated that captive sika deer in farm had higher fecal bacterial diversity than the wild. Abundance and quantity of diet source for sika deer played crucial role in shaping the composition and structure of gut microbiota.

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