4.6 Article

Pyrosequencing-based characterization of gastrointestinal bacteria of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) within a commercial mariculture system

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 117, 期 1, 页码 18-27

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jam.12514

关键词

16S rRNA gene; Atlantic salmon; intestinal bacteria; next-generation sequencing; pyrosequencing; season

资金

  1. Australian Seafood Cooperative Research Centre [2011/701]
  2. Skretting Australia [2011/701]
  3. Australian Government's CRC program
  4. Fisheries RD Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: The relationship of Atlantic salmon gastrointestinal (GI) tract bacteria to environmental factors, in particular water temperature within a commercial mariculture system, was investigated. Methods and Results: Salmon GI tract bacterial communities commercially farmed in south-eastern Tasmania were analysed, over a 13-month period across a standard commercial production farm cycle, using 454 16S rRNA-based pyrosequencing. Faecal bacterial communities were highly dynamic but largely similar between randomly selected fish. In postsmolt, the faecal bacteria population was dominated by Gram-positive fermentative bacteria; however, by midsummer, members of the family Vibrionaceae predominated. As fish progressed towards harvest, a range of different bacterial genera became more prominent corresponding to a decline in Vibrionaceae. The sampled fish were fed two different commercial diet series with slightly different protein, lipid and digestible energy level; however, the effect of these differences was minimal. Conclusions: The overall data demonstrated dynamic hind gut communities in salmon that were related to season and fish growth phases but were less influenced by differences in commercial diets used routinely within the farm system studied. Significance and Impact of the Study: This study provides understanding of farmed salmon GI bacterial communities and describes the relative impact of diet, environmental and farm factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据