4.6 Article

Bacterial Population in Intestines of the Black Tiger Shrimp (Penaeus monodon) under Different Growth Stages

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060802

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC) [P-10-10722, P-11-00671]
  2. Thailand Research Fund (TRF) [DBG5380030, TRG5480014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intestinal bacterial communities in aquaculture have been drawn to attention due to potential benefit to their hosts. To identify core intestinal bacteria in the black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon), bacterial populations of disease-free shrimp were characterized from intestines of four developmental stages (15-day-old post larvae (PL15), 1-(J1), 2-(J2), and 3-month-old (J3) juveniles) using pyrosequencing, real-time PCR and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) approaches. A total of 25,121 pyrosequencing reads (reading length = 442 +/- 24 bases) were obtained, which were categorized by barcode for PL15 (7,045 sequences), J1 (3,055 sequences), J2 (13,130 sequences) and J3 (1,890 sequences). Bacteria in the phyla Bacteroides, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were found in intestines at all four growth stages. There were 88, 14, 27, and 20 bacterial genera associated with the intestinal tract of PL15, J1, J2 and J3, respectively. Pyrosequencing analysis revealed that Proteobacteria (class Gammaproteobacteria) was a dominant bacteria group with a relative abundance of 89% for PL15 and 99% for J1, J2 and J3. Real-time PCR assay also confirmed that Gammaproteobacteria had the highest relative abundance in intestines from all growth stages. Intestinal bacterial communities from the three juvenile stages were more similar to each other than that of the PL shrimp based on PCA analyses of pyrosequencing results and their DGGE profiles. This study provides descriptive bacterial communities associated to the black tiger shrimp intestines during these growth development stages in rearing facilities.

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