4.4 Article

Evaluation of non-lethal gut microbiome sampling methods in a passerine bird

期刊

IBIS
卷 162, 期 3, 页码 911-923

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ibi.12807

关键词

16S metabarcoding; bacteria; cloacal swab; microbiota; sample comparison; Zebra Finch

资金

  1. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology department at Tulane University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gut microbial communities play critical roles in the biological functions of their host, such as mediating nutrient absorption, digesting food components the host cannot, and offering protection against enteric pathogens. Extensive research on gut microbial communities has been conducted on mammals, including humans and rodents, but much less work has been done in birds. Furthermore, much of the research on host-microbe interactions make use of faecal samples and rectal/cloacal swabs as a proxy for intestinal samples, which can be difficult to obtain directly. However, little is known about the overlap between the microbial communities of the gut, faeces and swabs, which limits interpretability of results based on faecal samples and swabs. To address this gap in knowledge, we compared the microbiome from five sample types - proventriculus, small intestine, large intestine, cloacal swabs and faeces - across individual Zebra Finches Taeniopygia guttata housed in constant conditions with a standardized diet. We compared diversity and community composition through 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Our results show that microbial communities from both cloacal swabs and faeces were distinct from proventriculus and small intestinal samples, but generally indistinguishable from large intestinal samples, indicating that these non-lethal samples may be useful proxies for large intestinal bacterial communities. Gaining insight into non-invasive sampling techniques for passerines has implications for studies of gut microbial diversity and abundance in wild bird populations. Furthermore, reliable non-lethal sampling is necessary for experiments where repeated sampling is required.

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

4.4
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