4.6 Article

Microplastics in feed cause sublethal changes in the intestinal microbiota and a non-specific immune response indicator of the freshwater crayfish Procambarus clarkii (Decapoda: Cambaridae)

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1197312

关键词

gut microbiota; crayfish; microplastics; freshwater; dysbiosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microplastics are a hazardous pollutant that can cause dysbiosis of the intestinal microbiome and impair the immune system of crayfish, as observed in this study using Procambarus clarkii as a model.
Microplastics (MP) are a hazardous pollutant of global concern that threatens aquatic ecosystems and public health. We used the invasive, cosmopolitan, and environmentally versatile red swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii as a model to study the effects of MP on the intestinal microbiome. Crayfish collected from the environment were compared with specimens exposed to recycled Polyethylene terephthalate (rPET) MP in feed (30%) for 96 h in the laboratory and a control group. We analyzed the 16S rRNA of the intestinal bacteria by PCR-DGGE and high-throughput sequencing. MP exposure caused dysbiosis of the intestinal microbiota, with an increase in Alphaproteobacteria and Actinobacteria. We detected higher abundance of opportunistic genera such as Klebsiella, Acinetobacter, Hydromonas, Pseudomonas, Gemmobacter, and Enterobacter on MP fed organisms. Moreover, MP exposure reduced the abundance of Clostridia and Bateroidetes, which are important for immune system development and pathogen prevention. Furthermore, MP exposure decreased the phenoloxidase (PO) immune response in crayfish. There was a significant difference in the richness of intestinal bacterial communities after consumption of food contaminated with MP, likely increasing the abundance of opportunistic bacteria in the intestinal microbiota. Our results suggest that MP alter the gut microbial composition and impair the health of P. clarkii.

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