4.5 Article

Characterization of the faecal bacterial community of wild young South American (Arctocephalus australis) and Subantarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus tropicalis)

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 92, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiw029

关键词

16S rRNA sequencing; faecal bacterial community; wild fur seals

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico do Brasil (CNPq) [444335/2014-5, 300912/2012-9, 302421/2012-2, 303251/2014-0]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) of the Brazilian government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The microbiota of wild marine mammals is poorly understood, perhaps due to the migratory habits of some species and the difficulty in obtaining samples. Using high-throughput sequencing, the present study examines the faecal bacterial community of wild young South American (Arctocephalus australis) and Subantarctic fur seals (A. tropicalis). Faecal samples from South American (n = 6) and Subantarctic fur seals (n = 4) found dead along the south coast of Brazil were collected. Sequences were assigned to taxa using the Ribosomal Database Project-Bayesian classifier. Diversity of the microbiota was assessed by categorization of sequence reads into operational taxonomic units. Results indicate that Firmicutes (88.556%-84.016%) was the predominant phylum in South American and Subantarctic fur seals. The distribution of Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria varied according to the fur seal species. Fusobacteria and Bacteroidetes represented less than 1% of the sequences. The most abundant order in both fur seals was Clostridiales (88.64% and 87.49%). Individual variable incidences were observed in the composition of family among the fur seals, though the families Lachnospiraceae, Peptostreptococcaceae, Ruminococcaceae and Coriobacteriaceae were more prevalent. This study provides insight into the faecal bacterial community of wild young South American and Subantarctic fur seals.

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

4.5
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