Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

The Korean Society for Microbiology and Biotechnology (한국미생물·생명공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Impact of Breed on the Fecal Microbiome of Dogs under the Same Dietary Condition

  • Reddy, Kondreddy Eswar (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Kim, Hye-Ran (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Jeong, Jin Young (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • So, Kyoung-Min (Planning and Coordination Division, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Lee, Seul (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Ji, Sang Yun (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Kim, Minji (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Lee, Hyun-Jung (Dairy Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Lee, Sungdae (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Kim, Ki-Hyun (Animal Nutrition and Physiology Team, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Kim, Minseok (Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Chonnam National University)
  • Received : 2019.06.22
  • Accepted : 2019.10.08
  • Published : 2019.12.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The gut microbiome influences the health and well-being of dogs. However, little is known about the impact of breed on the fecal microbiome composition in dogs. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the differences in the fecal microbiome in three breeds of dog fed and housed under the same conditions, namely eight Maltese (8.0 ± 0.1 years), eight Miniature Schnauzer (8.0 ± 0.0 years), and nine Poodle dogs (8.0 ± 0.0 years). Fresh fecal samples were collected from the dogs and used to extract metagenomic DNA. The composition of the fecal microbiome was evaluated by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing on the MiSeq platform. A total of 840,501 sequences were obtained from the 25 fecal samples and classified as Firmicutes (32.3-97.3% of the total sequences), Bacteroidetes (0.1-62.6%), Actinobacteria (0.2-14.7%), Fusobacteria (0.0-5.7%), and Proteobacteria (0.0-5.1%). The relative abundance of Firmicutes was significantly lower in the Maltese dog breed than that in the other two breeds, while that of Fusobacteria was significantly higher in the Maltese than in the Miniature Schnauzer breed. At the genus level, the relative abundance of Streptococcus, Fusobacterium, Turicibacter, Succinivibrio, and Anaerobiospirillum differed significantly among the three dog breeds. These genera had no correlation with age, diet, sex, body weight, vaccination history, or parasite protection history. Within a breed, some of these genera had a correlation with at least one blood chemistry value. This study indicates that the composition of the fecal microbiome in dogs is affected by breed.

Keywords

References

  1. Suchodolski JS. 2011. Intestinal microbiota of dogs and cats: a bigger world than we thought. Veterinary Clinics North America Small Animal Practices.
  2. Honneffer JB, Minamoto Y, Suchodolski JS. 2014. Microbiota alterations in acute and chronic gastrointestinal inflammation of cats and dogs. World J. Gastroenterol. 20: 16489-16497. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i44.16489
  3. Guard BC, Barr JW, Reddivari L, Klemashevich C, Jayaraman A, Steiner JM, et al. 2015. Characterization of microbial dysbiosis and metabolomics changes in dogs with acute diarrhea. PLoS One 10: e0127259. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127259
  4. Handl S, Dowd SE, Garcia-Mazcorro JF, Steiner JM, Suchodolski JS. 2011. Massive parallel 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing reveals highly diverse fecal bacterial and fungal communities in healthy dogs and cats. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 76: 301-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01058.x
  5. Eckburg PB, Bik EM, Bernstein CN, Purdom E, Dethlefsen L, Sargent M, et al. 2005. Diversity of the human intestinal microbial flora. Science 308: 1635-1638. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1110591
  6. Suchodolski JS, Camacho J, Steiner JM. 2008. Analysis of bacterial diversity in the canine duodenum, jejunum, ileum, and colon by comparative 16S rRNA gene analysis. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 66: 567-578. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00521.x
  7. Suchodolski JS, Markel ME, Garcia-Mazcorro JF, Unterer S, Heilmann RM, Dowd SE, et al. 2012. The fecal microbiome in dogs with acute diarrhea and idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease. PLoS One 7: e51907. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051907
  8. Gnanandarajah JS, Johnson TJ, Kim HB, Abrahante JE, Lulich JP, Murtaugh MP. 2012. Comparative faecal microbiota of dogs with and without calcium oxalate stones. J. Appl. Microbiol. 113: 745-756. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05390.x
  9. Swanson KS, Dowd SE, Suchodolski JS, Middelbos IS, Vester BM, Barry KA, et al. 2011. Phylogenetic and genecentric metagenomics of the canine intestinal microbiome reveals similarities with humans and mice. ISME J. 5: 639-649. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2010.162
  10. Deng P, Swanson KS. 2015. Gut microbiota of humans, dogs and cats: current knowledge and future opportunities and challenges. Br. J. Nutr. 113: S6-S17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114514002943
  11. Simpson JM, Martineau B, Jones WE, Ballam JM, Mackie RI. 2002. Characterization of fecal bacterial populations in canines: effects of age, breed and dietary fiber. Microbial. Ecol. 44: 186-197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-002-0001-z
  12. Yu Z, Morrison M. 2004. Improved extraction of PCR quality community DNA from digesta and fecal samples. Biotechniques 36: 808-812. https://doi.org/10.2144/04365ST04
  13. Magoc M, Salzberg S. 2011. FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 27: 2957-2963. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507
  14. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. 2010. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 7: 335-336. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.f.303
  15. Holmes I, Harris K, Quince C. 2012. Dirichlet multinomial mixtures: generative models for microbial metagenomics. PLoS One 7: e30126. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030126
  16. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, et al. 2009. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75: 7537-7541. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01541-09
  17. Kim M, Kim J, Kuehn LA, Bono JL, Berry ED, Kalchayanand N, et al. 2014. Investigation of bacterial diversity in the feces of cattle fed different diets. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 683-694. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6841
  18. Omatsu T, Omura M, Katayama Y, Kimura T, Okumura M, Okumura A, et al. 2018. Molecular diversity of the faecal microbiota of toy poodles in Japan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 80: 749-754. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.17-0582
  19. Hooda S, Minamoto Y, Suchodolski JS, Swanson KS. 2012. Current state of knowledge: the canine gastrointestinal microbiome. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 13: 78-88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252312000059
  20. Turnbaugh PJ, Hamady M, Yatsunenko T, Cantarel BL, Duncan A, Ley RE, et al. 2009. A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature 457: 480-484. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07540
  21. Schmidt M, Unterer S, Suchodolski JS, Honneffer JB, Guard BC, Lidbury JA, et al. 2018. The fecal microbiome and metabolome differs between dogs fed bones and raw food (BARF) diets and dogs fed commercial diets. PLoS One 13(8): e0201279. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201279
  22. Hand D, Wallis C, Colyer A, Penn CW. 2013. Pyrosequencing the canine faecal microbiota: breadth and depth of biodiversity. PLoS One 8: e53115. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053115
  23. Swann JR, Want EJ, Geier FM, Spagou K, Wilson ID, Sidaway JE, et al. 2011. Systemic gut microbial modulation of bile acid metabolism in host tissue compartments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108: S4523-S4530. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006734107
  24. Zielinska D, Rzepkowska A, Radawska A, Zielinski K. 2015. In vitro screening of selected probiotic properties of Lactobacillus strains isolated from traditional fermented cabbage and cucumber. Curr. Microbiol. 70: 183-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-014-0699-0
  25. Hudault S, Lievin V, Bernet-Camard MF, Servin AL. 1997. Antagonistic activity exerted in vitro and in vivo by Lactobacillus casei (strain GG) against Salmonella typhimurium C5 infection. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63: 513-518. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.63.2.513-518.1997
  26. Pascual M, Hugas M, Badiola JI, Monfort JM, Garriga M. 1999. Lactobacillus salivarius CTC2197 prevents Salmonella enteritidis colonization in chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65: 4981-4986. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.65.11.4981-4986.1999
  27. Gill HS, Rutherfurd KJ, Prasad J, Gopal PK. 2000. Enhancement of natural and aquired immunity by Lactobacillus rhamnosus (HN001), Lactobacillus acidophilus (HN017) and bifidobacterium lactis (HN019). Br. J. Nutr. 83: 167-176. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114500000210
  28. Vitini E, Alvarez S, Medina M, Medici M, de Budeguer, MV, Perdigon G. 2000. Gut mucosal immunostimulation by lactic acid bacteria. Biocell 24: 223-232.
  29. David LA, Maurice CF, Carmody RN, Gootenberg DB, Button JE, Wolfe BE, et al. 2014. Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature 505: 559-563. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12820
  30. Fogarty LR, Voytek MA. 2005. Comparison of Bacteroides- Prevotella 16S rRNA genetic markers for fecal samples from different animal species. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71: 5999- 6007. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.10.5999-6007.2005
  31. Petri RM, Schwaiger T, Penner GB, Beauchemin KA, Forster RJ, McKinnon JJ, et al. 2013. Changes in the rumen epimural bacterial diversity of beef cattle as affected by diet and induced ruminal acidosis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol 79: 3744- 3755. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03983-12
  32. Li F, Guan LL. 2017. Metatranscriptomic profiling reveals linkages between the active rumen microbiome and feed efficiency in beef cattle. Apply. Environ. Microbiol. 83: e0061-17.
  33. Misawa N, Kawashima K, Kondo F, Kushima E, Kushima K, Vandamme P. 2002. Isolation and characterization of Campylobacter, Helicobacter, and Anaerobiospirillum strains from a puppy with bloody diarrhea. Vet. Microbiol. 87: 353-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(02)00086-X
  34. Shah HN, Olsen I, Bernard K, Finegold SM, Gharbia S, Gupta RS. 2009. Approaches to the study of the systematics of anaerobic, gram-negative, nonsporeforming rods: current status and perspectives. Anaerobe 15: 179-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2009.08.003
  35. Middelbos IS, Vester Boler BM, Qu A, White BA, Swanson KS, Fahey Jr GC. 2010. Phylogenetic characterization of fecal microbial communities of dogs fed diets with or without supplemental dietary fiber using 454 pyrosequencing. PLoS One 5: e9768. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009768

Cited by

  1. Interplay between Neuroendocrine Biomarkers and Gut Microbiota in Dogs Supplemented with Grape Proanthocyanidins: Results of Dietary Intervention Study vol.10, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030531
  2. Akkermansia and Microbial Degradation of Mucus in Cats and Dogs: Implications to the Growing Worldwide Epidemic of Pet Obesity vol.7, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci7020044
  3. Sex Differences in Intestinal Microbial Composition and Function of Hainan Special Wild Boar vol.10, pp.9, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10091553
  4. An application of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to study faecal canine metabolome vol.20, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051x.2021.1925602
  5. Evaluation of the microbiome composition in particulate matter inside and outside of pig houses vol.63, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2021.e52
  6. Comparison of Gut Microbiota of 96 Healthy Dogs by Individual Traits: Breed, Age, and Body Condition Score vol.11, pp.8, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082432
  7. Age and Giardia intestinalis Infection Impact Canine Gut Microbiota vol.9, pp.9, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9091862
  8. Gut Microbiota in Canine Idiopathic Epilepsy: Effects of Disease and Treatment vol.11, pp.11, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113121