Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T03:02:11.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Faecal microbiome sequences in relation to the egg-laying performance of hens using amplicon-based metagenomic association analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2019

A. A. Elokil Open the ORCID record for A. A. Elokil [Opens in a new window] ,
M. Magdy ,
S. Melak ,
H. Ishfaq ,
A. Bhuiyan ,
L. Cui ,
M. Jamil ,
S. Zhao  and
S. Li
A. A. Elokil*
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Education, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, Hubei, China Animal Production Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Benha University, Benha 13736, Moshtohor, Egypt
M. Magdy
Affiliation:
Genetics Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Shubra 11241, Cairo, Egypt
S. Melak
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, Jiangsu, China
H. Ishfaq
Affiliation:
Guangdong Public Laboratory of Wild Animal Conservation and Utilization, Guangdong Institute of Applied Biological Resources, Guangzhou 510260, Guangdong, China
A. Bhuiyan
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Education, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, Hubei, China Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute, Savar 1341, Dhaka, Bangladesh
L. Cui
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Education, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, Hubei, China
M. Jamil
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Education, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, Hubei, China
S. Zhao
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Education, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, Hubei, China
S. Li*
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Education, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, Hubei, China
*
†E-mail: lishijun@mail.hzau.edu.cn
Get access

Abstract

Exploring the composition and structure of the faecal microbial community improves the understanding of the role of the gut microbiota in the gastrointestinal function and the egg-laying performance of hens. Therefore, detection of hen–microbial interactions can explore a new breeding marker for the selection of egg production due to the important role of the gut microbiome in the host’s metabolism and health. Recently, the gut microbiota has been recognised as a regulator of host performance, which has led to investigations of the productive effects of changes in the faecal microbiome in various animals. In the present study, a metagenomics analysis was applied to characterise the composition and structural diversity of faecal microbial communities under two selections of egg-laying performance, high (H, n = 30) and low (L, n = 30), using 16S rRNA-based metagenomic association analysis. The most abundant bacterial compositions were estimated based on the operational classification units among samples and between the groups from metagenomic data sets. The results indicated that Firmicutes phylum has higher significant (P < 0.01) in the H group than in the L group. In addition, higher relative abundance phyla of Bacteroides and Fusobacteria were estimated in the H group than the L group, contrasting the phyla of Actinobacteria, Cyanobacteria and Proteobacteria were more relative abundance in the L group. The families (Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Acinetobacter, Flavobacteriaceae, Lachnoclostridum and Rhodococcus) were more abundant in the H group based on the comparison between the H and L groups. Meanwhile, three types of phyla (Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Cyanobacteria) and six families (Acinetobacter, Avibacterium, Clostridium, Corynebacterium, Helicobacter and Peptoclostridium) were more abundant in the L group (P < 0.01). Overall, the selection of genotypes has enriched a relationship between the gut microbiota and the egg-laying performance. These findings suggest that the faecal microbiomes of chickens with high egg-laying performance have more diverse activities than those of chickens with low egg-laying performance, which may be related to the metabolism and health of the host and egg production variation.

Keywords

gut microbiotahost–microbe interactionssymbiotic microbial16S rRNAegg-laying hen
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , April 2020 , pp. 706 - 715
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: 1 Shizishan Street, Hongshan District, Wuhan 430070, Hubei, China.

References

Aymé, S, Omry, K and Ruth, L 2011. Unravelling the effects of the environment and host genotype on the gut microbiome. Nature Reviews Microbiology 9, 279–290.Google Scholar
Bindels, LB, Neyrinck, AM, Claus, SP, Roy, CI, Grangette, C, Pot, B, Martinez, I, Walter, J, Cani, PD and Delzenne, NM 2016. Synbiotic approach restores intestinal homeostasis and prolongs survival in leukaemic mice with cachexia. Isme Journal 10, 1456–1470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cadwell, K, Niranji, SS, Armstrong, VL, Mowbray, CA, Bailey, R, Watson, KA and Hall, J 2017. AvBD1 nucleotide polymorphisms, peptide antimicrobial activities and microbial colonisation of the broiler chicken gut. BMC Genomics 18, 637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choe, DW, Loh, TC, Foo, HL, Hairbejo, M and Awis, QS 2012. Egg production, faecal pH and microbial population, small intestine morphology, and plasma and yolk cholesterol in laying hens given liquid metabolites produced by Lactobacillus plantarum strains. British Poultry Science 53, 106–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delzenne, NM and Cani, PD 2011. Interaction between obesity and the gut microbiota: relevance in nutrition. Annual Review of Nutrition 31, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, GG, Lee, JY, Jin, GD, Park, J, Choi, YH, Chae, BJ, Kim, EB and Choi, YJ 2016. Evaluating the association between body weight and the intestinal microbiota of weaned piglets via 16S rRNA sequencing. Veterinary Microbiology 196, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
He, M, Yan, Z, Lele, Z, Wenjing, Z, Chuan, H, Christa, FH, Zhengxiao, Z, Zikui, S and Paul, BS 2014. Body weight selection affects quantitative genetic correlated responses in gut microbiota. PLoS ONE 9, e89862.Google Scholar
Hildebrand, F, Nguyen, TL, Brinkman, B, Yunta, RG, Cauwe, B, Vandenabeele, P, Liston, A and Raes, J 2013. Inflammation-associated enterotypes, host genotype, cage and inter-individual effects drive gut microbiota variation in common laboratory mice. Genome Biology 14, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollister, EB, Gao, C and Versalovic, J 2014. Compositional and functional features of the gastrointestinal microbiome and their effects on human health. Gastroenterology 6, 1449–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jami, E, White, BA and Mizrahi, I 2014. Potential role of the bovine rumen microbiome in modulating milk composition and feed efficiency. PLoS ONE 9, e85423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koch, H and Schmid-Hempel, P 2012. Gut microbiota instead of host genotype drive the specificity in the interaction of a natural host-parasite system. Ecology Letters 15, 1095–1103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosiewicz, MM, Zirnheld, AL and Alard, P 2011. Gut microbiota, immunity, and disease: a complex relationship. Frontiers in Microbiology 2, 180, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreznar, JH, Keller, MP, Traeger, LL, Rabaglia, ME, Schueler, KL, Stapleton, DS, Zhao, W, Vivas, EI, Yandell, BS and Broman, AT 2017. Host genotype and gut microbiome modulate insulin secretion and diet-induced metabolic phenotypes. Cell Reports 18, 1739–1750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, WJ and Hase, K 2014. Gut microbiota-generated metabolites in animal health and disease. Nature Chemical Biology 10, 416–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Luo, G, Nkrumah, JD, Basarab, JA and Moore, SS 2010. Linkage of microbial ecology to phenotype: correlation of rumen microbial ecology to cattle’s feed efficiency. FEMS Microbiology Letters 288, 85–91.Google Scholar
Li, F and Guan, LL 2017. Metatranscriptomic profiling reveals linkages between the active rumen microbiome and feed efficiency in beef cattle. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 83, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meng, H, Zhang, Y, Zhao, L, Zhao, W, He, C, Honaker, CF, Zhai, Z, Sun, Z and Siegel, PB 2014. Body weight selection affects quantitative genetic correlated responses in gut microbiota. PLoS ONE 9, e89862.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mi, YL, You, HJ, Yoon, HS, Kwon, B, Lee, JY, Lee, S, Song, YM, Lee, K, Sung, J and Ko, GP 2017. The effect of heritability and host genetics on the gut microbiota and metabolic syndrome. Gut 66, 1031–1038.Google Scholar
Namkung, H, Li, M, Yu, J, Cottrill, H and Lange, MC 2004. Impact of feeding blends of organic acids and herbal extracts on growth performance, gut microbiota and digestive function in newly weaned pigs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 697–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, BB, Lillehoj, HS, Kogut, MH, Kim, WK, Maurer, JJ, Pedroso, A, Lee, MD, Collett, SR, Johnson, TJ and Cox, NA 2015. The chicken gastrointestinal microbiome. FEMS Microbiology Letters 360, 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Org, E, Parks, BW, Joo, JW, Emert, B, Schwartzman, W, Kang, EY, Mehrabian, M, Pan, C, Knight, R and Gunsalus, R 2015. Genetic and environmental control of host-gut microbiota interactions. Genome Research 25, 1558–1569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polansky, O, Sekelova, Z, Faldynova, M, Sebkova, A, Sisak, F and Rychlik, I 2015. Important metabolic pathways and biological processes expressed by chicken cecal microbiota. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 82, 1569–1576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schofield, BJ, Lachner, N, Le, OT, Mcneill, DM, Dart, P, Ouwerkerk, D, Hugenholtz, P and Klieve, AV 2018. Beneficial changes in rumen bacterial community profile in sheep and dairy calves as a result of feeding the probiotic Bacillus amyloliquefaciens H57. Journal of Applied Microbiology 124, 855–866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaufi, MA, Sieo, CC, Chong, CW, Gan, HM and Yin, WH 2015. Deciphering chicken gut microbial dynamics based on high-throughput 16S rRNA metagenomics analyses. Gut Pathogens 7, 4, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, D, Geier, MS, Denman, SE, Haring, VR, Crowley, TM, Hughes, RJ and Moore, RJ 2013. Identification of chicken intestinal microbiota correlated with the efficiency of energy extraction from feed. Veterinary Microbiology 164, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Team, RD 2015. A Language and environment for statistical computing. Computing 1, 12–21.Google Scholar
Toghiani, S 2012. Quantitative genetic application in the selection process for livestock production. In Livestock production (ed. Javed, K), pp. 3–32. IntechOpen, Rijeka, Croatia.Google Scholar
Turnbaugh, PJ, Bäckhed, F, Fulton, L and Gordon, JI 2008. Diet-induced obesity is linked to marked but reversible alterations in the mouse distal gut microbiome. Cell Host & Microbe 3, 213–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turnbaugh, PJ, Hamady, M, Yatsunenko, T, Cantarel, BL, Duncan, A, Ley, RE, Sogin, ML, Jones, WJ, Roe, BA and Affourtit, JP 2009. A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature 457, 480–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turnbaugh, PJ, Ley, RE, Hamady, M, Fraser-Liggett, C, Knight, R and Gordon, JI 2007. The human microbiome project: exploring the microbial part of ourselves in a changing world. Nature 449, 804–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnbaugh, PJ, Ley, RE, Mahowald, MA, Magrini, V, Mardis, ER and Gordon, JI 2006. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature 444, 1027–1031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waite, DW and Taylor, MW 2015. Exploring the avian gut microbiota: current trends and future directions. Frontiers in Microbiology 6, 673, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, Y, Yang, H, Zhang, L, Su, Y, Shi, D, Xiao, H and Tian, Y 2016. High-throughput sequencing technology to reveal the composition and function of cecal microbiota in Dagu chicken. BMC Microbiology 16, 259, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, L, Liu, S, Ding, J, Dai, R, He, C, Xu, K, Honaker, CF, Zhang, Y, Siegel, P and Meng, H 2017. Gut microbiota co-microevolution with selection for host humoral immunity. Frontiers in Microbiology 8, 1243, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zdunczyk, Z and Jankowski, J 2014. The composition and enzymatic activity of gut microbiota in laying hens fed diets supplemented with blue lupine seeds. Animal Feed Science & Technology 191, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, L, Wang, G, Siegel, P, He, C, Wang, H, Zhao, W, Zhai, Z, Tian, F, Zhao, J, Zhang, H, Sun, Z, Chen, W, Zhang, Y and Meng, H 2013. Quantitative genetic background of the host influences gut microbiomes in chickens. Scientific Reports 3, 1163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Elokil et al. supplementary material

Elokil et al. supplementary material

Download Elokil et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.4 MB