Isaiah Anitha, Hoffmann Aline Rodrigues, Kelley Russ, Mundell Paul, Steiner Jörg M, Suchodolski Jan S
Gastrointestinal Laboratory, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Dermatopathology Specialty Service, Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 21;12(9):e0184899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184899. eCollection 2017.
Little is known about physiological factors that affect the sense of olfaction in dogs. The objectives of this study were to describe the canine nasal and oral microbiota in detection dogs. We sought to determine the bacterial composition of the nasal and oral microbiota of a diverse population of detection canines. Nasal and oral swabs were collected from healthy dogs (n = 81) from four locations-Alabama, Georgia, California, and Texas. Nasal and oral swabs were also collected from a second cohort of detection canines belonging to three different detection job categories: explosive detection dogs (SP-E; n = 22), patrol and narcotics detection dogs (P-NDD; n = 15), and vapor wake dogs (VWD-E; n = 9). To understand if the nasal and oral microbiota of detection canines were variable, sample collection was repeated after 7 weeks in a subset of dogs. DNA was extracted from the swabs and used for 454-pyrosequencing of the16S rRNA genes. Nasal samples had a significantly lower diversity than oral samples (P<0.01). Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria were higher in nasal samples, while Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Fusobacteria, and Tenericutes were higher in oral samples. Bacterial diversity was not significantly different based on the detection job. No significant difference in beta diversity was observed in the nasal samples based on the detection job. In oral samples, however, ANOSIM suggested a significant difference in bacterial communities based on job category albeit with a small effect size (R = 0.1079, P = 0.02). Analysis of the composition of bacterial communities using LEfSe showed that within the nasal samples, Cardiobacterium and Riemerella were higher in VWD-E dogs, and Sphingobacterium was higher in the P-NDD group. In the oral samples Enterococcus and Capnocytophaga were higher in the P-NDD group. Gemella and Aggregatibacter were higher in S-PE, and Pigmentiphaga, Chryseobacterium, Parabacteroides amongst others were higher within the VWD-E group. Our initial data also shows that there is a temporal variation in alpha diversity in nasal samples in detection canines.
关于影响犬类嗅觉的生理因素,人们所知甚少。本研究的目的是描述缉毒犬的鼻腔和口腔微生物群。我们试图确定不同种群缉毒犬鼻腔和口腔微生物群的细菌组成。从阿拉巴马州、佐治亚州、加利福尼亚州和得克萨斯州四个地点的健康犬(n = 81)采集鼻腔和口腔拭子。还从属于三种不同缉毒工作类别的第二批缉毒犬中采集鼻腔和口腔拭子:爆炸物检测犬(SP-E;n = 22)、巡逻和缉毒犬(P-NDD;n = 15)以及追踪犬(VWD-E;n = 9)。为了解缉毒犬的鼻腔和口腔微生物群是否存在差异,在一部分犬中于7周后重复样本采集。从拭子中提取DNA,并用于16S rRNA基因的454焦磷酸测序。鼻腔样本的多样性显著低于口腔样本(P<0.01)。放线菌门和变形菌门在鼻腔样本中含量较高,而拟杆菌门、厚壁菌门、梭杆菌门和柔膜菌门在口腔样本中含量较高。基于缉毒工作,细菌多样性没有显著差异。基于缉毒工作,鼻腔样本中的β多样性没有观察到显著差异。然而,在口腔样本中,相似性分析表明基于工作类别细菌群落存在显著差异,尽管效应大小较小(R = 0.1079,P = 0.02)。使用线性判别分析效应大小(LEfSe)对细菌群落组成进行分析表明,在鼻腔样本中,追踪犬(VWD-E)中的心杆菌属和里默氏菌属含量较高,巡逻和缉毒犬(P-NDD)组中的鞘氨醇杆菌属含量较高。在口腔样本中,巡逻和缉毒犬(P-NDD)组中的肠球菌属和二氧化碳嗜纤维菌属含量较高。孪生球菌属和聚集杆菌属在爆炸物检测犬(S-PE)中含量较高,嗜色素菌属、金黄杆菌属、副拟杆菌属等在追踪犬(VWD-E)组中含量较高。我们的初步数据还表明,缉毒犬鼻腔样本中的α多样性存在时间变化。