Burrough Eric R, Arruda Bailey L, Plummer Paul J
Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Front Vet Sci. 2017 Aug 24;4:139. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00139. eCollection 2017.
Colonic contents and mucosal scrapings from pigs inoculated with or were collected at necropsy and classified as either positive ( = 29) or negative ( = 7) for swine dysentery (SD) based upon lesions and positive culture from the source pig. The microbiota in each sample was analyzed by bacterial census taking (16S rRNA gene sequencing). Procrustes analysis revealed similar clustering by disease classification with a relatively high M2 value (0.44) suggesting differences in the microbiota between mucosal and luminal samples from the same pig. In both sample types, differences in richness and beta diversity were observed between disease statuses ( ≤ 0.014). The relative abundance of , and was higher in pigs with dysentery for both mucosal scrapings and luminal samples while , and were significantly more abundant in the luminal contents only. For inoculated pigs that did not develop dysentery, were more abundant in both sample types, and were more abundant in mucosal scrapings, and and were more abundant in luminal contents when compared with diseased pigs. Linear discriminant analysis of effect size revealed , and multiple spp. as differential features in mucosal scrapings from pigs with dysentery while and a spp. were differential in pigs without disease. These differential features were not observed in luminal samples. In summary, microbial profiles in both sample types differ significantly between disease states; however, evaluation of the mucosal microbiome specifically may be of higher value in elucidating bacterial mechanisms underlying development of SD.
在尸检时收集接种或未接种猪的结肠内容物和黏膜刮片,并根据病变情况和源猪的阳性培养结果,将其分类为猪痢疾(SD)阳性(n = 29)或阴性(n = 7)。通过细菌普查(16S rRNA基因测序)分析每个样本中的微生物群。Procrustes分析显示,按疾病分类的聚类相似,M2值相对较高(0.44),表明同一头猪的黏膜和肠腔样本之间微生物群存在差异。在两种样本类型中,疾病状态之间的丰富度和β多样性均存在差异(P≤0.014)。对于黏膜刮片和肠腔样本,痢疾猪中、和的相对丰度较高,而仅在肠腔内容物中、和的丰度显著更高。对于未患痢疾的接种猪,与患病猪相比,两种样本类型中的丰度更高,黏膜刮片中的和丰度更高,肠腔内容物中的和丰度更高。效应大小的线性判别分析显示,和多个弯曲菌属物种是痢疾猪黏膜刮片中的差异特征,而和一个梭菌属物种在未患病猪中存在差异。这些差异特征在肠腔样本中未观察到。总之,两种样本类型中的微生物谱在疾病状态之间存在显著差异;然而,特异性评估黏膜微生物组在阐明SD发生的细菌机制方面可能具有更高的价值。