Consequences of Domestication on Gut Microbiome: A Comparative Study Between Wild Gaur and Domestic Mithun

Abstract

Although the gut microbiome benefits the host in several ways, how anthropogenic forces impact the gut microbiome of mammals is not yet completely known. Recent studies have noted reduced gut microbiome diversity in captive mammals due to changes in diet and living environment. However, no studies have been carried out to understand how the gut microbiome of wild mammals responds to domestication. We analyzed the gut microbiome of wild and captive gaur and domestic mithun (domestic form of gaur) to understand whether the gut microbiome exhibits sequential changes from wild to captivity and after domestication. Both captive and domestic populations were characterized by reduced microbial diversity and abundance as compared to their wild counterparts. Notably, two beneficial bacterial families, Ruminococcaceae and Lachnospiraceae, which are known to play vital roles in herbivores' digestion, exhibited lower abundance in captive and domestic populations. Consequently, the predicted bacterial functional pathways especially related to metabolism and immune system showed lower abundance in captive and domestic populations compared to wild population. Therefore, we suggest that domestication can impact the gut microbiome more severely than captivity, which might lead to adverse effects on host health and fitness. However, further investigations are required across a wide range of domesticates in order to understand the general trend of microbiome shifts in domestic animals.

Comparative Analysis of Microbial Community Structure and Function in the Gut of Wild and Captive Amur Tiger

“…In this study, we performed a metagenomic inventory of 22 wild individuals and 13 captive individuals to investigate the variations of the gut microbiota composition and function traits and their correlations both in wild and captive Amur tigers. Taxonomic assignment of 16S rRNA sequences showed that the gut microbiota of Amur tigers was composed by 17 bacterial phyla, and the most important constituents were Firmicutes and Proteobacteria and this is in agreement with previous study on composition and functional structures of captive tigers ( He et al, 2018b ), gaur ( Prabhu et al, 2020 ), and other mammals ( Wasimuddin et al, 2017 ). At the genus level, Collinsella was dominant and positively correlated with circulating insulin.…”

“…Taxonomic assignment of 16S rRNA sequences showed that the gut microbiota of Amur tigers was composed by 17 bacterial phyla, and the most important constituents were Firmicutes and Proteobacteria and this is in agreement with previous study on composition and functional structures of captive tigers (He et al, 2018b), gaur (Prabhu et al, 2020), and other mammals (Wasimuddin et al, 2017). At the genus level, Collinsella was dominant and positively correlated with circulating insulin.…”

Monitoring the variation in the gut microbiota of captive woolly monkeys related to changes in diet during a reintroduction process

“…Several studies have focused on comparing differences in gut microbiome communities between captive and free ranging individuals in different species 9 , 10 , 23 – 26 . In these studies, microbiome alpha diversity was consistently higher in samples from wild individuals compared to captive ones, furthermore, beta diversity showed that individuals in captivity harbor different microbial communities compared to wild ones.…”

Alterations in gut microbiota linked to provenance, sex, and chronic wasting disease in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

“…As diets differed between farmed and free-ranging deer, it was not surprising that farmed and free-ranging deer had significantly different microbial communities or that there were significant differences in gut microbiota between the two farms with different feeding regimens. Multiple previous studies have also reported gut microbial differences between wild and captive animals [48][49][50] , including ruminants 33,51 .…”