Evaluation of the microbiome composition in particulate matter inside and outside of pig houses

Abstract

Competing interestsNo potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported. Funding sourcesState funding sources (grants, funding sources, equipment, and supplies). Include name and number of grant if available.

The Distribution Characteristics of Aerosol Bacteria in Different Types of Pig Houses

“…Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were the dominant phyla in the three types of pig houses, which is consistent with previous studies [ 17 , 18 , 20 ]. Firmicutes are the most abundant phylum in the intestinal microbiome of pigs at all growth stages [ 38 ], suggesting that the dominant bacteria in the air of the pig house may originate from feces [ 39 ]. Proteobacteria is the largest phylum of bacteria, including many pathogenic bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Vibrio cholera, Helicobacter pylori, and other well-known species [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ], while some members of Proteobacteria play an important ecological role in various environments [ 44 ].…”

“…In the respiratory system, Moraxella lacunata and Moraxella nonliquefaciens are also opportunistic [ 53 ]. Aerococcus has been recovered from clinical samples of pigs in a growing number of investigations, indicating that it is pathogenic [ 39 , 54 , 55 ]. Previous research has found that microbial aerosols in pig houses include many Aerococcus , and pig employees working in an environment with many Aerococcus are at risk of becoming sick [ 1 ].…”

Particulate Matter in Swine Barns: A Comprehensive Review

“…Various devices and media were selected for swine barn PM sampling. The selected samplers include IOM or SKC personal PM samplers (Nehme et al, 2008(Nehme et al, , 2009Hong et al, 2021), isokinetic TSP sampler (Hong et al, 2012), filter cassettes (Kristiansen et al, 2012;Choi, 2014, 2015;Arfken et al, 2015;Kumari et al, 2016;Yan et al, 2019Yan et al, , 2021, BTPM-H1 ambient air PM samplers (Tang et al, 2020), TH-150F PM samplers (Song et al, 2021), Andersen multistage non-viable cascade impactors (White et al, 2020), AGI or SKC impingers (Rodríguez de Evgrafov et al, 2013;Drukenmüller et al, 2017;Liu, 2020), Coriolis®µ samplers (Kraemer et al, 2019), ESP samplers (Vestergaard et al, 2018;White et al, 2019;Luiken et al, 2020), and Andersen multistage viable cascade impactors and alike (White et al, 2020;Tang et al, 2021). Many of them (devices listed before impingers) are filter samplers.…”

“…Two studies used a customized extraction protocol (Hong et al, 2012;Rodríguez de Evgrafov et al, 2013). For filter samples, a PM-laden filter can be sliced and then subjected to DNA extraction (Hong et al, 2012;Choi, 2014, 2015;Arfken et al, 2015;Kumari et al, 2016;Tang et al, 2020;Hong et al, 2021;Song et al, 2021), or PM can be washed off the filter and pelleted (through centrifuging) for DNA extraction (Nehme et al, 2008(Nehme et al, , 2009Yan et al, 2019Yan et al, , 2021.…”

“…Additional information can be found from the companies' websites or Cao et al (2017). The PCR primers selected for NGS include 519f/926r (Hong et al, 2012), 338f/533r (Kumari and Choi, 2014), 338f/519r (Kumari and Choi, 2015), 27f/338r (Arfken et al, 2015), 341f/805r (Vestergaard et al, 2018;Hong et al, 2021), 515f/806r (Kraemer et al, 2019;Yan et al, 2021), 515f/805r (White et al, 2019), 515f/813r (Liu, 2020), and 338f/806r (Tang et al, 2020(Tang et al, , 2021Song et al, 2021) for bacteria; and ITS1FI2f/ITS2r (Kumari et al, 2016), ITS1f/ITS1r (White et al, 2019(White et al, , 2020, ITS3f/ITS4r (Liu, 2020), and ITS1f/ITS2r (Tang et al, 2020) for fungi. Similar to 16S rDNA for bacteria, the ITS region is the most prevalent fingerprint for fungal identification since it is highly variable among fungal species.…”