Gut microbial diversity in two insectivorous bats: Insights into the effect of different sampling sources

Wu, Haonan; Xing, Yanfeng; Sun, Haijian; Mao, Xiuguang

doi:10.1002/mbo3.670

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 and Table S1 in Supplementary Materials), which was consistent with the findings of Yuan (2018) and Wu et al (2019). Proteobacteria was the predominant phylum in the gastrointestinal tract of R. ferrumequinum (i.e., 80.25% in the stomach and 74.12% in the intestines) (Yuan 2018) and in the intestines of Rhinolophus sinicus and Myotis altarium (i.e., 43.5% and 42.5%, respectively) (Wu et al 2019). The bacterial diversity of the gastrointestinal tract flora in bats may be closely related to their habitat and associated environmental factors.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The most dominant phylum in the gastrointestinal tracts of R. luctus and M. leucogaster was Proteobacteria (i.e., 86.07% and 95.79% in the stomach, and 91.87% and 88.78% in the intestines, respectively) ( Fig. 4 and Table S1 in Supplementary Materials), which was consistent with the findings of Yuan (2018) and Wu et al (2019). Proteobacteria was the predominant phylum in the gastrointestinal tract of R. ferrumequinum (i.e., 80.25% in the stomach and 74.12% in the intestines) (Yuan 2018) and in the intestines of Rhinolophus sinicus and Myotis altarium (i.e., 43.5% and 42.5%, respectively) (Wu et al 2019).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…MiSeq high-throughput sequencing technology has previously been used to study bacterial diversity in the gastrointestinal tracts of bats (Zhou 2016;Yuan 2018;Wu et al 2019). The abundance and diversity of the intestinal flora of Hipposideros pratti, Hypsugo alaschanicus, M. fuliginosus, and R. ferrumequinum were found to be higher than those of the stomach flora (Zhou 2016;Yuan 2018), which is consistent with the findings of R. luctus in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bacterial diversity in the gastrointestinal tracts of Rhinolophus luctus and Murina leucogaster in Henan Province, China

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Previous studies have assessed the diversity of gastrointestinal bacteria in bats and reported that some of the strains are pathogenic to humans; therefore, bats are considered to be potential reservoirs of zoonotic pathogens. However, the bacterial diversity and types of pathogenic bacteria in the gastrointestinal tracts of Rhinolophus luctus and Murina leucogaster have not yet been determined. Humans frequently come into contact with these species; therefore, assessments of their gut microbiota, especially potential pathogens, are essential for public health. In the present study, MiSeq high-throughput sequencing was used to address this research gap, and the results were compared with those reported previously. Methods The V3–V4 regions of the 16S rRNA gene were sequenced using the MiSeq high-throughput sequencing platform to determine the bacterial community of the stomach and the intestines of R. luctus and M. leucogaster. Results The bacteria in the gastrointestinal tracts of R. luctus and M. leucogaster were classified into three and four main bacterial phyla, respectively. In both R. luctus and M. leucogaster, the dominant phylum was Proteobacteria (stomach 86.07% and 95.79%, intestines 91.87% and 88.78%, respectively), followed by Firmicutes (stomach 13.84% and 4.19%, intestines 8.11% and 11.20%, respectively). In total, 18 and 20 bacterial genera occurred in a relative abundance of 0.01% or more in the gastrointestinal tracts of R. luctus and M. leucogaster, respectively. In R. luctus, the dominant genera were Lactococcus (10.11%) and Paeniclostridium (3.41%) in the stomach, and Undibacterium (28.56%) and Paeniclostridium (4.69%) in the intestines. In M. leucogaster, the dominant genera were Undibacterium (54.41%) and Burkholderia (5.28%) in the stomach, and Undibacterium (29.67%) and Enterococcus (7.19%) in the intestines. Among the detected gastrointestinal tract flora of R. luctus and M. leucogaster, 12 bacterial genera were pathogenic or opportunistic pathogens. Conclusion A high number of human pathogens were detected in the gastrointestinal tracts of R. luctus and M. leucogaster, which demonstrates the urgency for increased efforts in the prevention and management of bat-to-human disease transmission from these species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bacterial diversity in the gastrointestinal tracts of Rhinolophus luctus and Murina leucogaster in Henan Province, China

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the obvious advantages of fecal sampling and rectal swabs, a much-debated question is whether these microbiomes are representative of the gut microbiome. Previously, some researchers focused on aspects of diversity measurement for microbial communities using 16S rDNA sequence analysis, For instance, studies of C57BL/6J mice [14], humans [15,16], chickens [17], and other mammals [18,19] concluded that the microbiomes in feces, cecum, and mucus were distinct. Consequently, there is significant spatiotemporal variation across different intestinal segments [20] even within the same individual.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Metagenomic Analysis of Chicken Gut Microbial Community, Function, and Resistome to Evaluate Noninvasive and Cecal Sampling Resources

Kang

et al. 2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When conducting metagenomic analysis on gut microbiomes, there is no general consensus concerning the mode of sampling: non-contact (feces), noninvasive (rectal swabs), or cecal. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and comparative merits and disadvantages of using fecal samples or rectal swabs as a proxy for the cecal microbiome. Using broiler as a model, gut microbiomes were obtained from cecal, cloacal, and fecal samples and were characterized according to an analysis of the microbial community, function, and resistome. Cecal samples had higher microbial diversity than feces, while the cecum and cloaca exhibited higher levels of microbial community structure similarity compared with fecal samples. Cecal microbiota possessed higher levels of DNA replicative viability than feces, while fecal microbiota were correlated with increased metabolic activity. When feces were excreted, the abundance of antibiotic resistance genes like tet and ErmG decreased, but some antibiotic genes became more prevalent, such as fexA, tetL, and vatE. Interestingly, Lactobacillus was a dominant bacterial genus in feces that led to differences in microbial community structure, metabolism, and resistome. In conclusion, fecal microbiota have limited potential as a proxy in chicken gut microbial community studies. Thus, feces should be used with caution for characterizing gut microbiomes by metagenomic analysis.

show abstract

“…The most common samples used as a proxy for intestinal microbiota are fecal samples; however, they do not categorise spatial inhabitants, and it is not possible to localise them. Similarly, they lack temporal information and cannot reciprocate real‐time gut environment as they are examined after travelling through the entire GI tract, which exposes the sample to contamination 8 . Some efforts have been made in obtaining samples from the human gut with biopsy; however, it is a tethered method which largely restricts its use to the large intestine 9,10 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capsule robot for gut microbiota sampling using shape memory alloy spring

Rehan

Al‐Bahadly

Thomas

et al. 2020

Robotics Computer Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Human gut microbiota can provide lifelong health information and even influence mood and behaviour. We currently lack the tools to obtain a microbial sample, directly from the small intestine, without contamination. Methods: Shape memory alloy springs are used in concentric configuration to develop an axial actuator. A novel design of sampling mechanism is fabricated for collecting the sample from the gut. Storage chamber (500 µl) is used to protect the sample from downstream contamination. Results: The developed actuator occupies a small space (5 � Ø5.75 mm) and produces sufficient output force (1.75 N) to operate the sampling mechanism. A noninvasive capsule robot was tested ex vivo on the animal intestine, and it captured an average of 134 µl content which was sufficient for microbiome assessment. Conclusions: Laboratory testing revealed that the collected sample had an amino acid signature indicative of microbiota, mucus and digesta, which provided a proof of concept for the proposed design. K E Y W O R D S capsule robot, GI tract, gut microbiota, intestine, micro robot 1 | INTRODUCTION A significant population of microorganisms (bacteria, archaea and fungi) live inside the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, play a major role in fibre fermentation and the synthesis of short-chain fatty acids, and some nutrients (e.g., vitamins), and are collectively known as microbiota. 1 Human intestinal microbiota consist of 10 13-10 14 microorganisms which can act as biomarkers. 2 The microbiota, present in the GI tract, contain lifelong information on the health of an individual and can assist in early diagnosis of diseases such as cancer, diabetes and obesity. 3-5 Several researchers believe that analysis of microbiota could be helpful in predicting obesity, diabetes and inflammatory bowel disease. 3-6 Microbiota can also help to study the relationship or interaction between nutrition and human health. 3 Given the significance of gut microbiota, it is critical to explore its ecology. Microbiota colonise the mucous layer which covers the columnar epithelium of the GI tract and the digesta within the intestinal lumen. 7 The population of microorganisms (microbiota) inside the intestine has been studied using various methods. The most common samples used as a proxy for intestinal microbiota are fecal samples; however, they do not categorise spatial inhabitants, and it is not possible to localise them. Similarly, they lack temporal information and cannot reciprocate real-time gut environment as they are examined after travelling through the entire GI tract, which exposes the sample to contamination. 8 Some efforts have been made in obtaining samples from the human gut with biopsy; however, it is a tethered method which largely restricts its use to the large intestine. 9,10 Furthermore, tethered methods involve a high risk of gut perforation, bleeding and require sedation, and the procedure is also invasive and unpleasant for a patient in terms of comfort. 10 Most importantly, the sample obtained by biopsy is a tissue s...

show abstract

Gut microbial diversity in two insectivorous bats: Insights into the effect of different sampling sources

Cited by 17 publications

References 57 publications

Bacterial diversity in the gastrointestinal tracts of Rhinolophus luctus and Murina leucogaster in Henan Province, China

Bacterial diversity in the gastrointestinal tracts of Rhinolophus luctus and Murina leucogaster in Henan Province, China

Comparative Metagenomic Analysis of Chicken Gut Microbial Community, Function, and Resistome to Evaluate Noninvasive and Cecal Sampling Resources

Capsule robot for gut microbiota sampling using shape memory alloy spring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About