Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 May 23;2(3):e00004-17.
doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00004-17. eCollection 2017 May-Jun.

Meta-analysis To Define a Core Microbiota in the Swine Gut

Affiliations

Meta-analysis To Define a Core Microbiota in the Swine Gut

Devin B Holman et al. mSystems. .

Abstract

The swine gut microbiota encompasses a large and diverse population of bacteria that play a significant role in pig health. As such, a number of recent studies have utilized high-throughput sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene to characterize the composition and structure of the swine gut microbiota, often in response to dietary feed additives. It is important to determine which factors shape the composition of the gut microbiota among multiple studies and if certain bacteria are always present in the gut microbiota of swine, independently of study variables such as country of origin and experimental design. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis using 20 publically available data sets from high-throughput 16S rRNA gene sequence studies of the swine gut microbiota. Next to the "study" itself, the gastrointestinal (GI) tract section that was sampled had the greatest effect on the composition and structure of the swine gut microbiota (P = 0.0001). Technical variation among studies, particularly the 16S rRNA gene hypervariable region sequenced, also significantly affected the composition of the swine gut microbiota (P = 0.0001). Despite this, numerous commonalities were discovered. Among fecal samples, the genera Prevotella, Clostridium, Alloprevotella, and Ruminococcus and the RC9 gut group were found in 99% of all fecal samples. Additionally, Clostridium, Blautia, Lactobacillus, Prevotella, Ruminococcus, Roseburia, the RC9 gut group, and Subdoligranulum were shared by >90% of all GI samples, suggesting a so-called "core" microbiota for commercial swine worldwide. IMPORTANCE The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that "study" and GI sample location are the most significant factors in shaping the swine gut microbiota. However, in comparisons of results from different studies, some biological factors may be obscured by technical variation among studies. Nonetheless, there are some bacterial taxa that appear to form a core microbiota within the swine GI tract regardless of country of origin, diet, age, or breed. Thus, these results provide the framework for future studies to manipulate the swine gut microbiota for potential health benefits.

Keywords: 16S rRNA gene; bacteria; gut microbiome; gut microbiota; livestock; meta-analysis; microbial ecology; swine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG 1
FIG 1
Diagram of the swine gastrointestinal tract with major sections indicated as well as direction of movement of digesta in the colon. Original collection sites are labeled on the drawing.
FIG 2
FIG 2
Percent relative abundances of the three most abundant phyla (A) and 20 most abundant genera (B) by gastrointestinal tract sample type.
FIG 3
FIG 3
Principal-coordinate analysis plots of weighted UniFrac distances (A), unweighted UniFrac distances (B), and Bray-Curtis dissimilarities (C) classified by gastrointestinal tract sample type. The percentages of variation explained by the principal coordinates are indicated on the axes.
FIG 4
FIG 4
Differentially abundant genera in each gastrointestinal tract sample type as assessed using linear discriminant analysis (LDA) with effect size (LEfSe) measurements. Only those genera with an LDA score (log10) of >4.0 are displayed. Samples of duodenum and jejunum mucosa and digesta were excluded from analysis as there were fewer than five samples for each.
FIG 5
FIG 5
Principal-coordinate analysis plots of weighted UniFrac distances (A), unweighted UniFrac distances (B), and Bray-Curtis dissimilarities (C) classified by hypervariable region sequenced for fecal samples only. Percentages of variation explained by the principal coordinates are indicated on the axes, and the R values on each plot indicate the dissimilarities between the hypervariable region groups.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Brestoff JR, Artis D. 2013. Commensal bacteria at the interface of host metabolism and the immune system. Nat Immunol 14:676–684. doi:10.1038/ni.2640. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tremaroli V, Bäckhed F. 2012. Functional interactions between the gut microbiota and host metabolism. Nature 489:242–249. doi:10.1038/nature11552. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lallès JP, Bosi P, Smidt H, Stokes CR. 2007. Nutritional management of gut health in pigs around weaning. Proc Nutr Soc 66:260–268. doi:10.1017/S0029665107005484. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Waite DW, Taylor MW. 2014. Characterizing the avian gut microbiota: membership, driving influences, and potential function. Front Microbiol 5:223. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2014.00223. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adams RI, Bateman AC, Bik HM, Meadow JF. 2015. Microbiota of the indoor environment: a meta-analysis. Microbiome 3:49. doi:10.1186/s40168-015-0108-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources