AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (765.2 KB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research | Open Access

Comparing the intestinal bacterial communies of sympatric wintering Hooded Crane (Grus monacha) and Domestic Goose (Anser anser domesticus)

Rong Fu1,2, Xingjia Xiang1,2, Yuanqiu Dong1,2, Lei Cheng1,2, Lizhi Zhou1,2 ( )
School of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China
Anhui Province Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecological Protection and Restoration (Anhui University), Hefei 230601, China
Show Author Information

Abstract

Background

Gut microbiota play crucial roles in host health. Wild birds and domestic poultry often occupy sympatric habitats, which facilitate the mutual transmission of intestinal microbes. However, the distinct intestinal microbial communities between sympatric wild birds and poultry remain unknown. At present, the risk of interspecies transmission of pathogenic bacteria between wild and domestic host birds is also a research hotspot.

Methods

This study compared the intestinal bacterial communities of the overwintering Hooded Crane (Grus monacha) and the Domestic Goose (Anser anser domesticus) at Shengjin Lake, China, using Illumina high-throughput sequencing technology (Mi-Seq platform).

Results

Our results revealed that Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Chloroflexi were the dominant bacterial phyla in both hosts. The gut bacterial community composition differed significantly between sympatric Hooded Cranes and Domestic Geese. However, the hosts exhibited little variation in gut bacterial alpha-diversity. The relative abundance of Firmicutes was significantly higher in the guts of the Hooded Cranes, while the relative abundances of Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidete and Chloroflexi were significantly higher in guts of Domestic Geese. Moreover, a total of 132 potential pathogenic operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were detected in guts of Hooded Cranes and Domestic Geese, and 13 pathogenic OTUs (9.8%) were found in both host guts. Pathogenic bacterial community composition and diversity differed significantly between hosts.

Conclusions

The results showed that the gut bacterial community composition differs significantly between sympatric Hooded Cranes and Domestic Geese. In addition, potential pathogens were detected in the guts of both Hooded Cranes and Domestic Geese, with 13 pathogenic OTUs overlapping between the two hosts, suggesting that more attention should be paid to wild birds and poultry that might increase the risk of disease transmission in conspecifics and other mixed species.

References

【1】
【1】
 
 
Avian Research
Article number: 13

{{item.num}}

Comments on this article

Go to comment

< Back to all reports

Review Status: {{reviewData.commendedNum}} Commended , {{reviewData.revisionRequiredNum}} Revision Required , {{reviewData.notCommendedNum}} Not Commended Under Peer Review

Review Comment

Close
Close
Cite this article:
Fu R, Xiang X, Dong Y, et al. Comparing the intestinal bacterial communies of sympatric wintering Hooded Crane (Grus monacha) and Domestic Goose (Anser anser domesticus). Avian Research, 2020, 11(1): 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-020-00195-9

1232

Views

96

Downloads

41

Crossref

N/A

Web of Science

46

Scopus

6

CSCD

Received: 21 December 2019
Accepted: 06 April 2020
Published: 30 April 2020
© The Author(s) 2020.

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.