A cross-sectional study of the nasal and fecal microbiota of sows from different health status within six commercial swine farms
Background Cull sows are a unique population on swine farms, often representing poor producing or compromised animals, and even though recent studies have reported that the microbiome is associated with susceptibility to diseases, the microbiome of the cull sow population has not been explored. The...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
PeerJ Inc.
2021-09-01
|
Series: | PeerJ |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://peerj.com/articles/12120.pdf |
id |
doaj-cf4e070c4fbc4a62aed0885c28d5764d |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-cf4e070c4fbc4a62aed0885c28d5764d2021-09-19T15:05:13ZengPeerJ Inc.PeerJ2167-83592021-09-019e1212010.7717/peerj.12120A cross-sectional study of the nasal and fecal microbiota of sows from different health status within six commercial swine farmsAndreia G. Arruda0Loic Deblais1Vanessa L. Hale2Christopher Madden3Monique Pairis-Garcia4Vishal Srivastava5Dipak Kathayat6Anand Kumar7Gireesh Rajashekara8Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of AmericaDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of AmericaDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of AmericaDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of AmericaDepartment of Population Health and Pathobiology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States of AmericaDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of AmericaDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of AmericaBiosecurity and Public Health Group, Bioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States of AmericaDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States of AmericaBackground Cull sows are a unique population on swine farms, often representing poor producing or compromised animals, and even though recent studies have reported that the microbiome is associated with susceptibility to diseases, the microbiome of the cull sow population has not been explored. The main objective of this study was to investigate whether there were differences in fecal and upper respiratory tract microbiota composition for groups of sows of different health status (healthy, cull, and compromised/ clinical sows) and from different farms (1 to 6). Methods Six swine farms were visited once. Thirty individual fecal samples and nasal swabs were obtained at each farm and pooled by five across health status and farm. Samples underwent 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and nasal and fecal microbiota were analyzed using QIIME2 v.2021.4. Results Overall, the diversity of the nasal microbiota was lower than the fecal microbiota (p < 0.01). No significant differences were found in fecal or nasal alpha diversity by sow’s health status or by farm. There were significant differences in nasal microbial composition by farm and health status (PERMANOVA, p < 0.05), and in fecal microbiota by farm (PERMANOVA, p < 0.05), but not by health status. Lastly, at the L7 level, there was one differentially abundant taxa across farms for each nasal and fecal pooled samples. Discussion This study provided baseline information for nasal and fecal microbiota of sows under field conditions, and results suggest that farm of origin can affect microbial diversity and composition. Furthermore, sow’s health status may have an impact on the nasal microbiota composition.https://peerj.com/articles/12120.pdfSwineSwine microbiotaNasal and fecal microbiotaCull sowsSwine health |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Andreia G. Arruda Loic Deblais Vanessa L. Hale Christopher Madden Monique Pairis-Garcia Vishal Srivastava Dipak Kathayat Anand Kumar Gireesh Rajashekara |
spellingShingle |
Andreia G. Arruda Loic Deblais Vanessa L. Hale Christopher Madden Monique Pairis-Garcia Vishal Srivastava Dipak Kathayat Anand Kumar Gireesh Rajashekara A cross-sectional study of the nasal and fecal microbiota of sows from different health status within six commercial swine farms PeerJ Swine Swine microbiota Nasal and fecal microbiota Cull sows Swine health |
author_facet |
Andreia G. Arruda Loic Deblais Vanessa L. Hale Christopher Madden Monique Pairis-Garcia Vishal Srivastava Dipak Kathayat Anand Kumar Gireesh Rajashekara |
author_sort |
Andreia G. Arruda |
title |
A cross-sectional study of the nasal and fecal microbiota of sows from different health status within six commercial swine farms |
title_short |
A cross-sectional study of the nasal and fecal microbiota of sows from different health status within six commercial swine farms |
title_full |
A cross-sectional study of the nasal and fecal microbiota of sows from different health status within six commercial swine farms |
title_fullStr |
A cross-sectional study of the nasal and fecal microbiota of sows from different health status within six commercial swine farms |
title_full_unstemmed |
A cross-sectional study of the nasal and fecal microbiota of sows from different health status within six commercial swine farms |
title_sort |
cross-sectional study of the nasal and fecal microbiota of sows from different health status within six commercial swine farms |
publisher |
PeerJ Inc. |
series |
PeerJ |
issn |
2167-8359 |
publishDate |
2021-09-01 |
description |
Background Cull sows are a unique population on swine farms, often representing poor producing or compromised animals, and even though recent studies have reported that the microbiome is associated with susceptibility to diseases, the microbiome of the cull sow population has not been explored. The main objective of this study was to investigate whether there were differences in fecal and upper respiratory tract microbiota composition for groups of sows of different health status (healthy, cull, and compromised/ clinical sows) and from different farms (1 to 6). Methods Six swine farms were visited once. Thirty individual fecal samples and nasal swabs were obtained at each farm and pooled by five across health status and farm. Samples underwent 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and nasal and fecal microbiota were analyzed using QIIME2 v.2021.4. Results Overall, the diversity of the nasal microbiota was lower than the fecal microbiota (p < 0.01). No significant differences were found in fecal or nasal alpha diversity by sow’s health status or by farm. There were significant differences in nasal microbial composition by farm and health status (PERMANOVA, p < 0.05), and in fecal microbiota by farm (PERMANOVA, p < 0.05), but not by health status. Lastly, at the L7 level, there was one differentially abundant taxa across farms for each nasal and fecal pooled samples. Discussion This study provided baseline information for nasal and fecal microbiota of sows under field conditions, and results suggest that farm of origin can affect microbial diversity and composition. Furthermore, sow’s health status may have an impact on the nasal microbiota composition. |
topic |
Swine Swine microbiota Nasal and fecal microbiota Cull sows Swine health |
url |
https://peerj.com/articles/12120.pdf |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT andreiagarruda acrosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT loicdeblais acrosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT vanessalhale acrosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT christophermadden acrosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT moniquepairisgarcia acrosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT vishalsrivastava acrosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT dipakkathayat acrosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT anandkumar acrosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT gireeshrajashekara acrosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT andreiagarruda crosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT loicdeblais crosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT vanessalhale crosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT christophermadden crosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT moniquepairisgarcia crosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT vishalsrivastava crosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT dipakkathayat crosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT anandkumar crosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms AT gireeshrajashekara crosssectionalstudyofthenasalandfecalmicrobiotaofsowsfromdifferenthealthstatuswithinsixcommercialswinefarms |
_version_ |
1717375268689018880 |