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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Andreia G. Arruda, Loic Deblais, Vanessa L. Hale, Christopher Madden, Monique Pairis-Garcia, Vishal Srivastava, Dipak Kathayat, Anand Kumar, Gireesh Rajashekara
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