4.6 Article

Changes in Cecal Microbiota and Mucosal Gene Expression Revealed New Aspects of Epizootic Rabbit Enteropathy

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105707

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fun-C-Food from the Consolider-Ingenio programme [CSD2007-00063]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
  3. [AGL2010-22211]
  4. [AGL2006-07596]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epizootic Rabbit Enteropathy (ERE) is a severe disease of unknown aetiology that mainly affects post-weaning animals. Its incidence can be prevented by antibiotic treatment suggesting that bacterial elements are crucial for the development of the disease. Microbial dynamics and host responses during the disease were studied. Cecal microbiota was characterized in three rabbit groups (ERE-affected, healthy and healthy pretreated with antibiotics), followed by transcriptional analysis of cytokines and mucins in the cecal mucosa and vermix by q-rtPCR. In healthy animals, cecal microbiota with or without antibiotic pretreatment was very similar and dominated by Alistipes and Ruminococcus. Proportions of both genera decreased in ERE rabbits whereas Bacteroides, Akkermansia and Rikenella increased, as well as Clostridium, gamma-Proteobacteria and other opportunistic and pathogenic species. The ERE group displayed remarkable dysbiosis and reduced taxonomic diversity. Transcription rate of mucins and inflammatory cytokines was very high in ERE rabbits, except IL-2, and its analysis revealed the existence of two clearly different gene expression patterns corresponding to Inflammatory and (mucin) Secretory Profiles. Furthermore, these profiles were associated to different bacterial species, suggesting that they may correspond to different stages of the disease. Other data obtained in this work reinforced the notion that ERE morbidity and mortality is possibly caused by an overgrowth of different pathogens in the gut of animals whose immune defence mechanisms seem not to be adequately responding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据