4.6 Article

A Microbiological Map of the Healthy Equine Gastrointestinal Tract

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166523

关键词

-

资金

  1. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Animal Health project [1005882]
  2. NIFA [812338, 1005882] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Horses are exquisitely sensitive to non-specific gastrointestinal disturbances as well as systemic and extraintestinal conditions related to gut health, yet minimal data are available regarding the composition of the microbiota present in the equine stomach, small intestine, and cecum and their relation to fecal microbiota. Moreover, there is minimal information regarding the concordance of the luminal and mucosal microbial communities throughout the equine gut. Illumina-based 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing of the luminal and mucosal microbiota present in seven regions of the gastrointestinal tract of nine healthy adult horses revealed a distinct compositional divide between the small and large intestines. This disparity in composition was more pronounced within the luminal contents, but was also detected within mucosal populations. Moreover, the uniformity of the gut microbiota was much higher in the cecum and colon relative to that in the stomach, jejunum and ileum, despite a significantly higher number of unique sequences detected in the colon. Collectively, the current data suggest that while colonic samples (a proxy for feces) may provide a reasonable profile of the luminal contents of the healthy equine large intestine, they are not informative with regard to the contents of the stomach or small intestine. In contrast to the distinct difference between the highly variable upper gastrointestinal tract microbiota and relatively uniform large bowel microbiota present within the lumen, these data also demonstrate a regional continuity present in mucosal microbial communities throughout the length of the equine gut.

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