Comparison of the Cecal Microbiota of Domestic and Wild Turkeys
- 824 Downloads
The extent to which production methods alter intestinal microbial communities of livestock is currently unknown. As the intestinal microbiota may affect animal health, nutrition, and food safety, a baseline comparison of the cecal communities of domestic and wild turkeys was performed. Oligonucleotide fingerprinting of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes (OFRG) of 2,990 16S rRNA clones and dot blot quantification of dominant populations were used to identify the dominant bacterial taxa. Seventy-three percent of all the clones belonged to as yet uncultured genera. However, at a higher phylogenetic level, the OFRG library was composed of 54% Bacteroidetes clones (52% of the domestic library clones, 56% of the wild library clones), 30% Firmicutes clones (33% of the domestic library clones, 32% of the wild library clones), 3% Proteobacteria clones (5% domestic, 2% wild), and 3% Deferribacteres clones (4% domestic, 1% wild). Seven percent of the clones were unidentifiable (6% domestic, 9% wild). Bacteroidetes clones included the genera Alistipes, Prevotella, Megamonas, and Bacteroides. Of the Clostridiales clones, groups IV, IX, and XIV including genera Faecalibacterium, Megasphaera, Phascolarctobacterium, and Papillibacter were predominant. Lactobacillus, Enterococcus, and Streptococcus bacilli were also identified. β- δ- and γ-proteobacterial genera included Acinetobacter, Sutterella, and Escherichia. Deferribacteres clones showed high similarity to Mucispirillum schaedleri. Statistical comparison of the domestic and wild turkey clone libraries indicated similar levels of community richness and evenness despite the fact that the two libraries shared only 30% of the total clone operational taxonomic units. Together these results indicate that although high level taxonomic community structure is similar, high-density turkey production causes considerable divergence of the genera found in the ceca of commercial birds from those of their wild counterparts.
KeywordsClone Library Bacteroidetes Wild Bird Intestinal Microbiota Domestic Bird
The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance of Jennifer A. Jones for all stages of data generation. We also thank David P. Alt and Karen Hollum for sequencing services.
Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
- 6.Barnes EM, Impey CS, Stevens BJ (1979) Factors affecting the incidence and anti-salmonella activity of the anaerobic caecal flora of the young chick. J Hyg (Lond) 82:263–283Google Scholar
- 8.Bent E, Yin B, Figueroa A, Ye X, Fu Q, Liu Z, Chrobak M, Jeske D, Jiang T, Borneman J (2006) Development of a 9,6000 clone array for oligonucleotide fingerprinting of rRNA genes: utilization to compare four different soil DNA extraction methods. J Microbiol Methods 67:171–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Hughes JB, Bohannan BJM (2004) Application of ecological diversity statistics in microbial ecology. In: Kowalchuk GA, de Bruijn FJ, Head IM, Akkermans ADL, van Elsasz JD (eds) Molecular microbial ecology manual, vol. 2, 2nd ed. Kluwer Academic Press, The Netherlands, pp 1321–1344Google Scholar
- 26.Jernberg C, Lofmark S, Edlund C, Jansson JK (2007) Long-term ecological impacts of antibiotic administration on the human intestinal microbiota. The International Society for Microbial Ecology Journal 1:56–66Google Scholar
- 29.Lane DJ (1991) 16S/23S rRNA Sequencing. In: Stackebrandt E, Goodfellow M (eds) Nucleic acid techniques in bacterial systematics. Wiley, New York, pp 115–175Google Scholar
- 34.Pace NR, Stahl D, Lane DJ, Olsen GJ (1986) The analysis of natural microbial populations by ribosomal RNA sequences. Adv Microb Ecol 9:51–55Google Scholar
- 44.Stern NJ, Svetoch EA, Eruslanov BV, Perelygin VV, Mitsevich EV, Mitsevich IP, Pokhilenko VD, Levchuk VP, Svetoch OE, Seal BS (2006) Isolation of a Lactobacillus salivarius strain and purification of its bacteriocin, which is inhibitory to Campylobacter jejuni in the chicken gastrointestinal system. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50:3111–3116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Valinsky L, Scupham AJ, Della Vedova J, Liu Z, Figuerosa A, Jampachaisri K, Yin B, Press J, Jiang T, Borneman J (2004) Oligonucleotide Fingerprinting of Ribosomal RNA Genes (OFRG). In Kowalchuk GA, de Bruijn FJ, Head IM, Akkermans ADL, van Elsas JD (eds) Molecular microbial ecology methods, vol. 1, 2nd ed. Kluwer Academic Press, The Netherlands, pp 569–585Google Scholar