Skip to main content
Download PDF

The difference of intestinal microbiota composition between Lantang and Landrace newborn piglets

BMC Veterinary Research volume 19, Article number: 174 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The early development of intestinal microbiota plays a fundamental role in host health and development. To investigate the difference in the intestinal microbial composition between Lantang and Landrace newborn piglets, we amplified and sequenced the V3-V4 region of 16 S rRNA gene in jejunal microbiota of Lantang and landrace newborn.

Results

The findings revealed that the dominant phyla in the jejunum of Lantang piglets were Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Bacteroidetes, while the dominant phyla of Landrace is Proteobacteria and Fusobacteria. Specifically, Corynebacterium_1, Lactobacillus, Rothia, Granulicatella, Corynebacteriales_unclassified, Corynebacterium, Globicatella and Actinomycetales_unclassified were found to be the dominant genera of Lantang group, while Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1, Escherichia-Shigella, Actinobacillus and Bifidobacterium were the dominant genera of Landrace. Based on the functional prediction of bacteria, we found that bacterial communities from Lantang samples had a significantly greater abundance pathways of fatty acid synthesis, protein synthesis, DNA replication, recombination, repair and material transport across membranes, while the carrier protein of pathogenic bacteria was more abundant in Landrace samples.

Conclusions

Overall, there was a tremendous difference in the early intestinal flora composition between Landang and Landrace piglets, which was related to the breed characteristics and may be one of the reasons affecting the growth characteristics. However, more further extensive studies should be included to reveal the underlying relationship between early intestinal flora composition in different breeds and pig growth characteristics.

Peer Review reports

Background

Lantang (a Chinese indigenous lardtype breed) and Landrace (a typical lean breed) pigs show obvious differences in stress resistance, production, growth performances and meat quality characteristics [1]. In general, Lantang has high reproductive rate, strong adaptability and good meat quality [2]; Landrace is well-known for fast growing rate and lean meat percentage but low ability of resistance to disease [3]. The molecular mechanism underlying these phenotype differences has been well studied, and a growing body of evidence has also unraveled important roles of the gut microbiome in immune function [4], organ development [5], host metabolism [6] and colonization resistance to enteric pathogens [7].

Accumulating information about porcine gastrointestinal tract microorganisms has been acquired since the expansive application of “omics analysis” [8, 9]. Emerging studies deemed that the gut of newborns is short of microorganisms before birth, but will rapidly arise a distinct shift from a basically sterile state to an extremely dense microbial population [10, 11]. The colonization and succession of gut microbe in the early postpartum period facilitates immune maturation and have long-term impacts on the healthy growth and development of newborns [12]. In addition to many assorted environmental factors, the influence of breeds on the composition of early intestinal flora in piglets cannot be ignored [13].

The importance of the intestinal microbiota for early growth in pigs have been extensively studied, but fewer studies have investigated the possible association between breeds and early intestinal microbial composition of piglets [14].Therefore, the major aim of this study was to investigate the jejunal microflora of newborn between Lantang and Landrace, and to compare the characteristics of intestinal microflora involved in pig breeds.

Result

16 S rRNA sequencing and annotation

By high-throughput sequencing analysis, a total of 1,677,229 raw reads were generated from Landrace and Lantang libraries. Each library produced an average of approximately 83,861 joined tags (minimum = 80,032 and maximum = 87,907), and more than 90.47% valid reads from each sample were processed for further analysis (Table S1). Based on the obtained feature OTU, a total of 666 convincing candidates were identified (Table S2A); and only 115 candidates were shared across two groups, while 202 and 349 were identified uniquely in the Landrace and Lantang groups, respectively (Fig. 1A). All OTU candidates were annotated with the SILVA database to evaluate the microbial diversity in the jejunum of two breeds using the QIIME2 pipeline, which detected a total of 16 taxonomic phyla (Table S2B). In details, the dominant phyla in the jejunum of piglets were Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Fusobacteria, accounting for 70.25%, 29.15%, 0.53%, 0.03% and 0.02%, respectively. And the proportion of Firmicutes (84.58% vs. 55.92%), Actinobacteria (0.10% vs. 0.06%) and Bacteroidetes (0.05% vs. 0.01%) were greater in the jejunum of Lantang piglets than in Landrace, while Proteobacteria (14.31% vs. 43.98%) and Fusobacteria (0.01% vs. 0.02%) were lower in the jejunum of Lantang piglets (Figure S1). The number of 37 classes, 73 orders and 130 families were detected, of which four classes, six orders and seven families had a relative abundance greater than 1.0% (Table S2C, D, E). At the genus level, a total of 257 classifiable genera were identified (Table S2F), and seven genera had a relative abundance greater than 1.0%, including Lactobacillus, Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1, Escherichia-Shigella, Veillonella, Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia, Streptococcus and Actinobacillus (Fig. 1B). Among them, Lactobacillus, Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia and Streptococcus were found to be more abundant in the jejunum of Lantang piglets, while Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1, Escherichia-Shigella, Veillonella, and Actinobacillus are more abundant of Landrace. Among the 391 species detected (Table S2G), the most abundant species in the jejunum of Lantang was Lactobacillus_sp_L-YJ, and the most abundant species of Landrace was Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1_unclassified (Fig. 1C). In addition, the tree of species evolution was constructed according to the multi-sequence alignment results of feature sequences (Fig. 1D). We drew a conclusion that functional diversity of bacterial communities were represented mainly by a clade of Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Bacteroidetes. In details, Helicobacter and ruminococcaceae_ucg-005 from Firmicutes have a correlative evolutionary relationship, and Gastranaerophilales_unclassified is closely related to the evolution of Actinobacteria.

Fig. 1
figure 1

16 S rRNA gene sequencing and annotation analysis (A) Venn diagram. Venn diagram representing the shared and exclusive OTUs at the 97% similarity level between Jejunal microbiota in the two groups (B) Stacked bar chart. Bar plot shows the relative abundance of jejunal microbiota at the genus level in each group (C) Circos. The left half of circos is the top5 relative abundance species and their corresponding abundance information; the right half is the grouping information displays according to groups, and the wider the width, the higher the abundance (D) Phylogenetic tree. Different colors represent different phyla and different branches represent different genus levels. The closer the distance between the two species, the closer the evolutionary relationship between them Note: OTUs, operational taxonomic units; LW1D, Lantang piglets; LT1D, Landrace piglets

Full size image

The difference of intestinal microbiota composition between two breeds

The Observed species, Shannon, Simpson, Chao1, and Goods_coverage indices between two groups were calculated to compare the jejunum microbial alpha-diversity of the two breeds (Table 1). There was an increasing trend of Observed species (P = 0.08) and Chao1 (P = 0.09) diversity indices in the Lantang group compared with those of the Landrace group, and the Simpson diversity index exhibited a significant increase in the Landrace (P = 0.02). For the beta-diversity, the PCA (Fig. 2A), PCoA (Fig. 2B) and NMDS (Figure S2) analysis showed Lantang and Landrace samples could be separated absolutely into two groups, which reflected the differences in early jejunum microbial community composition between different breeds of piglets. And the cluster tree revealed the significant structural separation of jejunal microflora between the two breeds (Figure S3). Subsequently, LefSe algorithm was employed to identify statistically significant biomarkers among the two groups. A total of 117 differentially abundant taxonomic clades were found, with a Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) score higher than 3. The number of biomarkers at the phylum, class, order, family, genus and species levels were 4, 9, 15, 20, 26, and 43, respectively. Among them, 14 genera can be used as biomarkers for Lantang samples, including lactobacillus, Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia, Streptococcus, Novosphingobium, Subgroup_6_unclassified, Rothia, Weissella, Pseudoclavibacter, Subgroup_7_unclassified, Acidobacteria_unclassified, Rhizobacter, Actinomycetales_unclassified, Howardella, Pseudomonas, while 12 genera can be used as biomarkers for Landrace samples, including Actinobacillus, Lysobacter, Micromonospora, Lachnospiraceae_UCG-004, Lachnospiraceae_NK4A136_group, Rhodospirillales_unclassified, Faecalibacterium, Bifidobacterium, Clostridiales_unclassified, Citrobacter, Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1, Escherichia-Shigella (Figure S4). According to the sample species abundance table, we found 5, 5, 11, 16, 12 and 28 significantly different microorganisms at the phylum, class, order, family, genus and species levels, respectively (Table S3). The difference analysis results displayed that the significantly differential microorganisms were mainly classified to the phyla of Firmicutes and Actinobacteri in Lantang group and the phyla of Proteobacteria and Firmicutes in Landrace group (Fig. 2C). Specifically, the dominant genera of Lantang group were Corynebacterium_1, Lactobacillus, Rothia, Granulicatella, Corynebacteriales_unclassified, Corynebacterium, Globicatella and Actinomycetales_unclassified, while the dominant genera of Landrace were Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1, Escherichia-Shigella, Actinobacillus and Bifidobacterium.

Table 1 Microbial diversity indices of the jejunal microbiome
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Microbial diversity in the jejunum of the two breeds (A) Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The same group is displayed as a circle graph with 95% confidence interval. The farther the distance between two samples, the greater the difference of microbial composition and structure between samples (B) Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA). The PCoA is based on the weighted UniFrac distance (C) Barplot difference analysis. The barplot shows microorganisms with significant differences at the genus level (P < 0.05 is defined as significantly different species) (D) Functional prediction STAMP difference analysis. The analysis results show the top 30 differential classification Clusters between the two group in KO function pathways (P < 0.05, 95% confidence interval) Note: LW1D, Lantang piglets; LT1D, Landrace piglets

Full size image

In general, the relationship between different microbial groups plays a considerable role in revealing some biological significance. The reticulum network contained a node representing Lactobacillus. Its neighbors formed five mutually exclusive clusters: Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia was positively correlated with Lactobacillus, and the other negatively correlated with Lactobacillus, consisting mainly of members of the Escherichia-Shigella, Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1, Actinobacillus and Veillonella. The genus of Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1 was positively related to Escherichia-Shigella, Actinobacillus and Veillonella, and negatively related to Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia. The genus of Escherichia-Shigella was observed to be positively correlated with Actinobacillus and Veillonella, and negatively correlated with Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia (Figure S5).

Molecular function of bacterial microbiota

PICRUSt2 software was employed to predict the functionality of the microorganism using the 16 S rRNA gene data. We found Abundant gene families were identified in all samples; of these, many of these genes play novel roles in glycolysis, fatty acid metabolism, amino acid metabolism, DNA replication and repair and pathogenicity (Table S4A and S4B). Prediction of these function revealed significant differences between the jejunal microbe of the two breeds. There were 4,231 and 2,718 differential functional features of the jejunal microbiome between the two breeds in the KO and COG database, respectively (Table S4C and S4D). We provided a visual representation of the top 30 secondary classification Clusters of KO pathways (Fig. 2D). The abundance of seven functional annotations in the Lantang group was higher than that in the Landrace group, including “cfa; cyclopropane-fatty-acyl-phospholipid synthase [EC:2.1.1.79]”, “acpP; acyl carrier protein”, “hupB; DNA-binding protein HU-beta”, “groEL, HSPD1; chaperonin GroEL”, “RP-S21, MRPS21, rpsU; small subunit ribosomal protein S21”, “groES, HSPE1; chaperonin GroES” and “ABC.PA.P; polar amino acid transport system permease protein”. The abundance of other 23 functional annotations was higher in the Landrace group, such as “terC; tellurite resistance protein TerC”, “kdgT; 2-keto-3-deoxygluconate permease”. For the COG pathways, only four functional annotations were higher in the Lantang group than in the Landrace group, which were the “Na+/H + antiporter NhaD or related arsenite permease”, “Co-chaperonin GroES (HSP10)”, “Uracil-DNA glycosylase” and “Cyclopropane fatty-acyl-phospholipid synthase and related methyltransferases” (Figure S6).

Discussion

In this study, clustering analysis revealed that the Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Bacteroidetes were the dominant phyla in Lantang piglets, while Proteobacteria and Fusobacteria were the dominant phyla in Landrace. In agreement with previous results, pig breed affects the proportion of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, which are higher in Chinese indigenous pig breeds than in foreign breeds [14]. Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Bacteroidetes are the main energy-producing bacteria in the gut, decomposing various kinds of non-digestible polysaccharides and fermentating the resulting monosaccharides into SCFA, primarily acetate, propionate and butyrate, as well as other organic acids [15]. Additionally, the proportion of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes have been attributed to energy metabolism and immune regulation [16,17,18]. However, there is increasing evidence that Proteobacteria is related to the dysbiosis and metabolic disorders [19, 20]. Fusobacteria has been supposed in the proinflammatory signature and disease of the body [21,22,23]. Hermann-Bank et al. [24] found that the number of Fusobacteria bacteria was doubled in piglets experiencing diarrhea.

Different pig breeds may exhibit their unique microbial diversity [25]. In this study, the PCA, PCoA and NMDS analysis indicated that Lantang and Landrace samples are mainly gathered into two different regions. This result corroborates the report of Yang et al. [14], who observed that the pig breeds affected the composition of intestinal microbiota, and the composition is different with different breeds, especially between Chinese indigenous breeds and foreign breeds. Genetic background is closely related to the intestinal microbial taxa and characteristics of the host [26].

Among the differential microbes of jejunum between the two breeds, Corynebacterium_1, Lactobacillus, Rothia, Granulicatella, Corynebacteriales_unclassified, Corynebacterium, Globicatella and Actinomycetales_unclassified was found to be more abundant in the jejunum of Lantang piglets, while Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1, Escherichia-Shigella, Actinobacillus and Bifidobacterium were more abundant of Landrace. Corynebacterium_1, Rothia, Corynebacteriales_unclassified, Corynebacterium and Actinomycetales_unclassified are all from phylum Actinobacteria. Binda et al. [20] suggested that Actinobacteria are absolute participants in preserving intestinal barrier homeostasis. Moreover, Rothia breaks down protein in feed and helps the digestion and absorption of nutrients in the intestine [27]. Lactobacillus is a major systematic group in the proximal gastrointestinal tract of several mammals [28, 29], which can metabolize carbohydrates to produce lactic acid, the end product [30, 31]. Previous studies reported that some species of Lactobacillus could be transferred from the mother to the intestines of piglets via faeces or breast milk, so as to prevent and treat diarrhea [32]. Consistent with the findings of predecessors, the abundance of Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1 and Escherichia-Shigella are high in suckling Landrace piglets, and they have been proved to be potential causative agents of diarrhea [33,34,35]. Actinobacillus equal as a primary pathogen in breeding sows and piglets [36]. The capacity to efficiently use mucus is a typical feature of Bifidobacterium, an intestinal genus that maintaining healthy intestines and preventing disease [37]. Furthermore, we found that Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia was positively correlated with Lactobacillus, and the other negatively correlated with Lactobacillus, consisting mainly of members of the Escherichia-Shigella, Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1, Actinobacillus and Veillonella. Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia shows a unique spectrum of antimicrobial activity and inhibited carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacterial pathogens [38]. The importance of Veillonella in mammal infections is uncertain, and they are generally considered to be of low virulence [39]. The results showed that the predominant species of Lantang group was genus of Lactobacillus, while the Landrace group were genera of Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1 and Escherichia-Shigella. We believe that the difference of the above microorganism might be one of the reasons why Lantang pigs are resistant to rough feeding and have strong adaptability, while Landrace pigs have weak physique and poor resistance to stress.

Furthermore, bacterial communities from Lantang samples had a significantly greater abundance pathways of fatty acid synthesis, protein synthesis, DNA replication, recombination, repair and material transport across membranes. Previous studies have revealed that the cfa gene encodes cyclopropane fatty acyl phospholipid synthase, which converts unsaturated fatty acids to their cyclopropane form [40]. The cyclopropane fatty acids in cell membrane is momentous for bacteria to adapt to the rapidly changing environment [41, 42]. In mammals, Acyl carrier protein (ACP) is a universal and highly conserved carrier of acyl intermediates during fatty acid synthesis [43]. DNA-binding protein HU-beta are involved in DNA replication, recombination and DNA repair [44]. Chaperone proteins, as an indispensable part of the protein-folding mechanism of bacterial cells, help maintain cellular homeostasis [45, 46], may also offset the harmful effects of mutations [47]. Tokuriki et al. [48] showed that chaperonin GroEL/GroES promotes the evolution of recombinant proteins. Small subunit ribosomal protein S21 also plays an important role in protein synthesis [49]. The ABC transporter system promotes the absorption of nutrients by bacteria [50], excretes substances that are not conducive to cell growth out of the cell, and also participates in signal transduction, protein secretion and antigen presentation in eukaryotes [51]. However, the abundance of “terC; tellurite resistance protein TerC” and “kdgT; 2-keto-3-deoxygluconate permease” functional annotation was higher in the Landrace group than Lantang group. Some studies have shown that the tellurite resistance gene operon is widely spread among pathogenic bacterial species [52]. And 2-keto-3-deoxygluconate permease is considered as a carrier protein for the fermentation of gluconate via 2-keto-3-deoxygluconate in many Clostridium bacteria [53]. Moreover, the relative abundance of “Na+/H + antiporter” and “Uracil-DNA glycosylase” functional annotation in the Lantang group was found to be higher than that in the Landrace group. The Na+/H + antiporters play a primary role in the maintenance of intracellular pH homeostasis and dynamic balance of cellular Na+, and in the regulation of cell volume [54]. The Uracil-DNA glycosylase for the removal of Uracil formed by incorrect input or mutation during DNA repair [55, 56]. The functional responses of jejunum microbiome of the above two breeds was significantly different. It is reasonable to assume that the difference of early microbial composition are one of the reasons for the different growth characteristics of Lantang and Landrace.

Conclusion

Our findings revealed that there were tremendous differences in the early intestinal microflora composition between Lantang and Landrace newborn piglets due to breed characteristics. Furthermore, we found that these differences might be associated with growth characteristics of different breeds via the functional prediction of bacteria. However, more further extensive studies should be included to reveal the underlying relationship between early y intestinal flora composition in different breeds and pig growth characteristics.

Materials and methods

Sampling

All piglets were collected from a large-scale pig farm (Xinfeng County, Shaoguan City, Guangdong Province, China). After the sows farrowed, 10 healthy and purebred Lantang and Landrace male piglets (the piglets had no contact with the external environment and did not take breast milk) were slaughtered and digesta of jejunum were collected immediately; subsequently, a total of 10 intestinal contents in each breed were snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -80 °C for further analysis. The experiment were approved and conducted under the supervision of the Animal Care Committee of South China Agricultural University.

DNA extraction, PCR amplification and sequencing

Microbial genomic DNA was extracted from intestinal digesta using cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) method, and the integrity of genomic DNA was assessed by 1% agarose gel electrophoresis and quantified with NanoDrop 8000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). According to the concentration, DNA was diluted to 1 ng/µL using sterile water. The intestinal bacterial 16 S rRNA gene was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with specific primers (341 F: 5’-CCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG-3’; 805R: 5’-GACTACHVGGGTATCTAATCC-3’) targeting V3-V4 variable region [57]. After amplification, The products were purified by AMPure XT beads (Beckman Coulter, Danvers, MA) and quantified by Qubit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). The libraries were pooled subsequently at equal molar ratios, and sequenced on Illumina NovaSeq platform (LC Sciences, Hangzhou, China).

Bioinformatics analysis

The quality control and chimeric sequence filtering were carried out to obtain high-quality clean reads by fqtrim (http://ccb.jhu.edu/software/fqtrim/index.shtml) and Vsearch softwares (https://github.com/torognes/vsearch). The clean tags of all samples were then clustered, and the tags with over 97% similarity were regarded as one operational taxonomic unit (OTU). According to SILVA (release 132) classifier, the feature sequences were annotated and normalized into different taxonomic levels [58]. Alpha diversity is applied in analyzing complexity of species diversity for a sample through 5 indices, including Chao1, Observed species, Goods coverage, Shannon, Simpson, and all these indices in our samples were calculated with QIIME2 [59]. For beta-diversity analysis, principal component analysis (PCA) was employed to reveal the simple rules under the intricate data background. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) and non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (NMDS) were performed to visualize the relationship between the samples. Unweighted pair group method with arithmetic means (UPGMA) is commonly considered as a method that effectively demonstrating good grouping and sample repeatability. Mann-Whitney U test was utilized for species difference test, and linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) was employed to find the biomarkers between different groups [60]. SparCC was performed to calculate the abundance of the top 30 microorganisms at the genus level, and the network diagram and correlation heat map were drawn based on the correlation and significance P value between the two dominant bacteria groups [61]. The PICRUSt2 was performed to predict the potential molecular functions of bacterial communities by obtaining the abundance of each predicted functional trait corresponding to normalized feature [62, 63]. These predictions are pre-calculated for genes in databases including KEGG Orthology (KO) and Clusters of Orthologous Groups (COG).

Statistical analysis

The results of alpha-diversity and bacterial phenotype prediction were statistically analyzed by the T-test using SPSS software 17.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). All other statistical analyses were completed in R software (v3.4.4). Data were expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM), with P < 0.05 considered as statistical significance.

Data Availability

The raw sequences were deposited into Sequence Read Archive (SRA) database with the BioProject accession number PRJNA876404 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra?LinkName=bioproject_sra_all&from_uid=876404).

References

  1. Yu K, Shu G, Yuan F, Zhu X, Gao P, Wang S, et al. Fatty acid and transcriptome profiling of longissimus dorsi muscles between pig breeds differing in meat quality. Int J Biol Sci. 2013;9(1):108–18.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Cheng P, Wang Y, Liang J, Wu Y, Wright A, Liao X. Exploratory analysis of the Microbiological potential for efficient utilization of Fiber between Lantang and Duroc Pigs. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1342.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Miao ZG, Wang LJ, Xu ZR, Huang JF, Wang YR. Developmental changes of carcass composition, meat quality and organs in the Jinhua pig and landrace. Animal. 2009;3(3):468–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Belkaid Y, Hand TW. Role of the microbiota in immunity and inflammation. Cell. 2014;157(1):121–41.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lahiri S, Kim H, Garcia-Perez I, Reza MM, Martin KA, Kundu P, et al. The gut microbiota influences skeletal muscle mass and function in mice. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11:502.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gomes AC, Hoffmann C, Mota JF. The human gut microbiota: metabolism and perspective in obesity. Gut Microbes. 2018;9(4):308–25.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Haak BW, Prescott HC, Wiersinga WJ. Therapeutic potential of the gut microbiota in the Prevention and Treatment of Sepsis. Front Immunol. 2018;9:2042.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. De Rodas B, Youmans BP, Danzeisen JL, Tran H, Johnson TJ. Microbiome profiling of commercial pigs from farrow to finish. J Anim Sci. 2018;96(5):1778–94.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang X, Tsai T, Deng F, Wei X, Chai J, Knapp J, et al. Longitudinal investigation of the swine gut microbiome from birth to market reveals stage and growth performance associated bacteria. Microbiome. 2019;7(1):109.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. de Goffau MC, Lager S, Sovio U, Gaccioli F, Cook E, Peacock SJ, et al. Human placenta has no microbiome but can contain potential pathogens. Nature. 2019;572(7769):329–34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Gresse R, Chaucheyras Durand F, Dunière L, Blanquet-Diot S, Forano E. Microbiota Composition and Functional Profiling throughout the gastrointestinal tract of Commercial Weaning Piglets. Microorganisms. 2019;7(9).

  12. Liu H, Zeng X, Zhang G, Hou C, Li N, Yu H, et al. Maternal milk and fecal microbes guide the spatiotemporal development of mucosa-associated microbiota and barrier function in the porcine neonatal gut. BMC Biol. 2019;17(1):106.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Holman DB, Brunelle BW, Trachsel J, Allen HK. Meta-analysis to define a core microbiota in the Swine Gut. mSystems. 2017;2(3).

  14. Bergamaschi M, Tiezzi F, Howard J, Huang YJ, Gray KA, Schillebeeckx C, et al. Gut microbiome composition differences among breeds impact feed efficiency in swine. Microbiome. 2020;8(1):110.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Samuel BS, Gordon JI. A humanized gnotobiotic mouse model of host-archaeal-bacterial mutualism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(26):10011–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Jandhyala SM, Talukdar R, Subramanyam C, Vuyyuru H, Sasikala M, Nageshwar Reddy D. Role of the normal gut microbiota. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(29):8787–803.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gibiino G, Lopetuso LR, Scaldaferri F, Rizzatti G, Binda C, Gasbarrini A. Exploring Bacteroidetes: metabolic key points and immunological tricks of our gut commensals. Dig Liver Dis. 2018;50(7):635–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tseng CH, Wu CY. The gut microbiome in obesity. J Formos Med Assoc. 2019;118(Suppl 1):3–s9.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shin NR, Whon TW, Bae JW. Proteobacteria: microbial signature of dysbiosis in gut microbiota. Trends Biotechnol. 2015;33(9):496–503.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Binda C, Lopetuso LR, Rizzatti G, Gibiino G, Cennamo V, Gasbarrini A, Actinobacteria. A relevant minority for the maintenance of gut homeostasis. Dig Liver Dis. 2018;50(5):421–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Strauss J, Kaplan GG, Beck PL, Rioux K, Panaccione R, Devinney R, et al. Invasive potential of gut mucosa-derived Fusobacterium nucleatum positively correlates with IBD status of the host. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2011;17(9):1971–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kostic AD, Chun E, Robertson L, Glickman JN, Gallini CA, Michaud M, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis and modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment. Cell Host Microbe. 2013;14(2):207–15.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bashir A, Miskeen AY, Hazari YM, Asrafuzzaman S, Fazili KM. Fusobacterium nucleatum, inflammation, and immunity: the fire within human gut. Tumour Biol. 2016;37(3):2805–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hermann-Bank ML, Skovgaard K, Stockmarr A, Strube ML, Larsen N, Kongsted H, et al. Characterization of the bacterial gut microbiota of piglets suffering from new neonatal porcine diarrhoea. BMC Vet Res. 2015;11:139.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Pajarillo EA, Chae JP, Balolong MP, Kim HB, Seo KS, Kang DK. Pyrosequencing-based analysis of fecal microbial communities in three purebred pig lines. J Microbiol. 2014;52(8):646–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Xiao Y, Li K, Xiang Y, Zhou W, Gui G, Yang H. The fecal microbiota composition of boar Duroc, Yorkshire, Landrace and Hampshire pigs. Asian-Australasian J Anim Sci. 2017;30(10):1456–63.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wei G, Darwish G, Oppenheim FG, Schuppan D, Helmerhorst EJ. Commensal bacterium Rothia aeria degrades and detoxifies Gluten via a highly effective subtilisin enzyme. Nutrients. 2020;12(12).

  28. Fuller R, Brooker BE. Lactobacilli which attach to the crop epithelium of the fowl. Am J Clin Nutr. 1974;27(11):1305–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fuller R, Barrow PA, Brooker BE. Bacteria associated with the gastric epithelium of neonatal pigs. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1978;35(3):582–91.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Aguirre M, Collins MD. Lactic acid bacteria and human clinical infection. J Appl Bacteriol. 1993;75(2):95–107.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bağder Elmacı S, Tokatlı M, Dursun D, Özçelik F, Şanlıbaba P. Phenotypic and genotypic identification of lactic acid bacteria isolated from traditional pickles of the Çubuk region in Turkey. Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2015;60(3):241–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jost T, Lacroix C, Braegger CP, Rochat F, Chassard C. Vertical mother-neonate transfer of maternal gut bacteria via breastfeeding. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16(9):2891–904.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wei J, Goldberg MB, Burland V, Venkatesan MM, Deng W, Fournier G, et al. Complete genome sequence and comparative genomics of Shigella flexneri serotype 2a strain 2457T. Infect Immun. 2003;71(5):2775–86.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Konstantinov SR, Awati AA, Williams BA, Miller BG, Jones P, Stokes CR, et al. Post-natal development of the porcine microbiota composition and activities. Environ Microbiol. 2006;8(7):1191–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Han C, Dai Y, Liu B, Wang L, Wang J, Zhang J. Diversity analysis of intestinal microflora between healthy and diarrheal neonatal piglets from the same litter in different regions. Anaerobe. 2019;55:136–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Thompson AB, Postey RC, Snider T, Pasma T. Actinobacillus equuli as a primary pathogen in breeding sows and piglets. Can Vet J. 2010;51(11):1223–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Turroni F, Duranti S, Bottacini F, Guglielmetti S, Van Sinderen D, Ventura M. Bifidobacterium bifidum as an example of a specialized human gut commensal. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:437.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Depoorter E, De Canck E, Coenye T, Vandamme P. Burkholderia bacteria produce multiple potentially novel molecules that inhibit carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacterial pathogens. Antibiot (Basel). 2021;10(2).

  39. Vesth T, Ozen A, Andersen SC, Kaas RS, Lukjancenko O, Bohlin J, et al. Veillonella, Firmicutes: microbes disguised as Gram negatives. Stand Genomic Sci. 2013;9(2):431–48.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Grogan DW, Cronan JE. Jr. Cyclopropane ring formation in membrane lipids of bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1997;61(4):429–41.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Muñoz-Rojas J, Bernal P, Duque E, Godoy P, Segura A, Ramos JL. Involvement of cyclopropane fatty acids in the response of Pseudomonas putida KT2440 to freeze-drying. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(1):472–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Shabala L, Ross T. Cyclopropane fatty acids improve Escherichia coli survival in acidified minimal media by reducing membrane permeability to H + and enhanced ability to extrude H+. Res Microbiol. 2008;159(6):458–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Byers DM, Gong H. Acyl carrier protein: structure-function relationships in a conserved multifunctional protein family. Biochem Cell Biol. 2007;85(6):649–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Le Treut G, Képès F, Orland H. Phase behavior of DNA in the Presence of DNA-Binding proteins. Biophys J. 2016;110(1):51–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Houry WA. Chaperone-assisted protein folding in the cell cytoplasm. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2001;2(3):227–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lin Z, Rye HS. GroEL-mediated protein folding: making the impossible, possible. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2006;41(4):211–39.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Rutherford SL, Lindquist S. Hsp90 as a capacitor for morphological evolution. Nature. 1998;396(6709):336–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tokuriki N, Tawfik DS. Chaperonin overexpression promotes genetic variation and enzyme evolution. Nature. 2009;459(7247):668–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Van Duin J, Wijnands R. The function of ribosomal protein S21 in protein synthesis. Eur J Biochem. 1981;118(3):615–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Theodoulou FL, Kerr ID. ABC transporter research: going strong 40 years on. Biochem Soc Trans. 2015;43(5):1033–40.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Ponte-Sucre A. Availability and applications of ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter blockers. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007;76(2):279–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Turkovicova L, Smidak R, Jung G, Turna J, Lubec G, Aradska J. Proteomic analysis of the TerC interactome: novel links to tellurite resistance and pathogenicity. J Proteom. 2016;136:167–73.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Bender R, Andreesen JR, Gottschalk G. 2-keto-3-deoxygluconate, an intermediate in the fermentation of gluconate by clostridia. J Bacteriol. 1971;107(2):570–3.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Cui Y, Cheng B, Meng Y, Li C, Yin H, Xu P, et al. Expression and functional analysis of two NhaD type antiporters from the halotolerant and alkaliphilic Halomonas sp. Y2. Extremophiles. 2016;20(5):631–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Jacobs AL, Schär P. DNA glycosylases: in DNA repair and beyond. Chromosoma. 2012;121(1):1–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Krokan HE, Bjørås M. Base excision repair. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2013;5:a012583.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Behrendt L, Larkum AW, Trampe E, Norman A, Sørensen SJ, Kühl M. Microbial diversity of biofilm communities in microniches associated with the didemnid ascidian Lissoclinum patella. Isme j. 2012;6(6):1222–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(Database issue):D590–596.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Li B, Zhang X, Guo F, Wu W, Zhang T. Characterization of tetracycline resistant bacterial community in saline activated sludge using batch stress incubation with high-throughput sequencing analysis. Water Res. 2013;47(13):4207–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Segata N, Izard J, Waldron L, Gevers D, Miropolsky L, Garrett WS, et al. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 2011;12(6):R60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Friedman J, Alm EJ. Inferring correlation networks from genomic survey data. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(9):e1002687.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Langille MG, Zaneveld J, Caporaso JG, McDonald D, Knights D, Reyes JA, et al. Predictive functional profiling of microbial communities using 16S rRNA marker gene sequences. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(9):814–21.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Douglas GM, Beiko RG, Langille MGI. Predicting the functional potential of the Microbiome from marker genes using PICRUSt. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1849:169–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (32072714), Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (2020A1515010062) and the Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou (202002030037).

Funding

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China Program [grant numbers 32072714]; Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation [grant number 2020A1515010062]; the Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou [grant number 202002030037]. The sponsors had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Animal Science, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition Control, National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510642, China

    Ling Li, Shuai Li, Junyi Luo, Ting Chen, Qianyun Xi, Yongliang Zhang & Jiajie Sun

Authors
  1. Ling Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shuai Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Junyi Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ting Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qianyun Xi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yongliang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jiajie Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Ling Li: Writing-Original draft preparation; Shuai Li: Investigation; Jiajie Sun: Data curation and Visualization; Junyi Luo, Ting Chen and Qianyun Xi: Supervision; Yongliang Zhang and Jiajie Sun: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing- Reviewing and Editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yongliang Zhang or Jiajie Sun.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent

All piglets were collected from a large-scale pig farm (Xinfeng County, Shaoguan City, Guangdong Province, China). All animal procedures were approved by the owner of farm and the Animal Care Committee at South China Agricultural University according to the university’s guidelines for animal research (2018F006), and all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

All methods were reported in accordance with ARRIVE guidelines (https://arriveguidelines.org).

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Figure S1

Stacked bar chart. Bar plot shows the relative abundance of jejunal microbiota at the phylum level in each group. Figure S2 Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (NMDS). The NMDS analysis was based on the Bray–Curtis distance. Each point in the figure represents a sample, and the samples in the same group are represented by the same color. Figure S3 On the left is the UPGMA cluster tree structure of each sample at the OTU level, and on the right is the relative abundance distribution map of each sample at the genus level. Figure S4 Comparison of the classification of rumen microbiota between two groups by linear discriminant analysis effect size (LefSe) method. The LDA value distribution histogram (left) shows the species with significant differences in abundance in the two groups, and the length of the histogram represents the impact of different species. In the taxonomic cladogram (right), the circles radiating from the inside to the outside represent the classification level from phylum to species. Figure S5 Sparcc network diagram and heat map. Different nodes in the network diagram represent different dominant genera. The connection between nodes indicates that there is correlation between the two genera. The thickness of the line indicates the strength of the correlation, and the size of the node indicates the number of other bacteria associated with the bacterium. Figure S6 Functional prediction STAMP difference analysis. The analysis results show the top 30 differential classification Clusters between the two group in COG function pathways (P < 0.05, 95% confidence interval).

Tables S1

Quality control and preprocessing of metagenomic datasets.

Tables S2

(A) Sequence composition of each sample at each level based on the SILVA and NT-16S database. (B) The aligned percentages that annotated at Phylum level. (C) The aligned percentages that annotated at Class level. (D) The aligned percentages that annotated at Order level. (E) The aligned percentages that annotated at Family level. (F) The aligned percentages that annotated at Genus level. (G) The aligned percentages that annotated at Species level.

Tables S3

(A) Differences between two groups identified at Phylum-taxa level. (B) Differences between two groups identified at Class-taxa level. (C) Differences between two groups identified at Order-taxa level. (D) Differences between two groups identified at Family-taxa level. (E) Differences between two groups identified at Genus-taxa level. (F) Differences between two groups identified at Species-taxa level.

Tables S4

(A) Function prediction results in the COG database. (B) Function prediction results in the KO database. (C) Differential functional prediction analysis of each sample in in the COG databas. (D) Differential functional prediction analysis of each sample in in the KO database.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, L., Li, S., Luo, J. et al. The difference of intestinal microbiota composition between Lantang and Landrace newborn piglets. BMC Vet Res 19, 174 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-023-03642-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-023-03642-z

Keywords

BMC Veterinary Research

ISSN: 1746-6148

Contact us