Comparison of the Cecal Microbiota of Domestic and Wild Turkeys
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. Oligonucleoti...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Microbial ecology 2008-08, Vol.56 (2), p.322-331 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 331 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 322 |
container_title | Microbial ecology |
container_volume | 56 |
creator | Scupham, Alexandra J Patton, Toni G Bent, Elizabeth Bayles, Darrell O |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00248-007-9349-4 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_904491999</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>40343373</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>40343373</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-74e9824a550aac15ee1e3decfada8a15b62d6134ef1ed26da26a6420c899cfe83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kk1v1DAQhi0EokvhB3AAIiTgFPDY48Q-VWj5lIo40Apu1qzjlCxJvNjJof8eR1m1EoeePPI8M-94XjP2FPhb4Lx-lzgXqMsclkaiKfEe2wBKUYLGX_fZhnOjSlkJfcIepbTnHOpKyIfsBDRoiQo37GwbhgPFLoWxCG0x_fbF1jvqi2-di2HXhYmW-w9h8GnqXEFjU_zs-qa4mOMff50eswct9ck_OZ6n7PLTx4vtl_L8--ev2_fnpVMop7JGb7RAUooTOVDeg5eNdy01pAnUrhJNBRJ9C74RVUOiogoFd9oY13otT9mbte8hhr9znsUOXXK-72n0YU7WcEQDxphMvr6TrIyoUdUigy__A_dhjmN-hRXAUWjABYIVyttIKfrWHmI3ULy2wO1igl1NsEu4mGAx1zw_Np53g29uK45bz8CrI0Ap77qNNLou3XCCK8GB15kTK5dyarzy8XbCu9SfrUX7NIV40xS5RClrmfMv1nxLwdJVtt5e_sh6Mv8WyNJG_gPE6K-8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>210428142</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of the Cecal Microbiota of Domestic and Wild Turkeys</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Scupham, Alexandra J ; Patton, Toni G ; Bent, Elizabeth ; Bayles, Darrell O</creator><creatorcontrib>Scupham, Alexandra J ; Patton, Toni G ; Bent, Elizabeth ; Bayles, Darrell O</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0095-3628</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-184X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00248-007-9349-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18183454</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MCBEBU</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: New York : Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Acinetobacter ; Animal nutrition ; Animals ; Animals, Wild - microbiology ; Antibiotics ; bacteria ; Bacteria - classification ; Bacteria - genetics ; Bacteria - isolation & purification ; Bacteroides ; Bacteroidetes ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; cecum ; Cecum - microbiology ; Cloning, Molecular ; Clostridiales ; Community structure ; DNA Fingerprinting - methods ; DNA, Bacterial - analysis ; DNA, Bacterial - isolation & purification ; domestic animals ; domestic turkeys ; Ecology ; Ecosystem ; Enterococcus ; Escherichia ; Firmicutes ; Food safety ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Gene Library ; Genera ; Genes, rRNA ; Geoecology/Natural Processes ; Immunoblotting ; intestinal microorganisms ; Lactobacillus ; Libraries ; Life Sciences ; Livestock ; Microbial activity ; microbial communities ; Microbial Ecology ; Microbiology ; Microbiota ; Molecular Sequence Data ; molecular systematics ; Nature Conservation ; Nucleic Acid Hybridization ; Original Article ; Phylogeny ; Poultry production ; Prevotella ; Proteobacteria ; ribosomal DNA ; RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics ; sequence analysis ; Sequence Analysis, DNA ; species diversity ; Streptococcus ; Sutterella ; taxonomy ; Turkeys ; Turkeys - microbiology ; Water Quality/Water Pollution ; wild animals ; Wild birds</subject><ispartof>Microbial ecology, 2008-08, Vol.56 (2), p.322-331</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2008 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007</rights><rights>2008 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-74e9824a550aac15ee1e3decfada8a15b62d6134ef1ed26da26a6420c899cfe83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-74e9824a550aac15ee1e3decfada8a15b62d6134ef1ed26da26a6420c899cfe83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40343373$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/40343373$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,804,27929,27930,41493,42562,51324,58022,58255</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=20520107$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18183454$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Scupham, Alexandra J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patton, Toni G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bent, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayles, Darrell O</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of the Cecal Microbiota of Domestic and Wild Turkeys</title><title>Microbial ecology</title><addtitle>Microb Ecol</addtitle><addtitle>Microb Ecol</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Acinetobacter</subject><subject>Animal nutrition</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Animals, Wild - microbiology</subject><subject>Antibiotics</subject><subject>bacteria</subject><subject>Bacteria - classification</subject><subject>Bacteria - genetics</subject><subject>Bacteria - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Bacteroides</subject><subject>Bacteroidetes</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>cecum</subject><subject>Cecum - microbiology</subject><subject>Cloning, Molecular</subject><subject>Clostridiales</subject><subject>Community structure</subject><subject>DNA Fingerprinting - methods</subject><subject>DNA, Bacterial - analysis</subject><subject>DNA, Bacterial - isolation & purification</subject><subject>domestic animals</subject><subject>domestic turkeys</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>Enterococcus</subject><subject>Escherichia</subject><subject>Firmicutes</subject><subject>Food safety</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Gene Library</subject><subject>Genera</subject><subject>Genes, rRNA</subject><subject>Geoecology/Natural Processes</subject><subject>Immunoblotting</subject><subject>intestinal microorganisms</subject><subject>Lactobacillus</subject><subject>Libraries</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Livestock</subject><subject>Microbial activity</subject><subject>microbial communities</subject><subject>Microbial Ecology</subject><subject>Microbiology</subject><subject>Microbiota</subject><subject>Molecular Sequence Data</subject><subject>molecular systematics</subject><subject>Nature Conservation</subject><subject>Nucleic Acid Hybridization</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Phylogeny</subject><subject>Poultry production</subject><subject>Prevotella</subject><subject>Proteobacteria</subject><subject>ribosomal DNA</subject><subject>RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics</subject><subject>sequence analysis</subject><subject>Sequence Analysis, DNA</subject><subject>species diversity</subject><subject>Streptococcus</subject><subject>Sutterella</subject><subject>taxonomy</subject><subject>Turkeys</subject><subject>Turkeys - microbiology</subject><subject>Water Quality/Water Pollution</subject><subject>wild animals</subject><subject>Wild birds</subject><issn>0095-3628</issn><issn>1432-184X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kk1v1DAQhi0EokvhB3AAIiTgFPDY48Q-VWj5lIo40Apu1qzjlCxJvNjJof8eR1m1EoeePPI8M-94XjP2FPhb4Lx-lzgXqMsclkaiKfEe2wBKUYLGX_fZhnOjSlkJfcIepbTnHOpKyIfsBDRoiQo37GwbhgPFLoWxCG0x_fbF1jvqi2-di2HXhYmW-w9h8GnqXEFjU_zs-qa4mOMff50eswct9ck_OZ6n7PLTx4vtl_L8--ev2_fnpVMop7JGb7RAUooTOVDeg5eNdy01pAnUrhJNBRJ9C74RVUOiogoFd9oY13otT9mbte8hhr9znsUOXXK-72n0YU7WcEQDxphMvr6TrIyoUdUigy__A_dhjmN-hRXAUWjABYIVyttIKfrWHmI3ULy2wO1igl1NsEu4mGAx1zw_Np53g29uK45bz8CrI0Ap77qNNLou3XCCK8GB15kTK5dyarzy8XbCu9SfrUX7NIV40xS5RClrmfMv1nxLwdJVtt5e_sh6Mv8WyNJG_gPE6K-8</recordid><startdate>20080801</startdate><enddate>20080801</enddate><creator>Scupham, Alexandra J</creator><creator>Patton, Toni G</creator><creator>Bent, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Bayles, Darrell O</creator><general>New York : Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Science + Business Media, Inc</general><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080801</creationdate><title>Comparison of the Cecal Microbiota of Domestic and Wild Turkeys</title><author>Scupham, Alexandra J ; Patton, Toni G ; Bent, Elizabeth ; Bayles, Darrell O</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-74e9824a550aac15ee1e3decfada8a15b62d6134ef1ed26da26a6420c899cfe83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Acinetobacter</topic><topic>Animal nutrition</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Animals, Wild - microbiology</topic><topic>Antibiotics</topic><topic>bacteria</topic><topic>Bacteria - classification</topic><topic>Bacteria - genetics</topic><topic>Bacteria - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Bacteroides</topic><topic>Bacteroidetes</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>cecum</topic><topic>Cecum - microbiology</topic><topic>Cloning, Molecular</topic><topic>Clostridiales</topic><topic>Community structure</topic><topic>DNA Fingerprinting - methods</topic><topic>DNA, Bacterial - analysis</topic><topic>DNA, Bacterial - isolation & purification</topic><topic>domestic animals</topic><topic>domestic turkeys</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>Enterococcus</topic><topic>Escherichia</topic><topic>Firmicutes</topic><topic>Food safety</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Gene Library</topic><topic>Genera</topic><topic>Genes, rRNA</topic><topic>Geoecology/Natural Processes</topic><topic>Immunoblotting</topic><topic>intestinal microorganisms</topic><topic>Lactobacillus</topic><topic>Libraries</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Livestock</topic><topic>Microbial activity</topic><topic>microbial communities</topic><topic>Microbial Ecology</topic><topic>Microbiology</topic><topic>Microbiota</topic><topic>Molecular Sequence Data</topic><topic>molecular systematics</topic><topic>Nature Conservation</topic><topic>Nucleic Acid Hybridization</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Phylogeny</topic><topic>Poultry production</topic><topic>Prevotella</topic><topic>Proteobacteria</topic><topic>ribosomal DNA</topic><topic>RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics</topic><topic>sequence analysis</topic><topic>Sequence Analysis, DNA</topic><topic>species diversity</topic><topic>Streptococcus</topic><topic>Sutterella</topic><topic>taxonomy</topic><topic>Turkeys</topic><topic>Turkeys - microbiology</topic><topic>Water Quality/Water Pollution</topic><topic>wild animals</topic><topic>Wild birds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Scupham, Alexandra J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patton, Toni G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bent, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayles, Darrell O</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Microbial ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Scupham, Alexandra J</au><au>Patton, Toni G</au><au>Bent, Elizabeth</au><au>Bayles, Darrell O</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of the Cecal Microbiota of Domestic and Wild Turkeys</atitle><jtitle>Microbial ecology</jtitle><stitle>Microb Ecol</stitle><addtitle>Microb Ecol</addtitle><date>2008-08-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>322</spage><epage>331</epage><pages>322-331</pages><issn>0095-3628</issn><eissn>1432-184X</eissn><coden>MCBEBU</coden><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>New York : Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>18183454</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00248-007-9349-4</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0095-3628 |
ispartof | Microbial ecology, 2008-08, Vol.56 (2), p.322-331 |
issn | 0095-3628 1432-184X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_904491999 |
source | MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
subjects | Acinetobacter Animal nutrition Animals Animals, Wild - microbiology Antibiotics bacteria Bacteria - classification Bacteria - genetics Bacteria - isolation & purification Bacteroides Bacteroidetes Biological and medical sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences cecum Cecum - microbiology Cloning, Molecular Clostridiales Community structure DNA Fingerprinting - methods DNA, Bacterial - analysis DNA, Bacterial - isolation & purification domestic animals domestic turkeys Ecology Ecosystem Enterococcus Escherichia Firmicutes Food safety Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Gene Library Genera Genes, rRNA Geoecology/Natural Processes Immunoblotting intestinal microorganisms Lactobacillus Libraries Life Sciences Livestock Microbial activity microbial communities Microbial Ecology Microbiology Microbiota Molecular Sequence Data molecular systematics Nature Conservation Nucleic Acid Hybridization Original Article Phylogeny Poultry production Prevotella Proteobacteria ribosomal DNA RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - genetics sequence analysis Sequence Analysis, DNA species diversity Streptococcus Sutterella taxonomy Turkeys Turkeys - microbiology Water Quality/Water Pollution wild animals Wild birds |
title | Comparison of the Cecal Microbiota of Domestic and Wild Turkeys |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-13T05%3A35%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20the%20Cecal%20Microbiota%20of%20Domestic%20and%20Wild%20Turkeys&rft.jtitle=Microbial%20ecology&rft.au=Scupham,%20Alexandra%20J&rft.date=2008-08-01&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=322&rft.epage=331&rft.pages=322-331&rft.issn=0095-3628&rft.eissn=1432-184X&rft.coden=MCBEBU&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00248-007-9349-4&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E40343373%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=210428142&rft_id=info:pmid/18183454&rft_jstor_id=40343373&rfr_iscdi=true |