Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar 31:8:609348.
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.609348. eCollection 2021.

Cecal Microbiota Modulates Fat Deposition in Muscovy Ducks

Wentao Lyu  1 , Xiuting Liu  1 , Lizhi Lu  2 , Bing Dai  3 , Wen Wang  1 , Hua Yang  1 , Yingping Xiao  1
Affiliations

Cecal Microbiota Modulates Fat Deposition in Muscovy Ducks

Wentao Lyu et al. Front Vet Sci. .

Abstract

Ducks with the same genetic background vary greatly in their adiposity phenotypes. The gut microbiota plays an essential role in host physiological development and metabolism including fat deposition. However, the association of the gut microbiota with the lipogenic phenotype of ducks remains unknown. In this study, we investigated the cecal microbiota of adult Muscovy ducks and the correlation of the cecal microbiota with fat phenotypes. A total of 200 Muscovy ducks were selected from a population of 5,000 Muscovy ducks to record their abdominal fat weight and collect their cecal contents after being slaughtered and defeathered. The cecal contents were subjective to DNA isolation and 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The results were sorted according to the percentage of abdominal fat and the top 20% (n = 40) and the bottom 20% (n = 40) were set as the high and low groups, respectively. Our results indicated that in the cecum of Muscovy ducks, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and Fusobacteria were the predominant phyla while Bacteroides, Oscillospiraceae_uncultured, Parabacteroides, and Bacteroidales_norank were the top 4 dominant genera. Abdominal fat weight (18.57~138.10 g) and percentage of abdominal fat (1.02~27.12%) were significantly correlated (R 2 = 0.92, P < 0.001). Although the lipogenic phenotypes of ducks had a significant difference (P < 0.05), the α-diversities of the high and low groups were not significantly different (P > 0.05). Nevertheless, after random forest analysis, we identified two genera, Treponema and Ruminococcus_torques_group, that were significantly associated with fat deposition in Muscovy ducks. In addition, the abundances of Treponema and Ruminococcus_torques_group gave a significantly negative and positive association with abdominal fat weight, respectively (P < 0.05). Ducks with a low level of Treponema exhibited a tendency toward a high percentage of abdominal fat (P < 0.01), while the percentage of abdominal fat in ducks with high Ruminococcus_torques_group abundance tended to be higher than that in ducks with low Ruminococcus_torques_group abundance (P < 0.01). These findings could provide the basic data on the cecal microbiota in Muscovy ducks as well as a theoretical foundation to limit the fat deposition by modulating the gut microbiota in the duck industry.

Keywords: Ruminococcus_torques_group; Treponema; abdominal fat deposition; cecal microbiota; muscovy ducks.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The composition of the cecal microbiota in Muscovy ducks at the phylum and genus levels.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Association analysis of abdominal fat weight (AFW) and percentage of abdominal fat (AFP). (A). The correlation between AFW and AFP. (B). Overlap analysis of the shared birds in both AFW- and AFP-ranked groups of the highest 20% (n = 40) and lowest 20% (n = 40).
Figure 3
Figure 3
The differences between the high and low groups in percentage of abdominal fat (A) and abdominal fat weight (B). ***P < 0.001.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The α-diversity including Reads (A), Shannon (B), Simpson (C), and Chao (D) in the cecum of high and low group ducks.
Figure 5
Figure 5
The microbial composition in the cecum of the high and low group ducks.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Abdominal fat weight (A) and percentage of abdominal fat (B) related genus in the cecum of Muscovy ducks.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Effects of fatness-related microbial genera, Treponema (A–C) and Ruminococcus_torques_group (D–F), on host phenotypes.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Srivastava G, Apovian CM. Current pharmacotherapy for obesity. Nat Rev Endocrinol. (2018) 14:12–24. 10.1038/nrendo.2017.122 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen S, Xiang H, Zhang H, Zhu X, Wang D, Wang J, et al. . Rearing system causes changes of behavior, microbiome, and gene expression of chickens. Poult Sci. (2019) 98:3365–76. 10.3382/ps/pez140 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siegel PB. Evolution of the modern broiler and feed efficiency. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. (2014) 2:375–85. 10.1146/annurev-animal-022513-114132 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wen C, Yan W, Zheng J, Ji C, Zhang D, Sun C, et al. . Feed efficiency measures and their relationships with production and meat quality traits in slower growing broilers. Poult Sci. (2018) 97:2356–64. 10.3382/ps/pey062 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wen C, Yan W, Sun C, Ji C, Zhou Q, Zhang D, et al. . The gut microbiota is largely independent of host genetics in regulating fat deposition in chickens. ISME J. (2019) 13:1422–36. 10.1038/s41396-019-0367-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources