Comparative analysis of the gut microbiota of wild wintering whooper swans (Cygnus Cygnus), captive black swans (Cygnus Atratus), and mute swans (Cygnus Olor) in Sanmenxia Swan National Wetland Park of China
- PMID: 37515622
- DOI: 10.1007/s11356-023-28876-0
Comparative analysis of the gut microbiota of wild wintering whooper swans (Cygnus Cygnus), captive black swans (Cygnus Atratus), and mute swans (Cygnus Olor) in Sanmenxia Swan National Wetland Park of China
Abstract
The gastrointestinal microbiota, a complex ecosystem, is involved in the physiological activities of hosts and the development of diseases. Birds occupy a critical ecological niche in the ecosystem, performing a variety of ecological functions and possessing a complex gut microbiota composition. However, the gut microbiota of wild and captive birds has received less attention in the same region. We profiled the fecal gut microbiome of wild wintering whooper swans (Cygnus Cygnus; Cyg group, n = 25), captive black swans (Cygnus Atratus; Atr group, n = 20), and mute swans (Cygnus Olor; Olor group, n = 30) using 16S rRNA gene sequencing to reveal differences in the gut microbial ecology. The results revealed that the three species of swans differed significantly in terms of the alpha and beta diversity of their gut microbiota, as measured by ACE, Chao1, Simpson and Shannon indices, principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) and non-metricmulti-dimensional scaling (NMDS) respectively. Based on the results of the linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) and random forest analysis, we found that there were substantial differences in the relative abundance of Gottschalkia, Trichococcus, Enterococcus, and Kurthia among the three groups. Furthermore, an advantageous pattern of interactions between microorganisms was shown by the association network analysis. Among these, Gottschalkia had the higher area under curve (AUC), which was 0.939 (CI = 0.879-0.999), indicating that it might be used as a biomarker to distinguish between wild and captive black swans. Additionally, PICRUSt2 predictions indicated significant differences in gut microbiota functions between wild and captive trumpeter swans, with the gut microbiota functions of Cyg group focusing on carbohydrate metabolism, membrane transport, cofactor, and vitamin metabolism pathways, the Atr group on lipid metabolism, and the Olor group on cell motility, amino acid metabolism, and replication and repair pathways. These findings showed that the gut microbiota of wild and captive swans differed, which is beneficial to understand the gut microecology of swans and to improve regional wildlife conservation strategies.
Keywords: 16S rRNA gene sequencing; Bird; Cygnus; Gut microbiota; Wild and captive swans.
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Similar articles
-
Metagenomic analysis of gut microbiome and resistome of Whooper and Black Swans: a one health perspective.BMC Genomics. 2023 Oct 24;24(1):635. doi: 10.1186/s12864-023-09742-2. BMC Genomics. 2023. PMID: 37875797 Free PMC article.
-
Comparative Analysis of the Fecal Bacterial Microbiota of Wintering Whooper Swans (Cygnus Cygnus).Front Vet Sci. 2021 Jul 12;8:670645. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.670645. eCollection 2021. Front Vet Sci. 2021. PMID: 34322532 Free PMC article.
-
Eimeria spp. (Eimeriidae) in the migratory whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) Linnaeus, 1758 (Anatidae) from Sanmenxia Swan Lake National Urban Wetland Park in the middle reaches of the Yellow River in China.Parasitol Res. 2022 Oct;121(10):2967-2977. doi: 10.1007/s00436-022-07629-x. Epub 2022 Aug 20. Parasitol Res. 2022. PMID: 35986168
-
Rhinosporidiosis: a description of an unprecedented outbreak in captive swans (Cygnus spp.) and a proposal for revision of the ontogenic nomenclature of Rhinosporidium seeberi.J Med Vet Mycol. 1995 May-Jun;33(3):157-65. doi: 10.1080/02681219580000341. J Med Vet Mycol. 1995. PMID: 7666295 Review.
-
Identification of microbial markers associated with lung cancer based on multi-cohort 16 s rRNA analyses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer Med. 2023 Sep;12(18):19301-19319. doi: 10.1002/cam4.6503. Epub 2023 Sep 7. Cancer Med. 2023. PMID: 37676050 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Metagenomic Insights into Pigeon Gut Microbiota Characteristics and Antibiotic-Resistant Genes.Biology (Basel). 2025 Jan 1;14(1):25. doi: 10.3390/biology14010025. Biology (Basel). 2025. PMID: 39857256 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Barbosa A, Balagué V, Valera F, Martínez A, Benzal J, Motas M, Diaz JI, Mira A, Pedrós-Alió C (2016) Age-related differences in the gastrointestinal microbiota of chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis antarctica). PLoS One 11:e0153215. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153215 - DOI
-
- Bodawatta KH, Hird SM, Grond K, Poulsen M, Jønsson KA (2022) Avian gut microbiomes taking flight. Trends Microbiol 30:268–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2021.07.003 - DOI
-
- Cabrera-Mulero A, Tinahones A, Bandera B, Moreno-Indias I, Macías-González M, Tinahones FJ (2019) Keto microbiota: a powerful contributor to host disease recovery. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 20:415–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11154-019-09518-8 - DOI
-
- Chi L, Tu P, Ru H, Lu K (2021) Studies of xenobiotic-induced gut microbiota dysbiosis: from correlation to mechanisms. Gut Microbes 13:1921912. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2021.1921912 - DOI
-
- Cho H, Lee WY (2020) Interspecific comparison of the fecal microbiota structure in three Arctic migratory bird species. Ecol Evol 10:5582–5594. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6299 - DOI
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous