laboratory animal science ›› 2019, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (03): 40-.

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Analysis of the Differences of Gut Microbiota between Guide Dogs and Eliminated Dogs

  

  • Online:2019-06-28 Published:2020-09-07

导盲犬和淘汰犬肠道菌群的差异性研究

  

  1. (1.大连医科大学实验动物中心,大连 116044)(2. 大连医科大学第二临床学院,大连 116044)(3.大连医科大学基础医学院微生态学教研室,大连 116044)

Abstract: Objective To explore the differences of gut microbiota between Guide Dogs and Eliminated Dogs, and analyze the characteristic differential gut microbiota of two groups. Method Fresh feces from 16 Guide Dogs and 10 Eliminated Dogs were collected. On the one hand, according to dogs’ breed and gender, dogs were divided into Male Labrador retriever Guide Dog (GD-ML) and Eliminated Dog (ED-ML), Female Labrador retriever Guide Dog (GD-FL) and Eliminated Dog (ED-FL), Male Golden retriever Guide Dog (GD-MG) and Eliminated Dog (ED-MG).Nine Guide Dogs and 4 Eliminated Dogs randomly selected from all dogs were divided into Guide Dog (GD) and Eliminated Dog (ED). All dogs were totally divided into 4 matching groups. The genomic DNA was extracted from the fresh feces. The fingerprints of the gut microbiota were obtained by PCR-DGGE. The differences were analyzed by relevant software and statistical method. Result The result of cluster analysis showed that GD and ED, GD-ML and ED-ML, GD-FL, ED-FL and GD-MG were all classified into one class, indicating that there were differences of gut microbiota between Guide Dogs and Eliminated Dogs. There were also differences in diversity index, richness index and evenness index between each two paired groups, but the differences were not statistically significant. The result of differential strip sequencing analysis showed that compared with ED, Megamonas funiformis YIT 11815 were increased in GD; compared with ED-ML, Succinatimonas hippei YIT 12066, Lactobacillus vaginalis DSM 5837, Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii A2-165 were increased and Collinsella aerofaciens ATCC 25986, Prevotella copri DSM 18205 were decreased in GD-ML; compared with ED-FL, Ruminococcus gnavus AGR2154, Fusobacterium russii ATCC 25533 were decreased in GD-FL; compared with ED-MG, Tropheryma whipplei str. Twist were increased in GD-MG. Conclusion This study found that there were differences of gut microbiota between Guide Dogs and Eliminated Dogs. Further research on differential microbiota in the future may help to assist early screening of Guide Dogs.

Key words: Guide Dog, gut microbiota, PCR-DGGE technology

摘要: 目的 探究导盲犬和淘汰犬之间肠道菌群的差异,分析两者特征性差异菌群。方法 收集16只导盲犬和10只淘汰犬的新鲜粪便样本,按照犬品种和性别分为拉布拉多雄性导盲犬(GD-ML)和淘汰犬(ED-ML)、拉布拉多雌性导盲犬(GD-FL)和淘汰犬(ED-FL)、金毛雄性导盲犬(GD-MG)和淘汰犬(ED-MG),另外从中随机抽取9只导盲犬和4只淘汰犬分为导盲犬组(GD)和淘汰犬组(ED),共分为4组配对。提取粪便样本总DNA,应用PCR-DGGE技术获得肠道菌群图谱,应用相关软件和统计学方法对每组配对进行差异性分析。结果 聚类分析结果显示,GD和ED,GD-ML和ED-ML,GD-FL、ED-FL和GD-MG均各归为一类,表明导盲犬和淘汰犬之间肠道菌群存在差异。肠道菌群多样性、丰富度和均匀度分析结果显示,每两个配对组之间多样性指数、丰富度指数和均匀度指数存在差异,但差异均无统计学意义。差异性条带测序分析结果显示:与ED相比,GD Megamonas funiformis YIT 11815菌株增多;与ED-ML相比,GD-ML Succinatimonas hippei YIT 12066、Lactobacillus vaginalis DSM 5837、Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM、Faecalibacterium prausnitzii A2-165菌株增多,Collinsella aerofaciens ATCC 25986和Prevotella copri DSM 18205菌株减少;与ED-FL相比,GD-FL Ruminococcus gnavus AGR2154、Fusobacterium russii ATCC 25533菌株减少;与ED-MG相比,GD-MG Tropheryma whipplei str. Twist菌株增多。结论 本研究发现导盲犬和淘汰犬肠道菌群存在差异,未来对差异菌群的进一步研究可能有助于辅助导盲犬的早期筛选。

关键词: 导盲犬, 肠道菌群, PCR-DGGE技术