期刊论文详细信息
Parasites & Vectors
Metabarcoding of bacteria and parasites in the gut of Apodemus agrarius
Research
Bo-Young Jeon1  Ju Yeong Kim2  Tai-Soon Yong2  Singeun Oh2  Myung-hee Yi2  Seogwon Lee2  Jun Ho Choi2  In-Yong Lee2  Soo Lim Kim2  Myungjun Kim2 
[1] Department of Biomedical Laboratory Science, College of Health Science, Yonsei University, 26493, Wonju, Republic of Korea;Department of Environmental Medical Biology, Institute of Tropical Medicine, and Arthropods of Medical Importance Resource Bank, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 03722, Seoul, Republic of Korea;
关键词: 18S rDNA;    16S rDNA;    Apodemus agrarius;    Parasite;    Microbiome;   
DOI  :  10.1186/s13071-022-05608-w
 received in 2022-08-05, accepted in 2022-12-03,  发布年份 2022
来源: Springer
PDF
【 摘 要 】

BackgroundThe striped field mouse Apodemus agrarius is a wild rodent commonly found in fields in Korea. It is a known carrier of various pathogens. Amplicon-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) targeting the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene is the most common technique used to analyze the bacterial microbiome. Although many bacterial microbiome analyses have been attempted using feces of wild animals, only a few studies have used NGS to screen for parasites. This study aimed to rapidly detect bacterial, fungal and parasitic pathogens in the guts of A. agrarius using NGS-based metabarcoding analysis.MethodsWe conducted 18S/16S rDNA-targeted high-throughput sequencing on cecal samples collected from A. agrarius (n = 48) trapped in May and October 2017. Taxa of protozoa, fungi, helminths and bacteria in the cecal content were then identified.ResultsAmong the protozoa identified, the most prevalent was Tritrichomonas sp., found in all of the cecal samples, followed by Monocercomonas sp. (95.8% prevalence; in 46/48 samples) and Giardia sp. (75% prevalence; in 36/48 samples). For helminths, Heligmosomoides sp. was the most common, found in 85.4% (41/48) of samples, followed by Hymenolepis sp. (10.4%; 5/48) and Syphacia sp. (25%; 12/48). The 16S rRNA gene analysis showed that the microbial composition of the cecal samples changed by season (P = 0.005), with the linear discriminant analysis effect size showing that in the spring Escherichia coli and Lactobacillus murinus were more abundant and Helicobacter rodentium was less abundant. Helicobacter japonicus was more abundant and Prevotella_uc was less abundant in males. The microbial composition changed based on the Heligmosomoides sp. infection status (P = 0.019); specifically, Lactobacillus gasseri and Lactobacillus intestinalis were more abundant in the Heligmosomoides sp.-positive group than in the Heligmosomoides sp.-negative group.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that bacterial abundance changed based on the season and specific parasitic infection status of the trapped mice. These results highlight the advantages of NGS technology in monitoring zoonotic disease reservoirs.Graphical Abstract

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2022

【 预 览 】
附件列表
Files Size Format View
RO202305064857216ZK.pdf 3556KB PDF download
12902_2022_1244_Article_IEq30.gif 1KB Image download
Fig. 2 331KB Image download
MediaObjects/12888_2022_4441_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx 36KB Other download
Fig. 1 288KB Image download
MediaObjects/12888_2022_4350_MOESM1_ESM.docx 54KB Other download
Fig. 7 1742KB Image download
13690_2022_1011_Article_IEq1.gif 1KB Image download
MediaObjects/13690_2022_1011_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx 314KB Other download
【 图 表 】

13690_2022_1011_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 7

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

12902_2022_1244_Article_IEq30.gif

【 参考文献 】
  • [1]
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7]
  • [8]
  • [9]
  • [10]
  • [11]
  • [12]
  • [13]
  • [14]
  • [15]
  • [16]
  • [17]
  • [18]
  • [19]
  • [20]
  • [21]
  • [22]
  • [23]
  • [24]
  • [25]
  • [26]
  • [27]
  • [28]
  • [29]
  • [30]
  • [31]
  • [32]
  • [33]
  • [34]
  • [35]
  • [36]
  • [37]
  • [38]
  • [39]
  • [40]
  • [41]
  • [42]
  • [43]
  • [44]
  • [45]
  • [46]
  • [47]
  • [48]
  • [49]
  • [50]
  • [51]
  • [52]
  • [53]
  • [54]
  • [55]
  • [56]
  • [57]
  • [58]
  • [59]
  • [60]
  • [61]
  • [62]
  • [63]
  • [64]
  • [65]
  • [66]
  • [67]
  • [68]
  • [69]
  • [70]
  • [71]
  • [72]
  • [73]
  • [74]
  • [75]
  • [76]
  • [77]
  • [78]
  • [79]
  • [80]
  • [81]
  • [82]
  文献评价指标  
  下载次数:6次 浏览次数:1次