Differences in gut microbiota composition in finishing Landrace pigs with low and high feed conversion ratios

53Citations
Citations of this article
62Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The goal of this study was to evaluate the microbial communities in the gut and feces from female finishing Landrace pigs with high and low feed conversion ratio (FCR) by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Many potential biomarkers can distinguish between high and low FCR groups in the duodenum, ileum, cecum, colon, and rectum, according to linear discriminant analysis effect sizes. The relative abundance of microbes were tested by Mann–Whitney test between the high and low FCR groups in different organs: Campylobacter, Prevotella and Sphaerochaeta were different in the duodenum (P < 0.05); Sanguibacter, Kingella and Anaeroplasma in jejunum; Anaeroplasma, Arthrobacter, Kingella, Megasphaera and SMB53 in the ileum; Butyricicoccus, Campylobacter, Mitsuokella, and Coprobacillus in the cecum; Lactococcus and Peptococcus in the colon; Staphylococcus in the rectum; and Rothia in feces. The prevalence of microbial genera in certain locations could potentially be used as biomarkers to distinguish between high and low FCR. Functional prediction clustering analysis suggested that bacteria in the hindgut mainly participated in carbohydrate metabolism and amino acid metabolism, and different in the relative abundance of metabolic pathways, as predicted from the microbial taxa present, were identified by comparing the high and low groups of each location. The results may provide insights for the alteration of the intestinal microbial communities to improve the growth rate of pigs.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tan, Z., Wang, Y., Yang, T., Ao, H., Chen, S., Xing, K., … Wang, C. (2018). Differences in gut microbiota composition in finishing Landrace pigs with low and high feed conversion ratios. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, International Journal of General and Molecular Microbiology, 111(9), 1673–1685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-018-1057-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free