• 1. McNulty NP, Yatsunenko T, Hsiao A, et al. The impact of a consortium of fermented milk strains on the gut microbiome of gnotobiotic mice and monozygotic twins. Sci Transl Med 2011;3:106ra106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Hartman AL, Lough DM, Barupal DK, et al. Human gut microbiome adopts an alternative state following small bowel transplantation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009;106:1718717192.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Rup L. The human microbiome project. Indian J Microbiol 2012;52:315.

  • 4. The Human Microbiome Project Consortium. A framework for human microbiome research. Nature 2012;486:215221.

  • 5. Qin J, Ruiqiang L, Raes J, et al. A human gut microbial gene catalog established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature 2010;464:5965.

  • 6. Blackmore TM, Dugdale A, Argo CM, et al. Strong stability and host specific bacterial community in faeces of ponies. PLoS One 2013;8:e75079.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Proudman CJ, Hunter JO, Darby AC, et al. Characterisation of the faecal metabolome and microbiome of Thoroughbred racehorses. Equine Vet J 2015;47:580586.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Weese JS, Holcombe SJ, Embertson RM, et al. Changes in the faecal microbiota of mares precede the development of post partum colic. Equine Vet J 2015;47:641649.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Steelman SM, Chowdhary BP, Dowd S, et al. Pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA genes in fecal samples reveals high diversity of hindgut microflora in horses and potential links to chronic laminitis. BMC Vet Res 2012;8:231.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Costa MC, Arroyo LG, Allen-Vercoe E, et al. Comparison of the fecal microbiota of healthy horses and horses with colitis by high throughput sequencing of the V3–V5 region of the 16s rRNA gene. PLoS One 2012;7:e41484.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Eckburg PB, Bik EM, Bernstein CN, et al. Diversity of the human intestinal microbial flora. Science 2005;308:16351638.

  • 12. Durbán A, Abellán JJ, Jiménez-Hernández N, et al. Assessing gut microbial diversity from feces and rectal mucosa. Microb Ecol 2011;61:123133.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Milinovich GJ, Burrell PC, Pollitt CC, et al. Microbial ecology of the equine hindgut during oligofructose-induced laminitis. ISME J 2008;2:10891100.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Pitta DW, Kumar S, Vecchiarelli B, et al. Temporal dynamics in the ruminal microbiome of dairy cows during the transition period. J Anim Sci 2014;92:40144022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Wu S, Baldwin RL 6th, Li W, et al. The bacterial community composition of the bovine rumen detected using pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA genes. Metagenomics (Cairo) 2012;1:235571.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Hoffmann C, Dollive S, Grunberg S, et al. Archaea and fungi of the human gut microbiome: correlations with diet and bacterial residents. PLoS One 2013;8:e66019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 2010;7:335336.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 2010;26:24602461.

  • 19. Caporaso JG, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, et al. PyNAST: a flexible tool for aligning sequences to a template alignment. Bioinformatics 2010;26:266267.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2—approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 2010;5:e9490.

  • 21. McDonald D, Price MN, Goodrich J, et al. An improved Greengenes taxonomy with explicit ranks for ecological and evolutionary analyses of bacteria and archaea. ISME J 2012;6:610618.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, et al. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007;73:52615267.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Lozupone C, Knight R. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005;71:82288235.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Anderson MJ. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 2001;26:3246.

  • 25. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, et al. Vegan: community ecology package version 2.4–6. Available at: cran.r-project.org/package=vegan. Accessed May 11, 2015.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, et al. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, version 1.1–6. Available at: cran.r-project.org/package=lme4. Accessed May 11, 2015.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. Julliand V, Grimm P. Horse species symposium: the microbiome of the horse hindgut: history and current knowledge. J Anim Sci 2016;94:22622274.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Wang W, Cao J, Yang F, et al. High-throughput sequencing reveals the core gut microbiome of Bar-headed goose (Anser indicus) in different wintering areas in Tibet. Microbiologyopen 2016;5:287295.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Guo Y, Li SH, Kuang YS, et al. Effect of short-term room temperature storage on the microbial community in infant fecal samples. Sci Rep 2016;6:26648.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Venable EB, Bland SD, McPherson JL, et al. Role of the gut microbiota in equine health and disease. Anim Front 2016;6:4349.

  • 31. Shobar RM, Velineni S, Keshavarzian A, et al. The effects of bowel preparation on microbiota-related metrics differ in health and in inflammatory bowel disease and for the mucosal and luminal microbiota compartments. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2016;7:e143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32. Durso LM, Harhay GP, Smith TP, et al. Animal-to-animal variation in fecal microbial diversity among beef cattle. Appl Environ Microbiol 2010;76:48584862.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33. Choo JM, Leong LE, Rogers GB. Sample storage conditions significantly influence faecal microbiome profiles. Sci Rep 2015;5:16350.

  • 34. Costa MC, Silva G, Ramos RV, et al. Characterization and comparison of the bacterial microbiota in different gastrointestinal tract compartments in horses. Vet J 2015;205:7480.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35. Dougal K, Harris PA, Edwards A, et al. A comparison of the microbiome and the metabolome of different regions of the equine hindgut. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2012;82:642652.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Characterization of the fecal microbiota of healthy horses

View More View Less
  • 1 Equine Orthopaedic Research Center, Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
  • | 2 Department of Clinical Studies–New Bolton Center, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
  • | 3 Department of Clinical Studies–New Bolton Center, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
  • | 4 Department of Clinical Studies–New Bolton Center, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
  • | 5 Department of Clinical Studies–New Bolton Center, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
  • | 6 Department of Pathobiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
  • | 7 Department of Clinical Studies–New Bolton Center, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square, PA 19348.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To characterize the fecal microbiota of horses and to investigate alterations in that microbiota on the basis of sample collection site (rectum vs stall floor), sample location within the fecal ball (center vs surface), and duration of environmental exposure (collection time).

ANIMALS 6 healthy adult mixed-breed mares.

PROCEDURES From each horse, feces were collected from the rectum and placed on a straw-bedded stall floor. A fecal ball was selected for analysis immediately after removal from the rectum and at 0 (immediately), 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours after placement on the stall floor. Approximately 250 mg of feces was extracted from the surface and center of each fecal ball, and genomic DNA was extracted, purified, amplified for the V1-V2 hypervariable region of the 16S rDNA gene, and analyzed with a bioinformatics pipeline.

RESULTS The fecal microbiota was unique for each horse. Bacterial community composition varied significantly between center and surface fecal samples but was not affected by collection time. Bacterial community composition varied rapidly for surface fecal samples. Individual bacterial taxa were significantly associated with both sample location and collection time but remained fairly stable for up to 6 hours for center fecal samples.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated that, for horses, fecal samples for microbiota analysis should be extracted from the center of fecal balls collected within 6 hours after defecation. Samples obtained up to 24 hours after defecation can be analyzed with the realization that some bacterial populations may deviate from those immediately after defecation.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To characterize the fecal microbiota of horses and to investigate alterations in that microbiota on the basis of sample collection site (rectum vs stall floor), sample location within the fecal ball (center vs surface), and duration of environmental exposure (collection time).

ANIMALS 6 healthy adult mixed-breed mares.

PROCEDURES From each horse, feces were collected from the rectum and placed on a straw-bedded stall floor. A fecal ball was selected for analysis immediately after removal from the rectum and at 0 (immediately), 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours after placement on the stall floor. Approximately 250 mg of feces was extracted from the surface and center of each fecal ball, and genomic DNA was extracted, purified, amplified for the V1-V2 hypervariable region of the 16S rDNA gene, and analyzed with a bioinformatics pipeline.

RESULTS The fecal microbiota was unique for each horse. Bacterial community composition varied significantly between center and surface fecal samples but was not affected by collection time. Bacterial community composition varied rapidly for surface fecal samples. Individual bacterial taxa were significantly associated with both sample location and collection time but remained fairly stable for up to 6 hours for center fecal samples.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated that, for horses, fecal samples for microbiota analysis should be extracted from the center of fecal balls collected within 6 hours after defecation. Samples obtained up to 24 hours after defecation can be analyzed with the realization that some bacterial populations may deviate from those immediately after defecation.

Supplementary Materials

    • Supplementary Table S1 (PDF 88 kb)
    • Supplementary Table S2 (PDF 95 kb)
    • Supplementary Table S3 (PDF 102 kb)
    • Supplementary Table S4 (PDF 90 kb)

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Stewart (holly.stewart@colostate.edu).