Vaginal Microbiota Diversity in Response to Lipopolysaccharide in Gilts Housed Under Three Housing Systems.
Authors
Alves, Luana
de Novais, Francisco José
da Silva, Arthur Nery
Araujo, Michelle Silva
Bernardino, Thiago
Osowski, Germana Vizzotto
Zanella, Ricardo
Lee Settles, Matthew
Holmes, Mark A
Fukumasu, Heidge
Ruiz, Vera Letticie de Azevedo
Zanella, Adroaldo José
Publication Date
2022Journal Title
Front Genet
ISSN
1664-8021
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Volume
13
Language
en
Type
Article
This Version
VoR
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Alves, L., de Novais, F. J., da Silva, A. N., Araujo, M. S., Bernardino, T., Osowski, G. V., Zanella, R., et al. (2022). Vaginal Microbiota Diversity in Response to Lipopolysaccharide in Gilts Housed Under Three Housing Systems.. Front Genet, 13 https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.836962
Abstract
The United Kingdom and European Union have banned crates for pregnant sows. However, animals are kept in a restrictive environment for up to four weeks after mating, leading to stress and different responses of the animals' immune system. Here, we used vaginal flushing of gilts to investigate whether housing systems or an experimental inflammatory challenge with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) can modify the gilt vaginal microbiome. Alpha-diversity indices showed differences in the microbiota of gilts housed under different systems (q = 0.04). Shannon alpha-diversity richness was higher in gilts group-housed in pens than in gilts housed in crates (q = 0.035), but not higher than in other groups. The relative abundance of the operational taxonomic unit (OTU) (q < 0.05) revealed specific differences in housing systems before a LPS or saline (SAL control) challenge. We found different abundances in taxa of Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Cyanobacteria, Firmicutes, and Proteobacteria in gilts housed in the different systems before challenge. After the LPS challenge, significant differences were detected in the relative abundance of OTUs (q < 0.05) for the LPS-challenged group compared with SAL animals for each housing system. The phylum Staphylococcus showed higher abundance among the LPS-challenged gilts than in SAL-challenged animals. Furthermore, Enterobacter was more abundant in the LPS-challenged gilts housed in crates than in SAL-challenged gilts housed in crates. Streptococcus suis, Conchiformibius, Globicatella and Actinobacillus were more abundant in LPS-challenged gilts in indoor group housing than in SAL gilts in the same housing system. Gilts kept outdoors did not show changes in vaginal microbiota after an LPS challenge. Gilts housed in crates showed clinical signs of urogenital infection, whereas gilts housed outdoors and in indoor group housing did not. The relationship between environment, immune response, and microbiota suggested that animals in a poor environments experience difficulties responding to a challenge and their vaginal microbiota is altered as a consequence, with decreased richness of normal vaginal microbiota, and increased opportunistic bacteria. Welfare indicators measured by gilts' responses to housing systems however, do not fully explain mechanisms associated with the unique signature in vaginal microbiota encountered in the different housing systems.
Keywords
Genetics, crates, housing systems, metagenomics, Lipopolisaccharide, outdoor housing
Identifiers
836962
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.836962
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/336364
Rights
Licence:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Statistics
Total file downloads (since January 2020). For more information on metrics see the
IRUS guide.
Recommended or similar items
The current recommendation prototype on the Apollo Repository will be turned off on 03 February 2023. Although the pilot has been fruitful for both parties, the service provider IKVA is focusing on horizon scanning products and so the recommender service can no longer be supported. We recognise the importance of recommender services in supporting research discovery and are evaluating offerings from other service providers. If you would like to offer feedback on this decision please contact us on: support@repository.cam.ac.uk