成年猪胃不同部位黏膜微生物组成与多样性研究
收稿日期: 2025-03-19
修回日期: 2025-06-04
网络出版日期: 2025-06-06
基金资助
国家重点研发计划项目(2022YFF1000100);国家自然科学基金项目(32202630);国家自然科学基金项目(32302700);国家自然科学基金项目(32421005);四川省科技计划项目(2021ZDZX0008);四川省科技计划项目(2021YFYZ0009);中国博士后面上项目(2023M732512);江苏省高校家畜种质资源与遗传改良国际合作联合实验室(IJRLD-KF202202)
Study on the microbial diversity and composition at different regions of stomach in adult pigs
Received date: 2025-03-19
Revised date: 2025-06-04
Online published: 2025-06-06
Supported by
National Key R & D Program of China(2022YFF1000100);National Natural Science Foundation of China(32202630);National Natural Science Foundation of China(32302700);National Natural Science Foundation of China(32421005);Sichuan Science and Technology Program(2021ZDZX0008);Sichuan Science and Technology Program(2021YFYZ0009);China Postdoctoral Science Foundation(2023M732512);Open Project Program of International Joint Research Laboratory in Universities of Jiangsu Province of China for Domestic Animal Germplasm Resources and Genetic Improvement(IJRLD-KF202202)
为分析猪胃不同解剖学部位微生物多样性和组成特征,本研究以成年“长×大”LY二元杂交母猪为研究对象,采集胃食管沟、胃底、胃体小弯、胃体大弯、胃窦中部、胃憩室、幽门圆枕和幽门8个部位黏膜样品,对各部位微生物16S rRNA V3-V4高变区进行高通量测序并进行分析。结果发现,猪胃8个部位微生物多样性存在差异。胃底和胃体大弯的微生物多样性和丰富度较高;而食管沟、胃体小弯、胃窦中部、胃憩室、幽门圆枕与幽门微生物多样性和丰富度较低。猪胃8个部位的黏膜微生物主要由厚壁菌门(Firmicutes)和变形杆菌门(Proteobacteria)组成。在食管沟和胃窦中部还发现,蓝藻菌门(Cyanobacteria)的相对含量也较高。而不同部位的优势菌属则存在较大差异。食管沟、胃底、胃体小弯和胃体大弯的优势菌为乳酸菌属(Lactobacillus),胃窦中部的优势菌为代尔夫特菌属(Delftia)和金黄杆菌属(Chryseobacterium),胃憩室和幽门的优势菌为拟杆菌属(Bacteroides),幽门圆枕的优势菌为变形杆菌(Proteus)。进一步对各部位微生物的功能分析显示,胃内发挥代谢功能和细胞活动最活跃的区域位于食管沟和胃体小弯。上述研究结果为后续深入理解胃的生理结构和功能提供参考数据。
关键词: 猪; 胃; 黏膜微生物; 微生物多样性; 16S扩增子高通量测序
胡思雨, 杨若菡, 刘正江, 蔡怡菲, 邓娟, 曾博, 李明洲, 孔繁丽 . 成年猪胃不同部位黏膜微生物组成与多样性研究[J]. 遗传, 2025 , 47(10) : 1146 -1155 . DOI: 10.16288/j.yczz.25-027
To investigate the microbial composition and diversity across distinct anatomical regions of the porcine stomach, this study took adult “Landrace×Yorkshire” hybrid pigs as the research subjects. Mucosal samples were collected from eight regions, including gastroesophageal groove, gastric fundus, lesser curvature of the gastric body, greater curvature of the gastric body, middle antrum of the gastric antrum, gastric diverticulum, round pillow of the pylorus, and pylorus, and subjected by high-throughput sequencing targeting the microbial 16S rRNA V3-V4 hypervariable regions. The results showed obvious difference in microbial diversity among the eight stomach regions. The gastric fundus and gastric body greater curvature exhibited higher microbial diversity and richness, while the esophageal groove, gastric body lesser curvature, gastric antrum middle section, gastric diverticulum, pyloric bulge, and pylorus showed lower diversity and richness. Firmicutes and Proteobacteria constituted the predominant phyla across all eight regions of the pig stomach. A` relatively high abundance of Cyanobacteria was also detected in the esophageal groove and gastric antrum middle section. However, the dominant genera varied substantially across regions. Lactobacillus predominated in the esophageal groove, fundus, lesser curvature, and greater curvature. Delftia and Chryseobacterium were dominant in the mid-antrum. Bacteroides dominated in the gastric diverticulum and pylorus. Proteus was the dominant genus in the pyloric torus. Further functional analysis of stomach microbiome indicated the regions with the most active metabolic processes and cellular activity within the stomach were the esophageal groove and lesser curvature of the gastric body. These findings provide valuable reference data for future research on the physiological structure and function of the stomach.
| [1] | Swindle MM, Makin A, Herron AJ, Clubb FJ, Frazier KS. Swine as models in biomedical research and toxicology testing. Vet Pathol, 2012, 49(2): 344-356. |
| [2] | Yang DY, Wang ZL, Tang L, Chen N, Zhang HF. Development of world pig industry in 2022 and its trend in 2023. Swine Ind Sci, 2023, 40(2): 36-40. |
| 杨侗瑀, 王祖力, 汤莉, 陈南, 张海峰. 2022年世界生猪产业发展情况及2023年的趋势. 猪业科学, 2023, 40(2): 36-40. | |
| [3] | Olmi S, Cesana G, D'Angiolella L, Bonaldi M, Uccelli M, Mantovani L. Sleeve gastrectomy with tailored 360° fundoplication according to Rossetti in patients affected by obesity and gastroesophageal reflux: a prospective observational study. Surg Obes Relat Dis, 2021, 17(6): 1057-1065. |
| [4] | Hallan A, Bomme M, Hveem K, Møller-Hansen J, Ness-Jensen E. Risk factors on the development of new-onset gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. A population-based prospective cohort study: the HUNT study. Am J Gastroenterol, 2015, 110(3): 393-400. |
| [5] | Tang SL, Feng CJ, Zhang XM, Xu ZH, Xiong X, He SY. Research progress on the correlation between small intestinal bacterial overgrowth and non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease. West Chin Med J, 2024, 39(1): 129-135. |
| 汤世琳, 冯才举, 张秀梅, 徐志洪, 熊鑫, 何素玉. 小肠细菌过度生长与非糜烂性胃食管反流病相关性研究进展. 华西医学, 2024, 39(1): 129-135. | |
| [6] | Zhang XD, Zhu MH, Chen XZ, Li DL. Clinical study on gastric solid emptying in patients with esophageal and cardiac cancer after gastroesophagostomy. Chin J Clin Gastroenterol, 1997, (2): 67-69. |
| 张旭东, 朱每杭, 陈夕志, 李登銮. 食管癌贲门癌切除胃食管吻合术后胃固相排空的临床研究. 临床消化病杂志, 1997, (2): 67-69. | |
| [7] | Zhang Q. Study on Rumen proteomics and protein phosphorylation modification of Tan Sheep under different RFI conditions[Dissertation]. Ningxia University, 2022. |
| 张倩. 不同RFI滩羊瘤胃壁蛋白组学与蛋白磷酸化修饰差异研究[学位论文]. 宁夏大学, 2022. | |
| [8] | Ma ZH. Anatomy and Histoembryology of Livestock(3rd Edition). China Agricultural Press, 2002, 205. |
| 马仲华. 家畜解剖学及组织胚胎学(第3版). 中国农业出版社, 2002, 205. | |
| [9] | Fothergill LJ, Galiazzo G, Hunne B, Stebbing MJ, Fakhry J, Weissenborn F, Fazio Coles TE, Furness JB. Distribution and co-expression patterns of specific cell markers of enteroendocrine cells in pig gastric epithelium. Cell Tissue Res, 2019, 378(3): 457-469. |
| [10] | Wurm P, Dörner E, Kremer C, Spranger J, Maddox C, Halwachs B, Harrison U, Blanchard T, Haas R, Högenauer C, Gorkiewicz G, Fricke WF. Qualitative and quantitative DNA- and RNA-based analysis of the bacterial stomach microbiota in humans, mice, and gerbils. mSystems, 2018, 3(6): e00262-18. |
| [11] | Jensen BB, Jørgensen H. Effect of dietary fiber on microbial activity and microbial gas production in various regions of the gastrointestinal tract of pigs. Appl Environ Microbiol, 1994, 60 (6): 1897-1904. |
| [12] | Pereira-Marques J, Ferreira RM, Pinto-Ribeiro I, Figueiredo C. Helicobacter pylori infection, the gastric microbiome and gastric cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2019, 1149: 195-210. |
| [13] | Bik EM, Eckburg PB, Gill SR, Nelson KE, Purdom EA, Francois F, Perez-Perez G, Blaser MJ, Relman DA. Molecular analysis of the bacterial microbiota in the human stomach. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2006, 103(3): 732-737. |
| [14] | Delgado S, Cabrera-Rubio R, Mira A, Suárez A, Mayo B. Microbiological survey of the human gastric ecosystem using culturing and pyrosequencing methods. Microb Ecol, 2013, 65(3): 763-772. |
| [15] | Schulz C, Schütte K, Koch N, Vilchez-Vargas R, Wos-Oxley ML, Oxley APA, Vital M, Malfertheiner P, Pieper DH. The active bacterial assemblages of the upper GI tract in individuals with and without Helicobacter infection. Gut, 2018, 67(2): 216-225. |
| [16] | Martens EC, Neumann M, Desai MS. Interactions of commensal and pathogenic microorganisms with the intestinal mucosal barrier. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2018, 16(8): 457-470. |
| [17] | Li ZJ, Chen CX, Zhong XJ, Gao J. Research progress on porcine gut microbiota composition, influencing factors and its effects on economically important traits. China Anim Husb Vet Med, 2022, 49(7): 2557-2566. |
| 李卓君, 陈春香, 钟小菊, 高军. 猪肠道微生物组成、影响因素及其对重要经济性状的影响研究进展. 中国畜牧兽医, 2022, 49(7): 2557-2566. | |
| [18] | Sanders ME, Merenstein DJ, Reid G, Gibson GR, Rastall RA. Probiotics and prebiotics in intestinal health and disease: from biology to the clinic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2019, 16(10): 605-616. |
| [19] | Arese Lucini F, Morone F, Tomassone MS, Makse HA. Diversity increases the stability of ecosystems. PLoS One, 2020, 15(4): e0228692. |
| [20] | Poudel P, Levesque CL, Samuel R, St-Pierre B. Dietary inclusion of Peptiva, a peptide-based feed additive, can accelerate the maturation of the fecal bacterial microbiome in weaned pigs. BMC Vet Res, 2020, 16(1): 60. |
| [21] | Waite DW, Vanwonterghem I, Rinke C, Parks DH, Zhang Y, Takai K, Sievert SM, Simon J, Campbell BJ, Hanson TE, Woyke T, Klotz MG, Hugenholtz P. Comparative genomic analysis of the class Epsilonproteobacteria and proposed reclassification to Epsilonbacteraeota (phyl. nov.). Front Microbiol, 2017, 8: 682. |
| [22] | Che LJ, Wei LM, Xue RL, Shi HM, Shi BG, Wei XY. Effects of cold season supplementation on rumen microbiota of hybrid offspring of jersey cattle and yak. China Herbivore Sci, 2024, 44(4): 45-54. |
| 车陇杰, 魏立明, 薛瑞林, 石红梅, 石斌刚, 魏晓云. 补饲对冷季放牧娟犏牛瘤胃菌群结构的影响. 中国草食动物科学, 2024, 44(4): 45-54. | |
| [23] | Zhang H, Xu RY, Su Y, Zhu WY. A review: gut microbiota in monogastric animals. Chin J Anim Nutr, 2020, 32(10): 4674-4685. |
| 张贺, 徐荣莹, 苏勇, 朱伟云. 单胃动物肠道微生物研究进展. 动物营养学报, 2020, 32(10): 4674-4685. | |
| [24] | Chen YY, Liu WX, Ma KH, Yang H, Ma LZ. Effects of inoculating lactic acid bacterial starter cultures on the microbial flora dynamic change and sensory quality of air-dried sausage during the ripening process. Meat Res, 2022, 36(2): 1-8. |
| 陈援援, 刘文秀, 马凯华, 杨华, 马俪珍. 接种乳酸菌发酵剂对风干肠成熟过程中微生物群落动态变化及感官品质的影响. 肉类研究, 2022, 36(2): 1-8. | |
| [25] | Marcobal A, Barboza M, Froehlich JW, Block DE, German JB, Lebrilla CB, Mills DA. Consumption of human milk oligosaccharides by gut-related microbes. J Agric Food Chem, 2010, 58(9): 5334-5340. |
| [26] | He XQ. Classification and identification of Citrobacter. Chin J Health Lab Technol, 2005, 15(12): 1535-1536. |
| 何晓青. 柠檬酸杆菌属(Citrobacter)的分类与鉴定. 中国卫生检验杂志, 2005, 15(12): 1535-1536. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |