Abstract
The article provides information on the dominant types of bacteria in the intestinal microbiota of two fish species (sterlet Acipenser ruthenus and African catfish Clarias gariepinus) and two bird species (broiler chickens of the Ross 308 cross and Texas white quails). DNA was isolated from the large intestine of fish and bird droppings. To study the metagenome, new generation sequencing (NGS) was used on the Illumina platform: MiSeq, two hundred and fifty bp reads, V2 Nano kit. It has been established that representatives of the Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, and Fusobacteria types dominate in the bacterial community of the fish intestine, while in the intestinal microbiota of birds, a significant predominance of one type of microorganisms, Firmicutes, is observed. In fish, Fusobacteria is the next type in abundance, while in broiler chickens and quails it is less than 1%. Representatives of the Actinobacteria type are found in fairly large numbers in catfish and quails. Representatives of minor types are also identified: Tenericutes in sterlet, Verrucomicrobia, Spirochaetes, Thermi, Chlorobi and Gemmatimonadetes in catfish, Synergistetes in broiler chickens, in Chloroflexi, Cyanobacteria and Thermotogae in quails
Keywords
References
[1] Golovanova, I.L., Filippov, A.A., Kulivatskaya, E.A., & Skvortsova, E.G. (2022). Effect of the probiotic "Yarosil" on the activity of digestive enzymes in the intestines of chickens. Bulletin of the Agro-Industrial Complex of the Upper Volga Region, 1(57), 42-47. doi: 10.35694/YARCX.2022.57.1.007.
[2] Golovanova, I.L., Filippov, A.A., Kulivatskaya, E.A., & Skvortsova, E.G. (2023). Effect of probiotics on digestive enzyme activity in the intestines of chickens at different pH levels. Problems of Biology of Productive Animals, 1, 56-62. doi: 10.25687/1996-6733.prodanimbiol.2023.1.56-62.
[3] Zuenko, V.A., Laktionov, K.S., Pravdin, I.V., Kravtsova, L.Z., & Ushakova, N.A. (2017). The effect of a feed probiotic based on Bacillus subtilis on digestion in fish during cage farming. Journal of Ichthyology, 57(1), 112-117.
[4] Zuenko, V.A. (2018). Increasing the productivity of fish farms through the use of biologically active feed additives (based on the example of using a probiotic based on Bacillus subtilis in cage farming of carp and sterlet in the Oryol region). In Achievements of university science 2018: Proceedings of the 2nd International research competition (Part 1) (pp. 28-35). Penza: Nauka i Prosveshchenie.
[5] Sergaliyev, N.Kh., Kakishev, M.G., Zalyalov, I.N., Giniyatov, N.S., & Nurzhanova, F.Kh. (2020). Microbiome structure in recirculating aquaculture systems and their relationship with infectious pathologies in sturgeon fish. Scientific Notes of the Kazan State Academy of Veterinary Medicine named after N.E. Bauman, 243(3), 237-244.
[6] Fisinin, V.I., Lukashenko, V.S., Saleeva, I.P., Laptev, G.Yu., Ilina, L.A., Volik, V.G., & Ismailova, D.Yu. (2019). Gastrointestinal microflora and productivity of broiler chickens (Gallus gallus L.) under the influence of feed additives from keratin- and collagen-containing raw material hydrolysates. Agricultural Biology, 2, 291-303.
[7] Ikeda-Ohtsubo, W., Brugman, S., Warden, C.H., Rebel, J.M.J., Folkerts, G., & Pieterse, C.M.J. (2018). How can we define "optimal microbiota?": A comparative review of structure and functions of microbiota of animals, fish, and plants in agriculture. Frontiers in Nutrition, 5, article number 90. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00090.
[8] Siegerstetter, S.-C., Petri, R.M., Magowan, E., Lawlor, P.G., Zebeli, Q., O’Connell, N.E., & Metzler-Zebeli, B.U. (2018). Feed restriction modulates the fecal microbiota composition, nutrient retention, and feed efficiency in chickens divergent in residual feed intake. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9, article number 2698. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02698.
[9] Sullam, K.E., Essinger, S.D., Lozupone, C.A., O'Connor, M.P., Rosen, G.L., Knight, R., Kilham, S.S., & Russell, J.A. (2012). Environmental and ecological factors that shape the gut bacterial communities of fish: A meta-analysis. Molecular Ecology, 21(13), 3363-3378. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05552.x.