Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:20:48.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Exploring the resident gut microbiota of stranded odontocetes: high similarities between two dolphin species Tursiops truncatus and Stenella coeruleoalba

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2020

Khaled F. A. Abdelrhman
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia, University of Florence, via Madonna del Piano 6, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
Alice Ciofini
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia, University of Florence, via Madonna del Piano 6, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
Giovanni Bacci
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia, University of Florence, via Madonna del Piano 6, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
Cecilia Mancusi
Affiliation:
Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione Ambientale della Toscana (ARPAT), via Marradi 114, 57126, Livorno, Italy
Alessio Mengoni*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia, University of Florence, via Madonna del Piano 6, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
Alberto Ugolini
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Biologia, University of Florence, via Madonna del Piano 6, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: Alessio Mengoni, E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The evaluation of symbiotic microbial communities occurring in the intestinal tract of animals has received great interest in recent years. However, little is known about gut microbial communities in cetaceans, despite their relevance in the ecology of marine communities. Here, we report an investigation using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing of the resident gut microbiota of the two cetacean species Stenella coeruleoalba and Tursiops truncatus by sampling intestinal mucosa from specimens retrieved stranded along the Tyrrhenian coast of Tuscany (Italy). We found an abundance of members from Clostridiaceae and Fusobacteriaceae, which in total accounted for more than 50% of reads, in agreement with gut microbiota composition of other carnivorous mammals. Probably due to the limited number of samples available, sex, preservation status and also species, did not correlate with overall differences in the microbiota. Indeed, a high similarity of the taxonomic (family-level) composition between the gut microbiota of the two species was found. However, Pedobacter spp. was found abundant in amplicon sequencing libraries from S. coeruleoalba, while clostridia were more abundant from T. truncatus samples. Our results shed some light on the gut microbiota composition of two dolphin (S. coeruleoalba and T. truncatus) species, with specimens collected in the wild. Studies with a larger number of individuals are now needed to confirm these first results and evaluate the interspecific differences in relation to sex and age.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom

Introduction

The microbial communities present in the intestine of species ranging from invertebrates to humans have the attention of many investigators (Ley et al., Reference Ley, Lozupone, Hamady, Knight and Gordon2008a, Reference Ley, Hamady, Lozupone, Turnbaugh, Ramey, Bircher, Schleger, Turker, Schrenzel, Knight and Gordon2008b; Round & Mazmanian, Reference Round and Mazmanian2009; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Wu, Dai, Zhang and Wey2011; Huttenhower et al., Reference Huttenhower, Gevers, Knight, Abubucker, Badger and Chinwalla2012; Keenan et al., Reference Keenan, Engel and Elsey2013; Kostic et al., Reference Kostic, Howitt and Garrett2013; Mengoni et al., Reference Mengoni, Focardi, Bacci and Ugolini2013; Abdelrhman et al., Reference Abdelrhman, Bacci, Mancusi, Mengoni, Serena and Ugolini2016; Bik et al., Reference Bik, Costello, Switzer, Callahan, Holmes, Wells, Carlin, Jensen, Venn-Watson and Relman2016; Du Toit, Reference Du Toit2016; Soverini et al., Reference Soverini, Quercia, Biancani, Furlati, Turroni, Biagi, Consolandi, Peano, Severgnini, Rampelli, Brigidi and Candela2016; Godoy-Vitorino et al., Reference Godoy-Vitorino, Rodriguez-Hilario, Alves, Gonçalves, Cabrera-Colon, Mesquita, Soares-Castro, Ferreira, Marçalo, Vingarda, Eira and Santos2017), in relation to their important role in their hosts' physiology and in adaptation (Kostic et al., Reference Kostic, Howitt and Garrett2013). Enteric microorganisms have been revealed to contribute to the health of hosts (i.e. preventing opportunistic infections) besides contributing to other physiological functions such as mate selection, skeletal biology and lipid metabolism (Ley et al., Reference Ley, Lozupone, Hamady, Knight and Gordon2008a; Round & Mazmanian, Reference Round and Mazmanian2009; Kostic et al., Reference Kostic, Howitt and Garrett2013; Du Toit, Reference Du Toit2016). Their involvement has been suggested in mammalian evolutionary radiation, allowing hosts to adapt to a wide range of dietary niches, due to extensive microbial metabolic capabilities (Ley et al., Reference Ley, Lozupone, Hamady, Knight and Gordon2008a; McFall-Ngai et al., Reference McFall-Ngai, Hadfield, Boschc, Careyd, Domazet-Losoe, Douglasf, Dubilierg, Eberlh, Fukamii, Gilbertj, Hentschelk, Kingl, Kjellebergm, Knolln, Kremera, Mazmaniano, Metcalfp, Nealsonq, Piercer, Rawlss, Reidt, Rubya, Rumphou, Sandersr, Tautzv and Wernegreenw2013; Nelson et al., Reference Nelson, Rogers and Brown2013); dietary regime has been indicated as the most decisive factor for the symbiotic gut microbiota composition (Ley et al., Reference Ley, Lozupone, Hamady, Knight and Gordon2008a, Reference Ley, Hamady, Lozupone, Turnbaugh, Ramey, Bircher, Schleger, Turker, Schrenzel, Knight and Gordon2008b; Muegge et al., Reference Muegge, Kuczynski, Knights, Clemente, González, Fontana, Henrissat, Knight and Gordon2011; Abdelrhman et al., Reference Abdelrhman, Bacci, Marras, Nistri, Schintu, Ugolini and Mengoni2017a, Reference Abdelrhman, Bacci, Nistri, Mengoni and Ugolini2017b). However, other parameters, such as environment, phylogeny and gut morphology, may in influence the intestinal microbiota (Langer, Reference Langer2001; Ley et al., Reference Ley, Lozupone, Hamady, Knight and Gordon2008a, Reference Ley, Hamady, Lozupone, Turnbaugh, Ramey, Bircher, Schleger, Turker, Schrenzel, Knight and Gordon2008b; Muegge et al., Reference Muegge, Kuczynski, Knights, Clemente, González, Fontana, Henrissat, Knight and Gordon2011). For instance, in baleen whales, similarities with the gut microbiota of related terrestrial herbivores sharing a multichambered foregut have been revealed (Sanders et al., Reference Sanders, Beichman, Roman, Scott, Emerson, McCarthy and Girguis2015).

Investigation of the intestinal microbial content of threatened or vulnerable species may constitute an effective monitoring instrument that could reveal the presence of pathogenic microorganisms and indicate environmental health status (see Godoy-Vitorino et al., Reference Godoy-Vitorino, Rodriguez-Hilario, Alves, Gonçalves, Cabrera-Colon, Mesquita, Soares-Castro, Ferreira, Marçalo, Vingarda, Eira and Santos2017). Marine cetaceans are considered particularly sensitive to stressors present in their environment and several species have suffered drastic die-offs in the last decades due to human pressures. For example, both the striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba (Meyen, 1833) (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/16674437/0) and the bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821) (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/16674437/0) have been subjected to anthropogenic threats.

Studies on the gut microbiota communities of marine mammals have been performed (Nelson et al., Reference Nelson, Rogers and Brown2013) and research on whales, some dolphin and porpoise species is in the literature (see for instance, Wan et al., Reference Wan, McLaughlin, Zheng, Hao, Fan, Tian and Wang2018; Kim et al., Reference Kim, Han, Lee, Kim and Park2019; Miller et al., Reference Miller, Holm, Horstmann, George, Fredricks, Van Mooy and Apprill2020, Robles-Malagamba et al., Reference Robles-Malagamba, Walsh, Shamim Ahasan, Thompson, Wells, Jobin, Fodor, Winglee and Waltzek2020). These studies showed a dominance of members from the phylum Firmicutes and for marine carnivores a high representation of Fusobacteria (Nelson et al., Reference Nelson, Rogers and Brown2013). Within the phylum Proteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria were particularly abundant, including members of the genus Halomonas which are thought to play a role in their hosts' digestive and immune systems (Wan et al., Reference Wan, McLaughlin, Zheng, Hao, Fan, Tian and Wang2018). For the dolphin species T. truncatus and S. coeruleoalba few reports are present, and mainly the enteric microbial composition of individuals maintained in captivity has been investigated (Soverini et al., Reference Soverini, Quercia, Biancani, Furlati, Turroni, Biagi, Consolandi, Peano, Severgnini, Rampelli, Brigidi and Candela2016; Suzuki et al., Reference Suzuki, Segawa, Sawa, Nishitani, Ueda, Itou, Asahina and Suzuki2019). Recently, analysis of swabs taken from different body parts of the same species has been reported (Robles-Malagamba et al., Reference Robles-Malagamba, Walsh, Shamim Ahasan, Thompson, Wells, Jobin, Fodor, Winglee and Waltzek2020). In a few cases the gut microbiota from wild dolphins has been investigated (Bik et al., Reference Bik, Costello, Switzer, Callahan, Holmes, Wells, Carlin, Jensen, Venn-Watson and Relman2016; Godoy-Vitorino et al., Reference Godoy-Vitorino, Rodriguez-Hilario, Alves, Gonçalves, Cabrera-Colon, Mesquita, Soares-Castro, Ferreira, Marçalo, Vingarda, Eira and Santos2017). These reports showed that the gut microbiota of animals from natural habitats is different from that of animals kept in captivity. However, analyses on wild animals are difficult and only very recently have data on wild animals been published (Robles-Malagamba et al., Reference Robles-Malagamba, Walsh, Shamim Ahasan, Thompson, Wells, Jobin, Fodor, Winglee and Waltzek2020). Mainly stranded (in most case dead) animals are analysed, questioning the relevance of such results for inferring the gut microbiota in normal conditions (Godoy-Vitorino et al., Reference Godoy-Vitorino, Rodriguez-Hilario, Alves, Gonçalves, Cabrera-Colon, Mesquita, Soares-Castro, Ferreira, Marçalo, Vingarda, Eira and Santos2017).

The aim of this work was to characterize the associated gut microbiota from wild individuals of S. coeruleoalba and T. truncatus stranded along the coast of the Tyrrhenian Sea (Tuscany, Italy), to shed, with the precaution due to sampling stranded animals, some more light on the gut microbiota in wild conditions for such dolphin species.

Materials and methods

Sampling and sequence production

Sections of intestine (colon) of S. coeruleoalba and T. truncatus were removed from adult individuals found stranded along the Tyrrhenian coast in the Tuscany region (Italy) and collected in the years 2014–2017 in centres associated with the network of Tuscan Observatory for Biodiversity (OTC centres of the Regione Toscana). Colon sections were surgically taken in ARPAT (Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione Ambientale della Toscana, Livorno, Italy) premises, immediately after delivery of stranded animals, under sterile conditions. For each animal, three samples of ~5 cm in length of intestine were taken and pooled in a composite sample, representing the single animal (thereafter defined as ‘specimen’). A total of 12 specimens (six belonging to S. coeruleoalba and six to T truncatus) were sampled immediately after their retrieval (Table 1). For each individual the sex (M or F) and preservation status were registered in order to assess the eventual independence of the gut microbial composition of these parameters. The preservation status of individuals was evaluated in accordance with standard guidelines for stranded cetaceans (Geraci & Lounsbury, Reference Geraci and Lounsbury2005) by assigning to each carcass a numeric value ranging from 2 to 5 (2: fresh carcass, <24 h after death, normal appearance, minimal external changes, no odour, minimum dehydration and wrinkling of skin, eyes, membranes and mucous membranes, normal eyes, no swelling carcass, not protruded tongue and penis; 3: carcass in moderate decomposition, intact carcass, evident bulge, protruded tongue and penis, desquamated skin, delicate odour, still wet membranes and mucous membranes, sunken eyes; 4: carcass in an advanced state of decomposition, the carcass can be intact, but more frequently collapsed; desquamated skin, smell strong and unpleasant, altered internal organs, sunken or missing eyes; 5: mummified carcass or skeleton remains, carcass often dried with dehydrated skin stretched over the bones, often missing organs).

Table 1. Samples description and alpha diversity of gut microbiotas

F, female; M, male. Preservation status of individuals on scale of 2–5 in accordance with standard guidelines for stranded cetaceans (Geraci & Lounsbury, Reference Geraci and Lounsbury2005), see text for details.

Shannon and Simpson diversity was computed using ‘diversity’ function of the vegan package whereas Evenness was computed using Pielou's formula J = H/log(S); where H is the Shannon index and S is the number of OTUs with abundance higher than 0. Mean values (±SD) for the two species are reported.

All samples immediately after collection were stored at −20°C until the extraction of DNA (which was done within 1 month from the collection).

DNA was extracted from 500 mg of homogenized gut tissues using the FastDNA™ SPIN Kit for soil (MP Biomedicals, Italy). From the extracted DNA, the bacterial V4 region of 16S rRNA genes was amplified with specific primers (515F: 5′-GTGCCAGCMGCCGCGGTAA-3′, 806R: 5′-GACTACHVGGGTATCTAATCC-3′, Klindworth et al., Reference Klindworth, Pruesse, Schweer, Peplies, Quast, Horn and Glöckner2013) in a 25 μl total volume with KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix, 1 μM each primer with 25 cycles with the following temperature profile: 30 s 95°C, 30 s 55°C, 30 s 72°C, as previously reported (Abdelrhman et al., Reference Abdelrhman, Bacci, Mancusi, Mengoni, Serena and Ugolini2016). PCR products were sequenced in a single run using Illumina MiSeq technology with pair-end sequencing strategy and a MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 (Illumina, USA). Library preparation (Nextera XT, Illumina, USA) and demultiplexing were performed following Illumina's standard pipeline as previously reported (Abdelrhman et al., Reference Abdelrhman, Bacci, Marras, Nistri, Schintu, Ugolini and Mengoni2017a).

Raw data processing and statistical analyses

Illumina sequences were clustered into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) following the classical UPARSE pipeline (Edgar, Reference Edgar2013) as previously described in Abdelrhman et al. (Reference Abdelrhman, Bacci, Marras, Nistri, Schintu, Ugolini and Mengoni2017a). Sequences were pre-processed with StreamingTrim (Bacci et al., Reference Bacci, Bazzicalupo, Benedetti and Mengoni2014) in order to remove low quality nucleotides which might interfere with downstream analysis. PANDAseq assembler (Masella et al., Reference Masella, Bartram, Truszkowski, Brown and Neufeld2012) was used for merging paired-reads into full-amplicon sequences. Singletons, namely sequences found only one time in all samples, were removed before the OTU clustering step that was performed using an identity threshold of 97% in UPARSE (‘cluster_otus’ command). Putative chimeric sequences were removed during the clustering step by UPARSE and no additional removal was conducted. A single representative sequence has been chosen from each cluster and taxonomically annotated using the SINA standalone classifier in combination with the ‘Ref NR 99’ database (Pruesse et al., Reference Pruesse, Peplies and Glöckner2012). All steps were implemented with an in-house pipeline available at https://github.com/GiBacci/o2tab. Rarefaction analysis was carried out with SILVAngs (https://ngs.arb-silva.de/) (Supplementary Table S1). Good's estimator (Good, Reference Good1953) was used to calculate the percentage of coverage.

In order to inspect eventual differences in the OTUs distribution between T. truncatus and S. coeruleoalba, a Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) was performed using the R package ‘phyloseq’ (McMurdie & Holmes, Reference McMurdie and Holmes2013). Moreover, further investigations were conducted to assess whether sex and preservation status affected the OTUs distribution by means of a PERMANOVA as implemented in R (Hoffman & Schadt, Reference Hoffman and Schadt2016) and LDA Effect Size (LEfSe) (Segata et al., Reference Segata, Izard, Waldron, Gevers, Miropolsky, Garrett and Huttenhower2011). Specific differences in community composition were determined using similarity percentage (SIMPER) analysis as done in Past 3 software (Hammer et al., Reference Hammer, Harper and Ryan2001).

Links to deposited data

The sequences dataset was deposited in the SRA database under the BioProject PRJNA473403.

Results

The sequencing of 16S rRNA genes yielded a total of 7483–64,067 reads per sample (Supplementary Table S1). Rarefaction analyses (Supplementary Figure S1) showed that most samples were satisfactorily sampled (Good's coverage 99.99 ± 0.01). All samples were used for the following analyses.

After assigning reads to Operating Taxonomic Units (OTUs, 97% sequence similarity) and removing OTUs not assigned or assigned to Eukaryotes, a total number of 270 OTUs assigned to the bacterial taxonomy were detected (Supplementary Table S2). The OTU matrix was very sparse, with many OTUs represented in a few specimens only, indicating a high heterogeneity of OTUs abundance among specimens. The number of OTUs per specimen (Table 1) ranged from 17 to 102 and were significantly different between S. coeruleoalba and T. truncatus (Table 1) (t-test P < 0.05). The other diversity indices were not different between species. No significant differences with respect to sex or preservation status were found.

DCA and UPGMA clustering revealed a general lack of separation of OTUs representation between T. truncatus and S. coeruleoalba (Figure 1). Indeed, either a variance partition or a PERMANOVA analysis did not find significant differences in relation to species and on the whole dataset in relation to preservation status, but a slightly significant effect of preservation status on S. coeruleoalba was found (Supplementary Table S3). An LDA Effect Size (LEfSe) (Segata et al., Reference Segata, Izard, Waldron, Gevers, Miropolsky, Garrett and Huttenhower2011) confirmed a lack of significant separation between species and among preservation statuses (data not shown). This could be due to the lack of sharing of the highly abundant OTUs (Supplementary Figure S2).

Fig. 1. Similarities among microbiota. (A) Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA). (B) UPGMA clustering based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrices produced from OTU tables of partial 16S rRNA gene amplicon libraries from DNA extracted from gut sections of the dolphins T. truncatus (stars) and S. coeruleoalba (dots). Preservation status is displayed as black (3 and 4) and grey (2). No grouping according to either species or preservation status is present.

On the overall dataset, taxonomic compositions of the two species are very similar to each other. At the level of phylum, Firmicutes (mean relative abundance 60–62%), Proteobacteria (14–17%) and Fusobacteria (12–22%) dominated the gut microbiota ecosystem of both T. truncatus and S. coeruleoalba (Figure 2). Clostridia accounted for nearly 50% at the class level. The dominant families (Figure 3) were Clostridiaceae 1 (36.0% in S. coeruleoalba and 38.7% in T. truncatus) and Fusobacteriaceae (16.2% in S. coeruleoalba and 21.9% in T. truncatus) contributing in total to the 52.2% and the 60.6% of the gut microbial ecosystem of S. coeruleoalba and T. truncatus respectively. Other mainly representative families are Sphingobacteriaceae (9.5%) and Vibrionaceae (9.4%) in S. coeruleoalba and Moraxellaceae (7.6%) and Family XI (5.6%) in T. truncatus. When considering T. truncatus and S. coeruleoalba datasets separately, a differential abundance of taxa (meaning relative abundance in amplicon sequencing libraries) was found in relation to a comparison between good and bad preservation statuses (2 vs 3 + 4). Indeed, under SIMPER analysis samples of S. coeruleoalba with good preservation status were more abundant in members of Pedobacter, Photobacterium and Paeniclostridium, while poor preservation status samples had higher numbers of clostridia (Table 2). Similar differential abundance of clostridia associated with samples with poor preservation status was found for T. truncatus also (Table 2). The same approach was used to inspect possible differential occurrence of taxa between T. truncatus and S. coeruleoalba individuals in good preservation status (Table 2). Most of the differences were due to clostridia (with two groups being more abundant in T. truncatus and S. coeruleoalba, respectively), Pedobacter, Photobacterium and Paeniclostridium. However, due to the extremely limited number of samples, these results should be treated with great caution.

Fig. 2. Relative abundance of reads assigned at phylum (A) and class (B) levels. in partial 16S rRNA gene amplicon libraries from DNA extracted from gut sections of the dolphins T. truncatus and S. coeruleoalba. Colours in the legend indicate taxa order (from top to bottom in the plots). NA, not assigned. Firmicutes was the most abundant phylum, Clostridia the most abundant class.

Fig. 3. Taxonomic composition at the family level of the gut microbiota of S. coeruleoalba (black bars) and T. truncatus (grey bars). The occurrence of discrete taxa is quoted as percentage abundance. Only families contributing to at least 5% of the total microbial communities in one of either species are reported.

Table 2. SIMPER analysis on genera representation. The differences with respect to conservation status on gut microbiotas were inspected separately for S. coeruleoalba (a) and T. truncatus (b). In (c) the differences between S. coeruleoalba and T. truncatus considering samples in good conservation status only are reported

Top 10 bacterial genera are reported (Supplementary Table S2). The average dissimilarity (Bray–Curtis) and the percentage of contribution to variance is reported for the contrasts between individuals with good preservation status (status = 2) and bad preservation status (status 3 and 4) (a and b). See Table 1 for specifications on preservation status. In (c) only individual with preservation status = 2 are considered.

Discussion

Results obtained in our work pointed out high similarities in the gut microbial composition between the cetacean species T. truncatus and S. coeruleoalba. The slight (not statistically significant) differences between the two species could be due to the diversity in their prey consumption, putatively reflecting different metabolic necessities. Indeed, it has been shown that although both cetaceans exhibit a piscivorous dietary regime, they feed on prey partially different in relation to their discrete sea habitats (see Scuderi et al., Reference Scuderi, Mancusi, Pedà, Romeo, Targusi and Voliani2011). However, the gut microbiota taxonomic composition revealed in our T. truncatus specimens partially differs from that identified in previous works (Bik et al., Reference Bik, Costello, Switzer, Callahan, Holmes, Wells, Carlin, Jensen, Venn-Watson and Relman2016; Soverini et al., Reference Soverini, Quercia, Biancani, Furlati, Turroni, Biagi, Consolandi, Peano, Severgnini, Rampelli, Brigidi and Candela2016). Besides bacterial taxa typically occurring in the gut of carnivorous species (i.e. Clostridiaceae, Fusobacteriaceae and Peptostreptococcaceae) (Nelson et al., Reference Nelson, Rogers and Brown2013) that were found in our investigations, previous works on animals in captivity detected a higher presence of members of Staphylococcaceae and Lactobacillaceae (Soverini et al., Reference Soverini, Quercia, Biancani, Furlati, Turroni, Biagi, Consolandi, Peano, Severgnini, Rampelli, Brigidi and Candela2016) (here 13% vs <5%, see Supplementary Table S2). Conversely, in a recent analysis on the gut microbiota of captive T. truncatus in aquaria in Japan (Suzuki et al., Reference Suzuki, Segawa, Sawa, Nishitani, Ueda, Itou, Asahina and Suzuki2019), abundance of Fusobacteriaceae, Peptostreptococcaceae and Vibrionaceae was found as in our analysis, reflecting the typical taxonomic composition of carnivorous species in the wild. However, the discordance between studies from animals in aquaria suggests that local dietary supplements/condition may bias the estimates on normal gut microbiota composition (as for instance in individuals analysed in Bik et al., Reference Bik, Costello, Switzer, Callahan, Holmes, Wells, Carlin, Jensen, Venn-Watson and Relman2016; Soverini et al., Reference Soverini, Quercia, Biancani, Furlati, Turroni, Biagi, Consolandi, Peano, Severgnini, Rampelli, Brigidi and Candela2016). Recently, in agreement with our report, analyses of faecal samples from free T. truncatus (Robles-Malagamba et al., Reference Robles-Malagamba, Walsh, Shamim Ahasan, Thompson, Wells, Jobin, Fodor, Winglee and Waltzek2020) found a high abundance of Firmicutes and Fusobacteria, suggesting that our samples may give a realistic representation of the gut microbiota of free-ranging animals. Of course, we cannot a priori exclude that the preservation status of samples may have biased our results, in particular in relation to the number of clostridia. Biases among studies can in theory be due to the use of different procedures in DNA extraction and bioinformatic analyses, possibly limiting the comparison. However, the taxonomic level of analysis we have chosen (family) strongly limits any bias in terms of single species/genus representation.

Unfortunately, regarding our findings on S. coeruleoalba, no comparison can be made with previous works since the sole study focused on the characterization of the gut microbiome of this species considered only one specimen (Godoy-Vitorino et al., Reference Godoy-Vitorino, Rodriguez-Hilario, Alves, Gonçalves, Cabrera-Colon, Mesquita, Soares-Castro, Ferreira, Marçalo, Vingarda, Eira and Santos2017). In that work colon microbiota were rich in Firmicutes, Fusobacteria and Proteobacteria, which is in agreement with our results. However, at genera level few clostridia were found by those authors on their single animal. However, we may expect that the same impact on the gut microbiota of captivity conditions would be present in this species also. Contrarily to T. truncatus, in S. coeruleoalba some differences in relation to preservation status were found, mainly in a possibly higher abundance in clostridia for samples with poor preservation status (as would be expected due to anaerobic digestion of carcasses) and in Bacteroidetes (Pedobacter spp.). Moreover, Pedobacter spp. was found exclusively in S. coeruleoalba. The presence of members of this latter genus may deserve further attention in relation to a reservoir of antibiotic resistant strains in S. coeruleoalba gut. In fact, Pedobacter has been claimed as a superbugs genus since species in this group are intrinsically resistant to several classes of antibiotics, including colistin (Viana et al., Reference Viana, Caetano, Covas, Santos and Mendo2018).

Overall, our results could not confirm the supposition advanced by Sanders et al. (Reference Sanders, Beichman, Roman, Scott, Emerson, McCarthy and Girguis2015) on the importance of phylogeny on the microbial gut communities of mammalians. Indeed, our findings may suggest that the dolphin gut microbiota could be similar to that of other carnivorous (phylogenetically unrelated) mammals (Bik et al., Reference Bik, Costello, Switzer, Callahan, Holmes, Wells, Carlin, Jensen, Venn-Watson and Relman2016), which could lead to an hypothesis on the influence of diet (carnivorous) on the taxonomic shaping of the gut microbiota. However, since there is a limited number of samples this point deserves more attention in future sampling and a careful evaluation of biases inherent to the preservation status (such as the massive presence of clostridia).

In conclusion, our work shed light on the gut microbiota composition of wild animals of T. truncatus and S. coeruleoalba, by analysing 12 stranded individuals, with different preservation status. We emphasize here the importance of a careful recording of preservation status of stranded animals, as well as the availability of specimens from a relatively high number of animals to provide reliable estimates of the gut microbiota composition of marine mammals in the wild.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315420000983.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Valentina Crobe for technical assistance in DNA extraction.

Financial support

This work was performed under the project MICROMAR, Go Green Mare 2014 call, Tuscany Region (funds assigned to A. Ugolini). KFAA was supported by a grant from the Libyan Embassy in Italy.

References

Abdelrhman, FA, Bacci, G, Mancusi, C, Mengoni, A, Serena, F and Ugolini, A (2016) A first insight into the gut microbiota of the sea turtle Caretta caretta. Frontiers in Microbiology 7, 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abdelrhman, FA, Bacci, G, Marras, B, Nistri, A, Schintu, M, Ugolini, A and Mengoni, A (2017 a) Exploring the bacterial gut microbiota of supralittoral talitrid amphipods. Research in Microbiology 168, 7484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abdelrhman, FA, Bacci, G, Nistri, A, Mengoni, A and Ugolini, A (2017 b) Diet and gut microbiota of two supralittoral amphipods Orchestia montagui and Talitrus saltator living in different microhabitats. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 197, 119125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacci, G, Bazzicalupo, M, Benedetti, A and Mengoni, A (2014) Streamingtrim 1.0: a Java software for dynamic trimming of 16S rRNA sequence data from metagenetic studies. Molecular Ecology Resources 14, 426434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bik, EM, Costello, EK, Switzer, AD, Callahan, BJ, Holmes, SP, Wells, RS, Carlin, KP, Jensen, ED, Venn-Watson, S and Relman, PA (2016) Marine mammals harbor unique microbiotas shaped by and yet distinct from the sea. Nature Communications 7, 10516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Toit, A (2016) Microbiome: restoring healthy growth in infants. Molecular Ecology Resources 14, 191.Google ScholarPubMed
Edgar, RC (2013) UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nature Methods 10, 996998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geraci, JR and Lounsbury, VJ (2005) Marine Mammals Ashore: A Field Guide for Strandings, 2nd Edn. Baltimore, MD: National Aquarium in Baltimore.Google Scholar
Godoy-Vitorino, F, Rodriguez-Hilario, A, Alves, AL, Gonçalves, F, Cabrera-Colon, B, Mesquita, CS, Soares-Castro, P, Ferreira, M, Marçalo, A, Vingarda, J, Eira, C and Santos, PM (2017) The microbiome of a striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) stranded in Portugal. Researches in Microbiology 168, 8593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Good, J (1953) The population frequencies of species and the estimation of population parameters. Biometrika 40, 237264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, Ø, Harper, DAT and Ryan, PD (2001) PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 41, 9.Google Scholar
Hoffman, GE and Schadt, EE (2016) Variance partition: interpreting drivers of variation in complex gene expression studies. BMC Bioinformatics 17, 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttenhower, C, Gevers, D, Knight, R, Abubucker, S, Badger, JH, Chinwalla, AT et al. (The Human Microbiome Project Consortium) (2012) Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 486, 207214.Google Scholar
Keenan, SW, Engel, AS and Elsey, RM (2013). The alligator gut microbiome and implications for archosaur symbioses. Scientific Reports 3, 2877.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, SW, Han, SJ, Lee, YR, Kim, BY and Park, SC (2019) First report of a Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) stranded in Jeju Island, Republic of Korea: findings from necropsy, histopathology and microbiome analysis. Veterinary Record Case Reports 7, e000860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klindworth, A, Pruesse, E, Schweer, T, Peplies, J, Quast, C, Horn, M and Glöckner, FO (2013) Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Research 41, e1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kostic, AD, Howitt, MR and Garrett, WS (2013) Exploring host-microbiota interactions in animal models and humans. Genes & Development 27, 701718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langer, P (2001) Evidence from the digestive tract on phylogenetic relationship in ungulates and whales. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 39, 7790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ley, RE, Lozupone, CA, Hamady, M, Knight, R and Gordon, JI (2008 a) Worlds within worlds: evolution of the vertebrate gut microbiota. Nature Reviews Microbiology 6, 776788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ley, RE, Hamady, M, Lozupone, CA., Turnbaugh, PJ, Ramey, RR, Bircher, JS, Schleger, ML, Turker, TA, Schrenzel, MD, Knight, R and Gordon, JI (2008 b) Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. Science 320, 16471651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masella, AP, Bartram, AK, Truszkowski, JM, Brown, DG and Neufeld, JD (2012) PANDAseq: paired-end assembler for Illumina sequences. BMC Bioinformatics 13, 31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McFall-Ngai, M, Hadfield, MG, Boschc, TCG, Careyd, H, Domazet-Losoe, T, Douglasf, AE, Dubilierg, N, Eberlh, G, Fukamii, T, Gilbertj, SF, Hentschelk, U, Kingl, N, Kjellebergm, S, Knolln, AH, Kremera, N, Mazmaniano, SK, Metcalfp, JL, Nealsonq, K, Piercer, NE, Rawlss, JF, Reidt, A, Rubya, EG, Rumphou, M, Sandersr, JG, Tautzv, D and Wernegreenw, JJ (2013) Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110, 32293236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMurdie, PJ and Holmes, S (2013) Phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mengoni, A, Focardi, A, Bacci, G and Ugolini, A (2013) High genetic diversity and variability of bacterial communities associated with the sandhopper Talitrus saltator (Montagu) (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 131, 7582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, CA, Holm, HC, Horstmann, L, George, JC, Fredricks, HF, Van Mooy, BAS and Apprill, A (2020) Coordinated transformation of the gut microbiome and lipidome of bowhead whales provides novel insights into digestion. ISME Journal 14, 688702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muegge, BD, Kuczynski, J, Knights, D, Clemente, JC, González, A, Fontana, L, Henrissat, B, Knight, R and Gordon, JI (2011) Diet drives convergence in gut microbiome functions across mammalian phylogeny and within humans. Science 332, 970974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, TM, Rogers, TL and Brown, MV (2013) The gut microbial communtity of mammals from marine and terrestrial habitats. PLoS ONE 8, e83655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruesse, E, Peplies, J and Glöckner, FO (2012) SINA: accurate high-throughput multiple sequence alignment of ribosomal RNA genes. Bioinformatics 28, 18231829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robles-Malagamba, MJ, Walsh, MT, Shamim Ahasan, M, Thompson, P, Wells, RS, Jobin, C, Fodor, AA, Winglee, K and Waltzek, TB (2020) Characterization of the bacterial microbiome among free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Heliyon 6, e03944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Round, JL and Mazmanian, SK (2009) The gut microbiota shapes intestinal immune responses during health and disease. Nature Reviews Immunology 9, 313323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, JG, Beichman, AC, Roman, J, Scott, JJ, Emerson, D, McCarthy, JJ and Girguis, PR (2015) Baleen whales host a unique gut microbiome with similarities to both carnivores and herbivores. Nature Communications 6, 8285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scuderi, A, Mancusi, C, Pedà, C, Romeo, T, Targusi, M and Voliani, A (2011) Confronto della dieta di Stenella coeruleoalba e Tursiops truncatus (Cetartiodactyla:Delphinidae) negli individui spiaggiati sulle coste dell'arcipelago toscano. Biologia Marina Mediterranea 18, 266367.Google Scholar
Segata, N, Izard, J, Waldron, L, Gevers, D, Miropolsky, L, Garrett, WS and Huttenhower, C (2011) Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biology 12, R60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soverini, M, Quercia, S, Biancani, B, Furlati, S, Turroni, S, Biagi, E, Consolandi, C, Peano, C, Severgnini, M, Rampelli, S, Brigidi, P and Candela, M (2016) The bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) faecal microbiota. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 92. doi. org/10.1093/femsec/fiw055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suzuki, A, Segawa, T, Sawa, S, Nishitani, C, Ueda, K, Itou, T, Asahina, K and Suzuki, M (2019) Comparison of the gut microbiota of captive common bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in three aquaria. Journal of Applied Microbiology126, 3139.Epub 2018 October 29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viana, AT, Caetano, T, Covas, C, Santos, T and Mendo, S (2018) Environmental superbugs: the case study of Pedobacter spp. Environmental Pollution 241, 10481055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wan, X, McLaughlin, RW, Zheng, J, Hao, Y-J, Fan, F, Tian, R-M and Wang, D (2018) Microbial communities in different regions of the gastrointestinal tract in East Asian finless porpoises (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis sunameri). Scientific Reports 8, 14142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, L, Wu, Q, Dai, J, Zhang, S and Wey, F (2011) Evidence of cellulose metabolism by the giant panda gut microbiome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108, 1771417719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Samples description and alpha diversity of gut microbiotas

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Similarities among microbiota. (A) Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA). (B) UPGMA clustering based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrices produced from OTU tables of partial 16S rRNA gene amplicon libraries from DNA extracted from gut sections of the dolphins T. truncatus (stars) and S. coeruleoalba (dots). Preservation status is displayed as black (3 and 4) and grey (2). No grouping according to either species or preservation status is present.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Relative abundance of reads assigned at phylum (A) and class (B) levels. in partial 16S rRNA gene amplicon libraries from DNA extracted from gut sections of the dolphins T. truncatus and S. coeruleoalba. Colours in the legend indicate taxa order (from top to bottom in the plots). NA, not assigned. Firmicutes was the most abundant phylum, Clostridia the most abundant class.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Taxonomic composition at the family level of the gut microbiota of S. coeruleoalba (black bars) and T. truncatus (grey bars). The occurrence of discrete taxa is quoted as percentage abundance. Only families contributing to at least 5% of the total microbial communities in one of either species are reported.

Figure 4

Table 2. SIMPER analysis on genera representation. The differences with respect to conservation status on gut microbiotas were inspected separately for S. coeruleoalba (a) and T. truncatus (b). In (c) the differences between S. coeruleoalba and T. truncatus considering samples in good conservation status only are reported

Supplementary material: File

Abdelrhman et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S3 and Figures S1-S2

Download Abdelrhman et al. supplementary material(File)
File 275.7 KB