FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
BMC microbiology2023; 23(1); 253; doi: 10.1186/s12866-023-03001-w

Diversity and functional prediction of fungal communities in different segments of mongolian horse gastrointestinal tracts.

Abstract: Anaerobic fungi are effective fibre-degrading microorganisms in the digestive tract of horses. However, our understanding of their diversity and community structure is limited, especially in different parts of the gastrointestinal tract. For the first time, high-throughput sequencing technology was used to analyse and predict fungal microbial diversity in different parts of the gastrointestinal tract of Mongolian horses. The results revealed that the richness and diversity of fungi in the hindgut of Mongolian horses were much higher than those in the foregut. The foregut was dominated by Basidiomycota and Ascomycota, whereas the hindgut was dominated by Neocallimastigomycota and Basidiomycota. At the genus level, the relative abundance of many pathogenic fungi (Cryptococcus, Cladosporium, Alternaria, and Sarocladium) in the foregut was significantly higher than that in the posterior gut, indicating that Mongolian horses have strong disease resistance. The prediction of fungal function also showed significant differences in the fungal flora between the foregut and the hindgut. The fungi in Mongolian horses' foreguts were mainly pathologically nutritive and contained many animal and plant pathogens, particularly in the small intestine (jejunum and ileum). This indicates that the foregut may be the most important immune site in the digestive system of Mongolian horses, which explains the high disease resistance of Mongolian horses. The number of unassigned functional groups in the posterior gut was significantly higher than that in the anterior gut, indicating that the functions of fungal groups in the posterior gut have not been fully explored, and further studies are required in the future. Analysis of high-throughput sequencing results revealed that the fungal composition varied greatly among different gastrointestinal tract segments in Mongolian horses, whose hindgut contains many anaerobic fungi involved in plant cellulose degradation. This provides important basic data for studying fungal diversity in the digestive system of healthy horses, which can be used for the health assessment of horses and provides clues for further research on the disease resistance and digestive capacity of horses, as well as a reference for the early diagnosis of intestinal diseases and innovative treatment methods.
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-09-09 PubMed ID: 37689675PubMed Central: PMC10492400DOI: 10.1186/s12866-023-03001-wGoogle Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research study focused on the differences in the diversity and functional capacity of fungal communities present within different parts of the gastrointestinal tract of Mongolian horses. Using high-throughput sequencing technology, researchers discovered contrasting fungal presence in the foregut and hindgut of these horses, indicating different fungal roles between the two regions.

Study Methodology

  • The study employed high-throughput sequencing technology to analyze and predict the fungal diversity within the gastrointestinal tract of Mongolian horses.
  • Different sections of the gastrointestinal tract were examined, and the fungal community structure in these areas were compared.

Findings and Results

  • Richness and diversity of fungi were significantly higher in the hindgut than in the foregut.
  • Populations of fungi varied between these parts. Basidiomycota and Ascomycota primarily dominated in the foregut while Neocallimastigomycota and Basidiomycota were more common in the hindgut.
  • Pathogenic fungi such as Cryptococcus, Cladosporium, Alternaria, and Sarocladium were more prevalent in the foregut, implying a greater disease resistance in Mongolian horses.
  • Fungal function also differed between the two regions, with the foregut containing mainly pathogenic nutritive fungi, including many animal and plant pathogens.
  • Undetermined functional groups were more prevalent in the hindgut, indicating unexplored potential functionalities of these fungal groups.

Implications and Conclusions

  • The fungal composition varied immensely among different gastrointestinal tract segments in Mongolian horses serving as an indication of the different roles these fungal communities play.
  • The higher presence of fungi related to plant cellulose degradation in the hindgut suggests their crucial role in the digestion process of the horse.
  • The data gathered provides valuable insights for health assessments of horses, and serves as a basis for further exploration of disease resistance, digestive capacity, and potential early diagnostic measures for intestinal diseases among horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Zhao Y, Ren X, Wu H, Hu H, Cheng C, Du M, Huang Y, Zhao X, Wang L, Yi L, Tao J, Li Y, Lin Y, Su S, Dugarjaviin M. (2023). Diversity and functional prediction of fungal communities in different segments of mongolian horse gastrointestinal tracts. BMC Microbiol, 23(1), 253. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-023-03001-w

Publication

BMC microbiology
ISSN: 1471-2180
NlmUniqueID: 100966981
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 23
Issue: 1
Pages: 253

Researcher Affiliations

Zhao, Yiping
  • College of Animal Science, Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Scientific Observing and Experimental Station of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Equine Research Centre, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, 010018, China.
Ren, Xiujuan
  • College of Animal Science, Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Scientific Observing and Experimental Station of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Equine Research Centre, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, 010018, China.
Wu, Haiqing
  • Inner Mongolia Academy of Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Sciences, Biotechnology Research Centre, Hohhot, 010031, China.
Hu, He
  • Inner Mongolia Academy of Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Sciences, Biotechnology Research Centre, Hohhot, 010031, China.
Cheng, Chao
  • College of Life Science and Technology, Jining Normal University, Ulanqab, 012000, China.
Du, Ming
  • College of Animal Science, Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Scientific Observing and Experimental Station of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Equine Research Centre, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, 010018, China.
Huang, Yao
  • Education Department, Baotou Light Industry Vocational Technical College, Baotou, China.
Zhao, Xiaoqing
  • Inner Mongolia Academy of Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Sciences, Biotechnology Research Centre, Hohhot, 010031, China.
Wang, Liwei
  • Inner Mongolia Academy of Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Sciences, Biotechnology Research Centre, Hohhot, 010031, China.
Yi, Liuxi
  • College of Animal Science, Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Scientific Observing and Experimental Station of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Equine Research Centre, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, 010018, China.
Tao, Jinshan
  • College of Animal Science, Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Scientific Observing and Experimental Station of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Equine Research Centre, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, 010018, China.
Li, Yajing
  • College of Animal Science, Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Scientific Observing and Experimental Station of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Equine Research Centre, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, 010018, China.
Lin, Yanan
  • College of Animal Science, Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Scientific Observing and Experimental Station of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Equine Research Centre, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, 010018, China.
Su, Shaofeng
  • College of Animal Science, Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Scientific Observing and Experimental Station of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Equine Research Centre, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, 010018, China. sushaofeng2020@163.com.
  • Inner Mongolia Academy of Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Sciences, Biotechnology Research Centre, Hohhot, 010031, China. sushaofeng2020@163.com.
Dugarjaviin, Manglai
  • College of Animal Science, Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Scientific Observing and Experimental Station of Equine Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Equine Research Centre, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, 010018, China. dmanglai@163.com.

MeSH Terms

  • Horses
  • Animals
  • Mycobiome
  • Disease Resistance
  • Ileum
  • Jejunum
  • Digestion

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

This article includes 58 references
  1. Lynch SV, Pedersen O. The human intestinal microbiome in health and disease.. N Engl J Med 2016;375(24):2369–79.
    doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1600266pubmed: 27974040google scholar: lookup
  2. Garrett WS, Gordon JI, Glimcher LH. Homeostasis and inflammation in the intestine.. Cell 2010;140(6):859–70.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.01.023pmc: PMC2845719pubmed: 20303876google scholar: lookup
  3. Arnold CE, Pilla R, Chaffin MK, Leatherwood JL, Wickersham TA, Callaway TR. The effects of signalment, diet, geographic location, season, and colitis associated with antimicrobial use or Salmonella infection on the fecal microbiome of horses.. J Vet Intern Med 2021;35(5):2437–48.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.16206pmc: PMC8478058pubmed: 34268795google scholar: lookup
  4. Massacci FR, Clark A, Ruet A, Lansade L, Costa M, Mach N. Inter-breed diversity and temporal dynamics of the faecal microbiota in healthy horses.. J Anim Breed Genet 2020;137(1):103–20.
    doi: 10.1111/jbg.12441pubmed: 31523867google scholar: lookup
  5. Garber A, Hastie P, Murray J-A. Factors influencing equine gut microbiota: current knowledge.. J Equine Veterinary Sci 2020;88:102943.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.102943pubmed: 32303307google scholar: lookup
  6. Zhao Y, Li B, Bai D, Huang J, Shiraigo W, Yang L. Comparison of fecal microbiota of Mongolian and Thoroughbred Horses by high-throughput sequencing of the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene.. Asian-Australasian J Anim Sci 2016;29(9):1345.
    doi: 10.5713/ajas.15.0587pmc: PMC5003997pubmed: 26954132google scholar: lookup
  7. Schoster A, Mosing M, Jalali M, Staempfli H, Weese J. Effects of transport, fasting and anaesthesia on the faecal microbiota of healthy adult horses.. Equine Vet J 2016;48(5):595–602.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12479pubmed: 26122549google scholar: lookup
  8. Szemplinski KL, Thompson A, Cherry N, Guay K, Smith WB, Brady J. Transporting and exercising unconditioned horses: effects on microflora populations.. J Equine Veterinary Sci 2020;90:102988.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.102988pubmed: 32534767google scholar: lookup
  9. Colombino E, Raspa F, Perotti M, Bergero D, Vervuert I, Valle E. Gut health of horses: effects of high fibre vs high starch diet on histological and morphometrical parameters.. BMC Vet Res 2022;18(1):338.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-022-03433-ypmc: PMC9454146pubmed: 36076239google scholar: lookup
  10. Salem SE, Maddox TW, Berg A, Antczak P, Ketley JM, Williams NJ. Variation in faecal microbiota in a group of horses managed at pasture over a 12-month period.. Sci Rep 2018;8(1):8510.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26930-3pmc: PMC5981443pubmed: 29855517google scholar: lookup
  11. Kauter A, Epping L, Semmler T, Antao E-M, Kannapin D, Stoeckle SD. The gut microbiome of horses: current research on equine enteral microbiota and future perspectives.. Anim Microbiome 2019;1(1):1–15.
    doi: 10.1186/s42523-019-0013-3pmc: PMC7807895pubmed: 33499951google scholar: lookup
  12. Perricone V, Sandrini S, Irshad N, Comi M, Lecchi C, Savoini G. The role of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae in supporting Gut Health in Horses: an updated review on its Effects on Digestibility and Intestinal and Fecal Microbiota.. Animals 2022;12(24):3475.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12243475pmc: PMC9774806pubmed: 36552396google scholar: lookup
  13. Chaucheyras-Durand F, Sacy A, Karges K, Apper E. Gastro-intestinal microbiota in equines and its role in health and disease: the black box opens.. Microorganisms 2022;10(12):2517.
    doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10122517pmc: PMC9783266pubmed: 36557769google scholar: lookup
  14. Lan Y, Li Y, Yu G, Zhang Z, Irshad I. Dynamic changes of gut fungal community in horse at different health states.. Front Veterinary Sci 2022;9:1047412.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1047412pmc: PMC9650549pubmed: 36387410google scholar: lookup
  15. Morrison PK, Newbold CJ, Jones E, Worgan HJ, Grove-White DH, Dugdale AH. The equine gastrointestinal microbiome: impacts of weight-loss.. BMC Vet Res 2020;16:1–18.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-020-02295-6pmc: PMC7057583pubmed: 32131835google scholar: lookup
  16. Moreau MM, Eades SC, Reinemeyer CR, Fugaro MN, Onishi JC. Illumina sequencing of the V4 hypervariable region 16S rRNA gene reveals extensive changes in bacterial communities in the cecum following carbohydrate oral infusion and development of early-stage acute laminitis in the horse.. Vet Microbiol 2014;168(2–4):436–41.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.11.017pubmed: 24355533google scholar: lookup
  17. Paul LJ, Ericsson AC, Andrews FM, Keowen ML, Morales Yniguez F, Garza F Jr. Gastric microbiome in horses with and without equine glandular gastric disease.. J Vet Intern Med 2021;35(5):2458–64.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.16241pmc: PMC8478018pubmed: 34351018google scholar: lookup
  18. Lara F, Castro R, Thomson P. Changes in the gut microbiome and colic in horses: are they causes or consequences?. Open Veterinary Journal 2022;12(2):242–9.
    doi: 10.5455/OVJ.2022.v12.i2.12pmc: PMC9109837pubmed: 35603065google scholar: lookup
  19. Uzal FA, Arroyo LG, Navarro MA, Gomez DE, Asín J, Henderson E. Bacterial and viral enterocolitis in horses: a review.. J Vet Diagn Invest 2022;34(3):354–75.
    doi: 10.1177/10406387211057pmc: PMC9254067pubmed: 34763560google scholar: lookup
  20. Su S, Zhao Y, Liu Z, Liu G, Du M, Wu J. Characterization and comparison of the bacterial microbiota in different gastrointestinal tract compartments of mongolian horses.. Microbiologyopen 2020;9(6):1085–101.
    doi: 10.1002/mbo3.1020pmc: PMC7294312pubmed: 32153142google scholar: lookup
  21. Ericsson AC, Johnson PJ, Lopes MA, Perry SC, Lanter HR. A microbiological map of the healthy equine gastrointestinal tract.. PLoS ONE 2016;11(11):e0166523.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166523pmc: PMC5112786pubmed: 27846295google scholar: lookup
  22. Costa M, Silva G, Ramos R, Staempfli H, Arroyo L, Kim P. Characterization and comparison of the bacterial microbiota in different gastrointestinal tract compartments in horses.. Vet J 2015;205(1):74–80.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.03.018pubmed: 25975855google scholar: lookup
  23. Costa MC, Weese JS. Understanding the intestinal microbiome in health and disease.. Veterinary Clinics: Equine Practice 2018;34(1):1–12.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2017.11.005pubmed: 29402480google scholar: lookup
  24. Mura E, Edwards J, Kittelmann S, Kaerger K, Voigt K, Mrázek J. Anaerobic fungal communities differ along the horse digestive tract.. Fungal Biology 2019;123(3):240–6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.funbio.2018.12.004pubmed: 30798879google scholar: lookup
  25. Edwards JE, Forster RJ, Callaghan TM, Dollhofer V, Dagar SS, Cheng Y. PCR and omics based techniques to study the diversity, ecology and biology of anaerobic fungi: insights, challenges and opportunities.. Front Microbiol 2017;8:1657.
    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01657pmc: PMC5622200pubmed: 28993761google scholar: lookup
  26. Ariyawansa HA, Hyde KD, Jayasiri SC, Buyck B, Chethana KT, Dai DQ. Fungal diversity notes 111–252—taxonomic and phylogenetic contributions to fungal taxa.. Fungal Divers 2015;75:27–74.
    doi: 10.1007/s13225-015-0346-5google scholar: lookup
  27. Zhang B-W, Li M, Ma L-C, Wei F-W. A widely applicable protocol for DNA isolation from fecal samples.. Biochem Genet 2006;44:494–503.
    doi: 10.1007/s10528-006-9050-1pubmed: 17094033google scholar: lookup
  28. Schmidt V, Plenz B, Pfaff M, Pees M. Disseminated systemic mycosis in veiled chameleons (Chamaeleo calyptratus) caused by Chamaeleomyces granulomatis.. Vet Microbiol 2012;161(1–2) 145 – 52.
    pubmed: 22857978doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2012.07.017google scholar: lookup
  29. Zhao S, Liu D, Ling N, Chen F, Fang W, Shen Q. Bio-organic fertilizer application significantly reduces the Fusarium oxysporum population and alters the composition of fungi communities of watermelon Fusarium wilt rhizosphere soil.. Biol Fertil Soils 2014;50:765–74.
    doi: 10.1007/s00374-014-0898-7google scholar: lookup
  30. Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads.. EMBnet J 2011;17(1):10–2.
    doi: 10.14806/ej.17.1.200google scholar: lookup
  31. Edgar RC, Haas BJ, Clemente JC, Quince C, Knight R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection.. Bioinformatics 2011;27(16):2194–200.
    doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381pmc: PMC3150044pubmed: 21700674google scholar: lookup
  32. Haas BJ, Gevers D, Earl AM, Feldgarden M, Ward DV, Giannoukos G. Chimeric 16S rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons.. Genome Res 2011;21(3):494–504.
    doi: 10.1101/gr.112730.110pmc: PMC3044863pubmed: 21212162google scholar: lookup
  33. Edgar RC. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads.. Nat Methods 2013;10(10):996–8.
    doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2604pubmed: 23955772google scholar: lookup
  34. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool.. J Mol Biol 1990;215(3):403.
    doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2pubmed: 2231712google scholar: lookup
  35. Kõljalg U, Nilsson RH, Abarenkov K, Tedersoo L, Taylor AF, Bahram M. Towards a unified paradigm for sequence-based identification of fungi.. In.: Wiley Online Library; 2013.
    pubmed: 24112409
  36. White JR, Nagarajan N, Pop M. Statistical methods for detecting differentially abundant features in clinical metagenomic samples.. PLoS Comput Biol 2009;5(4):e1000352.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000352pmc: PMC2661018pubmed: 19360128google scholar: lookup
  37. Lundberg DS, Yourstone S, Mieczkowski P, Jones CD, Dangl JL. Practical innovations for high-throughput amplicon sequencing.. Nat Methods 2013;10(10):999–1002.
    doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2634pubmed: 23995388google scholar: lookup
  38. Segata N, Izard J, Waldron L, Gevers D, Miropolsky L, Garrett WS. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation.. Genome Biol 2011;12:1–18.
    doi: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60pmc: PMC3218848pubmed: 21702898google scholar: lookup
  39. Nguyen NH, Song Z, Bates ST, Branco S, Tedersoo L, Menke J. FUNGuild: an open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild.. Fungal Ecol 2016;20:241–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.funeco.2015.06.006google scholar: lookup
  40. Langille MG, Zaneveld J, Caporaso JG, McDonald D, Knights D, Reyes JA. Predictive functional profiling of microbial communities using 16S rRNA marker gene sequences.. Nat Biotechnol 2013;31(9):814–21.
    doi: 10.1038/nbt.2676pmc: PMC3819121pubmed: 23975157google scholar: lookup
  41. Shepherd ML, Swecker WS Jr, Jensen RV, Ponder MA. Characterization of the fecal bacteria communities of forage-fed horses by pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA V4 gene amplicons.. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2012;326(1):62.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2011.02434.xpubmed: 22092776google scholar: lookup
  42. Weese JS, Holcombe S, Embertson R, Kurtz K, Roessner H, Jalali M. Changes in the faecal microbiota of mares precede the development of post partum colic.. Equine Vet J 2015;47(6):641–9.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12361pubmed: 25257320google scholar: lookup
  43. XING ZC. Mongolian horse and thoroughbred intesti-nal fungal diversity preliminary research and analysis.. In., vol. Master: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University; 2016.
  44. Frey SD, Knorr M, Parrent JL, Simpson RT. Chronic nitrogen enrichment affects the structure and function of the soil microbial community in temperate hardwood and pine forests.. For Ecol Manag 2004;196(1):159–71.
    doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.03.018google scholar: lookup
  45. Liggenstoffer AS, Youssef NH, Couger M, Elshahed MS. Phylogenetic diversity and community structure of anaerobic gut fungi (phylum neocallimastigomycota) in ruminant and non-ruminant herbivores.. ISME J 2010;4(10):1225–35.
    doi: 10.1038/ismej.2010.49pubmed: 20410935google scholar: lookup
  46. Solomon KV, Haitjema CH, Henske JK, Gilmore SP, Borges-Rivera D, Lipzen A. Early-branching gut fungi possess a large, comprehensive array of biomass-degrading enzymes.. Science 2016;351(6278):1192–5.
    doi: 10.1126/science.aad1431pmc: PMC5098331pubmed: 26912365google scholar: lookup
  47. Elghandour M, Tan Z, Abu Hafsa S, Adegbeye M, Greiner R, Ugbogu E. Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a probiotic feed additive to non and pseudo-ruminant feeding: a review.. J Appl Microbiol 2020;128(3):658–74.
    doi: 10.1111/jam.14416pubmed: 31429174google scholar: lookup
  48. Sijtsma L, Tan B. Degradation of perennial ryegrass leaf and stem cell walls by the anaerobic fungus Neocallimastix sp. strain CS3b.. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996;62(4):1437–40.
    doi: 10.1128/aem.62.4.1437-1440.1996pmc: PMC1388835pubmed: 16535297google scholar: lookup
  49. Wallace RJ. Rumen microbiology, biotechnology and ruminant nutrition: the application of research findings to a complex microbial ecosystem.. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1992;100(1–3) 529 – 34.
    pubmed: 1478481doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1992.tb14088.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  50. Auchtung TA, Fofanova TY, Stewart CJ, Nash AK, Wong MC, Gesell JR. Investigating colonization of the healthy adult gastrointestinal tract by fungi.. MSphere 2018;3(2):e00092–18.
    doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00092-18pmc: PMC5874442pubmed: 29600282google scholar: lookup
  51. Sokol H, Leducq V, Aschard H, Pham H-P, Jegou S, Landman C. Fungal microbiota dysbiosis in IBD.. Gut 2017;66(6):1039–48.
    doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310746pmc: PMC5532459pubmed: 26843508google scholar: lookup
  52. Coker OO, Nakatsu G, Dai RZ, Wu WKK, Wong SH, Ng SC. Enteric fungal microbiota dysbiosis and ecological alterations in colorectal cancer.. Gut 2019;68(4):654–62.
    doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317178pmc: PMC6580778pubmed: 30472682google scholar: lookup
  53. Hallen-Adams HE, Suhr MJ. Fungi in the healthy human gastrointestinal tract.. Virulence 2017;8(3):352–8.
    doi: 10.1080/21505594.2016.1247140pmc: PMC5411236pubmed: 27736307google scholar: lookup
  54. Ökmen B, Collemare J, Griffiths S, van der Burgt A, Cox R, de Wit PJ. Functional analysis of the conserved transcriptional regulator CfWor1 in C ladosporium fulvum reveals diverse roles in the virulence of plant pathogenic fungi.. Mol Microbiol 2014;92(1):10–27.
    doi: 10.1111/mmi.12535pubmed: 24521437google scholar: lookup
  55. Mercier E, Peters I, Billen F, Battaille G, Clercx C, Day M. Potential role of Alternaria and Cladosporium species in canine lymphoplasmacytic rhinitis.. J Small Anim Pract 2013;54(4):179–83.
    doi: 10.1111/jsap.12049pubmed: 23496099google scholar: lookup
  56. Qiu X, Zhang F, Yang X, Wu N, Jiang W, Li X. Changes in the composition of intestinal fungi and their role in mice with dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis.. Sci Rep 2015;5(1):1–12.
    doi: 10.1038/srep10416pmc: PMC4445066pubmed: 26013555google scholar: lookup
  57. Mukherjee PK, Chandra J, Retuerto M, Sikaroodi M, Brown RE, Jurevic R. Oral mycobiome analysis of HIV-infected patients: identification of Pichia as an antagonist of opportunistic fungi.. PLoS Pathog 2014;10(3):e1003996.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003996pmc: PMC3953492pubmed: 24626467google scholar: lookup
  58. Ott SJ, Kühbacher T, Musfeldt M, Rosenstiel P, Hellmig S, Rehman A. Fungi and inflammatory bowel diseases: alterations of composition and diversity.. Scand J Gastroenterol 2008;43(7):831–41.
    doi: 10.1080/00365520801935434pubmed: 18584522google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 3 times.
  1. Wei J, Wei L, Ullah A, Geng M, Zhang X, Wang C, Khan MZ, Wang C, Zhang Z. Metagenomic Applications to Herbivore Gut Microbiomes: A Comprehensive Review of Microbial Diversity and Host Interactions. Animals (Basel) 2025 Oct 10;15(20).
    doi: 10.3390/ani15202938pubmed: 41153865google scholar: lookup
  2. Deng X, Li H, Wu A, He J, Mao X, Dai Z, Tian G, Cai J, Tang J, Luo Y. Composition, Influencing Factors, and Effects on Host Nutrient Metabolism of Fungi in Gastrointestinal Tract of Monogastric Animals. Animals (Basel) 2025 Mar 1;15(5).
    doi: 10.3390/ani15050710pubmed: 40075993google scholar: lookup
  3. Ren Y, Ciwang R, Mehmood K, Li K. Effects of forages on the microbiota of crossed sheep on cold Plateau. Anim Biotechnol 2024 Nov;35(1):2362639.
    doi: 10.1080/10495398.2024.2362639pubmed: 38856695google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,727 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.