FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Microorganisms / Evaluation of Bacterial Composition and Viability of Equine ...
Microorganisms2023; 11(2); doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11020231

Evaluation of Bacterial Composition and Viability of Equine Feces after Processing for Transplantation.

Abstract: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been used empirically for decades in equine medicine to treat intestinal dysbiosis but evidence-based information is scarce. This in vitro study aimed at assessing the effect of a commonly used pre-FMT processing method on the bacterial composition and viability of the fecal filtrate. Three samples of fresh equine manure (T0) were processed identically: the initial manure was mixed with 1 L of lukewarm water and chopped using an immersion blender to obtain a mixture (T1), which was left uncovered during 30 min (T2) and percolated through a sieve to obtain a fecal filtrate (T3). Samples were taken throughout the procedure (Tn) and immediately stored at 4 °C until processing. The 16S rDNA amplicon profiling associated with propidium monoazide treatment was performed on each sample to select live bacteria. Analyses of α and β diversity and main bacterial populations and quantitative (qPCR) analysis were performed and statistically compared (significance p < 0.05) between time points (T0-T3). No significant differences in ecological indices or mean estimated total living bacteria were found in the final fecal filtrate (T3) in regard to the original manure (T0); however, relative abundances of some minor genera (Fibrobacter, WCHB1-41_ge and Akkermansia) were significantly different in the final filtrate. In conclusion, the results support the viability of the major bacterial populations in equine feces when using the described pre-FMT protocol.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-01-17 PubMed ID: 36838196PubMed Central: PMC9966902DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11020231Google 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

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.

This study investigates how a commonly used preparation method for fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) affects the bacterial makeup and life in equine feces. It was found that the processing method maintains the viability of major bacterial populations, though minor genera showed significant variation.

Processing Method for FMT

  • The research undertakes an in vitro examination of bacterial changes that occur when equine feces are prepared for Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT). FMT is a procedure used for decades in equine medicine to treat intestinal dysbiosis – an imbalance in the gut’s microflora.
  • A common preparation method for FMT was used – equine feces samples were combined with lukewarm water, ground into a mixture with an immersion blender, left uncovered for 30 minutes, and then filtered through a sieve to create a fecal filtrate.
  • Fecal samples from different stages of the process were collected and kept at 4 °C for further analysis.

Analysing the Bacterial Composition and Viability

  • Scientists analyzed these samples using 16S rDNA amplicon profiling with propidium monoazide treatment, a widely used method to identify live bacteria.
  • They performed both α and β diversity analyses to study the variety within a specific region (α-diversity) and the comparative biodiversity between different ecosystems (β-diversity).
  • Further quantitative analysis was done using qPCR (Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction), a laboratory method for measuring the amount of specific DNA or RNA to get exact quantities of living bacteria present at different time points.
  • A Statistical comparison was done between different stages of the processing to see if any changes occurred in the fecal filtrate due to the preparation procedure.

Study Findings and Conclusion

  • The research found that the processing method for FMT did not cause any significant changes in the total number of live bacteria or alter the major bacterial populations in the fecal filtrate as compared to the original manure sample.
  • However, there were significant differences in the relative abundances of some minor bacterial genera in the final filtrate.
  • These findings support the effectiveness of the FMT processing method in preserving the viability of the major bacterial populations in equine feces.

Cite This Article

APA
Loublier C, Taminiau B, Heinen J, Lecoq L, Amory H, Daube G, Cesarini C. (2023). Evaluation of Bacterial Composition and Viability of Equine Feces after Processing for Transplantation. Microorganisms, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11020231

Publication

Microorganisms
ISSN: 2076-2607
NlmUniqueID: 101625893
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 11
Issue: 2

Researcher Affiliations

Loublier, Clémence
  • Equine Clinical Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Bât. B41, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
  • Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
Taminiau, Bernard
  • Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
  • Department of Food Sciences-Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liege, Avenue de Cureghem 10, Bât. B43b, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
Heinen, Julia
  • Equine Clinical Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Bât. B41, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
  • Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
Lecoq, Laureline
  • Equine Clinical Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Bât. B41, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
  • Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
Amory, Hélène
  • Equine Clinical Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Bât. B41, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
  • Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
Daube, Georges
  • Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
  • Department of Food Sciences-Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liege, Avenue de Cureghem 10, Bât. B43b, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
Cesarini, Carla
  • Equine Clinical Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Bât. B41, 4000 Liège, Belgium.
  • Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium.

Grant Funding

  • R.CFRA.35 90 / University of Liège

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 43 references
  1. Cammarota G, Ianiro G, Tilg H, Rajilić-Stojanović M, Kump P, Satokari R, Sokol H, Arkkila P, Pintus C, Hart A. European Consensus Conference on Faecal Microbiota Transplantation in Clinical Practice. Gut 2017;66:569–580.
    doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-313017pmc: PMC5529972pubmed: 28087657google scholar: lookup
  2. Schoster A, Weese J.S, Guardabassi L. Probiotic Use in Horses—What Is the Evidence for Their Clinical Efficacy?. J Vet Intern Med 2014;28:1640–1652.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.12451pmc: PMC4895607pubmed: 25231539google scholar: lookup
  3. DePeters E.J, George L.W. Rumen Transfaunation. Immunol Lett 2014;162:69–76.
    doi: 10.1016/j.imlet.2014.05.009pubmed: 25262872google scholar: lookup
  4. Mullen K.R, Yasuda K, Divers T.J, Weese J.S. Equine Faecal Microbiota Transplant: Current Knowledge, Proposed Guidelines and Future Directions. Equine Vet Educ 2018;30:151–160.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12559pmc: PMC7159401pubmed: 32313396google scholar: lookup
  5. Cammarota G, Ianiro G, Kelly C.R, Mullish B.H, Allegretti J.R, Kassam Z, Putignani L, Fischer M, Keller J.J, Costello S.P. International Consensus Conference on Stool Banking for Faecal Microbiota Transplantation in Clinical Practice. Gut 2019;68:2111–2121.
    doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319548pmc: PMC6872442pubmed: 31563878google scholar: lookup
  6. Li S.S, Zhu A, Benes V, Costea P.I, Hercog R, Hildebrand F, Huerta-Cepas J, Nieuwdorp M, Salojärvi J, Voigt A.Y. Durable Coexistence of Donor and Recipient Strains after Fecal Microbiota Transplantation. Science 2016;352:586–589.
    doi: 10.1126/science.aad8852pubmed: 27126044google scholar: lookup
  7. Khoruts A, Sadowsky M.J, Hamilton M.J. Development of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Suitable for Mainstream Medicine. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;13:246–250.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.11.014pubmed: 25460566google scholar: lookup
  8. van Nood E, Speelman P, Nieuwdorp M, Keller J. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2014;30:34–39.
    doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000024pubmed: 24241245google scholar: lookup
  9. Burz S.D, Abraham A.-L, Fonseca F, David O, Chapron A, Béguet-Crespel F, Cénard S, Roux K.L, Patrascu O, Levenez F. A Guide for Ex Vivo Handling and Storage of Stool Samples Intended for Fecal Microbiota Transplantation. Sci Rep 2019;9:8897.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45173-4pmc: PMC6586871pubmed: 31222022google scholar: lookup
  10. Lin C, Wan J, Lu Y, Zhang H, Chen X, Su Y, Zhu W. Active Bacterial Communities of Pig Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Suspension Prepared and Preserved under Different Conditions. AMB Express 2019;9:63.
    doi: 10.1186/s13568-019-0787-4pmc: PMC6510741pubmed: 31076926google scholar: lookup
  11. Chu N.D, Smith M.B, Perrotta A.R, Kassam Z, Alm E.J. Profiling Living Bacteria Informs Preparation of Fecal Microbiota Transplantations. PLoS ONE 2017;12:e0170922.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170922pmc: PMC5268452pubmed: 28125667google scholar: lookup
  12. Papanicolas L.E, Choo J.M, Wang Y, Leong L.E.X, Costello S.P, Gordon D.L, Wesselingh S.L, Rogers G.B. Bacterial Viability in Faecal Transplants: Which Bacteria Survive?. EBioMedicine 2019;41:509–516.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.02.023pmc: PMC6444077pubmed: 30796005google scholar: lookup
  13. Costello S.P, Conlon M.A, Vuaran M.S, Roberts-Thomson I.C, Andrews J.M. Faecal Microbiota Transplant for Recurrent Clostridium Difficile Infection Using Long-term Frozen Stool Is Effective: Clinical Efficacy and Bacterial Viability Data. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015;42:1011–1018.
    doi: 10.1111/apt.13366pubmed: 26264455google scholar: lookup
  14. Shimizu H, Arai K, Asahara T, Takahashi T, Tsuji H, Matsumoto S, Takeuchi I, Kyodo R, Yamashiro Y. Stool Preparation under Anaerobic Conditions Contributes to Retention of Obligate Anaerobes: Potential Improvement for Fecal Microbiota Transplantation. BMC Microbiol 2021;21:275.
    doi: 10.1186/s12866-021-02325-9pmc: PMC8501685pubmed: 34627158google scholar: lookup
  15. Bellali S, Lagier J.-C, Raoult D, Khalil J.B. Among Live and Dead Bacteria, the Optimization of Sample Collection and Processing Remains Essential in Recovering Gut Microbiota Components. Front Microbiol 2019;10:1606.
    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01606pmc: PMC6635563pubmed: 31354688google scholar: lookup
  16. Kopper J.J, Alexander T.L, Kogan C.J, Berreta A.R, Burbick C.R. In Vitro Evaluation of the Effect of Storage at −20°C and Proximal Gastrointestinal Conditions on Viability of Equine Fecal Microbiota Transplant. J Equine Vet Sci 2020;98:103360.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.103360pubmed: 33663713google scholar: lookup
  17. Fouhy F, Deane J, Rea M.C, O’Sullivan Ó, Ross R.P, O’Callaghan G, Plant B.J, Stanton C. The Effects of Freezing on Faecal Microbiota as Determined Using MiSeq Sequencing and Culture-Based Investigations. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0119355.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119355pmc: PMC4352061pubmed: 25748176google scholar: lookup
  18. Papanicolas L.E, Wang Y, Choo J.M, Gordon D.L, Wesselingh S.L, Rogers G.B. Optimisation of a Propidium Monoazide Based Method to Determine the Viability of Microbes in Faecal Slurries for Transplantation. J Microbiol Methods 2019;156:40–45.
    doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2018.12.001pubmed: 30529117google scholar: lookup
  19. Nocker A, Sossa-Fernandez P, Burr M.D, Camper A.K. Use of Propidium Monoazide for Live/Dead Distinction in Microbial Ecology. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007;73:5111–5117.
    doi: 10.1128/AEM.02987-06pmc: PMC1951001pubmed: 17586667google scholar: lookup
  20. Stewart H.L, Pitta D, Indugu N, Vecchiarelli B, Engiles J.B, Southwood L.L. Characterization of the Fecal Microbiota of Healthy Horses. Am J Vet Res 2018;79:811–819.
    doi: 10.2460/ajvr.79.8.811pubmed: 30058849google scholar: lookup
  21. Ngo J, Taminiau B, Fall P.A, Daube G, Fontaine J. Ear Canal Microbiota—A Comparison between Healthy Dogs and Atopic Dogs without Clinical Signs of Otitis Externa. Vet Dermatol 2018;29:425-e140.
    doi: 10.1111/vde.12674pubmed: 30084115google scholar: lookup
  22. Cerri S, Taminiau B, de Lusancay A.H, Lecoq L, Amory H, Daube G, Cesarini C. Effect of Oral Administration of Omeprazole on the Microbiota of the Gastric Glandular Mucosa and Feces of Healthy Horses. J Vet Intern Med 2020;34:2727–2737.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.15937pmc: PMC7694827pubmed: 33063923google scholar: lookup
  23. Schloss P.D. Evaluating Different Approaches That Test Whether Microbial Communities Have the Same Structure. ISME J 2008;2:265–275.
    doi: 10.1038/ismej.2008.5pubmed: 18239608google scholar: lookup
  24. Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahé F. VSEARCH: A Versatile Open Source Tool for Metagenomics. PeerJ 2016;4:e2584.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.2584pmc: PMC5075697pubmed: 27781170google scholar: lookup
  25. Fastrès A, Taminiau B, Vangrinsven E, Tutunaru A.-C, Moyse E, Farnir F, Daube G, Clercx C. Effect of an Antimicrobial Drug on Lung Microbiota in Healthy Dogs. Heliyon 2019;5:e02802.
    doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02802pmc: PMC6895694pubmed: 31844730google scholar: lookup
  26. Love M.I, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated Estimation of Fold Change and Dispersion for RNA-Seq Data with DESeq2. Genome Biol 2014;15:550.
    doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8pmc: PMC4302049pubmed: 25516281google scholar: lookup
  27. Costa M.C, Silva G, Ramos R.V, Staempfli H.R, Arroyo L.G, Kim P, Weese J.S. Characterization and Comparison of the Bacterial Microbiota in Different Gastrointestinal Tract Compartments in Horses. Vet J 2015;205:74–80.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.03.018pubmed: 25975855google scholar: lookup
  28. Kauter A, Epping L, Semmler T, Antao E.-M, Kannapin D, Stoeckle S.D, Gehlen H, Lübke-Becker A, Günther S, Wieler L.H. The Gut Microbiome of Horses: Current Research on Equine Enteral Microbiota and Future Perspectives. Anim Microbiome 2019;1:14.
    doi: 10.1186/s42523-019-0013-3pmc: PMC7807895pubmed: 33499951google scholar: lookup
  29. Satokari R, Mattila E, Kainulainen V, Arkkila P.E.T. Simple Faecal Preparation and Efficacy of Frozen Inoculum in Faecal Microbiota Transplantation for Recurrent Clostridium Difficile Infection—An Observational Cohort Study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015;41:46–53.
    doi: 10.1111/apt.13009pubmed: 25355279google scholar: lookup
  30. Khanna S. Microbiota Replacement Therapies: Innovation in Gastrointestinal Care. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2017;103:102–111.
    doi: 10.1002/cpt.923pubmed: 29071710google scholar: lookup
  31. Browne H.P, Forster S.C, Anonye B.O, Kumar N, Neville B.A, Stares M.D, Goulding D, Lawley T.D. Culturing of ‘Unculturable’ Human Microbiota Reveals Novel Taxa and Extensive Sporulation. Nature 2016;533:543–546.
    doi: 10.1038/nature17645pmc: PMC4890681pubmed: 27144353google scholar: lookup
  32. Mullish B.H, Quraishi M.N, Segal J.P, McCune V.L, Baxter M, Marsden G.L, Moore D.J, Colville A, Bhala N, Iqbal T.H. The Use of Faecal Microbiota Transplant as Treatment for Recurrent or Refractory Clostridium Difficile Infection and Other Potential Indications: Joint British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Healthcare Infection Society (HIS) Guidelines. Gut 2018;67:1920.
    doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316818pubmed: 30154172google scholar: lookup
  33. Sokol H, Seksik P, Furet J.P, Firmesse O, Nion-Larmurier I, Beaugerie L, Cosnes J, Corthier G, Marteau P, Doré J. Low Counts of Faecalibacterium Prausnitzii in Colitis Microbiota. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009;15:1183–1189.
    doi: 10.1002/ibd.20903pubmed: 19235886google scholar: lookup
  34. Rajilic M, Biagi E, Tims S, Vos W.M.D. Global and Deep Molecular Analysis of Microbiota Signatures in Fecal Samples from Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Gastroenterology 2011;141:10.
    pubmed: 21820992
  35. McKinney C.A, Bedenice D, Pacheco A.P, Oliveira B.C.M, Paradis M.-R, Mazan M, Widmer G. Assessment of Clinical and Microbiota Responses to Fecal Microbial Transplantation in Adult Horses with Diarrhea. PLoS ONE 2021;16:e0244381.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244381pmc: PMC7808643pubmed: 33444319google scholar: lookup
  36. Hagey J.V, Laabs M, Maga E.A, DePeters E.J. Rumen Sampling Methods Bias Bacterial Communities Observed. PLoS ONE 2022;17:e0258176.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258176pmc: PMC9070869pubmed: 35511785google scholar: lookup
  37. Ren Q, Si H, Yan X, Liu C, Ding L, Long R, Li Z, Qiu Q. Bacterial Communities in the Solid, Liquid, Dorsal, and Ventral Epithelium Fractions of Yak (Bos Grunniens) Rumen. MicrobiologyOpen 2020;9:e963.
    doi: 10.1002/mbo3.963pmc: PMC7002109pubmed: 31701637google scholar: lookup
  38. Wallace R.J, Sasson G, Garnsworthy P.C, Tapio I, Gregson E, Bani P, Huhtanen P, Bayat A.R, Strozzi F, Biscarini F. A Heritable Subset of the Core Rumen Microbiome Dictates Dairy Cow Productivity and Emissions. Sci Adv 2019;5:eaav8391.
    doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aav8391pmc: PMC6609165pubmed: 31281883google scholar: lookup
  39. Bahl M.I, Bergström A, Licht T.R. Freezing Fecal Samples Prior to DNA Extraction Affects the Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes Ratio Determined by Downstream Quantitative PCR Analysis. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2012;329:193–197.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2012.02523.xpubmed: 22325006google scholar: lookup
  40. Fittipaldi M, Nocker A, Codony F. Progress in Understanding Preferential Detection of Live Cells Using Viability Dyes in Combination with DNA Amplification. J Microbiol Methods 2012;91:276–289.
    doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2012.08.007pubmed: 22940102google scholar: lookup
  41. de Bustamante M.M, Plummer C, MacNicol J, Gomez D. Impact of Ambient Temperature Sample Storage on the Equine Fecal Microbiota. Animals 2021;11:819.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11030819pmc: PMC8001224pubmed: 33803934google scholar: lookup
  42. Schoster A, Mosing M, Jalali M, Staempfli H.R, Weese J.S. Effects of Transport, Fasting and Anaesthesia on the Faecal Microbiota of Healthy Adult Horses. Equine Vet J 2015;48:595–602.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12479pubmed: 26122549google scholar: lookup
  43. Theelen M.J.P, Luiken R.E.C, Wagenaar J.A, van Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan M.M.S, Rossen J.W.A, Zomer A.L. The Equine Faecal Microbiota of Healthy Horses and Ponies in The Netherlands: Impact of Host and Environmental Factors. Animals 2021;11:1762.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11061762pmc: PMC8231505pubmed: 34204691google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 4 times.
  1. Arantes JA, Di Pietro R, Ratté M, Arroyo LG, Leclère M, Costa MC. Changes in bacterial viability after preparation and storage of fecal microbiota transplantation solution using equine feces. PeerJ 2025;13:e18860.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.18860pubmed: 39989751google scholar: lookup
  2. Long AE, Pitta D, Hennessy M, Indugu N, Vecchiarelli B, Luethy D, Aceto H, Hurcombe S. Assessment of fecal bacterial viability and diversity in fresh and frozen fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) product in horses. BMC Vet Res 2024 Jul 10;20(1):306.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-024-04166-wpubmed: 38987780google scholar: lookup
  3. Dungan AM, Geissler L, Williams AS, Gotze CR, Flynn EC, Blackall LL, van Oppen MJH. DNA from non-viable bacteria biases diversity estimates in the corals Acropora loripes and Pocillopora acuta. Environ Microbiome 2023 Dec 8;18(1):86.
    doi: 10.1186/s40793-023-00541-6pubmed: 38062479google scholar: lookup
  4. Thilakarathna SH, Chui L. A Pilot Study to Detect Viable Salmonella spp. in Diarrheal Stool Using Viability Real-Time PCR as a Culture-Independent Diagnostic Tool in a Clinical Setting. Int J Mol Sci 2023 Jun 10;24(12).
    doi: 10.3390/ijms24129979pubmed: 37373127google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.