FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / The Fecal Bacterial Microbiota in Horses with Equine Recurre...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2021; 11(3); doi: 10.3390/ani11030745

The Fecal Bacterial Microbiota in Horses with Equine Recurrent Uveitis.

Abstract: The objective of this study was to describe and compare the fecal bacterial microbiota of horses with equine recurrent uveitis (ERU) and healthy horses using next-generation sequencing techniques. Fecal samples were collected from 15 client-owned horses previously diagnosed with ERU on complete ophthalmic examination. For each fecal sample obtained from a horse with ERU, a sample was collected from an environmentally matched healthy control with no evidence of ocular disease. The Illumina MiSeq sequencer was used for high-throughput sequencing of the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene. The relative abundance of predominant taxa, and alpha and beta diversity indices were calculated and compared between groups. The phyla Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Verrucomicrobia, and Proteobacteria predominated in both ERU and control horses, accounting for greater than 60% of sequences. Based on linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe), no taxa were found to be enriched in either group. No significant differences were observed in alpha and beta diversity indices between groups (p > 0.05 for all tests). Equine recurrent uveitis is not associated with alteration of the gastrointestinal bacterial microbiota when compared with healthy controls.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2021-03-09 PubMed ID: 33803123PubMed Central: PMC7998804DOI: 10.3390/ani11030745Google 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.

The research article discusses a study which investigated the composition of fecal bacterial microbiota in horses suffering from equine recurrent uveitis (ERU) and compared it to that of healthy horses. It found out that there is no altered composition of gastrointestinal bacteria in affected horses compared to the healthy ones.

Research Objectives and Method

  • This study was designed to describe and contrast the fecal bacterial microbiota of horses afflicted with equine recurrent uveitis (ERU) and healthy horses. ERU is an inflammation of the uvea, the middle layer of the eye, and can recur in some horses.
  • The research base consisted of 15 horses with ERU and 15 healthy horses, all client-owned. It was essential for the comparison purposes that each ERU-affected horse has a healthy equivalent in the same environment, so it was paired with a similar one but without any sign of ocular disease.
  • Fecal samples were then collected from all the horses, and the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was sequenced using the Illumina MiSeq sequencer. This enabled the researchers to identify and quantify the bacteria by analyzing the genes present in the feces.

Findings of the Study

  • It was found that the intestinal tract of both healthy and ERU-afflicted horses was majorly populated by four types of bacteria – Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Verrucomicrobia, and Proteobacteria – which represented over 60% of the total bacteria detected.
  • According to Linear Discriminant Analysis Effect Size (LEfSe), a method which identifies features (genes, pathways, etc.) characterizing the differences between two or more biological conditions, there were no bacteria enriched in either group. This means that the makeup of the microbiota in both groups was statistically the same.
  • Furthermore, there were no significant differences observed in alpha and beta diversity indices between groups. This signifies that both the quantity and variety of the microbiota in the samples from horses suffering from ERU was similar to that of healthy horses.

Conclusion from the Research

  • Consequently, the researchers concluded that ERU in horses is not associated with the alteration of the gastrointestinal bacterial microbiota when compared with healthy controls. That means the cause of ERU in horses is not related to changes in gut bacterial content.

Cite This Article

APA
Martin de Bustamante M, Gomez D, MacNicol J, Hamor R, Plummer C. (2021). The Fecal Bacterial Microbiota in Horses with Equine Recurrent Uveitis. Animals (Basel), 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030745

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 11
Issue: 3

Researcher Affiliations

Martin de Bustamante, Michelle
  • Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.
Gomez, Diego
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.
  • Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
MacNicol, Jennifer
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, Ontario Agriculture College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
Hamor, Ralph
  • Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.
Plummer, Caryn
  • Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.

Grant Funding

  • VAF2019-3 / ACVO Vision for Animals Foundation
  • Fall 2018-2019 Research Grant / University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

This article includes 48 references
  1. Gerding JC, Gilger BC. Prognosis and impact of equine recurrent uveitis. Equine Vet. J. 2016;48:290–298.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12451pubmed: 25891653google scholar: lookup
  2. Regan DP, Aarnio MC, Davis WS, Carmichael KP, Vandenplas ML, Lauderdale JD, Moore PA. Characterization of cytokines associated with Th17 cells in the eyes of horses with recurrent uveitis. Vet. Ophthalmol. 2012;15:145–152.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1463-5224.2011.00951.xpubmed: 22051225google scholar: lookup
  3. Gilger BC, Malok E, Cutter KV, Stewart T, Horohov DW, Allen JB. Characterization of T-lymphocytes in the anterior uvea of eyes with chronic equine recurrent uveitis. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 1999;71:17–28.
    doi: 10.1016/S0165-2427(99)00082-3pubmed: 10522783google scholar: lookup
  4. Gilger BC, Wilkie DA, Clode AB, McMullen RJ Jr, Utter ME, Komaromy AM, Brooks DE, Salmon JH. Long-term outcome after implantation of a suprachoroidal cyclosporine drug delivery device in horses with recurrent uveitis. Vet. Ophthalmol. 2010;13:294–300.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1463-5224.2010.00807.xpubmed: 20840106google scholar: lookup
  5. Romeike A, Brugmann M, Drommer W. Immunohistochemical studies in equine recurrent uveitis (ERU). Vet. Pathol. 1998;35:515–526.
    doi: 10.1177/030098589803500606pubmed: 9823593google scholar: lookup
  6. Malalana F, Stylianides A, McGowan C. Equine recurrent uveitis: Human and equine perspectives. Vet. J. 2015;206:22–29.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.06.017pubmed: 26188862google scholar: lookup
  7. Deeg CA, Hauck SM, Amann B, Pompetzki D, Altmann F, Raith A, Schmalzl T, Stangassinger M, Ueffing M. Equine recurrent uveitis—A spontaneous horse model of uveitis. Ophthalmic Res. 2008;40:151–153.
    doi: 10.1159/000119867pubmed: 18421230google scholar: lookup
  8. Rodrigues Hoffmann A, Proctor LM, Surette MG, Suchodolski JS. The Microbiome: The Trillions of Microorganisms That Maintain Health and Cause Disease in Humans and Companion Animals. Vet. Pathol. 2016;53:10–21.
    doi: 10.1177/0300985815595517pubmed: 26220947google scholar: lookup
  9. Consolandi C, Turroni S, Emmi G, Severgnini M, Fiori J, Peano C, Biagi E, Grassi A, Rampelli S, Silvestri E. Behcet’s syndrome patients exhibit specific microbiome signature. Autoimmun. Rev. 2015;14:269–276.
    doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2014.11.009pubmed: 25435420google scholar: lookup
  10. Horta-Baas G, Romero-Figueroa MDS, Montiel-Jarquin AJ, Pizano-Zarate ML, Garcia-Mena J, Ramirez-Duran N. Intestinal Dysbiosis and Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Link between Gut Microbiota and the Pathogenesis of Rheumatoid Arthritis. J. Immunol. Res. 2017;2017:4835189.
    doi: 10.1155/2017/4835189pmc: PMC5602494pubmed: 28948174google scholar: lookup
  11. Aljutaily T, Consuegra-Fernandez M, Aranda F, Lozano F, Huarte E. Gut microbiota metabolites for sweetening type I diabetes. Cell. Mol. Immunol. 2018;15:92–95.
    doi: 10.1038/cmi.2017.65pmc: PMC5811683pubmed: 28757611google scholar: lookup
  12. Fernandes MA, Verstraete SG, Phan TG, Deng X, Stekol E, LaMere B, Lynch SV, Heyman MB, Delwart E. Enteric Virome and Bacterial Microbiota in Children with Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn Disease. J. Pediatric Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2019;68:30–36.
    doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000002140pmc: PMC6310095pubmed: 30169455google scholar: lookup
  13. Talotta R, Atzeni F, Ditto MC, Gerardi MC, Sarzi-Puttini P. The Microbiome in Connective Tissue Diseases and Vasculitides: An Updated Narrative Review. J. Immunol. Res. 2017;2017:6836498.
    doi: 10.1155/2017/6836498pmc: PMC5556609pubmed: 28835902google scholar: lookup
  14. Nakamura YK, Metea C, Karstens L, Asquith M, Gruner H, Moscibrocki C, Lee I, Brislawn CJ, Jansson JK, Rosenbaum JT. Gut Microbial Alterations Associated with Protection from Autoimmune Uveitis. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57:3747–3758.
    doi: 10.1167/iovs.16-19733pmc: PMC4960998pubmed: 27415793google scholar: lookup
  15. Heissigerova J, Seidler Stangova P, Klimova A, Svozilkova P, Hrncir T, Stepankova R, Kverka M, Tlaskalova-Hogenova H, Forrester JV. The Microbiota Determines Susceptibility to Experimental Autoimmune Uveoretinitis. J. Immunol. Res. 2016;2016:5065703.
    doi: 10.1155/2016/5065703pmc: PMC4886056pubmed: 27294159google scholar: lookup
  16. Huang X, Ye Z, Cao Q, Su G, Wang Q, Deng J, Zhou C, Kijlstra A, Yang P. Gut Microbiota Composition and Fecal Metabolic Phenotype in Patients with Acute Anterior Uveitis. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59:1523–1531.
    doi: 10.1167/iovs.17-22677pubmed: 29625474google scholar: lookup
  17. Horai R, Sen HN, Caspi RR. Commensal microbiota as a potential trigger of autoimmune uveitis. Expert Rev. Clin. Immunol. 2017;13:291–293.
    doi: 10.1080/1744666X.2017.1288098pmc: PMC5546913pubmed: 28145784google scholar: lookup
  18. Salem SE, Maddox TW, Berg A, Antczak P, Ketley JM, Williams NJ, Archer DC. Variation in faecal microbiota in a group of horses managed at pasture over a 12-month period. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:8510.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26930-3pmc: PMC5981443pubmed: 29855517google scholar: lookup
  19. Stewart HL, Pitta D, Indugu N, Vecchiarelli B, Engiles JB, Southwood LL. 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
  20. Proudman CJ, Hunter JO, Darby AC, Escalona EE, Batty C, Turner C. Characterisation of the faecal metabolome and microbiome of Thoroughbred racehorses. Equine Vet. J. 2015;47:580–586.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12324pubmed: 25041526google scholar: lookup
  21. Costa MC, Arroyo LG, Allen-Vercoe E, Stampfli HR, Kim PT, Sturgeon A, Weese JS. Comparison of the fecal microbiota of healthy horses and horses with colitis by high throughput sequencing of the V3-V5 region of the 16S rRNA gene. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e41484.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041484pmc: PMC3409227pubmed: 22859989google scholar: lookup
  22. La Rosa PS, Brooks JP, Deych E, Boone EL, Edwards DJ, Wang Q, Sodergren E, Weinstock G, Shannon WD. Hypothesis testing and power calculations for taxonomic-based human microbiome data. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e52078.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052078pmc: PMC3527355pubmed: 23284876google scholar: lookup
  23. Tal M, Verbrugghe A, Gomez DE, Chau C, Weese JS. The effect of storage at ambient temperature on the feline fecal microbiota. BMC Vet. Res. 2017;13:256.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-017-1188-zpmc: PMC5563020pubmed: 28821259google scholar: lookup
  24. Gomez DE, Arroyo LG, Poljak Z, Viel L, Weese JS. Implementation of an algorithm for selection of antimicrobial therapy for diarrhoeic calves: Impact on antimicrobial treatment rates, health and faecal microbiota. Vet. J. 2017;226:15–25.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2017.06.009pmc: PMC7110828pubmed: 28911836google scholar: lookup
  25. Gomez DE, Arroyo LG, Costa MC, Viel L, Weese JS. Characterization of the Fecal Bacterial Microbiota of Healthy and Diarrheic Dairy Calves. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2017;31:928–939.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.14695pmc: PMC5435056pubmed: 28390070google scholar: lookup
  26. Klindworth A, Pruesse E, Schweer T, Peplies J, Quast C, Horn M, Glockner FO. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:e1.
    doi: 10.1093/nar/gks808pmc: PMC3592464pubmed: 22933715google scholar: lookup
  27. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Harmann M, Hollister EB, Lesniewski RA, Oakley BB, Parks DH, Robinson CJ. Introducing mothur: Open-Source, Platform-Independent, Community-Supported Software for Describing and Comparing Microbial Communities. Appl. Environ. Microb. 2009;75:7537–7541.
    doi: 10.1128/AEM.01541-09pmc: PMC2786419pubmed: 19801464google scholar: lookup
  28. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, Peplies J, Glockner FO. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D590–D596.
    doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219pmc: PMC3531112pubmed: 23193283google scholar: lookup
  29. Edgar RC, Haas BJ, Clemente JC, Quince C, Knight R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 2011;27:2194–2200.
    doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381pmc: PMC3150044pubmed: 21700674google scholar: lookup
  30. Kozich JJ, Westcott SL, Baxter NT, Highlander SK, Schloss PD. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013;79:5112–5120.
    doi: 10.1128/AEM.01043-13pmc: PMC3753973pubmed: 23793624google scholar: lookup
  31. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007;73:5261–5267.
    doi: 10.1128/AEM.00062-07pmc: PMC1950982pubmed: 17586664google scholar: lookup
  32. Segata N, Izard J, Waldron L, Gevers D, Miropolsky L, Garrett WS, Huttenhower C. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 2011;12:R60.
    doi: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60pmc: PMC3218848pubmed: 21702898google scholar: lookup
  33. Holmes I, Harris K, Quince C. Dirichlet multinomial mixtures: Generative models for microbial metagenomics. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e30126.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030126pmc: PMC3272020pubmed: 22319561google scholar: lookup
  34. Kalyana Chakravarthy S, Jayasudha R, Sai Prashanthi G, Ali MH, Sharma S, Tyagi M, Shivaji S. Dysbiosis in the Gut Bacterial Microbiome of Patients with Uveitis, an Inflammatory Disease of the Eye. Indian J. Microbiol. 2018;58:457–469.
    doi: 10.1007/s12088-018-0746-9pmc: PMC6141402pubmed: 30262956google scholar: lookup
  35. Lopez-Siles M, Duncan SH, Garcia-Gil LJ, Martinez-Medina M. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii: From microbiology to diagnostics and prognostics. ISME J. 2017;11:841–852.
    doi: 10.1038/ismej.2016.176pmc: PMC5364359pubmed: 28045459google scholar: lookup
  36. Zhang YJ, Li S, Gan RY, Zhou T, Xu DP, Li HB. Impacts of gut bacteria on human health and diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015;16:7493–7519.
    doi: 10.3390/ijms16047493pmc: PMC4425030pubmed: 25849657google scholar: lookup
  37. Kobayashi R, Nagaoka K, Nishimura N, Koike S, Takahashi E, Niimi K, Murase H, Kinjo T, Tsukahara T, Inoue R. Comparison of the fecal microbiota of two monogastric herbivorous and five omnivorous mammals. Anim. Sci. J. 2020;91.
    doi: 10.1111/asj.13366pmc: PMC7216987pubmed: 32285557google scholar: lookup
  38. Furet JP, Firmesse O, Gourmelon M, Bridonneau C, Tap J, Mondot S, Dore J, Corthier G. Comparative assessment of human and farm animal faecal microbiota using real-time quantitative PCR. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2009;68:351–362.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2009.00671.xpubmed: 19302550google scholar: lookup
  39. Dougal K, Harris PA, Edwards A, Pachebat JA, Blackmore TM, Worgan HJ, Newbold CJ. A comparison of the microbiome and the metabolome of different regions of the equine hindgut. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2012;82:642–652.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01441.xpubmed: 22757649google scholar: lookup
  40. An R, Wilms E, Masclee AAM, Smidt H, Zoetendal EG, Jonkers D. Age-dependent changes in GI physiology and microbiota: Time to reconsider?. Gut 2018;67:2213–2222.
    doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315542pubmed: 30194220google scholar: lookup
  41. Derrien M, Alvarez AS, de Vos WM. The Gut Microbiota in the First Decade of Life. Trends Microbiol. 2019;27:997–1010.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2019.08.001pubmed: 31474424google scholar: lookup
  42. Garber A, Hastie P, McGuinness D, Malarange P, Murray JA. Abrupt dietary changes between grass and hay alter faecal microbiota of ponies. PLoS ONE 2020;15:e0237869.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237869pmc: PMC7446798pubmed: 32810164google scholar: lookup
  43. Mach N, Ruet A, Clark A, Bars-Cortina D, Ramayo-Caldas Y, Crisci E, Pennarun S, Dhorne-Pollet S, Foury A, Moisan MP. Priming for welfare: Gut microbiota is associated with equitation conditions and behavior in horse athletes. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:8311.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65444-9pmc: PMC7239938pubmed: 32433513google scholar: lookup
  44. Mshelia ES, Adamu L, Wakil Y, Turaki UA, Gulani IA, Musa J. The association between gut microbiome, sex, age and body condition scores of horses in Maiduguri and its environs. Microb. Pathog. 2018;118:81–86.
    doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2018.03.018pubmed: 29530806google scholar: lookup
  45. Costa MC, Stampfli HR, Allen-Vercoe E, Weese JS. Development of the faecal microbiota in foals. Equine Vet. J. 2016;48:681–688.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12532pubmed: 26518456google scholar: lookup
  46. Bulmer LS, Murray JA, Burns NM, Garber A, Wemelsfelder F, McEwan NR, Hastie PM. High-starch diets alter equine faecal microbiota and increase behavioural reactivity. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:18621.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-54039-8pmc: PMC6901590pubmed: 31819069google scholar: lookup
  47. Harlow BE, Lawrence LM, Hayes SH, Crum A, Flythe MD. Effect of Dietary Starch Source and Concentration on Equine Fecal Microbiota. PLoS ONE 2016;11:e0154037.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154037pmc: PMC4851386pubmed: 27128793google scholar: lookup
  48. Whitfield-Cargile CM, Chamoun-Emanuelli AM, Cohen ND, Richardson LM, Ajami NJ, Dockery HJ. Differential effects of selective and non-selective cyclooxygenase inhibitors on fecal microbiota in adult horses. PLoS ONE 2018;13:e0202527.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202527pmc: PMC6107168pubmed: 30138339google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.