FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Sci Rep / Unraveling the distinctive gut microbiome of khulans (Equus ...
Scientific reports2025; 15(1); 2767; doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-87216-z

Unraveling the distinctive gut microbiome of khulans (Equus hemionus hemionus) in comparison to their drinking water and closely related equids.

Abstract: The microbial composition of host-associated microbiomes is influenced by co-evolutionary interactions, host genetics, domestication, and the environment. This study investigates the contribution of environmental microbiota from freshwater bodies to the gastrointestinal microbiomes of wild khulans (Equus hemionus hemionus, n = 21) and compares them with those of captive khulans (n = 12) and other equids-Przewalski's horse (n = 82) and domestic horse (n = 26). Using PacBio technology and the LotuS pipeline for 16S rRNA gene sequencing, we analyze microbial diversity and conduct differential abundance, alpha, and beta diversity analyses. Results indicate limited microbial sharing between wild khulans and their waterhole environments, suggesting minimal environmental influence on their gut microbiomes and low levels of water contamination by khulans. Wild khulans exhibit greater microbial diversity and richness compared to captive ones, likely due to adaptations to the harsh nutritional conditions of the Gobi desert. Conversely, captive khulans show reduced microbial diversity, potentially affected by dietary changes during captivity. These findings highlight the significant impact of environment and lifestyle on the gut microbiomes of equids.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-01-22 PubMed ID: 39843625PubMed Central: PMC11754619DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-87216-zGoogle 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
  • Comparative Study
  • 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.

This research article discusses a study into the impact of environmental factors on the gut microbiomes of khulans, a type of wild ass, by comparing the microbiomes of wild and captive khulans and other equids to their water sources. The findings suggest a limited influence of the environmental microbiota on the khulan gut microbiome, but do highlight significant effects related to captivity and diet changes.

Comparative Analysis of Gut Microbiomes

  • The researchers carried out comparative analysis of gut microbiomes among different types of equids, including wild khulans, captive khulans, Przewalski’s horses (another type of wild horse), and domestic horses.
  • For this comparative study, a total of 21 wild khulans, 12 captive khulans, 82 Przewalski’s horses, and 26 domestic horses were used.
  • The microbial composition of the gut was examined using PacBio technology and the LotuS pipeline for 16S rRNA gene sequencing.
  • This gene sequencing technology provided data on the broad microbial diversity present in each of the groups, allowing for comparison.

Interactions with Environment

  • The researchers also investigated how interaction with the environment, specifically drinking water, influenced the gut microbiome.
  • By comparing the gut microbiota with those found in the freshwater bodies that the khulans drink from, the researchers could determine the level of microbial sharing, if any.
  • The results found that there was limited microbial sharing between the wild khulans and their water sources, indicating that drinking water might not play a significant role in shaping their gut microbiome.
  • It also suggested low levels of water contamination caused by the khulans, meaning that direct transmission of bacteria through fecal matter into the water was minimal.

Diet and Lifestyle

  • The comparison between wild and captive khulan gut microbiomes provided insights into how diet and environmental changes influence the microbial diversity in the gut.
  • Wild khulans displayed a higher level of microbial diversity, possibly due to their adaptation to the harsh nutritional conditions in the Gobi Desert.
  • Conversely, captive khulans showed reduced microbial diversity; the authors suggest that this is potentially due to changes in their diet during captivity.
  • Thus, the results highlighted the overall significant impact of diet and lifestyle on the gut microbiomes of these creatures.

Cite This Article

APA
Jarquín-Díaz VH, Dayaram A, Soilemetzidou ES, Desvars-Larrive A, Bohner J, Buuveibaatar B, Kaczensky P, Walzer C, Greenwood AD, Löber U. (2025). Unraveling the distinctive gut microbiome of khulans (Equus hemionus hemionus) in comparison to their drinking water and closely related equids. Sci Rep, 15(1), 2767. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-87216-z

Publication

Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
NlmUniqueID: 101563288
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 15
Issue: 1
Pages: 2767

Researcher Affiliations

Jarquín-Díaz, Víctor Hugo
  • Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred- Kowalke Str. 17, 10315, Berlin, Germany.
  • Experimental and Clinical Research Center, a cooperation between the Max-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association and the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
  • Max-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.
Dayaram, Anisha
  • Max-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.
  • Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, AG Rosenmund, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Soilemetzidou, Eirini S
  • Max-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.
Desvars-Larrive, Amelie
  • Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
  • Unit of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, Complexity Science Hub, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Bohner, Julia
  • Max-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.
Buuveibaatar, Bayarbaatar
  • Wildlife Conservation Society, Mongolia Program, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
Kaczensky, Petra
  • Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
  • Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Stor-Elvdal, Norway.
Walzer, Chris
  • Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
  • Wildlife Conservation Society - Global USA and University of Veterinary Medicine AT, New York, USA.
Greenwood, Alex D
  • Max-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany. greenwood@izw-berlin.de.
  • School of Veterinary Medicine, Free University of Berlin, Oertzenweg 19 b, 14163, Berlin, Germany. greenwood@izw-berlin.de.
Löber, Ulrike
  • Department of Wildlife Diseases, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Alfred- Kowalke Str. 17, 10315, Berlin, Germany. Ulrike.Loeber@mdc-berlin.de.
  • Experimental and Clinical Research Center, a cooperation between the Max-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association and the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. Ulrike.Loeber@mdc-berlin.de.
  • Max-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany. Ulrike.Loeber@mdc-berlin.de.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Gastrointestinal Microbiome / genetics
  • RNA, Ribosomal, 16S / genetics
  • Equidae / microbiology
  • Drinking Water / microbiology
  • Bacteria / genetics
  • Bacteria / classification
  • Horses / microbiology

Conflict of Interest Statement

Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

References

This article includes 44 references
  1. Hyde ER. The oral and skin microbiomes of Captive Komodo dragons are significantly Shared with their Habitat. mSystems 1, e00046–e00016 (2016).
    pmc: PMC5069958pubmed: 27822543
  2. Van Rossum T. Year-Long Metagenomic Study of River Microbiomes Across Land Use and Water Quality. Frontiers in Microbiology 6 (2015).
    pmc: PMC4681185pubmed: 26733955
  3. Numberger D. Urbanization promotes specific bacteria in freshwater microbiomes including potential pathogens. Sci. Total Environ. 845, 157321 (2022).
    pubmed: 35839872
  4. Dayaram A. Seasonal host and ecological drivers may promote restricted water as a viral vector. Sci. Total Environ. 773, 145446 (2021).
    pubmed: 33588222
  5. McFall-Ngai M. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 110, 3229–3236 (2013).
    pmc: PMC3587249pubmed: 23391737
  6. McKenzie VJ. The effects of Captivity on the mammalian gut Microbiome. Integr. Comp. Biol. 57, 690–704 (2017).
    pmc: PMC5978021pubmed: 28985326
  7. Metcalf JL. Evaluating the impact of domestication and captivity on the horse gut microbiome. 1. Sci. Rep. 7, 15497 (2017).
    pmc: PMC5686199pubmed: 29138485
  8. Callahan BJ. High-throughput amplicon sequencing of the full-length 16S rRNA gene with single-nucleotide resolution. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, e103 (2019).
    pmc: PMC6765137pubmed: 31269198
  9. Coenye T, Goris J, De Vos P, Vandamme P, LiPuma JJ. Classification of Ralstonia pickettii-like isolates from the environment and clinical samples as Ralstonia insidiosa sp. nov.. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 53, 1075–1080 (2003).
    pubmed: 12892129
  10. Willems A. The Family Comamonadaceae, 777–851. The Prokaryotes: Alphaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2014).
  11. Alberdi A, Martin Bideguren G, Aizpurua O. Diversity and compositional changes in the gut microbiota of wild and captive vertebrates: a meta-analysis. 1. Sci. Rep. 11, 22660 (2021).
    pmc: PMC8608908pubmed: 34811423
  12. Ley RE, Lozupone CA, Hamady M, Knight R, Gordon JI. Worlds within worlds: evolution of the vertebrate gut microbiota. 10. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6, 776–788 (2008).
    pmc: PMC2664199pubmed: 18794915
  13. Newton RJ. Sewage reflects the microbiomes of human populations. mBio 6, e02574 (2015).
    pmc: PMC4358014pubmed: 25714718
  14. Li Y. Community Composition and Diversity of Intestinal Microbiota in Captive and Reintroduced Przewalski’s horse (Equus ferus przewalskii). Front. Microbiol. 10 (2019).
    pmc: PMC6693443pubmed: 31440229
  15. Šturm MB. Isotope analysis combined with DNA barcoding provide new insights into the dietary niche of khulan in the Mongolian Gobi. PLOS ONE 16, e0248294 (2021).
    pmc: PMC8006982pubmed: 33780458
  16. Ang L. Gut microbiome characteristics in feral and domesticated horses from different geographic locations. 1. Commun. Biol. 5, 1–10 (2022).
    pmc: PMC8881449pubmed: 35217713
  17. Costa MC. Characterization and comparison of the bacterial microbiota in different gastrointestinal tract compartments in horses. Vet. J. 205, 74–80 (2015).
    pubmed: 25975855
  18. Dougal K. Identification of a core Bacterial Community within the large intestine of the horse. PLOS ONE 8, e77660 (2013).
    pmc: PMC3812009pubmed: 24204908
  19. Perkins GA. Equine Stomachs Harbor an abundant and diverse mucosal microbiota. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 2522–2532 (2012).
    pmc: PMC3318809pubmed: 22307294
  20. Zhou Z. Wild and captive environments drive the convergence of Gut Microbiota and Impact Health in threatened equids. Front. Microbiol. 13 (2022).
    pmc: PMC9259803pubmed: 35814657
  21. Hu X. Gastrointestinal biogeography of Luminal Microbiota and short-chain fatty acids in Sika deer (Cervus nippon). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 88, e00499–e00422 (2022).
    pmc: PMC9469704pubmed: 35950850
  22. Su R, Dalai M, Luvsantseren B, Chimedtseren C, Hasi S. Comparative study of the function and structure of the gut microbiota in siberian musk deer and forest musk deer. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 106, 6799–6817 (2022).
    pubmed: 36100751
  23. Yu Q, Li G, Li H. Two community types occur in gut microbiota of large-sample wild plateau pikas (Ochotona curzoniae). Integr. Zool. 17, 366–378 (2022).
    pubmed: 34255426
  24. Gao H. Comparison of the gut microbiota composition between the wild and captive tibetan wild ass (Equus kiang). J. Appl. Microbiol. 126, 1869–1878 (2019).
    pmc: PMC6849810pubmed: 30825354
  25. Moeller AH. Dispersal limitation promotes the diversification of the mammalian gut microbiota. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 13768–13773 (2017).
    pmc: PMC5748161pubmed: 29229828
  26. Zaura E, Keijser BJ, Huse SM, Crielaard W. Defining the healthy core microbiome of oral microbial communities. BMC Microbiol. 9, 259 (2009).
    pmc: PMC2805672pubmed: 20003481
  27. Gerritsmann H. Arterial pH and blood lactate levels of anesthetized Mongolian Khulan (Equus hemionus hemionus) in the Mongolian Gobi correlate with induction time. J. Wildl. Dis. 52, 642–646 (2016).
    pubmed: 27243152
  28. Wagner J. Evaluation of PacBio sequencing for full-length bacterial 16S rRNA gene classification. BMC Microbiol. 16, 274 (2016).
    pmc: PMC5109829pubmed: 27842515
  29. Bushnell B, Rood J, Singer E. BBMerge – accurate paired shotgun read merging via overlap. PLOS ONE 12, e0185056 (2017).
    pmc: PMC5657622pubmed: 29073143
  30. Özkurt E. LotuS2: an ultrafast and highly accurate tool for amplicon sequencing analysis. Microbiome 10, 176 (2022).
    pmc: PMC9580208pubmed: 36258257
  31. Quast C. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2013).
    pmc: PMC3531112pubmed: 23193283
  32. McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. Phyloseq: an R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data. PLOS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).
    pmc: PMC3632530pubmed: 23630581
  33. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria Methodology Reference (2022).
  34. Lahti L, Shetty S. Tools for microbiome analysis in R. (2017).
  35. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false Discovery rate: a practical and powerful Approach to multiple testing. J. Royal Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodological) 57, 289–300 (1995).
  36. Kassambara A. rstatix: Pipe-Friendly Framework for Basic Statistical Tests (0.7.2). (2023).
  37. Kassambara A. Ggpubr: ggplot2. Based Publication Ready Plots (2023). 0.6.0). .
  38. Oksanen J. vegan: Community Ecology Package (2.6-4). (2022).
  39. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting Linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
  40. Hothorn T, Zeileis A, Farebrother RW, Cummins C, Millo G, Mitchell D. lmtest: Testing Linear Regression Models (0.9–40). (2022).
  41. Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of Fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).
    pmc: PMC4302049pubmed: 25516281
  42. Hijmans RJ, Williams E, Vennes C, Karney C. Geosphere: Spherical Trigonometry1.5–18. (2022).
  43. Shen L. GeneOverlap: Test and visualize gene overlaps (1.36.0). Bioconductor version: Release (3.17). (2023).
  44. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer International Publishing (2016).
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,034 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.