Next Article in Journal
Modulation of Cystatin F in Human Macrophages Impacts Cathepsin-Driven Killing of Multidrug-Resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis
Next Article in Special Issue
Yeast Deletomics to Uncover Gadolinium Toxicity Targets and Resistance Mechanisms
Previous Article in Journal
Composite Interventions on Outcomes of Severely and Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 in Shanghai, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/microorganisms11071860
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Analysis of the Intestinal and Faecal Bacterial Microbiota of the Cervidae Family Using 16S Next-Generation Sequencing: A Review

by
Irene Pacheco-Torres
1,
David Hernández-Sánchez
1,*,
Cristina García-De la Peña
2,
Luis A. Tarango-Arámbula
3,
María M. Crosby-Galván
1 and
Paulino Sánchez-Santillán
4
1
Livestock Program, Postgraduate College, Texcoco 56230, Mexico
2
Faculty of Biological Sciences, Juarez University of the State of Durango, Gomez Palacio 35010, Mexico
3
San Luis Potosi Campus, Postgraduate College, Salinas de Hidalgo 78620, Mexico
4
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics No. 2, Autonomous University of Guerrero, Cuajinicuilapa 41940, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(7), 1860; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11071860
Submission received: 30 May 2023 / Revised: 1 July 2023 / Accepted: 15 July 2023 / Published: 24 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Microbial Genome Analysis and Interpretation Using Computational Approaches)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Cervidae family has a wide distribution due to its adaptation to numerous ecological environments, which allows it to develop a diverse microbial community in its digestive tract. Recently, research has focused on the taxonomic composition and functionality of the intestinal and faecal microbiota of different cervid species worldwide, as well as their microbial diversity and variation under different associated factors such as age, sex, diet, distribution, and seasonal variation. In addition, there is special interest in knowing how cervids act as reservoirs of zoonotic pathogenic microorganisms, which represent a threat to public health. This review provides a synthesis of the growing field of microbiota determination in cervids worldwide, focusing on intestinal and faecal samples using 16S next-generation sequencing. It also documents factors influencing microbial diversity and composition, the microorganisms reported as pathogenic/zoonotic, and the perspectives regarding the conservation of these species. Knowing the interactions between bacteria and cervid health can drive management and conservation strategies for these species and help develop an understanding of their evolutionary history and the interaction with emerging disease-causing microorganisms.

1. Introduction

The intestinal microbiome is important in host development and health due to its association with nutrient acquisition, immune response, physiological functions, and behaviour [1,2,3]. For this reason, studies are focused on understanding the composition and functionality of animal intestinal microbiomes [4,5], which evolve together with their host [6].
Cervidae is the second most numerous family of artiodactyls worldwide, with a total of 46 species [7]; they occur from the tropics to the arctic regions, adapting to diverse environments [8]. The first study of gut microbiota in cervids was published by Li et al. [9], where massive sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene was used to characterise the bacteria present in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of Chinese roe deer (Capreolus pygargus). In that study, variation in bacterial community composition was found across the GIT. Since then, several studies have used sequencing technologies to describe intestinal microbiota in cervids, generating knowledge on bacterial abundance and diversity [10,11,12,13]. However, several factors influence bacterial community composition, such as sex [14], diet [15], spatial distribution [16,17], and even seasonal variation [18,19]. Parallel to studies on GIT bacteria, various other studies have been conducted on the composition and function of ruminal microorganisms, especially bacteria, archaea, and protozoa [20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. The bacterial community composition in cervids is important in shaping the immune system and some chemical processes within the host; however, the community contains various pathogenic bacteria [15,27] considered of public health importance [28].
This review deals with (a) the current state of research on the faecal and intestinal bacterial microbiota of the Cervidae family worldwide, (b) factors influencing their composition, (c) bacteria involved in animal health with zoonotic incidence, and (d) future perspectives and implications for the conservation of these ruminant species.

2. Sources of Information

The articles referenced in this review were obtained from online scientific databases such as PubMed, Scopus, JStor, and ScienceDirect. Keywords such as “deer”, “Cervidae”, “microbiome”, “fecal and intestinal microbiota”, “zoonotic and pathogenic bacteria” and “16S rRNA gene” were used to search for articles related to this topic. The articles included in this review met the following inclusion criteria: (a) species of deer, (b) intestinal or faecal microbiota, (c) zoonotic and pathogenic bacteria in deer, and (d) use of sequencing techniques and the 16S gene. The publication year was not limiting. The information considered included the deer species studied, localisation, wild or captive status, type of sample used, techniques used, the zoonotic or pathogenic potential of the host, and factors associated with the obtained results.

3. Faecal and Intestinal Microbiota and Microbiome in Cervids

The application of recent technologies, such as 16S rRNA gene sequencing, allows us to study and obtain a better understanding of the diversity and composition of intestinal and faecal bacteria in the family Cervidae. These technologies have revealed a large number of unreported bacteria; however, current information is still limited as it is restricted to certain species in specific areas of the world like Asia, Europe, and North America. Therefore, there is still a wide field of ongoing research on the microorganisms associated with these deer species (Table 1, Figure 1).
The available information on intestinal and faecal microbiota shows that it is highly diverse. Li et al. [9] demonstrated the existence of a large number of bacteria associated with the GIT of Chinese roe deer (Capreolus pygargus). They reported 2223 OTUs (operational taxonomic units) assigned to 12 phyla and 87 genera and found that the bacterial diversity in the ileum, colon, and faeces was similar. In addition, the phyla Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes were reported to be the most abundant phyla in the GIT at 57% and 37%, respectively, coinciding with the findings for other species such as Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus) [10], Sika deer (Cervus nippon) [11], white-lipped deer (Cervus albirostris) [32], Pére David’s deer (Elaphurus davidianus) [12], red deer (Cervus elaphus) [34,36], fallow deer (Dama dama) [34], and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) [14,19]. The importance of these phyla lies in food fermentation [10,31], and they are associated with body size and fat reserves in individuals [43,44].
A phylosymbiotic evaluation of the faecal microbiota from seven species of captive-bred cervids (Axis porcinus, Cervus elaphus, C. nippon, Rusa unicolor, Dama dama, Elaphurus davinianus, and Elaphodus cephalophus) resulted in the identification of 8849 OTUs, where the phyla Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes and Spirochaetes and the family Ruminococcaceae predominated in most samples [30]. In Svalbard reindeer (Rafinger tarandus platyrhynchus), a dominance of the phyla Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, covering 95% of the identified bacterial sequences, was reported [10]. In white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Firmicutes were more abundant in winter than in summer. However, the abundance of the phylum Bacteroidetes did not vary between seasons [16]. In farmed Sika deer (Cervus nippon), Bacteroidetes were more abundant than Firmicutes [11]. For white-lipped deer (Cervus albirostris), the microbiota from free-living and captive populations was characterised, and 33 phyla, 67 classes, 172 orders, 305 families, and 637 genera were classified. Of this classification, 17 phyla, 27 classes, 77 orders, 133 families, 261 genera, and 309 species were shared between both groups. Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes were abundant (>84%) in the samples. In free-living populations, Firmicutes were considerably abundant (63% to 82%) [13]. In Père David’s deer or Milú, 12 phyla, 22 classes, 27 orders, 47 families, and 49 genera were classified, with the phyla Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes being the most abundant [12]. In captive red and fallow deer, 20 and 18 phyla were recorded, respectively, where Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes showed an abundance greater than 70% of the total sequences in the samples. In addition, 89 families and 193 genera were reported in red deer samples, whereas 102 families and 227 genera were reported in fallow deer; in both species, the 10 most abundant genera were similar [34].
Ishida-Kuroki et al. [39] reported the abundance of taxa from the family Ruminococcaceae in free-living Sika deer (C. nippon nippon and C. nippon aplodontus). In white-lipped deer, the families Clostridicaceae, Ruminococcoccaceae, Prevotellaceae, Bacteroidaceae, Lachnospiraceae, Rikenellaceae, and Christensenellaceae were the core taxa [13].
Delgado et al. [16], in a study on the family Ruminococcaceae, reported the presence of an unclassified genus as predominant in white-tailed deer samples, whereas species of the genus Ruminococcus were described as predominant in Svalbard reindeer [10]. The genus Monoglobus was reported in white-lipped deer [13]. Minich et al. [14] reported the association between Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes as providing a higher energy extraction and better efficiency in diet fermentation in addition to participating in fat accumulation for winter survival [19]. In free-living deer, the microbiota can maximise the energy gained with a fibrous diet from browsing, whereas grain-rich diets fed to captive deer reduce the need for fermentation efficiency and create a niche for microbial taxa capable of metabolising starches and soluble sugars [14]. The species Ruminococcus flavefaciens, R. albus, and Fibrobacter succinogenes contribute to fibre degradation [10,11,16] in herbivores and are therefore not exclusive to cervids [45].
Although the sequence classification techniques and databases used in various studies tend to vary due to the specific considerations of each author, there is consistency among the results on bacterial diversity obtained for different cervid species documented to date. These results are closely related to phyllosymbiosis, i.e., the association among faecal microbiota with respect to the host species; this allows for generating a guideline on the coevolution of cervid species and their microbiota [30,46,47].

4. Factors Influencing the Composition of Faecal and Intestinal Microbiota in Cervids

Advances in molecular biology, such as next-generation sequencing, make it possible to specifically address the association between a host and its microbiota. In animals, the microbiota can take various forms, from symbiotic associations to the presence of pathogenic microorganisms [48]. Diverse factors affect the microbiome composition of animals such as age, sex, feeding, distribution, seasonal variation, social behaviour, and captivity [13,39,49].
Several studies document the influence of captivity on the composition of the faecal microbiota in animals, resulting in reduced proportions of microbial diversity in relation to free-living populations. This is associated with extreme modifications, mainly due to changes in feeding, restricted habitats, reduced social interactions, and high exposure to antibiotics [50,51,52,53,54].
These alterations in the microbiota caused by captivity have a negative impact on the health and reproductive performance of cervid populations. They also affect the survival of individuals reintroduced into the wild if the microbiota compromises host digestive or immune functions in the environment [50,55,56]. Carthey et al. [57] indicated that these alterations are related to the loss of microbial communities associated with a species, which will have an impact on individuals born under these conditions, resulting in the gradual loss of diversity and reduced opportunities to acquire a diverse set of microbes.
However, captivity is often a necessary resource for the conservation of species at risk of extinction; therefore, further research is required regarding the composition of cervid microbiota associated with changes influenced by captive breeding and diet formulation, all of which can impact microbial diversity. Possibly, the role of captivity in conservation can be expanded and included in future management practices [56].
The association between captivity and gut microbiota in cervids was studied extensively, comparing captive and free-living populations. In some cases, the objective was to generate a baseline of knowledge for the conservation of wild populations [31].

4.1. Diet-Associated Deer Microbiota

Habitual diets provide a consistent source of dietary substrates to the microbiota, creating an environment that continuously keeps microbial ecology without influencing the healthy core microbiota [42,58]. However, the feeding type is a key factor in compositional changes in these communities [59,60,61].
Principal changes in a diet type are associated with the captivity of deer populations. This action modifies feeding behaviour, causing an unfavourable effect on cervid populations by exerting selective pressure on microorganisms and resulting in a higher probability of encountering opportunistic pathogens in these populations [13,18,39].
In Rocky Mountain elk Cervus canadensis nelsoni, feeding with supplementation using alfalfa pellets generated changes in the composition of the bacterial microbiota, in contrast to supplementation using hay [15]. In Pére David’s deer, Sun et al. [41] reported that differences in diets did not have an impact on the diversity and richness of the bacteria microbiome; however, the differences had an effect on the microbial community structure, principally causing changes at genera level [41]. Another study found that deer fed with a combination of silage and natural vegetation had a lower diversity in contrast to those fed a regular diet composed entirely of silage or natural vegetation, which favoured a greater diversity of intestinal microorganisms in the host [42].
In free-living and captive Siberian roe deer, the abundance of Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes is associated with diet type [31], while, in red deer in enclosures, the proportion of Firmicutes is related to silage consumption [18]. It was found that the most representative taxonomic group in captive populations of deer was the phylum Bacteroidetes, whereas Firmicutes played an important role in free-living populations [21,22]. In captivity, these phyla are associated with unhealthy diets [62]. The abundance of these phyla and differences in the composition and biological function of the gut microbiome associated with diet in free-living and captive populations were reported for white-lipped deer [13], white-tailed deer [14], red deer [35,36,37], and Sika deer Cervus nippon [11,63]. Free-living populations present a greater microbial diversity due to greater access to different types of food available [63]. The industrial food fed long-term to captive populations affects and shapes the gut microbes, alters functions of the gut microbiota, and generates unhealthy conditions in the host [13]. A higher portion of the genera Bacteroides and Prevotella was found in captive populations, which was related to the influence of the supplied diet and rearing conditions, propitiating a markedly different gut microbiota in white-tailed deer [14].

4.2. Deer Microbiota Associated with Distribution and Seasonal Variation

Intestinal microbial communities are complex, dynamic, spatial, and time-based. These communities present differences in their composition among individuals that inhabit different environments [16,64,65]. Seasonal changes and spatial locations influence variation in the vegetation available for feeding, and this influences the diversity and composition of the faecal microbiota [16,19]. Nutrient procurement is a fundamental challenge for wild animals as the availability and nutritional content of feed can vary temporally and spatially in response to changes in climate and geography. This variation leads to a change in the host gut microbiota [17,66,67,68]. However, there are core bacterial communities that coincide among individuals of the same species that have remained for a long time within a host and are identified at any season of the year [65].
The gut microbiota in cervids is associated with spatial location and seasonal changes [19]. Delgado et al. [16] found a correlation between spatial location and faecal microbiota composition in white-tailed deer. In addition, space, habitat used, and seasonal changes were also found to be correlated with the gut microbiome in this deer [19]. In North American elk (Alces alces), gut microbial communities associated with the co-occurrence of individuals and interspecific associations were reported [29]. Menke et al. [18] reported that the abundance of gut microbiota in red deer inhabiting enclosures was related to the distribution of the sampled hibernation sites. In Pére David’s deer, a difference of 88 bacterial taxa at the phylum and genus levels was shown, which was attributed to changes in the populations’ environment and feeding patterns [12]. In two mule deer (O. hemionus) populations from Cache County and Monroe Valley in Utah, USA, differences associated with microbial abundance, geography, and seasonal changes were reported. There was mainly an increase in the abundance of Coriobacteriales in the Cache population, which was related to the fat content in deer [17].
Studies on gut microbiota composition showed that the alpha diversity of bacterial communities was higher in the summer than in the winter, which was related to a decrease in the availability of feed for mule deer [17] and white-tailed deer [19]. In white-lipped deer (Cervus albirostris), the phyla Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and Patescibacteria were enriched during the herbaceous season, whereas the abundances of Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria were increased in the wilting season [33].

4.3. Age- and Sex-Associated Microbiota in Deer

Several studies point to the existence of a correlation between age, sex, and gut microbiota diversity [69,70,71,72]. In Sika deer, age is indicated as a key factor in microbial succession, resulting in increased richness and diversity of the microbiota [38]. In captive white-tailed deer, no difference was detected between males and females [14,16]; however, in free-living deer, differentially abundant taxa were found by sex. Oscillobacter and bacteria of the non-culturable genus GCA-900066575, belonging to the family Lachnospiraceae, were significantly increased in males [14]. A study on wild red deer showed that bacterial diversity was higher in females than in males, which was attributed to hormones [36]. Moreover, in a captive population, the diversity and composition of the gut microbiota were different at different growth stages [37].

4.4. Cervid Microbiota Associated with Antibiotics Treatments

Intestinal bacterial communities are related to host health [41,73,74,75,76]. According to Lange et al. [77], antibiotics modify the composition and function of the microbiota. The use of antibiotic treatments implies a decreased microbial diversity and increased colonisation by invading pathogens [78]. Hu et al. [79] pointed out that an anthelmintic treatment in Sika deer modified bacterial communities in terms of alpha diversity and caused a reduction in the genus Bacteroides because of side effects [79]. However, the effects of antibiotic treatments need to be studied further in cervids, principally in captive populations due to sanitary management.

4.5. Deer Microbiota Associated with Interspecies Variation

Another factor associated with a difference in microbiota composition is related to interspecies variation. In the literature, differences in the abundance of bacterial communities at the phylum level are reported among species because of a possible relationship with gut physiological characteristics [30,34,80]. This relationship was found in captive red and fallow deer, and differences in species richness and abundance were also found [34]. Indeed, these differences were also reported for other deer species of the Cervidae family [30]. However, this association is scarcely documented, so it is important and necessary to complete more investigations.

5. Pathogenic and Zoonotic Bacteria in Faecal and Intestinal Samples from Cervids

Most animals harbour a high portion of pathogens in their intestinal microbiota, making them important reservoirs of zoonotic pathogens and posing certain risks to public health [39]. A balanced bacterial microbiota is important for host health [81]; however, in a state of dysbiosis, it causes an increase in the abundance of potential pathogenic microorganisms, with negative effects on health [82,83,84].
Studies on deer provide information on emerging pathogens and the detection of zoonoses due to their distribution, abundance, and behaviour [28]. Deer can become infected with pathogenic microorganisms by eating or drinking contaminated material, thus becoming carriers of bacteria that spread in their environment, which makes them a link in the occurrence of zoonotic diseases [27,85,86].
In cervids, Escherichia coli, Yersinia enterolitica, Y. ruckerii, Aeromonas sobria, Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, and Lysteria monocytogenes are reported as potential health threats [18,28]. In one study, a high abundance of E. coli was detected in red deer in winter enclosures, indicating an animal–human relationship [18]. This bacterial species has also been reported in red deer [87,88,89], roe and fallow deer [88], and Sika deer (Cervus nippon) [39].
In New Zealand-farmed red deer, Campylobacter spp., E. coli, Enterococcus spp., and Yersinia spp. were also detected [90]. Mackintosh et al. [91] identified bacteria such as Bacillus anthracis, Brucella spp., Clostridium perfringens, Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis, Leptospira interrogans, Fusobacterium necrophorum, Pasteurella multocida, Salmonella spp., Mycobacterium bovis, and Yersinia pseudotuberculosis as causes of disease in populations of Cervus elaphus, Alces alces, Dama dama, Odocoileus virginianus, Ranfinger tarandus, Axis axis, and Cervus unicolor.
Ghielmetti et al. [27] described Mycobacterium microti in red deer individuals from Austria and Germany as a species of veterinary importance due to its pathogenicity in wildlife and its zoonotic potential. Direct transmission of this bacterium between individuals is usually unlikely, and transmission may therefore be related to the ingestion of food or water from contaminated sources. In Sika deer, 29 pathogens were identified with cumulative relative abundances ranging from 2.3% to 39.9%; most of them were E. coli-Shigella. These bacterial species were positively correlated with other species that have pathogenic potential, such as Salmonella enterica, Campylobacter jejuni, and Klebsiella pneumoniae [39].
Wildlife plays an important role in maintaining ecological balance and biodiversity. Animal health has a considerable influence on human safety, given the large number of unknown microorganisms that can be carried by wildlife [92].
In recent years, outbreaks of emerging diseases have occurred more frequently, affecting wildlife and generating zoonoses [93]. The emergence of these infectious pathogenic microorganisms is associated with multiple factors such as anthropogenic impact, climate change, biodiversity loss, habitat degradation, and the increasing rate of wildlife–human contact [92,93,94]. Wildlife is considered an important source of microorganisms that cause infectious diseases [95] and an important carrier of zoonotic pathogens [28], making it necessary to focus on the composition of the faecal and intestinal microbiota of cervids to establish a clearer picture of the presence of bacteria with possible pathogenic and/or zoonotic potential that can be found in different species throughout the world.

6. Perspectives on Microbiome and Microbiota Research in Cervids

Research on the characterisation of the intestinal and faecal bacterial microbiota associated with wild species has become important in the effort to understand the interaction between microorganisms and a host [96]. However, most research focuses on cataloguing the composition of bacterial communities, rarely considering the influence of these on the adaptive potential of wild species [97]. In cervids, information is scarce and limited to specific species (Figure 2); however, it allows a better understanding of the structure of the microbiota composition in these ruminants. Diet is one of the main factors that interfere with microbial community composition in both wild and captive animals [15]. Likewise, the phyla Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes predominate in bacterial communities [31].
The improvement in knowledge on the microbiota–host association paved the way for a new area of research focused on the conservation biology of endangered species and populations affected by anthropogenic disturbances [49,58,96,98].
From these studies, new questions arise, such as the importance of sequencing depth, bioinformatics analyses, and the quality of the databases used to identify bacterial community composition. The limitations of these considerations may have negative effects on the ability to identify and predict the functional role of bacteria and their interaction with their host, which plays a crucial role in shaping the metabolic and regulatory networks that define health and disease states in animals [1,96].
Microbiota research can be beneficial to conservation management programmes for cervid populations worldwide. There is a need to broaden the strategy by involving all factors that might be associated with bacterial community composition, given the poor understanding of animal microbial diversity and function [99].

7. Conclusions

The intestinal microbiota in cervids influences the metabolism, physiology, and development of the host immune system. Diet, age, distribution, seasonal changes, and captivity influence variation in the microbiota. It is necessary to deepen knowledge regarding the alteration caused by these factors, considering that cervid species as reservoirs for microorganisms with pathogenic and zoonotic potential that play an important role in the development of various diseases. Such information could be a milestone for a better understanding of the structural dynamics of bacterial communities in cervids, the evolutionary history, and the interaction between the host and microorganisms causing emerging diseases of veterinary and public health importance.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, I.P.-T. and D.H.-S.; writing—review and editing, I.P.-T., C.G.-D.l.P. and P.S.-S.; supervision, D.H.-S., L.A.T.-A. and M.M.C.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analysed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. McFall-Ngai, M.; Hadfield, M.G.; Bosch, T.C.; Carey, H.V.; Domazet-Lošo, T.; Douglas, A.E.; Dubilier, N.; Eberl, G.; Fukami, T.; Gilbert, S.F.; et al. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 3229–3236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Colston, T.J.; Jackson, C.R. Microbiome evolution along divergent branches of the vertebrate tree of life: What is known and unknown. Mol. Ecol. 2016, 25, 3776–3800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Kohl, K.D.; Carey, H.V. A place for host-microbe symbiosis in the comparative physiologist’s toolbox. J. Exp. Biol. 2016, 219, 3496–3504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Ley, R.E.; Hamady, M.; Lozupone, C.; Turnbaugh, P.J.; Ramey, R.R.; Bircher, J.S.; Schlegel, M.L.; Tucker, T.A.; Scherenzel, M.D.; Knight, R.; et al. Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. Science 2008, 320, 1647–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Ley, R.E.; Lozupone, C.A.; Hamady, M.; Knight, R.; Gordon, J.I. Worlds within worlds: Evolution of the vertebrate gut microbiota. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2008, 6, 776–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Morales, P.; Brignardello, J.; Gotteland, M. La microbiota intestinal: Un nuevo actor en el desarrollo de la obesidad. Rev. Med. Chile 2010, 138, 1020–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Rumiz, D.I.; Rivero, K.; Gómez, H.; Sainz, L.; Nuñez, A.; Wallace, R.B. Capítulo 24: Cervidae. In Distribución, Ecología y Conservación de los Mamíferos Medianos y Grandes de Bolivia; Wallace, R.B., Gómez, H., Porcel, Z.R., Rumiz, D.I., Eds.; Centro de Ecología Difusión, Fundación Simón I. Patiño: Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, 2010; pp. 631–658. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mattioli, S. Family Cervidae (Deer). In Handbook of the Mammals of the World; Willson, D.E., Mittermeier, R.A., Eds.; Hoofed Mammals; Lynx Edicions: Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain, 2011; Volume 2, pp. 350–443. [Google Scholar]
  9. Li, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, C.; Zhao, J.; Liu, H.; Fan, Z.; Yang, F.; Wright, A.D.G.; Li, G. Bacteria and methanogens differ along the gastrointestinal tract of Chinese roe deer (Capreolus pygargus). PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e114513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zielińska, S.; Kidawa, D.; Stempniewicz, L.; Łoś, M.; Łoś, J.M. New insights into the microbiota of the Svalbard reindeer Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Guan, Y.; Yang, H.; Han, S.; Feng, L.; Wang, T.; Ge, J. Comparison of the gut microbiota composition between wild and captive sika deer (Cervus nippon hortulorum) from feces by high-throughput sequencing. AMB Express 2017, 7, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Zhang, M.; Shi, M.; Fan, M.; Xu, S.; Li, Y.; Zhang, T.; Cha, M.; Liu, Y.; Guo, X.; Chen, Q.; et al. Comparative analysis of gut microbiota changes in Père David’s deer populations in Beijing Milu Park and Shishou, Hubei Province in China. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, B.; Gao, H.; Song, P.; Liang, C.; Jiang, F.; Xu, B.; Liu, D.; Zhang, T. Captivity shifts gut microbiota communities in white-lipped deer (Cervus albirostris). Animals 2022, 12, 431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Minich, D.; Madden, C.; Evans, M.V.; Ballash, G.A.; Barr, D.J.; Poulsen, K.P.; Dennis, P.M.; Hale, V.L. Alterations in gut microbiota linked to provenance, sex, and chronic wasting disease in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Couch, C.E.; Wise, B.L.; Scurlock, B.M.; Rogerson, J.D.; Fuda, R.K.; Cole, E.K.; Szcodronski, K.E.; Sepulveda, A.J.; Hutchins, P.R.; Cross, P.C. Effects of supplemental feeding on the fecal bacterial communities of Rocky Mountain elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0249521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Delgado, M.L.; Singh, P.; Funk, J.A.; Moore, J.A.; Cannell, E.M.; Kanesfsky, J.; Manning, S.D.; Scribner, K.T. Intestinal microbial community dynamics of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in an agroecosystem. Microb. Ecol. 2017, 74, 496–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Eddington, H.S.; Carroll, C.; Larsen, R.T.; McMillan, B.R.; Chaston, J.M. Spatiotemporal variation in the fecal microbiota of mule deer is associated with proximate and future measures of host health. BMC Vet. Res. 2021, 17, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Menke, S.; Heurich, M.; Henrich, M.; Wilhelm, K.; Sommer, S. Impact of winter enclosures on the gut bacterial microbiota of red deer in the Bavarian Forest National Park. Wildlife Biol. 2019, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Wolf, J.F.; Kriss, K.D.; MacAulay, K.M.; Munro, K.; Patterson, B.R.; Shafer, A.B. Gut microbiome composition predicts summer core range size in two divergent ungulates. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2021, 97, fiab048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pope, P.B.; Mackenzie, A.K.; Gregor, I.; Smith, W.; Sundset, M.A.; McHardy, A.C.; Morrison, M.; Eijsink, V.G.H. Metagenomics of the Svalbard reindeer rumen microbiome reveals abundance of polysaccharide utilization loci. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Gruninger, R.J.; Sensen, C.W.; McAllister, T.A.; Forster, R.J. Diversity of rumen bacteria in Canadian cervids. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e89682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ishaq, S.L.; Sundset, M.A.; Crouse, J.; Wright, A.D.G. High-throughput DNA sequencing of the moose rumen from different geographical locations reveals a core ruminal methanogenic archaeal diversity and a differential ciliate protozoal diversity. Microb. Genom. 2015, 1, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Qian, W.; Ao, W.; Hui, X.; Wu, J. Lower dietary concentrate level increases bacterial diversity in the rumen of Cervus elaphus yarkandensis. Can. J. Microbiol. 2018, 64, 501–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ilina, L.; Filippova, V.; Yildirim, E.; Layshev, K. Archaea in the microbial community of the reindeer rumen in the Russian Arctic. BIO Web Conf. 2020, 27, 00066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Laishev, K.A.; Ilina, L.A.; Filippova, V.A.; Dunyashev, T.P.; Laptev, G.Y.; Abakumov, E.V. Rumen bacterial community of young and adult of reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) from Yamalo-Nenets autonomous district of Russia. Open Agric. 2020, 5, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Ilina, L.A.; Filippova, V.A.; Brazhnik, E.A.; Dubrovin, A.V.; Yildirim, E.A.; Dunyashev, T.P.; Laptev, G.Y.; Novikova, N.I.; Sobolev, D.V.; Yuzhakov, A.A. The comparative analysis of the ruminal bacterial population in reindeer (Rangifer tarandus L.) from the Russian arctic zone: Regional and seasonal effects. Animals 2021, 11, 911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ghielmetti, G.; Kupca, A.M.; Hanczaruk, M.; Friedel, U.; Weinberger, H.; Revilla-Fernández, S.; Hofer, E.; Riehm, J.M.; Stephan, R.; Glawischnig, W. Mycobacterium microti Infections in free-ranging red deer (Cervus elaphus). Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2021, 27, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gnat, S.; Trościańczyk, A.; Nowakiewicz, A.; Majer-Dziedzic, B.; Ziółkowska, G.; Dziedzic, R.; Zięba, P.; Teodorowski, O. Experimental studies of microbial populations and incidence of zoonotic pathogens in the faeces of red deer (Cervus elaphus). Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 61, 446–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Fountain-Jones, N.M.; Clark, N.J.; Kinsley, A.C.; Carstensen, M.; Forester, J.; Johnson, T.J.; Miller, E.A.; Moore, S.; Wolf, T.M.; Craft, M.E. Microbial associations and spatial proximity predict North American moose (Alces alces) gastrointestinal community composition. J. Anim. Ecol. 2020, 89, 817–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Li, J.; Zhan, S.; Liu, X.; Lin, Q.; Jiang, J.; Li, X. Divergence of fecal microbiota and their associations with host phylogeny in Cervidae. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, J.; Liang, X.; Liu, Y. Comparison of the gut microbiota composition between captive and wild roe deer. bioRxiv. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, J.G.; Wang, C.D.; Tang, Z.H.; Guo, Y.Q.; Zheng, T.C.; Li, Y.Z.; You, Z.Q. The gut bacterial community composition of wild Cervus albirostris (white-lipped deer) detected by the 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing. Curr. Microbiol. 2017, 74, 1100–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. You, Z.; Deng, J.; Liu, J.; Fu, J.; Xiong, H.; Luo, W.; Xiong, J. Seasonal variations in the composition and diversity of gut microbiota in white-lipped deer (Cervus albirostris). PeerJ 2022, 10, e13753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Wang, X.; Chen, Y.; Shang, Y.; Wu, X.; Wei, Q.; Chen, J.; Yan, J.; Zhang, H. Comparison of the gut microbiome in red deer (Cervus elaphus) and fallow deer (Dama dama) by high-throughput sequencing of the V3–V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene. Sci. Asia 2019, 45, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sun, Y.; Yu, Y.; Guo, J.; Zhong, L.; Zhang, M. Comparative analysis of gut microbiome between captive and wild red deer 1 (Cervus elaphus) in Inner Mongolia. Res. Sq. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sun, Y.; Yu, Y.; Guo, J.; Zhong, L.; Zhang, M. Alterations in fecal microbiota linked to environment and sex in red deer (Cervus elaphus). Animals 2023, 13, 929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Zhao, Y.; Sun, J.; Ding, M.; Hayat Khattak, R.; Teng, L.; Liu, Z. Growth Stages and Inter-Species Gut Microbiota Composition and Function in Captive Red Deer (Cervus elaphus alxaicus) and Blue Sheep (Pseudois nayaur). Animals 2023, 13, 553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Li, Z.; Wang, X.; Zhang, T.; Si, H.; Nan, W.; Xu, C.; Guan, L.; Wright, A.D.G.; Li, G. The development of microbiota and metabolome in small intestine of sika deer (Cervus nippon) from birth to weaning. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Wang, Y.; Xu, J.; Chen, H.; Yu, J.; Xu, X.; Sun, L.; Xu, X.; Yu, C.; Xu, F.; Huang, J.; et al. A balanced gut microbiota is essential to maintain health in captive sika deer. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022, 106, 5659–5674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ishida-Kuroki, K.; Takeshita, N.; Nitta, Y.; Chuma, T.; Maeda, K.; Shimoda, H.; Takano, A.; Sekizaki, T. 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequence data from feces of wild deer (Cervus nippon) in Japan. Microbiol. Resour. Announc. 2020, 9, e00346-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sun, C.H.; Liu, H.Y.; Liu, B.; Yuan, B.D.; Lu, C.H. Analysis of the gut microbiome of wild and captive Père David’s deer. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhen, J.; Ren, Y.; Zhang, H.; Yuan, X.; Wang, L.; Shen, H.; Liu, P.; Chen, Y. Effect of different dietary regimes on the gut microbiota and fecal metabolites of Père David’s Deer. Animals 2022, 12, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ley, R.E. Obesity and the human microbiome. Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol. 2010, 26, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Koliada, A.; Syzenko, G.; Moseiko, V.; Budovska, L.; Puchkov, K.; Perederiy, V.; Gavalko, Y.; Dorofeyev, A.; Romanenko, M.; Tkach, S.; et al. Association between body mass index and Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio in an adult Ukrainian population. BMC Microbiol. 2017, 17, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Wang, J.; Fan, H.; Han, Y.; Zhao, J.; Zhou, Z. Characterization of the microbial communities along the gastrointestinal tract of sheep by 454 pyrosequencing analysis. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 30, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Delsuc, F.; Metcalf, J.L.; Parfrey, L.W.; Song, S.J.; González, A.; Knight, R. Convergence of gut microbiomes in myrmecophagous mammals. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23, 1301–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lim, S.J.; Bordenstein, S.R. An introduction to phylosymbiosis. Proc. R. Soc. B 2020, 287, 20192900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Weiss, B.; Aksoy, S. Microbiome influences on insect host vector competence. Trends Parasitol. 2011, 27, 514–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Bahrndorff, S.; Alemu, T.; Alemneh, T.; Lund Nielsen, J. The microbiome of animals: Implications for conservation biology. Int. J. Genom. 2016, 2016, 5304028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Xie, Y.; Xia, P.; Wang, H.; Yu, H.; Giesy, J.P.; Zhang, Y.; Mora, A.M.; Zhang, X. Effects of captivity and artificial breeding on microbiota in feces of the red-crowned crane (Grus japonensis). Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 33350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Metcalf, J.L.; Song, S.J.; Morton, J.T.; Weiss, S.; Seguin-Orlando, A.; Joly, F.; Feh, C.; Taberlet, P.; Coissac, E.; Amir, A.; et al. Evaluating the impact of domestication and captivity on the horse gut microbiome. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 15497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. García-De la Peña, C.; Garduño-Niño, E.; Vaca-Paniagua, F.; Díaz-Velásquez, C.; Barrow, C.W.; Gómez-Gil, B.; Valenzuela-Núñez, L.M. Comparison of the fecal bacterial microbiota composition between wild and captive Bolson Tortoises (Gopherus flavomarginatus). Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 14, 587–600. [Google Scholar]
  53. Trevelline, B.K.; Fontaine, S.S.; Hartup, B.K.; Kohl, K.D. Conservation biology needs a microbial renaissance: A call for the consideration of host-associated microbiota in wildlife management practices. Proc. R. Soc. B 2019, 286, 20182448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Eisenhofer, R.; Helgen, K.M.; Taggart, D. Signatures of landscape and captivity in the gut microbiota of Southern Hairy-nosed Wombats (Lasiorhinus latifrons). Anim. Microbiome 2021, 3, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. McKenzie, V.J.; Song, S.J.; Delsuc, F.; Prest, T.L.; Oliverio, A.M.; Korpita, T.M.; Alexiev, A.; Amato, K.R.; Metcalf, J.L.; Kowalewski, M.; et al. The effects of captivity on the mammalian gut microbiome. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2017, 57, 690–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Dallas, J.W.; Warne, R.W. Captivity and animal microbiomes: Potential roles of microbiota for influencing animal conservation. Microb. Ecol. 2022, 85, 820–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Carthey, A.J.; Blumstein, D.T.; Gallagher, R.V.; Tetu, S.G.; Gillings, M.R. Conserving the holobiont. Funct. Ecol. 2020, 34, 764–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Xu, Z.; Knight, R. Dietary effects on human gut microbiome diversity. Br. J. Nutr. 2015, 113, S1–S5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Power, S.E.; O’Toole, P.W.; Stanton, C.; Ross, R.P.; Fitzgerald, G.F. Intestinal microbiota, diet and health. Br. J. Nutr. 2014, 111, 387–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Bibbò, S.; Ianiro, G.; Giorgio, V.; Scaldaferri, F.; Masucci, L.; Gasbarrini, A.; Cammarota, G. The role of diet on gut microbiota composition. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2016, 20, 4742–4749. [Google Scholar]
  61. Leeming, E.R.; Johnson, A.J.; Spector, T.D.; Le Roy, C.I. Effect of Diet on the Gut Microbiota: Rethinking Intervention Duration. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Turnbaugh, P.J.; Ley, R.E.; Mahowald, M.A.; Magrini, V.; Mardis, E.R.; Gordon, J.I. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature 2006, 444, 1027–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wu, K.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, W.; Mao, H.; Chen, B.; Zheng, Y.; Hu, X. Differences in fecal microbiome and antimicrobial resistance between captive and free-range sika deer under the same exposure of antibiotic anthelmintics. Microbiol. Spectr. 2021, 9, e01918-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Shafquat, A.; Joice, R.; Simmons, S.L.; Huttenhower, C. Functional and phylogenetic assembly of microbial communities in the human microbiome. Trends Microbiol. 2014, 22, 261–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Risely, A. Applying the core microbiome to understand host-microbe systems. J. Animal Ecol. 2020, 89, 1549–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Bergmann, G.T.; Craine, J.M.; Robeson, M.S.; Fierer, N. Seasonal shifts in diet and gut microbiota of the American bison (Bison bison). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0142409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Maurice, C.F.; Knowles, C.L.S.; Ladau, J.; Pollard, K.S.; Fenton, A.; Pedersen, A.B.; Turnbaugh, P.J. Marked seasonal variation in the wild mouse gut microbiota. ISME J. 2015, 9, 2423–2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Baniel, A.; Amato, K.R.; Beehner, J.C.; Bergman, T.J.; Mercer, A.; Perlman, R.F.; Petrullo, L.; Reitsema, L.; Sams, S.; Lu, A.; et al. Seasonal shifts in the gut microbiome indicate plastic responses to diet in wild geladas. Microbiome 2021, 9, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Hopkins, M.J.; Sharp, R.; Macfarlane, G.T. Variation in human intestinal microbiota with age. Dig. Liver Dis. 2002, 34, S12–S18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Masuoka, H.; Shimada, K.; Kiyosue-Yasuda, T.; Kiyosue, M.; Oishi, Y.; Kimura, S.; Yamada, A.; Hirayama, K. Transition of the intestinal microbiota of dogs with age. Biosci. Microbiota Food Health 2017, 36, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Kim, Y.S.; Unno, T.; Kim, B.Y.; Park, M.S. Sex differences in gut microbiota. World J. Mens. Health 2020, 38, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Xu, X.; Zhang, Z. Sex-and age-specific variation of gut microbiota in Brandt’s voles. PeerJ 2021, 9, e11434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Costa, M.C.; Weese, J.S. Understanding the intestinal microbiome in health and disease. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2018, 34, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Jovel, J.; Dieleman, L.A.; Kao, D.; Mason, A.L.; Wine, E. The human gut microbiome in health and disease. In Metagenomics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 197–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gomaa, E.Z. Human gut microbiota/microbiome in health and diseases: A review. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2020, 113, 2019–2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. El-Sayed, A.; Aleya, L.; Kamel, M. Microbiota’s role in health and diseases. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 36967–36983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Lange, K.; Buerger, M.; Stallmach, A.; Bruns, T. Effects of antibiotics on gut microbiota. Dig. Dis. 2016, 34, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Schubert, A.M.; Sinani, H.; Schloss, P.D. Antibiotic-induced alterations of the murine gut microbiota and subsequent effects on colonization resistance against Clostridium difficile. mBio 2015, 6, e00974-15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Hu, X.; Xu, Y.; Liu, G.; Hu, D.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zheng, Y. The impact of anthelmintic treatment on gut bacterial and fungal communities in diagnosed parasite-free sika deer Cervus nippon. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 9239–9250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Su, R.; Erdenedalai, M.; Dalai, M.; Batkhuu, L.; Chi, C.; Hasi, S. Seasonal variation in gut microbiota composition: Comparative analysis of Siberian musk deer (Moschus moschiferus) and forest musk deer (Moschus berezovskii). Res. Sq. 2020, 8, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Peixoto, R.S.; Harkins, D.M.; Nelson, K.E. Advances in microbiome research for animal health. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2021, 9, 289–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Amato, K.R.; Yeoman, C.J.; Kent, A.; Righini, N.; Carbonero, F.; Estrada, A.; Gaskins, H.R.; Stumpf, R.M.; Yildirim, S.; Torralba, M.; et al. Habitat degradation impacts black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra) gastrointestinal microbiomes. ISME J. 2013, 7, 1344–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rosenfeld, C.S. Gut dysbiosis in animals due to environmental chemical exposures. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. West, A.G.; Waite, D.W.; Deines, P.; Bourne, D.G.; Digby, A.; McKenzie, V.J.; Taylor, M.W. The microbiome in threatened species conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 229, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Daszak, P.; Cunningham, A.A.; Hyatt, A.D. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife—Threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 2000, 287, 443–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zhang, S.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, S.; Bingham, W.; Wilson, F. Fatal yersiniosis in farmed deer caused by Yersinia pseudotuberculosis serotype O: 3 encoding a mannosyltransferase-like protein WbyK. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 2008, 20, 356–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Carrillo-Del Valle, M.D.; De la Garza-García, J.A.; Díaz-Aparicio, E.; Valdivia-Flores, A.G.; Cisneros-Guzmán, L.F.; Rosario, C.; Manjarrez-Hernández, A.H.; Navarro, A.; Xicohtencatl-Cortes, J.; Maravilla, P.; et al. Characterization of Escherichia coli strains from red deer (Cervus elaphus) faeces in a Mexican protected natural area. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2016, 62, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Szczerba-Turek, A.; Siemionek, J.; Socha, P.; Bancerz-Kisiel, A.; Platt-Samoraj, A.; Lipczynska-Ilczuk, K.; Szweda, W. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolates from red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and fallow deer (Dama dama) in Poland. Food Microbiol. 2020, 86, 103352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lauzi, S.; Luzzago, C.; Chiani, P.; Michelacci, V.; Knijn, A.; Pedrotti, L.; Corlatti, L.; Pederzoli, C.B.; Scabia, G.; Morabito, S.; et al. Free-ranging red deer (Cervus elaphus) as carriers of potentially zoonotic Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli. Transbound. Emer. Dis. 2021, 69, 1902–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pattis, I.; Moriarty, E.; Billington, C.; Gilpin, B.; Hodson, R.; Ward, N. Concentrations of Campylobacter spp., Escherichia coli, Enterococci, and Yersinia spp. in the feces of farmed red deer in New Zealand. J. Environ. Qual. 2017, 46, 819–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mackintosh, C.; Haigh, J.C.; Griffin, F. Bacterial diseases of farmed deer and bison. Rev. Sci. Tech.—Off. Int. Epizoot. 2002, 21, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Qin, T.; Ruan, X.; Duan, Z.; Cao, J.; Liang, J.; Yang, J.; Jiang, Y.; Shi, M.; Xu, J. Wildlife-borne microorganisms and strategies to prevent and control emerging infectious diseases. J. Biosaf. Biosecu. 2021, 3, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Schmeller, D.S.; Courchamp, F.; Killeen, G. Biodiversity loss, emerging pathogens and human health risks. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 3095–3102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Destoumieux-Garzón, D.; Mavingui, P.; Boetsch, G.; Boissier, J.; Darriet, F.; Duboz, P.; Fritsch, C.; Giraudoux, P.; Le Roux, F.; Morand, S.; et al. The one health concept: 10 years old and a long road ahead. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. González-Barrio, D. Zoonoses and wildlife: One health approach. Animals 2022, 12, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Zhu, L.; Wang, J.; Bahrndorff, S. The wildlife gut microbiome and its implication for conservation biology. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 697499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hauffe, H.C.; Barelli, C. Conserve the germs: The gut microbiota and adaptive potential. Conserv. Genet. 2019, 20, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Leigh, S.R. Microbiomes, metagenomics, and primate conservation: New strategies, tools, and applications. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 199, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Levin, D.; Raab, N.; Pinto, Y.; Rothschild, D.; Zanir, G.; Godneva, A.; Mellul, N.; Futorian, D.; Gal, D.; Leviatan, S.; et al. Diversity and functional landscapes in the microbiota of animals in the wild. Science 2021, 372, eabb5352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Microorganisms 11 01860 g001 550
Figure 1. Heatmap representing the number of publications on the intestinal and faecal microbiota of cervids throughout the world based on the information and references in Table 1.
Figure 1. Heatmap representing the number of publications on the intestinal and faecal microbiota of cervids throughout the world based on the information and references in Table 1.
Microorganisms 11 01860 g001
Microorganisms 11 01860 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of publications on microbiota by species of cervids throughout the world. The numbers inside the graph are related to the amount of publications available for each deer species (elaboration based on the information and references in Table 1).
Figure 2. Number of publications on microbiota by species of cervids throughout the world. The numbers inside the graph are related to the amount of publications available for each deer species (elaboration based on the information and references in Table 1).
Microorganisms 11 01860 g002
Table
Table 1. Studies on the intestinal and faecal microbiota of different deer species.
Table 1. Studies on the intestinal and faecal microbiota of different deer species.
SpeciesOrigen Captive/WildSamplesCountry LocationTarget GeneApproachReference
Alces alcesWildFaecesUSAV4 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[29]
Axis porcinusCaptiveFaecesChinaV4-V5 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[30]
Capreolus pygargusWildIleum, colon, and faecesChinaV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[9]
C. pygargusCaptive and wildFaecesChinaV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[31]
Cervus albirostrisWildFaecesChinaV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[32]
C. albirostrisCaptive and wildFaecesChinaV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina NovaSeq[13]
C. albirostrisWildFaecesChinaV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq 2500[33]
C. canadensis nelsoniWildFaecesUSAV4 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[15]
C. elaphusCaptiveFaecesChinaV4-V5 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[30]
C. elaphusWildFaecesGermany16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[18]
C. elaphusCaptiveFaecesChinaV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[34]
C. elaphusCaptive and wildFaecesMongoliaV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina HiSeq 2500[35]
C. elaphusCaptive and wildFaecesMongoliaV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina NovaSeq 6000[36]
C. elaphus alxaicusCaptiveFaecesChinaV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina PE
MiSeq		[37]
C. nipponCaptiveFaecesChinaV4-V5 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[30]
C. nipponCaptiveJejunum and ileumChinaV3-V5 16S rRNAIllumina PE
MiSeq 250		[38]
C. nipponCaptiveFaecesChina16S rDNAOxfor Nanopore MinION Mk1C[39]
C. nippon aploduntusWildRectal faecesJapanV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[40]
C. nippon hortulorumCaptive and wildFaecesChinaV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina HiSeq 2500[11]
C. nippon nipponWildRectal faecesJapanV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[40]
Dama damaCaptiveFaecesChinaV4-V5 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[30]
D. damaCaptiveFaecesChinaV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[34]
Elaphodus cephalophusCaptiveFaecesChinaV4-V5 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[30]
E. davidianusWildFaecesChinaV3-V4 16S rDNAIllumina MiSeq[12]
E. davidianusCaptiveFaecesChinaV4-V5 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[30]
E. davidianusCaptive and wildFaecesChinaV4-V5 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[41]
E. davidianusWildFaecesChinaV3-V4 16S rRNANovaSeq6000[42]
Odocoileus hemionusWildFaecesUSAV4 16S rRNAIllumina HiSeq 2500[17]
O. virginianusWildFaecesUSAV5-V3 16S rRNARoche 454 GS Junior[16]
O. virginianusCaptive and wildFaecesUSAV4 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[14]
O. virginianusWildFaecesCanadaV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[19]
Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchusWildFaecesNorwayV3-V4 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[10]
Rusa unicolorCaptiveFaecesChinaV4-V5 16S rRNAIllumina MiSeq[30]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pacheco-Torres, I.; Hernández-Sánchez, D.; García-De la Peña, C.; Tarango-Arámbula, L.A.; Crosby-Galván, M.M.; Sánchez-Santillán, P. Analysis of the Intestinal and Faecal Bacterial Microbiota of the Cervidae Family Using 16S Next-Generation Sequencing: A Review. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1860. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11071860

AMA Style

Pacheco-Torres I, Hernández-Sánchez D, García-De la Peña C, Tarango-Arámbula LA, Crosby-Galván MM, Sánchez-Santillán P. Analysis of the Intestinal and Faecal Bacterial Microbiota of the Cervidae Family Using 16S Next-Generation Sequencing: A Review. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(7):1860. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11071860

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pacheco-Torres, Irene, David Hernández-Sánchez, Cristina García-De la Peña, Luis A. Tarango-Arámbula, María M. Crosby-Galván, and Paulino Sánchez-Santillán. 2023. "Analysis of the Intestinal and Faecal Bacterial Microbiota of the Cervidae Family Using 16S Next-Generation Sequencing: A Review" Microorganisms 11, no. 7: 1860. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11071860

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop