Next Article in Journal
Abattoir-Based Measures to Assess Swine Welfare: Analysis of the Methods Adopted in European Slaughterhouses
Next Article in Special Issue
A Survey among Dog and Cat Owners on Pet Food Storage and Preservation in the Households
Previous Article in Journal
Machine Learning-Based Microclimate Model for Indoor Air Temperature and Relative Humidity Prediction in a Swine Building
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Two Commercial Diets on Several Reproductive Parameters in Bitches: Note Two—Lactation and Puppies’ Performance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/ani11010225
animals-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:
Article

On the Variability of Microbial Populations and Bacterial Metabolites within the Canine Stool. An in-Depth Analysis

by
Carlo Pinna
*,
Carla Giuditta Vecchiato
,
Costanza Delsante
,
Monica Grandi
and
Giacomo Biagi
Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, via Tolara di Sopra 50, 40064 Ozzano Emilia (BO), Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2021, 11(1), 225; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010225
Submission received: 1 December 2020 / Revised: 12 January 2021 / Accepted: 14 January 2021 / Published: 18 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection The Role of Nutrition in Maintaining Well-Being and Health of Dogs and Cats)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The present study investigated for the first time the impact that different sampling points have on the abundance of microbial populations and metabolites within the canine stool. We found that inner stool subsamples resulted in higher concentrations of bacterial metabolites but not of microbial populations. These findings suggest that stool subsampling is unlikely to represent the canine microbiota and metabolome uniformly. We believe that complete homogenisation of the whole stool prior to analysis may improve the final outcome when investigating the canine gut microbiome.

Abstract

Canine faecal microbial populations and metabolome are being increasingly studied to understand the interplay between host and gut microbiome. However, the distribution of bacterial taxa and microbial metabolites throughout the canine stool is understudied and currently no guidelines for the collection, storage and preparation of canine faecal samples have been proposed. Here, we assessed the effects that different sampling points have on the abundance of selected microbial populations and bacterial metabolites within the canine stool. Whole fresh faecal samples were obtained from five healthy adult dogs. Stool subsamples were collected from the surface to the inner part and from three equally sized areas (cranial, central, caudal) along the length axis of the stool log. All samples were finally homogenised and compared before and after homogenisation. Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Clostridium cluster I, Lactobacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp. and Enterococcus spp. populations were analysed, as well as pH, ammonia and short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) concentrations. Compared to the surface of the stool, inner subsamples resulted in greater concentrations of SCFA and ammonia, and lower pH values. qPCR assay of microbial taxa did not show any differences between subsamples. Homogenisation of faeces does not affect the variability of microbial and metabolome data. Although the distribution patterns of bacterial populations and metabolites are still unclear, we found that stool subsampling yielded contradictory result and biases that can affect the final outcome when investigating the canine microbiome. Complete homogenisation of the whole stool is therefore recommended.

1. Introduction

The pet gut microbiota and the bacterial metabolome are gaining broad attention for their fundamental role in maintaining and promoting host health [1,2]. The alteration in the composition and richness of the intestinal microbiota is defined “dysbiosis” [3] and has been associated with several gastrointestinal disorders [4,5,6,7]. Due to ethical reasons and the feasibility of collection of the samples, characterization of the intestinal microbial community is most often conducted on faecal specimens by molecular tools, which requires the bacterial DNA extraction from the faecal matrix. Several authors reported discrepancies in the abundances of bacterial taxa between studies, attributed mainly to inter-individual differences [8,9], different DNA extraction protocols and sample storage conditions [10,11,12], and the application of different Next Generation Sequencing protocols [13,14]. Few papers focused the attention on the impact that different sampling methods have on the variability of the human [15,16,17,18,19] and canine [20] stool microbial community, while only Gratton et al. highlighted that spot sampling of faecal specimens resulted in a high degree of metabolic variation within human stool [21]. In veterinary medicine, most of the studies that are available perform DNA extraction using small aliquots of faeces with no homogenisation procedure of the sample. Since most of the commercial kits available are optimized to work with a limited amount of sample (usually up to 200 mg), stool subsampling without homogenisation appears may not be representative of the stool as a whole. To date, there is a lack of knowledge with regards to the distribution of bacterial populations and microbial metabolites throughout the same faecal specimen in the canine species. Here, we tested the impact that different sampling points have on the abundance of selected bacterial taxa and bacterial metabolites within the canine stool. We compared the amount of microbial populations, ammonia, short-chain fatty acids and pH values among subsamples collected along the stool log (longitudinal subsamples), from the surface and the inner part of the stool (depth subsamples) and compared homogenised and non-homogenised subsamples.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Samples Collection

Whole stool samples were collected from five healthy client-owned adult dogs (Table S1) with no medical history of antibiotic usage six months prior. For the purpose of this study, only faecal samples with a normal consistency score (2.0–3.0) were used. Dogs with diarrhoea were excluded from the study. Since no dog’s diets or habits had been modified, an ethics statement was not required for this study. All samples were provided by private dog owners who consented to our use for research purposes. The owners of each dog enrolled in the study signed an informed owner consent form. Animals defecated close to the laboratory on a sterile aluminium tray; a researcher observed each evacuation in order to identified the caudal part of the stool log (defined as the part of the stool that had left the bowel first, while the latter was named as the cranial part). Stools were put on ice after collection and transferred to the laboratory to be weighed and immediately processed for chemical analyses and genomic DNA extraction.

2.2. Stool Subsampling

Fresh faecal samples were equally divided into three parts: caudal, central, and cranial. From each part, four subsamples were taken from the surface of the stool, while other four subsamples were taken from the inner part of the stool. Outer specimens were cut with a sterile scalpel from the surface of the stool (max 2 mm deep): two aliquots (180–200 mg) were put into 2 mL bead tubes for DNA extraction, while the remaining two aliquots (~500 mg) were put into 15 mL centrifuge tubes for pH, ammonia, and short-chain fatty acids determination. For the inner specimens, the same sampling scheme was applied. Inner subsamples were collected from the centre of the stool using a fresh spatula, taking care to not transfer faecal material from the surface to the inner. Subsequently, the remaining part of the stool was put into a plastic bag and thoroughly homogenised by Stomacher Lab-Blender 400 (Seward, London, UK) for 10 min. Further aliquots were taken from the thoroughly homogenised faecal material and aliquoted in the same way as described above. In order to minimize variability among samples, each subsampling operation as well as chemical and microbiological analyses were performed by the same researcher, while a second laboratory assistant performed the DNA extraction.

2.3. Stool Preparation for Chemical Analysis and pH Determination

Immediately after subsampling, 500 mg faecal aliquots were diluted 1:10 w/v with deionized water. Tubes were shaken for 15 min on orbital shaker and centrifuged at 12,000× g for 10 min at 4 °C. A 2-mL aliquot of supernatant was collected and stored at −80 °C for chemical analysis. Faecal pH was determined immediately on the remaining supernatant using a laboratory pH meter (SevenMulti, Mettler Toledo, Greifensee, Switzerland; accuracy ±0.01 pH), standardised in buffer at pH 4, 7 and 9 prior to the start of each measurement session.

2.4. Chemical Analysis

Faecal ammonia was determined colorimetrically, according to Pinna et al. (2018), using an enzymatic colorimetric test (Urea/BUN—Color; BioSystems S.A., Barcelona, Spain) [22]. The SCFA were separated on a 2-m glass column (inner diameter, 3 mm) of 10% SP-1000 +1% H3PO4 on 100/120 Chromosorb W AW with nitrogen as the carrier. The chromatograph was a Fisons HRGC MEGA 2 series 8560 with a flame ionization detector. The temperatures of the injector and detector were 200 °C, and the oven temperature was 155 °C. 2-ethylbutyric acid (Sigma Aldrich, Taufkirchen, Germany) was used as the internal standard [23]. The concentrations of ammonia and SCFA were determined in duplicate.

2.5. Microbial Analysis

DNA was extracted from fresh faecal samples immediately after subsampling using the Norgen Stool DNA Isolation Kit (Norgen Biotek Corp., Thorold, ON, Canada), according to the manufacturer’s instructions, including a bead beating step. DNA purity and concentration were measured using a DS-11 DeNovix spectrophotometer (DeNovix Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA). Purified DNA was diluted to 50 ng/µL and stored at −20 °C until used for qPCR amplification. Quantification of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes [24], Clostridium cluster I [25], Lactobacillus spp. [26], Bifidobacterium spp. and Enterococcus spp. [27] were evaluated by qPCR using specific oligonucleotides (Table S2). SYBR-based qPCR assays were performed following the run protocol described previously [23,28]. Each sample was run in duplicate while standard curves were run in triplicate.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Prior to statistical analysis, for each tested parameter, results obtained from the two aliquots collected from the same area were compared by one-way ANOVA. Since significant differences were not observed for any of the measured parameters, to increase the robustness of the statistical model it was decided to use the mean values obtained from each aliquot for statistical data analysis. For the depth and longitudinal area subsampling evaluation, data were analysed by the General Linear Model procedure. The model included inner/outer subsampling, longitudinal subsampling and their respective interaction as fixed effects and the dog as random effect. The homogenised group was set as the control group and treatments were compared using one-way ANOVA with Dunnett test as post-hoc test. Levene’s test was used to determine whether variance differed between groups. Significance level was set at p < 0.05. All statistical computations were carried out with Statistica 10.0 (Stat Soft Italia, Padua, Italy).

3. Results

3.1. Faecal Concentration of Bacterial Metabolites and pH Are Affected by Inner and Outer Subsampling but Not by Longitudinal Subsampling

To assess whether the surface differs from the centre of the stool, specimens were collected from the inside and the outside the stool log. In addition, in order to determine longitudinal sampling variation, we compared subsamples collected along the stool log. Mean, standard deviation and p-values of inner and outer subsamples, and subsamples collected longitudinally are listed in Table 1. Significant differences were observed amongst metabolites across the stool log, but not along. Notably, mean concentrations of acetate (+31.2%; p = 0.002), propionate (+57.0%; p = 0.007), butyrate (+84.2%; p < 0.0001), total SCFA (+43.5%; p < 0.001), and ammonia (+51.6%; p = 0.003) were higher in the inner part of the stools compared to the outer part (Figure 1). Branched-chain fatty acids (BCFA) did not differ (p > 0.05) among groups, while pH was lower (6.54 vs. 6.99 for inner and outer subsamples, respectively; p = 0.001) in the inner part of the stools. The abundance of selected bacterial populations (Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Clostridium cluster I, Bifidobacterium spp., Enterococcus spp., Lactobacillus spp.) were not significantly different in inner and outer subsamples, neither in longitudinal subsamples (p > 0.05; Figure 2).

3.2. Homogenisation Has Minimal Effect on Metabolites Concentration

After the subsampling procedure, each stool was thoroughly homogenised and then subsampled twice for microbial and chemical analyses. Homogenised stool subsamples were arbitrarily set as the control and data were compared with those generated from specimens collected from each subsampling area (Table 2). Homogenised stools did not differ from non-homogenised subsamples collected along and across the stool log (p > 0.05), with the exception of caudal inner subsamples, which had higher concentrations of butyric acid (+42.2% compared to the homogenised stools; p < 0.0001). Valeric acid was only detected exclusively in the cranial inner part of dog D1 (data not shown). Results from Levene’s test showed that homogenisation technique does not affect the variability of bacterial metabolites, pH and microbial taxa when compared to non-homogenised subsamples (p > 0.05).

4. Discussion

Due to its huge variability and complexity, large-scale assessment of gut microbiota requires a large cohort of studies. Differences in data generated using different methodologies have been observed [16] and should be taken into account when extrapolating findings from different studies. Costea et al., focused the attention on the importance of DNA extraction on the outcome of molecular analysis and proposed a standardized DNA extraction method for human faecal samples to minimize the impact of technical variation in metagenomic analysis [11]. Defining a standardized methodology for the collection and preparation of faecal samples prior DNA extraction can be challenging, especially in the field of companion animals. When laboratory animals are not available, studies on gut microbiome are conducted using dogs owned by households, in which the owners are asked to collect and temporarily store the faecal sample in a domestic freezer until transport to the laboratory. Incomplete stool sample collection or late storage at freezing temperatures can occur; therefore, owner’s compliance represents another critical factor influencing results. While every effort was made to ensure reliability through technical replication, in this study we faced several limitations, first of all the limited number of subjects involved. Furthermore, the dogs were living in different environments and were fed a variety of diets, which may influence the interpretation of results.
In this study, we found large differences in number of metabolites between the inner and outer portion of stools, since inner subsamples resulted in greater concentrations of SCFA and ammonia compared to the surface of the stool. These findings were not observed previously by other studies. Although a small proportion of unabsorbed SCFA are excreted in the faeces [29], changes might be explained as a difference in absorption or utilization by the intestinal epithelial cells, as the external part of the stool is much more exposed to the gut mucosa. Another possible hypothesis, as pointed by Gorzelak et al. is that inner and outer portions represent distinct microenvironments harbouring different bacterial populations, leading to a non-homogeneous distribution of metabolites throughout the stool [15]. Moreover, we speculated that undigested nutrients are not homogeneously distributed throughout the stools, resulting in different microenvironments providing different energy sources for bacteria. Indeed, faeces are a complex matrix composed mainly of water, bacterial biomass and undigested food residue [30]. The diet is a factor that shapes the faecal output, faecal score and composition of faeces; with the increase of digestibility of the diet, faecal volume decreases significantly. In addition, a highly digestible pet food produces firm and well-formed faeces [31]. Non-degradable fibre intake is recognized to decrease digestibility and intestinal transit time and increase faecal volume and water content, increasing defecation frequency [32]. On the other hand, fermentable fibre has higher water-holding capacity, readily forms gels, increases luminal viscosity, and can be degraded by gut microbiota in the large bowel, resulting in significant concentrations of SCFA [33]. Thus, we speculated that different diets, and in particular the type and amount of fibre, can influence the spatial pattern of microorganisms and metabolites in the faeces. In this study, diets were not standardized among dogs. Other studies indicated that microbial metabolite oscillations are linked to host circadian rhythm and metabolism [34,35]. Therefore, multiple-timed and pooling vs. timed sampling appears to minimize variability originating from day to day variation in human samples [36,37]. To our knowledge there are no studies showing if canine faecal sample collection over time affects the faecal metabolic profile and microbiota compared to a single sampling.
In the present study, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Clostridium cluster I, Lactobacillus spp., Bifidobacterium spp. and Enterococcus spp. populations did not differ among subsamples. Likewise, the differences of microbiota composition between the inner and outer layers of the human stool have been reported to be insignificant [19]. Due to the lower oxygen tension, we would expect an increase of anaerobic taxa in the inner part of the stools. In contrast to our findings, Gorzelak et al. found higher relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. and Firmicutes in the inner part of human stool [15]. In a study conducted with 30 female Beagles, Lin et al. found differences in the canine microbiota when comparing faecal aliquots [20]. However, none of the nine microbial genera who differed in the study by Lin et al. [20] were analysed in the present study, with the exception of Clostridia. The authors collected the fresh faecal specimens from both ends and the middle of each faecal sample, but they did not clarify if subsamples were collected from the centre or the surface of the stool. In our study, the composition of faecal microbial community was analysed by qPCR. Although the microbial groups selected for this study are representative of the main key taxa of the dog’s microbiota, it must be pointed that they do not fully represent the entirety of the microbiota. In contrast, Lin et al. observed changes in nine microbial genera using the Illumina MiSeq platform, which allowed a more comprehensive analysis of the complex and diverse faecal microbial communities [20].
In this study, homogenisation of faeces did not affect the microbial and metabolites variance within stool. Our results seem to contradict findings from other studies where relative abundances of bacterial taxa and metabolites concentrations were affected by homogenization [15,17,18,21]. Even though inter-individual variation in faecal microbiome among dogs appears to be greater than any differences associated with subsampling technique [8,9], since differences can occur when analysing samples collected from the inside rather than the outside of the stool, we can recommend that faecal samples used for bacterial metabolites assessment should be entirely collected and thoroughly homogenised. In studies investigating the gut microbiota and metabolome, dog faecal samples are usually collected by the owners and then stored frozen until processing. Since DNA extraction procedure usually requires the samples not to be thawed until the addition of lysis buffer, homogenisation procedure can be challenging or unsafe for the user (i.e., grinding in liquid nitrogen). In our study, fresh faecal specimens were homogenised by Stomacher; however, this procedure is, in many cases, not logistically feasible for researchers. When homogenisation step of the whole stool is not achievable, we recommend that the aliquot used for the metabolites determination consist of a cross-section of both the inner and outer part of the stool. The adoption of this simple protocol from the scientific community may improve the robustness of the canine faecal metabolome studies.

5. Conclusions

This report is the first to provide information about the faecal distribution of bacterial taxa and metabolites in the canine species. Our results demonstrate that faecal subsampling affects the quantification of microbial metabolome throughout the stool. To increase the robustness of results, we recommend the homogenisation of the whole stool prior to analysis when investigating the gut microbiome.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/1/225/s1, Table S1: Signalment of the enrolled dogs; Table S2: Primers used in the qPCR assay.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.P. and G.B.; methodology, C.P. and C.G.V.; formal analysis, C.P. and C.D.; data curation, C.P.; writing—original draft preparation, C.P.; writing—review and editing, C.P., C.G.V., C.D., M.G. and G.B.; supervision, G.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank all the owners of the dogs who volunteered to participate in our experiments.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pilla, R.; Suchodolski, J.S. The role of the canine gut microbiome and metabolome in health and gastrointestinal disease. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Deng, P.; Swanson, K.S. Gut microbiota of humans, dogs and cats: Current knowledge and future opportunities and challenges. Br. J. Nutr. 2015, 113, S6–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Suchodolski, J.S. Diagnosis and interpretation of intestinal dysbiosis in dogs and cats. Vet. J. 2016, 215, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Suchodolski, J.S.; Dowd, S.E.; Wilke, V.; Steiner, J.M.; Jergens, A.E. 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing reveals bacterial dysbiosis in the duodenum of dogs with idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e39333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Bresciani, F.; Minamoto, Y.; Suchodolski, J.S.; Galiazzo, G.; Vecchiato, C.G.; Pinna, C.; Biagi, G.; Pietra, M. Effect of an extruded animal protein-free diet on fecal microbiota of dogs with food-responsive enteropathy. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2018, 32, 1903–1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Guard, B.C.; Barr, J.W.; Reddivari, L.; Klemashevich, C.; Jayaraman, A.; Steiner, J.M.; Vanamala, J.; Suchodolski, J.S. Characterization of microbial dysbiosis and metabolomic changes in dogs with acute diarrhea. PLoS ONE 2015, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Unterer, S.; Busch, K.; Leipig, M.; Hermanns, W.; Wolf, G.; Straubinger, R.K.; Mueller, R.S.; Hartmann, K. Endoscopically visualized lesions, histologic findings, and bacterial invasion in the gastrointestinal mucosa of dogs with acute hemorrhagic diarrhea syndrome. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2014, 28, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Garcia-Mazcorro, J.F.; Barcenas-Walls, J.R.; Suchodolski, J.S.; Steiner, J.M. Molecular assessment of the fecal microbiota in healthy cats and dogs before and during supplementation with fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) and inulin using high-throughput 454- pyrosequencing. PeerJ 2017, 2017, e3184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Handl, S.; German, A.J.; Holden, S.L.; Dowd, S.E.; Steiner, J.M.; Heilmann, R.M.; Grant, R.W.; Swanson, K.S.; Suchodolski, J.S. Faecal microbiota in lean and obese dogs. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2013, 84, 332–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Ezzy, A.C.; Hagstrom, A.D.; George, C.; Hamlin, A.S.; Pereg, L.; Murphy, A.J.; Winter, G. Storage and handling of human faecal samples affect the gut microbiome composition: A feasibility study. J. Microbiol. Methods 2019, 164, 105668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Costea, P.I.; Zeller, G.; Sunagawa, S.; Pelletier, E.; Alberti, A.; Levenez, F.; Tramontano, M.; Driessen, M.; Hercog, R.; Jung, F.-E.; et al. Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies. Nat. Biotechnol. 2017, 35, 1069–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Van Zyl, K.N.; Whitelaw, A.C.; Newton-Foot, M. The effect of storage conditions on microbial communities in stool. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0227486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Conrads, G.; Abdelbary, M.M.H. Challenges of next-generation sequencing targeting anaerobes. Anaerobe 2019, 58, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Laudadio, I.; Fulci, V.; Stronati, L.; Carissimi, C. Next-Generation Metagenomics: Methodological challenges and opportunities. Omics J. Integr. Biol. 2019, 23, 327–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Gorzelak, M.A.; Gill, S.K.; Tasnim, N.; Ahmadi-Vand, Z.; Jay, M.; Gibson, D.L. Methods for improving human gut microbiome data by reducing variability through sample processing and storage of stool. PLoS ONE 2015, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Videnska, P.; Smerkova, K.; Zwinsova, B.; Popovici, V.; Micenkova, L.; Sedlar, K.; Budinska, E. Stool sampling and DNA isolation kits affect DNA quality and bacterial composition following 16S rRNA gene sequencing using MiSeq Illumina platform. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 13837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Yeoh, Y.K.; Chen, Z.; Hui, M.; Wong, M.C.S.; Ho, W.C.S.; Chin, M.L.; Ng, S.C.; Chan, F.K.L.; Chan, P.K.S. Impact of inter- and intra-individual variation, sample storage and sampling fraction on human stool microbial community profiles. PeerJ 2019, 7, e6172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hsieh, Y.H.; Peterson, C.M.; Raggio, A.; Keenan, M.J.; Martin, R.J.; Ravussin, E.; Marco, M.L. Impact of different fecal processing methods on assessments of bacterial diversity in the human intestine. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Santiago, A.; Panda, S.; Mengels, G.; Martinez, X.; Azpiroz, F.; Dore, J.; Guarner, F.; Manichanh, C. Processing faecal samples: A step forward for standards in microbial community analysis. BMC Microbiol. 2014, 14, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Lin, C.Y.; Cross, T.W.L.; Doukhanine, E.; Swanson, K.S. An ambient temperature collection and stabilization strategy for canine microbiota studies. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gratton, J.; Phetcharaburanin, J.; Mullish, B.H.; Williams, H.R.T.; Thursz, M.; Nicholson, J.K.; Holmes, E.; Marchesi, J.R.; Li, J.V. Optimized sample handling strategy for metabolic profiling of human feces. Anal. Chem. 2016, 88, 4661–4668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Pinna, C.; Vecchiato, C.G.; Bolduan, C.; Grandi, M.; Stefanelli, C.; Windisch, W.; Zaghini, G.; Biagi, G. Influence of dietary protein and fructooligosaccharides on fecal fermentative end-products, fecal bacterial populations and apparent total tract digestibility in dogs. BMC Vet. Res. 2018, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Pinna, C.; Vecchiato, C.G.; Grandi, M.; Mammi, L.M.E.; Stefanelli, C.; Biagi, G. In vitro evaluation of the effects of tylosin on the composition and metabolism of canine fecal microbiota. Animals 2020, 10, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Mühling, M.; Woolven-Allen, J.; Murrell, J.C.; Joint, I. Improved group-specific PCR primers for denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of the genetic diversity of complex microbial communities. ISME J. 2008, 2, 379–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Song, Y.; Liu, C.; Finegold, S.M. Real-time PCR quantitation of clostridia in feces of autistic children. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 6459–6465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Malinen, E.; Rinttilä, T.; Kajander, K.; Mättö, J.; Kassinen, A.; Krogius, L.; Saarela, M.; Korpela, R.; Palva, A. Analysis of the fecal microbiota of irritable bowel syndrome patients and healthy controls with real-time PCR. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2005, 100, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rinttilä, T.; Kassinen, A.; Malinen, E.; Krogius, L.; Palva, A. Development of an extensive set of 16S rDNA-targeted primers for quantification of pathogenic and indigenous bacteria in faecal samples by real-time PCR. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2004, 97, 1166–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pereira, A.M.; Pinna, C.; Biagi, G.; Stefanelli, C.; Maia, M.R.G.; Matos, E.; Segundo, M.A.; Fonseca, A.J.M.; Cabrita, A.R.J. Supplemental selenium source on gut health: Insights on fecal microbiome and fermentation products of growing puppies. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2020, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Minamoto, Y.; Minamoto, T.; Isaiah, A.; Sattasathuchana, P.; Buono, A.; Rangachari, V.R.; McNeely, I.H.; Lidbury, J.; Steiner, J.M.; Suchodolski, J.S. Fecal short-chain fatty acid concentrations and dysbiosis in dogs with chronic enteropathy. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2019, 33, 1608–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Rose, C.; Parker, A.; Jefferson, B.; Cartmell, E. The characterization of feces and urine: A review of the literature to inform advanced treatment technology. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 45, 1827–1879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Case, L.P.; Daristotle, L.; Hayek, M.G.; Raasch, M.F. Canine and Feline Nutrition: A Resource for Companion Animal Professionals; Mosby Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; ISBN 0323071473. [Google Scholar]
  32. Burrows, C.F.; Kronfeld, D.S.; Banta, C.A.; Merritt, A.M. Effects of fiber on digestibility and transit time in dogs. J. Nutr. 1982, 112, 1726–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Swanson, K.S.; Grieshop, C.M.; Clapper, G.M.; Shields, R.G.; Belay, T.; Merchen, N.R.; Fahey, G.C. Fruit and vegetable fiber fermentation by gut microflora from canines. J. Anim. Sci. 2001, 79, 919–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Leone, V.; Gibbons, S.M.; Martinez, K.; Hutchison, A.L.; Huang, E.Y.; Cham, C.M.; Pierre, J.F.; Heneghan, A.F.; Nadimpalli, A.; Hubert, N.; et al. Effects of diurnal variation of gut microbes and high-fat feeding on host circadian clock function and metabolism. Cell Host Microbe 2015, 17, 681–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Liang, X.; Bushman, F.D.; FitzGerald, G.A. Rhythmicity of the intestinal microbiota is regulated by gender and the host circadian clock. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 10479–10484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Smith, L.; Villaret-Cazadamont, J.; Claus, S.P.; Canlet, C.; Guillou, H.; Cabaton, N.J.; Ellero-Simatos, S. Important considerations for sample collection in metabolomics studies with a special focus on applications to liver functions. Metabolites 2020, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Lamichhane, S.; Sundekilde, U.K.; Blædel, T.; Dalsgaard, T.K.; Larsen, L.H.; Dragsted, L.O.; Astrup, A.; Bertram, H.C. Optimizing sampling strategies for NMR-based metabolomics of human feces: Pooled vs. unpooled analyses. Anal. Methods 2017, 9, 4476–4480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 11 00225 g001 550
Figure 1. Short-chain fatty acids and ammonia concentrations, and pH values in stool subsamples collected from five different dogs. Concentrations of metabolites are expressed as µmol per gram of wet faeces. Red lines represent the mean of faecal SCFA and ammonia concentrations, and pH values. * p < 0.01 and ** p < 0.001. Dn = dog ID.
Figure 1. Short-chain fatty acids and ammonia concentrations, and pH values in stool subsamples collected from five different dogs. Concentrations of metabolites are expressed as µmol per gram of wet faeces. Red lines represent the mean of faecal SCFA and ammonia concentrations, and pH values. * p < 0.01 and ** p < 0.001. Dn = dog ID.
Animals 11 00225 g001
Animals 11 00225 g002 550
Figure 2. The abundances of selected bacterial taxa in stool subsamples collected from five different dogs. Values are expressed as log10 DNA copies per gram of wet faeces. Red lines represent the mean of log10 DNA. Dn = dog ID.
Figure 2. The abundances of selected bacterial taxa in stool subsamples collected from five different dogs. Values are expressed as log10 DNA copies per gram of wet faeces. Red lines represent the mean of log10 DNA. Dn = dog ID.
Animals 11 00225 g002
Table
Table 1. Mean ±standard deviation (SD) values for short-chain fatty acids, ammonia, pH and microbial populations determined in depth and longitudinal stool subsamples collected from five different dogs.
Table 1. Mean ±standard deviation (SD) values for short-chain fatty acids, ammonia, pH and microbial populations determined in depth and longitudinal stool subsamples collected from five different dogs.
Depth Subsamples (n = 12)Longitudinal Subsamples (n = 12)ANOVA p-Value
ItemInnerOuterCranialCentreCaudalDepth Sub.Longitudinal Sub.Depth ×
Longitudinal Sub.
acetate (µmol/g)79.0 ± 20.060.2 ± 12.870.5 ± 20.969.8 ± 18.668.5 ± 19.60.0020.9540.725
propionate (µmol/g)32.5 ± 16.820.7 ± 10.426.9 ± 15.124.8 ± 13.528.0 ± 17.60.0070.8090.834
butyrate (µmol/g)21.0 ± 4.8511.4 ± 3.0315.3 ± 4.5815.5 ± 6.1317.7 ± 8.110.0000.3630.284
isobutyrate (µmol/g)2.83 ± 1.112.09 ± 0.722.29 ± 0.742.57 ± 0.992.51 ± 1.270.0580.8150.930
isovalerate (µmol/g)3.89 ± 2.082.74 ± 1.342.86 ± 1.313.50 ± 1.873.60 ± 2.250.0990.6270.916
total SCFA (µmol/g)139.5 ± 37.997.2 ± 22.9118.2 ± 38.9116.3 ± 34.0120.6 ± 43.20.0000.9320.646
ammonia (µmol/g)46.7 ± 18.030.8 ± 8.8135.7 ± 17.039.7 ± 14.240.9 ± 18.10.0030.6590.694
pH6.54 ± 0.316.99 ± 0.326.69 ± 0.446.87 ± 0.336.73 ± 0.400.0010.4470.795
Firmicutes (log10 copies/g)7.86 ± 0.857.74 ± 0.788.07 ± 0.727.74 ± 0.787.59 ± 0.900.6670.3530.907
Bacteroidetes (log10 copies/g)7.57 ± 2.637.80 ± 2.727.77 ± 2.787.71 ± 2.807.58 ± 2.590.7050.9650.996
Clostridium cluster I (log10 copies/g)7.40 ± 1.157.40 ± 1.497.67 ± 1.427.25 ± 1.397.27 ± 1.200.9950.7640.970
Bifidobacterium spp. (log10 copies/g)3.14 ± 1.033.14 ± 1.003.22 ± 0.542.76 ± 1.503.42 ± 0.661.0000.3850.896
Enterococcus spp. (log10 copies/g)6.68 ± 1.096.80 ± 1.036.86 ± 0.876.77 ± 1.156.60 ± 1.190.7520.8650.965
Lactobacillus spp. (log10 copies/g)3.94 ± 0.823.86 ± 0.964.15 ± 0.953.80 ± 0.843.75 ± 0.880.7890.4480.677
Table
Table 2. Mean, standard deviation (SD) and variance values for short-chain fatty acids, ammonia, pH and microbial populations determined in each subsampling area and in the homogenised stool collected from five different dogs.
Table 2. Mean, standard deviation (SD) and variance values for short-chain fatty acids, ammonia, pH and microbial populations determined in each subsampling area and in the homogenised stool collected from five different dogs.
ItemHomogenisedCranial InnerCranial OuterCentre InnerCentre OuterCaudal InnerCaudal OuterANOVA
p-Value		Levene’s
p-Value
acetate (µmol/g)mean ± SD75.2 ± 17.077.2 ± 23.663.7 ± 17.879.3 ± 21.060.4 ± 10.980.5 ± 20.056.5 ± 10.10.200
variance288.6555.4316.9440.3119.2401.0101.0 0.596
propionate (µmol/g)mean ± SD27.1 ± 14.132.0 ± 16.921.9 ± 12.729.9 ± 16.319.8 ± 8.9635.6 ± 20.420.4 ± 11.50.531
variance200.1284.1161.6265.280.2415.0133.1 0.701
butyrate (µmol/g)mean ± SD16.9 ± 3.30 a18.8 ± 3.16 a11.8 ± 2.52 a20.1 ± 4.72 a11.0 ± 3.24 a24.1 ± 5.63 b11.3 ± 3.83 a<0.0001
variance10.910.06.3722.310.531.714.7 0.074
isobutyrate (µmol/g)mean ± SD2.48 ± 0.872.60 ± 0.551.98 ± 0.832.90 ± 1.122.24 ± 0.812.98 ± 1.632.04 ± 0.650.567
variance0.760.300.691.260.652.650.42 0.755
isovalerate (µmol/g)mean ± SD3.38 ± 1.703.31 ± 1.202.41 ± 1.384.00 ± 2.123.00 ± 1.674.37 ± 2.922.82 ± 1.170.664
variance2.881.431.904.482.788.521.38 0.734
total SCFA (µmol/g)mean ± SD125.0 ± 29.8134.6 ± 41.1101.8 ± 32.3136.2 ± 36.496.4 ± 16.9147.8 ± 43.693.5 ± 21.40.073
variance886.51686.01045.41323.4285.51898.3458.0 0.399
ammonia (µmol/g)mean ± SD40.2 ± 13.241.9 ± 20.329.4 ± 11.946.4 ± 15.732.9 ± 9.7051.8 ± 20.230.0 ± 5.190.158
variance175.0412.1142.1245.294.0409.826.9 0.721
pHmean ± SD6.79 ± 0.256.50 ± 0.396.87 ± 0.456.66 ± 0.317.08 ± 0.196.45 ± 0.257.02 ± 0.320.025
variance0.060.150.200.100.040.060.10 0.284
Firmicutes (log10 copies/g)mean ± SD7.84 ± 0.718.14 ± 0.807.99 ± 0.727.87 ± 0.787.62 ± 0.857.57 ± 1.037.61 ± 0.870.905
variance0.500.630.530.610.721.050.76 0.286
Bacteroidetes (log10 copies/g)mean ± SD7.67 ± 2.937.65 ± 2.967.89 ± 2.947.57 ± 2.867.85 ± 3.087.50 ± 2.707.66 ± 2.801.000
variance8.598.778.648.179.477.307.83 0.957
Clostridium cluster I (log10 copies/g)mean ± SD7.52 ± 1.177.66 ± 1.257.69 ± 1.717.19 ± 1.427.32 ± 1.527.35 ± 0.937.18 ± 1.540.994
variance1.371.572.942.032.310.862.38 0.388
Bifidobacterium spp. (log10 copies/g)mean ± SD3.27 ±0.473.12 ± 0.503.32 ± 0.612.75 ± 1.612.78 ± 1.583.54 ± 0.703.30 ± 0.660.843
variance0.220.250.372.592.480.490.44 0.301
Enterococcus spp. (log10 copies/g)mean ± SD6.92 ±1.146.83 ± 0.816.88 ± 1.026.75 ± 1.216.79 ± 1.236.47 ± 1.406.74 ± 1.080.997
variance1.300.661.051.471.521.971.17 0.895
Lactobacillus spp. (log10 copies/g)mean ± SD4.16 ±0.874.11 ± 0.944.20 ± 1.063.74 ± 1.003.85 ± 0.763.97 ± 0.623.54 ± 1.120.907
variance0.750.891.121.000.580.391.25 0.948
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pinna, C.; Vecchiato, C.G.; Delsante, C.; Grandi, M.; Biagi, G. On the Variability of Microbial Populations and Bacterial Metabolites within the Canine Stool. An in-Depth Analysis. Animals 2021, 11, 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010225

AMA Style

Pinna C, Vecchiato CG, Delsante C, Grandi M, Biagi G. On the Variability of Microbial Populations and Bacterial Metabolites within the Canine Stool. An in-Depth Analysis. Animals. 2021; 11(1):225. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010225

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pinna, Carlo, Carla Giuditta Vecchiato, Costanza Delsante, Monica Grandi, and Giacomo Biagi. 2021. "On the Variability of Microbial Populations and Bacterial Metabolites within the Canine Stool. An in-Depth Analysis" Animals 11, no. 1: 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010225

APA Style

Pinna, C., Vecchiato, C. G., Delsante, C., Grandi, M., & Biagi, G. (2021). On the Variability of Microbial Populations and Bacterial Metabolites within the Canine Stool. An in-Depth Analysis. Animals, 11(1), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010225

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