Effects of diarrhea and antibiotic-induced microbial elimination on dynamic changes in fecal microbial communities and antibiotic resistance of Hu sheep lambs (Ovis aries)


Abstract

Background. As a highly reproductive meat sheep breed in China, the Hu sheep is an important economic group in ruminant animal breeding. However, research on their intestinal microbiome under the background of diarrhea and antibiotic treatment remains relatively limited.

Methods. This study investigated the intestinal microbiota of Hu sheep lambs in the preliminary stage of diarrhea (group DM), the late recovery stage of diarrhea (group DL), and the healthy stage (group H). Diseased individuals (groups DM and DL) were treated with a combination of Shuanghuanglian, Cefazolin, Lincomycin, and Dexamethasone (0.2 mL dosage). To characterize the intestinal microbiota, fecal samples were collected from all groups, and metagenomic sequencing was performed. Using metagenomic binning tools and co-assembly methods, we reconstructed 482 high-quality non-redundant metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs).

Results. Among these MAGs, 70% belong to the phyla Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and Proteobacteria, highly consistent with the typical structure of intestinal microbiota in ruminants. Functional annotation revealed that the genes encoding carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZymes) are more abundant in Bacillota and Bacteroidota, which supports the degradation and energy metabolism functions of Hu sheep on fibrous feed. During the preliminary stage of diarrhea, the virulence genes carried by symbiotic bacteria such as Lachnospiraceae, Acutalibacteraceae, and Bacteroidaceae were enriched. Although diarrhea symptoms alleviated during the late recovery stage of diarrhea, the combined use of multiple antibiotics led to the continuous enrichment of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) related to lincosamides and cephalosporins. The average abundance of cephalosporin-related ARGs in group DL was significantly higher than that in group DM and H, indicating a risk of residual ARGs. Microbial diversity analysis showed that there was no significant overall difference in MAGs between the group DM and H, but both groups showed significant differences compared to the group DL, suggesting that antibiotic-driven clearance of sensitive bacteria is the core driving force. Moreover, our study shows that the abundance of the zoonotic pathogens Barnesiella and Campylobacter significantly increased in the diarrhea group (p<0.05), and they carry 382 and 567 virulence genes, respectively. Their pathogenicity is regulated by the dynamic changes in the host intestinal microbiota.

Conclusions. This study not only expands the genomic database of ruminant intestinal microorganisms but also provides a key theoretical basis for formulating intestinal microecological regulation strategies and optimizing diarrhea treatment regimens for Hu sheep.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].