Production phase affects the bioaerosol microbial composition and functional potential in swine confinement buildings

Animals

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2019, Pages

  Yan, Honglin ^a,b   Zhang, Li ^a   Guo, Zhendong ^b   Zhang, Hongfu ^b   Liu, Jingbo ^a,b  

^a SOUTHWEST UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^b INSTITUTE OF PLANT PROTECTION   (China)

Author keywords

Bioaerosol; Microbiome; Production phase; Swine confinement buildings

Indexed keywords

AEROSOL; ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE GENE; ARTICLE; BACTEROIDETES; BIOAEROSOL; BUILDING; CARBOHYDRATE METABOLISM; DNA EXTRACTION; FEMALE; FIRMICUTES; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; GENE SEQUENCE; HIGH THROUGHPUT SEQUENCING; METAGENOME SHOTGUN SEQUENCING; METAGENOMICS; MICROBIAL COMMUNITY; MICROBIAL COMPOSITION; MICROBIAL POPULATION DYNAMICS; MICROBIOME; NONHUMAN; PIG; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; POPULATION ABUNDANCE; PRODUCTION PHASE; PROTEIN METABOLISM; PROTEOBACTERIA; SHOTGUN SEQUENCING; SPECIES DIVERSITY; TAXONOMY; THERMOGRAPHY;

EID: 85065197933     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20762615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/ani9030090     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Heber, A.J.; Stroik, M. Size distribution and identification of aerial dust particles in swine finishing buildings. Trans. ASAE 1988, 31, 882-887.
2. Hong, P.Y.; Li, X. Monitoring airborne biotic contaminants in the indoor environment of pig and poultry confinement buildings. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 14, 1420-1431.
3. Heederik, D.; Brouwer, R. Relationship of airborne endotoxin and bacteria levels in pig farms with the lung function and respiratory symptoms of farmers. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 1991, 62, 595-601.
4. Douglas, P.; Gant, T.W. A systematic review of the public health risks of bioaerosols from intensive farming. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2018, 221, 134-173.
5. Yoo, K.; Lee, T.K. Molecular approaches for the detection and monitoring of microbial communities in bioaerosols: A review. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 51, 234-247.
6. Nehme, B.; Létourneau, V. Culture-independent approach of the bacterial bioaerosol diversity in the standard swine confinement buildings, and assessment of the seasonal effect. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 10, 665-675.
7. Kristiansen, A.; Saunders, A.M. Community structure of bacteria and fungi in aerosols of a pig confinement building. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2012, 80, 390-401.
8. Kumari, P.; Choi, H.L. Seasonal variability in airborne biotic contaminants in swine confinement buildings. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e112897.
9. Zhao, W.; Zhao, J. The dynamic distribution of porcine microbiota across different ages and gastrointestinal tract segments. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0117441.
10. Niu, Q.; Li, P. Dynamic distribution of the gut microbiota and the relationship with apparent crude fiber digestibility and growth stages in pigs. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 9938.
11. Kim, H.B.; Isaacson, R.E. Longitudinal investigation of the age-related bacterial diversity in the feces of commercial pigs. Vet. Microbiol. 2011, 153, 124-133.
12. Yang, Y.; Zhou, R. Characterization of airborne antibiotic resistance genes from typical bioaerosol emission sources in the urban environment using metagenomic approach. Chemosphere 2018, 213, 463-471.
13. Predicala, B.Z.; Goodband, R.D. Assessment of bioaerosols in swine barns by filtration and impaction. Curr. Microbiol. 2002, 44, 136-140.
14. Lee, S.A.; Reponen, T. Personal exposure to airborne dust and microorganisms in agricultural environments. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2006, 3, 118-130.
15. Yao, H.Q.; Zhu, K. Effect of microclimate on particulate matter, airborne bacteria, and odorous compounds in swine nursery houses. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 88, 3707-3714.
16. Kumari, P.; Choi, H.L. Manure removal system influences the abundance and composition of airborne biotic contaminants in swine confinement buildings. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 537.
17. Poretsky, R.; Konstantinidis, K.T. Strengths and limitations of 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing in revealing temporal microbial community dynamics. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93827.
18. Ranjan, R.; Perkins, D.L. Analysis of the microbiome: Advantages of whole genome shotgun versus 16S amplicon sequencing. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2016, 469, 967-977.
19. Mbareche, H.; Brisebois, E. Bioaerosol sampling and detection methods based on molecular approaches: No pain no gain. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 599-600, 2095-2104.
20. Taiganides, E.P. Pig Waste Management and Recycling: The Singapore Experience; IDRC: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1992; Available online: https://www.unescap.org/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=8704 (accessed on 20 December 2018).
21. Liu, J.B.; Xue, P.C. Effects of dietary phosphorus concentration and body weight on postileal phosphorus digestion in pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2018, 242, 86-94.
22. Liu, J.B.; Yan, H.L. The response of performance in grower and finisher pigs to diets formulated to different tryptophan to lysine ratios. Livest. Sci. 2019, 222, 25-30.
23. Li, R.; Li, S. De novo assembly of human genomes with massively parallel short read sequencing. Genome Res. 2010, 20, 265-272.
24. Noguchi, H.; Takagi, T. MetaGene: Prokaryotic gene finding from environmental genome shotgun sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34, 5623-5630.
25. Li, W.; Godzik, A. Cd-hit: A fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 2006, 22, 1658-1659.
26. Sunagawa, S.; Bork, P. Structure and function of the global ocean microbiome. Science 2015, 348, 1261359.
27. Li, R.; Wang, J. SOAP2: An improved ultrafast tool for short read alignment. Bioinformatics 2009, 25, 1966-1967.
28. Buchfink, B.; Huson, D.H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods 2014, 12, 59.
29. Huson, D.H.; Schuster, S.C. MEGAN analysis of metagenomic data. Genome Res. 2007, 17, 377-386.
30. Kanehisa, M.; Goto, S. KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000, 28, 27-30.
31. Powell, S.; Szklarczyk, D.; Trachana, K.; Roth, A.; Kuhn, M.; Muller, J.; Arnold, R.; Rattei, T.; Letunic, I.; Doerks, T. et al. eggNOG v3. 0: Orthologous groups covering 1133 organisms at 41 different taxonomic ranges. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011, 40, 284-289.
32. Chang, C.W.; Su, H.J. Exposure of workers to airborne microorganisms in open-air swine houses. Appl. Environ. Microb. 2001, 67, 155-161.
33. Gao, X.L.; Shao, M.F. Airborne microbial communities in the atmospheric environment of urban hospitals in China. J. Hazard Mater. 2018, 349, 10-17.
34. Zhou, Z.; Yao, W. How host gender affects the bacterial community in pig feces and its correlation to skatole production. Ann. Microbiol. 2015, 65, 2379-2386.
35. Kim, J.; Unno, T. Analysis of swine fecal microbiota at various growth stages. Arch. Microbiol. 2015, 197, 753-759.
36. Leser, T.D.; Møller, K. Culture-independent analysis of gut bacteria: The pig gastrointestinal tract microbiota revisited. Appl. Environ. Microb. 2002, 68, 673-690.
37. Kim, H.B.; Isaacson, R.E. Microbial shifts in the swine distal gut in response to the treatment with antimicrobial growth promoter, tylosin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 6, 201205147.
38. Kim, S.J.; Park, H. Genome sequence of a novel member of the genus Psychrobacter isolated from Antarctic soil. J. Bacteriol. 2012, 194, 2403.
39. Dutkiewicz, J.; Wójtowicz, H. Airborne microorganisms and endotoxin in animal houses. Grana 1994, 33, 85-90.
40. Yooseph, S.; Fadrosh, D. A metagenomic framework for the study of airborne microbial communities. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e81862.
41. Lamendella, R.; Oerther, D.B. Comparative fecal metagenomics unveils unique functional capacity of the swine gut. BMC Microbiol. 2011, 11, 103.
42. Fangman, T.J.; Coleman, J.L. Performance and disease status of pigs grown in a wean-to-finish facility compared to pigs grown in a conventional nursery and grower-finisher facility. J. Swine Health Prod. 2001, 9, 71-76.
43. Zhu, Y.G.; Tiedje, J.M. Diverse and abundant antibiotic resistance genes in Chinese swine farms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India B 2013, 11, 201222743.
44. Farrington, L.A.; Inskip, P.D. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in Salmonellae isolated from market-age swine. J. Food Protect. 2001, 64, 1496-1502.
45. Jackson, C.R.; Ladely, S.R. High-level aminoglycoside resistant enterococci isolated from swine. Epidemiol. Infect. 2005, 133, 367-371.
46. Guo, J.; Yuan, Z. Metagenomic analysis reveals wastewater treatment plants as hotspots of antibiotic resistance genes and mobile genetic elements. Water Res. 2017, 123, 468-478.
47. Wang, J.H.; Lu, J. Metagenomic analysis of antibiotic resistance genes in coastal industrial mariculture systems. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 253, 235-243.