Display options
Cite
Bermingham EN, Maclean P, Thomas DG, et al. Key bacterial families (Clostridiaceae, Erysipelotrichaceae and Bacteroidaceae) are related to the digestion of protein and energy in dogs. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3019doi: 10.7717/peerj.3019.
Bermingham, E. N., Maclean, P., Thomas, D. G., Cave, N. J., & Young, W. (2017). Key bacterial families (Clostridiaceae, Erysipelotrichaceae and Bacteroidaceae) are related to the digestion of protein and energy in dogs. PeerJ, 5e3019. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3019
Bermingham, Emma N, et al. "Key bacterial families (Clostridiaceae, Erysipelotrichaceae and Bacteroidaceae) are related to the digestion of protein and energy in dogs." PeerJ vol. 5 (2017): e3019. doi: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3019
Bermingham EN, Maclean P, Thomas DG, Cave NJ, Young W. Key bacterial families (Clostridiaceae, Erysipelotrichaceae and Bacteroidaceae) are related to the digestion of protein and energy in dogs. PeerJ. 2017 Mar 02;5:e3019. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3019. eCollection 2017. PMID: 28265505; PMCID: PMC5337088.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

PeerJ. 2017 Mar 02;5:e3019. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3019. eCollection 2017.

Key bacterial families (Clostridiaceae, Erysipelotrichaceae and Bacteroidaceae) are related to the digestion of protein and energy in dogs.

PeerJ

Emma N Bermingham, Paul Maclean, David G Thomas, Nicholas J Cave, Wayne Young

Affiliations

  1. AgResearch Ltd., Food Nutrition & Health Team , Palmerston North , New Zealand.
  2. AgResearch Ltd., Bioinformatics & Statistics Team , Lincoln , New Zealand.
  3. Massey University, Institute of Veterinary, Animal & Biomedical Sciences , Palmerston North , New Zealand.

PMID: 28265505 PMCID: PMC5337088 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.3019

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Much of the recent research in companion animal nutrition has focussed on understanding the role of diet on faecal microbiota composition. To date, diet-induced changes in faecal microbiota observed in humans and rodents have been extrapolated to pets in spite of their very different dietary and metabolic requirements. This lack of direct evidence means that the mechanisms by which microbiota influences health in dogs are poorly understood. We hypothesised that changes in faecal microbiota correlate with physiological parameters including apparent macronutrient digestibility.

METHODS: Fifteen adult dogs were assigned to two diet groups, exclusively fed either a premium kibbled diet (kibble;

RESULTS: Faecal weight and VFA levels were lower and the apparent digestibility of protein and energy were higher in dogs on the meat diet. Diet significantly affected 27 microbial families and 53 genera in the faeces. In particular, the abundances of

DISCUSSION: Our results show clear associations of specific microbial taxa with diet composition. For example, Clostridiaceae, Erysipelotrichaceae and Bacteroidaceae were highly correlated to parameters such as protein and fat digestibility in the dog. By understanding the relationship between faecal microbiota and physiological parameters we will gain better insights into the effects of diet on the nutrition of our pets.

Keywords: Dog; Faecal microbiota; Nutrient digestibility

Conflict of interest statement

Emma N. Bermingham, Paul Maclean and Wayne Young are employees of AgResearch Ltd.

References

  1. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e74998 - PubMed
  2. Br J Nutr. 2015 Jan;113 Suppl:S6-17 - PubMed
  3. J Nutr. 2006 Jul;136(7 Suppl):1940S-1946S - PubMed
  4. ISME J. 2011 Apr;5(4):639-49 - PubMed
  5. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov 28;20(44):16489-97 - PubMed
  6. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2011 May;76(2):301-10 - PubMed
  7. Can Vet J. 2008 Jun;49(6):561-3 - PubMed
  8. Nutrients. 2015 Mar 25;7(4):2109-24 - PubMed
  9. Microbiologyopen. 2013 Feb;2(1):173-81 - PubMed
  10. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Apr 7;106(14):5859-64 - PubMed
  11. Br J Nutr. 2010 Sep;104(6):919-29 - PubMed
  12. PLoS One. 2015 May 22;10(5):e0127259 - PubMed
  13. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2011 Dec;78(3):542-54 - PubMed
  14. PLoS One. 2015 May 19;10(5):e0127378 - PubMed
  15. Microbiologyopen. 2012 Sep;1(3):340-7 - PubMed
  16. Br J Nutr. 2013 May;109(9):1637-46 - PubMed
  17. Sci Rep. 2015 Oct 09;5:14567 - PubMed
  18. BMC Vet Res. 2013 Dec 05;9:246 - PubMed
  19. Br J Nutr. 2015 Jan 14;113(1):125-33 - PubMed
  20. Nat Microbiol. 2016 Oct 03;1:16177 - PubMed
  21. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2012;52(2):172-82 - PubMed
  22. BioData Min. 2012 Nov 13;5(1):19 - PubMed
  23. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2013 Jun;84(3):532-41 - PubMed
  24. Microbes Infect. 2015 Jul;17(7):505-16 - PubMed
  25. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51907 - PubMed
  26. Nutr Res. 2015 May;35(5):361-7 - PubMed
  27. Anal Chem. 2016 Aug 2;88(15):7617-26 - PubMed
  28. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2007 Oct;20(4):593-621 - PubMed
  29. Nat Methods. 2010 May;7(5):335-6 - PubMed
  30. Curr Issues Intest Microbiol. 2000 Sep;1(2):51-8 - PubMed
  31. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2015 Feb 04;26:26164 - PubMed
  32. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Jun;75(12):4175-84 - PubMed
  33. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2015 Nov 20;5:84 - PubMed
  34. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2009 Jan 01;14:4673-84 - PubMed
  35. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56685 - PubMed
  36. FASEB J. 2013 Feb;27(2):692-702 - PubMed
  37. Diabetes Care. 2015 Jan;38(1):159-65 - PubMed
  38. J Anim Sci. 2012 Feb;90(2):515-22 - PubMed
  39. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2014 Sep;38(5):996-1047 - PubMed
  40. J Nutr. 2013 Jul;143(7):1052-60 - PubMed
  41. ISME J. 2015 Mar 17;9(4):832-43 - PubMed
  42. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2013 Jun;97(3):522-30 - PubMed
  43. Br J Nutr. 2015 Jan;113 Suppl:S40-54 - PubMed
  44. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 28;8(11):e80992 - PubMed
  45. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1977 Feb;33(2):319-22 - PubMed
  46. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 May;93(5):1062-72 - PubMed

Publication Types