Characterising the gut microbiome of stranded harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in rehabilitation.

Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science

Phoca* ; Gastrointestinal Microbiome* ; Medicine*; Animals ; Male ; Humans ; Animals, Wild ; Aging

Animal rehabilitation centres provide a unique opportunity to study the microbiome of wild animals because subjects will be handled for their treatment and can therefore be sampled longitudinally. However, rehabilitation may have unintended consequences on the animals' microbiome because of a less varied and suboptimal diet, possible medical treatment and exposure to a different environment and human handlers. Our study describes the gut microbiome of two large seal cohorts, 50 pups (0-30 days old at arrival) and 23 weaners (more than 60 days old at arrival) of stranded harbour seals admitted for rehabilitation at the Sealcentre Pieterburen in the Netherlands, and the effect of rehabilitation on it. Faecal samples were collected from all seals at arrival, two times during rehabilitation and before release. Only seals that did not receive antimicrobial treatment were included in the study. The average time in rehabilitation was 95 days for the pups and 63 days for the weaners. We observed that during rehabilitation, there was an increase in the relative abundance of some of the Campylobacterota spp and Actinobacteriota spp. The alpha diversity of the pups' microbiome increased significantly during their rehabilitation (p-value <0.05), while there were no significant changes in alpha diversity over time for weaners. We hypothesize that aging is the main reason for the observed changes in the pups' microbiome. At release, the sex of a seal pup was significantly associated with the microbiome's alpha (i.e., Shannon diversity was higher for male pups, p-value <0.001) and beta diversity (p-value 0.001). For weaners, variation in the microbiome composition (beta diversity) at release was partly explained by sex and age of the seal (p-values 0.002 and 0.003 respectively). We mainly observed variables known to change the gut microbiome composition (e.g., age and sex) and conclude that rehabilitation in itself had only minor effects on the gut microbiome of seal pups and seal weaners.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
(Copyright: © 2023 Rubio-Garcia et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Mol Ecol. 2020 Jun;29(11):2109-2122. (PMID: 32060961)
Sci Rep. 2022 Aug 27;12(1):14641. (PMID: 36030345)
Nature. 2006 Dec 21;444(7122):1022-3. (PMID: 17183309)
Nature. 2014 Jan 23;505(7484):559-63. (PMID: 24336217)
BMC Vet Res. 2013 Nov 04;9:223. (PMID: 24188616)
Microbiologyopen. 2016 Oct;5(5):782-792. (PMID: 27734626)
Microbiome. 2015 Jul 01;3:28. (PMID: 26167280)
Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2014 May;30(3):332-8. (PMID: 24625896)
Nature. 2022 Apr;604(7907):732-739. (PMID: 35418674)
Nature. 2012 Aug 9;488(7410):178-84. (PMID: 22797518)
Integr Comp Biol. 2017 Oct 1;57(4):690-704. (PMID: 28985326)
Microbiol Resour Announc. 2023 Jan 24;12(1):e0118022. (PMID: 36598257)
Nat Commun. 2016 Feb 03;7:10516. (PMID: 26839246)
Microbiol Spectr. 2022 Oct 26;10(5):e0102922. (PMID: 36069574)
Front Vet Sci. 2016 Jan 20;3:2. (PMID: 26835461)
Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2016 Feb 19;5(1):48-55. (PMID: 26977405)
J Comp Pathol. 2012 Nov;147(4):550-65. (PMID: 22632685)
Nat Methods. 2016 Jul;13(7):581-3. (PMID: 27214047)
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 22;8(4):e61217. (PMID: 23630581)
Environ Microbiol. 2013 Apr;15(4):1132-45. (PMID: 23145888)
Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550. (PMID: 25516281)
PLoS Biol. 2007 Jul;5(7):e177. (PMID: 17594176)
Microbiome. 2023 Feb 27;11(1):33. (PMID: 36850017)
Sci Rep. 2023 Jan 10;13(1):493. (PMID: 36627399)
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 29;14(8):e0221770. (PMID: 31465508)
Cell. 2017 Dec 14;171(7):1481-1493. (PMID: 29245010)
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2013 Nov;86(2):246-55. (PMID: 23746080)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Sep 13;113(37):10376-81. (PMID: 27573830)
Anim Microbiome. 2020 May 6;2(1):15. (PMID: 33499952)
PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(12):e1002808. (PMID: 23300406)
Biol Lett. 2010 Dec 23;6(6):854-7. (PMID: 20591851)
Mol Ecol. 2019 May;28(10):2653-2667. (PMID: 30916826)
Microb Ecol. 2010 Aug;60(2):320-30. (PMID: 20523986)
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016 May 31;82(12):3440-3449. (PMID: 27037116)
ISME J. 2013 Jun;7(6):1112-5. (PMID: 23535917)
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2016 Mar;92(3):. (PMID: 26880785)
Animals (Basel). 2022 Nov 30;12(23):. (PMID: 36496896)
Environ Microbiol. 2023 Nov;25(11):2182-2202. (PMID: 37329141)
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1986 Nov 1;189(9):1024-8. (PMID: 3505918)
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2018 May;68(5):1787-1794. (PMID: 29624164)
BMC Microbiol. 2014 Oct 28;14:262. (PMID: 25348335)

Date Created: 20231205 Date Completed: 20231207 Latest Revision: 20231208

20231215

PMC10697512

10.1371/journal.pone.0295072

38051704