1887

Microbial Genomics logo

Volume 10, Issue 9

Infectious bronchitis virus vaccination, but not the presence of XCR1, is correlated with large differences in chicken caecal microbiota Open Access

Abstract

The chicken immune system and microbiota play vital roles in maintaining gut homeostasis and protecting against pathogens. In mammals, XCR1+ conventional dendritic cells (cDCs) are located in the gut-draining lymph nodes and play a major role in gut homeostasis. These cDCs sample antigens in the gut luminal contents and limit the inflammatory response to gut commensal microbes by generating appropriate regulatory and effector T-cell responses. We hypothesized that these cells play similar roles in sustaining gut homeostasis in chickens, and that chickens lacking XCR1 were likely to contain a dysbiotic caecal microbiota. Here we compare the caecal microbiota of chickens that were either heterozygous or homozygous XCR1 knockouts, that had or had not been vaccinated for infectious bronchitis virus (IBV). We used short-read (Illumina) and long-read (PacBio HiFi) metagenomic sequencing to reconstruct 670 high-quality, strain-level metagenome assembled genomes. We found no significant differences between alpha diversity or the abundance of specific microbial taxa between genotypes. However, IBV vaccination was found to correlate with significant differences in the richness and beta diversity of the microbiota, and to the abundance of 40 bacterial genera. In conclusion, we found that a lack of XCR1 was not correlated with significant changes in the chicken microbiota, but IBV vaccination was.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): chicken , IBV , microbiota , vaccination and XCR1 cDC
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Award BBS/E/D/30002276)
    • Principle Award Recipient: NotApplicable
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Award BBS/E/D/10002070)
    • Principle Award Recipient: NotApplicable
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Award BB/X010937/1)
    • Principle Award Recipient: NotApplicable
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Award BB/X010945/1)
    • Principle Award Recipient: NotApplicable
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Award BBS/E/D/20002174)
    • Principle Award Recipient: NotApplicable
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Award BBS/E/D/10002071)
    • Principle Award Recipient: NotApplicable
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Award BBS/E/RL/230001C)
    • Principle Award Recipient: NotApplicable
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Award BBS/E/RL/230001A)
    • Principle Award Recipient: NotApplicable
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Award BB/R003653/1)
    • Principle Award Recipient: AdamBalic
© 2024 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001289
2024-09-02
2024-09-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/mgen/10/9/mgen001289.html?itemId=/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001289&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Diaz Carrasco JM, Casanova NA, Fernández Miyakawa ME. Microbiota, gut health and chicken productivity: what is the connection?. Microorganisms 2019; 7:374 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Broom LJ, Kogut MH. The role of the gut microbiome in shaping the immune system of chickens. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2018; 204:44–51 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Cowieson AJ. Comparative biology of germ-free and conventional poultry. Poult Sci 2022; 101:102105 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Meijerink N, Kers JG, Velkers FC, van Haarlem DA, Lamot DM et al. Early life inoculation with adult-derived microbiota accelerates maturation of intestinal microbiota and enhances NK cell activation in broiler chickens. Front Vet Sci 2020; 7:584561 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Liu Y, Feng Y, Yang X, Lv Z, Li P et al. Mining chicken ileal microbiota for immunomodulatory microorganisms. ISME J 2023; 17:758–774 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Zenner C, Hitch TCA, Riedel T, Wortmann E, Tiede S et al. Early-life immune system maturation in chickens using a synthetic community of cultured gut bacteria. mSystems 2021; 6:e01300-20 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Pottenger S, Watts A, Wedley A, Jopson S, Darby AC et al. Timing and delivery route effects of cecal microbiome transplants on Salmonella typhimurium infections in chickens: potential for in-hatchery delivery of microbial interventions. Anim Microbiome 2023; 5:11 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Wang X, Wu X, Cong X, Ren J, Li J et al. The functional role of fecal microbiota transplantation on Salmonella enteritidis infection in chicks. Vet Microbiol 2022; 269:109449 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Moreira TG, Mangani D, Cox LM, Leibowitz J, Lobo ELC et al. PD-L1+ and XCR1+ dendritic cells are region-specific regulators of gut homeostasis. Nat Commun 2021; 12:4907 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Wu Z, Shih B, Macdonald J, Meunier D, Hogan K et al. Development and function of chicken XCR1+ conventional dendritic cells. Front Immunol 2023; 14:1273661 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Stagg AJ. Intestinal dendritic cells in health and gut inflammation. Front Immunol 2018; 9:2883 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Wu Z, Hu T, Chintoan-Uta C, Macdonald J, Stevens MP et al. Development of novel reagents to chicken FLT3, XCR1 and CSF2R for the identification and characterization of avian conventional dendritic cells. Immunology 2022; 165:171–194 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dorner BG, Dorner MB, Zhou X, Opitz C, Mora A et al. Selective expression of the chemokine receptor XCR1 on cross-presenting dendritic cells determines cooperation with CD8+ T cells. Immunity 2009; 31:823–833 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Ohta T, Sugiyama M, Hemmi H, Yamazaki C, Okura S et al. Crucial roles of XCR1-expressing dendritic cells and the XCR1-XCL1 chemokine axis in intestinal immune homeostasis. Sci Rep 2016; 6:23505 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Russler-Germain EV, Jung J, Miller AT, Young S, Yi J et al. Commensal Cryptosporidium colonization elicits a cDC1-dependent Th1 response that promotes intestinal homeostasis and limits other infections. Immunity 2021; 54:2547–2564 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Medvecky M, Cejkova D, Polansky O, Karasova D, Kubasova T et al. Whole genome sequencing and function prediction of 133 gut anaerobes isolated from chicken caecum in pure cultures. BMC Genom 2018; 19:561 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Glendinning L, Stewart RD, Pallen MJ, Watson KA, Watson M. Assembly of hundreds of novel bacterial genomes from the chicken caecum. Genome Biol 2020; 21:34 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Rychlik I. Composition and function of chicken gut microbiota. Animals 2020; 10:103 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Zeng MY, Inohara N, Nuñez G. Mechanisms of inflammation-driven bacterial dysbiosis in the gut. Mucosal Immunol 2017; 10:18–26 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Borey M, Bed’Hom B, Bruneau N, Estellé J, Larsen F et al. Caecal microbiota composition of experimental inbred MHC-B lines infected with IBV differs according to genetics and vaccination. Sci Rep 2022; 12:9995 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2114–2120 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Li H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv 2013; 1303:3997 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 2009; 25:2078–2079 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Li H. Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 2018; 34:3094–3100 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Wood DE, Lu J, Langmead B. Improved metagenomic analysis with Kraken 2. Genome Biol 2019; 20:257 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Li D, Liu C-M, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam T-W. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 2015; 31:1674–1676 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kang DD, Li F, Kirton E, Thomas A, Egan R et al. MetaBAT 2: an adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies. PeerJ 2019; 7:e7359 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Feng X, Cheng H, Portik D, Li H. Metagenome assembly of high-fidelity long reads with hifiasm-meta. Nat Methods 2022; 19:671–674 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Nurk S, Walenz BP, Rhie A, Vollger MR, Logsdon GA et al. HiCanu: accurate assembly of segmental duplications, satellites, and allelic variants from high-fidelity long reads. Genome Res 2020; 30:1291–1305 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner PA. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res 2017; 27:824–834 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Wick RR, Schultz MB, Zobel J, Holt KE. Bandage: interactive visualization of de novo genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2015; 31:3350–3352 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Sieber CMK, Probst AJ, Sharrar A, Thomas BC, Hess M et al. Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation and scoring strategy. Nat Microbiol 2018; 3:836–843 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Chklovski A, Parks DH, Woodcroft BJ, Tyson GW. CheckM2: a rapid, scalable and accurate tool for assessing microbial genome quality using machine learning. Nat Methods 2023; 20:1203–1212 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Parks DH. CompareM (v.0.1.2). https://github.com/dparks1134/CompareM
  35. Woodcroft B. CoverM genome (v.0.6.1). https://github.com/wwood/CoverM
  36. Chaumeil P-A, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P, Parks DH. GTDB-Tk v2: memory friendly classification with the genome taxonomy database. Bioinformatics 2022; 38:5315–5316 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Ondov BD, Treangen TJ, Melsted P, Mallonee AB, Bergman NH et al. Mash: fast genome and metagenome distance estimation using MinHash. Genome Biol 2016; 17:132 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Matsen FA, Kodner RB, Armbrust EV. pplacer: linear time maximum-likelihood and Bayesian phylogenetic placement of sequences onto a fixed reference tree. BMC Bioinform 2010; 11:538 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun 2018; 9:5114 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Hyatt D, Chen G-L, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinform 2010; 11:119 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2--approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 2010; 5:e9490 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Eddy SR. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput Biol 2011; 7:e1002195 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Rinke C, Mussig AJ, Chaumeil P-A et al. GTDB: an ongoing census of bacterial and archaeal diversity through a phylogenetically consistent, rank normalizedand complete genome-based taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res 2022; 50:D785–D794 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Asnicar F, Thomas AM, Beghini F, Mengoni C, Manara S et al. Precise phylogenetic analysis of microbial isolates and genomes from metagenomes using PhyloPhlAn 3.0. Nat Commun 2020; 11:2500 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Rambaut A. gtdb-tk (v.2.3.0). https://github.com/rambaut/figtree
  46. Zhou T, Xu K, Zhao F, Liu W, Li L et al. itol.toolkit accelerates working with iTOL (Interactive Tree of Life) by an automated generation of annotation files. Bioinformatics 2023; 39:btad339 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL): an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Bioinformatics 2007; 23:127–128 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Alcock BP, Huynh W, Chalil R, Smith KW, Raphenya AR et al. CARD 2023: expanded curation, support for machine learning,and resistome prediction at the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database. Nucleic Acids Res 2023; 51:D690–D699 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhou Z, Tran PQ, Breister AM, Liu Y, Kieft K et al. METABOLIC: high-throughput profiling of microbial genomes for functional traits, metabolism, biogeochemistry, and community-scale functional networks. Microbiome 2022; 10:33 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Aramaki T, Blanc-Mathieu R, Endo H, Ohkubo K, Kanehisa M et al. KofamKOALA: KEGG ortholog assignment based on profile HMM and adaptive score threshold. Bioinformatics 2019; 36:2251–2252 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Mistry J, Chuguransky S, Williams L, Qureshi M, Salazar GA et al. Pfam: the protein families database in 2021. Nucleic Acids Res 2021; 49:D412–D419 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Rawlings ND, Barrett AJ, Bateman A. MEROPS: the peptidase database. Nucleic Acids Res 2010; 38:D227–D233 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. O’Leary NA, Wright MW, Brister JR, Ciufo S, Haddad D et al. Reference sequence (RefSeq) database at NCBI: current status, taxonomic expansion, and functional annotation. Nucleic Acids Res 2016; 44:D733–D745 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang H, Yohe T, Huang L, Entwistle S, Wu P et al. dbCAN2: a meta server for automated carbohydrate-active enzyme annotation. Nucleic Acids Res 2018; 46:W95–W101 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Lin H, Peddada SD. Analysis of compositions of microbiomes with bias correction. Nat Commun 2020; 11:3514 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Wilke C. Cowplot: streamlined plot theme and plot annotations for 'ggplot2’ v.1.1.1 ed2020.
  57. Wickham H, François R, Henry L, Müller KDV. dplyr: a grammar of data manipulation. v.1.1.1 ed2023.
  58. Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. v.3.4.2 ed. Springer-Verlag New York; 2016
  59. McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS One 2013; 8:e61217 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Wickham H. Reshaping data with the reshape package. J Stat Softw 2007; 21:1–20 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Wickham H, Vaughan D, Girlich M. tidyr: tidy messy data. v.1.3.0 ed2023.
  62. Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J Open Source Softw 2019; 4:1686 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Oksanen J, Simpson G, Blanchet F, Kindt R, Legendre P et al. vegan: community ecology package. v.2.6-4 ed2022.
  64. Sato Y, Sato R, Fukui E, Yoshizawa F. Impact of rumen microbiome on cattle carcass traits. Sci Rep 2024; 14:6064 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Lin L, Lai Z, Yang H, Zhang J, Qi W et al. Genome-centric investigation of bile acid metabolizing microbiota of dairy cows and associated diet-induced functional implications. ISME J 2023; 17:172–184 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Xie F, Jin W, Si H, Yuan Y, Tao Y et al. An integrated gene catalog and over 10,000 metagenome-assembled genomes from the gastrointestinal microbiome of ruminants. Microbiome 2021; 9:137 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Lin H, Peddada SD. Multigroup analysis of compositions of microbiomes with covariate adjustments and repeated measures. Nat Methods 2024; 21:83–91 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Chen LX, Anantharaman K, Shaiber A, Eren AM, Banfield JF. Accurate and complete genomes from metagenomes. Genome Res 2020; 30:315–333 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Zhang Y, Jiang F, Yang B, Wang S, Wang H et al. Improved microbial genomes and gene catalog of the chicken gut from metagenomic sequencing of high-fidelity long reads. Gigascience 2022; 11:giac116 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Portik DM, Brown CT, Pierce-Ward NT. Evaluation of taxonomic classification and profiling methods for long-read shotgun metagenomic sequencing datasets. BMC Bioinform 2022; 23:541 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Gilroy R, Ravi A, Getino M, Pursley I, Horton DL et al. Extensive microbial diversity within the chicken gut microbiome revealed by metagenomics and culture. PeerJ 2021; 9:e10941 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Glendinning L, Jia X, Kebede A, Oyola SO, Park J-E et al. Altitude-dependent agro-ecologies impact the microbiome diversity of scavenging indigenous chicken in ethiopia. bioRxiv 2023 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Kubasova T, Kollarcikova M, Crhanova M, Karasova D, Cejkova D et al. Contact with adult hen affects development of caecal microbiota in newly hatched chicks. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0212446 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Sun B, Hou L, Yang Y. The development of the gut microbiota and short-chain fatty acids of layer chickens in different growth periods. Front Vet Sci 2021; 8:666535 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Lee IK, Gu MJ, Ko KH, Bae S, Kim G et al. Regulation of CD4+CD8−CD25+ and CD4+CD8+CD25+ T cells by gut microbiota in chicken. Sci Rep 2018; 8:8627 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Song B, Yan S, Li P, Li G, Gao M et al. Comparison and correlation analysis of immune function and gut microbiota of broiler chickens raised in double-layer cages and litter floor pens. Microbiol Spectr 2022; 10:e0004522 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Yin H, Liu Z, Zhang W, Yang Q, Yu T et al. Chicken intestinal microbiota modulation of resistance to nephropathogenic infectious bronchitis virus infection through IFN-I. Microbiome 2022; 10:162 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Zimmermann P. The immunological interplay between vaccination and the intestinal microbiota. NPJ Vaccines 2023; 8:24 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Xu P, Shi Y, Liu P, Yang Y, Zhou C et al. 16S rRNA gene sequencing reveals an altered composition of the gut microbiota in chickens infected with a nephropathogenic infectious bronchitis virus. Sci Rep 2020; 10:3556 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Li L, Kubasová T, Rychlik I, Hoerr FJ, Rautenschlein S. Infectious bursal disease virus infection leads to changes in the gut associated-lymphoid tissue and the microbiota composition. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0192066 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Xu P, Liu P, Zhou C, Shi Y, Wu Q et al. A multi-omics study of chicken infected by nephropathogenic infectious bronchitis virus. Viruses 2019; 11:1070 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Kers JG, Velkers FC, Fischer EAJ, Hermes GDA, Lamot DM et al. Take care of the environment: housing conditions affect the interplay of nutritional interventions and intestinal microbiota in broiler chickens. Anim Microbiome 2019; 1:10 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Kers JG, Velkers FC, Fischer EAJ, Hermes GDA, Stegeman JA et al. Host and environmental factors affecting the intestinal microbiota in chickens. Front Microbiol 2018; 9:235 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Mandal RK, Jiang T, Wideman RF, Lohrmann T, Kwon YM. Microbiota analysis of chickens raised under stressed conditions. Front Vet Sci 2020; 7:482637 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001289
Loading
Infectious bronchitis virus vaccination, but not the presence of XCR1, is correlated with large differences in chicken caecal microbiota
M Gen 10, 001289 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1099/mgen.0.001289
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001289
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001289
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Supplementary material 2

EXCEL

Supplementary material 3

EXCEL

Supplementary material 4

EXCEL

Supplementary material 5

EXCEL

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error