THE CHANGES IN COD
INTESTINAL MICROBIOTA UPON CAPTURE
This study documents the
intestinal changes in the gut of wild Atlantic Cod, Gaduas morhua, upon capture and artificial feeding. Over the years,
this species has become increasingly important for mariculture in the northern
hemisphere. Presently, wild Cod are caught and brought to sea-pens were they
are fed an artificial diet to increase weight and size before slaughter. This
practice also supplies a year-round Cod source. Past studies indicate that
marine fish caught from the wild and fed artificial feed may change the
intestinal microbiota in the caught stock. It is well-established that the microbiota
of fish intestines plays an important role in the growth, survival, health and
nutrition of a host, supplying nutrients, fatty acids, extracellular enzymes
and vitamins. The intestinal communities of wild-caught and penned
Scottish/Norweigian Salmon has been documented but here the changing intestinal
communities of wild Atlantic Cod acclimatizing to artificial rearing will be
assessed for the first time.
70 cod were caught off the coast
of Norway and brought to a large indoor tank supplied with 250m seawater.
Initial intestinal samples were collected from 8 fish before the remaining were
distributed into 6 different tanks. They were left to acclimatize for 1 week
before two different feeding trials began for 5 weeks. 3 tanks were fed with a
formulated powder mixed with sausage and herring, these were fed to satiation,
and 3 tanks were starved for 5 weeks. 8 fish were sampled from each feeding
trail. After being euthanized, the intestinal tract was removed using aseptic
procedure. The fore, mid and posterior sections were isolated. These were
washed in a sterile o.o1 M phosphate-buffered saline solution and the contents
was removed. These were kept on ice until analysis. The empty intestine was
then flushed dissected into small pieces. This remained sterile for molecular
analysis.
In order to collected quantitative
data, the intestine contents were subject to a ten-fold dilution and plated
onto Difco marine agar. The colonize that formed were observed for 3 weeks and
counted. In addition a DAPI flurochrome stain was applied to fixed samples and photographed
under a microscope.
Qualitative data was collected
using DGGE (Denaturing gradient gel
electronphoresis) and PCR-amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. These would
allow analysis of any intestinal community changes. DNA was isolated from the
intestinal wall and content, and a primer amplified the 550-bp fragment in the
rDNA. An annealing temperature gradient PCR was performed to find optimum
temperature of amplification to be 55.8°C. The products of the PCR were used to
produce a DGGE. There were four different analysis conducted; the posterior
content, posterior wall, mid content and mid wall samples. The gels were
stained with a diluted SYBR green stain. These were also photographed. Products
were also purified using a PCR centrifuged filter and subjected to BLAST.
It was recorded that there was an
increase both types of counts conducted when comparing the mid to the posterior
intestine. This was recorded in all three feeding groups. Only the mid content
compared to the mid wall showed a decrease in abundance and this only occurred
in the starved trial. The band numbers in the DGGE were less in the fed group
than the initial-capture group. The two groups showed similarity values of less
than 50% however. The starved group however had almost the same number of bands
as the initial group; this suggested that starvation had not effected the
microbial structure.
From the quantitative studies, it
was seen that there was no difference between the number of directly counted
groups when comparing the initial-caught group with the fed and starved group.
It was presumed that the resistance to change was caused by stability within
the intestinal environment, as has been shown in previous studies. It was also
discussed that the starved Cod were still found to contain hard digested
matter, suggesting that a longer period of starvation than the proposed 42 day
period should be implemented in later studies. This study reveals that the
microbial community of Atlantic Cod remains at a relatively constant level
despite dietary changes. The paper further suggests that the persistent
microbiota might be ‘sentinal organisms’.
The qualitative data determined
that there was a difference in the number of bands between the initial-capture
group and the fed group. This was unexpected as the number of counts showed no
significant difference in the quantitative data set. It was proposed that the
abundance of microbiota remained the
same but the community shifted. This is consistent with previous studies
conducted upon various freshwater and marine fish.
Finally the paper notes that the number
of culturable microbes were very low when compared to the number of microbes
identified by the DGGE. This was shown to be down to the number of anaerobic
bacteria present in the intestine.
This paper is intriguing as it
uses an array of techniques to consider the microbial composition of wild cod
intestines in association with a change in diet.
Anushu et al. 2011. Changes in the Intestinal Microbiota of Wild Atlatnic cod Gadus morhua L. upon captive rearing, Microb. Ecol. 61: 20-30
Do they report on how much variation there is in the microbial community of the wild cod upon capture? They surely can't have been exactly the same? Were they all caught in the same location/ same trip out?
ReplyDeleteThey were reported to have minor differences but the they were significantly similar in number. Basically the gut microflora was significantly similar in the 70 fish caught before they were treated (baring mind they only checked the biota of 8 fish for initial study which is pretty low). Basically, a significant 'number' of bacteria were found to remain the same but it seemed that there was an ecological shift of some kind in the fed group. I was surprised that the starved group even survive for 5 weeks without feeding and that there wasn't a reduction in number of bacteria but I guess a cold water fish's' metabolism is going to be surprisingly slow. The paper suggests that they were caught at the same location at the same time but doesn't go into much detail.
ReplyDeletebare in mind* haha
ReplyDelete