ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Short Research Article
Revised

Amplicon pyrosequencing and ion torrent sequencing of wild duck eubacterial microbiome from fecal samples reveals numerous species linked to human and animal diseases

[version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]
Previously titled: Amplicon pyrosequencing of wild duck eubacterial microbiome from a fecal sample reveals numerous species linked to human and animal diseases
PUBLISHED 04 Dec 2013
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Our investigation into the composition of the wild duck, Aythya americana, eubacterial microbiome from a fecal sample using amplicon pyrosequencing revealed that the representative bacterial species were quite distinct from a pond water sample, and we were able to classify the major operational taxonomic units with Fusobacterium mortiferum, Streptobacillus moniliformis, Lactobacillus intermedius, Actinomyces suimastitidis, Campylobacter Canadensis, Enterococcus cecorum, Lactobacillus aviarus, Actimomyces spp., Pseudobutyrivibrio spp. and Helicobacter brantae representing the majority of the eubacterial fecal microbiome.  Bacterial species present in the analysis revealed numerous organisms linked to human and animal diseases including septicemia, rat bite fever, pig mastitis, endocarditis, malar masses, genital infections, skin lesions, peritonitis, wound infections, septic arthritis, urocystitis, gastroenteritis and drinking water diseases.  In addition, to being known carriers of viral pathogens wild ducks should also be recognized as a potential source of a range of bacterial diseases.

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Using ion torrent sequencing, we analyzed the eubacterial microbiome of 6 additional wild ducks of the Ayantha americana species.  Our initial conclusion that the wild duck was a vector for bacterial disease was supported by the additional data and many of the initially reported pathogenic species were also present in the other samples.  Statistical evaluation of the 7 samples revealed that exposure to wild duck feces equates to exposure to pathogenic bacteria and opportunistic bacterial pathogens.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Jorge Santo Domingo
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Jonas Waldenström
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Benjamin Kirkup

Introduction

Throughout the history of medicine there has been an awareness of animal to human transmission of disease, and the etiological pathogens have been collectively described as zoonoses1. Water fowl and wild birds have been identified as reservoirs for the virus Influenza A2,3; a highly mutable and infectious pathogen that infects avian and mammalian species4. Ducks are observed in a multitude of fresh water sources including ponds, water fountains and pools where they can defecate; bacteria have been shown to be distributed through aerosols from ornamental fountains5,6 and reclaimed water dispensed through an irrigation system7. Humans may also have direct contact with ducks and their excrement through the recreational sport of duck hunting8. Ducks can also shed pathogens near chicken farms or other animals—such as pigs—that have access to outside areas. An avian influenza A virus (H7N7) epidemic in the Netherlands in 2003 thought to be initiated from a migratory water fowl resulted in the culling of 30 million poultry in an area of the country where free-range poultry farming was common9. Due to the migratory nature and unrestrained behavior of the wild duck, Aythya Americana, our study set out to investigate the bacterial microbiome of a wild duck and to identify its bacterial flora relative to the same bacterial species that have been reported to cause disease in farm animals and humans.

Methods

Amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP) was originally described by Dowd et al.10 and has been used in describing a wide range of environmental and health related microbiomes including the intestinal populations of a variety of animals and their environments including cattle1115. Fecal samples obtained from wild ducks, Aythya americana, that were killed during duck hunting season (December 2012) by licensed hunters, were aseptically swabbed onto a Whatman FTA cards (GE Healthcare Life Sciences) using sterile swabs and gloves being careful to avoid environmental contamination. The flaps of the FTA cards were placed over the FTA paper and placed into a sterile pouch, and the FTA cards were stored at room temperature prior to DNA amplification. 2 mm punches were washed with FTA reagent and TE (10 mM Tris-HCL, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0) according to the manufacturer’s protocol, and the dried punches were used as template DNA for thermal cycling. DNA was also isolated from 50 mL of pond water as a negative comparison and sampled from a source of water visited by numerous avian species but not at the source of the fecal sampling but within the migratory range of Aythya americana. The pond water DNA was isolated using water RNA/DNA purification kit (0.45 µm) [Norgen Biotek Corp, Thorold, ON, Canada]. For thermal cycling and DNA amplification we used the 16S universal Eubacterial primers 27f 5´-AGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG-3´ and 1492r primer 5´-ACGGCTACCTTGTTACGACTT-3´ (Integrated DNA Technologies). A single-step 30 cycle PCR using EconoTaq PLUS 2X Master Mix (Lucigen, Middleton, WI) were used under the following conditions: 94°C for 2 minutes, followed by 30 cycles of 95°C for 120 seconds; 42°C for 30 seconds and 72°C for 4 minutes; after which a final elongation step at 72°C for 20 minutes was performed. Following PCR, DNA products were resolved in a 1% agarose, 1X TAE gel stained with ethidium bromide and 1.5 Kb products were excised from the gel purified using a cyclo-prep spin column (Amresco, Solon, OH). All the DNA products were purified using Agencourt Ampure beads (Agencourt Bioscience Corporation, MA, USA). Samples were sequenced using Roche 454 FLX titanium instruments and reagents following manufacturer’s guidelines. The Q25 sequence data derived from the sequencing process was processed using a proprietary analysis pipeline (www.mrdnalab.com, MR DNA, Shallowater, TX). Sequences were depleted of barcodes and primers. Next, short sequences < 200bp, sequences with ambiguous base calls, and sequences with homopolymer runs exceeding 6bp were removed. Sequences were then denoised and chimeras removed. Operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were defined after removal of singleton sequences, clustering at 3% divergence--97% similarity10,15. OTUs were then taxonomically classified using BLASTn against a curated GreenGenes database16,17 and compiled into each taxonomic level into both “counts” and “percentage” files.

For ion torrent sequencing, the 16S rRNA gene V4 variable region PCR primers 515/80660 were used in a single-step 30 cycle PCR using the HotStarTaq Plus Master Mix Kit (Qiagen, USA) under the following conditions: 94°C for 3 minutes, followed by 28 cycles of 94°C for 30 seconds, 53°C for 40 seconds and 72°C for 1 minute, after which a final elongation step at 72°C for 5 minutes was performed. Sequencing was performed at MR DNA (www.mrdnalab.com, Shallowater, TX, USA) on an Ion Torrent PGM following the manufacturer’s guidelines.

The prevalence of pathogenic bacteria was estimated by the means and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Due to the aquatic nature of the animal, we initially expected that the biodiversity of bacterial species in the duck feces would reflect numerous bacterial species present in the pond water, and since we observed multiple species of aquatic birds in the pond we expected to find eubacteria in common. Figure 1 is a modified heat map showing differences and similarities among the classes of eubacteria sequenced and identified. The figure demonstrates clear differences at the taxonomical level of Class with few common classes of bacteria namely Actinobacteria, Clostridia and Gammaproteobactera.

565ec3dd-74f6-4646-b557-a15c57589cc6_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Comparison of Classes of Eubacteria present in the Duck to the Classes of Eubacteria present in pond water using a modified heat map.

Darker colors represent a higher representation of the bacterial class.

However, similarities at the level of Genus and species included only Agrobacterium tumefaciencs and a species of Porphyromonas and a species of Ruminococcaceae (Figure 2). This analysis indicated distinct differences between the eubacteria present in the duck fecal sample and the pond water sample, and it also indicated that our sampling of the duck feces was devoid of any obvious pond water eubacterial constituents.

565ec3dd-74f6-4646-b557-a15c57589cc6_figure2.gif

Figure 2. Bacterial species present in both duck feces and pond water.

The taxonomical classification of OTU at the level of genus and species was compiled in relation to percentages of the Eubacterial microbiome (Table 1). In Table 2, we referenced reported cases of diseases related to the bacteria sequenced from the duck’s fecal sample reflecting the eubacterial microbiome’s potential to cause disease in humans and other mammals. The largest representative bacterial species—relative to percentage—was Fusobacterium mortiferum at 31.6%. Fusobacterium mortiferum reports related to human disease are sparse, but Fusobacterium have been associated with rare but serious cases of bacteremia18,19, and a 6 year study of “other gram-negative anaerobic bacilli” (OGNAB) isolated from anaerobic infections at the Wadsworth Clinical Anaerobic Clinical Anaerobic Bacteriology Research Laboratory in Los Angeles, CA reported that most strains of Fusobacteria—outside of Fusobacterium nucleatum—were resistant to erythromycin20. The pathogen, Fusobacterium nucleatum, on the other hand, is well-known for its association with disease and its ability to adhere to Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria in dental biofilms such as plaque21.

Table 1. Taxonomical classification of operational taxonomic units into the Genus/species level with representative percentages of the Eubacterial Microbiome based on pyrosequencing data.

OTUs genus/species% of Eubacterial
microbiome
Fusobacterium mortiferum  31.609
Streptobacillus moniliformis  30.100
Lactobacillus intermedius  11.021
Actinomyces suimastitidis    4.474
Campylobacter canadensis    3.694
Enterococcus cecorum    3.585
Lactobacillus aviarius    2.792
Actinomyces spp.    1.966
Pseudobutyrivibrio spp.    1.811
Helicobacter brantae    1.248
Coriobacteriaceae spp.    0.928
Actinomyces nasicola    0.784
Actinomyces odontolyticus    0.699
Lactobacillus aviarius    0.627
Roseburia spp.    0.380
Leptotrichia spp.    0.364
Ruminococcaceae spp.    0.307
Actinomyces turicensis    0.295
Bacillus spp.    0.265
Plesiomonas shigelloides    0.239
Fastidiosipila spp.    0.213
Actinomyces canis    0.209
Arcanobacterium pyogenes    0.183
Blautia spp.    0.169
Ruminococcus spp.    0.157
Veillonella ratti    0.155
Actinomyces europaeus    0.139
Atopobium vaginae    0.121
Lactobacillus spp.    0.117
Porphyromonas spp.    0.111
Parvimonas micra    0.078
Tessaracoccus spp.    0.068
Fusobacterium periodonticum    0.058
Atopobium rimae    0.054
Oscillibacter spp.    0.054
Helcococcus kunzii    0.054
Arthrobacter bergerei    0.048
Streptococcus macedonicus    0.044
Clostridium spp.    0.044
Peptostreptococcaceae spp.    0.042
Enterococcus spp.    0.040
Cetobacterium ceti    0.038
Veillonella magna    0.036
Cetobacterium spp.    0.034
Peptoniphilus asaccharolyticus    0.034
Flavonifractor spp.    0.034
Fusobacterium nucleatum    0.030
Actinomyces neuii    0.026
Bacteroides plebeius    0.024
Veillonella dispar    0.024
Streptococcus spp.    0.020
Dorea spp.    0.018
Allobaculum spp.    0.016
Porphyromonas gingivalis    0.016
Eubacterium sulci    0.016
Actinomyces lingnae    0.016
Bacteroides spp.    0.016
Collinsella spp.    0.016
Actinoplanes roseosporangius    0.014
Erysipelotrichaceae spp.    0.014
Lysinibacillus spp.    0.014
Corynebacterium freneyi    0.014
Myceligenerans xiligouense    0.012
Actinomyces vaccimaxillae    0.012
Streptococcus suis    0.012
Anaerotruncus spp.    0.012
Sporosarcina spp.    0.010
Isoptericola variabilis    0.010
Olsenella spp.    0.010
Atopobium spp.    0.010
Agrobacterium tumefaciens    0.010
Microbispora rosea    0.008
Actinocorallia glomerata    0.008
Coprococcus spp.    0.008
Mobiluncus curtisii    0.008
Bacteroides coprocola    0.008
Prevotellaceae spp.    0.006
Sneathia spp.    0.006
Veillonella spp.    0.006
Gardnerella spp.    0.006
Varibaculum cambriense    0.006
Acinetobacter spp.    0.004
Actinomyces hongkongensis    0.004
Turicibacter spp.    0.002
Desulfovibrio spp.    0.002
Total    100

Table 2. Diseases related to the eubacteria identified in the wild duck fecal microbiome.

Genus/Species% of BiomeDiseaseReference
Fusobacterium mortiferum31.61Septicemia1820
Streptobacillus moniliformis30.10Rat bite fever/Haverhill, osteomyelitis, epidural abscess, fever and polyarthralgia, bacteremia, drinking water related disease2227
Lactobacillus intermedius11.02Renal transplant infection28
Actinomyces suimastitidis4.47Pig mastitis29
Campylobacter canadensis3.69Drinking water related disease27
Enterococcus cecorum3.59Arthritis and osteomyelitis in chicks, enteroccocal spondylitis (ES) chicks, Aortic valve endocarditis in humans, empyema thoracis, septicemia, recurrent bacteremic peritonitis3035
Actinomyces odontolyticus0.70Bacteremia in immunosuppressed patients, Malar mass36,37
Leptotrichia spp.0.36Bacteremia38
Actinomyces turicensis0.30Genital infections, urinary infections, skin infections, post-operative wound infection, abscess, appendicitis, ear and nose and throat infection, and bacteremia39
Plesiomonas shigelloides0.24Travelers' diarrhea, dysentery, gastroenteritis4548
Arcanobacterium pyogenes0.18Human wound infections49
Actinomyces europaeus0.14Human abscesses40
Atopobium vaginae0.12Bacterial vaginosis50
Parvimonas micra0.08Odontogenic infection52
Atopobium rimae0.05Human Bacteremia53
Helcococcus kunzii0.05Urocystitis in a sow59
Fusobacterium nucleatum0.03Bacteremia54
Actinomyces neuii0.03Endophthalmitis, periprosthetic infection41,42
Veillonella dispar0.02Septic arthritis57
Porphyromonas gingivalis0.02Periodontitis32
Corynebacterium freneyi0.01Bacteremia55
Actinomyces vaccimaxillae0.01Cow jaw lesion43
Streptococcus suis0.01Meningitis, septicemia, endocarditis, arthritis, and septic shock in both pigs and human beings,56
Varibaculum cambriense0.01Intrauterine devices and vagina51
Actinomyces hongkongensis<0.01Bacteremia44

Streptobacillus moniliformis was also identified as a major constituent of the duck fecal eubacterial microbiome at 30.1%. Several well-studied and documented cases of disease are attributed to S. moniliformis including rat bite fever or Haverhill disease22, osteomyelitis23, epidural abscesses24, fever and polyarthralgia25, bacteremia26 and contaminated drinking water related disease27.

Other organisms and their respective illnesses included Lactobacillus intermedius (11.02%) in a renal transplant infection28, Actinomyces suimastitidis (4.47%) in pig mastitis29 and Campylobacter canadensis (3.69%) in drinking water related disease27. Enterococcus cecorum was another identified pathogen at 3.59% of the sequenced Eubacterial microbiome, and E. cecorum has been reported to cause disease in chicks30,31 and humans including aortic valve endocardititis32, empyema thoracis33, septicemia in a malnourished adult34 and recurrent bacteremic peritonitis in a patient with liver cirrhosis35. Actinomyces odontolyticus (0.70%) has recently been reported to cause bacteremia in immunosuppressed patients36, and members of the genus Actinomyces have been known to cause actinomycosis for some time. A. odonolyticus was reported by Michell, Hintz and Haselby in 1997 to be the cause of a malar mass in soft tissue in a human37. A species of the genus Leptotrichia (0.36%) was also identified, a genus that has been associated with bacteremia in multiple myeloma patients receiving chemotherapy38. Another Actinomyces present in the wild duck eubacterial microbiome was Actinomyces turicensis at 0.3%, a bacterium associated with a spectrum of diseases including genital infections, urinary tract infections, skin infections, post-operative wound infection, abscesses, appendicitis, ear and nose and throat infection and bacteremia39. In addition, Actinomyces europaeus (0.14%) was reported in human abscesses40, Actinomyces neuii (0.03%) was reported to cause endophthalmitis41 and periprosthetic infection42, Actinomyces vaccimaxillae (0.01%) was isolated from a cow jaw lesion43 and Actinomyces hongkongensis (0.004%) was reported to cause high-mortality bacteremia in humans44.

0.24% of the eubacterial population was composed of Plesiomonas shigelloides a well-documented pathogen associated with Travelers’ diarrhea, dysentery and gastroenteritis4548. Arcanobacterium pyogenes was also present (0.18%), a pathogen reported to cause soft tissue infections in humans49. Atopobium vaginae (0.12%) was reported to cause bacterial vaginosis in a human50 and Varibaculum cambriense (0.01%) was reported to cause complications with intrauterine devices and vaginal infections in Hong Kong51, Parvimonas micra (0.08%) was associated with odontogenic infection52 and human bacteremia was reported with Atopobium rima53, Fusobacterium nucleatum54, Corynebacterium freneyi55 and Streptococcus suis56. Finally, Veillonella dispar (0.02%) was reported in a case of septic arthritis57 and Porphyromonas gingivalis (0.02%) is a well-studied pathogen reported decades earlier and associated with periodontitis58.

Six additional fecal samples from Ayantha americana were processed and sequenced using the ion torrent platform. The number of OTUs increased from 85 to 163, and the rarefraction curve that included OTUs from only Ayantha americana indicated that additional OTUs can be expected due to the lack of a plateau on the graph (data not shown). However, the ion torrent sequencing data in Table 3 supported the 454 pyrosequencing data in that the Anaerotruncus genus was common along with Bacteroides, Blautia, Campylobacter, Cetobacterium, Clostridium, Coprococcus, Erysipelotrichaceae, Faecalibacterium, Fusobacterium, Peptostreptococcacease Pseudobutyrivibrio, Roseburia, Ruminococcaceae, Streptobacillus and Veillonella.

Table 3. Taxonomical classification of operational taxonomic units into the Genus/species level with representative percentages of the Eubacterial Microbiome based on Ion Torrent Sequencing Data.

DAA-1DAA-2DAA-3DAA-4DAA-5DAA-6
Acetobacteraceae spp. 0.28440.96950.19160.00000.09260.0000
Actinobacillus rossii 0.00000.00000.09580.00000.00000.0000
Actinomadura spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.37040.0000
Actinomyces canis 0.00000.00000.09580.00000.00001.7157
Actinomyces hyovaginalis 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.46300.0490
Actinomyces nasicola 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00002.6471
Actinomyces odontolyticus 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.1471
Actinomyces spp. 0.00000.13850.09580.00000.00005.0980
Actinomyces suimastitidis 0.00000.00000.47890.00000.00005.0490
Aeromonas spp. 0.18960.13850.09580.00000.00000.0000
Akkermansia spp. 8.34123.18560.00000.00000.00000.0000
Alistipes spp. 0.18960.41550.00000.25480.00000.0000
Allisonella spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.76430.00000.0000
Allobaculum spp. 0.28440.13850.00000.12740.09260.0000
Anaerobiospirillum spp. 0.09481.662016.09200.00000.00000.0490
Anaerobiospirillum thomasii 0.00000.13851.91570.00000.00000.0000
Anaerofilum spp. 0.28440.00000.00000.00000.18520.0000
Anaeroplasma spp. 0.00000.55400.00000.00000.00000.0000
Anaerosporobacter spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.25480.00000.0000
Anaerostipes spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.38220.00000.0000
Anaerotruncus spp. 1.80091.93910.09587.77070.74070.0490
Ancalomicrobium hirschii 0.18960.27700.09580.00000.46300.0000
Ancalomicrobium spp. 0.09480.13850.00000.00000.09260.0000
Anderseniella spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.50960.00000.0000
Asanoa spp. 0.00000.27700.28740.00000.18520.1471
Atopobium parvulum 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.18520.0000
Atopobium rimae 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.37041.2745
Atopobium spp. 0.00000.00000.09580.00000.00000.7353
Atopobium vaginae 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.46300.5882
Bacteroidales spp. 0.66351.24650.19162.54780.00000.0000
Bacteroides capillosus 0.09480.00000.00000.00000.09260.0000
Bacteroides coprocola 1.42180.83100.00000.00000.00000.0000
Bacteroides coprophilus 0.28440.69250.19161.52870.00000.0000
Bacteroides eggerthii 0.66350.13850.09580.12740.00000.0000
Bacteroides spp. 11.090012.46540.86218.28031.48150.0000
Barnesiella spp. 0.00000.00000.00002.42040.00000.0000
Beijerinckiaceae spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.12740.27780.0000
Blautia producta 1.70620.69250.00000.76432.87040.0490
Blautia spp. 0.85310.41550.00001.91082.77780.0000
Brachyspira innocens 0.00000.00000.00000.12740.00000.0000
Bulleidia solobacterium moorei 0.00000.00000.00000.25480.18520.0000
Campylobacter canadensis 0.189612.880923.18014.58600.00000.0490
Campylobacter upsaliensis 0.00000.00000.57470.00000.00000.0000
Candidatus_Alysiosphaera spp. 0.00000.13850.00000.25480.00000.0000
Candidatus_Phytoplasma 0.00000.00000.09580.00000.00000.4902
Cetobacterium somerae 0.18960.00000.09580.382211.66670.0000
Clostridium bartlettii 0.09480.00000.47890.00000.09260.0000
Clostridium bifermentans 0.18960.41550.09580.00000.00000.0000
Clostridium celerecrescens 0.00000.00000.09580.00000.00000.0490
Clostridium colinum 0.00000.00000.00000.00002.12960.0000
Clostridium hiranonis 0.09480.00000.47890.00000.00000.0000
Clostridium lactatifermentans 0.09480.41550.00000.00000.00000.0000
Clostridium ramosum 0.37910.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000
Clostridium spiroforme 3.31750.13850.19160.00001.57410.0000
Clostridium spp. 0.47390.13850.00000.38220.00000.0000
Comamonadaceae spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.38220.00000.0000
Coprococcus spp. 0.18960.00000.38313.18470.09260.0000
Coriobacteriaceae spp. 0.18960.00000.09580.00000.37040.9314
Corynebacterium freneyi 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00001.5196
Corynebacterium kroppenstedtii 0.00000.13850.38310.00000.00000.0000
Corynebacterium xerosis 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00001.0294
Defluviicoccus spp. 0.18960.13850.00000.00000.00000.0000
Desulfovibrio spp. 0.00000.55400.00000.00000.00000.0980
Dorea spp. 0.00000.00000.00001.65610.00000.0000
Enterobacter spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.1471
Enterococcus cecorum 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.3922
Enterococcus faecium 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.55560.0000
Erysipelothrix spp. 0.00000.13850.00000.00000.37040.0000
Erysipelotrichaceae anaerorhabdus furcosa 0.09480.00000.00000.00001.66670.0000
Erysipelotrichaceae spp. 1.32700.83100.00007.77076.85190.0000
Erythrobacter unidentified 0.00000.55400.00000.00000.00000.0000
Escherichia_shigella spp. 2.36970.415518.48660.00000.00000.0000
Faecalibacterium prausnitzii 7.867311.21880.67050.00000.09260.0000
Faecalibacterium spp. 5.78202.63161.34104.20380.37040.0490
Fastidiosipila spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.00001.29630.0000
Flavobacterium spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.12740.00000.0000
Flavonifractor spp. 0.09480.00000.00000.38220.46300.0000
Fusobacterium mortiferum 7.67775.67871.24521.40130.00005.4902
Fusobacterium nucleatum 0.00000.00000.67050.00000.00000.0000
Fusobacterium spp. 0.28440.41550.09580.76430.00000.0000
Geobacillus pallidus 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0980
Helcococcus kunzii 0.00000.00000.09580.00000.00000.3922
Helcococcus ovis 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.1471
Helcococcus sueciensis 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.55560.0000
Helicobacter brantae 0.00000.13850.00000.12740.00001.0784
Helicobacter mustelae 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0490
Hydrogenophaga spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.76430.00000.0000
Insolitispirillum insolitospirillum peregrinum 0.00000.13850.19160.00000.00000.0000
Lactobacillus intermedius 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.18520.0980
Lactobacillus salivarius 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.09261.5196
Lactobacillus spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0980
Leptotrichia goodfellowii 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.5392
Meiothermus silvanus 0.00000.27700.00000.00000.00000.0000
Methylobacterium spp. 0.28443.32410.00007.26110.00000.0000
Microbacterium aurum 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000
Microbispora rosea 0.00000.27700.00000.00000.55560.2451
Mitochondria spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.09260.0000
Moryella spp. 0.18960.00000.09580.00000.09260.0000
Mycobacterium spp. 0.00000.27700.00000.00000.18520.0000
Nostoc commune 0.00000.41550.00000.00000.00000.0000
Nostoc linckia var. arvense 0.00000.83100.00000.00000.00000.0000
Novispirillum spp. 0.00000.00000.47890.00000.00000.0000
Novosphingobium subterraneum 0.00000.00000.28740.00000.00000.0000
Oribacterium spp. 0.85310.83100.00000.00005.55560.0000
Oscillospira spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.50960.09260.0000
Paludibacter spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.50960.00000.0000
Parabacteroides spp. 0.75830.00000.09580.25480.00000.0000
Paraprevotella spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.38220.00000.0000
Parvimonas micra 0.00000.00000.09580.00001.38890.0000
Pasteurella stomatis 0.00000.00000.38310.00000.00000.0000
Peptoniphilus asaccharolyticus 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.83330.0980
Peptostreptococcaceae spp. 5.11852.90866.51345.73251.75930.2451
Planctomycetaceae spp. 0.09480.13850.00007.00640.00000.0000
Porphyromonas canoris 0.00000.00000.38310.00000.00000.0000
Porphyromonas gingivalis 0.00000.00001.05360.00000.00000.0000
Prevotella spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.50960.00000.0000
Prevotellaceae spp. 0.09480.13850.00000.00000.00000.0000
Prochlorococcus marinus mit 9313 0.00000.00000.00000.12740.00000.0000
Propionibacterium acnes 0.00000.00000.00000.50960.00000.0000
Proteiniphilum spp. 0.18960.41550.00000.00000.00000.0000
Pseudobutyrivibrio spp. 1.80090.27700.00000.76430.27780.0000
Pseudonocardia alaniniphila 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.27780.0980
Pseudonocardia xinjiangensis 0.00000.27700.00000.00000.18520.1961
Ralstonia pickettii 0.00000.00000.00001.52870.00000.0000
Rhodobacter spp. 0.37910.69250.00000.00000.18520.0000
Rhodobacteraceae spp. 0.56870.69250.09580.00000.00000.0000
Rhodospirillaceae spp. 0.47390.41550.00000.00000.00000.0000
Roseburia eubacterium rectale 0.00000.00000.28740.00000.00000.0000
Roseburia spp. 0.09480.00000.09580.00000.18520.2941
Roseococcus spp. 0.37910.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000
Roseomonas gilardii 0.28440.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000
Roseomonas lacus 0.56870.41550.00000.00002.50000.0000
Roseomonas spp. 0.28440.13850.09580.00000.09260.0000
Roseomonas terrae 0.00000.00000.00000.00001.01850.0000
Rubellimicrobium spp. 0.09480.00000.00000.00000.09260.0000
Rubribacterium spp. 0.18960.13850.09580.00000.00000.0000
Ruminococcaceae human gut_metagenome 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.18520.0000
Ruminococcaceae spp. 24.549815.78953.065112.229336.57415.1471
Ruminococcus gnavus 0.00000.00000.00000.38220.00000.0000
Ruminococcus spp. 0.00000.00000.00001.01910.00000.0000
Saccharofermentans spp. 0.18961.10800.00000.00000.00000.1961
Sandaracinobacter spp. 0.28440.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000
Saprospiraceae spp. 0.00000.00000.19160.00000.00002.5000
Sciscionella spp. 0.00000.27700.00000.00000.18520.0980
Selenomonas spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.38220.09260.0000
Slackia human intestinal_bacterium_dze 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.18520.0000
Sneathia spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00001.9118
Solobacterium spp. 0.28440.27700.00000.00000.37040.0000
Spirochaeta spp. 0.00000.41550.00001.01910.00000.0000
Streptobacillus moniliformis 0.28440.831014.46360.00001.296356.6176
Streptococcus macedonicus 0.09480.00000.00000.00003.79630.0000
Streptococcus suis 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.09260.0000
Subdoligranulum spp. 0.66351.24650.09583.69430.55560.0000
Succinivibrio wallaby gut_metagenome 0.00000.00001.14940.00000.00000.0000
Sutterella spp. 0.28440.41550.00000.38220.00000.0000
Synechococcus elongatus 0.00000.00000.00000.38220.00000.0000
Syntrophomonas spp. 0.18960.27700.00000.00000.74070.0000
Tessaracoccus spp. 0.00000.00000.00000.00000.09260.0980
Thalassospira spp. 0.85312.49310.00000.89170.18520.0490
Thermoanaerobacterium saccharolyticum 0.00000.13850.00000.00000.00000.0000
Treponema spp. 0.00000.00001.05360.00000.00000.0000
Veillonella spp. 0.00000.13850.00000.00000.37040.0980
Xylanimicrobium pachnodae 0.00000.13850.00000.00000.09260.2451
Total100.0000100.0000100.0000100.0000100.0000100.0000

Forty six of the eubacterial OTUs have been reported as pathogens or opportunistic pathogens and on average they represented nearly 72% of the bacteria present, M=71.78, SD=5.96, 95% CI [57.19, 86.37]. Anaerotruncus spp., Campylobacter canadensis, Fusobacterium mortiferum, Helcococcus kunzii, Streeptobacillus moniliformis, Streptococcus suis, Arcanobacterium pyogenes, Clostridium ramosum, Corynebacterium xerosis, Enterococcus faecium, Flavobacterium spp. and Veillonella magna were recognized and evaluated as the most pathogenic representative bacteria. The twelve most pathogenic on average represented nearly 31% of the bacteria present, M=30.95, SD=9.70, 95% CI [7.19, 54.71]. The mean is not normally distributed for a small sample of seven; consequently the confidence intervals were estimated using a t-distribution with six degrees of freedom.

Discussion

Numerous pathogenic eubacterial species have been identified in the fecal samples obtained from the wild duck, Aythya Americana, using amplicon pyrosequencing and ion torrent sequencing, two widely accepted methods for analyzing the bacterial composition of microbial ecosystems. We were surprised to find that most of the species of eubacteria sequenced the duck feces were not present in a pond water sample from a water source that was known to be visited by numerous water fowl. Perhaps, the analyses of small samples from a pond or lake are not adequate when investigating the presence of avian contamination.

The summary in Table 2 indicates that many of the bacteria that are listed are clinically important causing severe diseases such as bacteremia and septicemia. The potential to cause disease can be appreciated when one considers that wild-duck feces can contaminate food, drinking water and open wounds. In addition, bird feces can easily contaminate pond fountains and ornamental fountains--where aerosols are produced—and the aerosols can carry the bacteria in a similar way to what has been reported for Legionella pneumophila47. It is possible that many of the bacterial entities when disseminated to humans and other animals could also cause subclinical respiratory illnesses that are not reported due to patient resolution and the empiric treatment of respiratory illnesses with antibiotics without diagnostic testing.

It is only prudent to recommend that immunocompromised humans, the elderly and animals should limit their exposure to environments where ducks are abundant and may have polluted the water source—this includes ponds with fountains, outdoor pools and ornamental fountains that are not properly maintained. That realization also supports the practice of adequately chlorinating or sanitizing artificial pools and fountains to prevent opportunistic infections through aerosols or breaks in the skin.

Duck hunters should also be aware of the risk of bacterial contamination in addition to the risk posed by the influenza virus. Additionally, reclaimed water poses a threat to the elderly and other immunocompromised humans who might be exposed to aerosols that are produced when the reclaimed water is used as a source of irrigation such as in golf courses and gardens, a common practice that might warrant further inquiry.

When determining the cause of disease it is difficult—if not impossible—to identify the source of infection, and whether it has indeed originated from an animal that is migratory or aquatic in nature. Many of the bacterial species that were cited to cause infections among humans were also found in the excrement of a migratory and aquatic bird that is unrestrained and defecates in water supplies and defecates around farm animals that are raised as ‘free-range” and exposed to the environment.

Our analysis of the wild duck was focused on Ayantha americana, a wild duck common to Florida and the Southeastern region of the United States. The statistical analysis of seven fecal samples indicated that the wild duck eubacterial microbiome contained numerous bacteria that were pathogenic or opportunistic pathogens, and the wild duck should be recognized as a vector for bacterial contamination and disease to humans and farm animals.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Oct 2013
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Strong T, Dowd S, Gutierrez AF et al. Amplicon pyrosequencing and ion torrent sequencing of wild duck eubacterial microbiome from fecal samples reveals numerous species linked to human and animal diseases [version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2013, 2:224 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.2-224.v2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 04 Dec 2013
Revised
Views
22
Cite
Reviewer Report 23 May 2014
Jorge Santo Domingo, Microbial Contaminants Control Branch, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, USA 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 22
After a reassessment of the paper, and after reading the other reviewers' comments and authors' responses, I am still very skeptical about the interpretation on using relatively small fragments of the 16S rDNA to assign identities to the species level. ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Santo Domingo J. Reviewer Report For: Amplicon pyrosequencing and ion torrent sequencing of wild duck eubacterial microbiome from fecal samples reveals numerous species linked to human and animal diseases [version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2013, 2:224 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.3183.r4873)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
18
Cite
Reviewer Report 09 May 2014
Jonas Waldenström, Centre for Ecology and Evolution in Microbial model Systems (EEMiS), Linnæus University, Kalmar, Sweden 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 18
I have now re-read the paper after the revision, and also the comments from Benjamin Kirkup which were very insightful and to the point. I think that a careful rephrasing of parts of the manuscript should be done, more clearly ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Waldenström J. Reviewer Report For: Amplicon pyrosequencing and ion torrent sequencing of wild duck eubacterial microbiome from fecal samples reveals numerous species linked to human and animal diseases [version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2013, 2:224 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.3183.r4718)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
38
Cite
Reviewer Report 13 Dec 2013
Benjamin Kirkup, Department of Wound Infections, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD, USA 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 38
Strong et al. is a characterization of the fecal microbiome from Aythya americana.  Wild waterfowl have been implicated in zoonotic disease transmission and can confound water quality studies which track fecal contamination through waterways. Adult ducks culled during hunting and ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Kirkup B. Reviewer Report For: Amplicon pyrosequencing and ion torrent sequencing of wild duck eubacterial microbiome from fecal samples reveals numerous species linked to human and animal diseases [version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2013, 2:224 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.3183.r2739)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 13 Dec 2013
    Jonathan Coffman, Barry University, Hollywood, FL 33020, USA
    13 Dec 2013
    Author Response
    Thank you for your extensive review and recommendations for improvement and further analysis. Taking the time to review our article is much appreciated. Thank you for the additional references to ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 13 Dec 2013
    Jonathan Coffman, Barry University, Hollywood, FL 33020, USA
    13 Dec 2013
    Author Response
    Thank you for your extensive review and recommendations for improvement and further analysis. Taking the time to review our article is much appreciated. Thank you for the additional references to ... Continue reading
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 23 Oct 2013
Views
30
Cite
Reviewer Report 13 Nov 2013
Jonas Waldenström, Centre for Ecology and Evolution in Microbial model Systems (EEMiS), Linnæus University, Kalmar, Sweden 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 30
The novel sequencing techniques now allow for assessing a much larger fraction of the microorganisms a host is carrying. In the past, an investigation of the gastrointestinal microbiota of an animal would rely either on the culturable fraction of microorganisms, ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Waldenström J. Reviewer Report For: Amplicon pyrosequencing and ion torrent sequencing of wild duck eubacterial microbiome from fecal samples reveals numerous species linked to human and animal diseases [version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2013, 2:224 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.2554.r2257)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 13 Dec 2013
    Jonathan Coffman, Barry University, USA
    13 Dec 2013
    Author Response
    Thank you for your comments and recommendations. We are continuing our study with additional samples to increase our N.
    Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 13 Dec 2013
    Jonathan Coffman, Barry University, USA
    13 Dec 2013
    Author Response
    Thank you for your comments and recommendations. We are continuing our study with additional samples to increase our N.
    Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Views
42
Cite
Reviewer Report 06 Nov 2013
Jorge Santo Domingo, Microbial Contaminants Control Branch, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, USA 
Not Approved
VIEWS 42
The article of Strong et al. focuses on the description of the bacterial community of a duck fecal sample. In the study the authors analyzed 16S rDNA pyrosequencing data to determine the identity and diversity of the bacteria present in ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Santo Domingo J. Reviewer Report For: Amplicon pyrosequencing and ion torrent sequencing of wild duck eubacterial microbiome from fecal samples reveals numerous species linked to human and animal diseases [version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2013, 2:224 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.2554.r2348)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 06 Nov 2013
    Jonathan Coffman, Barry University, USA
    06 Nov 2013
    Author Response
    The method for pyrosequencing including the variable regions of the 16S rRNA gene was referenced and previously described by:

    Scot E. Dowd, Yan Sun, Randy D. Wolcott, Alexander Domingo, and Jeffery ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 06 Nov 2013
    Jonathan Coffman, Barry University, USA
    06 Nov 2013
    Author Response
    The method for pyrosequencing including the variable regions of the 16S rRNA gene was referenced and previously described by:

    Scot E. Dowd, Yan Sun, Randy D. Wolcott, Alexander Domingo, and Jeffery ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Oct 2013
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.