Cargando…

Sampling the fish gill microbiome: a comparison of tissue biopsies and swabs

BACKGROUND: Understanding the influence of methodology on results is an essential consideration in experimental design. In the expanding field of fish microbiology, many best practices and targeted techniques remain to be refined. This study aimed to compare microbial assemblages obtained from Atlan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clinton, Morag, Wyness, Adam J., Martin, Samuel A. M., Brierley, Andrew S., Ferrier, David E. K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8579561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34758745
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-021-02374-0
_version_ 1784596451201908736
author Clinton, Morag
Wyness, Adam J.
Martin, Samuel A. M.
Brierley, Andrew S.
Ferrier, David E. K.
author_facet Clinton, Morag
Wyness, Adam J.
Martin, Samuel A. M.
Brierley, Andrew S.
Ferrier, David E. K.
author_sort Clinton, Morag
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Understanding the influence of methodology on results is an essential consideration in experimental design. In the expanding field of fish microbiology, many best practices and targeted techniques remain to be refined. This study aimed to compare microbial assemblages obtained from Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) gills by swabbing versus biopsy excision. Results demonstrate the variation introduced by altered sampling strategies and enhance the available knowledge of the fish gill microbiome. RESULTS: The microbiome was sampled using swabs and biopsies from fish gills, with identical treatment of samples for 16S next generation Illumina sequencing. Results show a clear divergence in microbial communities obtained through the different sampling strategies, with swabbing consistently isolating a more diverse microbial consortia, and suffering less from the technical issue of host DNA contamination associated with biopsy use. Sequencing results from biopsy-derived extractions, however, hint at the potential for more cryptic localisation of some community members. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results demonstrate a divergence in the obtained microbial community when different sampling methodology is used. Swabbing appears a superior method for sampling the microbiota of mucosal surfaces for broad ecological research in fish, whilst biopsies might be best applied in exploration of communities beyond the reach of swabs, such as sub-surface and intracellular microbes, as well as in pathogen diagnosis. Most studies on the external microbial communities of aquatic organisms utilise swabbing for sample collection, likely due to convenience. Much of the ultrastructure of gill tissue in live fish is, however, potentially inaccessible to swabbing, meaning swabbing might fail to capture the full diversity of gill microbiota. This work therefore also provides valuable insight into partitioning of the gill microbiota, informing varied applications of different sampling methods in experimental design for future research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12866-021-02374-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8579561
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85795612021-11-10 Sampling the fish gill microbiome: a comparison of tissue biopsies and swabs Clinton, Morag Wyness, Adam J. Martin, Samuel A. M. Brierley, Andrew S. Ferrier, David E. K. BMC Microbiol Research BACKGROUND: Understanding the influence of methodology on results is an essential consideration in experimental design. In the expanding field of fish microbiology, many best practices and targeted techniques remain to be refined. This study aimed to compare microbial assemblages obtained from Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) gills by swabbing versus biopsy excision. Results demonstrate the variation introduced by altered sampling strategies and enhance the available knowledge of the fish gill microbiome. RESULTS: The microbiome was sampled using swabs and biopsies from fish gills, with identical treatment of samples for 16S next generation Illumina sequencing. Results show a clear divergence in microbial communities obtained through the different sampling strategies, with swabbing consistently isolating a more diverse microbial consortia, and suffering less from the technical issue of host DNA contamination associated with biopsy use. Sequencing results from biopsy-derived extractions, however, hint at the potential for more cryptic localisation of some community members. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results demonstrate a divergence in the obtained microbial community when different sampling methodology is used. Swabbing appears a superior method for sampling the microbiota of mucosal surfaces for broad ecological research in fish, whilst biopsies might be best applied in exploration of communities beyond the reach of swabs, such as sub-surface and intracellular microbes, as well as in pathogen diagnosis. Most studies on the external microbial communities of aquatic organisms utilise swabbing for sample collection, likely due to convenience. Much of the ultrastructure of gill tissue in live fish is, however, potentially inaccessible to swabbing, meaning swabbing might fail to capture the full diversity of gill microbiota. This work therefore also provides valuable insight into partitioning of the gill microbiota, informing varied applications of different sampling methods in experimental design for future research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12866-021-02374-0. BioMed Central 2021-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8579561/ /pubmed/34758745 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-021-02374-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Clinton, Morag
Wyness, Adam J.
Martin, Samuel A. M.
Brierley, Andrew S.
Ferrier, David E. K.
Sampling the fish gill microbiome: a comparison of tissue biopsies and swabs
title Sampling the fish gill microbiome: a comparison of tissue biopsies and swabs
title_full Sampling the fish gill microbiome: a comparison of tissue biopsies and swabs
title_fullStr Sampling the fish gill microbiome: a comparison of tissue biopsies and swabs
title_full_unstemmed Sampling the fish gill microbiome: a comparison of tissue biopsies and swabs
title_short Sampling the fish gill microbiome: a comparison of tissue biopsies and swabs
title_sort sampling the fish gill microbiome: a comparison of tissue biopsies and swabs
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8579561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34758745
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-021-02374-0
work_keys_str_mv AT clintonmorag samplingthefishgillmicrobiomeacomparisonoftissuebiopsiesandswabs
AT wynessadamj samplingthefishgillmicrobiomeacomparisonoftissuebiopsiesandswabs
AT martinsamuelam samplingthefishgillmicrobiomeacomparisonoftissuebiopsiesandswabs
AT brierleyandrews samplingthefishgillmicrobiomeacomparisonoftissuebiopsiesandswabs
AT ferrierdavidek samplingthefishgillmicrobiomeacomparisonoftissuebiopsiesandswabs