data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7e1e6/7e1e61f01d233b91960c61442e748a5609c80a7c" alt="Man ultramarathon runner in the mountains he trains at sunset"
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Microbiol.
Sec. Microorganisms in Vertebrate Digestive Systems
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2025.1556442
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
The USA is home to 83-88 million dogs, with 3-7 million living in shelters. Shelter dogs move through the supply chain from their geographical origin to adoptive homes, with possible exposure to pathogens and shift in their gut microbiota. However, research in this area is limited. This study examined the effects of intestinal colonization by ESBL bacteria on gut taxa abundance, diversity, and functions in 52 shelter dogs of various ages, sexes, and fertility statuses.We isolated fecal DNA, sequenced their 16S, processed the sequences using DADA2, identified taxa profiles in each dog by Phyloseq, and analyzed Chao1, Shannon, and Simpson alpha diversity by ggplot2 and Wilcoxon test. We analyzed beta diversity using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrix from the vegan package. Differential abundance of taxa, gut microbiome functions, and differential abundance of microbiome functions were analyzed using DESeq2, PICRUSt2, and ALDEx2, respectively, with Wilcoxon rank and Kruskal-Wallis tests for comparisons between dog groups.Firmicutes (69.3%), Bacteroidota (13.5%), Actinobacteriota (6.77%), Proteobacteria (5.54%), and Fusobacteriota (4.75%) were the major phyla in the gut of shelter dogs. ESBL bacteria colonized dogs had reduced gut microbiota alpha diversity than non-colonized dogs. The abundance levels of the following phyla (Proteobacteria, Deferribacterota, Bacteroidota, Fusobacteriota, and Spirochaetota), class (Gammaproteobacteria, Bacteroidia, Deferribacteres, Brachyspirae, and Fusobacteria), and families (Enterobacteriaceae, Peptostreptococcaceae, Lactobacillaceae, Lachnospiraceae, Prevotellaceae, and Peptostreptococcaceae) were significantly (p< 0.05) varied between the two dog groups. Further stratified analysis by age, sex, and spaying/neutering status influenced the abundance of taxa in ESBL bacteria colonized dogs, indicating these covariates act as effect modifiers. Most gut metabolic and biosynthetic pathways were downregulated in ESBL bacteria colonized dogs compared to non-colonized dogs. However, alpha-linolenic acid metabolism and shigellosis, fluorobenzoate degradation, allantoin degradation, toluene degradation, glycol degradation, fatty acid and beta-oxidation, and glyoxylate metabolism bypass pathways were increased in dogs colonized by ESBL bacteria.Colonization by ESBL bacteria marks altered gut microbiota. Dog`s demography and fertility status modify the alterations, indicating host factors and ESBL bacteria interplay to shape gut microbiota. ESBL bacteria or other factors reprogram gut microbiome functions through down and upregulating multiple metabolic and biosynthesis pathways to promote ESBL bacteria colonization.
Keywords: 16S amplicon sequencing, ESBL bacteria, Gut Microbiota, Alpha diversity, Microbiome function, Shelter dogs
Received: 06 Jan 2025; Accepted: 19 Feb 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Abdi, Datta, Zawar and Kafle. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Reta Duguma Abdi, Department of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Long Island University, Brookville, 11548, New York, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.