A metagenomics approach to characterize the footrot microbiome in Merino sheep

Le résumé fourni par la source

In the Portuguese Alentejo region, Merino sheep breed is the most common breed, reared for the production of meat, dairy, and wool. Footrot is responsible for lameness, decreased animal welfare, and higher production losses, generating a negative economic impact. The disease is caused by Dichelobacter nodosus that interacts with the sheep foot microbiome, to date largely uncharacterized. In fact, Dichelobacter nodosus is not able to induce footrot by itself being required the presence of a second pathogen known as Fusobacterium necrophorum. To understand and characterize the footrot microbiome dynamics of different footrot lesion scores, a whole metagenome sequencing (WMGS) approach was used. Foot tissue samples were collected from 212 animals with different degrees of footrot lesion scores, ranging from 0 to 5. Distinct bacterial communities were associated with feet with different footrot scores identifying a total of 63 phyla and 504 families. As the severity of footrot infection increases the microorganisms' diversity decreases triggering a shift in the composition of the microbiome from a dominant gram-positive in mild stages to a dominant gram-negative in the severe stages. Several species previously associated with footrot and other polymicrobial diseases affecting the epidermis and provoking inflammatory responses such as Treponema spp., Staphylococcus spp., Streptococcus spp. and Campylobacter spp. were identified proliferating along with the lesions' severity. Although these bacteria are not able to initiate footrot, several evidences have been described supporting their association with the severity and incidence increase of footrot lesions caused by Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum. Further investigation is required to establish the roles of particular taxa and identify which of them play a role in the disease process and which are opportunistic pathogens.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.