This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Article
Antton Alberdi
University of Copenhagen
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
There is an open debate on whether and how captivity alters the gut microbiota of vertebrates, due to the contrasting results reported in different taxa and the absence of systematic multi-species analyses. We performed a meta-analysis of gut microbiota profiles of 322 captive and 322 wild specimens from 24 vertebrate species, including fish, reptiles, amphibians and mammals. We found no evidence that captivity either systematically depletes or increases their gut microbiota. In 88% of the species analysed, although captivity entailed a loss of a fraction of the diversity found in the wild, this was compensated through recruitment of a proportionally similar amount of new taxa only found in captivity. We show such compositional changes can impact evolutionary and ecological inferences that rely on hierarchical clustering-based comparative analyses of gut microbial communities across species.
Keywords
animal, captive, community, microbiota, microorganism, wild
Figure 1
Figure 2
There is NO Competing Interest.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- NatComm.Supplementarydataset.xlsx
Supplementary Dataset
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 26 Feb, 2021
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Article
Antton Alberdi
University of Copenhagen
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 26 Feb, 2021
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
There is an open debate on whether and how captivity alters the gut microbiota of vertebrates, due to the contrasting results reported in different taxa and the absence of systematic multi-species analyses. We performed a meta-analysis of gut microbiota profiles of 322 captive and 322 wild specimens from 24 vertebrate species, including fish, reptiles, amphibians and mammals. We found no evidence that captivity either systematically depletes or increases their gut microbiota. In 88% of the species analysed, although captivity entailed a loss of a fraction of the diversity found in the wild, this was compensated through recruitment of a proportionally similar amount of new taxa only found in captivity. We show such compositional changes can impact evolutionary and ecological inferences that rely on hierarchical clustering-based comparative analyses of gut microbial communities across species.
Figure 1
Figure 2
There is NO Competing Interest.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- NatComm.Supplementarydataset.xlsx
Supplementary Dataset
Loading...