Sequencing profiles
The Illumina MiSeq 16S rDNA sequencing data of 39 samples were examined for gut microbiota. After conducting a series of quality filter processes, a total of 88,203 read counts were recovered, with an average of 2261 reads per sample, ranging from 849 to 3357 (Fig. S1). The rarefaction curves had attained a plateau (Fig. S2), suggesting that accurate microbial groups within each sample were demonstrated. Moreover, sequence integrity was assessed using Good’s coverage. The Good’s coverage estimators for all samples in our study were greater than 99, indicating that the majority of microbial communities in our samples were fully identified. Good’s coverage and alpha diversity indices of the gut microbial communities are summarized in Table S3.
Alpha diversity of gut bacterial communities among the studied lakes
Alpha diversity of gut microbiota was examined by Chao1, observed, Accumulated Cyclone Index (ACE), Shannon, Simpson, and Fisher indices (Fig. 1, Fig. S3). Lake Chamo, with a 1235 m altitude, showed the highest value for all indices assessed. Moreover, Lake Chamo samples showed significantly higher alpha diversity than Lake Tana and Lake Hashengie populations in all indices analysed (two-tailed t-test, p<0.05). The alpha diversity of Lake Awassa was found to be significantly higher than the alpha diversity of Lake Hashengie and Lake Tana, particularly for the Chao1 and ACE indices. Lake Tana and Lake Hashengie showed similar alpha diversity (two-tailed t-test, p>0.05). The results of the present study suggested that low-altitude samples typically displayed greater alpha diversity.
Beta Diversity Of Gut Microbiota
To analyse the intestinal microbiota composition of Nile tilapia from lakes of different altitudes, the beta diversity index was used. To take abundance alteration and phylogenetic association into consideration unweighted UniFrac distance and weighted UniFrac distance were selected as signals of beta diversity. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) indicated that substantial variations were observed across samples from different lakes (p < 0.001) (Fig. 2). Based on our results, for unweighted UniFrac distance, Axis 1 accounted for 27.2% of the total difference, while Axis 2 accounted for 19.1%, and for weighted UniFrac distance, Axis 1 accounted for 74.4% of the total disparity, while Axis 2 rated 8.1%. We performed an analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) on both unweighted and weighted UniFrac distance results to substantiate this dissimilarity. The ANOSIM outcome indicated that there were significant differences between lakes of different altitudes (unweighted R: 0.72842; p value < 0.001; weighted R: 0.58415; p value < 0.001). We also carried out a permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA); the PERMANOVA results were concurrent with those of ANOSIM (unweighted R-squared: 0.45044; p value < 0.001; weighted R-squared: 0.58502; p value < 0.001).
Bacterial Community Structure
The bacterial phyla recovered from all samples included Bacteroidota (1.8%), Bdellovibrionota (1.2%), Cyanobacteria (0.6%), Firmicutes (52.8%), Fusobacteriota (35.6%), Proteobacteria (6.9%), Chloroflexi (0.3%), Actinobacteriota (0.7%) and Dependentiae (0.1%). However, the proportions of the same bacteria in samples from different lakes were different at the phylum level (Fig. 3, Table 1). There were significant differences in all phyla detected except Bacteroidota and Dependentiae (t-test, two-tailed, p value<0.01). The relative abundance of Bacteroidota in Lake Chamo (0.0434±0.0236) was highest among all groups, followed by Lake Tana (0.0161±0.0048), Lake Awassa (0.0093±0.0085), and Lake Hashengie (0.0004±0.0003). Bdellovibrionota was detected only in Lake Tana and Lake Awassa. The highest Cyanobacteria abundance was recorded in Lake Awassa (0.0211±0.0053). The relative abundance of Firmicutes in the samples of Lake Awassa (0.8941±0.0259) and Lake Chamo (0.6563±0.0670) was much higher than the relative abundance of Firmicutes in the samples from the other two lakes. However, Lake Hashengie and Lake Tana samples showed higher Fusobacteriota abundance than the other lakes. Proteobacteria was highest in Lake Chamo (0.1333±0.0389). Dependentiae was detected only in Lake Awassa (Table 1).
The relative abundances of Actinobacteriota, Chloroflexi, Firmicutes, and Fusobacteriota in the Lake Tana samples were significantly different (t-test, two-tailed, p value<0.05) from the relative abundances of Actinobacteriota, Chloroflexi, Firmicutes, and Fusobacteriota in the samples of Lake Chamo and Lake Awassa. Moreover, Lake Tana samples showed significant variation with Lake Chamo in Bdellovibrionota and Proteobacteria (t-test, two-tailed, p value<0.05). The ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidota in high-altitude populations (Lake Hashengie) was more than the ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidota in low-altitude populations (Lake Chamo) by many fold. The Firmicutes to Bacteroidota ratios were found to be 15.13 and 1122.33 in the Lake Chamo and Lake Hashengie samples, respectively.
Table 1
Relative abundance at the phylum level presented as % (out of 100). The results are expressed as the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM).
Phyla | Mean±SEM |
| Lake Awassa | Lake Chamo | Lake Hashengie | Lake Tana |
Actinobacteriota | 0.75±0.002 | 1.15±0.004 | 1.16±0.010 | 0.01±0.0001 |
Bacteroidota | 0.93±0.009 | 4.34±0.024 | 0.04±0.0003 | 1.61±0.005 |
Bdellovibrionota | 0.74±0.003 | 0 | 0 | 3.53±0.012 |
Chloroflexi | 0.34±0.001 | 0.54±0.002 | 0.17±0.001 | 0 |
Cyanobacteria | 2.11±0.005 | 0.45±0.002 | 0 | 0.12±0.001 |
Dependentiae | 0.25±0.001 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Firmicutes | 89.41±0.026 | 65.63±0.067 | 44.22±0.112 | 24.24±0.046 |
Fusobacteriota | 1.55±0.008 | 14.56±0.043 | 47.52±0.108 | 66.92±0.056 |
Proteobacteria | 3.86±0.012 | 13.33±0.039 | 6.90±0.022 | 3.58±0.012 |
Investigation of the structure of bacterial communities at the family level resulted in 39 families from all samples (Table S1). Among these families, 27 varied significantly in all samples (two-tailed t-test p< 0.05). The dominant families obtained were Clostridiaceae, Erysipelotrichaceae, Fusobacteriaceae, and Peptostreptococcaceae. The relative abundance of Clostridiaceae in Lake Awassa (0.3930±0.0774) and Lake Chamo (0.2413±0.0381) specimens was greater than the relative abundance of Clostridiaceae in Lake Tana and Lake Hashengie. The relative abundance of Erysipelotrichaceae in Lake Awassa (0.1473±0.0293) was highest among all groups. Lake Tana and Lake Hashengie showed higher Fusobacteriaceae abundances than the two lakes, with relative abundances of 0.6692±0.0563 and 0.4752±0.1075, respectively. The relative abundance of Peptostreptococcaceae in Lake Chamo (0.3901±0.0688) was highest among all groups, followed by Lake Awassa (0.3509±0.0661), Lake Hashengie (0.2540±0.0809), and Lake Tana (0.1447±0.0197). Cyanobiaceae, Microcystaceae, and Rickettsiaceae were not detected in the Lake Hashengie samples. Moreover, some families were detected in only one lake, such as Microbacteriaceae and Solirubrobacteraceae in Lake Hashengie; Microtrichaceae, Ruminococcaceae, and UBA12409 in Lake Awassa; and Silvanigrellaceae in Lake Tana. Five families, namely, Acetobacteraceae, Comamonadaceae, Erysipelotrichaceae, Fusobacteriaceae, and Mycobacteriaceae significantly differed (two-tailed t-test p< 0.05) between Lake Chamo and Lake Hashengie. Fourteen families showed a significant difference between Lake Tana and Lake Awassa, and 16 families showed a significant difference between Lake Tana and Lake Chamo (Table S5).
In total, 27 taxa were identified at the genus level from all samples (Table S2). The majority of these genera (18 genera) varied significantly across sampling lakes at different altitudes (two-tailed t-test p< 0.05). The dominant genera detected were Cetobacterium, Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1, Turicibacter, and Romboutsia from nearly all samples. The relative abundance of Cetobacterium was found to be higher in Lake Tana (0.6628±0.0580) and Lake Hashengie (0.4750±0.1074) samples than in the other lakes. The relative abundance of Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1 was highest in Lake Awassa (0.1983±0.0622), followed by Lake Hashengie (0.1388±0.0362)0. Moreover, in Lake Hashengie, which is the lake highest in altitude, the lowest relative abundances of Hyphomicrobium, Macellibacteroides, Turicibacter, and Uncultured were obtained compared to the other lakes. In contrast, the relative abundances of Romboutsia and Plesiomonas were found to be the highest in Lake Hashengie. Some microbial communities were found to be unique for particular lakes only, such as Silvanigrella in Lake Tana, Aurantimicrobium in Lake Hashengie, Candidatus_Soleaferrea in Lake Awassa, and Nocardioides in Lake Chamo. Cetobacterium, Nocardioides, Turicibacter, and Uncultured significantly differed (two-tailed t-test p< 0.05) between Lake Chamo and Lake Hashengie. The composition of Lake Tana samples was unique since more genera were significantly different (two-tailed t-test p< 0.05) from Lake Awassa (i.e., Cetobacterium, Cyanobium_PCC_6307, Microcystis_PCC_7914, Romboutsia, Silvanigrella, Turicibacter, and V2) and Lake Chamo (i.e. Cetobacterium, Nocardioides, Romboutsia, Silvanigrella, Roseomonas, and V2).
Bacterial Signatures In Different Samples
Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) was performed to detect the microbial signature in every lake. Signature gut microbial communities at the genus level comprised Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1, Cyanobium_PCC_6307, Microcystis_PCC_7914, Turicibacter and V3 in the Lake Awassa sample; Macellibacteroides, Clostridium_sensu_stricto_13 and Uncultured in the Lake Chamo sample; Cetobacterium and Silvanigrella in the Lake Tana sample; and Romboutsia, Legionella, Epulopiscium, Methylocystis and Aeromonas in the Lake Hashengie sample (Fig. 4). At the phylum level, Firmicutes, Cyanobacteria, Dependentiae, and Patescibacteria in Lake Awassa; Proteobacteria, Chloroflexi, and Bacteroidota in Lake Chamo; Fusobacteriota and Bdellovibrionota in Lake Tana; and Actinobacteriota in Lake Hashengie were found to be important taxa.
Unique and shared bacteria in the gut of Nile tilapia
A Venn diagram was made to assess the distribution of amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) among different samples collected from lakes located at different altitudes. The results showed that five ASVs (ASV13, ASV16, ASV2, ASV1, and ASV3) were shared by all lakes. ASV12, ASV110, ASV81, and ASV133 were shared between Lake Hashengie and Lake Chamo. Moreover, six ASVs (ASV47, ASV145, ASV113, ASV44, ASV7, and ASV55) were shared by Lake Awassa and Chamo. However, some ASVs were peculiar to some lakes only, e.g., 12 ASVs in Lake Hashengie, two ASVs (ASV19 and ASV78) in Lake Tana, 12 ASVs in Lake Awassa, and 33 ASVs in Lake Chamo (Fig. 5).
Correlation Between Gut Microbiota And Altitude
To determine which bacterial communities were associated with altitude, Spearman correlation analysis was employed. We found that the relative abundances of Actinobacteriota (Spearman correlation 0.388, p value <0.05), Chloroflexi (Spearman correlation 0.396, p value <0.05), Cyanobacteria (Spearman correlation 0.503, p value <0.01) and Firmicutes (Spearman correlation 0.464, p value <0.01) were negatively correlated with altitude, while Fusobacteriota (Spearman correlation 0.561, p value <0.01) showed a positive association with altitude (Table 2). At the genus level, altitude was positively correlated with Aurantimicrobium, Legionella, and Cetobacterium. However, 11 genera, Clostridium_sensu_stricto_13, Hyphomicrobium, Macellibacteroides, Methyloparacoccus, Microcystis_PCC_7914, V2, Nocardioides, Roseomonas, Shewanella, uncultured and Turicibacter, showed negative correlations with altitude (Table S4).
Table 2
Spearman correlation between the relative abundances of gut microbial communities at the phylum level and altitude. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Taxa | Correlation Coefficient | Sig. (2-tailed) |
Actinobacteriota | -0.388* | 0.015 |
Bacteroidota | -0.295 | 0.068 |
Bdellovibrionota | 0.068 | 0.681 |
Chloroflexi | -0.396* | 0.013 |
Cyanobacteria | -0.503** | 0.001 |
Dependentiae | -0.215 | 0.189 |
Firmicutes | -0.464** | 0.003 |
Fusobacteriota | 0.561** | 0.000 |
Others | -0.171 | 0.298 |
Proteobacteria | -0.103 | 0.533 |