Gene sets enriched in oxyntic and pyloric mucosae of young pigs.

1<p>Number of genes in the set.</p>2<p>Normalized enrichment score.</p>3<p>False discovery rate.</p><p>Gene sets enriched in oxyntic and pyloric mucosae of young pigs.</p

Genes that were more expressed (<i>P</i><0.05) in PYL mucosa, a priori selected for their relevance in the stomach, compared with OXY mucosa¹.

1<p>OXY  =  oxyntic mucosa; PYL  =  pyloric mucosa.</p>2<p>Mean values, expressed as log2 of intensity values.</p><p>Genes that were more expressed (<i>P</i><0.05) in PYL mucosa, a priori selected for their relevance in the stomach, compared with OXY mucosa^{<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0111447#nt107" target="_blank">1</a>}.</p

Genes that did not differ for expression in OXY and PYL mucosa, a priori selected for their relevance in the stomach¹.

1<p>OXY  =  oxyntic mucosa; PYL  =  pyloric mucosa.</p>2<p>Mean values, expressed as log2 of intensity values.</p><p>Genes that did not differ for expression in OXY and PYL mucosa, a priori selected for their relevance in the stomach^{<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0111447#nt109" target="_blank">1</a>}.</p

Genes that were more expressed (<i>P</i><0.05) in OXY mucosa, a priori selected for their relevance in the stomach, compared with PYL mucosa¹.

1<p>OXY  =  oxyntic mucosa; PYL  =  pyloric mucosa.</p>2<p>Mean values, expressed as log2 of intensity values.</p><p>Genes that were more expressed (<i>P</i><0.05) in OXY mucosa, a priori selected for their relevance in the stomach, compared with PYL mucosa^{<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0111447#nt105" target="_blank">1</a>}.</p

Validation of the microarray data by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) analysis of four representative genes.

1<p>Values normalized for <i>hydroxymethylbilane synthase</i> and <i>ribosomal protein L4</i> gene expression.</p>2<p><i>ATP4A</i>, H+/K+ Atpase α; <i>GAST</i>, gastrin; <i>GHRL</i>, ghrelin/obestatin prepropeptide; <i>PIGR</i>, polymeric immunoglobulin receptor.</p>3<p>All gene values differed for the different mucosae inside each analysis method (<i>P</i><0.05).</p><p>Validation of the microarray data by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) analysis of four representative genes.</p

Primers information and RT-qPCR conditions used in the trial.

1<p><i>ATP4A</i>, H+/K+ Atpase α; <i>GAST</i>, gastrin; <i>GHRL</i>, ghrelin/obestatin prepropeptide; <i>PIGR</i>, polymeric immunoglobulin receptor; <i>HMBS</i>, hydroxymethylbilane synthase; <i>RPL4</i>, ribosomal protein L4.</p><p>Primers information and RT-qPCR conditions used in the trial.</p

Relative abundance (average) of the principal phyla in the different stomach regions.

<p>Before and after removal of unclassified Bacteria and Chloroplast reads. Verrucomicrobia, Fusobacteria and Acidobacteria phyla (not visible in the Figure) were also found with abundances <1%.</p

ANOSIM post hoc test based on relative abundance of genera in samples.

<p>ANOSIM post hoc test based on relative abundance of genera in samples.</p

Exploring gastric bacterial community in young pigs

<div><p>Microbiota plays an important role in the homeostasis of the gastrointestinal tract. Understanding the variations of the commensal microbiota composition is crucial for a more efficient control of enteric infectious diseases and for the reduction of the use of antibiotics in animal production, which are the main points of interest for improved animal healthcare and welfare and for consumer health protection. Even though the intestinal microbiota has been extensively studied, little is known about the gastric microbiota. This pilot study was aimed at a descriptive analysis of the gastric microbiota in healthy pigs and at the identification of any differences among four potentially distinct microbial niches in the stomach. Gastric mucosal samples from the oxyntic area, the pylorus and the gastric groove, and a sample of gastric contents were collected from four healthy weaned pigs. Bacterial DNA was isolated and extracted from each sample and amplicons from the V6 region of the 16S rRNA gene were sequenced using Ion Torrent PGM. The data were analysed by an “unsupervised” and a “supervised” approach in the Ribosomal Database Project (RDP) pipeline. Proteobacteria was the dominant phylum in all the samples. Differences in bacterial community composition were found between mucosal and content samples (one-way ANOSIM pairwise post hoc test, <i>p</i> < 0.05); instead, the different mucosal regions did not show differences between them. The mucosal samples were characterised by <i>Herbiconiux</i> and <i>Brevundimonas</i>, two genera which include cellulolytic and xylanolytic strains. Nevertheless, additional larger trials are needed to support the data presented in this pilot study and to increase the knowledge regarding the resident microbiota of the stomach.</p></div

Exploring gastric bacterial community in young pigs - Fig 1

<p>Box-plot of the Shannon-Weaver (a) and Eveness (b) index values in the samples from different regions of the stomach.</p