Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

The Korean Society for Microbiology and Biotechnology (한국미생물·생명공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Characterization of Vaginal Microbiota Associated with Pregnancy Outcomes of Artificial Insemination in Dairy Cows

  • Chen, Shi-Yi (Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Deng, Feilong (Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Zhang, Ming (College of Animal Science & Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Jia, Xianbo (Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Lai, Song-Jia (Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University)
  • Received : 2020.02.07
  • Accepted : 2020.03.25
  • Published : 2020.06.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The profitability of the dairy and beef industries is largely affected by the actually achieved reproductive efficiency. Although a large proportion of cows worldwide are bred by artificial insemination (AI) services, many potential factors affecting the outcome of pregnancy by AI remain to be addressed. In the present study, we investigated the vaginal microbiota by high-throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA gene and analyzed their association with differential pregnancy outcomes (i.e., pregnant vs. nonpregnant) of multiple AI services in dairy cows. Sequencing of the V3-V4 region totally produced 512,046 high-quality sequences that were computationally clustered into 2,584 operational taxonomic units (OTUs). All OTUs were taxonomically assigned to 10 bacterial phyla. There were statistically significant differences among the three AI service times (T1, T2 and T3) with respect to the Shannon index and number of observed OTUs (p < 0.05). Bray-Curtis distance-based PCoA analysis also revealed that T2 group could be significantly distinguished from T1 and T3. However, no significant difference between the pregnant and nonpregnant cows was found in confidence regarding both alpha diversity and beta diversity. These results could help us better understand the possible influence of vaginal microbial community on pregnancy outcomes of AI service in cows.

Keywords

References

  1. Komisarek J, Dorynek Z. 2002. Genetic aspects of twinning in cattle. J. Appl. Genet. 43: 55-68.
  2. Crowe MA, Hostens M, Opsomer G. 2018. Reproductive management in dairy cows - the future. Ir. Vet. J. 71: 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13620-017-0112-y
  3. Foote RH. 2002. The history of artificial insemination: Selected notes and notables. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.2527/animalsci2002.80E-Suppl_21a
  4. Moore SG, Hasler JF. 2017. A 100-Year review: reproductive technologies in dairy science. J. Dairy Sci. 100: 10314-10331. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13138
  5. Baruselli PS, Catussi BLC, Abreu LAD, Elliff FM, Silva LGD, Batista EDOS. 2019. Challenges to increase the AI and ET markets in Brazil. Anim. Reprod. 16: 364-375. https://doi.org/10.21451/1984-3143-AR2019-0050
  6. Binyameen M, Saleem M, Riaz A. 2019. Recent trends in bovine reproductive biotechnologies. CAB Rev. 14: 1-10.
  7. Lopez-Gatius F. 2012. Factors of a noninfectious nature affecting fertility after artificial insemination in lactating dairy cows. A review. Theriogenology 77: 1029-1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.10.014
  8. Burns BM, Fordyce G, Holroyd RG. 2010. A review of factors that impact on the capacity of beef cattle females to conceive, maintain a pregnancy and wean a calf - implications for reproductive efficiency in northern Australia. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 122: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.04.010
  9. Bijker I, Christley RM, Smith RF, Dobson H. 2015. Effect of signs of oestrus, disease stressors and cow activity on pregnancy rate following artificial insemination. Vet. Rec. 176: 411. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.102776
  10. Rodrigues NF, Kastle J, Coutinho TJD, Amorim AT, Campos GB, Santos VM, et al. 2015. Qualitative analysis of the vaginal microbiota of healthy cattle and cattle with genital-tract. Genet. Mol. Res. 14: 6518-6528. https://doi.org/10.4238/2015.June.12.4
  11. Gonzalez Moreno C, Fontana C, Cocconcelli PS, Callegari ML, Otero MC. 2016. Vaginal microbial communities from synchronized heifers and cows with reproductive disorders. J. Appl. Microbiol. 121: 1232-1241. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13239
  12. Gilbert RO. 2019. Symposium review: Mechanisms of disruption of fertility by infectious diseases of the reproductive tract. J. Dairy Sci. 102: 3754-3765. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15602
  13. Singer M, Borg M, Ouburg S, Morre SA. 2019. The relation of the vaginal microbiota to early pregnancy development during in vitro fertilization treatment-A meta-analysis. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 48: 223-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.01.007
  14. Ault TB, Clemmons BA, Reese ST, Dantas FG, Franco GA, Smith TP, et al. 2019. Uterine and vaginal bacterial community diversity prior to artificial insemination between pregnant and nonpregnant postpartum cows. J. Anim. Sci. 97: 4298-4304. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz210
  15. Deng F, McClure M, Rorie R, Wang X, Chai J, Wei X, et al. 2019. The vaginal and fecal microbiomes are related to pregnancy status in beef heifers. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 10: 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-019-0401-2
  16. Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, et al. 2019. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37: 852-857. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9
  17. Amir A, McDonald D, Navas-Molina JA, Kopylova E, Morton JT, Xu ZZ, et al. 2017. Deblur rapidly resolves single-nucleotide community sequence patterns. MSystems 2: e00191-00116.
  18. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. 2007. Naive bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73: 5261-5267. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00062-07
  19. McKight PE, Najab J. 2010. Kruskal-Wallis test. pp. 1. In The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (eds Weiner IB, Craighead WE).
  20. Anderson MJ, Walsh DC. 2013. PERMANOVA, ANOSIM, and the mantel test in the face of heterogeneous dispersions: what null hypothesis are you testing? Ecol. Monogr. 83: 557-574. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-2010.1
  21. Paulson JN, Stine OC, Bravo HC, Pop M. 2013. Differential abundance analysis for microbial marker-gene surveys. Nat. Methods 10: 1200-1202. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2658
  22. Gajer P, Brotman RM, Bai G, Sakamoto J, Schutte UM, Zhong X, et al. 2012. Temporal dynamics of the human vaginal microbiota. Sci. Transl. Med. 4: 132ra152.
  23. van de Wijgert JH, Borgdorff H, Verhelst R, Crucitti T, Francis S, Verstraelen H, et al. 2014. The vaginal microbiota: what have we learned after a decade of molecular characterization? PLoS One 9: e105998. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105998
  24. Kyrgiou M, Mitra A, Moscicki AB. 2017. Does the vaginal microbiota play a role in the development of cervical cancer? Transl. Res. 179: 168-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2016.07.004
  25. Smith SB, Ravel J. 2017. The vaginal microbiota, host defence and reproductive physiology. J. Physiol. 595: 451-463. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP271694
  26. Haahr T, Jensen JS, Thomsen L, Duus L, Rygaard K, Humaidan P. 2016. Abnormal vaginal microbiota may be associated with poor reproductive outcomes: a prospective study in IVF patients. Hum. Reprod. 31: 795-803. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew026
  27. Ling Z, Kong J, Liu F, Zhu H, Chen X, Wang Y, et al. 2010. Molecular analysis of the diversity of vaginal microbiota associated with bacterial vaginosis. BMC Genomics 11: 488. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-11-488
  28. Smith A, Chousalkar KK, Chenoweth PC. 2012. Polymerase chain reaction for detection of ureaplasma diversum from urogenital swabs in cattle in Australia. Aust. Vet. J. 90: 275-276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2012.00939.x

Cited by

  1. Significance of cervico-vaginal microbes in bovine reproduction and pheromone production – A hypothetical review vol.135, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2021.01.003