Characterization of the Gut Microbiota in the Red Panda (Ailurus fulgens)

Abstract

The red panda is the only living species of the genus Ailurus. Like giant pandas, red pandas are also highly specialized to feed mainly on highly fibrous bamboo. Although several studies have focused on the gut microbiota in the giant panda, little is known about the gut microbiota of the red panda. In this study, we characterized the fecal microbiota from both wild (n = 16) and captive (n = 6) red pandas using a pyrosequecing based approach targeting the V1-V3 hypervariable regions of the 16S rRNA gene. Distinct bacterial communities were observed between the two groups based on both membership and structure. Wild red pandas maintained significantly higher community diversity, richness and evenness than captive red pandas, the communities of which were skewed and dominated by taxa associated with Firmicutes. Phylogenetic analysis of the top 50 OTUs revealed that 10 of them were related to known cellulose degraders. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of the gut microbiota of the red panda. Our data suggest that, similar to the giant panda, the gut microbiota in the red panda might also play important roles in the digestion of bamboo.

Gut microbiota in reintroduction of giant panda

“…Also, both the gut microbiota of captive and wild‐training pandas are significantly different from that of wild pandas. Consistent with other studies (Clayton et al, ; Kong et al, ), our findings reinforced the fact that wild pandas possess the most diverse gut microbiota. After release, the gut microbiota underwent a conversion into that of wild pandas as demonstrated by the panda Zhangxiang.…”

Gut microbiota in wild and captive Guizhou snub‐nosed monkeys, Rhinopithecus brelichi

“…There was no significant difference in microbial diversity based on the Shannon diversity Index which accounts for abundance and evenness of species. Reduced microbial diversity in captivity has been associated with decreased dietary diversity, antibiotic use, and increased sanitation (Amato et al, ; Dhanasiri et al, ; Eigeland et al, ; Kohl & Dearing, ; Kohl et al, ; Kong et al, ; Nakamura et al, ; Wienemann et al, ). In our study, captive monkeys did not have any history of antibiotic treatment; however, the dietary diversity of captive monkeys was less than half that of than that of wild monkeys: Captive monkeys were regularly offered 20 to 30 plant species while wild monkeys were observed consuming 60–80 plant species within the same season (diet details published previously – wild (Xiang et al, ; Yang et al, ), captive (Hale et al, )).…”

“…Diet affects gut microbial diversity (Heiman & Greenway, ; Ley et al, ; Xiao et al, ), and dietary diversity has been positively linked to microbial diversity (Heiman & Greenway, ; Nelson, Rogers, Carlini, & Brown, ; Xenoulis et al, ); although, there are a few studies that observe the opposite (freshwater fish (Bolnick et al, ), pika (Li et al, ). Recent reports in several species—including primates—have also observed greater microbial diversity in wild as compared with captive individuals (wood grouse (Wienemann et al, ), black howler monkeys (Amato et al, ; Nakamura et al, ), red pandas (Kong et al, ), woodrats (Kohl & Dearing, ; Kohl, Skopec, & Dearing, ), dugongs (Eigeland et al, ), Atlantic cod (Dhanasiri et al, ), douc langurs (Clayton et al, ), lemurs (McKenzie et al, )). However, there are also few studies that report increased microbial diversity in captive animals (baboons (Tsukayama et al, ), rhinoceros (McKenzie et al, ), leopard seals (Nelson et al, ), parrots (Xenoulis et al, ).…”

Gut microbiomes of free‐ranging and captive Namibian cheetahs: Diversity, putative functions and occurrence of potential pathogens

“…Changes in the microbiome diversity and abundance pattern beyond the natural range due to disturbances might cause functional dysbiosis affecting health (Bien, Palagani, & Bozko, ; Carding et al., ; Ellis et al., ; McKenna et al., ; Turnbaugh et al., ). Studies comparing free‐ranging and captive wildlife populations have reported modified microbiome compositions associated with a loss in diversity in captive animals (Amato et al., ; Cheng et al., ; Kong et al., ). Not only differences in diet composition but also shifts in natural abiotic (i.e., climatic) environment have been put forward as potential explanations (Clayton et al., ; Kohl & Dearing, ).…”