MAP, Johne’s disease and the microbiome; current knowledge and future considerations

Abstract

Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis is the causative agent of Johne’s disease in ruminants. As an infectious disease that causes reduced milk yields, effects fertility and, eventually, the loss of the animal, it is a huge financial burden for associated industries. Efforts to control MAP infection and Johne’s disease are complicated due to difficulties of diagnosis in the early stages of infection and challenges relating to the specificity and sensitivity of current testing methods. The methods that are available contribute to widely used test and cull strategies, vaccination programmes also in place in some countries. Next generation sequencing technologies have opened up new avenues for the discovery of novel biomarkers for disease prediction within MAP genomes and within ruminant microbiomes. Controlling Johne’s disease in herds can lead to improved animal health and welfare, in turn leading to increased productivity. With current climate change bills, such as the European Green Deal, targeting livestock production systems for more sustainable practices, managing animal health is now more important than ever before. This review provides an overview of the current knowledge on genomics and detection of MAP as it pertains to Johne’s disease.

A Machine Learning Approach Reveals a Microbiota Signature for Infection with Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in Cattle

“…In the case of Planococcaceae , no population was observed in any MAP-infected animals in this study. In addition, the genera Alistipes (negative, 4.65 ± 1.52; positive, 2.94 ± 0.86; Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001) and Paraprevotella (negative, 0.13 ± 0.15; positive, 0.08 ± 0.11; Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001) were significantly decreased by MAP infection in this study, which is consistent with other studies ( 36 , 37 ), whereas the overrepresentation of Firmicutes (negative, 56.18 ± 7.09; positive, 62.83 ± 7.33; Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.01), Enterococcus (negative, 0.03 ± 0.06; positive, 0.07 ± 0.05; Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001), and Streptococcus (negative, 0.03 ± 0.09; positive, 0.08 ± 0.12; Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.05) in the MAP-infected group was observed, which was also reported for MAP-infected animals and humans ( 37 , 38 ). In the case of Actinobacteria , there is controversy regarding its population change due to MAP infection.…”

Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis and microbiome profile of patients in a referral gastrointestinal diseases centre in the Sudan

“…Although the link of MAP to human diseases had been investigated extensively, no data on the possible association between MAP and change in microbiome is available yet. On the other hand, a few number of studies in animals investigated this association were conducted, but their results showed inconsistent change in microbiome pattern: in one study, MAP+ animals showed increased proportion of certain families belonging to the phyla Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes and reduced proportion of other families of Firmicutes and Verrucomicrobia phyla, while another study documented a link between MAP positivity and enrichment of certain families in the phyla Actinobacteria , as well as decreased abundance in families assigned to Bacteroidetes , and Proteobacteria , in contrast, others found an increase in abundance of Proteobacteria in MAP + animals and decreased abundance of Actinobacteria and Firmicutes [ 49 ]. In the present study, the MAP+ group showed higher abundance of the phyla Proteobacteria and Firmicutes compared to the MAP- group, which showed higher abundance of Bacteroidetes and Actinobacteria , similar change was observed in patients with irritable bowel syndrome [ 50 ].…”

Paratuberculosis: The Hidden Killer of Small Ruminants

“…The intestinal lesions of PTB cause protein leak, affect the gut microbiome and interfere with gut metabolism causing loss of nutrients and muscle wasting [ 13 , 14 ]. Therefore, as in cattle, PTB in small ruminants causes great economic losses in terms of low weight gains, reduced milk production, early culling and death [ 15 , 16 ], in addition to costs related to diagnosis and disease control [ 17 ].…”