The fecal microbiota composition of boar Duroc, Yorkshire, Landrace and Hampshire pigs

  • Xiao, Yingping (Institute of Quality and Standard for Agro-products, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences) ;
  • Li, Kaifeng (Institute of Quality and Standard for Agro-products, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences) ;
  • Xiang, Yun (Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Institute, Jinhua Academy of Agricultural Sciences) ;
  • Zhou, Weidong (Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Institute, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences) ;
  • Gui, Guohong (Institute of Quality and Standard for Agro-products, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences) ;
  • Yang, Hua (Institute of Quality and Standard for Agro-products, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences)
  • Received : 2016.09.30
  • Accepted : 2017.02.16
  • Published : 2017.10.01


Objective: To investigate the effect of host genetics on gut microbial diversity, we performed a structural survey of the fecal microbiota of four purebred boar pig lines: Duroc, Landrace, Hampshire, and Yorkshire. Methods: The V3-V4 regions of the 16S rRNA genes were amplified and sequenced. Results: A total of 783 operational taxonomic units were shared by all breeds, whereas others were breed-specific. Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes dominated the majority of the fecal microbiota; Clostridia, Bacilli, and Bacteroidia were the major classes. Nine predominant genera were observed in all breeds and eight of them can produce short-chain fatty acids. Some bacteria can secrete cellulase to aid fiber digestion by the host. Butyric, isobutyric, valeric, and isovaleric acid levels were highest in Landrace pigs, whereas acetic and propionic acid were highest in the Hampshire breed. Heatmap was used to revealed breed-specific bacteria. Principal coordinate analysis of fecal bacteria revealed that the Landrace and Yorkshire breeds had high similarity and were clearly separated from the Duroc and Hampshire breeds. Conclusion: Overall, this study is the first time to compare the fecal microbiomes of four breeds of boar pig by high-throughput sequencing and to use Spearman's rank correlation to analyze competition and cooperation among the core bacteria.


Supported by : National Natural Science Foundation of China


  1. Lu XM, Lu PZ, Zhang H. Bacterial communities in manures of piglets and adult pigs bred with different feeds revealed by 16S rDNA 454 pyrosequencing. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2014;98:2657-65.
  2. Yang L, Bian G, Su Y, Zhu W. Comparison of faecal microbial community of lantang, bama, erhualian, meishan, xiaomeishan, duroc, landrace, and yorkshire sows. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2014;27: 898-906.
  3. Kim HB, Isaacson RE. The pig gut microbial diversity: Understanding the pig gut microbial ecology through the next generation high throughput sequencing. Vet Microbiol 2015;177:242-51.
  4. Zhang J, Guo Z, Xue Z, et al. A phylo-functional core of gut microbiota in healthy young Chinese cohorts across lifestyles, geography and ethnicities. ISME J 2015;9:1979-90.
  5. Bunter K, Bennett C. Genotype comparisons for meat and eating quality traits. Pig Genetics Workshop; 2004.
  6. Babol J, Zamaratskaia G, Juneja RK, Lundstrom K. The effect of age on distribution of skatole and indole levels in entire male pigs in four breeds: Yorkshire, Landrace, Hampshire and Duroc. Meat Sci 2004;67:351-8.
  7. Pajarillo EA, Chae JP, Balolong MP, et al. Pyrosequencing-based analysis of fecal microbial communities in three purebred pig lines. J Microbiol 2014;52:646-51.
  8. Hugerth LW, Wefer HA, Lundin S, et al. DegePrime, a program for degenerate primer design for broad-taxonomic-range PCR in microbial ecology studies. Appl Environ Microbiol 2014;80:5116-23.
  9. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, et al. Introducing mothur: opensource, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 2009;75:7537-41.
  10. Ramayo-Caldas Y, Mach N, Lepage P, et al. Phylogenetic network analysis applied to pig gut microbiota identifies an ecosystem structure linked with growth traits. ISME J 2016;10:2973-7.
  11. Lamendella R, Domingo JWS, Ghosh S, Martinson J, Oerther DB. Comparative fecal metagenomics unveils unique functional capacity of the swine gut. BMC Microbiol 2011;11:1-17.
  12. Kim HB, Borewicz K, White BA, et al. Longitudinal investigation of the age-related bacterial diversity in the feces of commercial pigs. Vet Microbiol 2011;153:124-33.
  13. Miyanaga A, Shimizu K, Noro R, et al. Enterotypes of the human gut microbiome. Nature 2011;473:174-80.
  14. Mukherjee PK, Sendid B, Hoarau G, et al. Mycobiota in gastrointestinal diseases. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;12:77-87.
  15. Hildebrand F, Nguyen TL, Brinkman B, et al. Inflammation-associated enterotypes, host genotype, cage and inter-individual effects drive gut microbiota variation in common laboratory mice. Genome Biol 2013;14:R4.
  16. Edward ABP, Jong-Pyo C, Marilen PB, Hyeun BK, Dae-Kyung K. Assessment of fecal bacterial diversity among healthy piglets during the weaning transition. J Gen Appl Microbiol 2014;60:140-6.
  17. Pedersen R, Ingerslev HC, Sturek M, et al. Characterisation of gut microbiota in Ossabaw and Gottingen minipigs as models of obesity and metabolic syndrome. PLoS One 2013;8:e56612.
  18. Huttenhower C, Gevers D, Knight R, et al. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 2013;486:207-14.
  19. McKnite AM, Perez-Munoz ME, Lu L, et al. Murine gut microbiota is defined by host genetics and modulates variation of metabolic traits. PLoS One 2012;7:e39191.
  20. Konikoff T, Gophna U. Oscillospira: a central, enigmatic component of the human gut microbiota. Trends Microbiol 2016;24:523-4.
  21. Yang W, Meng F, Peng J, et al. Isolation and identification of a cellulolytic bacterium from the Tibetan pig's intestine and investigation of its cellulase production. Electron J Biotechnol 2014;17:262-7.
  22. Kim TH, Kim KS, Choi BH, et al. Genetic structure of pig breeds from Korea and China using microsatellite loci analysis. J Anim Sci 2005;83:2255-63.
  23. Scott KP, Duncan SH, Flint HJ. Dietary fibre and the gut microbiota. Anticancer Res 2008;33:201-11.
  24. Peng LY, Li ZR, Green RS, Holzman IR, Lin J. Butyrate enhances the intestinal barrier by facilitating tight junction assembly via activation of AMP-activated protein kinase in Caco-2 cell monolayers. J Nutr 2009;139:1619-25.
  25. Maslowski KM, Vieira AT, Ng A, et al. Regulation of inflammatory responses by gut microbiota and chemoattractant receptor GPR43. Nature 2009;461:1282-6.
  26. Fukuda S, Toh H, Hase K, et al. Bifidobacteria can protect from enteropathogenic infection through production of acetate. Nature 2011;469: 543-7.
  27. Shah HN, Collins MD. Proposal to restrict the genus Bacteroides (Castellani and Chalmers) to Bacteroides fragilis and closely related species. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1989;39:85-7.
  28. Claesson MJ, Jeffery IB, Conde S, et al. Gut microbiota composition correlates with diet and health in the elderly. Nature 2012;488:178-84.
  29. Ellekilde M, Selfjord E, Larsen CS, et al. Transfer of gut microbiota from lean and obese mice to antibiotic-treated mice. Sci Rep 2013;4:5922.

Cited by

  1. Studying the Differences of Bacterial Metabolome and Microbiome in the Colon between Landrace and Meihua Piglets vol.8, pp.1664-302X, 2017,
  2. Benefits of procyanidins on gut microbiota in Bama minipigs and implications in replacing antibiotics vol.19, pp.6, 2018,
  3. Diversity of bacterial community during ensiling and subsequent exposure to air in whole-plant maize silage vol.31, pp.9, 2018,
  4. Exploring the Fecal Microbial Composition and Metagenomic Functional Capacities Associated With Feed Efficiency in Commercial DLY Pigs vol.10, pp.1664-302X, 2019,