中国畜牧杂志

育肥猪饲料转化率差异与肠道菌群组成特征的关联性分析

PDF下载

吴启钿, 陈倩, 宋雅丽, 彭震, 王晓庆, 田晶晶, 王海玲, 杨嘉怡, 王立贤, 赵福平, 高鹏飞

中国畜牧杂志 | 遗传育种 2026,62(2): 128-134

收起

中国畜牧杂志 |遗传育种 2026 , 62 (2) : 128 -134

育肥猪饲料转化率差异与肠道菌群组成特征的关联性分析

全屏

吴启钿, 陈倩, 宋雅丽, 彭震, 王晓庆, 田晶晶, 王海玲, 杨嘉怡, 王立贤, 赵福平, 高鹏飞

作者信息

作者简介:

吴启钿（1999-），女，贵州六盘水人，硕士研究生，主要从事猪遗传育种研究，E-mail:www113304056671@163.com;

Affiliations

出版时间: 2025-12-19 doi: 10.19556/j.0258-7033.20241210-01

文章导航

摘要

收起

本研究旨在探究猪饲料转化率（Feed Conversion Ratio,FCR）与肠道微生物组成与结构的关系，为微生物生物标志物的开发和精确营养管理策略的制定提供科学依据。选取44头188日龄左右的皮特兰母猪，依据FCR高低分为高饲料转化率组（High FCR,HFCR）和低饲料转化率组（Low FCR,LFCR），采用16S rRNA测序分析结肠内容物微生物多样性，并与FCR进行关联分析。结果表明：除Chao1指数外，高低饲料转化率组间微生物的Alpha多样性无显著差异。微生物主坐标分析（Principal Coordinate Analysis,PCoA）结果表明，2组间的肠道微生物整体结构存在显著差异。皮特兰猪的核心菌属有普雷沃氏菌科未分类菌属（Uncultured Prevotellaceae）、拟杆菌门未分类菌属（Uncultured Bacteroidetes）、瘤胃球菌科未分类菌属（Uncultured Ruminococcaceae）、狭义梭菌属（Clostridium sensu stricto）。通过LEfSe分析，HFCR组中γ-变形菌纲未培养菌属（Uncultured Gammaproteobacteria）、狭义梭菌属、乳杆菌科未培养菌属（Uncultured Lactobacillaceae）等菌属显著富集，LFCR组则显著富集异普雷沃氏菌属（Alloprevotella）、链球菌属（Streptococcus）、普雷沃氏菌科未分类菌属等。冗余分析进一步揭示，采食量、日增重、栏位和饲料转化率对细菌群落结构有显著影响，其中普雷沃氏菌属、粪杆菌属（Faecalibacterium）、普雷沃氏菌科未分类菌属与FCR为负相关。本研究揭示了皮特兰母猪高、低FCR组结肠微生物群落结构，明确了普雷沃氏菌科相关菌属、粪杆菌属等作为潜在微生物标记与饲料效率改善相关，本研究结果可为进一步开发肠道微生物调控策略、提升猪生产性能提供理论参考。

关键词

饲料转化率 / 16SrRNA测序 / 肠道微生物组成 / 皮特兰猪

引用本文

吴启钿, 陈倩, 宋雅丽, 彭震, 王晓庆, 田晶晶, 王海玲, 杨嘉怡, 王立贤, 赵福平, 高鹏飞. 育肥猪饲料转化率差异与肠道菌群组成特征的关联性分析. 中国畜牧杂志, 2026 , 62 (2) : 128 -134 . DOI: 10.19556/j.0258-7033.20241210-01

基金

收起

山西省基础研究项目（202203021211268）;中国农业科学院科技创新工程（ASTIP-IAS02）;畜禽遗传资源发掘与精准育种山西省重点实验室开放课题基金;

参考文献

收起

文献

收起

参考文献引证文献

排序方式：

[1]国家统计局.中华人民共和国2024年国民经济和社会发展统计公报[N].人民日报, 2025-03-01.
[2]Si J, Feng L, Gao J, et al. Evaluating the association between feed efficiency and the fecal microbiota of early-life Duroc pigs using 16S rRNA sequencing[J]. AMB Express, 2020, 10(1):115.
[3]Ojo A O, Mulim H A, Campos G S, et al. Exploring feed efficiency in beef cattle:from data collection to genetic and nutritional modeling[J]. Animals, 2024, 14(24):3633.
[4]Wang C H, Chung K T, Su L Y, et al. Chinese herbal medicines as natural alternative products to antibiotics in weaned piglets through intestinal microbiota regulation[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2024,25(20):11034.
[5]Pereira F A, Coelho F A, Alves L K S, et al. Dose of phytase from either Aspergillus niger or Escherichia coli on performance of nursery piglets[J]. Transl Anim Sci, 2024, 8:txae132.
[6]Camarinha-Silva A, Maushammer M, Wellmann R, et al. Host genome influence on gut microbial composition and microbial prediction of complex traits in pigs[J]. Genetics, 2017, 206(3):1637-1644.
[7]Kavanova K, Kostovova I, Moravkova M, et al. In vitro characterization of lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria from wild and domestic pigs:probiotic potential for post-weaning piglets[J]. BMC Microbiol, 2025, 25(1):8.
[8]Tan Z, Wang Y, Yang T, et al. Differences in gut microbiota composition in finishing Landrace pigs with low and high feed conversion ratios[J]. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, 2018, 111(9):1673-1685.
[9]McCormack U M, Curião T, Buzoianu S G, et al. Exploring a possible link between the intestinal microbiota and feed efficiency in pigs[J]. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2017, 83(15):e00380.
[10]Yang H, Huang X, Fang S, et al. Uncovering the composition of microbial community structure and metagenomics among three gut locations in pigs with distinct fatness[J]. Sci Rep, 2016,6(1):27427.
[11]Xiao Y, Li K, Xiang Y, et al. The fecal microbiota composition of boar Duroc, Yorkshire, Landrace and Hampshire pigs[J].Asian-Australas J Anim Sci, 2017, 30(10):1456-1463.
[12]Mirpuri J, Raetz M, Sturge C R, et al. Proteobacteria-specific IgA regulates maturation of the intestinal microbiota[J]. Gut microbes, 2014, 5(1):28-39.
[13]Li C J, Zhang Z, Zhan P C, et al. Comparative genomic analysis and proposal of Clostridium yunnanense sp. nov., Clostridium rhizosphaerae sp. nov., and Clostridium paridis sp. nov., three novel Clostridium sensu stricto endophytes with diverse capabilities of acetic acid and ethanol production[J]. Anaerobe, 2023,79:102686.
[14]Huynh U, Zastrow M L. Metallobiology of Lactobacillaceae in the gut microbiome[J]. J Inorg Biochem, 2023, 238:112023.
[15]Nicholson J K, Holmes E, Kinross J, et al. Host-gut microbiota metabolic interactions[J]. Science, 2012, 336(6086):1262-1267.
[16]Liu W, Crott J W, Lyu L, et al. Diet-and genetically-induced obesity produces alterations in the microbiome, inflammation and Wnt pathway in the intestine of Apc+/1638N mice:comparisons and contrasts[J]. J Cancer, 2016, 7(13):1780-1790.
[17]Luo M, Sun M, Wang T, et al. Gut microbiota and type 1diabetes:a two-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization study[J]. Front Cell Infect Mi, 2023, 13:1163898.
[18]Ma L, Feng J, Zhang J, et al. Campylobacter biofilms[J].Microbiol Res, 2022, 264:127149.
[19]Topiel M S, Simon G L. Peptococcaceae bacteremia[J]. Diagn Micr Infec Dis, 1986, 4(2):109-117.
[20]Houlden A, Goldrick M, Brough D, et al. Brain injury induces specific changes in the caecal microbiota of mice via altered autonomic activity and mucoprotein production[J]. Brain Behav Immun, 2016, 57:10-20.
[21]Yu D Y, Kim S H, Kim J A, et al. Effects of Rubus coreanus byproducts on intestinal microbiota and the immune modulation[J]. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci, 2018, 31(3):429-438.
[22]He B, Li T, Wang W, et al. Metabolic characteristics and nutrient utilization in high-feed-efficiency pigs selected using different feed conversion ratio models[J]. Science China Life Sci, 2019, 62(7):959-970.
[23]Pang J, Liu Y, Kang L, et al. Bifidobacterium animalis promotes the growth of weaning piglets by improving intestinal development, enhancing antioxidant capacity, and modulating gut microbiota[J]. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2022, 88(22):e0129622.
[24]Gerard C, Stilling R M, Kennedy P J, et al. Minireview:gut microbiota:the neglected endocrine organ[J]. Mol Endocrinol,2014, 28(8):1221-1238.
[25]Stilling R M, van de Wouw M, Clarke G, et al. The neuropharmacology of butyrate:The bread and butter of the microbiotagut-brain axis?[J]. Neurochem Int, 2016, 99:110-132.
[26]Paster B J, Canale-Parola E. Physiological diversity of rumen spirochetes[J]. Appl Environ Microbiol, 1982, 43(3):686-693.
[27]Tett A, Pasolli E, Masetti G, et al. Prevotella diversity, niches and interactions with the human host[J]. Nat Rev Microbiol,2021, 19(9):585-599.
[28]Glover J S, Ticer T D, Engevik M A. Characterizing the mucindegrading capacity of the human gut microbiota[J]. Sci Rep,2022, 12(1):8456.
[29]Wang Y, Jin T, Zhang N, et al. Effect of stocking density and age on physiological performance and dynamic gut bacterial and fungal communities in Langya hens[J]. Microbial Cell Factories, 2021, 20(1):218.
[30]Mach N, Berri M, EstelléJ, et al. Early-life establishment of the swine gut microbiome and impact on host phenotypes[J].Environ Microbiol Rep, 2015, 7(3):554-569.
[31]Wessels A G. Influence of the gut microbiome on feed intake of farm animals[J]. Microorganisms, 2022, 10(7):1305.
[32]Wen C, van Dixhoorn I, Schokker D, et al. Environmentally enriched housing conditions affect pig welfare, immune system and gut microbiota in early life[J]. Anim Microbiome, 2021,3(1):52.

2026年第62卷第2期

PDF下载

引用本文

BibTeX

文章信息

doi: 10.19556/j.0258-7033.20241210-01

首发时间：2026-07-01
出版时间：2025-12-19

补充材料

相关文章

文章信息

作者

出版历史

基金

作者信息

参考文献

分享链接

https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/zgxmzz/CN/10.19556/j.0258-7033.20241210-01

分享至

全文二维码

扫描看全文

引用本文

BibTeX

本文的引用情况

2种不同金属材料的力学参数

科 Family	属数 Number of genus	种数 Number of species	占总种数比例 Percentage of total species (%)	属 Genus	种数 Number of species	占总种数比例 Percentage of total species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae	2	11	5.26	鹅膏菌属 Amanita	10	4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae	2	12	5.74	丝盖伞属 Inocybe	5	2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae	8	14	6.70	蜡蘑属 Laccaria	5	2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae	3	23	11.00	小皮伞属 Marasmius	6	2.87
				小菇属 Mycena	11	5.26
				光柄菇属 Pluteus	5	2.39
				红菇属 Russula	17	8.13
				栓菌属 Trametes	5	2.39

关闭全屏

BibTeX
EndNote
RefWorks
TxT