Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species

Background Captivity presents extreme lifestyle changes relative to the wild, and evidence of microbiome dysbiosis in captive animals is growing. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host health. Whilst captive breeding and subsequent reintroduction to the wild is important for conservation, such efforts often have limited success. Post-release monitoring is essential for assessing translocation success, but changes to the microbiome of released individuals are poorly understood. The Tasmanian devil was previously shown to exhibit loss of microbiome diversity as a result of intense captive management. This current study examines changes in the devil gut microbiome in response to translocation and aims to determine if perturbations from captivity are permanent or reversible. Methods Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we conducted temporal monitoring of the gut microbiome of released devils during two translocation events, captive-to-wild and wild-to-wild. To investigate whether the microbiome of the released devils changed following translocation, we characterized their microbiome at multiple time points during the translocation process over the course of 6–12 months and compared them to the microbiome of wild incumbent devils (resident wild-born devils at the respective release sites). Results We showed that the pre-release microbiome was significantly different to the microbiome of wild incumbent animals, but that the microbiomes of animals post-release (as early as 3 to 4 weeks post-release) were similar to wild incumbents. The gut microbiome of released animals showed significant compositional shifts toward the wild incumbent microbiome of both translocation events. Conclusion Our results suggest that the devil gut microbiome is dynamic and that loss of microbiome diversity in captivity can be restored following release to the wild. We recommend the broader application of microbiome monitoring in wildlife translocation programs to assess the impacts of translocation on animal microbiomes. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Chong, Rowena [verfasserIn] Grueber, Catherine E. Fox, Samantha Wise, Phil Barrs, Vanessa R. Hogg, Carolyn J. Belov, Katherine

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2019

Schlagwörter:	Captivity Carnivore Reintroduction program Wildlife translocation Dysbiosis

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s) 2019

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Animal microbiome - [London] : BioMed Central, 2019, 1(2019), 1 vom: 03. Okt.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:1 ; year:2019 ; number:1 ; day:03 ; month:10

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4

Katalog-ID:	SPR038625342

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR038625342
003	DE-627
005	20230328215415.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR038625342
035			\|a (SPR)s42523-019-0012-4-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Chong, Rowena \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species
264		1	\|c 2019
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s) 2019
520			\|a Background Captivity presents extreme lifestyle changes relative to the wild, and evidence of microbiome dysbiosis in captive animals is growing. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host health. Whilst captive breeding and subsequent reintroduction to the wild is important for conservation, such efforts often have limited success. Post-release monitoring is essential for assessing translocation success, but changes to the microbiome of released individuals are poorly understood. The Tasmanian devil was previously shown to exhibit loss of microbiome diversity as a result of intense captive management. This current study examines changes in the devil gut microbiome in response to translocation and aims to determine if perturbations from captivity are permanent or reversible. Methods Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we conducted temporal monitoring of the gut microbiome of released devils during two translocation events, captive-to-wild and wild-to-wild. To investigate whether the microbiome of the released devils changed following translocation, we characterized their microbiome at multiple time points during the translocation process over the course of 6–12 months and compared them to the microbiome of wild incumbent devils (resident wild-born devils at the respective release sites). Results We showed that the pre-release microbiome was significantly different to the microbiome of wild incumbent animals, but that the microbiomes of animals post-release (as early as 3 to 4 weeks post-release) were similar to wild incumbents. The gut microbiome of released animals showed significant compositional shifts toward the wild incumbent microbiome of both translocation events. Conclusion Our results suggest that the devil gut microbiome is dynamic and that loss of microbiome diversity in captivity can be restored following release to the wild. We recommend the broader application of microbiome monitoring in wildlife translocation programs to assess the impacts of translocation on animal microbiomes.
650		4	\|a Captivity \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Carnivore \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Reintroduction program \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Wildlife translocation \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Dysbiosis \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Grueber, Catherine E. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Fox, Samantha \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Wise, Phil \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Barrs, Vanessa R. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Hogg, Carolyn J. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Belov, Katherine \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Animal microbiome \|d [London] : BioMed Central, 2019 \|g 1(2019), 1 vom: 03. Okt. \|w (DE-627)1067731326 \|w (DE-600)2965862-7 \|x 2524-4671 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:1 \|g year:2019 \|g number:1 \|g day:03 \|g month:10
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 1 \|j 2019 \|e 1 \|b 03 \|c 10

Indexfelder

author_variant	r c rc c e g ce ceg s f sf p w pw v r b vr vrb c j h cj cjh k b kb
matchkey_str	article:25244671:2019----::oknlkteoasumcoimcagsoteesia
hierarchy_sort_str	2019
publishDate	2019
allfields	10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4 doi (DE-627)SPR038625342 (SPR)s42523-019-0012-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chong, Rowena verfasserin aut Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2019 Background Captivity presents extreme lifestyle changes relative to the wild, and evidence of microbiome dysbiosis in captive animals is growing. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host health. Whilst captive breeding and subsequent reintroduction to the wild is important for conservation, such efforts often have limited success. Post-release monitoring is essential for assessing translocation success, but changes to the microbiome of released individuals are poorly understood. The Tasmanian devil was previously shown to exhibit loss of microbiome diversity as a result of intense captive management. This current study examines changes in the devil gut microbiome in response to translocation and aims to determine if perturbations from captivity are permanent or reversible. Methods Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we conducted temporal monitoring of the gut microbiome of released devils during two translocation events, captive-to-wild and wild-to-wild. To investigate whether the microbiome of the released devils changed following translocation, we characterized their microbiome at multiple time points during the translocation process over the course of 6–12 months and compared them to the microbiome of wild incumbent devils (resident wild-born devils at the respective release sites). Results We showed that the pre-release microbiome was significantly different to the microbiome of wild incumbent animals, but that the microbiomes of animals post-release (as early as 3 to 4 weeks post-release) were similar to wild incumbents. The gut microbiome of released animals showed significant compositional shifts toward the wild incumbent microbiome of both translocation events. Conclusion Our results suggest that the devil gut microbiome is dynamic and that loss of microbiome diversity in captivity can be restored following release to the wild. We recommend the broader application of microbiome monitoring in wildlife translocation programs to assess the impacts of translocation on animal microbiomes. Captivity (dpeaa)DE-He213 Carnivore (dpeaa)DE-He213 Reintroduction program (dpeaa)DE-He213 Wildlife translocation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dysbiosis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Grueber, Catherine E. aut Fox, Samantha aut Wise, Phil aut Barrs, Vanessa R. aut Hogg, Carolyn J. aut Belov, Katherine aut Enthalten in Animal microbiome [London] : BioMed Central, 2019 1(2019), 1 vom: 03. Okt. (DE-627)1067731326 (DE-600)2965862-7 2524-4671 nnns volume:1 year:2019 number:1 day:03 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2019 1 03 10
spelling	10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4 doi (DE-627)SPR038625342 (SPR)s42523-019-0012-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chong, Rowena verfasserin aut Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2019 Background Captivity presents extreme lifestyle changes relative to the wild, and evidence of microbiome dysbiosis in captive animals is growing. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host health. Whilst captive breeding and subsequent reintroduction to the wild is important for conservation, such efforts often have limited success. Post-release monitoring is essential for assessing translocation success, but changes to the microbiome of released individuals are poorly understood. The Tasmanian devil was previously shown to exhibit loss of microbiome diversity as a result of intense captive management. This current study examines changes in the devil gut microbiome in response to translocation and aims to determine if perturbations from captivity are permanent or reversible. Methods Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we conducted temporal monitoring of the gut microbiome of released devils during two translocation events, captive-to-wild and wild-to-wild. To investigate whether the microbiome of the released devils changed following translocation, we characterized their microbiome at multiple time points during the translocation process over the course of 6–12 months and compared them to the microbiome of wild incumbent devils (resident wild-born devils at the respective release sites). Results We showed that the pre-release microbiome was significantly different to the microbiome of wild incumbent animals, but that the microbiomes of animals post-release (as early as 3 to 4 weeks post-release) were similar to wild incumbents. The gut microbiome of released animals showed significant compositional shifts toward the wild incumbent microbiome of both translocation events. Conclusion Our results suggest that the devil gut microbiome is dynamic and that loss of microbiome diversity in captivity can be restored following release to the wild. We recommend the broader application of microbiome monitoring in wildlife translocation programs to assess the impacts of translocation on animal microbiomes. Captivity (dpeaa)DE-He213 Carnivore (dpeaa)DE-He213 Reintroduction program (dpeaa)DE-He213 Wildlife translocation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dysbiosis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Grueber, Catherine E. aut Fox, Samantha aut Wise, Phil aut Barrs, Vanessa R. aut Hogg, Carolyn J. aut Belov, Katherine aut Enthalten in Animal microbiome [London] : BioMed Central, 2019 1(2019), 1 vom: 03. Okt. (DE-627)1067731326 (DE-600)2965862-7 2524-4671 nnns volume:1 year:2019 number:1 day:03 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2019 1 03 10
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4 doi (DE-627)SPR038625342 (SPR)s42523-019-0012-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chong, Rowena verfasserin aut Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2019 Background Captivity presents extreme lifestyle changes relative to the wild, and evidence of microbiome dysbiosis in captive animals is growing. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host health. Whilst captive breeding and subsequent reintroduction to the wild is important for conservation, such efforts often have limited success. Post-release monitoring is essential for assessing translocation success, but changes to the microbiome of released individuals are poorly understood. The Tasmanian devil was previously shown to exhibit loss of microbiome diversity as a result of intense captive management. This current study examines changes in the devil gut microbiome in response to translocation and aims to determine if perturbations from captivity are permanent or reversible. Methods Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we conducted temporal monitoring of the gut microbiome of released devils during two translocation events, captive-to-wild and wild-to-wild. To investigate whether the microbiome of the released devils changed following translocation, we characterized their microbiome at multiple time points during the translocation process over the course of 6–12 months and compared them to the microbiome of wild incumbent devils (resident wild-born devils at the respective release sites). Results We showed that the pre-release microbiome was significantly different to the microbiome of wild incumbent animals, but that the microbiomes of animals post-release (as early as 3 to 4 weeks post-release) were similar to wild incumbents. The gut microbiome of released animals showed significant compositional shifts toward the wild incumbent microbiome of both translocation events. Conclusion Our results suggest that the devil gut microbiome is dynamic and that loss of microbiome diversity in captivity can be restored following release to the wild. We recommend the broader application of microbiome monitoring in wildlife translocation programs to assess the impacts of translocation on animal microbiomes. Captivity (dpeaa)DE-He213 Carnivore (dpeaa)DE-He213 Reintroduction program (dpeaa)DE-He213 Wildlife translocation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dysbiosis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Grueber, Catherine E. aut Fox, Samantha aut Wise, Phil aut Barrs, Vanessa R. aut Hogg, Carolyn J. aut Belov, Katherine aut Enthalten in Animal microbiome [London] : BioMed Central, 2019 1(2019), 1 vom: 03. Okt. (DE-627)1067731326 (DE-600)2965862-7 2524-4671 nnns volume:1 year:2019 number:1 day:03 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2019 1 03 10
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4 doi (DE-627)SPR038625342 (SPR)s42523-019-0012-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chong, Rowena verfasserin aut Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2019 Background Captivity presents extreme lifestyle changes relative to the wild, and evidence of microbiome dysbiosis in captive animals is growing. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host health. Whilst captive breeding and subsequent reintroduction to the wild is important for conservation, such efforts often have limited success. Post-release monitoring is essential for assessing translocation success, but changes to the microbiome of released individuals are poorly understood. The Tasmanian devil was previously shown to exhibit loss of microbiome diversity as a result of intense captive management. This current study examines changes in the devil gut microbiome in response to translocation and aims to determine if perturbations from captivity are permanent or reversible. Methods Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we conducted temporal monitoring of the gut microbiome of released devils during two translocation events, captive-to-wild and wild-to-wild. To investigate whether the microbiome of the released devils changed following translocation, we characterized their microbiome at multiple time points during the translocation process over the course of 6–12 months and compared them to the microbiome of wild incumbent devils (resident wild-born devils at the respective release sites). Results We showed that the pre-release microbiome was significantly different to the microbiome of wild incumbent animals, but that the microbiomes of animals post-release (as early as 3 to 4 weeks post-release) were similar to wild incumbents. The gut microbiome of released animals showed significant compositional shifts toward the wild incumbent microbiome of both translocation events. Conclusion Our results suggest that the devil gut microbiome is dynamic and that loss of microbiome diversity in captivity can be restored following release to the wild. We recommend the broader application of microbiome monitoring in wildlife translocation programs to assess the impacts of translocation on animal microbiomes. Captivity (dpeaa)DE-He213 Carnivore (dpeaa)DE-He213 Reintroduction program (dpeaa)DE-He213 Wildlife translocation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dysbiosis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Grueber, Catherine E. aut Fox, Samantha aut Wise, Phil aut Barrs, Vanessa R. aut Hogg, Carolyn J. aut Belov, Katherine aut Enthalten in Animal microbiome [London] : BioMed Central, 2019 1(2019), 1 vom: 03. Okt. (DE-627)1067731326 (DE-600)2965862-7 2524-4671 nnns volume:1 year:2019 number:1 day:03 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2019 1 03 10
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4 doi (DE-627)SPR038625342 (SPR)s42523-019-0012-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Chong, Rowena verfasserin aut Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2019 Background Captivity presents extreme lifestyle changes relative to the wild, and evidence of microbiome dysbiosis in captive animals is growing. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host health. Whilst captive breeding and subsequent reintroduction to the wild is important for conservation, such efforts often have limited success. Post-release monitoring is essential for assessing translocation success, but changes to the microbiome of released individuals are poorly understood. The Tasmanian devil was previously shown to exhibit loss of microbiome diversity as a result of intense captive management. This current study examines changes in the devil gut microbiome in response to translocation and aims to determine if perturbations from captivity are permanent or reversible. Methods Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we conducted temporal monitoring of the gut microbiome of released devils during two translocation events, captive-to-wild and wild-to-wild. To investigate whether the microbiome of the released devils changed following translocation, we characterized their microbiome at multiple time points during the translocation process over the course of 6–12 months and compared them to the microbiome of wild incumbent devils (resident wild-born devils at the respective release sites). Results We showed that the pre-release microbiome was significantly different to the microbiome of wild incumbent animals, but that the microbiomes of animals post-release (as early as 3 to 4 weeks post-release) were similar to wild incumbents. The gut microbiome of released animals showed significant compositional shifts toward the wild incumbent microbiome of both translocation events. Conclusion Our results suggest that the devil gut microbiome is dynamic and that loss of microbiome diversity in captivity can be restored following release to the wild. We recommend the broader application of microbiome monitoring in wildlife translocation programs to assess the impacts of translocation on animal microbiomes. Captivity (dpeaa)DE-He213 Carnivore (dpeaa)DE-He213 Reintroduction program (dpeaa)DE-He213 Wildlife translocation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dysbiosis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Grueber, Catherine E. aut Fox, Samantha aut Wise, Phil aut Barrs, Vanessa R. aut Hogg, Carolyn J. aut Belov, Katherine aut Enthalten in Animal microbiome [London] : BioMed Central, 2019 1(2019), 1 vom: 03. Okt. (DE-627)1067731326 (DE-600)2965862-7 2524-4671 nnns volume:1 year:2019 number:1 day:03 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2019 1 03 10
language	English
source	Enthalten in Animal microbiome 1(2019), 1 vom: 03. Okt. volume:1 year:2019 number:1 day:03 month:10
sourceStr	Enthalten in Animal microbiome 1(2019), 1 vom: 03. Okt. volume:1 year:2019 number:1 day:03 month:10
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Captivity Carnivore Reintroduction program Wildlife translocation Dysbiosis
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Animal microbiome
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Chong, Rowena @@aut@@ Grueber, Catherine E. @@aut@@ Fox, Samantha @@aut@@ Wise, Phil @@aut@@ Barrs, Vanessa R. @@aut@@ Hogg, Carolyn J. @@aut@@ Belov, Katherine @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2019-10-03T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	1067731326
id	SPR038625342
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR038625342</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230328215415.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR038625342</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s42523-019-0012-4-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chong, Rowena</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Captivity presents extreme lifestyle changes relative to the wild, and evidence of microbiome dysbiosis in captive animals is growing. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host health. Whilst captive breeding and subsequent reintroduction to the wild is important for conservation, such efforts often have limited success. Post-release monitoring is essential for assessing translocation success, but changes to the microbiome of released individuals are poorly understood. The Tasmanian devil was previously shown to exhibit loss of microbiome diversity as a result of intense captive management. This current study examines changes in the devil gut microbiome in response to translocation and aims to determine if perturbations from captivity are permanent or reversible. Methods Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we conducted temporal monitoring of the gut microbiome of released devils during two translocation events, captive-to-wild and wild-to-wild. To investigate whether the microbiome of the released devils changed following translocation, we characterized their microbiome at multiple time points during the translocation process over the course of 6–12 months and compared them to the microbiome of wild incumbent devils (resident wild-born devils at the respective release sites). Results We showed that the pre-release microbiome was significantly different to the microbiome of wild incumbent animals, but that the microbiomes of animals post-release (as early as 3 to 4 weeks post-release) were similar to wild incumbents. The gut microbiome of released animals showed significant compositional shifts toward the wild incumbent microbiome of both translocation events. Conclusion Our results suggest that the devil gut microbiome is dynamic and that loss of microbiome diversity in captivity can be restored following release to the wild. We recommend the broader application of microbiome monitoring in wildlife translocation programs to assess the impacts of translocation on animal microbiomes.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Captivity</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Carnivore</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Reintroduction program</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Wildlife translocation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dysbiosis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Grueber, Catherine E.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fox, Samantha</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wise, Phil</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Barrs, Vanessa R.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hogg, Carolyn J.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Belov, Katherine</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Animal microbiome</subfield><subfield code="d">[London] : BioMed Central, 2019</subfield><subfield code="g">1(2019), 1 vom: 03. Okt.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1067731326</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2965862-7</subfield><subfield code="x">2524-4671</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:1</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:03</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">1</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">03</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Chong, Rowena
spellingShingle	Chong, Rowena misc Captivity misc Carnivore misc Reintroduction program misc Wildlife translocation misc Dysbiosis Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species
authorStr	Chong, Rowena
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)1067731326
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	2524-4671
topic_title	Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species Captivity (dpeaa)DE-He213 Carnivore (dpeaa)DE-He213 Reintroduction program (dpeaa)DE-He213 Wildlife translocation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dysbiosis (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Captivity misc Carnivore misc Reintroduction program misc Wildlife translocation misc Dysbiosis
topic_unstemmed	misc Captivity misc Carnivore misc Reintroduction program misc Wildlife translocation misc Dysbiosis
topic_browse	misc Captivity misc Carnivore misc Reintroduction program misc Wildlife translocation misc Dysbiosis
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Animal microbiome
hierarchy_parent_id	1067731326
hierarchy_top_title	Animal microbiome
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)1067731326 (DE-600)2965862-7
title	Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR038625342 (SPR)s42523-019-0012-4-e
title_full	Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species
author_sort	Chong, Rowena
journal	Animal microbiome
journalStr	Animal microbiome
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2019
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Chong, Rowena Grueber, Catherine E. Fox, Samantha Wise, Phil Barrs, Vanessa R. Hogg, Carolyn J. Belov, Katherine
container_volume	1
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Chong, Rowena
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4
title_sort	looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species
title_auth	Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species
abstract	Background Captivity presents extreme lifestyle changes relative to the wild, and evidence of microbiome dysbiosis in captive animals is growing. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host health. Whilst captive breeding and subsequent reintroduction to the wild is important for conservation, such efforts often have limited success. Post-release monitoring is essential for assessing translocation success, but changes to the microbiome of released individuals are poorly understood. The Tasmanian devil was previously shown to exhibit loss of microbiome diversity as a result of intense captive management. This current study examines changes in the devil gut microbiome in response to translocation and aims to determine if perturbations from captivity are permanent or reversible. Methods Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we conducted temporal monitoring of the gut microbiome of released devils during two translocation events, captive-to-wild and wild-to-wild. To investigate whether the microbiome of the released devils changed following translocation, we characterized their microbiome at multiple time points during the translocation process over the course of 6–12 months and compared them to the microbiome of wild incumbent devils (resident wild-born devils at the respective release sites). Results We showed that the pre-release microbiome was significantly different to the microbiome of wild incumbent animals, but that the microbiomes of animals post-release (as early as 3 to 4 weeks post-release) were similar to wild incumbents. The gut microbiome of released animals showed significant compositional shifts toward the wild incumbent microbiome of both translocation events. Conclusion Our results suggest that the devil gut microbiome is dynamic and that loss of microbiome diversity in captivity can be restored following release to the wild. We recommend the broader application of microbiome monitoring in wildlife translocation programs to assess the impacts of translocation on animal microbiomes. © The Author(s) 2019
abstractGer	Background Captivity presents extreme lifestyle changes relative to the wild, and evidence of microbiome dysbiosis in captive animals is growing. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host health. Whilst captive breeding and subsequent reintroduction to the wild is important for conservation, such efforts often have limited success. Post-release monitoring is essential for assessing translocation success, but changes to the microbiome of released individuals are poorly understood. The Tasmanian devil was previously shown to exhibit loss of microbiome diversity as a result of intense captive management. This current study examines changes in the devil gut microbiome in response to translocation and aims to determine if perturbations from captivity are permanent or reversible. Methods Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we conducted temporal monitoring of the gut microbiome of released devils during two translocation events, captive-to-wild and wild-to-wild. To investigate whether the microbiome of the released devils changed following translocation, we characterized their microbiome at multiple time points during the translocation process over the course of 6–12 months and compared them to the microbiome of wild incumbent devils (resident wild-born devils at the respective release sites). Results We showed that the pre-release microbiome was significantly different to the microbiome of wild incumbent animals, but that the microbiomes of animals post-release (as early as 3 to 4 weeks post-release) were similar to wild incumbents. The gut microbiome of released animals showed significant compositional shifts toward the wild incumbent microbiome of both translocation events. Conclusion Our results suggest that the devil gut microbiome is dynamic and that loss of microbiome diversity in captivity can be restored following release to the wild. We recommend the broader application of microbiome monitoring in wildlife translocation programs to assess the impacts of translocation on animal microbiomes. © The Author(s) 2019
abstract_unstemmed	Background Captivity presents extreme lifestyle changes relative to the wild, and evidence of microbiome dysbiosis in captive animals is growing. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host health. Whilst captive breeding and subsequent reintroduction to the wild is important for conservation, such efforts often have limited success. Post-release monitoring is essential for assessing translocation success, but changes to the microbiome of released individuals are poorly understood. The Tasmanian devil was previously shown to exhibit loss of microbiome diversity as a result of intense captive management. This current study examines changes in the devil gut microbiome in response to translocation and aims to determine if perturbations from captivity are permanent or reversible. Methods Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we conducted temporal monitoring of the gut microbiome of released devils during two translocation events, captive-to-wild and wild-to-wild. To investigate whether the microbiome of the released devils changed following translocation, we characterized their microbiome at multiple time points during the translocation process over the course of 6–12 months and compared them to the microbiome of wild incumbent devils (resident wild-born devils at the respective release sites). Results We showed that the pre-release microbiome was significantly different to the microbiome of wild incumbent animals, but that the microbiomes of animals post-release (as early as 3 to 4 weeks post-release) were similar to wild incumbents. The gut microbiome of released animals showed significant compositional shifts toward the wild incumbent microbiome of both translocation events. Conclusion Our results suggest that the devil gut microbiome is dynamic and that loss of microbiome diversity in captivity can be restored following release to the wild. We recommend the broader application of microbiome monitoring in wildlife translocation programs to assess the impacts of translocation on animal microbiomes. © The Author(s) 2019
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4
remote_bool	true
author2	Grueber, Catherine E. Fox, Samantha Wise, Phil Barrs, Vanessa R. Hogg, Carolyn J. Belov, Katherine
author2Str	Grueber, Catherine E. Fox, Samantha Wise, Phil Barrs, Vanessa R. Hogg, Carolyn J. Belov, Katherine
ppnlink	1067731326
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4
up_date	2024-07-03T19:11:27.538Z
_version_	1803586253665337344
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR038625342</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230328215415.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR038625342</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s42523-019-0012-4-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chong, Rowena</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Captivity presents extreme lifestyle changes relative to the wild, and evidence of microbiome dysbiosis in captive animals is growing. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host health. Whilst captive breeding and subsequent reintroduction to the wild is important for conservation, such efforts often have limited success. Post-release monitoring is essential for assessing translocation success, but changes to the microbiome of released individuals are poorly understood. The Tasmanian devil was previously shown to exhibit loss of microbiome diversity as a result of intense captive management. This current study examines changes in the devil gut microbiome in response to translocation and aims to determine if perturbations from captivity are permanent or reversible. Methods Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we conducted temporal monitoring of the gut microbiome of released devils during two translocation events, captive-to-wild and wild-to-wild. To investigate whether the microbiome of the released devils changed following translocation, we characterized their microbiome at multiple time points during the translocation process over the course of 6–12 months and compared them to the microbiome of wild incumbent devils (resident wild-born devils at the respective release sites). Results We showed that the pre-release microbiome was significantly different to the microbiome of wild incumbent animals, but that the microbiomes of animals post-release (as early as 3 to 4 weeks post-release) were similar to wild incumbents. The gut microbiome of released animals showed significant compositional shifts toward the wild incumbent microbiome of both translocation events. Conclusion Our results suggest that the devil gut microbiome is dynamic and that loss of microbiome diversity in captivity can be restored following release to the wild. We recommend the broader application of microbiome monitoring in wildlife translocation programs to assess the impacts of translocation on animal microbiomes.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Captivity</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Carnivore</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Reintroduction program</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Wildlife translocation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dysbiosis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Grueber, Catherine E.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fox, Samantha</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wise, Phil</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Barrs, Vanessa R.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hogg, Carolyn J.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Belov, Katherine</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Animal microbiome</subfield><subfield code="d">[London] : BioMed Central, 2019</subfield><subfield code="g">1(2019), 1 vom: 03. Okt.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1067731326</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2965862-7</subfield><subfield code="x">2524-4671</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:1</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:03</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-019-0012-4</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">1</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">03</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.39787

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?