Dataset Information

Wolves, dogs and humans in regular contact can mutually impact each other's skin microbiota.

ABSTRACT: In contrast to humans and dogs, the skin microbiota of wolves is yet to be described. Here, we investigated the skin microbiota of dogs and wolves kept in outdoor packs at the Wolf Science Center (WSC) via 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Skin swab samples were also collected from human care takers and their pet dogs. When comparing the three canine groups, representing different degrees of human contact to the care takers and each other, the pet dogs showed the highest level of diversity. Additionally, while human skin was dominated by a few abundant phylotypes, the skin microbiota of the care takers who had particularly close contact with the WSC animals was more similar to the microbiota of dogs and wolves compared to the humans who had less contact with these animals. Our results suggest that domestication may have an impact on the diversity of the skin microbiota, and that the canine skin microbiota can be shared with humans, depending on the level of interaction.

SUBMITTER: Wetzels SU

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8385068 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Wolves, dogs and humans in regular contact can mutually impact each other's skin microbiota.

Wetzels Stefanie Urimare SU Strachan Cameron R CR Conrady Beate B Wagner Martin M Burgener Iwan Anton IA Virányi Zsófia Z Selberherr Evelyne E

Scientific reports 20210824 1

In contrast to humans and dogs, the skin microbiota of wolves is yet to be described. Here, we investigated the skin microbiota of dogs and wolves kept in outdoor packs at the Wolf Science Center (WSC) via 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Skin swab samples were also collected from human care takers and their pet dogs. When comparing the three canine groups, representing different degrees of human contact to the care takers and each other, the pet dogs showed the highest level of diversity. Add ...[more]

PMID: 34429455

Similar Datasets

Project description:Despite being closely related, dogs perform worse than wolves in independent problem-solving tasks. These differences in problem-solving performance have been attributed to dogs' greater reliance on humans, who are usually present when problem-solving tasks are presented. However, more fundamental motivational factors or behavioural traits such as persistence, motor diversity and neophobia may also be responsible for differences in task performance. Hence, to better understand what drives the differences between dogs' and wolves' problem-solving performance, it is essential to test them in the absence of humans. Here, we tested equally raised and kept dogs and wolves with two unsolvable tasks, a commonly used paradigm to study problem-solving behaviour in these species. Differently from previous studies, we ensured no humans were present in the testing situation. We also ensured that the task was unsolvable from the start, which eliminated the possibility that specific manipulative behaviours were reinforced. This allowed us to measure both persistence and motor diversity more accurately. In line with previous studies, we found wolves to be more persistent than dogs. We also found motor diversity to be linked to persistence and persistence to be linked to contact latency. Finally, subjects were consistent in their performance between the two tasks. These results suggest that fundamental differences in motivation to interact with objects drive the differences in the performance of dogs and wolves in problem-solving tasks. Since correlates of problem-solving success, that is persistence, neophobia, and motor diversity are influenced by a species' ecology, our results support the socioecological hypothesis, which postulates that the different ecological niches of the two species (dogs have evolved to primarily be scavengers and thrive on and around human refuse, while wolves have evolved to primarily be group hunters and have a low hunting success rate) have, at least partly, shaped their behaviours.

Project description:Bacteriophages ("phages") are hypothesized to be key drivers of bacterial population dynamics, driving microbial community composition, but empirical support for this is mixed. One reason why phages may have a less-than-expected impact on community composition is that many different phages and other mobile genetic elements (MGEs) interact with each bacterium. For instance, the same phage may have higher or lower costs to different bacterial strains or species. Assuming that resistance or susceptibility to MGE infection is not consistent across all MGEs, a simple prediction is that the net effect of MGEs on each bacterial taxon may converge with an increasing number of interactions with different MGEs. We formalized this prediction using in silico population dynamics simulations and then carried out experiments using three bacterial species, one generalist conjugative plasmid, and three species-specific phages. While the presence of only phages or only the plasmid altered community structure, these differential effects on community structure canceled out when both were together. The effects of MGEs were largely indirect and could not be explained by simple pairwise bipartite interactions (i.e., between each MGE and each bacterial species). Our results suggest that the effects of MGEs may be overestimated by studies that focus on a single MGE and not on interactions among multiple MGEs. IMPORTANCE While bacteriophages ("phages") are often cited as some of the key drivers of microbial diversity, evidence for this is greatly mixed. We demonstrate, in silico and experimentally, that the impact of phages, an example of a mobile genetic element (MGE), on community structure can diminish with increasing MGE diversity. This is because MGEs can have diverse effects on host fitness, and therefore as diversity increases, their individual effects cancel out, returning communities back to an MGE-free state. In addition, interactions in mixed-species and MGE communities could not be predicted from simple pairwise interactions, highlighting the difficulty in generalizing a MGE's effect from pairwise studies.

Dataset Information

Wolves, dogs and humans in regular contact can mutually impact each other's skin microbiota.

Publications

Wolves, dogs and humans in regular contact can mutually impact each other's skin microbiota.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets