Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

A Metagenomic Study of Gut Microflora of Rohu (Labeo rohita) from Wild Habitat and Aquaculture Settings

Shrihari Ashok Pingle, Abhay John Khandagle*

Principal, Annasaheb Waghire Arts, Science and Commerce College, Otur, India

Abstract: The present study aimed to explore and compare the gut microbiome of Labeo rohita (rohu) from wild and aquaculture setting through 16S rDNA sequencing. The amplification of the library of 16S rDNA V3-V4 hypervariable regions of the gut microbiome was carried out followed by sequencing using Illumina MiSeq. The analysis of sequencing data was carried out through the Quantitative Insights into Microbial Ecology (QIIME2) pipeline. Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Cyanobacteria and Actinobacteria represented the bacterial phyla with large abundance. The abundance of Bacillus spp. and Clostridium spp. was high in cultured forms. Vagococcus spp. and Carnobacterium spp. were found to be abundant in wild forms. Cyanobium spp., and Pseudomonas spp. were abundant in both wild and cultured forms. In the present study, the gut of cultured forms of rohu shows a diverse microbiome than that of wild forms. The harbouring gut microbes may offer several benefits to the host fish such as carbohydrate digestion, antimicrobial activity, xenobiotic degradation and faster growth rate. The functional profiles from the 16s rRNA gene amplicon confirm that the cultured rohu hosts the bacteria that have a role in metabolism and compromised disease resistance. Absence of Bacillus spp. in wild form, and low abundance of Lactococcus spp. indicates the need of finding alternatives for probiotics. The information from the present study and its understanding can be used for exploring the role of the gut microbiome with regard to the growth, immunity and other physiological functions of the fish.

Keywords: rohu, fish gut, metagenomics, major carps, aquaculture, gut microbiome

Received November 04, 2022; Revised December 07, 2022; Accepted December 18, 2022

Citation: Shrihari Ashok Pingle, Abhay John Khandagle, A Metagenomic Study of Gut Microflora of Rohu (Labeo rohita) from Wild Habitat and Aquaculture Settings. Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 10 (12). 738-746. January 2022. doi:10.12691/aees-10-12-6

1. Introduction

Aquatic foods are considered to be crucial as they offer values such as food and nutrition. The percentage of total food fish supplied by aquaculture is expected to rise up to 50% by 2030 [1]. The consumption and trade related to the industry are also expected to climb, albeit at a slower rate [2]. This reaffirms that aquaculture is and is going to remain the world's fastest-growing food-producing industry. India tops the list of the top 25 countries with respect to inland water capture production contributing to 16% of the total world capture production [2].

In India, carp culture is practised as a polyculture of Indian Major Carps (IMC- Labeo rohita, Catla catla and Cirrhinus mrigala). Three exotic carps namely silver carp, grass carp and common carp are also cultured together with them. India leads in the production of Rohu, Catla and Mrigal with Bangladesh as another major producer [3,4,5]. Cyprinus carpio was introduced in India for aquaculture about six to seven decades ago. But now it has invaded the main river Ganga while contributing enormously to the fishery in Uttar Pradesh state [6]. Indian major carps dominate the total inland fish landing in India as presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Total Carp production in India (1980-2020)

Several investigations have been carried out to ascertain the differences between fish inhabiting the wild and aquaculture settings. The gut microbial community is affected more by the host-habitat than its taxonomy and trophic level [7]. The fish inhabiting wild habitats and aquaculture settings show morphological variations. This could be the result of variations in environmental factors. It can also be an outcome of genetic differences also together with environmental factors [8,9]. The change in habitat may also affect reproductive health such as that of better sperm characteristics in males from wild habitats [10]. The productivity in carp polyculture through wild-sourced seeds is more as compared to that via seeds from a hatchery. This can be linked to the more genetic variety of the population in its wild habitat, disease resistance and higher survival rate [11]. The protein levels in the muscles of cultured fish are higher as they are raised on an artificial diet [12]. The fat content of fish from wild habitats and aquaculture settings may also vary. Farmed fish are better sources of EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) as compared to fish from wild habitats [13,14]. Farmed fish have been reported to be more nutritious than the wild population [15].

The physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of all surface waters, including ponds, lakes, rivers, and oceans, vary. The bacterial diversity and evenness vary considerably with habitat [16]. Carnivorous species are shown to have substantially higher levels of trypsin activity and bacteria that produce lipase and protease than herbivorous species which supports the significance of microbiota in host digestion [17]. The gut microbiome, therefore, has always been an area of investigation for several workers.

Studies till early 2000 concentrated mainly on culture-based techniques that involved culturing and identification of bacteria [18,19,20,21,22,23]. These studies though significant might have provided biased assessment because culturing gut bacteria in vitro is a big challenge [24]. In view of the difficulties related to isolation and maintenance, genomic sequencing of bacteria is a preferred option. The use of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) and metagenomics have resulted in quick and unbiased evidence of gut microflora in fish [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32].

The present study investigates the diversity of gut microbiome in Labeo rohita from wild and aquaculture settings using NGS to evaluate the variations in the core microbiome and the possible impact of change in the habitat on the gut microbiome.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling

In the present study, the main sampling area was from the Paithan Taluka of Aurangabad district, Maharashtra, where gut from Labeo rohita was sampled. The gut samples were also obtained from the fish procured from the wild habitat, Jayakwadi dam (19°29'0.31"N, 75°22'24.63"E) and aquaculture setting, Paithan Fish seed farm (19°28'37.02"N, 75°22'6.07"E). The gut samples were collected in sterile 1.5 mL Eppendorf tubes ensuring that no bacterial contamination resulted. During the transportation, the samples were kept in cool and dark. Samples were stored at -20°C until DNA from wild and farmed gut samples were extracted.

2.2. DNA Extraction

DNA was extracted using the NucleoSpin® DNA stool isolation kit (gut) (MACHEREY-NAGEL GmbH & Co. KG, Duren, Germany) coupled with bead-beating. A bead tube and extraction buffer provided with the kit were used to collect the dissected intestine. Post isolation, DNA was dissolved in 50 μL of Elution buffer provided with the kit. The DNA extracts were stored at -80°C, till further processing.

2.3. PCR Amplification, Amplicon Processing, Library Preparation and Sequencing

The DNA extracts were used as templates in PCR to amplify the variable regions V3–V4 of the 16S rRNA gene for 25 cycles.

The gene-specific sequences used, target the 16S V3 and V4 regions as per earlier investigations [33]. Illumina adapter overhang nucleotide sequences are added to the gene-specific sequences. The full-length primer sequences targeting this region are:

F5'TCGTCGGCAGCGTCAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAGCCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG 3’

R5’GTCTCGTGGGCTCGGAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAGGACTACHVGGGTATCTAATCC 3’

The overhang adapter sequences added to the locus-specific primer for the region to be targeted were:

Forward overhang:

5’TCGTCGGCAGCGTCAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAG-[locus specific sequence]

Reverse overhang:

5’GTCTCGTGGGCTCGGAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAG-[locus specific sequence]

Amplicons were visualised on a 1% agarose gel. For library preparation, two-stage PCR was carried out. PCR clean-up using magnetic bead technology (Ampure XP Beads) was done after each PCR. This was followed by library quantification (fluorometric quantification using dsDNA binding dyes) and normalization. The library was pooled. It was denatured using NaOH followed by dilution with a hybridization buffer. After heat denaturation, it was sent for Illumina MiSeq sequencing (MiSeq v3 reagent kit).

2.4. Sequence Analysis

Sequence analysis was performed using the software package Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology, QIIME2 [34]. Quality filtering of raw sequences was done and they were assigned to the samples according to their barcodes. After removing the primer sequences, chimeric sequences identified by de novo (abundance-based) and reference-based chimera detection with UCHIME were filtered out [35]. 16s metagenomic analysis was done using SILVA reference databases [36].

2.5. Summary of Communities by the Taxonomic Composition

Proportions of microbes found in each sample community (relative abundance data per sample) were analysed using the following script:

The level specified at specific taxonomic ranks can be specified by -L parameters for the script (1 for kingdom, 2 for phylum, 3 for class, 4 for order, 5 for family, 6 for genus, 7 for species).

To create visualized plots following script was used:

plot_taxa_summary.py -i <output/out_table_w_tax.txt> -l <taxonomic rank> -c pie,bar,area -o < taxsCharts >

2.6. Functional Prediction

The functional prediction was carried out using MicFunPred [37] which predicts functional profiles from 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequence data. STAMP v2.1.3 [38] was used for the visualization of predicted functional features.

Predictions for metabolism (carbohydrate, energy, lipid, nucleotide, amino acid, cofactors and vitamins), infectious diseases (bacterial, viral and parasitic) and antibacterial drug resistance were evaluated.

3. Results

For the present study, the gut samples of wild and cultured L. rohita were collected. All samples were collected in triplicate using the surface sterile environment technique.

The total read count obtained was 4082 whereas the average read count accounts for 2041 (Table 1).

Table 1. Statistics of sequence read data

From the substantial quality filtered reads, OTUs were assigned to 8 phyla, 9 classes, 16 orders, 17 families, and 18 genera. Among the classified reads, Phylum Cyanobacteria has maximum representation (42%), followed by Firmicutes (35%) and Proteobacteria (17%).

3.1. Taxonomic Identification at the Phylum Level

Phylum Cyanobacteria have shown the highest representation in the gut of the wild Labeo (42.5%) followed by Firmicutes (35%) whereas Planktomycetes represent a minimum (2.4%). Bacteroidetes and Chlamydiae were absent.

Similarly, in the gut of the Labeo from aquaculture settings, Cyanobacteria was most dominating (27.3%) followed by Firmicutes (26.3%) and Bacteroidetes has the least representation (0.6%) (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The relative abundance of bacterial genera at the phylum level (A. Wild habitat; B. Aquaculture settings)

3.2. Class-level Taxonomic Assignments

In the gut of wild-caught Labeo, Bacilli were found to be 59.5% followed by Alphaproteobacteria (17.2%), Gammaproteobacteria (12.6%), Actinomecetia (6.2%) and Planktomycetia (4.5%).

The metagenomic communities from the gut samples of the cultured Labeo have shown the dominancy of class Alphaproteobacteria (28.6%) followed by Clostridia (18.5%), Bacilli and Gammaproteobacteria (15.6% each) and Planktomycetia (13.8%). The lowest representation was observed for Chlamidiia (3.9%), Verrucomicrobiae (2.4%) and Acidimicrobiia (1.6%) (Figure 3).

Figure 3. The relative abundance of bacterial genera at the class level (A. Wild habitat; B. Aquaculture settings)

3.3. Order Level Taxonomic Assignments

From the gut of wild Labeo, out of the total 7 orders, 2 orders (Synechococcales, and Lactobacillales) contributed 76% of the flora and the remaining 5 orders make up 24% of the total. In cultured Labeo, gut diversity belonging to 14 orders was observed of which only 2 orders (Synechococcales and Eubacteriales) cover up to 47% microflora while the other 12 orders contribute 53% microbiome. These orders include Hyphomicrobiales, Rickettsiales, Sphingomonadales, Alteromonadales, Oceanospirillales Pseudomonadales, Pirellulales, Planctomycetales, Verrucomicrobiales, Bacillales Lactobacillales and Chroococcales (Figure 4).

Figure 4. The relative abundance of bacterial genera at the order level (A. Wild habitat; B. Aquaculture settings)

3.4. Taxonomy Identification at the Family Level

In wild gut samples, Prochlorococcaceae (54.8 %), Enterococcaceae (16.4%), and Carnobacteriaceae (10.7 %) were dominant and share almost 82% of the total microbiome while other 6 families share the remaining 18 % of the total microbiome.

Out of 12 families obtained in cultured Labeo gut samples, the most dominant families were Prochlorococcaceae (54.8 %), Clostridiaceae (15.6%), and Bacillaceae (11.1%). They share almost 85% of the total microbiome and the remaining 9 families make up 15% of the total microbiome (Figure 5).

Figure 5. The relative abundance of bacterial genera at the family level (A. Wild habitat; B. Aquaculture settings)

3.5. Taxonomy Identification at the Genus Level

In wild gut samples, Cyanobium (54.8 %) and Vagococcus (16.4%) were dominant and share almost 72% of the total microbiome while the other 9 genera share the remaining 28 % of the total microbiome.

Out of 10 genera obtained in cultured Labeo gut samples, the most dominant were Cyanobium (50.3 %), Bacillus (15.2%) and Clostridium (9.8%). They share almost 75% of the total microbiome and the remaining 7 genera make up 55% of the total microbiome (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The relative abundance of bacterial genera at the genus level (A. Wild habitat; B. Aquaculture settings)

The abundance tree at the genus level using SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project (Figure 7) clearly reflects that Cyanobium is the most abundant genus in both wild and cultured forms of L. rohita. The abundance of Bacillus and Clostridium in cultured forms in more as compared to the wild form. Vagococcus and Carnobacterium, which are abundant in wild form did not represent the cultured forms.

Figure 7. Abundance tree by Silva Database at the genus level

3.6. Sharing of Microbiome

It was found that out of the total 18 genera reported from wild and cultured varieties of Labeo rohita in the present study, 8 were unique to the wild type and 7 were unique to the fish from aquaculture settings. 4 genera were common in both varieties (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Venn diagram representing sharing of microbiome in Wild Labeo and Cultured Labeo

3.7. Functional Prediction

The studies on functional prediction show a considerable variation in the functional potential of microbial communities from taxonomic profiles at the genus level. The wild forms show better carbohydrate, lipid and nucleotide metabolism (P<0.05). It also appears that the cultured forms are more susceptible to viral and parasitic infections (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Functional prediction

4. Discussion

Multicellular eukaryotes, their existence and interaction with microbial communities existed for billions of years [39]. The microorganisms that live in environments including the stomach, skin, and vagina differ significantly among even healthy persons, according to studies on the human microbiome. Even though nutrition, environment, host genetics, and early microbial exposure have all been linked to this diversity, a large part of it is still unknown [40]. On the basis of the findings of the human microbiome research and the analogy so derived, it can be argued that the community structure of the fish microbiome can have a huge impact on fish health and growth. The expansion of the aquaculture industry calls for the manipulation of gut microbiomes to support the health of hosts. A baseline data on microbial diversity is required to understand the role of the gut microbiome in fish species. There are only a few studies on the gut microbiome of different fish species from varied geographical locations and habitats such as wild and aquaculture settings.

The present study elaborated on the composition of gut microbiota of the Indian major carp, Labeo rohita, from wild and aquaculture settings.

Fish have a simpler intestinal microbiota as compared to mammals. Proteobacteria, Cyanobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, Chloroflexi, Verrucomicrobia and Bacteroidetes have been reported as the main microbiota in recent studies [41,42,43]. In the present study, Cyanobacteria was found to be the most abundant phylum in both wild and cultured rohu. This might be due to the fact that Cyanobacteria are the major food source. Similar observations have been reported by other workers [44]. Another abundant phylum Proteobacteria, a group of Gram-negative bacteria, might have a role in various processes such as Carbon, Nitrogen and Sulphur cycling as has been reported earlier from sludge and municipal wastes [42,45]. Our study also highlights the presence of Sphingomonas (2.8%) in the cultured rohu which has been reported to be associated with xenobiotics degradation [46,47]. The Proteobacteria, Pseudomonas, was found to be equally abundant in the wild (6.6%) and cultured form (8.2%), in the present study. Pseudomonas spp. has been reported to offer multiple benefits to the host such as microplastic degradation [48], and antimicrobial activity [49], Firmicutes were found to represent wild and cultured forms in high abundance. Firmicutes have been reported to be crucial for carbohydrate metabolism in man [50]. A high abundance of Firmicutes and very less presence of Bacteroidetes in cultured form can be correlated with the role of Firmicutes in a faster growth rate [51]. Bacillus was not observed in the gut microbiome of wild rohu; however, they were abundant in the gut microbiome of the cultured counterpart (15.2%). Bacilli are known for cellulase-producing capacity [52], probiotic potential and fish pathogen antagonists [53]. The abundance of Bacillus in the cultured Rohu, therefore, must be offering several health benefits. A Firmicute, Clostridium (9.8%) represented only in the cultured form. Commonly associated with soil, Clostridium has been reported from the gut of other animals such as man, rainbow trout, and carp. Clostridium can ferment carbon sources, especially cellulose. This may play a crucial role in digesting food from plant sources [54]. Their role as mutualistic symbionts in marine herbivores has been reported by some workers [55]. Clostridium dominates the gut of herbivores and omnivores more than carnivores. Though, Halomonas normally dominate carnivorous fish, they have been reported from the gut of omnivorous fish as well. Halomonas are protease-producing bacteria. Clostridium contributed to nutrition by producing digestive enzymes to degrade cellulose [51]. In the present study, the presence of Halomonas in the cultured rohu can be attributed to its role in protein digestion. In common carp, Clostridium butyricum has been reported to alter the composition of intestinal flora and negatively impact the multiplication of pathogens [56]. The gut microbiota of cultured rohu showed high dominance of phylum Verrucomicrobia (10.1%). Their abundance is generally less as compared to Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes. Verrucomicrobia, rich in glycoside hydrolase genes are involved in polysaccharide hydrolysis [57]. Hence, their high abundance in the cultured Rohu can be attributed to polysaccharide hydrolysis. Other variations in the microbiome can be correlated with the change in habitat, diet and several other factors.

We investigated the functional profiles from 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequence data and concluded that the pathways for Nucleotide metabolism, metabolism of cofactors and vitamins, carbohydrate metabolism, amino acid metabolism, energy metabolism, lipid metabolism and antimicrobial drug resistance were abundant (>2%). The carbohydrate metabolism was higher (P<0.05) in the wild rohu. The carbohydrate metabolism in cultured forms can be correlated with the higher abundance of Bacillus and Clostridium. Firmicutes mainly dominated by Bacilli are known to play important role in the fermentation of dietary carbohydrates [58]. The abundance of nucleotide metabolism was higher in the wild rohu (P<0.05) and the functional profile for viral infectious diseases was significantly more abundant in the cultured form.

5. Conclusion

Our study furnishes an in-depth analysis of the gut microbiome of the Indian major carp Labeo rohita from wild habitat and aquaculture setting. Our findings give a clear overview of how changes in the habitat and environmental factors influence gut microbiome composition. Our results emphasize that the gut microbiome of the fish from wild and aquaculture settings varies to a great extent. Further, the core microbiome persisted in both environments and excluded other bacteria. The present study shows that the present aquaculture practices suit the carp culture in India as they offer gut microbiome providing several health benefits to the cultured fish at par with the wild variety. However, it appears that cultured fish are more susceptible to disease in the crowded, relatively unnatural environment of fish farms. The enrichment of microbial community functions in cultured forms confirms this finding. Our findings will aid the manipulation of the gut microbiome for enhancing aquaculture production.

References

[1]   | Tidwell JH, Allan GL. Fish as food: aquaculture’s contribution. Ecological and economic impacts and contributions of fish farming and capture fisheries. EMBO Rep. 2001; 2(11): 958-63.
[2]   | FAO. 2022. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. FAO, editor. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Rome, Italy: FAO; 2022.
[3]   | Fisheries and Aquaculture - Cultured Aquatic Species - Labeo rohita [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 14]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/culturedspecies/labeo_rohita/en.
[4]   | Fisheries and Aquaculture - Cultured Aquatic Species - Catla catla [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 14]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/culturedspecies/catla_catla/en.
[5]   | Fisheries and Aquaculture - Cultured Aquatic Species - Cirrhinus mrigala [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 14]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/culturedspecies/cirrhinus_mrigala/en.
[6]   | Singh AK, Pathak AK, Lakra WS. Invasion of an exotic fish-common carp, Cyprinus Carpio L. (Actinopterygii: Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) in the Ganga river, India and its impacts. Acta Ichthyol Piscat. 2010; 40(1): 11-9.
[7]   | Kim PS, Shin NR, Lee JB, Kim MS, Whon TW, Hyun DW, et al. Host habitat is the major determinant of the gut microbiome of fish. Microbiome [Internet]. 2021 Dec 1 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 9(1): 1-16.
[8]   | Solomon SG, Okomoda VT, Ogbenyikwu AI. Intraspecific morphological variation between cultured and wild Clarias gariepinus (Burchell) (Clariidae, Siluriformes). Archives of Polish Fisheries. 2015 Mar 1; 23(1): 53-61.
[9]   | Jawad LA, Abed JM, Ibáñez AL, Al-Faisal A. Morphometric and meristic characters of cultured and wild carp, Cyprinus carpio L., populations (southern Iraq). Fisheries & Aquatic Life [Internet]. 2022 Jun 30 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 30(2): 95-103.
[10]   | Gökçe M. A. SPERM CHARACTERISTICS OF WILD AND CULTIVATED COMMON CARP (Cyprinus carpio L., 1875). Ecological Life Sciences [Internet]. 2010 Mar 1 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 5(2): 155-62.
[11]   | Hossain MB, Nur AAU, Ahmed MdM, Ullah MdA, Albeshr MF, Arai T. Growth, Yield and Profitability of Major Carps Culture in Coastal Homestead Ponds Stocked with Wild and Hatchery Fish Seed. Agriculture [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 12(8): 1-10.

[12]  
Mahboob S, Farooq M, Mahmood S, Nasir N, Sultana S, Chaudhry AS, et al. Phylogenetic relationship of cultured and wild labeo rohita and cirrhinus mrigala based on muscles proteins profile in different weight groups: A new tool in phylogenetic analysis. Int J Food Prop [Internet]. 2012 Sep 1 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 15(5): 949-60.

[13]   | (PDF) Fatty Acids in Cultivated and Wild Fish [Internet]. [cited 2022 Oct 15]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239572046_Fatty_Acids_in_Cultivated_and_Wild_Fish.
[14]   | Strobel C, Jahreis G, Kuhnt K. Survey of n-3 and n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids in fish and fish products. Lipids Health Dis [Internet]. 2012 Oct 30 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 11(1): 1-10.

[15]  
Tolulope Akinpelu A, Mathew Akinloye O, Olasunmbo Olumuyiwa A, Olaniyi Afolabi O, Abimbola Stephen O, Yan XX, et al. Comparative Assessment of the Nutritional  Fitness of Wild and Cultured African Catfish  (Clarias gariepinus). Annu Res Rev Biol [Internet]. 2021 Mar 27 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 36(2): 96-106.

[16]   | Yi Y, Lin C, Wang W, Song J. Habitat and seasonal variations in bacterial community structure and diversity in sediments of a Shallow lake. Ecol Indic. 2021 Jan 1; 120: 106959.
[17]   | Liu H, Guo X, Gooneratne R, Lai R, Zeng C, Zhan F, et al. The gut microbiome and degradation enzyme activity of wild freshwater fishes influenced by their trophic levels. Scientific Reports 2016 6:1 [Internet]. 2016 Apr 13 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 6(1): 1-12.
[18]   | Hossain MM, Uddin MN, Islam MN, Chakraborty SC, Kamal M. Study on the intestinal bacteria of Labeo rohita (Ham.). http://aquaticcommons.org/id/eprint/16416 [Internet]. 1999 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 3(1): 63-6.
[19]   | Esakkiraj P, Immanuel G, Sowmya SM, Iyapparaj P, Palavesam A. Evaluation of Protease-producing Ability of Fish Gut Isolate Bacillus cereus for Aqua Feed. Food and Bioprocess Technology 2007 2:4 [Internet]. 2008 Jan 10 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 2(4): 383-90.
[20]   | Ray AK, Ghosh K, Ringø E. Enzyme-producing bacteria isolated from fish gut: a review. Aquac Nutr [Internet]. 2012 Oct 1 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 18(5): 465-92.
[21]   | Banerjee G, Ray AK, Askarian F, Ringø E. Characterisation and identification of enzyme-producing autochthonous bacteria from the gastrointestinal tract of two Indian air-breathing fish. Benef Microbes [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 4(3): 277-84.

[22]  
Banerjee G, Dan SK, Nandi A, Ghosh P, Ray AK. Autochthonous Gut Bacteria in Two Indian Air-breathing Fish, Climbing Perch (Anabas testudineus) and Walking Catfish (Clarias batrachus): Mode of Association, Identification and Enzyme Producing Ability. Pol J Microbiol [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 64(4): 361-8.

[23]   | Dutta D, Ghosh K. Screening of extracellular enzyme-producing and pathogen inhibitory gut bacteria as putative probiotics in mrigal, Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton, 1822). Int J Fish Aquat Stud [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 2(4): 310-8.
[24]   | Hungate RE. Chapter IV A Roll Tube Method for Cultivation of Strict Anaerobes. Methods in Microbiology. 1969 Jan 1;3(PART B):117-32.
[25]   | Sevellec M, Pavey SA, Boutin S, Filteau M, Derome N, Bernatchez L. Microbiome investigation in the ecological speciation context of lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) using next-generation sequencing. J Evol Biol [Internet]. 2014 Jun 1 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 27(6): 1029-46.
[26]   | Ghanbari M, Kneifel W, Domig KJ. A new view of the fish gut microbiome: Advances from next-generation sequencing. Aquaculture. 2015 Nov 1; 448: 464-75.
[27]   | Tarnecki AM, Burgos FA, Ray CL, Arias CR. Fish intestinal microbiome: diversity and symbiosis unravelled by metagenomics. J Appl Microbiol [Internet]. 2017 Jul 1 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 123(1): 2-17.

[28]  
Rimoldi S, Terova G, Ascione C, Giannico R, Brambilla F. Next generation sequencing for gut microbiome characterization in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fed animal by-product meals as an alternative to fishmeal protein sources. PLoS One [Internet]. 2018 Mar 1 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 13(3): e0193652.

[29]   | Gallo BD, Farrell JM, Leydet BF. Fish Gut Microbiome: A Primer to an Emerging Discipline in the Fisheries Sciences. Fisheries (Bethesda) [Internet]. 2020 May 1 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 45(5): 271-82.
[30]   | Gallo BD, Farrell JM, Leydet B. Use of next generation sequencing to compare simple habitat and species level differences in the gut microbiota of an invasive and native freshwater fish species. PeerJ [Internet]. 2020 Dec 18 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 8: e10237.
[31]   | Johny TK, Puthusseri RM, Bhat SG. A primer on metagenomics and next-generation sequencing in fish gut microbiome research. Aquac Res [Internet]. 2021 Oct 1 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 52(10): 4574-600.
[32]   | Diwan AD, Harke SN, Gopalkrishna, Panche AN. Aquaculture industry prospective from gut microbiome of fish and shellfish: An overview. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) [Internet]. 2022 Mar 1 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 106(2): 441-69.
[33]   | Klindworth A, Pruesse E, Schweer T, Peplies J, Quast C, Horn M, et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res [Internet]. 2013 Jan [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 41(1).
[34]   | Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nature Methods 2010 7:5 [Internet]. 2010 Apr 11 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 7(5): 335-6.
[35]   | Edgar RC, Bateman A. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics [Internet]. 2010 Oct 1 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 26(19): 2460-1.
[36]   | Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res [Internet]. 2013 Jan 1 [cited 2022 Oct 15]; 41(Database issue). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23193283/.
[37]   | Mongad DS, Chavan NS, Narwade NP, Dixit K, Shouche YS, Dhotre DP. MicFunPred: A conserved approach to predict functional profiles from 16S rRNA gene sequence data. Genomics [Internet]. 2021; 113(6): 3635-43.
[38]   | Parks DH, Tyson GW, Hugenholtz P, Beiko RG. STAMP: statistical analysis of taxonomic and functional profiles. Bioinformatics [Internet]. 2014 May 28 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 30(21): 123-4.
[39]   | Ley RE, Hamady M, Lozupone C, Turnbaugh PJ, Ramey RR, Bircher JS, et al. Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. Science [Internet]. 2008 Jun 6 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 320(5883): 1647.
[40]   | Huttenhower C, Gevers D, Knight R, Abubucker S, Badger JH, Chinwalla AT, et al. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 2012 486:7402 [Internet]. 2012 Jun 13 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 486(7402): 207-14.
[41]   | Tyagi A, Singh B, Billekallu Thammegowda NK, Singh NK. Shotgun metagenomics offers novel insights into taxonomic compositions, metabolic pathways and antibiotic resistance genes in fish gut microbiome. Arch Microbiol [Internet]. 2019 Apr 4 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 201(3): 295-303.
[42]   | Maji UJ, Mohanty S, Mahapatra AS, Mandal HK, Samanta M, Maiti NK. Exploring the gut microbiota composition of Indian major carp, rohu (Labeo rohita), under diverse culture conditions. Genomics. 2022 May 1; 114(3): 110354.
[43]   | Zeng A, Tan K, Gong P, Lei P, Guo Z, Wang S, et al. Correlation of microbiota in the gut of fish species and water. 3 Biotech [Internet]. 2020 Nov 1 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 10(11): 1-10.
[44]   | Ye L, Amberg J, Chapman D, Gaikowski M, Liu WT. Fish gut microbiota analysis differentiates physiology and behavior of invasive Asian carp and indigenous American fish. The ISME Journal 2014 8:3 [Internet]. 2013 Oct 17 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 8(3): 541-51.
[45]   | Shu D, He Y, Yue H, Wang Q. Microbial structures and community functions of anaerobic sludge in six full-scale wastewater treatment plants as revealed by 454 high-throughput pyrosequencing. Bioresour Technol. 2015 Jun 1; 186: 163-72.
[46]   | Ravintheran SK, Sivaprakasam S, Loke S, Lee SY, Manickam R, Yahya A, et al. Complete genome sequence of Sphingomonas paucimobilis AIMST S2, a xenobiotic-degrading bacterium. Sci Data. 2019 Dec 1; 6(1).
[47]   | Thelusmond JR, Strathmann TJ, Cupples AM. The identification of carbamazepine biodegrading phylotypes and phylotypes sensitive to carbamazepine exposure in two soil microbial communities. Science of The Total Environment. 2016 Nov 15; 571: 1241-52.

[48]  
Rajendran K, Rajendiran R, Ravichandran R, Velu RK. Investigation of microplastic accumulation in Rastrelliger kanagurta fish gut and microplastic degradation behaviour of existing gut bacteria Pseudomonas sp. Archives of Microbiology 2022 204:10 [Internet]. 2022 Sep 17 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 204(10): 1-10.

[49]   | Qi X, Xue M, Cui H, Yang K, Song K, Zha J, et al. Antimicrobial activity of Pseudomonas monteilii JK-1 isolated from fish gut and its major metabolite, 1-hydroxyphenazine, against Aeromonas hydrophila. Aquaculture. 2020 Sep 15; 526: 735366.
[50]   | Ottman N, Smidt H, de Vos WM, Belzer C. The function of our microbiota: who is out there and what do they do? Front Cell Infect Microbiol [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 2: 104.
[51]   | Li X, Yan Q, Xie S, Hu W, Yu Y, Hu Z. Gut Microbiota Contributes to the Growth of Fast-Growing Transgenic Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). PLoS One [Internet]. 2013 May 31 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 8(5): 64577.
[52]   | Ghosh K, Ray AK, Sen SK. Characterization of Bacilli Isolated from the Gut of Rohu, Labeo rohita, Fingerlings and Its Significance in Digestion. 2008 Jun 1 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 12(3): 33-42.

[53]  
Santos RA, Oliva-Teles A, Pousão-Ferreira P, Jerusik R, Saavedra MJ, Enes P, et al. Isolation and Characterization of Fish-Gut Bacillus spp. as Source of Natural Antimicrobial Compounds to Fight Aquaculture Bacterial Diseases. Marine Biotechnology 2021 23:2 [Internet]. 2021 Feb 5 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 23(2): 276-93.

[54]   | Burgos FA, Ray CL, Arias CR. Bacterial diversity and community structure of the intestinal microbiome of Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) during ontogenesis. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2018 Sep 1; 41(5): 494-505.
[55]   | Clements KD, Raubenheimer D, Choat JH. Nutritional ecology of marine herbivorous fishes: ten years on. Funct Ecol [Internet]. 2009 Feb 1 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 23(1): 79-92.
[56]   | Meng X, Wu S, Hu W, Zhu Z, Yang G, Zhang Y, et al. Clostridium butyricum improves immune responses and remodels the intestinal microbiota of common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Aquaculture. 2021 Jan 15; 530: 735753.
[57]   | Cardman Z, Arnosti C, Durbin A, Ziervogel K, Cox C, Steen AD, et al. Verrucomicrobia Are Candidates for Polysaccharide-Degrading Bacterioplankton in an Arctic Fjord of Svalbard. Appl Environ Microbiol [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 80(12): 3749.
[58]   | Rimoldi S, Antonini M, Gasco L, Moroni F, Terova G. Intestinal microbial communities of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) may be improved by feeding a Hermetia illucens meal/low-fishmeal diet. Fish Physiol Biochem [Internet]. 2021 Apr 1 [cited 2022 Oct 18]; 47(2): 365-80.