Comparative phylogenetic profile of the intestinal microbiome of chickens and domestic geese

Studying the biodiversity of the microbiomes of land and waterfowl is important for a better understanding of the role of individual bacterial taxa in microbial digestion and the development of species-specific probiotic products aimed at optimizing the feeding of chickens and geese. Experimental data on the phylogenetic structure of the gut microbiome of chickens and domestic geese are comparatively limited.
The purpose of this work was to study the structure and biodiversity of the microbiota of the blind processes of the large intestine of chickens of the egg-bearing direction of the Russian White cross and goslings bred from eggs of the same clutch in an incubator by sequencing a fragment of the 16S rRNA gene.
The comparative phylogenetic profile of the microbiome of chickens and geese confirms that the differences in their microbial communities are due to evolutionary adaptation to different types of nutrition, which is reflected in the dominance of different functional groups of bacteria specializing in the digestion of substrates specific to each species. Despite the phylogenetic and physiological differences between chickens and geese, their intestinal microbiomes have certain similarities. Both species have 9 common genera, which form the core of the microbiome and are responsible for a significant part of the functional potential of the intestinal microflora.
The results obtained may provide information for future studies of the relationship between the microbiota of the gastrointestinal tract and productivity indicators of chickens and geese.

1. Gao G. et al. Genome and metagenome analyses reveal adaptive evolution of the host and interaction with the gut microbiota in the goose. Scientific reports. 2016; 6: 32961. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32961

2. Xu Q. et al. Comparative characterization of bacterial communities in geese fed all-grass or high-grain diets. PLOS One. 2017; 12(10): e0185590. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185590

3. Yin J., Yuan D., Xu Z., Wu Y., Chen Z., Xiang X. Significant Differences in Intestinal Bacterial Communities of Sympatric Bean Goose, Hooded Crane, and Domestic Goose. Animals. 2024; 14(11): 1688. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14111688

4. Fu R., Xiang X., Dong Y., Cheng L., Zhou L. Comparing the intestinal bacterial communies of sympatric wintering Hooded Crane (Grus monacha) and Domestic Goose (Anser anser domesticus). Avian Research. 2020; 11: 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-020-00195-9

5. Wang B. et al. Diet drives the gut microbiome composition and assembly processes in winter migratory birds in the Poyang Lake wetland, China. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2022; 13: 973469. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.973469

6. Jia F. et al. Effects of dietary fibre on intestinal microbiota in geese evaluated by 16SrRNA gene sequencing. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2022; 132(6): 4440–4451. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.15536

7. Ho S.-Y., Chen Y.-H., Yang S.-K. Effects of sequential feeding with lowand high-protein diets on growth performances and plasma metabolite levels in geese. Animal. 2015; 9(6): 952–957. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114003267

8. Waite D.W., Taylor M.W. Characterizing the avian gut microbiota: membership, driving influences, and potential function. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2014; 5: 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00223

9. Burrows P.B., Godoy-Santos F., Lawther K., Richmond A., Corcionivoschi N., Huws S.A. Decoding the chicken gastrointestinal microbiome. BMC Microbiology. 2025; 25: 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-024-03690-x

10. Lim S. et al. Developmental Dynamic Analysis of the Excreted Microbiome of Chickens Using Next-Generation Sequencing. Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2015; 25(4): 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1159/000430865

11. Bolyen E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nature Biotechnology. 2019; 37(8): 852–857. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9

12. Liu J. et al. Comparative analysis of intestinal flora community composition and diversity of Anas platyrhynchos and Anser fabalis in the Yellow River Delta. Animal Biology. 2024; 74(4): 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1163/15707563-bja10149

13. Xiang X., Zhang F., Fu R., Yan S., Zhou L. Significant Differences in Bacterial and Potentially Pathogenic Communities Between Sympatric Hooded Crane and Greater White-Fronted Goose. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019; 10: 163. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00163

14. Wang W. et al. Comparative analyses of the gut microbiota among three different wild geese species in the genus Anser. Journal of Basic Microbiology. 2018; 58(6): 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/jobm.201800060

15. Wang W., Cao J., Li J.-R., Yang F., Li Z., Li L.-X. Comparative analysis of the gastrointestinal microbial communities of bar-headed goose (Anser indicus) in different breeding patterns by high-throughput sequencing. Microbiological Research. 2016: 182: 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2015.10.003

16. Ali Q. et al. Pasture intake protects against commercial diet-induced lipopolysaccharide production facilitated by gut microbiota through activating intestinal alkaline phosphatase enzyme in meat geese. Frontiers in Immunology. 2022; 13: 1041070. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.1041070

17. Rychlik I. Composition and Function of Chicken Gut Microbiota. Animals. 2020; 10(1): 103. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010103

18. Wang W. et al. Metagenomic profiling of gut microbial communities in both wild and artificially reared Bar-headed goose (Anser indicus). MicrobiologyOpen. 2017; 6(2): e00429. https://doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.429

19. Wielen P.W.J.J., Keuzenkamp D.A., Lipman L.J.A., Knapen F., Biesterveld S. Spatial and Temporal Variation of the Intestinal Bacterial Community in Commercially Raised Broiler Chickens During Growth. Microbial Ecology. 2002; 44(3): 286–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-002-2015-y

20. Thibodeau A., Fravalo P., Yergeau É., Arsenault J., Lahaye L., Letellier A. Chicken Caecal Microbiome Modifications Induced by Campylobacter jejuni Colonization and by a Non-Antibiotic Feed Additive. PLOS One. 2015; 10(7): e0131978. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131978

21. Fang S. et al. The integrated analysis of digestive physiology and gastrointestinal microbiota structure in Changle goose. Poultry Science. 2023; 102(5): 102588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.102588

22. Flint H.J., Bayer E.A., Rincon M.T., Lamed R., White B.A. Polysaccharide utilization by gut bacteria: potential for new insights from genomic analysis. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2008; 6(2): 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1817

23. Deehan E.C. et al. Precision Microbiome Modulation with Discrete Dietary Fiber Structures Directs Short-Chain Fatty Acid Production. Cell Host & Microbe. 2020; 27(3): 389–404.E6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2020.01.006

24. Fan S., Zhang Z., Nie Q., Ackah M., Nie S. Rethinking the classification of non-digestible carbohydrates: Perspectives from the gut microbiome. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2024; 23(6): e70046. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.70046

25. Torok V.A. et al. Identification and Characterization of Potential Performance-Related Gut Microbiotas in Broiler Chickens across Various Feeding Trials. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2011; 77(17): 5868–5878. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00165-11

26. Stamilla A. et al. Analysis of the Microbial Intestinal Tract in Broiler Chickens during the Rearing Period. Biology. 2021; 10(9): 942. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10090942

27. Salyers A.A., Vercellotti J.R., West S.E., Wilkins T.D. Fermentation of mucin and plant polysaccharides by strains of Bacteroides from the human colon. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1977; 33(2): 319–322. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.33.2.319-322.1977

28. Louis P., Flint H.J. Diversity, metabolism and microbial ecology of butyrateproducing bacteria from the human large intestine. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2009; 294(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2009.01514.x