Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2018 Mar 14;13(2):139–151. doi: 10.1111/1749-4877.12289

Gut microbes limit growth in house sparrow nestlings (Passer domesticus) but not through limitations in digestive capacity

Kevin D KOHL 1,2,✉, Antonio BRUN 3, Seth R BORDENSTEIN 1,4, Enrique CAVIEDES‐VIDAL 5,6, William H KARASOV 3
PMCID: PMC5873389  PMID: 29168619

Abstract

Recent research often lauds the services and beneficial effects of host‐associated microbes on animals. However, hosting these microbes may come at a cost. For example, germ‐free and antibiotic‐treated birds generally grow faster than their conventional counterparts. In the wild, juvenile body size is correlated with survival, so hosting a microbiota may incur a fitness cost. Avian altricial nestlings represent an interesting study system in which to investigate these interactions, given that they exhibit the fastest growth rates among vertebrates, and growth is limited by their digestive capacity. We investigated whether reduction and restructuring of the microbiota by antibiotic treatment would: (i) increase growth and food conversion efficiency in nestling house sparrows (Passer domesticus); (ii) alter aspects of gut anatomy or function (particularly activities of digestive carbohydrases and their regulation in response to dietary change); and (iii) whether there were correlations between relative abundances of microbial taxa, digestive function and nestling growth. Antibiotic treatment significantly increased growth and food conversion efficiency in nestlings. Antibiotics did not alter aspects of gut anatomy that we considered but depressed intestinal maltase activity. There were no significant correlations between abundances of microbial taxa and aspects of host physiology. Overall, we conclude that microbial‐induced growth limitation in developing birds is not driven by interactions with digestive capacity. Rather, decreased energetic and material costs of immune function or beneficial effects from microbes enriched under antibiotic treatment may underlie these effects. Understanding the costs and tradeoffs of hosting gut microbial communities represents an avenue of future research.

Keywords: antibiotics, food conversion efficiency, gut microbiota, host‐microbe interactions, maltase

 

Cite this article as:

Kohl KD, Brun A, Bordenstein SR, Caviedes–Vidal E, Karasov WH (2018). Gut microbes limit growth in house sparrow nestlings (Passer domesticus) but not through limitations in digestive capacity. Integrative Zoology 13, 139–51.

Supporting information

Figure S1 Mass gain of nestlings subjected to different diet and antibiotic treatments. HC, high carbohydrate; HP, high protein. Mass gain over the course of the experiment was determined by subtracting mass at the beginning mass (measured at 13:30 hours at 3 days old) from the mass at a given time. Nestlings were dissected in the morning of day 7 post‐hatch. Bars represent means ±SEM.

Figure S2 Faith's phylogenetic diversity of the mucosal microbial communities from nestling House Sparrows subjected to various diets and antibiotic treatments. Bars represent means ± SEM.

Supporting Information

Click here for additional data file. (56.1KB, pdf)

Supporting Information

Click here for additional data file. (65.3KB, pdf)

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson TR (2006). Biology of the Ubiquitous House Sparrow. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York. [Google Scholar]
  2. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 57, 289–300. [Google Scholar]
  3. Biviano AB, Martínez del Rio C, Phillips DL (1993). Ontogenesis of intestine morphology and intestinal disaccharidases in chickens (Gallus gallus) fed contrasting purified diets. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 163, 508–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brzęk P, Kohl KD, Caviedes‐Vidal E, Karasov WH (2009). Developmental adjustments of house sparrow (Passer domesticus) nestlings to diet composition. Journal of Experimental Biology 212, 1284–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brzęk P, Kohl KD, Caviedes‐Vidal E, Karasov WH (2011). Fully reversible phenotypic plasticity of digestive physiology in young house sparrows: Lack of long‐term effect of early diet composition. Journal of Experimental Biology 214, 2755–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Caporaso JG, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, DeSantis TZ, Andersen GL, Knight R (2009). PyNAST: A flexible tool for aligning sequences to a template alignment. Bioinformatics 26, 266–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J et al (2010). QIIME allows analysis of high‐throughput community sequencing data. Nature Methods 7, 335–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA et al (2012). Ultra‐high‐throughput microbial community analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. ISME Journal 6, 1621–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Casanovas X, Torralba A (1977). Influence of fosfomycin on intestinal disaccharidases in rats. Chemotherapy 23, 223–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Case TJ (1978). On the evolution and adaptive significance of postnatal growth rates in the terrestrial vertebrates. The Quarterly Review of Biology 53, 243–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Caviedes‐Vidal E, Karasov WH (2001). Developmental changes in digestive physiology of nestling house sparrows, Passer domesticus. Physiological Biochemical Zoology 74, 769–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chevalier C, Stojanović O, Colin DJ et al (2015). Gut microbiota orchestrates energy homeostasis during cold. Cell 163, 1360–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Clarke KR (1993). Non‐parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Austral Ecology 18, 117–43. [Google Scholar]
  14. Coates ME, Fuller R, Harrison GF, Lev M, Suffolk SF (1963). A comparison of the growth of chicks in the Gustafsson germ‐free apparatus and in a conventional environment, with and without dietary supplements of penicillin. British Journal of Nutrition 17, 141–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N et al (2006). Greengenes, a chimera‐checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72, 5069–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dibner JJ, Richards JD (2005). Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture: History and mode of action. Poultry Science 84, 634–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Donaldson GP, Lee SM, Mazmanian SK (2016). Gut biogeography of the bacterial microbiota. Nature Reviews. Microbiology 14, 20–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dumonceaux TJ, Hill JE, Hemmingsen SM, Van Kessel AG (2006). Characterization of intestinal microbiota and response to dietary virginiamycin supplementation in the broiler chicken. Applied Environmental Microbiology 72, 2815–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Edgar RC (2010). Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26, 2460–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Faith DP (1992). Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biological Conservation 61, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  21. Forbes M, Park JT (1959). Growth of germfree and conventional chicks: Effect of diet, dietary penicillin and bacterial environment. The Journal of Nutrition 67, 69–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gille U, Salomon F‐V, Rönnert J (1999). Growth of the digestive organs in ducks with considerations on their growth in birds in general. British Poultry Science 40, 194–202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Harzevili ARS, van Duffel H, Dhert P, Swings J, Sorgeloos P (1998). Use of a potential probiotic Lactococcus lactis AR21 strain for the enhancement of growth in the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis (Muller). Aquaculture Research 29, 411–17. [Google Scholar]
  24. He Y, Caporaso JG, Jiang X‐T et al (2015). Stability of operational taxonomic units: an important but neglected property for analyzing microbial diversity. Microbiome 3, 20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Heo W‐S, Kim Y‐R, Kim E‐Y, Bai SC, Kong I‐S (2013). Effects of dietary probiotic, Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis I2, supplementation on the growth and immune response of olive flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Aquaculture Nutrition 376–9, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ihaka R, Gentleman R (1995). R: A language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computational Graphical Statistics 5, 299–314. [Google Scholar]
  27. Karasov WH, Martinez del Rio C (2007). Physiological Ecology: How Animals Process Energy, Nutrients, and Toxins. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. [Google Scholar]
  28. Karasov WH, Wright J (2002). Nestling digestive physiology and begging. The Evolution of Begging. In: Wright J, Leonard ML, eds. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 199–219. [Google Scholar]
  29. Killpack TL, Oguchi Y, Karasov WH (2013). Ontogenetic patterns of constitutive immune parameters in altricial house sparrows. Journal of Avian Biology 44, 513–20. [Google Scholar]
  30. Knutie SA, Wilkinson CL, Kohl KD, Rohr JR (2017). Early‐life disruption of amphibian microbiota microbiota decreases later‐life resistance to parasites. Nature Communications 8, 86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kohl KD, Carey HV (2016). A place for host–microbe symbiosis in the comparative physiologist's toolbox. Journal of Experimental Biology 219, 3496–504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kohl KD, Brzęk P, Caviedes‐Vidal E, Karasov WH (2011). Pancreatic and intestinal carbohydrases are matched to dietary starch level in wild passerine birds. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 84, 195–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kohl KD, Weiss RB, Cox J, Dale C, Dearing MD (2014). Gut microbes of mammalian herbivores facilitate intake of plant toxins. Ecology Letters 17, 1238–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kumar PS, Mason MR, Brooker MR, O'Brien K (2012). Pyrosequencing reveals unique microbial signatures associated with healthy and failing dental implants. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 39, 425–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lee CY, Lim J‐W, Ko Y‐H et al (2011a). Intestinal growth and development of weanling pigs in response to dietary supplementation of antibiotics, phyogenic products and brewer's yeast plus Bacillus spores. Journal of Animal Science and Technology 53, 227–35. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee DN, Lyu SR, Wang RC, Weng CF, Chen BJ (2011b). Exhibit differential functions of various antibiotic growth promoters in broiler growth, immune response and gastrointestinal physiology. International Journal of Poultry Science 10, 216–20. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lozupone C, Knight R (2005). UniFrac: A new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71, 8228–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lu H‐P, Lai Y‐C, Huang S‐W, Chen H‐C, Hsieh C, Yu H‐T (2014). Spatial heterogeneity of gut microbiota reveals multiple bacterial communities with distinct characteristics. Scientific Reports 4, 6185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Madge DS (1970). Effect of antibiotics on carbohydrase activities of mouse small intestine. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 36, 467–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Magrath RD (1991). Nestling weight and juvenile survival in the blackbird, Turdus merula. Journal of Animal Ecology 60, 335–51. [Google Scholar]
  41. Malmuthuge N, Griebel PJ, Guan LL (2014). Taxonomic identification of commensal bacteria associated with the mucosa and digesta throughout the gastrointestinal tracts of preweaned calves. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 80, 2021–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Marano R, Pastore G, Manghisi O, Shiraldi O (1969). Effect of aminopterin and antibiotics on disaccharidase activity of the rat small bowel. Experientia 25, 1284–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. McCracken VJ, Simpson JM, Mackie RI, Gaskins HR (2001). Molecular ecological analysis of dietary and antibiotic induced alterations of the mouse intestinal microbiota. The Journal of Nutrition 131, 186–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. McFall‐Ngai M, Hadfield MG, Bosch TCG (2013). Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, 3229–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  45. Morgun A, Dzutsev A, Dong X et al (2015). Uncovering effects of antibiotics on the host and microbiota using transkingdom gene networks. Gut 64, 1732–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Mushegian AA, Ebert D (2016). Rethinking “mutualism” in diverse host‐symbiont communities. BioEssays 38, 100–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Pedroso AA, Menten JF, Lambais MR, Racanicci AMC, Longo FA, Sorbara JOB (2006). Intestinal bacterial community and growth performance of chickens fed diets containing antibiotics. Poultry Science 85, 747–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Potti J, Moreno J, Yorio P et al (2002). Bacteria divert resources from growth for magellanic penguin chicks. Ecology Letters 5, 709–14. [Google Scholar]
  49. Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP (2009). FastTree: Computing large minimum‐evolution trees with profiles instead of a distance matrix. Molecular Biology and Evolution 26, 1641–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Reddy BS, Wostmann BS (1966). Intestinal disaccharidase activities in the growing germfree and conventional rats. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 113, 609–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ricklefs RE, Starck JM, Konarzewski M (1998). Internal constraings on growth in birds. In: Starck JM, Ricklefs RE, eds. Avian Growth and Development. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 266–87. [Google Scholar]
  52. Rieger JF (1996). Body size, litter size, timing of reproduction, and juvenile survival in the Unita ground squirrel, Spermophilus armatus. Oecologia 107, 463–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Rott KH, Caviedes‐Vidal E, Karasov WH (2017). Intestinal digestive enzyme modulation in house sparrow nestlings occurs within 24 hours of a change in diet composition. Journal of Experimental Biology 220, 2733–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Round JL, Mazmanian SK (2009). The gut microbiota shapes intestinal immune responses during health and disease. Nature Reviews. Immunology 9, 313–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rousseau R, Van Hecke P (1999). Measuring biodivesity. Acta Biotheoretica 47, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  56. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, USA,. [Google Scholar]
  57. Shchipkova AY, Nagaraja HN, Kumar PS (2010). Subgingival microbial profiles of smokers with periodontitis. Journal of Dental Research 89, 1247–53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Singh KM, Shah TM, Reddy B, Deshpande S, Rank DN, Joshi CG (2014). Taxonomic and gene‐centric metagenomics of the fecal microbiome of low and high feed conversion ratio (FCR) broilers. Journal of Applied Genetics 55, 145–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Snyder DL, Wostmann BS (1987). Growth rate of male germfree Wistar rats fed ad libitum or restricted natural ingredient diet. Laboratory Animal Science 37, 320–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Thymann T, S⊘rensen KU, Hedemann MS et al (2007). Antimicrobial treatment reduces intestinal microflora and improves protein digestive capacity without changes in villous structure in weanling pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 97, 1128–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Timmerman HM, Veldman A, van den Elsen E, Rombouts FM, Beynen AC (2006). Mortality and growth performance of broilers given drinking water supplemented with chicken‐specific probiotics. Poultry Science 85, 1383–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Torok VA, Hughes RJ, Mikkelsen LL et al (2011). Identification and characterization of potential performance‐related gut microbiotas in broiler chickens across various feeding trials. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 77, 5868–78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Vervaeke IJ, Decuypere JA, Dierick NA, Henderickx HK (1979). Quantitative in vitro evaluation of the energy metabolism influenced by virginiamycin and spiramycin used as growth promoters in pig nutrition. Journal of Animal Science 49, 846–56. [Google Scholar]
  64. Visek WJ (1978). The mode of growth promotion by antibiotics. Journal of Animal Science 46, 1447–69. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Figure S1 Mass gain of nestlings subjected to different diet and antibiotic treatments. HC, high carbohydrate; HP, high protein. Mass gain over the course of the experiment was determined by subtracting mass at the beginning mass (measured at 13:30 hours at 3 days old) from the mass at a given time. Nestlings were dissected in the morning of day 7 post‐hatch. Bars represent means ±SEM.

Figure S2 Faith's phylogenetic diversity of the mucosal microbial communities from nestling House Sparrows subjected to various diets and antibiotic treatments. Bars represent means ± SEM.

Supporting Information

Click here for additional data file. (56.1KB, pdf)

Supporting Information

Click here for additional data file. (65.3KB, pdf)

Articles from Integrative Zoology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES