Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 6;16(1):e0244724. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244724

Geography as non-genetic modulation factor of chicken cecal microbiota

Natalia Pin Viso 1,2, Enzo Redondo 2,3, Juan María Díaz Carrasco 2,3, Leandro Redondo 2,3, Julia Sabio y Garcia 1, Mariano Fernández Miyakawa 2,3, Marisa Diana Farber 1,2,*
Editor: Luis David Alcaraz4
PMCID: PMC7787451  PMID: 33406150

Abstract

The gastrointestinal tract of chickens harbors a highly diverse microbiota contributing not only to nutrition, but also to the physiological development of the gastrointestinal tract. Microbiota composition depends on many factors such as the portion of the intestine as well as the diet, age, genotype, or geographical origin of birds. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate the influence of the geographical location over the cecal microbiota from broilers. We used metabarcoding sequencing datasets of the 16S rRNA gene publicly available to compare the composition of the Argentine microbiota against the microbiota of broilers from another seven countries (Germany, Australia, Croatia, Slovenia, United States of America, Hungary, and Malaysia). Geographical location played a dominant role in shaping chicken gut microbiota (Adonis R2 = 0.6325, P = 0.001; Mantel statistic r = 0.1524, P = 4e-04) over any other evaluated factor. The geographical origin particularly affected the relative abundance of the families Bacteroidaceae, Lactobacillaceae, Lachnospiraceae, Ruminococcaceae, and Clostridiaceae. Because of the evident divergence of microbiota among countries we coined the term “local microbiota” as convergent feature that conflates non-genetic factors, in the perspective of human-environmental geography. Local microbiota should be taken into consideration as a native overall threshold value for further appraisals when testing the production performance and performing correlation analysis of gut microbiota modulation against different kind of diet and/or management approaches. In this regard, we described the Argentine poultry cecal microbiota by means of samples both from experimental trials and commercial farms. Likewise, we were able to identify a core microbiota composed of 65 operational taxonomic units assigned to seven phyla and 38 families, with the four most abundant taxa belonging to Bacteroides genus, Rikenellaceae family, Clostridiales order, and Ruminococcaceae family.

Introduction

The chicken gastrointestinal tract (GIT) harbors a very diverse microbiota, dominated by Bacteria, that influences health and growth performance of chicken. A healthy microbiota provides nutrients to the host and promotes competitive exclusion [1]. The composition of the GIT microbiota differs according to diet, age and genotype of hosts as well as the portion of the intestinal tract, among others [2]). The poultry industry has adopted the use of dietary additives because of their anti-microbial and/or growth-promoting effects. To date, many additives are available, including antibiotics administered in sub-therapeutic doses, prebiotic, probiotics, organic acids and plant extracts [3]).

In the last few years, researchers have been paying closer attention to the influence of the geographical origin on microbiota composition. Indeed, in humans, geography can explain part of the observed variability on intestinal bacterial communities [4, 5]. In birds, environmental parameters seem to be the most important factors shaping host-associated microbiota [6, 7]. For example, fecal microbial composition of egg laying hens and poultry vary between samples from different geographical origins of Europe, such as Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia, and Czech Republic [8]. More recently, by comparing samples from five high altitude regions of China, ‬‬‬‬‬‬Zhou et al. [9] determined that the cecal composition of the intestinal microbiota of Tibetan chickens is altered by their origin.‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

With all this in mind, we hypothesized that the geographical location is a key modulator factor of cecal microbiota. In this regard, we considered geography in terms of the “human-environment” theoretical framework [10], overcoming the physical and a human geography divide. Location, as an idealized geographical space [11], would explain flows and interactions between factors like climate, farm management (including health interventions, nutrition, feed and litter management), and socioeconomic and cultural setting. To test this hypothesis, we reanalyzed publicly available data from NCBI and MG-RAST from eight different countries and moved forward using local data for describing the Argentine chicken cecal microbiota.

Materials and methods

Data acquisition from public databases

To compare the composition of chicken’s GIT microbiota from different geographic locations, short amplicon data from next-generation sequencing experimental trials (ET) were used. Datasets were obtained from MG-RAST and the NCBI Sequence Read Archive. Data sources, corresponding to eight different countries, including Argentina, are reported in Table 1. All downloaded data were re-analyzed using all samples as one large data set, using Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology (QIIME) v1.9.1 software [12].

Table 1. 16S rRNA gene amplicon data used to compare the chicken GIT microbial composition throughout geographic location.

Source/ID Geographic location Intestinal portion Age (days) Genetic line Region sequenced Diet Extraction kit Platform Reference
NCBI
PRJEB9198 GER Cecum 25 Ross complete SCD, MCP Qiagen Roche [13]
SAMN03092832-39 MAL Ileum/Cecum 21/42 Cobb V3 SCD Qiagen Illumina [14]
SRP045877 CRO Fecal 21 Ross/Cobb V3-V4 SCD Qiagen Roche [8]
SRP045877 SLO Fecal 21 Ross/Cobb V3-V4 SCD Qiagen Roche [8]
SRP045877 HUN Fecal 21 Ross/Cobb V3-V4 SCD Qiagen Roche [8]
SAMN03161778-871 USA Cecum 42 Ross/Cobb V1-V3 SCD, OA [15] Roche [16]
MG-RAST
4614960.3 AUS Cecum 25 Cobb V1-V3 SCD [17] Roche [18]
AVAILABLE UNDER REQUEST
-- ARG-ET1 Cecum 26 Cobb V3-V4 SCD, Bac, Tan Qiagen Illumina [19]
-- ARG-ET2 Cecum 22 Cobb V3-V4 SCD, Tan Qiagen Illumina Díaz Carrasco Unpublished

GER: Germany, MAL: Malaysia, CRO: Croatia, SLO: Slovenia, HUN: Hungary, USA: United States, AUS: Australia, ARG-ET1: Argentina-Experimental Trial 1, ARG-ET2: Argentina-Experimental Trial 2. SCD: Standardized commercial diet for feeding broilers. MCP: monocalcium phosphate; OA (Organic acids): formic acid, propionic acid, ammonium formate and medium-chain fatty acids; Bac: subtherapeutic levels of zinc bacitracin; Tan: blend of tannins derived from chestnut and quebracho. Qiagen: QIAmp DNA Stool Mini Kit. Roche: Roche-454. Illumina: Illumina-MiSeq.

Argentine cecal microbiota samples from commercial farms

We selected 10 commercial broiler farms from Argentina, classified according to husbandry practices into conventional poultry (CP) and agroecological farm (AE). Cecal content were collected from 27 samples in total, coming from 9 CP and 1 AE (S1 Table). To reduce inter individual variation each sample is the pool of the cecal content from five animals per pen, after cervical dislocation euthanizing proceeding. All cecum samples were immediately refrigerated on ice and then stored at −80°C until DNA extraction.

The animal experiments reported in this manuscript were conducted in accordance to protocol number 20/2010 from the Institutional Committee for the care and use of animals-INTA (CICUAE Approved by resolution CICVyA No. 14/07) based on internationally recognized guidelines of ‘‘Care and Use of Experimental Animals” as Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching, 3rd edition, 2010. Participation in the study was voluntary.

DNA extraction and sequencing

Total genomic DNA was isolated from 300 mg of cecal content using QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer's recommendations. DNA concentration and purity were assessed in NanoDrop ND−1000 spectrophotometer (NanoDrop Technologies, DE, USA) and DNA was stored at −20°C until further analysis. The V3-V4 region of bacterial 16S rRNA gene amplification from the total extracted DNA, together with the construction of the 16S gene libraries and high−throughput sequencing using the Illumina MiSeq platform were performed at Macrogen Inc. (Seoul, South Korea). The generated paired-end reads of 300bp were obtained with primers b341F (5’-CCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG-3’) and Bakt805R (5’-GACTACHVGGGT ATCTAATCC-3’).

All sequence data were deposited in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive database under the BioProject accession number PRJNA579062.

Microbial community analysis

Microbial community was analyzed by using QIIME v. 1.9.1 with default command parameters, unless specified. An average phred quality score threshold higher than 20 was used to filter low quality reads from raw sequence reads. Paired-end reads were joined and potentially chimeric sequences were identified and filtered using UCHIME algorithm [20]. All sequence data were then clustered into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at 97% similarity against the GreenGenes database version 13.8, using UCLUST algorithm [21]. OTUs with abundance below 0.005% were filtered and the remaining OTUs were normalized using the total-sum scaling method (which divides the number of sequences per OTU by the total number of sequences in the sample).

For the geographical analysis, due to the broad range of 16S gene regions under analysis, we used the ‘‘closed reference” approach. This method discarded reads that failed to match the reference sequences, thus taxonomies came directly from the reference database upon the identity of the reference sequence clustered against.

Microbial diversity was evaluated within samples (alpha diversity) and between samples (beta diversity) using QIIME. Alpha diversity was assessed by richness (Chao1 index and observed OTUs) and community diversity (Shannon and Simpson indexes). The beta diversity in the microbial communities was evaluated on square root transformed OTU abundances; hierarchical clustering was performed on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity by using an average method to grouping the microbiotas in RStudio software with vegan package [22]. Finally, UniFrac analysis [23] and unweighted principal coordinate plots (PCoA) were used. For geographical analysis we used the 97% OTUs phylogenetic tree supplied with Greengenes. QIIME scripts used and the intermediate results for this analysis are available from figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4993856.

Statistical analysis of results

To compare the microbial composition of GIT samples from different countries, multiple rarefactions 100 times with averaging count where performing. The output file was further analyzed using Statistical Analysis of Metagenomic Profiles (STAMP) software [24], with ANOVA and Bonferroni correction to identify differentially OTUs abundances. Single sample per country was considered as the experimental unit. To find differences in the alpha diversity indexes, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney post-hoc test was realized, corrected by Bonferroni method. For the beta diversity index, the grouping of samples based on each metadata factor, after the PCoA based on unweighted UniFrac distances, was evaluated using non-parametric multivariate ADONIS statistical analysis in QIIME. Additionally, Mantel test, wrapped in RStudio, was performed with 9999 permutations for appraisal the correlation between the unweighted UniFrac distances with geographical ones. We used https://www.geodatos.net/ for geographical coordinates and Haversine distances were calculated using geosphere package in R.

For all the statistical analysis, differences at P < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Geographic location shapes the cecal microbiota

By means of comparison analysis of downloaded data from public repositories of eight different countries, we tested the influence of the geographical location on GIT microbiota. The arrangement that arises by the multidimensional scaling analysis (PCoA based on unweighted UniFrac distances of the 16S rRNA gene) revealed distinct groups (Fig 1). Additionally, the fit (63.25% observable variability) of the metadata factors (Table 2) revealed the geographic location as the strongest driver of community structure. On top of that, the Mantel test outcome showed statistically significant correlation between beta diversity and location distance matrices (Mantel statistic r = 0.1524; Significance = 4e-04).

Fig 1. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of unweighted UniFrac distances.

Fig 1

Chicken GIT microbiota samples from different geographic locations were designated as AUS: Australia, ARG: Argentina, CRO: Croatia, GER: Germany, HUN: Hungary, MAL: Malaysia, SLO: Slovenia and USA: United States.

Table 2. Calculated fit of metadata factors to unweighted UniFrac community distances for chicken microbiota using ADONIS.

Unweighted UniFrac R2
Geographic location 0.63
Region sequenced 0.35
Diet 0.36
Extraction Kit 0.33
Intestinal portion 0.22
Age (days) 0.20
Genetic line 0.17
Platform 0.11

Statistical significance identified for all factor (P < 0.01).

On the other hand, the use of Bray-Curtis dissimilarity metrics in a clustering analysis of microbial communities at the genus level yielded similar results (S1 Fig). Moreover, the relative OTU abundances at the family level also support the community structures associated with geography (Figs 2 and S2 and S2 Table). Notably, the presence of Bacteroidaceae, Lactobacillaceae, Lachnospiraceae, Ruminococcaceae, and Clostridiaceae explained the detected differences (S2 Table).

Fig 2. Geography map of chicken GIT microbiota at the family level.

Fig 2

Different colors are used to indicate each individual taxon according to the country of origin designated as AUS: Australia, ARG: Argentina, CRO: Croatia, GER: Germany, HUN: Hungary, MAL: Malaysia, SLO: Slovenia, and USA: United States. The taxonomic classification: p_phylum, c_class, o_order, and f_family.

Additionally, we performed an analysis of the microbiota of each country regarding richness and evenness. In this regard, the community structure of Malaysian microbiota was the most diverse with the higher values of alpha diversity indexes. In contrast, the microbiota from Croatia and USA showed the lower values. Slovenia and Croatia showed no significant statistical differences across Chao1 and Shannon diversity index. These two countries grouped together according to both, PCoA distribution and alpha diversity indexes values. Similarly, alpha and beta values did not support the geographical distance between Hungary, Argentina, and Malaysia (Table 3).

Table 3. Alpha diversity indexes for chicken samples throughout geographic location.

Geographic location OTUs per sample Chao1 index Shannon diversity Simpson diversity
United States 31.39±5.76a 37.59±8.78a 3.09±0.85a 0.74±0.18ab
Croatia 42.10±26.50a 55.31±28.10ab 3.56±0.81ab 0.84±0.10cd
Germany 44.17±7.33ab 56.65±8.40abc 2.90±0.42a 0.69±0.10a
Slovenia 59.30±10.85bc 74.20±18.98bc 2.81±0.61a 0.72±0.13a
Australia 86.70±15.49bcd 95.61±20.93cd 3.25±0.20a 0.81±0.04abc
Hungary 124.70±43.23cd 169.41±58.55d 4.06±0.82bc 0.85±0.10bcd
Argentina 163.29±32.72d 189.99±43.41d 4.57±0.25c 0.90±0.01d
Malaysia 590.00±35.38e 621.28±27.78e 5.92±0.92c 0.94±0.04d

Mean±SD are showing. Different letters indicate significant differences among samples according to Kruskal Wallis with Mann-Whitney post-hoc test (P < 0.05) and Bonferroni correction.

Characterization of Argentine cecal microbiota

We explored two different categories: chickens reared under experimental trial (ET) and commercial broiler farms (CF). CF included conventional poultry (CP) and one agroecological farm (AE). The analysis consisted of ET samples involves in the previously analysis, and other 17 samples of the same datasets from different ages (Table 1), and 27 samples obtained from CF (S1 Table). A total of 3032606 quality trimmed sequences and 1172 different OTUs, were obtained with an average number of sequences per sample of 49168, 49881, 69817, and 49297, for ET1, ET2, CP, and AE respectively.

The distribution of the experimental and commercial datasets gathered into different groups according to the multidimensional scaling analysis (PCoA based on unweighted UniFrac distances of the 16S rRNA gene). PC1 clearly showed the differences between experimental and commercial datasets, whereas PC2 displayed differences between each experimental trial (ET1 and ET2). Finally, PC3 allowed us to separate the data belonging to AE and CP (Fig 3). In addition, alpha diversity values confirmed two separate groups (ET and CF) according to both richness and diversity indexes (Table 4).

Fig 3. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of unweighted UniFrac distances.

Fig 3

Chicken cecal microbiota samples from different Argentinian farms were designated as ET1: Experimental Trial 1, ET2: Experimental Trial 2, CP: Conventional Poultry, and AE: Agroecological Farm.

Table 4. Alpha diversity indexes for chicken cecal Argentine samples.

Sample OTUs per sample Chao1 index Shannon diversity Simpson diversity Good's coverage
ET1 328.92±34.20 a 367.05±34.88 a 5.27±0.34 a 0.91±0.02 a 0.99±0.01
ET2 189.58±39.60 b 218.81±49.63 b 4.63±0.45 b 0.90±0.04 a 0.99±0.01
CP 571.04±37.11 c 623.73±43.90 c 6.56±0.29 c 0.97±0.01 b 0.99±0.01
AE 550.50±17.68 c 614.39±19.87 c 6.82±0.11 c 0.98±0.00 b 0.99±0.01

Mean±SD are showing. Different letters indicate significant differences among samples according to Kruskal Wallis with Mann-Whitney post-hoc test (P < 0.05) and Bonferroni correction. ET1: Experimental Trial 1, ET2: Experimental Trial 2, CP: Conventional Poultry, AE: Agroecological Farm

As expected for cecal microbiota, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and Proteobacteria represented the major phyla regarding community structure. For CF, their relative abundances were 45.79%, 46.75%, and 2.52% for CP and of 27.11%, 38.36%, and 8.01% for AE, respectively. The unclassified bacteria ascended to 15.71% in AE samples and 2% in CP. Within the Firmicutes phylum, Clostridia was the dominant class (41.20% for CP and 25.7% for AE), with a prominence of the Clostridiales order. From this order, the prevalent families were Ruminococcaceae and Lachnospiraceae in CP (18.22% and 5.43% respectively) and three families, Ruminococcaceae (4.96%), Lachnospiraceae (4.35%), and Veillonelaceae (7.35%), displayed similar relative abundance in AE samples. Within the Bacteroidetes phylum, Bacteroidales of the Bacteroidea class was a highly abundant order (46.75% for CP and 38.35% for AE). The more representative families from Bacteroidales were Bacteroidaceae (18.56% and 18.28%), Rikenellaceae (15.47% and 1.46%), and Barnesiellaceae (8.39% and 1.27%).

On the other hand, the microbiota of ET was dominated by Firmicutes (50.67%), followed by Bacteroidetes (44.84%), and Proteobacteria (3.41%). Within the Firmicutes phylum, Clostridia was the dominant class (47.23%) among the most abundant members from the Clostridiales order. The most abundant families were Ruminococcaceae and Lachnospiraceae (17.64% and 7.82% respectively). Within the Bacteroidetes phylum, Bacteroidales was the most abundant order of the Bacteroidea class (44.84%). In this case, the most representative families were Bacteroidaceae (33.47%), Rikenellaceae (5.86%), and Barnesiellaceae (5.50%). S3 Table shows the statistical analyses.

Chickens under commercial (CP and AE) or experimental conditions (ET) shared a core microbiota composed of 65 classified OTUs (Fig 4), which were assigned to seven phyla and 38 families. Fifteen of them were above 1% at least in one sample, thus they were considered highly abundant. The shared OTUs were dominated by Bacteroides genus, Rikenellaceae family, Clostridiales order, and Ruminococcaceae family. All these taxa showed variations in relative abundance among samples (Table 5).

Fig 4. Venn diagram and UpSet plot of the Argentinian samples.

Fig 4

Venn diagram and UpSet plot show the number of shared OTUs between chicken cecal Argentinian samples designated as ET: Experimental Trial, CP: Conventional Poultry, and AE: Agroecological Farm.

Table 5. List of shared OTUs among chicken cecal Argentine samples.

Phylum Order Family Genus ET AE CP
Bacteroidetes Bacteroidales Bacteroidaceae Bacteroides 33.47 18.28 18.56
Bacteroidetes Bacteroidales Rikenellaceae Unclassified 5.86 1.46 15.45
Bacteroidetes Bacteroidales [Barnesiellaceae] Unclassified 5.50 1.27 8.39
Firmicutes Lactobacillales Lactobacillaceae Lactobacillus 2.87 0.24 3.80
Firmicutes Clostridiales Unclassified Unclassified 18.76 7.86 11.97
Firmicutes Clostridiales Lachnospiraceae Unclassified 4.38 0.59 1.92
Firmicutes Clostridiales Lachnospiraceae [Ruminococcus] 2.44 3.24 2.74
Firmicutes Clostridiales Ruminococcaceae Unclassified 10.08 2.21 7.94
Firmicutes Clostridiales Ruminococcaceae Faecalibacterium 0.36 0.77 3.60
Firmicutes Clostridiales Ruminococcaceae Oscillospira 2.62 1.63 4.23
Firmicutes Clostridiales Ruminococcaceae Ruminococcus 4.37 0.33 2.38
Firmicutes Clostridiales Veillonellaceae Megamonas 0 1.12 1.91
Firmicutes Clostridiales Veillonellaceae Phascolarctobacterium 2.49 5.77 2.39
Proteobacteria Burkholderiales Alcaligenaceae Sutterella 0.97 2.34 0.64
Proteobacteria Enterobacteriales Enterobacteriaceae Unclassified 1.91 0.84 0.31

The taxonomic classification of the shared OTUs with relative abundance above 1% is shown down to the genus level.

ET: Experimental Trial, CP: Conventional Poultry, AE: Agroecological Farm

Discussion

As in other vertebrates, the gut microbiota composition of birds is influenced by genetic and non-genetic factors. Understanding the contribution of these factors on the microbial community structure is critical to develop a modulation strategy for improving poultry production. Some studies have found that non-genetic factors are more important in structuring the microbiota than the genetics ones [2]. Likewise, our results showed that the geographic location plays a relevant role in shaping the gut microbiota of chickens than any other evaluated factors. This finding is in accordance with previous works studying GIT microbiota modulation in humans and chicken [5, 8, 9].‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Particularly, geographic gradient seems to shape microbiota in young European infant (age 6 weeks) [4]. In this age group, the abundance of Bacteroidaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, and Lactobacillaceae remarkably varied according to the location. Indeed all these families presented higher relative abundance in infants from southern European countries. Our results in European chickens showed a similar pattern, with the highest differences found at extreme latitudes. The relative abundances for Lactobacillacea and Enterobacteriaceae were lower in samples from northern countries (Germany) than in samples from southern countries (Slovenia, Croatia, and Hungary). The opposite geographic gradient pattern came out for Bacteroidetes phylum (Fig 2 and S2 Table).

An analysis of the influence of geography upon microbiota of birds with fermenting crop confirmed that intra-population distances were smaller than between populations, where the differences in the crop microbiota were mostly assigned to environmental differences [6]. In another study, Hird et al. [7] suggested that genetics might play less influence in comparison to non-genetic factors like locality, age, and diet in shaping passerine gut microbiota. Finally, in a broader avian study, Waite and Taylor [25] attributed the composition of GIT microbiota mostly to host and location.

One of the main challenges when extracting information from public sequence resources is to take into account the biases and limitations of the methodological approaches that could confound the outcome from the bioinformatics workflow. Sequencing depth indirectly determines the abundance of the bacterial species. Indeed, the detection of rare OTUs requires the presence of many sequences per sample [26]. This constraint can be overcome by performing a normalization data step through random subsampling and total sum-scaling method. Additionally, we considered three factors related to methodological approaches (DNA extraction kit, the variable region of the 16S rRNA, and the sequencing platform) in the analysis. Although Fouhy et al. [27] found that the extraction method had a low effect on overall composition, Kennedy et al. [28] obtained significant differences in relative abundance associated with different DNA extraction methods. Walker et al. [29] and Fouhy et al. [27] found the PCR primer sequences are critical determinants of the final bacterial sequences profile. To overcome for potential bias due to both variable target region and primer pairs we used the closed reference OTU picking approach for analyzing the worldwide samples, at the risk of discarding novel real reads. Finally, Allali et al. [30] demonstrated significant differences between sequencing platforms and library preparation protocols in the determination of microbial diversity and species richness.

In our work, we corroborated, according to R2 values, that the sequencing platform, extraction kit, and the variable sequenced region indeed have an impact though lesser than the geographic origin (Table 2). Moreover, the results from the two datasets from Argentina (Table 1 and Fig 1) significantly grouped together, yet coming not only from different trials but also obtained in different time-frames.

The Mantel test [31] is a powerful tool for analyzing multivariate data, particularly for data sets expressed through pairwise distances [32]. In this regard, our results showed a significant correlation between beta diversity (unweighted UniFrac) and haversine geographical distances, reinforcing the major influence of geography over any other factor that may arise from methodological constraints.

Others factors, like intestinal portion and age, seemed not impact on microbiota modulation to the same extent as geography. For instance, Malaysia samples clustered together even though they belonged to different sections of GIT (ileum and cecum) and two different age groups (21 and 42 days). On the other hand, the diet, which is one of the most studied parameter in the bibliography, could be a determining influence factor. However, some of the datasets used in our analysis included more than one treatment, but their distribution on PCoA did not show any response to this characteristic. For example Germany dataset include two groups fed with commercial or monocalcium phosphate additive, and the same happened with USA and Argentine samples, which comprised commercial diet versus organic acids, and tannins or bacitracin, respectively (Table 1).

We coined the concept of “local microbiota” because of the highly divergent poultry microbiota linked with geographical location. Resuming the perspective of human-environment geography, local microbiota mirrors the autochthonous non-genetic drivers that modulate bacterial composition. In other words, we propose that geographical location is a convergent feature that conflates non-genetic factors. Thus, local microbiota is worth to take into consideration as the proper base-line for identifying the correlation of the poultry lifestyle and the GIT microbiota, for testing additives on diet to modulate the microbiota as growth promoter factors, and for improving production performance. As an example, the in depth analysis of GIT microbiota of poultry from Argentina allowed us to characterized a native one, bearing Veillonellaceae family in a more predominantly way (> 3%) than in any of the other of the analyzed countries (below 1%) (S2 Table). Particularly, the members of this family are morphologically diverse and obligate Gram-negative anaerobes, capable of degrading organic acids, fermenting lactate, and forming intergeneric coaggregates with other bacteria providing nutrients and protection for all participants [33].

Yet we can talk about an Argentine microbiota, we still can distinguish the existence of specific community structures linked to CF versus ET at the sub local level (Fig 3 and S3 Table). Additionally, diversity indexes from CF are higher than the ones from ET (Observed OTUs, Chao1, Shannon, and Simpson indexes—Table 4). We consider the litter management regimen as the most noticeable feature among the variables that could be responsible of the observed differences between both husbandry practices. The poultry litter consists primarily of a mixture of bedding materials and bird excreta and, unlike in ET, in commercial farms the litter is used throughout the year (from five to six productive cycles). Repeated use of poultry litter, results in considerable changes in the chemical and microbiological conditions of litter [34]. Other authors had also demonstrated, the litter effect on the composition and structure of poultry GIT microbiota. In that sense, our results (Table 4), are in accordance with Wang et al. [34] and Cressman et al. [35], where the diversity of cecal samples from animals raised in pens with reused litter was significantly greater in comparison to the diversity of those raised using fresh litter.

Clearly differences were observed according to the multidimensional scaling analysis. Fig 3 displays not only the split into experimental or commercial conditions (ET and CF) but also the sub divisions within each group. ET comprises two slightly different experimental designs (ET1 and ET2, Table 1) and CF involves two alternative productive management systems (CP and AE). Notably, although CP encompasses samples from different commercial farms (S1 Table) they are all grouped together, significantly separated from the AE ones.

Despite these differences found into Argentine samples, we described a microbial taxonomic core (Fig 4 and Table 5). The identification of a taxonomic core among Argentine poultry could be useful to evaluate the trends of microbiota dynamics in a more accurate way at regional level. The four more abundant shared OTUs were Bacteroides, Rikenellaceae, Clostridiales and Ruminococcacea, typical members of the chicken GIT.

The cecum harbors a bacterial community that allows anaerobic fermentation of cellulose and other substrates [19]; many of the members of this community belong to the Bacteroidetes phylum. Among Bacteroidetes, Bacteroides was the most abundant genus in the Argentine core, capable of performing an efficient polysaccharide degradation and producing short-chain volatile fatty acids [36]. On the other hand, the Rikenellaceae family generally indicates gastrointestinal good−health. Members of this family seem to be specialized in the digestive tract of a number of different animals, and have been identified both in fecal and GIT samples [37].

Within Firmicutes phylum, Clostridia class dominated the ileum and cecum microbiota of healthy chickens [14]. Rinttilä and Apajalahti [38] suggest that most members of Clostridia are nonpathogenic, encompassing many beneficial bacteria like cellulose and starch degraders. In accordance, the Clostridiales order was the most abundant member of the Firmicutes phylum in the Argentine core. Among the Clostridia class Ruminococcaceae and Lachnospiraceae were the most abundant families similar to what has been described by Oakley et al. [16] and Neumann and Suen [39] for cecum of broiler chicken.

Conclusion

The results of the present study reinforce the role of geographic location as a native modulator factor of microbial community present in chicken gastrointestinal tract. We believe that a global picture of diversity is emerging, despite the limitations of cross-study meta-analyses due mainly to methodological biases. Therefore, here we report a conservative approach, using closed reference OTU picking due to different 16S gene regions involved, limiting the potential for sequencing noise to interfere with the results at the cost of perhaps discarding real, novel reads.

A larger number of studies should be included in future analyzes to validate the results to a wider extent, to support the similarities in the composition within the same country (or same latitude).

Additionally, this study is the first report describing the Argentine microbiota for experimental and commercial farms that could be considered as first baseline approximation when testing modulators of the GIT microbiota in specific contexts to improve poultry health and production. However, further investigations are required to better link the environmental conditions with microbiota modulation parameters so as to develop novel strategies for improving production outputs.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Clustering analysis of chicken GIT microbial communities at the genus level, based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity, from different geographic locations.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Relative abundance of bacteria at the family level in the chicken GIT samples evaluated from different geographic locations.

Geographic locations were designated as AUS: Australia, ARG: Argentina, CRO: Croatia, GER: Germany, HUN: Hungary, MAL: Malaysia, SLO: Slovenia, and USA: United States. The taxonomic classification is expressed as p_: phylum, c_: class, o_: order, and f_: family.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Sampling data from Argentinian poultry commercial farms.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Statistical analysis for relative abundance of the predominant families in the chicken GIT samples.

Chicken GIT samples were evaluated from different geographic locations designated as AUS: Australia, ARG: Argentina. CRO: Croatia, GER: Germany, HUN: Hungary, MAL: Malaysia, SLO: Slovenia, and USA: United States.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Statistical analysis for predominant families in chicken cecal Argentinian microbiota.

Argentinian samples were designated as CP: Conventional Poultry, ET: Experimental Trial, and AE: Agroecological Farm.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

This work used computational resources from the Bioinformatics Unit, IABiMo (CICVyA-INTA/CONICET), part of the Consorcio Argentino de Tecnología Genómica (CATG) (PPL Genómica, MINCyT).

Data Availability

All sequence data were deposited in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive database under the BioProject accession number PRJNA579062. Publicly available from now on.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) and National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA). N.P.V. has a fellowship from CONICET; L.R, J.M.D.C, M.F.M. and M.D.F. are members of research career of CONICET and INTA, Argentina. INTA- PNBIO 1131043/PNSA I106 to M.D.F and PNSA 1115056/I104 to M.F.M. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kohl KD. Diversity and function of the avian gut microbiota. J Comp Physiol B Biochem Syst Environ Physiol. 2012;182(5):591–602. 10.1007/s00360-012-0645-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Shang Y, Kumar S, Oakley B, Kim WK. Chicken gut microbiota: Importance and detection technology. Front Vet Sci. 2018;5(OCT). 10.3389/fvets.2018.00254 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yang Y, Ashworth AJ, Willett C, Cook K, Upadhyay A, Owens PR, et al. Review of Antibiotic Resistance, Ecology, Dissemination, and Mitigation in U.S. Broiler Poultry Systems. Front Microbiol. 2019;10(November):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Fallani M, Young D, Scott J, Norin E, Amarri S, Adam R, et al. Intestinal Microbiota of 6-week-old Infants Across Europe: Geographic Influence Beyond Delivery Mode, Breast-feeding, and Antibiotics. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2010;51(1):77–84. 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3181d1b11e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yatsunenko T, Rey FE, Manary MJ, Trehan I, Dominguez-Bello MG, Contreras M, et al. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature. 2012;486:222–8. 10.1038/nature11053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Godoy-Vitorino F, Leal SJ, Díaz WA, Rosales J, Goldfarb KC, García-Amado MA, et al. Differences in crop bacterial community structure between hoatzins from different geographical locations. Res Microbiol. 2012;163:211–20. 10.1016/j.resmic.2012.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hird SM, Carstens BC, Cardiff SW, Dittmann DL, Brumfield RT. Sampling locality is more detectable than taxonomy or ecology in the gut microbiota of the brood-parasitic Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater). PeerJ. 2014;2:e321 10.7717/peerj.321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Videnska P, Rahman MM, Faldynova M, Babak V, Matulova ME, Prukner-Radovcic E, et al. Characterization of egg laying hen and broiler fecal microbiota in poultry farms in Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110076 10.1371/journal.pone.0110076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zhou X, Jiang X, Yang C, Ma B, Lei C, Xu C, et al. Cecal microbiota of Tibetan Chickens from five geographic regions were determined by 16S rRNA sequencing. Microbiologyopen. 2016;5(5):753–62. 10.1002/mbo3.367 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Turner BL. Contested identities: Human-environment geography and disciplinary implications in a restructuring academy. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2002;92(1):52–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Siso Quintero GJ. ¿Qué es la geografía? Terra [Internet]. 2010;26(39):147–82. Available from: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/589/58922904003.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Walters WA, González A, Caporaso JG, Knight R. Using QIIME to analyze 16s rRNA gene sequences from microbial communities. Curr Protoc Bioinforma. 2012;Chapter 10:1–20. 10.1002/9780471729259.mc01e05s27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Witzig M, Da Silva AC, Gree-Engert R, Hoelzle K, Zeller E, Seifert J, et al. Spatial variation of the gut microbiota in broiler chickens as affected by dietary available phosphorus and assessed by T-RFLP analysis and 454 pyrosequencing. PLoS One. 2015;10(11). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mohd Shaufi MA, Sieo CC, Chong CW, Gan HM, Ho YW. Deciphering chicken gut microbial dynamics based on high-throughput 16S rRNA metagenomics analyses. Gut Pathog [Internet]. 2015;7(4). Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4372169&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract 10.1186/s13099-015-0051-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Griffiths RI, Whiteley AS, O’Donnell AG, Bailey MJ. Rapid method for coextraction of DNA and RNA from natural environments for analysis of ribosomal DNA- and rRNA-based microbial community composition. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66(12):5488–91. 10.1128/aem.66.12.5488-5491.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Oakley BB, Buhr RJ, Ritz CW, Kiepper BH, Berrang ME, Seal BS, et al. Successional changes in the chicken cecal microbiome during 42 days of growth are independent of organic acid feed additives. BMC Vet Res [Internet]. 2014;10(282):282 Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4251860&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract 10.1186/s12917-014-0282-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yu Z, Morrison M. Improved extraction of PCR-quality community DNA from digesta and fecal samples. Biotechniques. 2004;36(5):808–12. 10.2144/04365ST04 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Stanley D, Geier MS, Chen H, Hughes RJ, Moore RJ. Comparison of fecal and cecal microbiotas reveals qualitative similarities but quantitative differences. BMC Microbiol [Internet]. 2015;15(51). Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403768/ 10.1186/s12866-015-0388-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Díaz Carrasco JM, Redondo EA, Pin Viso ND, Redondo LM, Farber MD, Fernández Miyakawa ME. Tannins and Bacitracin Differentially Modulate Gut Microbiota of Broiler Chickens. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:11 10.1155/2018/1879168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Edgar RC, Haas BJ, Clemente JC, Quince C, Knight R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics. 2011; 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(19):2460–1. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. Package “vegan”. Community Ecology Package. 2017; Available from: https://github.com/vegandevs/vegan/issues [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lozupone C, Knight R. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71(12):8228–35. 10.1128/AEM.71.12.8228-8235.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Parks DH, Tyson GW, Hugenholtz P, Beiko RG. STAMP: Statistical analysis of taxonomic and functional profiles. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(21):3123–4. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu494 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Waite DW, Taylor MW. Characterizing the avian gut microbiota: Membership, driving influences, and potential function. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:223 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Weiss S, Xu ZZ, Peddada S, Amir A, Bittinger K, Gonzalez A, et al. Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics. Microbiome [Internet]. 2017;5(27):1–18. Available from: http://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-017-0237-y 10.1186/s40168-017-0237-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fouhy F, Clooney AG, Stanton C, Claesson MJ, Cotter PD. 16S rRNA gene sequencing of mock microbial populations-impact of DNA extraction method, primer choice and sequencing platform. BMC Microbiol. 2016;16(123):13 10.1186/s12866-016-0738-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kennedy NA, Walker AW, Berry SH, Duncan SH, Farquarson FM, Louis P, et al. The impact of different DNA extraction kits and laboratories upon the assessment of human gut microbiota composition by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e88982 10.1371/journal.pone.0088982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Walker AW, Martin JC, Scott P, Parkhill J, Flint HJ, Scott KP. 16S rRNA gene-based profiling of the human infant gut microbiota is strongly influenced by sample processing and PCR primer choice. Microbiome [Internet]. 2015;1–11. Available from: 10.1186/s40168-015-0087-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Allali I, Arnold JW, Roach J, Cadenas MB, Butz N, Hassan HM, et al. A comparison of sequencing platforms and bioinformatics pipelines for compositional analysis of the gut microbiome. BMC Microbiol [Internet]. 2017;17(194):1–16. Available from: http://bmcmicrobiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12866-017-1101-8 10.1186/s12866-017-1101-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mantel N. The detection of disease clustering and a generealized regression approach. Cancer Res. 1967;27:209–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Legendre P, Fortin MJ, Borcard D. Should the Mantel test be used in spatial analysis? Methods Ecol Evol. 2015;6(11):1239–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gronow S, Welnitz S, Lapidus A, Nolan M, Ivanova N, Del Rio TG, et al. Complete genome sequence of Veillonella parvula type strain (Te3T). Stand Genomic Sci. 2009;1:57–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wang L, Lilburn M, Yu Z. Intestinal Microbiota of Broiler Chickens As Affected by Litter Management Regimens. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:593 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00593 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cressman MD, Yu Z, Nelson MC, Moeller SJ, Lilburn MS, Zerby HN. Interrelations between the microbiotas in the litter and in the intestines of commercial broiler chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76(19). 10.1128/AEM.00180-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Saxena S, Saxena VK, Tomar S, Sapcota D, Gonmei G. Characterization of Caecum and Crop Microbiota of Indian Indigenous Chicken Targeting Multiple Hypervariable Regions within 16S rRNA gene. Br Poult Sci. 2016;57(3):381–9. 10.1080/00071668.2016.1161728 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Graf J. The Family Rikenellaceae. In: Eugene R., Stephen D.E.F.L., Erko TF S., editor. The Prokaryotes: Other Major Lineages of Bacteria and The Archaea. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg; 2014. p. 857–859. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Rinttilä T, Apajalahti J. Intestinal microbiota and metabolites—Implications for broiler chicken health and performance. J Appl Poult Res. 2013;22(3):647–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Neumann AP, Suen G. Differences in major bacterial populations in the intestines of mature broilers after feeding virginiamycin or bacitracin methylene disalicylate. J Appl Microbiol. 2015; 10.1111/jam.12960 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Luis David Alcaraz

14 May 2020

PONE-D-20-04279

Geography as non-genetic modulation factor of chicken cecal microbiota

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Farber,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both of the invited reviewers share concerns about the conclusions of the geographical role. I think they have valid claims, and you should carefully address their inquiries. I need to evaluate the next submission to consider it for publication. Please upload all of your data to the proper repositories, tone down the conclusions if required. 

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 28 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards, saludos hasta Argentina!

Luis David Alcaraz, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-omics or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-sequencing.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this article authors performed analysis based on 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequences from cecum/fecal/ileum broiler samples available in public databases. They compared experimental trial (ET) broilers from different geographical locations. Additionally, they included Argentina broiler farms samples taken and processed by them. In this study different geographical locations are defined as different countries. Each country included only one study. They concluded that geographical location played a major influence in shaping chicken gut microbiome over any other evaluated factor based on R2 (Adonis). Authors indicated that the sequencing platform, extraction kit and the variable sequenced region have a lower impact than the geographic origin, based on R2 values.

Major comments

I consider that the general hypothesis of this article cannot be tested using the methodology chosen by the authors. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to conclude that geography is the factor that most influences bacterial composition.

Table 2 shows the R2 of each of eight fit factors that were significant (Adonis). These included geographic location, sequenced region, diet, extraction kit, intestinal portion, age, genetic line and platform. The greatest adjustment obtained was by geographic location. However, the variables being evaluated are correlated within geographic location and this effect should be controlled. R2 inflated value may be warning an overfitting of the model. It would not be appropriate to suggest that geographic location other than differences between studies, which should be considered as the combination of multiple methodological variables, is having an effect. Thus, the closeness of samples from Slovenia, Croatia and Hungary in PCoA from figure 1 may be due to the fact that they came from the same study. Moreover, Germany and the USA, that are countries in the same latitude as Slovenia, Croatia and Hungary, were separated, and they came from different studies.

The definition of a “local microbiota” between countries should only be defined as such when at least more than one study per country or per locality is carried out. Furthermore, these studies must have a certain degree of standardization of sample processing and sequencing protocols as previous studies (1,2,3,4).

References

1. Godoy-Vitorino F, Leal SJ, Díaz WA, Rosales J, Goldfarb KC, 429 García-Amado MA, et al. Differences in crop bacterial community structure between hoatzins from different geographical locations. Res Microbiol. 2012;163:211–20.

2. Hird SM, Carstens BC, Cardiff SW, Dittmann DL, Brumfield RT. Sampling locality is more detectable than taxonomy or ecology in the gut microbiota of the brood-parasitic Brown headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater). PeerJ. 2014;2:e321.

3. Videnska P, Rahman MM, Faldynova M, Babak V, Matulova ME, Prukner-Radovcic E, et al. Characterization of egg laying hen and broiler fecal microbiota in poultry farms in Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110076.

4. Zhou X, Jiang X, Yang C, Ma B, Lei C, Xu C, et al. Cecal microbiota of Tibetan Chickens from five geographic regions were determined by 16S rRNA sequencing.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presented by Pin Viso and collaborators presents a meta-analysis of broilers' cecal microbiota from multiple countries and self-generated data about Argentinian poultry cecal microbiota. The analysis and the data presented are well processed, using standard pipelines. However, you did not declare precise run parameters, and I suggest to writhe the whole bioinformatics pipeline as a piece of supplementary information uploaded to figshare or Github. I would encourage the authors to seek alternative explanations beyond geography for microbiome structuring. The declared diets for all the other studies are broilers' standardized commercial diets (SDC), with slight modifications in each country. Previous works have shown that tiny changes in diet could alter the microbiome output in chickens like a recent publication adding galactooligosaccharides to chicken diet (https://msystems.asm.org/content/5/1/e00827-19). Another possible explanation could be poultry management in each location. Adonis results are suggestive of supporting significant geographical effects further. I would recommend using Mantel tests to correlate geographical distances among locations and the microbiome compositions. Some of your conclusions have no data back, and you could move them to the discussion. Another possibility is the sequence length of each study since you are combining multiple sequencing platforms with different efficiency and output. Please deposit OTU tables, taxonomic assignments, representative sequences in a repository (figshare) to share among other people working in bird microbiomes, and it would facilitate further meta-analysis

Particular comments:

L29 Missing comma "genotype, or geographical"

L93-94 Table 1. Please upload your data to NCBI/EBI/DDBJ (AVAILABLE UNDE REQUEST). Add sequence length average of each platform, and the total output in base pairs for each compared project.

L118-119 Add details about PCR experiments run conditions, primers used, etc.

L128-145 Description is neat, however for using reproducibility, please prepare a notebook as supplementary information; you could use the aid of jupyter-notebooks or merely a text with all your bioinformatics and statistical procedures cut-offs.

L150 What is the alpha cut-off value of STAMP?

Table 2 Please include average sequence length and sequencing output for the multiple datasets in your analysis using ADONIS.

L185 Missing comma, check out the use of commas with lists in English: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comma/ not quite the same as in Spanish with the last conjunction.

L208 Rewrite from "under ET" to "under experimental trail (ET)"

L214 How many OTUs did you find in all the compared samples? The overall alpha diversity metrics.

Since space is no limitation in PLoS one, I would recommend you upload Supplemental Figure 1 to the main text to have the microbial structure description of your comparisons.

Table 4 there are some inconsistencies between the Shannon values reported here and the ones reported in Table 3 for Argentina, please clarify.

L285 Rewrite "more prevelailing" to "relevant"

L288 "infant", please describe human infants.

L289 Missing comma "Enterobacteriaceae, and"

L310 Define TSS method

L326 Discuss poultry management, diet, etc.

L333 Define what were the experimental treatments in the other works

L338 "local microbiota" to endemic?

L343 and/or Please choose one

L374 Describing a microbial taxonomic core is always possible it's just set theory. So rewrite to "we described a microbial taxonomic core"

L374 I recommend you to try Upset to calculate your core and even compare with the other described works. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/UpSetR/vignettes/basic.usage.html

L374-375 Speculation, what is the basis for stability or homeostasis. How do you measure it?

L377 remove prefixes g__ f__ c__

L389 ellaborate the "All existing evidence"

L400-402 Move this to the discussion, where you can elaborate on your idea. However, it is outside the scope of your manuscript. "This local microbiota could improve the understanding of the poultry lifestyle on production performance"

L404 modify to "first baseline approximation"

L405 rewrite "researches" to "investigations"

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 6;16(1):e0244724. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244724.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-04279

Geography as non-genetic modulation factor of chicken cecal microbiota

We are sending a revised version of our manuscript. We are grateful to the Editor and the Reviewers for the attentive reading of our manuscript and helpful insight. The changes suggested by the Reviewers have contributed substantially to improving the manuscript. We carefully evaluated the suggestions, revised the text and hope the manuscript is acceptable for the publication in the present format.

Our responses (in italics) to Reviewers' comments:

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: In this article authors performed analysis based on 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequences from cecum/fecal/ileum broiler samples available in public databases. They compared experimental trial (ET) broilers from different geographical locations. Additionally, they included Argentina broiler farms samples taken and processed by them. In this study different geographical locations are defined as different countries. Each country included only one study. They concluded that geographical location played a major influence in shaping chicken gut microbiome over any other evaluated factor based on R2 (Adonis). Authors indicated that the sequencing platform, extraction kit and the variable sequenced region have a lower impact than the geographic origin, based on R2 values.

Major comments

I consider that the general hypothesis of this article cannot be tested using the methodology chosen by the authors. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to conclude that geography is the factor that most influences bacterial composition.

Table 2 shows the R2 of each of eight fit factors that were significant (Adonis). These included geographic location, sequenced region, diet, extraction kit, intestinal portion, age, genetic line and platform. The greatest adjustment obtained was by geographic location. However, the variables being evaluated are correlated within geographic location and this effect should be controlled. R2 inflated value may be warning an overfitting of the model. It would not be appropriate to suggest that geographic location other than differences between studies, which should be considered as the combination of multiple methodological variables, is having an effect. Thus, the closeness of samples from Slovenia, Croatia and Hungary in PCoA from figure 1 may be due to the fact that they came from the same study. Moreover, Germany and the USA, that are countries in the same latitude as Slovenia, Croatia and Hungary, were separated, and they came from different studies.

The definition of a “local microbiota” between countries should only be defined as such when at least more than one study per country or per locality is carried out. Furthermore, these studies must have a certain degree of standardization of sample processing and sequencing protocols as previous studies (1,2,3,4).

References

1. Godoy-Vitorino F, Leal SJ, Díaz WA, Rosales J, Goldfarb KC, 429 García-Amado MA, et al. Differences in crop bacterial community structure between hoatzins from different geographical locations. Res Microbiol. 2012;163:211–20.

2. Hird SM, Carstens BC, Cardiff SW, Dittmann DL, Brumfield RT. Sampling locality is more detectable than taxonomy or ecology in the gut microbiota of the brood-parasitic Brown headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater). PeerJ. 2014;2:e321.

3. Videnska P, Rahman MM, Faldynova M, Babak V, Matulova ME, Prukner-Radovcic E, et al. Characterization of egg laying hen and broiler fecal microbiota in poultry farms in Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110076.

4. Zhou X, Jiang X, Yang C, Ma B, Lei C, Xu C, et al. Cecal microbiota of Tibetan Chickens from five geographic regions were determined by 16S rRNA sequencing.

We agree with the Reviewer that we ought to control for any over-fitting of the model. However, given the scarcity of more than one data set per country we alternatively selected pairs of experiments with the same state for any variable, so as to support the comparison. That is, the data set from USA and Australia target the 16S V1-V3 region, whereas V3-V4 region was the one used in the data sets from Eastern Europe and Argentina. Furthermore, Illumina was the sequencing platform used in the experiments from Argentina and Malaysia, and Roche for Eastern Europe, Germany and the USA ones. Additionally, we performed the Mantel test obtaining a significant correlation between distances matrix from geographic and microbial composition.

Since public datasets were used, the sampling and sequencing process cannot be standardized ex-post. However, we still think that valid information could be deduced from cumulative data available in public resources. For stripping out the methodology effect we analyzed as much variables as possible, such as the DNA extraction kit, the sequencing primers or amplified region, and the sequencing platform. Although they exerted significant effect, their influence was lesser than the one coming from the location (table 2). Finally, we coined the “local microbiota” definition after testing the location hypothesis using Argentinian data coming from different trials and time-frames. For this analysis we fulfilled the suggestion of using at least more than one set per locality.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presented by Pin Viso and collaborators presents a meta-analysis of broilers' cecal microbiota from multiple countries and self-generated data about Argentinian poultry cecal microbiota. The analysis and the data presented are well processed, using standard pipelines. However, you did not declare precise run parameters, and I suggest to writhe the whole bioinformatics pipeline as a piece of supplementary information uploaded to figshare or Github. I would encourage the authors to seek alternative explanations beyond geography for microbiome structuring. The declared diets for all the other studies are broilers' standardized commercial diets (SDC), with slight modifications in each country. Previous works have shown that tiny changes in diet could alter the microbiome output in chickens like a recent publication adding galactooligosaccharides to chicken diet (https://msystems.asm.org/content/5/1/e00827-19). Another possible explanation could be poultry management in each location. Adonis results are suggestive of supporting significant geographical effects further. I would recommend using Mantel tests to correlate geographical distances among locations and the microbiome compositions. Some of your conclusions have no data back, and you could move them to the discussion. Another possibility is the sequence length of each study since you are combining multiple sequencing platforms with different efficiency and output. Please deposit OTU tables, taxonomic assignments, representative sequences in a repository (figshare) to share among other people working in bird microbiomes, and it would facilitate further meta-analysis

We appreciate the suggestions regarding seeking for alternative explanations. Although we sustained the geographical location as the driver we went deeper into the subject of Geography definitions for gaining clarity. To that end, we supported our argument using specific bibliography (Turner 2002, Siso Quintero 2010) and recalling the human-environment theoretical position, we proposed that geographical location was a convergent feature that conflated non-genetic factors (added in “Introduction” L75-81and “Discussion” L359-363.).

On the other hand, we acknowledge the suggestions of using Mantel test to support the results (L181-183). In addition, QIIME scripts together with intermediate results can be reach trough figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4993856

Particular comments:

L29 Missing comma "genotype, or geographical"

Correction has been done

L93-94 Table 1. Please upload your data to NCBI/EBI/DDBJ (AVAILABLE UNDE REQUEST). Add sequence length average of each platform, and the total output in base pairs for each compared project.

All sequence data generated for this paper was deposited in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive database under the BioProject accession number PRJNA579062. Additionally, QIIME scripts and intermediate results are available from figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4993856).

Sequenced cited in Table 1 were obtained after requesting to J. Diaz Carrasco (Diaz Carrasco et al. 2018 and Diaz Carrasco unpublished).

We consider unnecessary to add sequence length average of each platform in Table 1, as long as the resulting files, after merging Forward (F) and Reverse (R) ones, turn out to be the 16S amplified region which range of variation is already considered in Table 1 under “Region sequenced”. Similarly, data is subjected to normalization before composition and alpha and beta diversity analysis, so total output won’t exert any influence.

L118-119 Add details about PCR experiments run conditions, primers used, etc.

Thank you for bringing up to this matter. Not only sequencing of the samples but also amplification were performed at Macrogen Inc,(we reworded that paragraph). Nucleotide primer sequences were added in L131--132.

L128-145 Description is neat, however for using reproducibility, please prepare a notebook as supplementary information; you could use the aid of jupyter-notebooks or merely a text with all your bioinformatics and statistical procedures cut-offs.

Added in L153-154. QIIME scripts and intermediate results are available from figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4993856)

L150 What is the alpha cut-off value of STAMP?

Added in L171

Table 2 Please include average sequence length and sequencing output for the multiple datasets in your analysis using ADONIS.

Answered above, in relation to Table 1 suggestions.

L185 Missing comma, check out the use of commas with lists in English: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comma/ not quite the same as in Spanish with the last conjunction.

Corrections have been done all along the text.

L208 Rewrite from "under ET" to "under experimental trail (ET)"

Modification has been done (L223)

L214 How many OTUs did you find in all the compared samples? The overall alpha diversity metrics.

Added (L228).

Since space is no limitation in PLoS one, I would recommend you upload Supplemental Figure 1 to the main text to have the microbial structure description of your comparisons.

We decline this suggestion, we consider Fig 2 depicts the microbial structure satisfactorily. It is our understanding that Supp Fig 1 would not add fundamental information that worth to include in the main text.

Table 4 there are some inconsistencies between the Shannon values reported here and the ones reported in Table 3 for Argentina, please clarify.

The data set analyzed in Table 4 is rather different from the one analyzed in Table 3. For the Characterization of Argentine cecal microbiota (Table 4) we consider not only the Experimental Treatment data used in the among countries comparison (ARG_ET 1 & ARG_ET2, Table 1), but also 17 extra samples that came from the same data set but were from a different animal category (wider range of ages). Reworded in L226.

L285 Rewrite "more prevelailing" to "relevant"

Modification has been done (L302)

L288 "infant", please describe human infants.

Infant category corresponded to 6 weeks of age (Added in L307)

L289 Missing comma "Enterobacteriaceae, and"

Done

L310 Define TSS method

Added in L329, described in MyM L145-146

L326 Discuss poultry management, diet, etc.

Factors such as intestinal portion, age, and diet are discussed from L349 to L359. Additionally, we added more precise information in the paragraph corresponding to “local microbiota” definition (L360-364).

L333 Define what were the experimental treatments in the other works

Treatments are defined in Table 1 (Diet column) and all along the paragraph from L349 to L359

L338 "local microbiota" to endemic?

It is our understanding that endemic species are found only in the area under consideration and nowhere else. GIT is a rather stable environment in itself, and the variation among microbiota is mainly due to changes in the relative abundance. Our definition of “local microbiota” is in the framework of human-environment geography, being location an idealized geographical space.

L343 and/or Please choose one

Modification has been done (L 367)

L374 Describing a microbial taxonomic core is always possible it's just set theory. So rewrite to "we described a microbial taxonomic core"

Modification has been done ( L 397-398)

L374 I recommend you to try Upset to calculate your core and even compare with the other described works. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/UpSetR/vignettes/basic.usage.html

We acknowledge the suggestion. We modified the figure 4 for improving further interpretations. We are uploading it as “new_Fig4”

L374-375 Speculation, what is the basis for stability or homeostasis. How do you measure it?

We agree is mere speculation, being out of the reach of our results at this stage. We deleted the phrase L398-399

L377 remove prefixes g__ f__ c__

Done L402

L389 ellaborate the "All existing evidence"

We added the reference of Rinttilä and Apajalahti, a revision work that thoroughly described microbiota implications for broiler chickens health L413

L400-402 Move this to the discussion, where you can elaborate on your idea. However, it is outside the scope of your manuscript. "This local microbiota could improve the understanding of the poultry lifestyle on production performance"

We agree is just speculation, we deleted the phrase in accordance to the suggestion of toning down the conclusions. L425-426

L404 modify to "first baseline approximation"

Done ( L427-428)

L405 rewrite "researches" to "investigations"

Done ( L430)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Luis David Alcaraz

8 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-04279R1

Geography as non-genetic modulation factor of chicken cecal microbiota

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Farber,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address comments of the reviewers, particularly reviewer 1 and 4 and consider toning down of your conclusions considering their comments. And I will consider acceptance. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 22 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luis David Alcaraz, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am concerned about the over fitting the authors can not control due to the scarcity of more than one data set per country, particularly important because the whole article is focused in a conclusion that can not be well supported. Mantel analysis including geographical distance may be also bias do to the presence of a single study which includes 3 different countries that are geographically close to each other. I consider it essential to detect similarities in composition among different studies from the same country (or same latitude) to suggest that geography, more than studies, is the main compositional shaping variable.

Reviewer #3: The authors present a meta-analysis of cecum/ileum and fecal broiler microbiota based on 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequences taken from public databases including studies in different countries and compared them with their experimental data from broiler samples with different management practices in Argentina. Their conclusions reinforce notions of the geographic location as driver of microbial community composition since other tested factors are not informative enough. Data analysis is sufficiently well done using standard pipelines. Reviewers statistical and technical inquiries have been addressed, as well as the elimination of non supported conclusions.

Detailed descriptions of bioinformatic methods and other inquiries made by Reviewer #2 cannot be consulted. The figshare link is not available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4993856

Particular comments:

L204 . Lactoballaceae rewrite Lactobacillaceae

L366 Rewrite non-genetic

L369 Rewrite local microbiota is worth

L372 Rewrite in depth

L419 Rewrite plural for degrader

Reviewer #4: I found that this is a second round review and the authors already responded to the the previous reviewers comments. I agree with all concerns raised by the previous reviewers. The authors performed the study and analyzed data carefully considering many potential pitfalls that are inherent to this type of meta analysis. The authors attempted to address all the critiques of the previous reviewers. Nonetheless, I think the validity of the conclusion in this study that geography is a major variable for chicken gut microbiota cannot be supported fully with no room for further discussion. Therefore, the conclusion of this study still has limitations, yet the data presented here has certain value to the research community. I came to the conclusion to support the publication of this manuscript under the following conditions.

1. The authors add a paragraph to present inherent limitations of this study and potential issues associated with the conclusion of the study (as well pointed out by the reviewers 1 and 2 from the 1st round review).

2. I ask the authors to add the information on the PCR primers used in different studies (probably in a supplementary table). Even though two different studies used the same V3-V4 region (for example) they could have used different primer designs (primer length, precise targeting region, degeneracy etc.). Since the variation in the primer design can bring significant changes in the resulting 16S rRNA gene profiles, it is necessary to include the information.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 6;16(1):e0244724. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244724.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


13 Oct 2020

Reviewer #1: I am concerned about the over fitting the authors can not control due to the scarcity of more than one data set per country, particularly important because the whole article is focused in a conclusion that cannot be well supported. Mantel analysis including geographical distance may be also bias do to the presence of a single study which includes 3 different countries that are geographically close to each other. I consider it essential to detect similarities in composition among different studies from the same country (or same latitude) to suggest that geography, more than studies, is the main compositional shaping variable.

As we mentioned in the first revision, we agree with the Reviewers that we cannot totally control the over-fitting of the model. In an effort to track for any trend in a more stringent manner, we compared pairs of experiments with the same state for any variable, so as to support the comparison (at least two data sets targeting the same 16S region, at least two that had been used the same sequencing platform, etc.). Additionally, we used two data sets from Argentina coming from different trials and time-frames.

We re-analyzed all data set from geographical location analysis, using a more conservative close reference approach (Line 138-141 M&M), obtaining equivalent results, revealing the geographical trend that prompted our work (Results: Fig1, Table 2, Fig, 2, Table 3, Fig S2, Table S2).

We have rewritten the conclusion section to account for inherent limitations of this kind of studies.

Reviewer #3: The authors present a meta-analysis of cecum/ileum and fecal broiler microbiota based on 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequences taken from public databases including studies in different countries and compared them with their experimental data from broiler samples with different management practices in Argentina. Their conclusions reinforce notions of the geographic location as driver of microbial community composition since other tested factors are not informative enough. Data analysis is sufficiently well done using standard pipelines. Reviewers statistical and technical inquiries have been addressed, as well as the elimination of non supported conclusions.

Detailed descriptions of bioinformatic methods and other inquiries made by Reviewer #2 cannot be consulted. The figshare link is not available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4993856

We have made publicly available the additional information under the link: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4993856.v1

Particular comments:

L204 . Lactoballaceae rewrite Lactobacillaceae

Has been corrected in L 196

L366 Rewrite non-genetic

Has been corrected in L 366

L369 Rewrite local microbiota is worth

Has been corrected in L 369

L372 Rewrite in depth

Has been corrected in L 372

L419 Rewrite plural for degrader

Has been corrected in L 418

Reviewer #4: I found that this is a second round review and the authors already responded to the the previous reviewers comments. I agree with all concerns raised by the previous reviewers. The authors performed the study and analyzed data carefully considering many potential pitfalls that are inherent to this type of meta-analysis. The authors attempted to address all the critiques of the previous reviewers. Nonetheless, I think the validity of the conclusion in this study that geography is a major variable for chicken gut microbiota cannot be supported fully with no room for further discussion. Therefore, the conclusion of this study still has limitations, yet the data presented here has certain value to the research community. I came to the conclusion to support the publication of this manuscript under the following conditions.

1. The authors add a paragraph to present inherent limitations of this study and potential issues associated with the conclusion of the study (as well pointed out by the reviewers 1 and 2 from the 1st round review).

We have rewritten and toned down the conclusion accordingly with the suggestion.

2. I ask the authors to add the information on the PCR primers used in different studies (probably in a supplementary table). Even though two different studies used the same V3-V4 region (for example) they could have used different primer designs (primer length, precise targeting region, degeneracy etc.). Since the variation in the primer design can bring significant changes in the resulting 16S rRNA gene profiles, it is necessary to include the information.

In an recent work (Mancabelli L et al., Microorganisms 2020, 8, 131; doi:10.3390/microorganisms801013), the authors designed a study in order to identify possible correlations between bacterial amplification capabilities and the PCR

primer pairs. To that end, they considered different combinations of primers per each variable region (for example 6 primer pairs targeting the V3-V4), demonstrating that the detected community structure strictly depend on the

particular hypervariable region that was targeted for amplification. Nevertheless, we re-analyzed all geographical data using close reference OTUs picking, as a more conservative approach We have rewritten M&M, Results and discussion session, reporting the new values that account for equivalent geographical trend depicted in the previous version.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Luis David Alcaraz

16 Dec 2020

Geography as non-genetic modulation factor of chicken cecal microbiota

PONE-D-20-04279R2

Dear Dr. Farber,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Luis David Alcaraz, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I detected a minor typo in L415, replace OUT to OTU

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Luis David Alcaraz

21 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-04279R2

Geography as non-genetic modulation factor of chicken cecal microbiota

Dear Dr. Farber:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Luis David Alcaraz

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Clustering analysis of chicken GIT microbial communities at the genus level, based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity, from different geographic locations.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Relative abundance of bacteria at the family level in the chicken GIT samples evaluated from different geographic locations.

    Geographic locations were designated as AUS: Australia, ARG: Argentina, CRO: Croatia, GER: Germany, HUN: Hungary, MAL: Malaysia, SLO: Slovenia, and USA: United States. The taxonomic classification is expressed as p_: phylum, c_: class, o_: order, and f_: family.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Sampling data from Argentinian poultry commercial farms.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Statistical analysis for relative abundance of the predominant families in the chicken GIT samples.

    Chicken GIT samples were evaluated from different geographic locations designated as AUS: Australia, ARG: Argentina. CRO: Croatia, GER: Germany, HUN: Hungary, MAL: Malaysia, SLO: Slovenia, and USA: United States.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. Statistical analysis for predominant families in chicken cecal Argentinian microbiota.

    Argentinian samples were designated as CP: Conventional Poultry, ET: Experimental Trial, and AE: Agroecological Farm.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All sequence data were deposited in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive database under the BioProject accession number PRJNA579062. Publicly available from now on.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES