Skip to main content
. 2022 May 31;100(8):skac200. doi: 10.1093/jas/skac200

Table 2.

Oral bacteria (relative abundance, %) that were significantly different between treatments present in subgingival plaque samples from healthy adult dogs consuming a commercially available wet or dry food

Oral bacteria Dry Wet SEM P-value
Subgingival plaque samples
Phyla Genus Species
Actinobacteria 1.90 3.01 0.80 0.32
Bacteroidetes 81.04 73.64 2.65 0.08
Capnocytophaga 3.27 1.24 0.84 0.11
Capnocytophaga cynodegmi 0.79a 0.33b 0.13 0.03
Porphyromonas 67.60 62.08 4.01 0.35
Tannerella 0.27b 0.64a 0.07 0.002
Tannerella forsythia 0.27b 0.64a 0.07 0.002
Euryarchaeota 0.06 0.24 0.10 0.66
Firmicutes 3.97b 7.81a 0.82 0.01
Filifactor 0.97 2.01 0.42 0.11
Unclassified Peptostreptococcaceae 0.56b 1.94a 0.36 0.04
Peptostreptococcaceae bacterium oral taxon 113 0.56b 1.94a 0.36 0.04
Streptococcus 0.53b 1.42a 0.21 0.01
Streptococcus agalactiae 0.33b 0.99a 0.14 0.02
Fusobacteria 0.11 0.39 0.11 0.11
Proteobacteria 11.27 12.07 1.44 0.70
Neisseria 2.32 2.24 0.62 0.93
Arcobacter 1.29 1.47 0.48 0.85
Conchiformibius 1.32a 0.20b 0.22 0.004
Spirochaetes 1.61 2.60 0.48 0.18
Treponema 1.61 2.60 0.48 0.18
Synergistetes 0.04b 0.21a 0.05 0.03
Fretibacterium 0.04b 0.21a 0.05 0.03
Fretibacterium fastidiosum 0.04b 0.21a 0.05 0.03

Groups with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).