Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T09:07:49.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Analysis of the effects of nanosilver on bacterial community in the intestinal fluid of silkworms using high-throughput sequencing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2019

Chen Lin
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Silkworm Genome Biology, Key Laboratory of Sericultural Biology and Genetic Breeding, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Biotechnology, Southwest University, Chongqing400715, China
Zhou Wei
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Silkworm Genome Biology, Key Laboratory of Sericultural Biology and Genetic Breeding, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Biotechnology, Southwest University, Chongqing400715, China
Zhou Yi
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Silkworm Genome Biology, Key Laboratory of Sericultural Biology and Genetic Breeding, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Biotechnology, Southwest University, Chongqing400715, China
Tan Tingting
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Silkworm Genome Biology, Key Laboratory of Sericultural Biology and Genetic Breeding, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Biotechnology, Southwest University, Chongqing400715, China
Feng Lichun*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Silkworm Genome Biology, Key Laboratory of Sericultural Biology and Genetic Breeding, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Biotechnology, Southwest University, Chongqing400715, China
*
Author for correspondence: Feng Lichun, Email: flc1220@aliyun.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nanosilver is an environment-friendly, harmless alternative of traditional disinfectants which can be potentially applied in the sericulture industry. However, the effects of nanosilver on the intestinal bacterial community of the silkworms (Bombyx mori L.) are unclear. In this study, Illumina MiSeq high-throughput sequencing technology was used to assess the intestinal bacterial community in both male and female silkworms while treated with different concentrations of nanosilver. We found that nanosilver significantly influenced the composition of silkworm intestinal bacterial community on the different taxonomic levels. Most conspicuously, the abundance of Firmicutes was increased by the treatment of 20 mg L−1 nanosilver but decreased by that of 100 mg L−1 nanosilver at the phylum level. The same trend was observed in Bacilli at the class level and in Enterococcus at the genus level. In some extreme cases, application of nanosilver eliminated the bacterium, e.g., Brevibacillus, but increased the population of several other bacteria in the host intestine, such as Blautia, Terrisporobacter, Faecalibacterium, and some bacteria could only be found in nanosilver treatment groups, e.g., Dialister. In addition, although nanosilver generally showed negative effects on the cocooning rate in a dose-dependent manner, we found that 20 mg L−1 nanosilver treatment significantly increased the body weight of silkworms and did not show negative effects on the survival rate. These results indicated that the intestinal bacteria community of silkworm larvae was significantly changed after nanosilver treatment which might consequently influence host growth and development.

Information

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019
Figure 0

Figure 1. DNA fragments amplified from the silkworm intestinal bacterial samples assessed by DNA agarose gel electrophoresis. The V3–V4 region of 16S rDNA fragments of three repeated groups in each treatment was obtained. Lanes M0, M20, and M100 represent the male silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. F0, F20, and F100 represent the female silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. Lane CK represents the control group without DNA samples; lane M represents the DNA marker.

Figure 1

Table 1. Summary of sequence data from the silkworm intestinal bacterial samples

Figure 2

Figure 2. Rarefaction curves of the silkworm intestinal bacterial samples. M0, M20, and M100 represent the male silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. F0, F20, and F100 represent the female silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively.

Figure 3

Table 2. Richness and diversity indices of the silkworm intestinal bacteria treated with nanosilver

Figure 4

Figure 3. PCA plot of the silkworm intestinal bacteria samples at the genus level. M0, M20, and M100 represent the male silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. F0, F20, and F100 represent the female silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively.

Figure 5

Figure 4. Variation of the bacterial phyla in silkworm intestinal fluid samples. (a) The top ten phyla of silkworm intestinal bacteria treated with or without nanosilver. (b) Numbers of phylum in each group (relative abundance higher than 0.1%). M0, M20, and M100 represent the male silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. F0, F20, and F100 represent the female silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively.

Figure 6

Figure 5. Variation of the bacterial classes in silkworm intestinal fluid samples. (a) The top ten classes of silkworm intestinal bacteria treated with or without nanosilver. (b) Numbers of classes in each group (relative abundance higher than 0.1%). M0, M20, and M100 represent the male silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. F0, F20, and F100 represent the female silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. Error bars indicate Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) of three independent experiments. Statistical differences: *P < 0.05.

Figure 7

Figure 6. Variation of the bacterial genera in silkworm intestinal fluid samples. (a) The top ten genera of silkworm intestinal bacteria treated with or without nanosilver. (b) Numbers of genera in each group (relative abundance higher than 0.1%). M0, M20, and M100 represent the male silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. F0, F20, and F100 represent the female silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. Error bars indicate SEM of three independent experiments. Statistical differences: *P < 0.05.

Figure 8

Figure 7. Phylogenetic analysis of the silkworm intestinal bacteria at the genus level. M0, M20, and M100 represent the male silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. F0, F20, and F100 represent the female silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. The phylogenetic tree was constructed by using Megan. The pie chart at the branch represents the proportion of the bacterium in each experiment group, and the larger size represents the higher abundance.

Figure 9

Figure 8. Variation of silkworm larvae body weight. (a) Average body weight of male silkworm larvae. (b) Average body weight of female silkworm larvae. M0, M20, and M100 represent the male silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. F0, F20, and F100 represent the female silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. During the silkworm growth period, the day 12 and day 15 was the 1st and 3rd day of 4th instar larva, respectively; the day 17 and day 24 was the 1st and 7th day of 5th instar larva, respectively. Error bars indicate SEM of three independent experiments. Statistical differences: *P < 0.05.

Figure 10

Figure 9. Cocooning rate (a) and survival rate (b) of silkworm larvae treated with different concentrations of nanosilver. M0, M20, and M100 represent the male silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. F0, F20, and F100 represent the female silkworms treated with 0, 20, and 100 mg L−1 nanosilver, respectively. Error bars indicate SEM of three independent experiments. Statistical differences: *P < 0.05.

Figure 11

Table 3. The major bacterial phyla (>0.1%) from silkworm intestine (%)

Figure 12

Table 4. The major bacterial classes (>0.1%) from silkworm intestine (%)

Figure 13

Table 5. The major bacterial genera (>0.1%) from silkworm intestine (%)