基于组学方法比较多浪羊和湖羊肝脏基因表达与瘤胃菌群组成差异及对环境适应性的影响

doi:10.16431/j.cnki.1671-7236.2026.02.019

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的解析新疆喀什地区多浪羊和湖羊在瘤胃微生物组成、功能及肝脏基因表达上的差异，揭示二者对环境适应性的机制。方法运用宏基因组技术分析2个品种羊瘤胃微生物的分类学组成差异及功能富集情况，通过转录组技术检测肝脏组织差异表达基因，进行GO功能、KEGG通路富集及蛋白质互作（PPI）网络分析，并联合两者结果，探寻羊瘤胃微生物与肝脏基因的关联。结果宏基因组分析结果显示，多浪羊基因多样性较湖羊更丰富。在瘤胃微生物分类学层面，2个品种绵羊的优势菌门均为拟杆菌门和厚壁菌门，但种水平上多浪羊的Clostridiales bacterium丰度更高。功能注释结果表明，瘤胃微生物主要富集于碳水化合物、氨基酸等代谢途径，其中，在多浪羊中主要富集于氨基酸和脂肪酸代谢通路；在湖羊中主要富集于繁殖相关通路。转录组分析结果显示，在多浪羊和湖羊肝脏组织中共检测到498个差异表达基因（上调191个、下调307个），包括ADIPOQ（调控脂肪代谢）、ATP2A1（调节钙信号和应激反应）及MX1（抗病原体）等关键基因。GO功能富集分析显示，差异表达基因主要参与肌肉系统过程、葡萄糖输入等生物过程；KEGG通路富集揭示，差异表达基因显著富集于肌肉细胞骨架、AMPK信号通路等8条信号通路。PPI网络分析显示，ATP2A1作为枢纽基因，与多种蛋白存在相互作用。联合分析表明，瘤胃中Clostridiales bacterium与肝脏中MX1基因存在显著线性关联（P<0.05），可能通过宿主-微生物互作调控代谢及免疫通路。结论多浪羊和湖羊在瘤胃微生物组成、功能及肝脏基因表达上存在显著差异，这些差异以及瘤胃微生物与肝脏基因之间的关联，共同构成了它们对环境适应性的机制。

关键词: 多浪羊; 湖羊; 瘤胃; 肝脏; 宏基因组; 转录组; 适应性

Abstract:

Objective This study aimed to analyze the differences in rumen microbiota composition， function， and hepatic gene expression between Duolang sheep and Hu sheep in the Kashgar region of Xinjiang， revealing mechanisms of environmental adaptation. Method Utilizing metagenomic sequencing to analyze differences in taxonomic composition and functional enrichment of rumen microbiota between the both breeds， and employing transcriptomic sequencing to detect differentially expressed genes in liver for GO function， KEGG pathway， and protein-protein interaction （PPI） network analysis， followed by integrated analysis to investigate associations between rumen microorganisms and hepatic genes. Result Metagenomic analysis results revealed that Duolang sheep exhibited greater microbial gene diversity compared with Hu sheep. At the taxonomic level， the dominant bacterial phyla in both breeds were Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes， yet the abundance of Clostridiales bacterium was significantly higher in Duolang sheep at the species level. Functional annotation results indicated that rumen microbial functions were primarily enriched in metabolic pathways related to carbohydrates and amino acids. Specifically， Duolang sheep showed prominent enrichment in amino acid and fatty acid metabolism pathways， whereas Hu sheep exhibited enrichment in reproduction-related pathways. Transcriptomic analysis of liver identified 498 differentially expressed genes （DEGs）（191 upregulated and 307 downregulated） between the both breeds， including key genes such as ADIPOQ （regulating lipid metabolism）， ATP2A1 （modulating calcium signaling and stress responses）， and MX1 （pathogen defense）. GO functional enrichment analysis results demonstrated that DEGs were primarily involved in biological processes including muscular system processes and glucose import. KEGG pathway enrichment results revealed that DEGs were significantly enriched in eight signaling pathways， including the muscle cell cytoskeleton and AMPK signaling pathway. PPI network analysis results identified that ATP2A1 as a hub gene interacting with multiple proteins. Integrated analysis results revealed a significant linear correlation between the rumen Clostridiales bacterium and MX1 gene in liver （P<0.05）， suggesting potential host-microbiome interactions regulating metabolic and immune pathways. Conclusion Duolang sheep and Hu sheep exhibited significant differences in rumen microbiota composition， functional capacity， and hepatic gene expression. These distinctions， along with the identified associations between rumen microorganisms and liver genes， collectively constitute their mechanisms of environmental adaptation.

Key words: Duolang sheep; Hu sheep; rumen; liver; metagenome; transcriptome; adaptability

中图分类号:

S826

杨洋, 曹行, 陈斌, 刘武军. 基于组学方法比较多浪羊和湖羊肝脏基因表达与瘤胃菌群组成差异及对环境适应性的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2026, 53(2): 711-722.

YANG Yang, CAO Xing, CHEN Bin, LIU Wujun. Comparison of Gene Expression in Liver and Rumen Microbiota Composition Differences Between Duolang Sheep and Hu Sheep Based on Omics Approaches and Their Impacts on Environmental Adaptability[J]. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2026, 53(2): 711-722.

图/表 10

图1

图2

图3

图4

表1

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

参考文献 28

[1]	DE KORT H， PRUNIER J G， DUCATEZ S， et al. Life history， climate and biogeography interactively affect worldwide genetic diversity of plant and animal populations［J］. Nature Communications， 2021， 12（1）： 516.
[2]	DEPARDIEU C， GIRARDIN M P， NADEAU S， et al. Adaptive genetic variation to drought in a widely distributed conifer suggests a potential for increasing forest resilience in a drying climate［J］. New Phytologist， 2020， 227（2）：427-439.
[3]	LIMA J S， BALLESTEROS-MEJIA L， LIMA-RIBEIRO M S， et al. Climatic changes can drive the loss of genetic diversity in a Neotropical savanna tree species［J］. Global Change Biology， 2017， 23（11）：4639-4650.
[4]	BELLARD C， BERTELSMEIER C， LEADLEY P， et al. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity［J］. Ecology Letters， 2012， 15（4）：365-377.
[5]	STORZ J F. High-altitude adaptation： Mechanistic insights from integrated genomics and physiology［J］. Molecular Biology and Evolution， 2021， 38（7）：2677-2691.
[6]	WU D D， YANG C P， WANG M S， et al. Convergent genomic signatures of high-altitude adaptation among domestic mammals［J］. National Science Review， 2020， 7（6）：952-963.
[7]	SEJIAN V， BHATTA R， GAUGHAN J B， et al. Review： Adaptation of animals to heat stress［J］. Animal， 2018， 12（s2）：s431-s444.
[8]	任晓镤，李明杨，杨艳玲，等.新疆多浪羊与其他地方品种羊肉贮藏特性比较［J］. 食品与发酵工业， 2017， 43（8）：262-266.
	REN X P， LI M Y， YANG Y L， et al. Comparison of storage characteristics of Duolang sheep in Xinjiang and other local breeds of mutton［J］. Food and Fermentation Industries， 2017， 43（8）：262-266. （in Chinese）
[9]	李明洋，郁万瑞，陈亚飞，等. 不同生长阶段多浪羊肌肉氨基酸含量分析［J］.吉林畜牧兽医， 2023， 44（1）：1-3.
	LI M Y， YU W R， CHEN Y F， et al. Analysis of amino acid content of muscles of multi-way sheep at different growth stages［J］. Jilin Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine， 2023， 44（1）：1-3. （in Chinese）
[10]	李超旭. 湖羊高效饲养与疫病防控的技术要点［J］.畜牧兽医科技信息， 2019， 10：91.
	LI C X. Technical points for efficient feeding of lake sheep and prevention and control of epidemics［J］. Information on Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science and Technology， 2019， 10：91. （in Chinese）
[11]	CHEN T， WANG L， LI Q， et al. Functional probiotics of lactic acid bacteria from Hu sheep milk［J］. BMC Microbiology， 2020， 20（1）：228.
[12]	BETANCUR-MURILLO C L， AGUILAR-MARÍN S B， JOVEL J. Prevotella： A key player in ruminal metabolism［J］. Microorganisms， 2022， 11（1）：1.
[13]	ZHANG Y K， ZHANG X X， LI F D， et al. Characterization of the rumen microbiota and its relationship with residual feed intake in sheep［J］. Animal， 2021， 15（3）：100161.
[14]	WANG Y， CAO P， WANG L， et al. Bacterial community diversity associated with different levels of dietary nutrition in the rumen of sheep［J］. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology， 2017， 101（9）：3717-3728.
[15]	DERAKHSHANI H， TUN H M， CARDOSO F C， et al. Linking peripartal dynamics of ruminal microbiota to dietary changes and production parameters［J］. Frontiers in Microbiology， 2017， 7：2143.
[16]	YANG F， HENNIGER M T， IZZO A S， et al. Performance improvements and increased ruminal microbial interactions in Angus heifers via supplementation with native rumen bacteria during high-grain challenge［J］. Scientific Reports， 2025， 15（1）：2289.
[17]	BAINBRIDGE M L， CERSOSIMO L M， WRIGHT A D， et al. Rumen bacterial communities shift across a lactation in Holstein， Jersey and Holstein × Jersey dairy cows and correlate to rumen function， bacterial fatty acid composition and production parameters［J］. FEMS Microbiology Ecology， 2016， 92（5）：fiw059.
[18]	MCCANN J C， WILEY L M， FORBES T D， et al. Relationship between the rumen microbiome and residual feed intake-efficiency of Brahman bulls stocked on bermudagrass pastures［J］. PLoS One， 2014， 9（3）：e91864.
[19]	ARRUDA A P， DA-SILVA W S， CARVALHO D P， et al. Hyperthyroidism increases the uncoupled ATPase activity and heat production by the sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca²⁺-ATPase［J］. Biochemical Journal， 2003， 375（Pt 3）：753-760.
[20]	HERNANDEZ-CARRETERO A， WEBER N， LABARGE S A， et al. Cysteine- and glycine-rich protein 3 regulates glucose homeostasis in skeletal muscle［J］. American Journal of Physiology，2018，315（2）：E267-E278.
[21]	郑言，曹中赞，邱云桥，等. 脂联素与其受体的结构及在脂类代谢中的作用机制［J］. 动物营养学报， 2022， 34（6）：3503-3510.
	ZHENG Y， CAO Z Z， QIU Y Q， et al. The structure of adiponectin and its receptors and its mechanism of action in lipid metabolism［J］. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition， 2022， 34（6）：3503-3510. （in Chinese）
[22]	李付娟，王帅，朱亚楠，等. ADIPOQ shRNA在猪前体脂肪细胞中转染体系的优化［J］.中国兽医学报， 2013， 33（4）：616-626.
	LI F J， WANG S， ZHU Y N， et al. Optimization of transfection system of ADIPOQ shRNA in pig precursor adipocytes［J］. Chinese Veterinary Medicine Journal， 2013， 33（4）：616-626. （in Chinese）.
[23]	LIN H， LIAN W S， CHEN H H， et al. Adiponectin ameliorates iron-overload cardiomyopathy through the PPARα-PGC-1-dependent signaling pathway［J］. Molecular Pharmacology， 2013， 84（2）：275-285.
[24]	PANT M， BAL N C， PERIASAMY M. Sarcolipin： A key thermogenic and metabolic regulator in skeletal muscle［J］. Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism， 2016， 27（12）：881-892.
[25]	何丹妮，周斌，张小敏，等. 猪源Mx1基因的原核表达及其抗血清制备［J］. 南京农业大学学报， 2012， 35（1）：87-91.
	HE D N， ZHOU B， ZHANG X M， et al. Prokaryotic expression of porcine Mx1 gene and its antiserum preparation［J］. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University， 2012， 35（1）：87-91. （in Chinese）
[26]	李梦柔，张健，董世雄，等. 藏猪与大约克夏猪Mx1基因的表达差异研究［J］. 高原农业， 2020， 4（2）：166-171.
	LI M R， ZHANG J， DONG S X， et al. Study on the expression differences between Mx1 genes of Tibetan pigs and Yorkshire pigs［J］. Plateau Agriculture， 2020， 4（2）：166-171. （in Chinese）
[27]	LEAMAN D W， CHAWLA-SARKAR M， JACOBS B， et al. Novel growth and death related interferon-stimulated genes （ISGs） in melanoma： Greater potency of IFN-beta compared with IFN-alpha2［J］. Journal of Interferon & Cytokine Research， 2003， 23（12）：745-756.
[28]	VIET-NHI N K， MINH QUAN T， CONG TRUC V， et al. Multiomics analysis reveals the IFI6 gene as a prognostic indicator and therapeutic target in esophageal cancer［J］. International Journal of Molecular Sciences， 2024， 25（5）：2691.

样品 Samples	高质量序列 Clean reads/bp	有效数据 Clean bases/Gb	GC含量 GC contents/%	Q20/%	Q30/%
DLMG1	21 685 180	17.85	48.96	95.24	87.17
DLMG2	20 521 488	18.32	48.83	95.16	87.07
DLMG3	21 430 318	18.76	48.33	95.12	86.90
DLMG4	20 430 717	19.15	48.65	95.17	87.12
DLMG5	21 598 968	19.58	48.87	95.29	87.41
DLMG6	21 710 435	19.93	48.32	95.21	87.20
HTHG1	22 341 129	20.21	47.99	97.36	92.80
HTHG2	23 771 873	20.47	48.10	97.75	93.68
HTHG3	22 438 755	20.68	48.54	97.62	93.40
HTHG4	22 442 541	20.84	47.24	97.71	93.53
HTHG5	21 421 674	21.05	48.79	97.31	92.82
HTHG6	23 058 823	21.12	48.28	97.58	93.26