日粮中添加不同比例葡萄籽对多浪羊十二指肠细菌菌群结构的影响

doi:10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.04.028

新疆农业科学 ›› 2023, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (4): 1020-1027.DOI: 10.6048/j.issn.1001-4330.2023.04.028

• 草业·植物保护·畜牧兽医·农业经济 • 上一篇下一篇

日粮中添加不同比例葡萄籽对多浪羊十二指肠细菌菌群结构的影响

高帆¹(), 马忠杰¹, 许贵善¹^,²(), 王彦¹, 彭婉婉¹, 冯昕炜¹^,², 袁国宏¹

1.塔里木大学动物科学与技术学院,新疆阿拉尔 843300
2.塔里木畜牧科技兵团重点实验室,新疆阿拉尔 843300

收稿日期:2022-09-01 出版日期:2023-04-20 发布日期:2023-05-06
通信作者: 许贵善(1979-),男,甘肃武威人,教授,博士,硕士生导师,研究方向为动物营养与饲料科学,(E-mail)guishanxu@126.com
作者简介:高帆(1996-),男,硕士研究生,研究方向为动物营养与饲料科学,(E-mail)2385783831@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(31760679);环塔里木优质绵羊种质资源高效利用向南创新团队(2019CB010)

Effects of different proportion of grape seeds in diet on intestinal bacterial flora structure of Duolang sheep

GAO Fan¹(), MA Zhongjie¹, XU Guishan¹^,²(), WANG Yan¹, PENG Wanwan¹, FENG Xinwei¹^,², YUAN Guohong¹

1. College of Animal Science and Technology, Tarim University, Aral Xinjiang 843300, China
2. Key Laboratory of Tarim Animal Husbandry Science and Technology, Aral Xinjiang 843300, China

Received:2022-09-01 Online:2023-04-20 Published:2023-05-06
Correspondence author: XU Guishan (1979 -), male, from Wuwei, Gansu Province, Professor, doctor, master supervisor, research direction: animal nutrition and feed science, (E-mail)guishanxu@126.com
Supported by:
National Natural Science Foundation of China(31760679);South Innovation Team for Efficient Utilization of High Quality Sheep Germplasm Resources around Tarim(2019CB010)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

【目的】研究日粮中添加不同比例葡萄籽对多浪羊肠道细菌菌群结构的影响。【方法】选取25只3月龄体重(20±1.5) kg的健康多浪羊为试验动物,随机分为5组,每组5只羊,单栏饲养。葡萄籽添加比例分别为0%(对照组,A组)、4%(B组)、8%(C组)、12%(D组)、16%(E组)。预饲期15 d,正试期90 d。结束后屠宰,采集十二指肠食糜,利用16S rRNA测序技术分析肠道细菌菌群的结构。【结果】(1)样品测序覆盖率98.22%~98.82%,各组Alpha多样性差异不显著(P>0.05);25个样品测样出现了1 038个OTU,统计分析试验组与对照组差异均不显著(P>0.05);(2)门水平优势菌门为厚壁菌门(Firmicutes)与放线菌门(Actinobacteria),A组和B组拟杆菌门(Bacteroidetes)相对丰度与C组、D组、E组相比差异显著(P<0.05)。(3)Aeriscardovia为A、B、C、E四组第一优势菌群,占比最高,而D组第一优势菌群为毛螺菌科NK3A20属(Lachnospiraceae_NK3A20_group)。【结论】日粮中添加不同比例葡萄籽不影响多浪羊肠道细菌多样性,但影响部分菌群丰度。

关键词: 葡萄籽; 多浪羊; 肠道; 细菌菌群

Abstract:

【Objective】To explore the effects on the structure of intestinal bacterial flora by adding different ratios of grape seeds to the diet of Duolang sheep. 【Methods】25 Duolang lambs aged (20±1.5) kg at the age of 3 months were selected as experimental animals. According to the experimental requirements, they were randomly divided into 5 groups, 5 in each group in parallel, all of which were fed in a single column. The addition of grape seeds was 0% (control group, group A), 4% (group B), 8% (Group C), 12% (Group D) and 16% (Group E).Pre feeding lasted for 15 days and trial feeding for 90 days. Duodenal chyme was collected after slaughter and the structure of intestinal bacterial flora was analyzed by 16S rRNA sequencing. 【Results】(1)The sequencing coverage of 25 samples was 98.22%-98.82%. There was no significant difference in alpha diversity among groups (P > 0.05).There were 1,038 OTUs in 25 samples. Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group (P > 0.05); (2) The dominant phyla at phylum level were Firmicutes and actinomycetes. The relative abundance of bacteroidetes in group A and group B was significantly higher than those in group C, group D and group E (P < 0.05).(3) Aeriscardovia was the first dominant flora in group A, B, C and E, accounting for the highest proportion, while the first dominant flora in group D was NK3A20 genus of spirillaceae. 【Conclusion】In conclusion, the addition of different proportions of grape seeds in the diet do not affect the intestinal bacterial diversity of Duolang sheep, but affect the abundance of some flora.

Key words: grape seed; Duolang sheep; intestine; bacterial flora

中图分类号:

S826

高帆, 马忠杰, 许贵善, 王彦, 彭婉婉, 冯昕炜, 袁国宏. 日粮中添加不同比例葡萄籽对多浪羊十二指肠细菌菌群结构的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(4): 1020-1027.

GAO Fan, MA Zhongjie, XU Guishan, WANG Yan, PENG Wanwan, FENG Xinwei, YUAN Guohong. Effects of different proportion of grape seeds in diet on intestinal bacterial flora structure of Duolang sheep[J]. Xinjiang Agricultural Sciences, 2023, 60(4): 1020-1027.

图/表 7

参考文献 34

[1]	高培元, 黄玲娣, 郭同军, 等. 新疆草食畜牧业发展难点问题研究[J]. 新疆财经, 2015,(1): 47-52.
	GAO Peiyuan, HUANG Lingdi, GUO Tongjun, et al. A Study of Difficulties in Developing Herbivorous Livestock in Xinjiang[J]. Xinjiang Finance and Economics, 2015,(1): 47-52.
[2]	穆叶仙·吐松. 新疆南疆地区畜牧业可持续发展对策的思考[J]. 草食家畜, 2018,(1): 51-53.
	Muyesser Tursun. Thinking on the Sustainable Development of animal husbandry in the Area of Southern Xinjiang[J]. Grass-feeding Livestock, 2018,(1): 51-53.
[3]	国家统计局. 中国统计年鉴[J]. 统计理论与实践, 2021,(1): 2.
	National Bureau of Statistics. 2020 China Statistical Yearbook[J]. Statistical Theory and Practice, 2021,(1): 2.
[4]	王犁烨, 武运, 杨华峰, 等. 酿酒葡萄皮渣主要物质提取与利用的研究进展[J]. 中外葡萄与葡萄酒, 2018,(6): 82-86.
	WANG Liye, WU Yun, YANG Huafeng, et al. HuafengResearch Progress on extraction and utilization of main substances in wine grape skin residue[J]. Sino-Overseas Grapevine & Wine, 2018,(6): 82-86.
[5]	郝小燕, 牟春堂, 丁娜, 等. 葡萄皮渣在动物饲料中应用的研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2019, 31(10): 4427-4433. DOI
	HAO Xiaoyan, MOU Chuntang, DING Na, et al. Research Progress of Application of Grape Pomac in Animal Feed[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2019, 31(10): 4427-4433.
[6]	郝小燕, 牟春堂, 乔栋, 等. 葡萄籽原花青素对羔羊瘤胃发酵、血清炎症及抗氧化指标的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(10): 2239-2248. DOI
	HAO Xiaoyan, MOU Chuntang, QIAO Dong, et al. Effects of High-Concentrate Diet Supplemented with Grape Seed Proanthocyanidins on Rumen fermentation, Inflammatory and Antioxidant Indicators of Rumen and Serum in Lambs[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(10): 2239-2248. DOI
[7]	Liu J, Bian G, Sun D, et al. Starter Feeding Supplementation Alters Colonic Mucosal Bacterial Communities and Modulates Mucosal Immune Homeostasis in Newborn Lambs[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017, 8.
[8]	Wang G, Huang S, Wang Y, et al. Bridging intestinal immunity and gut microbiota by metabolites[J]. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 2019, 76(20): 3917-3937. DOI PMID
[9]	王彤, 刘倩, 严慧, 等. 基于Meta分析解析羊肠道细菌优势菌群[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2021, 57(10): 183-189.
	WANG Tong, LIU Qian, YAN Hui, et al. Analysis of dominant bacterial flora in sheep intestinal tract based on meta-analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2021, 57(10): 183-189.
[10]	Parte A C, Sardà Carbasse J, Meier-Kolthoff J P, et al. List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (LPSN) moves to the DSMZ[J]. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 2020, 70(11): 5607-5612. DOI URL
[11]	Aymé S, Omry K, Ruth L. Unravelling the effects of the environment and host genotype on the gut microbiome[J]. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2011, 9(Supplement_1).
[12]	吴海丽. 不同季节圈养岩羊肠道微生物的多样性分析[J]. 中国动物传染病学报, 2020, 28(4): 71-78.
	WU Haili. Analysis of intestinal microbial diversity of blue sheep in different seasons[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Infectious Diseases, 2020, 28(4): 71-78.
[13]	Liu J, Xu T, Zhu W, et al. High-grain feeding alters caecal bacterial microbiota composition and fermentation and results in caecal mucosal injury in goats[J]. British Journal of Nutrition, 2014, 112(3): 416-427. DOI URL
[14]	薛春旭. 高精料日粮对山羊小肠微生物发酵、微生物区系及上皮形态结构的影响[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2017.
	XUE Chunxu. The Impact of High Concentrate Diet on Small Intestinal Fermentation,Microbial Community and Epithelial Morphology of Goats[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2017.
[15]	王柏辉. 饲养方式对苏尼特羊胃肠道菌群、脂肪酸代谢和羊肉品质的影响及机理研究[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古农业大学, 2019.
	WANG Baihui. Effects ofFeeding Regimens on Gastrointestina Microbiota, Fatty Acid Metabolism and Meat Quality of Sunit Sheep and its Underlying Mechanism[D]. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2019.
[16]	杜梅, 梁泽毅, 张剑搏, 等. 反刍动物肠道菌群与宿主肠道黏膜免疫互作及其调控研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(5): 2483-2494. DOI
	DU Mei, LIANG Zeyi, ZHANG Jianbo, et al. Recent Advances on Interaction and Regulation between Intestinal Microflora and Host Mucosal Immune System of Ruminants[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(5): 2483-2494.
[17]	Hui C L, Andrew M J, Chin S L, et al. Effect of tea phenolics and their aromatic fecal bacterial metabolites on intestinal microbiota[J]. Research in Microbiology, 2006, 157(9).
[18]	Julia K G, Jillian L W, Angela C P, et al. Human Genetics Shape the Gut Microbiome[J]. Cell, 2014, 159(4).
[19]	曾燕. 成年健康绵羊胃肠道菌群的研究[D]. 成都: 四川农业大学, 2015.
	ZENG Yan. Analysis of the diversity of bacteria communities along the gastrointestinal[D]. Chengdou: Sichuan Agricultural University, 2015.
[20]	Segata N, Izard J, Waldron L, et al. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation[J]. Genome Biology, 2011, 12(6).
[21]	Benson A K, Kelly S A, Legge R, et al. Individuality in gut microbiota composition is a complex polygenic trait shaped by multiple environmental and host genetic factors[C]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010, 107(44): 18933-18938.
[22]	皮宇, 高侃, 朱伟云. 动物宿主——肠道微生物代谢轴研究进展[J]. 微生物学报, 2017, 57(2): 161-169.
	PI Yu, GAO Kan, ZHU Weiyun. Advances in host-microbe metabolic axis[J]. Acta Microbiologica Sinica, 2017, 57(2): 161-169.
[23]	Senghor B, Sokhna C, Ruimy R, et al. Gut microbiota diversity according to dietary habits and geographical provenance[J]. Human Microbiome Journal, 2018: 7-8.
[24]	程新东, 辛国省, 伍修锟, 等. 反刍动物肠道菌群对饲料利用效率调节效应的研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33(5): 2474-2482. DOI
	CHENG Xindong, XIN Guosheng, WU Xiukun, et al. Research Progress on Effects of Gut Microbiota on Regulation of Feed Efficiency in Ruminant[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33(5): 2474-2482.
[25]	赵梦迪, 邸凌峰, 唐泽宇, 等. 单宁与饲用纤维素酶对湖羊瘤胃微生物菌群的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2019, 46(1): 112-122.
	ZHAO Mengdi, DI Lingfeng, TANG Zeyu, et al. Effects of Tannin and Feeding Cellulase on Rumen Microflora of Hu Sheep[J]. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine, 2019, 46(1): 112-122.
[26]	Saminathan M, Sieo C C, Gan H M, et al. Modulatory effects of condensed tannin fractions of different molecular weights from a Leucaena leucocephala hybrid on the bovine rumen bacterial community in vitro[J]. J Sci Food Agric, 2016, 96(13): 4565-4574. DOI URL
[27]	曾华颖. 反刍动物肠道共生放线菌类群多样性分析[D]. 中山: 中山大学, 2012.
	ZENG Huaying. Diversity of Symbiotic Actinobacteria from Healthy Ruminant Faeces[D]. Zhongshan: Sun Yat sen University, 2012.
[28]	Simpson P J, Ross R P, Fitzgerald G F, et al. Bifidobacterium psychraerophilum sp. nov. and Aeriscardovia aeriphila gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from a porcine caecum[J]. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 2004, 54(2): 401-406. DOI URL
[29]	Serino M. SCFAs - the thin microbial metabolic line between good and bad[J]. Nature Reviews, Endocrinology, 2019, 15(6):318-319.
[30]	Javier F, Saúl R, Ignacio G, et al. Colon microbiota fermentation of dietary prebiotics towards short-chain fatty acids and their roles as anti-inflammatory and antitumour agents: A review[J]. Journal of Functional Foods, 2016, 25.
[31]	Patrick M S, Michael R H, Nicolai P, et al. The Microbial Metabolites, Short-Chain Fatty Acids, Regulate Colonic Treg Cell Homeostasis[J]. Science, 2013, 341(6145).
[32]	Sorbara M T, Dubin K, Littmann E R, et al. Inhibiting antibiotic-resistant Enterobacteriaceae by microbiota-mediated intracellular acidification.[J]. The Journal of Experimental Medicine, 2019, 216(1):84-98. DOI PMID
[33]	Craig A D, Khattak F, Hastie P, et al. Xylanase and xylo- oligosaccharide prebiotic improve the growth performance and concentration of potentially prebiotic oligosaccharides in the ileum of broiler chickens[J]. British Poultry Science, 2020, 61(1):70-78. DOI PMID
[34]	杨露, 谭会泽, 刘松柏, 等. 单宁的抗营养作用及其在畜禽营养中的研究进展[J]. 粮食与饲料工业. 2019(6): 53-56.
	YANG Lu, TAN Huize, LIU Songbai, et al. The function of anti-nutrition of tannin and its research progress in animal nutrition[J]. Cereal & Feed Industry, 2019,(6): 53-56.

项目Items		含量(干物质基础) Content (dry matter basis)
项目Items		A组 A group	B组 B group	C组 C group	D组 D group	E组 E group
原料 Raw material	苜蓿 (%)	22.00	23.00	26.00	25.00	26.02
	棉籽壳(%)	38.00	35.00	31.00	31.00	32.00
	豆粕(%)	4.90	5.13	5.30	5.10	5.00
	玉米(%)	19.80	19.87	22.60	19.80	13.90
	麸皮(%)	10.30	8.00	2.10	2.10	2.08
	葡萄籽(%)	0.00	4.00	8.00	12.00	16.00
	预混料(%)	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00
	合计	100	100	100	100	100
营养水平 Nutritional level	代谢能(MJ/kg)	10.01	10.01	10.01	10.01	10.01
	粗蛋白质 CP (%)	10.62	10.57	10.57	10.65	10.61
	中性洗涤纤维 NDF (%)	58.54	58.86	60.85	58.40	59.57
	酸性洗涤纤维 ADF (%)	28.30	28.56	31.09	33.21	33.79
	灰分 ASH (%)	12.24	12.69	11.93	12.06	12.60
	单宁含量 Tannin content (%)	0.00	1.15	2.30	3.45	4.60

项目Items		含量(干物质基础) Content (dry matter basis)
项目Items		A组 A group	B组 B group	C组 C group	D组 D group	E组 E group
原料 Raw material	苜蓿 (%)	22.00	23.00	26.00	25.00	26.02
	棉籽壳(%)	38.00	35.00	31.00	31.00	32.00
	豆粕(%)	4.90	5.13	5.30	5.10	5.00
	玉米(%)	19.80	19.87	22.60	19.80	13.90
	麸皮(%)	10.30	8.00	2.10	2.10	2.08
	葡萄籽(%)	0.00	4.00	8.00	12.00	16.00
	预混料(%)	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00	5.00
	合计	100	100	100	100	100
营养水平 Nutritional level	代谢能(MJ/kg)	10.01	10.01	10.01	10.01	10.01
	粗蛋白质 CP (%)	10.62	10.57	10.57	10.65	10.61
	中性洗涤纤维 NDF (%)	58.54	58.86	60.85	58.40	59.57
	酸性洗涤纤维 ADF (%)	28.30	28.56	31.09	33.21	33.79
	灰分 ASH (%)	12.24	12.69	11.93	12.06	12.60
	单宁含量 Tannin content (%)	0.00	1.15	2.30	3.45	4.60

指数 Index	组别Group					P
指数 Index	A组 A group	B组 B group	C组 C group	D组 D group	E组 E group	P
Feature	360.20±36.66	329.80±66.90	316.00±89.73	368.00±53.13	356.60±23.31	0.688
菌落丰富度指数 ACE	436.29±42.30	384.76±72.56	383.98±104.34	443.99±57.24	430.24±16.57	0.541
菌落共有水平指数 Chao1	450.22±38.98	383.78±78.14	383.40±93.75	441.45±52.54	434.58±28.94	0.404
香农指数 Shannon	0.95±0.02	0.87±0.11	0.85±0.18	0.97±0.00	0.91±0.06	0.345
辛普森指数 Simpson	6.38±0.45	5.58±1.29	5.41±1.60	6.68±0.23	5.90±0.63	0.354
覆盖率 Coverage (%)	98.22±0.00	98.82±0.00	98.57±0.00	98.45±0.00	98.67±0.00

指数 Index	组别Group					P
指数 Index	A组 A group	B组 B group	C组 C group	D组 D group	E组 E group	P
Feature	360.20±36.66	329.80±66.90	316.00±89.73	368.00±53.13	356.60±23.31	0.688
菌落丰富度指数 ACE	436.29±42.30	384.76±72.56	383.98±104.34	443.99±57.24	430.24±16.57	0.541
菌落共有水平指数 Chao1	450.22±38.98	383.78±78.14	383.40±93.75	441.45±52.54	434.58±28.94	0.404
香农指数 Shannon	0.95±0.02	0.87±0.11	0.85±0.18	0.97±0.00	0.91±0.06	0.345
辛普森指数 Simpson	6.38±0.45	5.58±1.29	5.41±1.60	6.68±0.23	5.90±0.63	0.354
覆盖率 Coverage (%)	98.22±0.00	98.82±0.00	98.57±0.00	98.45±0.00	98.67±0.00

项目 Phylum	组别Group					P
项目 Phylum	A组 A group	B组 B group	C组 C group	D组 D group	E组 E group	P
厚壁菌门 Firmicutes	53.78±0.15	53.42±0.16	49.03±0.18	72.27±0.06	50.32±0.14	0.183
放线菌门 Actinobacteria	17.32±0.05	17.99±0.19	29.94±0.27	10.45±0.04	26.48±0.13	0.472
髌骨细菌门 Patescibacteria	2.12±0.01	13.42±0.21	4.25±0.03	6.26±0.03	12.41±0.04	0.392
软壁菌门 Tenericutes	3.79±0.02	4.88±00.05	3.01±0.03	3.89±0.03	5.02±0.03	0.899
拟杆菌门 Bacteroidetes	9.12^a±0.080	4.59^a±0.05	0.32^b±0.00	0.74^b±0.00	0.34^b±0.00	0.042
蓝菌门 Cyanobacteria	1.12±0.01	1.56±0.02	5.62±0.06	3.48±0.01	1.99±0.00	0.208
Kiritimatiellaeota	5.23^a±0.03	0.65^b±0.01	4.84^a±0.04	1.19^b±0.01	1.76^ab±0.01	0.036
变形菌门 Proteobacteria	5.29±0.07	2.01±0.01	2.03±0.03	1.3±0.01	0.88±0.00	0.425
浮霉状菌门 Planctomycetes	0.15±0.00	0.65±0.01	0.58±0.01	0.09±0.00	0.39±0.00	0.662
纤维杆菌门 Fibrobacterota	0.72±0.01	0.35±0.01	0.01±0.00	0.01±0.00	0.01±0.00	0.515

日粮中添加不同比例葡萄籽对多浪羊十二指肠细菌菌群结构的影响

Effects of different proportion of grape seeds in diet on intestinal bacterial flora structure of Duolang sheep

在线阅读

PDF下载

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 7

参考文献 34

相关文章 12

编辑推荐

Metrics

项目 Genus	组别Group					P
项目 Genus	A组 A group	B组 B group	C组 C group	D组 D group	E组 E group	P
卡多威亚氏菌属 Aeriscardovia	15.71±0.06	16.98±0.19	26.62±0.25	7.38±0.04	25.25±0.13	0.423
Candidatus_SaCharimonas	1.89±0.01	13.42±0.21	4.20±0.03	6.26±0.03	12.41±0.04	0.378
毛螺菌科NK3A20属 Lachnospiraceae_NK3A20_group	5.34^a±0.03	6.77^ab±0.04	5.72^ab±0.02	10.38^b±0.04	4.79^a±0.01	0.142
Christensenellaceae_R-7_group	4.97^abc±0.02	2.80^b±0.01	3.57^bc±0.02	8.88^ac±0.06	9.27^a±0.05	0.068
瘤球菌科NK4A214属 RuminocoCaceae_NK4A214_group	4.91±0.03	3.58±0.03	2.54±0.02	7.10±0.05	5.57±0.04	0.381
拟杆菌rf39肠属 uncultured_bacterium_o_Mollicutes_RF39	3.48±0.02	4.77±0.05	2.69±0.02	3.77±0.03	4.97±0.03	0.844
腊香肠菌属 Acetitomaculum	1.87±0.01	2.93±0.02	3.16±0.01	4.80±0.03	3.94±0.02	0.342
Mogibacterium	2.94^ab±0.02	3.13^ab±0.01	1.92^b±0.01	4.19^a±0.01	1.82^b±0.00	0.090
uncultured_bacterium_o_WCHB1-41	5.23^a±0.03	0.65^b±0.01	4.84^a±0.04	1.19^b±0.01	1.76^ab±0.01	0.036
Erysipelotrichaceae_UCG-009	1.86^b±0.02	0.48^b±0.00	1.82^b±0.01	3.01^ab±0.01	5.32^a±0.02	0.005

[1]	杨梦琪, 南珊珊, 张晓羊, 王海亮, 李佳橙, 牛俊丽, 聂存喜, 张文举. 发酵棉籽粕膳食纤维对黄羽肉鸡生长性能、屠宰性能及肠道形态的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2023, 60(4): 1011-1019.
[2]	李选文, 熊智, 王金华, 周艺萍, 熊忠平. 思茅松毛虫成虫肠道细菌多样性[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2022, 59(9): 2276-2287.
[3]	张星星, 黄新, 韩猛立, 蒋烈戈, 张倩, 高攀, 刘鹏, 吴桐忠, 钟发刚. 放牧与舍饲条件下夏洛莱牛肠道微生物多样性及差异分析[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(9): 1729-1739.
[4]	毛红艳, 徐鑫, 于明. 鹰嘴豆抗性淀粉对高脂饮食小鼠生理功能及肠道菌群影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2021, 58(5): 929-936.
[5]	阿尔曼·海热, 艾合买提江·吐尔逊, 宋玉坤, 王旭光, 努日比娅姆·麦麦提托合提, 刘国世, 阿布力孜·吾斯曼. 不同剂量褪黑素对多浪羊受胎及产羔效果的影响[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2017, 54(11): 2111-2117.
[6]	曾国航;徐宏伟;潘伊微;贾山岭;曹玉华;李莲瑞. 新疆多浪羊IL-1β基因地高辛探针的标记和敏感性检测[J]. , 2015, 52(3): 560-565.
[7]	王惠娥;汪澜;王艳萍;马奎. 多浪羊和卡拉库尔羊卵巢促卵泡素受体的定位研究[J]. , 2014, 51(5): 957-962.
[8]	曾国航;曹玉华;王娟娟;潘伊微;贾山玲;徐宏伟;李莲瑞. 多浪羊IL-1β基因的克隆及序列分析[J]. , 2013, 50(7): 1347-1352.
[9]	阿布来提·苏来曼;买买提伊明·巴拉提. FSHβ基因PCR-SSCP多态性及其与多浪羊高繁殖力的关系研究[J]. , 2012, 49(9): 1727-1733.
[10]	米热古丽·伊马木;余雄;阿依古丽;龙宣杞;王恬. 三种植物精油抑菌效果的研究[J]. , 2011, 48(6): 1044-1048.
[11]	王旭;买买提伊明·巴拉提. BMPR-IB基因作为多浪羊高繁殖力候选基因的研究[J]. , 2010, 47(9): 1813-1818.
[12]	陈晓军;钟发刚;罗淑萍;王新华. 多浪羊BMPR-IB基因多态性的初步研究[J]. , 2004, 41(1): 6-9.