In any balanced ecological system, both the host and the microbial are more often than not controlled by very complex arrays of interaction factors. Even though stochastic and external factors contribute to individuality of the microbiota, important principles that dictate how environmental factors as well as the host genetic factors combine. This combination shapes a complex ecosystem. Nonetheless, moving of certain mammals or vertebrates into different environments on most occasions brings about a host microbial interaction. The movement to some extent has tipped the balance of the ecological system in favor of the microbial parasites (Bates et al., 2006). This is solely due to the fact that there has been an increased proportion of vulnerable animals, increased stock rate, increased productivity demands and finally a decrease in the movement of the animals.
A reduction in the movement of certain species such as deer to sedentary forms of management can be termed as an invariable result of domestication. In addition to the time taken to complete their life cycle, there is a difference between the pattern of the like cycles of the microbes and the nematodes (Benson et al., 2010). Unlike, the nematodes, reproduction of the microbes takes place within the host.
With domestication of a deer, there will definitely be an effect on the microbial interaction with the host. First of all, we should note that these animals have been domesticated and thus there is a reduction in their movements. This will also imply that the feeding habits will change because unlike in the wild, feeds under domestication have undergone some refinement (Waller, 2005).
This will definitely affect the interaction between the microbes and the hosts in terms of digestion. The feeds under domestication tend to be containing some additives and hence a faster digestive system (Ezenwa, Gerardo, Inouye, Medina & Xavier, 2012). There will therefore be a positive interaction resulting from the movement of this specie to a domestication environment. The digestion system will definitely increase its operations. As a result, there will be a healthy animal when brought to domestication.
Restricting the movements of a specie from its natural habitats to more sedentary systems increases the animals’ probability to be exposed to infections (Hooper, 2001). The effects on the microbes can go either way. Feeding on feeds with additives can increase the odds of the mutual benefit existing between the host and the microbes, that is, the microbes could help in increasing the digestion process or can slow the digestive process because of the new environment (Miller, Hoffman & Sanowar, 2007).
The relationship between the microbes and the host can also be identified in a Zebrafish. A distinguishing feature that marks the relationship between the host and the microbe lies with the fact that there is the presence of adaptive immunity in this particular specie. The cells found in the adaptive immune system expresses particular receptors which permit the zebrafish to recognize and recall the microbes as well (Miller, Hoffman & Sanowar, 2007). As a result of this adaptive mechanism of recalling, pertinent organisms has ensued to the expansion of resident microbiota. Therefore, with this adaptive mechanisms in the zebrafish, a change in the environment will not have much effect on the mutual relationship between the host and the microbes. Putting them in a domesticated environment or controlled environment will not affect its body functions on a greater scale.
When several zebrafish are taken from their natural habitats and some in the research laboratories, some of the common microbiota in these fish, despite being extracted from different locations were fusobacteria and y-Proteobacteria (Van Baarlen, Van Belkum, Summerbell, Crous & Thomma, 2007). Selective pressures of the fish intestinal environment appeared to be in favor of the highly specific collection of the microbes that were influenced by the physiology, host anatomy, immunology and nutrient availability. The influence is much stronger than the effects of the difference in diet or environment. The way the microbes adapts to the new environment will determine the survival of the animals.
References
Waller, P. (2005). Domestication of ruminant livestock and the impact of nematode parasites:possible implications for the reindeer industry. Ran, 25(1), 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.7557/2.25.1.336
Van Baarlen, P., van Belkum, A., Summerbell, R., Crous, P., & Thomma, B. (2007). Molecular mechanisms of pathogenicity: how do pathogenic microorganisms develop cross-kingdom host jumps?. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 31(3), 239-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2007.00065.x
Bates, J., Mittge, E., Kuhlman, J., Baden, K., Cheesman, S., & Guillemin, K. (2006). Distinct signals from the microbiota promote different aspects of zebrafish gut differentiation. Developmental Biology, 297(2), 374-386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.05.006
Benson, A., Kelly, S., Legge, R., Ma, F., Low, S., & Kim, J. et al. (2010). Individuality in gut microbiota composition is a complex polygenic trait shaped by multiple environmental and host genetic factors. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences, 107(44), 18933-18938. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007028107
Miller, S., Hoffman, L., & Sanowar, S. (2007). Did Bacterial Sensing of Host Environments Evolve from Sensing within Microbial Communities?. Cell Host & Microbe, 1(2), 85-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2007.04.002
Ezenwa, V., Gerardo, N., Inouye, D., Medina, M., & Xavier, J. (2012). Animal Behavior and the Microbiome. Science, 338(6104), 198-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1227412
Hooper, L. (2001). Molecular Analysis of Commensal Host-Microbial Relationships in the Intestine. Science, 291(5505), 881-884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.291.5505.881
