Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-88psn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T23:00:08.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Metabolite fingerprinting of urine suggests breed-specific dietary metabolism differences in domestic dogs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2009

Manfred Beckmann*
Affiliation:
Institute of Biological Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Penglais Campus, AberystwythSY23 3DA, UK
David P. Enot
Affiliation:
Institute of Biological Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Penglais Campus, AberystwythSY23 3DA, UK BIOCRATES Life Sciences AG, Innrain 66, A-6020Innsbruck, Austria
David P. Overy
Affiliation:
Institute of Biological Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Penglais Campus, AberystwythSY23 3DA, UK University of Prince Edward Island, Duffy Research Center (NRC-INH), 550 University Avenue, Charlottetown, PEI, CanadaC1A 4P3
Ian M. Scott
Affiliation:
Institute of Biological Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Penglais Campus, AberystwythSY23 3DA, UK
Paul G. Jones
Affiliation:
WALTHAM Centre for Pet Nutrition, Freeby Lane, Waltham-on-the-Wolds, Melton Mowbray, LeicestershireLE14 4RT, UK
David Allaway
Affiliation:
WALTHAM Centre for Pet Nutrition, Freeby Lane, Waltham-on-the-Wolds, Melton Mowbray, LeicestershireLE14 4RT, UK
John Draper
Affiliation:
Institute of Biological Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Penglais Campus, AberystwythSY23 3DA, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Dr Manfred Beckmann, fax +44 1970 622350, email meb@aber.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Selective breeding of dogs has culminated in a large number of modern breeds distinctive in terms of size, shape and behaviour. Inadvertently, a range of breed-specific genetic disorders have become fixed in some pure-bred populations. Several inherited conditions confer chronic metabolic defects that are influenced strongly by diet, but it is likely that many less obvious breed-specific differences in physiology exist. Using Labrador retrievers and miniature Schnauzers maintained in a simulated domestic setting on a controlled diet, an experimental design was validated in relation to husbandry, sampling and sample processing for metabolomics. Metabolite fingerprints were generated from ‘spot’ urine samples using flow injection electrospray MS (FIE-MS). With class based on breed, urine chemical fingerprints were modelled using Random Forest (a supervised data classification technique), and metabolite features (m/z) explanatory of breed-specific differences were putatively annotated using the ARMeC database (http://www.armec.org). GC-MS profiling to confirm FIE-MS predictions indicated major breed-specific differences centred on the metabolism of diet-related polyphenols. Metabolism of further diet components, including potentially prebiotic oligosaccharides, animal-derived fats and glycerol, appeared significantly different between the two breeds. Analysis of the urinary metabolome of young male dogs representative of a wider range of breeds from animals maintained under domestic conditions on unknown diets provided preliminary evidence that many breeds may indeed have distinctive metabolic differences, with significant differences particularly apparent in comparisons between large and smaller breeds.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2009
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Reproducibility of urine sampling from male Labrador retrievers assessed by multivariate analysis of flow injection electrospray MS fingerprints. Symbols denote individual dogs, and points represent fingerprints (positive ions; m/z 50–1100) of daily urine samples taken over 2 weeks. (a) Scores plot of the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2). Numbers in brackets indicate percentage of variance explained by each PC. (b) Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) on same samples. Numbers in brackets indicate eigenvalues (Tw) for each discriminant function (DF).

Figure 1

Table 1 Model statistics for classification of dogs by breed or sex using flow injection electrospray MS fingerprints

Figure 2

Fig. 2 Classification of dogs by breed and sex using urine metabolite fingerprints. Samples from neutered male and female Labrador retrievers and miniature Schnauzers were analysed by flow injection electrospray MS in both ionisation modes, and the spectra subjected to linear discriminant analysis. (a) Positive ion mode; (b) negative ion mode. Percentage of variance accounted for by first two discriminant functions (DF1 and DF2) is in brackets. LF, Labrador retriever female; LM, Labrador retriever male; MF, miniature Schnauzer female; MM, miniature Schnauzer male.

Figure 3

Fig. 3 Relative significance of explanatory signals discriminating dog breeds in flow injection electrospray MS (FIE-MS) fingerprints. Importance scores of the top fifty m/z signals (in rank order) from Random Forest (RF) models comparing FIE-MS fingerprints of Labrador retrievers (LR) and miniature Schnauzers (MS) using (a) low m/z range (15–200) or (b) high m/z range (110–1100) data. (a) , NegL; , PosL. (b) , NegH; , PosH.

Figure 4

Fig. 4 Metabolite signals discriminating Labrador retrievers from miniature Schnauzers in urine flow injection electrospray MS fingerprints. The left hand side of each of the four panels lists potentially explanatory m/z signals (P ≤ 0·005) in RF importance score rank order within all four datasets (PosL, positive ion low m/z range; PosH, positive ion high m/z range; NegL, negative ion low m/z range; NegH, negative ion high m/z range). In each dataset (ionisation mode × mass range), tentative structural assignments from the signal annotation tool ARMeC (http://www.armec.org) are organised in columns by metabolite class. Individual-predicted metabolites are numbered as follows. Phenolics: 1, quinaldic acid; 2, phenylacetaldehyde; 3, phenylanaline; 4, 3-hydroxybenzylalchohol; 5, cinnamaldehyde; 6, 3- or 4-hydroxybenzoate; 7, trans-cinnamate; 8, 3,4- or 2,3-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid; 9, 3-hydroxybenzaldehyde; 10, benzoate; 11, 3,4-dihydroxybenzoate; 12, phenylanalineglucoside; 13, trans-cinnamate glucoside; 14, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid; 15, chlorogenate; 16, tyrosine; 17, 3-hydroxyphenylpropionic acid; 18, cynadin-3-glucoside; 19, naringenin chalcone; 20, pelargodinin; 21, hippuric acid; 22, benzaldehyde; 23, 3-hydroxyphenylacetic acid; 24, m-coumaraldehyde; 25, 3-hydroxy-3-phenylpropanoate; 26, hydroxyhippurate; 27, m-coumarate; 28, phenylpyruvate; 29, cyanadin; 30, 3- or 4- hydroxybenzoic acid glucoside; 31, cis-cis-muconic acid; 31, pre-phenylacetate. Organic acids: 1, 3-hydroxyisobutyrate; 2, citrate; 3, 2-hydroxy-3-methylbutyrate; 4, succinate; 5, malate; 6, 2- or 3-hydroxybutyrate; 7, succinate semialdehyde; 8, pyruvate; 9, 2-hydroxy-3-methylbutyrate; 10, 2,3-dihydroxybutyrate; 11, citramalate; 12, hydroxypyruvate; 13, pantoate. Fatty acids: 1, tetradecanoic (myristic) acid; 2, octanoyl glycine; 3, acetyl carnitine; 4, decanoyl carnitine; 5, hexanoyl carnitine; 6, dodeconoic (lauric) acid; 7, choline; 8, 2-octanoic acid; 9, carnitine; 10, octanoate; 11, hexenol. Amino acids: 1, β-alanine; 2, l-alanine; 3, n-methylglycine; 4, glutamate; 5, pyroglutamate; 6, taurine; 7, methyl-l-glutamate. Polyamines: 1, cittruline; 2, ornithine; 3, cadaverine. Other: 1, pantothenate; 2, raffinose; 3, glycerol; 4, glycerate; 5, urea.

Figure 5

Fig. 5 Predicted metabolism of dietary polyphenols to explain urine differences between Labrador retrievers and miniature Schnauzers. The metabolic pathway shown is a ‘best-fit’ model, which accounts for a large number of the explanatory m/z signals in flow injection electrospray MS fingerprints tentatively annotated as derived from phenolic compounds. Metabolites in text boxes were confirmed by GC-MS. , multiple steps in a metabolic pathway; → , represent one-step biotransformations; , represent steps likely to be carried out by colonic microflora; →  represent endogenous biotransformations.

Figure 6

Table 2 Metabolite peaks differing significantly between dog breeds in GC time-of-flight MS analysis of urine

Figure 7

Fig. 6 Relative levels of metabolites discriminating urines of Labrador retrievers and miniature Schnauzers. The figure shows for each breed × sex combination the relative signal intensity ratios for ten specific metabolites as box plots derived from analysis of GC-MS data (Wilcoxon text; P ≤ 0·00001). LF, Labrador retriever female; LM, Labrador retriever male; MF, miniature Schnauzer female; MM, miniature Schnauzer male. (a) Hippuric acid; (b) coumaric acid; (c) 3-hydroxyphenyl propanoic acid; (d) 3-hydroxybenzoic acid; (e) glycerol; (f) citric acid; (g) raffinose; (h) kestose; (i) 2-hydroxybutyric acid; (j) β-amino-isobutyric acid. *Outliers.

Figure 8

Fig. 7 Discrimination of male dogs by breed using FIE-MS fingerprinting. (a) Linear discriminant analysis scores plot of nine dog breeds (DF1 × DF2). (b) Summary of Random Forest performance (classification – accuracy and model margin) in pairwise comparison of urines from selected dog breeds using flow injection electrospray MS fingerprint data. Key: Breed (size): ◂, Doberman (L); ○, Rottweiler (L); , Labrador retriver (L); □, German sheperd (L); ■, Poodle (M); ◃, Shih tzu (S); ●, Beagle (M); ⋄, Cocker spaniel (M); , Golden retriver (L); where, S, small; M, medium; L, large.