Saving the Tasmanian devils

当欧洲人在200年前首次到达范迪门曼（Van Diemen）的土地上时，他们的睡眠被神秘而无聊的黑白动物刺耳的刺耳的牙齿和红色的耳朵打断了 - 他们称其为“魔鬼”。塔斯马尼亚魔鬼的现代科学名称是Sarcophilius harrisii或“哈里斯的肉体”。魔鬼是世界上最大的食肉袋，仅在塔斯马尼亚岛岛发现。曾经在整个景观中常见，由于传染性克隆癌，魔鬼面部肿瘤疾病（DFTD），该物种现在受到威胁。自1996年塔斯马尼亚州东北部首次观察到该疾病以来一直在南方和向西扫过，使魔鬼种群衰落。在过去的20年中，该物种下降了80％。许多人认为，这种下降是由于魔鬼的遗传多样性极低的驱动，因为它们在过去20，000年中至少被遗传瓶颈造成了3次。

In order to combat the disease threat, the Tasmanian and Australian governments partnered with the zoo industry in 2006 to start what was to become Australia’s largest insurance population. Early predictions estimated the species would be extinct from the disease within 25-30 years. Between 2005 and 2008 over 120 disease-free devils were brought into captivity. What started with four zoos and 28 devils has now grown into an insurance metapopulation encompassing over 700 disease free devils in 37 zoos and wildlife parks, an island (Maria Island), and a fenced peninsula (Forestier Peninsula). The aim of this insurance metapopulation is to maintain genetic diversity of the species, and their associated共生生物群，，，，until such time that the species can be returned to the wild.

魔鬼的保护易位以及对肠道微生物组的影响

幸运的是，对于该物种，该疾病已有20多年的人口仍在野外持续存在。现在，该物种受到所有其他威胁过程的威胁，包括栖息地破碎，行驶，狗的攻击和气候变化。当魔鬼具有固有的低遗传多样性并生活在零散的景观中时，我们如何确保魔鬼继续保持在野外？一种解决方案是使用保险种群中的动物，并将其释放到野生部位，以帮助促进基因流并改善遗传多样性。

在选择个人释放时，有许多方面需要评估，包括性别，年龄，遗传多样性，行为和一般健康。最近对人类和牲畜的研究表明，微生物组对整体动物健康的重要性。2015年对塔斯马尼亚魔鬼的研究microbiome在圈养和野生魔鬼之间显示出显着差异。具体而言，圈养的魔鬼的微生物多样性较低，这可能会导致诸如肥胖风险增加，繁殖成功和感染风险更高的问题。尽管获得了模仿其自然饮食和栖息地的食物和环境丰富，但圈养的生活仍可能大不相同，从而导致微生物组的变化。在许多其他物种被囚禁的物种中都观察到了这一点。

So, if their microbiome was changing as a result of captivity, what impact would this have on the devils once released to the wild? In our recently publishedarticle，我们检查了圈养的魔鬼是否可以在返回野外后重新出现“野生型”微生物组。为了回答这个问题，我们需要跟踪魔鬼肠道微生物组中的变化，之后它们被释放到野外。我和野外团队在发行版之前，之中和之后收集了从发行魔鬼的Scat（或Poo）样本，并将它们与每个发行地点的常驻魔鬼进行了比较。使用便便样品是研究肠道微生物组的绝佳方法，尤其是在魔鬼等濒危物种中，因为它是无创的，需要最少的动物处理。它们也非常适合研究魔鬼遗传学，寄生虫，饮食和肠道微生物组的其他部分，例如viruses。The tricky part however, is catching the particular animals you are after, and relying on them to produce a fresh poo sample when you need them to. Another major challenge with collecting poo samples in the field is finding ways to store them properly to minimize degradation. Lucky for us, the cold Tasmanian winter kept the samples relatively cool until we can store them in the freezer at the end of each field day. Back in the lab, I spent hours extracting bacterial DNA from each poo sample, making sure there are no cross contaminations between samples. After a few weeks at the sequencing center, a folder containing all the DNA codes was sent to me to decipher.

After comparing the microbiome of the released devils at different time points and with the resident wild devils, results were encouraging. The gut microbiome of the captive release devils underwent significant changes as early as 2 months after the release and began to look a lot like the microbiome of resident devils in the wild, regardless of where they originated from. This suggests to us that the microbiome disturbances previously observed in captivity are likely reversible and may not pose a threat as serious as previously thought. This is good news for the devils and perhaps other carnivorous species with similar lifestyle and diet that are also experiencing microbiome disturbances in captivity. Translocation is often used in wildlife conservation as a way to restore dwindling populations in the wild but success rates are usually low. Captive-born animals often differ from wild-born animals in their behavior and even microbiome, which can potentially affect their survival post-release. We hope this work will highlight the value of microbiome monitoring as a tool to assess wildlife health after translocation.