Back

Diversity and community structure of anaerobic gut fungi in camels

De Silva, G. L. S. N. H.; Vinzelj, j.; Miller, S.; Jemmett, A. M.; Elshahed, M. S.; Youssef, N. H.

2026-05-28 microbiology
10.64898/2026.05.28.728439 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Anaerobic gut fungi (AGF) are key members of the herbivorous gut microbiome. While AGF communities have been well-studied in foregut and hindgut fermenters, they remain poorly characterized in pseudoruminants such as camels. Here, we present a comprehensive culture-independent diversity survey of 142 fecal samples from all three extant camel species (Camelus dromedarius, Camelus bactrianus, and Camelus ferus). The AGF community in Camelus was highly diverse, with representatives of 42 AGF genera identified. However, this diversity was unevenly distributed, with three genera (Neocallimastix, Caecomyces, and Orpinomyces) accounting for 70.7% of sequences encountered, and only 12 genera exceeding 1% relative abundance in the entire dataset. While several of the genera identified as major components of the AGF community in camels are highly ubiquitous in all herbivores, others, such as Oontomyces, Aestipascuomyces, Liebetanzomyces, and the yet uncultured genera NY09, NY03, and JV-2025d are extremely rare in ruminants and hindgut fermenters, hinting at their preference and potential co-evolution with the Camelidae. Ordination approaches identified host species and biogeography as key determinants driving AGF community structure differences between various camel species. Comparative community structure analysis between AGF community in camels versus reference foregut and hindgut fermenters identified the relative enrichment of the genera Oontomyces and Aestipascuomyces in pseudoruminants datasets. Our results demonstrate a distinct AGF community composition in Camelidae, elucidate factors impacting AGF diversity and community structure variations in Camelus, and identify key distinct taxa differentially enriched in psuedoruminants compared to ruminants and hindgut fermenters. The ecological and evolutionary drivers of such patterns are discussed.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
10.4%
2
Microbiome
139 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.1%
3
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
10.1%
4
Animal Microbiome
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.4%
5
Environmental Microbiology
119 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.8%
6
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
7
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
301 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.8%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 32%
3.9%
9
Microbial Ecology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
10
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.6%
11
Microorganisms
101 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
12
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.9%
13
ISME Communications
103 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.6%
14
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
15
npj Biofilms and Microbiomes
56 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
16
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
17
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
18
Environmental Microbiome
26 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
19
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
20
Environmental Microbiology Reports
27 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
21
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.8%
22
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.7%
23
Microbial Genomics
204 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%
25
The ISME Journal
194 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
26
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%