In situ identification and quantification of starch-hydrolyzing bacteria attached to barley and corn grain in the rumen of cows fed barley-based diets

FEMS Microbiology Ecology

Volumn 91, Issue 8, 2015, Pages

  Xia, Yun ^a,b   Kong, Yunhong ^a   Seviour, Robert ^c   Yang, Hee Eun ^b   Forster, Robert ^b   Vasanthan, Thavaratnam ^d   McAllister, Tim ^b  

^a KUNMING UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b LETHBRIDGE RESEARCH CENTRE   (Canada)

^c LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

BODIPY FL DQTM starch staining combined with FISH; Cell surface associated amylase activity; In situ identification; Ruminal starch hydrolyzing organisms

Indexed keywords

BACTERIUM; BARLEY; CATTLE; CELLS AND CELL COMPONENTS; CEREAL; DIET; DIGESTION; DYE; FERMENTATION; FLUORESCENCE; HYBRIDIZATION; HYDROLYSIS; IN SITU MEASUREMENT; MAIZE; STARCH;

ANIMALIA; BACTERIA (MICROORGANISMS); BIFIDOBACTERIUM; BOS; BUTYRIVIBRIO FIBRISOLVENS; FIRMICUTES; HORDEUM; RUMINOBACTER AMYLOPHILUS; STREPTOCOCCUS BOVIS; ZEA MAYS;

AMYLASE; STARCH;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL FOOD; BOVINE; CEREAL; DIET; DIGESTION; ENZYMOLOGY; FEMALE; FERMENTATION; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; HORDEUM; HYDROLYSIS; MAIZE; METABOLISM; MICROBIOLOGY; RUMINANT STOMACH; RUMINOCOCCUS; VETERINARY;

ALPHA-AMYLASES; ANIMAL FEED; ANIMAL NUTRITIONAL PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; ANIMALS; CATTLE; DIET; DIGESTION; EDIBLE GRAIN; FEMALE; FERMENTATION; HORDEUM; HYDROLYSIS; IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION, FLUORESCENCE; RUMEN; RUMINOCOCCUS; STARCH; ZEA MAYS;

EID: 84949238030     PISSN: 01686496     EISSN: 15746941     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiv077     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. AACC. Approved Methods of Analysis, 11th edn. Method 44-15.02. St. Paul, MN: AACC International, 2010. AbramoffMD, Magalhaes PJ, Ram SJ. Image processing with imageJ. Biophotonics Int 2004;11:36-41.
2. Ahmad M, Gibb DJ, McAllister TA, et al. Adjusting roller settings based on kernel size increased starch digestibility of dryrolled barley grain in cattle. Can J Anim Sci 2010;90:275-8.
3. Amann RI. In situ hybridization ofmicro-organisms by whole cell hybridization with rRNA-targeted nucleic acid probes, part 3.3.6. In: Akkermans ADL, van Elsas JD, de Bruijn FJ (eds) Molecular Microbial Ecological Manual. London: Kluwer Academic Publications, 1995, 1-15.
4. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis (Method 925. 10; 993. 19 and 991. 42). Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1997.
5. Asare EK, Jaiswal S, Maley J, et al. Barley grain constituents, starch composition, and structure affect starch in vitro enzymatic hydrolysis. J Agr Food Chem 2011;59:4743-54.
6. Batajoo KK, Shaver RD. In situ dry matter, crude protein, and starch degradabilities of selected grains and by-product feeds. Anim Feed Sci Tech 1998;71:165-76.
7. Canada Council of Animal Care. CCAC Guidelines on Animal Use Protocol Review. Ottawa, ON: CCAC, 1997. http://www.ccac. ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Protocol Review.pdf (31 July 2014, date last accessed).
8. Cerrilla MEO, Martínez GM. Starch digestion and glucose metabolism in the ruminant: a review. Interciencia 2003;28:380-6.
9. Clark RTJ, Bauchop T. Microbial Ecology of the Gut. NewYork, USA: Academic Press, 1977, 83-115.
10. Coleman GS. The amylase activity of 14 species of entodiniomorphid protozoa and the distribution of amylase in rumen digesta fractions of sheep containing no protozoa or one of seven different protozoal populations. J Agr Sci 1986;107: 709-21.
11. Coleman GS. The rate of uptake and metabolism of starch grains and cellulose particles by Entodinium species, Eudiplodinium magii, some other entodiniomorphid protozoa and natural protozoal populations taken from the ovine rumen. J Appl Bacteriol 1992;73:507-13.
12. Corn Refiners Association. Standard Analytical Methods, Revised edition, Washington, DC: CRA, 1997. Cotta MA. Amylolytic activity of selected species of ruminal bacteria. Appl Environ Microb 1988;54:772-6.
13. Deckardt K, Khol-Parisini A, Zebeli Q. Peculiarities of enhancing resistant starch in ruminants using chemical methods: opportunities and challenges. Nutrient 2013;5: 1970-88.
14. Ferrari BC, Tujula N, Stoner K, et al. Catalyzed reporter deposition-fluorescence in situ hybridization allows for enrichment-independent detection of microcolony-forming soil bacteria. Appl Environ Microb 2006;72:918-22.
15. Giraud E, Champailler A, Raimbault M. Degradation of rawstarch by a wild amylolytic strain of Lactobacillus plantarum. Appl Environ Microb 1994;60:4319-23.
16. Guilbot A, Mercier C. Starch. In: Aspinall GO (ed). The Polysaccharides, Vol. 3. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1985, 209-82.
17. Hamlin LJ, Hungate RE. Culture and physiology of a starchdigesting bacterium (Bacteroides amylophilus n. sp.) from the bovine rumen. J Bacteriol 1956;72:548-54.
18. Herrera-Saldana RE, Huber JT, Poore MH. Dry matter, crude protein, and starch degradability of five cereal grains. J Dairy Sci 1990;73:2386-93.
19. Huntington GB. Starch utilization by ruminants: from basics to the bunk. J Anim Sci 1997;75:852-67.
20. Klieve AV, McLennan SR, Ouwerkerk D. Persistence of orally administered Megasphaera elsdenii and Ruminococcus bromii in the rumen of beef cattle fed a high grain (barley) diet. Anim Prod Sci 2012;52:297-304.
21. Klieve AV, O'Leary MN, McMillen L, et al. Ruminococcus bromii, identification and isolation as a dominant community member in the rumen of cattle fed a barley diet. J Appl Microbiol 2007;103:2065-73.
22. Kong Y, He M, McAlister T, et al. Quantitative fluorescence in situ hybridization ofmicrobial communities in the rumens of cattle fed different diets. Appl EnvironMicrob 2010a;76:6933-8.
23. Kong Y, Teather R, Forster R. Composition, spatial distribution, and diversity of the bacterial communities in the rumen of cows fed different forages. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2010b;74: 612-22.
24. Kotarski SF, Waniska RD, Thurn KK. Starch hydrolysis by the ruminal microflora. J Nutr 1992;122:178-90.
25. Kurihara Y, Takechi T, Shibata F. Relationship between bacteria and ciliate protozoa in the rumen of a sheep fed a purified diet. J Agr Sci 1978;90:373-82.
26. McAllister TA, Bae HD, Jones GA, et al. Microbial attachment and feed digestion in the rumen. J Anim Sci 1994;72:3004-18.
27. McAllister TA, Cheng KJ. Microbial strategies in the ruminal digestion of cereal grains. Anim Feed Sci Tech 1996;62:29-36.
28. McAllister TA, Phillippe RC, Rode LM, et al. Effect of the protein matrix on the digestion of cereal grains by ruminal microorganisms. J Anim Sci 1993;71:205-12.
29. Manz W, Amann R, Ludwig W, et al. Phylogenetic oligodeoxynucleotide probes for the major subclasses of proteobacteria: problems and solutions. Syst Appl Microbiol 1992;15:593-600.
30. Minato H, Suto T. Technique for fractionation of bacteria in rumen microbial ecosystem. III. Attachment of bacteria isolated from bovine rumen to starch granules in vitro and elution of bacteria attached therefrom. J Gen Appl Microbiol 1979;25:71-93.
31. Orskov ER. Starch digestion and utilization in ruminants. J Anim Sci 1986;63:1624-33.
32. Roller C, Wagner M, Amann R, et al. In situ probing of grampositive bacteria with high DNA G + C content using 23S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotides. Microbiology 1994;140: 2849-58.
33. Stahl DA, Flesher B, Mansfield HR, et al. Use of phylogenetically based hybridization probes for studies of ruminal microbial ecology. Appl Environ Microb 1988;54:1079-84.
34. Stiles DA, Bartley EE, Meyer RM, et al. Feed processing. VII. Effect of an expansion-processedmixture of grain and urea (starea) on rumen metabolism in cattle and on urea toxicity. J Dairy Sci 1970;53:1436-47.
35. Svihus B, Uhlen AK, Harstad OM. Effect of starch granule structure, associated components and processing on nutritive value of cereal starch: A review. Anim Feed Sci Tech 2005;122:303-20.
36. Theurer CB. Grain processing effects on starch utilization by ruminants. J Anim Sci 1986;63:1649-62.
37. Trebesius K, Leitritz L, Adler K, et al. Culture independent and rapid identification of bacterial pathogens in necrotising fasciitis and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. Med Microbiol Immun 2000;188:169-75.
38. Wallner G, Amann R, Beisker W. Optimizing fluorescent in situ hybridization with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes for flow cytometric identification of microorganisms. Cytometry 1993;14:136-43.
39. Xia Y, Kong Y, Nielsen PH. In situ detection of starch-hydrolyzing microorganisms in activated sludge. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2008;66:462-71.
40. Xia Y, Kong YH, Seviour R, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization probing of protozoal Entodinium spp. and their methanogenic colonizers in the rumen of cattle fed alfalfa hay or triticale straw. J Appl Microbiol 2013;116:14-23.