Changes in fibre-adherent and fluid-associated microbial communities and fermentation profiles in the rumen of cattle fed diets differing in hay quality and concentrate amount

FEMS Microbiology Ecology

Volumn 93, Issue 9, 2017, Pages

  Klevenhusen, Fenja ^a   Petri, Renee M ^a   Kleefisch, Maria Theresia ^a   Khiaosa ard, Ratchaneewan ^a   Metzler Zebeli, Barbara U ^a   Zebeli, Qendrim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE   (Austria)

Author keywords

16S rRNA gene; Amplicon sequencing; Concentrate feeding; Dairy cows; Microbiota; Sugar

Indexed keywords

BACTERIUM; CATTLE; FEEDING MECHANISM; FERMENTATION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HAY; METABOLISM; MICROBIAL COMMUNITY; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RNA; SUGAR;

BACTERIA (MICROORGANISMS); BACTEROIDETES; BOS; FIBROBACTER; FIBROBACTERES; FIRMICUTES; PREVOTELLA; PROTEOBACTERIA; RUMINOBACTER; SELENOMONAS;

ANALYSIS; ANIMAL; ANIMAL FOOD; BACTEROIDETES; BOVINE; CARBOHYDRATE DIET; DIET; DIETARY FIBER; FEMALE; FERMENTATION; FIBROBACTER; GENETICS; INTESTINE FLORA; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; METABOLISM; MICROBIOLOGY; PREVOTELLA; PROTEOBACTERIA; RUMEN; VETERINARY;

ANIMAL FEED; ANIMALS; BACTEROIDETES; CATTLE; DIET; DIETARY CARBOHYDRATES; DIETARY FIBER; FEMALE; FERMENTATION; FIBROBACTER; GASTROINTESTINAL MICROBIOME; PREVOTELLA; PROTEOBACTERIA; RUMEN;

EID: 85039041654     PISSN: 01686496     EISSN: 15746941     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fix100     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. AllenMS. Relationship between fermentation acid production in the rumen and the requirement for physically effective fiber. J Dairy Sci 1997;80:1447-62.
2. Anderson KL. Biochemical analysis of starch degradation by Ruminobacter amylophilus. Appl Environ Microb 1995;61:1488-91.
3. Anderson KL. Purification and analysis of a membraneassociated starch-degrading enzyme from Ruminobacter amylophilus. Anaerobe 2002;8:269-76.
4. Avgustin G, Wallace RJ, Flint HJ. Phenotypic diversity among ruminal isolates of Prevotella ruminicola: Proposal of Prevotella brevis sp. nov., Prevotella byantii sp. nov., and Prevotella albensis sp. nov. and redefinition of Prevotella ruminicola. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1997;47:284-8.
5. Bekele AZ, Koike S, Kobayashi Y. Phylogenetic diversity and dietary association of rumen Treponema revealed using groupspecific16S rRNA gene-based analysis. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2011;316:51-60.
6. Bokulich NA, Subramanian S, Faith JJ et al. Quality-filtering vastly improves diversity estimates from Illumina amplicon sequencing. Nat Methods 2013;10:57-9.
7. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat methods 2010;7:335-6.
8. Carberry CA, Kenny DA, Han S et al. Effect of phenotypic residual feed intake and dietary forage content on the rumen microbial community of beef cattle. Appl Environ Microb 2012;78:4949-58.
9. Cheng KJ, Stewart CS, Dinsdale D et al. Electron microscopy of bacteria involved in the digestion of plant cell walls. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1983/1984;10:93-120
10. De Menezes AB, Lewis E, O'DonovanMet al. Microbiome analysis of dairy cows fed pasture or total mixed ration diets. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2011;78:256-65.
11. Deckardt K, Metzler-Zebeli BU, Zebeli Q. Processing barley grain with lactic acid and tannic acid ameliorates rumen microbial fermentation and degradation of dietary fibre in vitro. J Sci Food Agric 2016;96:223-31.
12. Denman SE, McSweeney CS. Development of a real-time PCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal and cellulolytic bacterial populations within the rumen. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2006;58:572-82.
13. DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N et al. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microb 2006;72:5069-72.
14. Dodd D, Moon Y-H, Swaminathan K et al. Transcriptomic analyses of xylan degradation by Prevotella bryantii and insights into energy acquisition by xylanolytic Bacteroidetes. J Biol Chem 2010;285:30261-73.
15. Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders ofmagnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 2010;26:2460-1.
16. Ertl P, Zebeli Q, ZollitschWet al. Feeding ofwheat bran and sugar beet pulp as sole supplements in high forage diets emphasizes the potential of dairy cattle for human food supply. J Dairy Sci 2015;99:1228-36.
17. FAOSTAT: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics Division. http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/P//E (6 June 2016, date last accessed).
18. Fernando SC, Purvis HT, II, FZ Najar et al. Rumen microbial population dynamics during adaptation to a high-grain diet. Appl Environ Microb 2010;76:7482-90.
19. Goberna M, Gadermaier M, Garcia C et al. Adaptation of methanogenic communities to the cofermentation of cattle excreta and olive mill wastes at 37?C and 55?C. Appl Environ Microb 2010;76:6564-71.
20. Gordon GRL, Phillips MW. The role of anaerobic gut fungi in ruminants. Nutr Res Rev 1998;11:133-68.
21. Granja-Salcedo YT, Ribeiro Jú nior CS, de Jesus RB et al. Effect of different levels of concentrate on ruminal microorganisms and rumen fermentation in Nellore steers. Arch Anim Nutr 2015;70:17-32.
22. 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.
23. Jewell KA, McCormick CA, Odt CL et al. Ruminal bacterial community composition in dairy cows is dynamic over the course of two lactations and correlates with feed efficiency. Appl Environ Microb 2015;81:4697-710.
24. Ji S, Zhang H, Yan H et al. Comparison of rumen bacteria distribution in original rumen digesta, rumen liquid and solid fractions in lactating Holstein cows. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 2017;8:16. DOI: 10.1186/s40104-017-0142-z.
25. Kasperowicz A, Stan-Glasek K, Guczynska W et al. Fructanolytic and saccharolytic enzymes of the rumen bacterium Pseudobutyrivibrio ruminis strain 3 -preliminary study. Folia Microbiol 2010;55:329-31.
26. Kleefisch M-T, Zebeli Q, Humer E et al. Effects of the replacement of concentrate and fibre-rich hay by high-quality hay on chewing, rumination and nutrient digestibility in non-lactating Holstein cows. Arch Anim Nutr 2017;71:21-36.
27. Koike S, Yoshitani S, Kobayashi Y et al. Phylogenetic analysis of fiber-associated rumen bacterial community and PCR detection of uncultured bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2003;229:23-30.
28. 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 2010;74:612-22.
29. Lima FS, Oikonomou G, Lima SF et al. Prepartum and postpartum rumen fluid microbiomes: characterization and correlation with production traits in dairy cows. Appl Environ Microb 2015;81:1327-37.
30. Lozupone C, Knight R. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microb 2005;71:8228-35.
31. McAllister TA, Bae HD, Jones GA et al. Microbial attachment and feed digestion in the rumen. J Anim Sci 1994;72:3004-18.
32. McCann JC, Luan S, Cardoso FC et al. Induction of subacute ruminal acidosis affects the ruminal microbiome and epithelium. Front Microbiol 2016;7 :Article 701.
33. Mertens DR. Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1997;80:1463-81.
34. Metzler-Zebeli BU, Khol-Parisini A, Gruber L et al. Microbial populations and fermentation profiles in rumen liquid and solids of Holstein cows respond differently to dietary barley processing. J Appl Microbiol 2015;119:1502-14.
35. Nocek JE, Russel JB. Protein and energy as an integrated system. relationship of ruminal protein and carbohydrate availability to microbial synthesis and milk production. J Dairy Sci 1988;71:2070-107.
36. Ørskov ER, Hovell FDD, Mould F. The use of nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Tropic Anim Prod 1980;5:195-213.
37. Peterson J, Garges S, Giovanni M et al. The NIH Human Microbiome Project. Genome Res 2009;19:2317-23.
38. Petri RM, Schwaiger T, Penner GB et al. Characterization of the core rumen microbiome in cattle during transition from forage to concentrate as well as during and after an acidotic challenge. Plos One 2013;8:e83424.
39. Pourazad P, Khiaosa-Ard R, Metzler-Zebeli BU et al. Restoration of in situ fiber degradation and the role of fibrolytic microbes and ruminal pH in cows fed concentrate-rich diets transiently or continuously. Animal 2017. DOI:10.1017/ S1751731117001112.
40. Pourazad P, Khiaosa-Ard R, Wetzels SU et al. Transient feeding of a concentrate-rich diet increases the severity of subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cattle. J Anim Sci 2016;94: 726-8.
41. Sawanon S, Kobayashi Y. Ruminococcus flavefaciens and noncellulolytic Selenomonas ruminantium: Evidence in defined cultures. Anim Sci J 2006;77:208-14.
42. Scheifinger CC, Wolin MJ. Propionate formation from cellulose and soluble sugars by combined cultures of Bacteroides succinogenes and Selenomonas ruminantium. Appl Microbiol 1973;26:789-95.
43. Shinkai T, Kobayashi Y. Localization of ruminal cellulolytic bacteria on plant fibrous materials as determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization and real-time PCR. Appl Environ Microb 2007;73:1646-52.
44. Shinkai T, Ueki T, Kobayashi Y. Detection and identification of rumen bacteria constituting a fibrolytic consortium dominated by Fibrobacter succinogenes. Anim Sci J 2010;81: 72-9.
45. Sihori SK, Choudhury PK, Dagar SS et al. Isolation, characterization and fibre degradation potential of anaerobic rumen fungi from cattle. Ann Microbiol 2013;63:1187-94.
46. Sylvester JT, Kamati SKR, Yu Z et al. Development of an assay to quantify rumenciliate protozoal biomass in cows using realtime PCR. J Nutr 2004;134:3378-84.
47. Taube F, Gierus M, Hermann A et al. Grassland and globalization -challenges for northwest European grass and forage research. Grass Forage Sci 2013;69:2-16.
48. Van Gylswyk NO, Hippe H, Rainey FA. Pseudobutyrivibrio ruminis gen. nov., sp. nov., a butyrate-producing bacterium from the rumen that closely resembles Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens in phenotype. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1996;46:559-63.
49. VDLUFA. Das VDLUFA-Methodenbuch. Band III Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. Darmstadt, Germany:
50. VDLUFA-Verlag. 2007. Wallace RJ, Atasoglu C, Newbold CJ. Role of peptides in rumen microbial metabolism -review-AJAS 1999;12:139-47.
51. Wallace RJ, McKain N. A survey of peptidase activity in rumen bacteria. J Gen Microbiol 1991;137:2259-64.
52. Wang M,Wang R, Janssen PH et al. Shifts in rumen fermentation andmicrobiota are associated with dissolved ruminal hydrogen concentrations in lactating dairy cows fed different types of carbohydrates. J Nutri 2016;146:1714-21.
53. Weatherburn M. Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia. Anal Chem 1967;39:971-4.
54. Wu S, Baldwin 6 RL, Li W et al. The bacterial community composition of the bovine rumen detected using pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA genes. Metagenomics 2012;1:art235571. DOI:10.4303/mg/235571.
55. Xia Y, Kong Y, Huang H et al. In situ identification and quantification of protein-hydrolyzing ruminal bacteria associated with the digestion of barley and corn grain. Can J Microbiol 2016;62:1063-7.
56. Zebeli Q, Metzler-Zebeli BU. Interplay between rumen digestive disorders and diet-induced inflammation in dairy cattle. Res Vet Sci 2012;93:1099-108.
57. Zebeli Q, Tafaj M, Junck B et al. Evaluation of the effects of dietary particle fractions on fermentation profile and concentration of microbiota in the rumen of dairy cows fed grass silagebased diets. Arch Anim Nutr 2008;62:230-40.
58. Zened A, Combes S, Cauquil L et al. Microbial ecology of the rumen evaluated by 454 GS FLX pyrosequencing is affected by starch and oil supplementation of diets. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2013;83:504-14.