Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Relationship between the structure and composition of rumen microorganisms and the digestibility of neutral detergent fibre in goats

  • Liu, Kaizhen (Animal Nutrition Institute, Key Laboratory of Bovine Low-Carbon Farming and Safe Production, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Wang, Lizhi (Animal Nutrition Institute, Key Laboratory of Bovine Low-Carbon Farming and Safe Production, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Yan, Tianhai (Animal Nutrition Institute, Key Laboratory of Bovine Low-Carbon Farming and Safe Production, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Wang, Zhisheng (Animal Nutrition Institute, Key Laboratory of Bovine Low-Carbon Farming and Safe Production, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Xue, Bai (Animal Nutrition Institute, Key Laboratory of Bovine Low-Carbon Farming and Safe Production, Sichuan Agricultural University) ;
  • Peng, Quanhui (Animal Nutrition Institute, Key Laboratory of Bovine Low-Carbon Farming and Safe Production, Sichuan Agricultural University)
  • Received : 2018.01.11
  • Accepted : 2018.06.07
  • Published : 2019.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This experiment was conducted to compare the structure and composition of ruminal microorganisms in goats with high and low neutral detergent fibre (NDF) digestibility. Methods: Nineteen crossbred goats were used as experimental animals and fed the same total mixed rations during the 30-day pre-treatment and 6-day digestion trialperiods. All faeces were collected during the digestion period for measuring the NDF digestibility. Then, high and the low NDF digestibility individuals were chosen for the high NDF digestibility group (HFD) and low NDF digestibility group (LFD), respectively. Rumen contents were collected for total microbial DNA extraction. The V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene was amplified using universal primers of bacteria and sequenced using high-throughput sequencer. The sequences were mainly analysed by QIIME 1.8.0. Results: A total of 18,694 operational taxonomic units were obtained, within 81.98% belonged to bacteria, 6.64% belonged to archaea and 11.38% was unassigned microorganisms. Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and Proteobacteria were the predominant microbial phyla in both groups. At the genus level, the relative abundance of fifteen microorganisms were significantly higher (p<0.05) and six microorganisms were extremely significantly higher (p<0.01) in LFD than HFD. Overall, 176 core shared genera were identified in the two groups. The relative abundance of 2 phyla, 5 classes, 10 orders, 13 families and 15 genera had a negative correlation with NDF digestibility, but only the relative abundance of Pyramidobacter had a positive correlation with NDF digestibility. Conclusion: There were substantial differences in NDF digestibility among the individual goats, and the NDF digestibility had significant correlation with the relative abundance of some ruminal microorganisms.

Keywords

References

  1. Hungate RE. Introduction: the ruminant and the rumen. The rumen microbial ecosystem. London, UK: Elsevier Science Publishers, Ltd.; 1988.
  2. Russell J, Muck R, Weimer P. Quantitative analysis of cellulose degradation and growth of cellulolytic bacteria in the rumen. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2009;67:183-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00633.x
  3. Stevenson DM, Weimer PJ. Dominance of Prevotella and low abundance of classical ruminal bacterial species in the bovine rumen revealed by relative quantification real-time PCR. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2007;75:165-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-006-0802-y
  4. Wang Y, Cao P, Lei W, et al. Bacterial community diversity associated with different levels of dietary nutrition in the rumen of sheep. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2017;101:3717-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-017-8144-5
  5. Niu Q, Li P, Hao S, et al. Dynamic distribution of the gut microbiota and the relationship with apparent crude fiber digestibility and growth stages in pigs. Sci Rep 2015;5:9938. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09938
  6. Wang LZ, Qin X, Kong F, et al. Exploring the goat rumen microbiome from seven days to two years. Plos One 2016; 11:e0154354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154354
  7. Xiao DH, Hui YT, Long R, et al. Comparison of methanogen diversity of yak (Bos grunniens) and cattle (Bos taurus) from the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau, China. BMC Microbiol 2012;12: 237. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-12-237
  8. Wang LZ, Zhou ML, Wang JW, et al. The effect of dietary replacement of ordinary rice with red yeast rice on nutrient utilization, enteric methane emission and rumen archaeal diversity in goats. Plos One 2016;11:e0160198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160198
  9. Vigors S, Sweeney T, O'Shea CJ, et al. Pigs that are divergent in feed efficiency, differ in intestinal enzyme and nutrient transporter gene expression, nutrient digestibility and microbial activity. Animal 2016;10:1848-55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116000847
  10. Hristov AN, Callaway TR, Lee C, et al. Rumen bacterial, archaeal, and fungal diversity of dairy cows in response to ingestion of lauric or myristic acid. J Anim Sci 2012;90:4449-57. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4624
  11. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 2010;7:335-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.f.303
  12. Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 2010;26:2460-1. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461
  13. Caporaso JG, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, et al. PyNAST: a flexible tool for aligning sequences to a template alignment. Bioinformatics 2010;26:266-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp636
  14. Jami E, Israel A, Kotser A, et al. Exploring the bovine rumen bacterial community from birth to adulthood. ISME J 2013;7: 1069-79. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.2
  15. Hoover WH. Chemical factors involved in ruminal fiber digestion. J Dairy Sci 1986;69:2755-66. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(86)80724-X
  16. Beauchemin KA, Rode LM, Vjh S. Fibrolytic enzymes increase fiber digestibility and growth rate of steers fed dry forages. Can J Anim Sci 1996;75:641-4. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas95-096
  17. Tan ZL, Lu DX, Hu M, et al. Effect of dietary structural to nonstructural carbohydrate ratio on rumen degradability and digestibility of fiber fractions of wheat straw in sheep. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2002;15:1591-8. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2002.1591
  18. Nkrumah JD, Okine EK, Mathison GW, et al. Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance, and feeding behavior with metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. J Anim Sci 2006;84:145-53. https://doi.org/10.2527/2006.841145x
  19. Herd RM, Arthur PF. Physiological basis for residual feed intake. J Anim Sci 2009;87:E64-71. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1345
  20. Ramos MH, Kerley MS. Mitochondrial complex I protein differs among residual feed intake phenotype in beef cattle. J Anim Sci 2013;91:3299-304. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5589
  21. Koch RM, Swiger LA, Chambers D, et al. Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. J Anim Sci 1963;22:486-94. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1963.222486x
  22. Kelly AK, Mcgee M, Crews DH Jr, et al. Effect of divergence in residual feed intake on feeding behavior, blood metabolic variables, and body composition traits in growing beef heifers. J Anim Sci 2010;88:109-23. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2196
  23. Flint HJ, Bayer EA, Rincon MT, et al. Polysaccharide utilization by gut bacteria: potential for new insights from genomic analysis. Nat Rev Microbiol 2008;6:121-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1817
  24. Mohammadzadeh H, Yanez-Ruiz DR, Martinez-Fernandez G, et al. Molecular comparative assessment of the microbial ecosystem in rumen and faeces of goats fed alfalfa hay alone or combined with oats. Anaerobe 2014;29:52-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2013.11.012
  25. Carvalho BF, Aacute Vila CLS, Bernardes TF, et al. Fermentation profile and identification of lactic acid bacteria and yeasts of rehydrated corn kernel silage. J Appl Microbiol 2017;122: 589-600. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13371
  26. Sevcik C, Noriega J, D'Suze G. Identification of Enterobacter bacteria as saxitoxin producers in cattle's rumen and surface water from Venezuelan Savannahs. Toxicon 2003;42:359-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0041-0101(03)00148-X
  27. Coe ML, Nagaraja TG, Sun YD, et al. Effect of virginiamycin on ruminal fermentation in cattle during adaptation to a high concentrate diet and during an induced acidosis. J Anim Sci 1999;77:2259-68. https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.7782259x
  28. Zhang L, Chung J, Jiang Q, et al. Characteristics of rumen microorganisms involved in anaerobic degradation of cellulose at various pH values. Rsc Adv 2017;7:40303-10. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA06588D
  29. Huo W, Zhu W, Mao S. Impact of subacute ruminal acidosis on the diversity of liquid and solid-associated bacteria in the rumen of goats. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 2014;30:669-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-013-1489-8
  30. Robert C, Bernalier-Donadille A. The cellulolytic microflora of the human colon: evidence of microcrystalline cellulose-degrading bacteria in methane-excreting subjects. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2003;46:81-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-6496(03)00207-1

Cited by

  1. Characterization of the Rumen Microbiota and Volatile Fatty Acid Profiles of Weaned Goat Kids under Shrub-Grassland Grazing and Indoor Feeding vol.10, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020176
  2. Ruminal microbiota-host interaction and its effect on nutrient metabolism vol.7, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2020.12.001