Animal Bioscience

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

DOI QR Code

Rumen bacteria influence milk protein yield of yak grazing on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau

  • Fan, Qingshan (State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agroecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University) ;
  • Wanapat, Metha (Tropical Feed Resources Research and Development Center (TROFREC), Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University) ;
  • Hou, Fujiang (State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agroecosystems, Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University)
  • Received : 2020.08.27
  • Accepted : 2020.11.26
  • Published : 2021.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: Ruminants are completely dependent on their microbiota for rumen fermentation, feed digestion, and consequently, their metabolism for productivity. This study aimed to evaluate the rumen bacteria of lactating yaks with different milk protein yields, using high-throughput sequencing technology, in order to understand the influence of these bacteria on milk production. Methods: Yaks with similar high milk protein yield (high milk yield and high milk protein content, HH; n = 12) and low milk protein yield (low milk yield and low milk protein content, LL; n = 12) were randomly selected from 57 mid-lactation yaks. Ruminal contents were collected using an oral stomach tube from the 24 yaks selected. High-throughput sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA gene was used. Results: Ruminal ammonia N, total volatile fatty acids, acetate, propionate, and isobutyrate concentrations were found to be higher in HH than LL yaks. Community richness (Chao 1 index) and diversity indices (Shannon index) of rumen microbiota were higher in LL than HH yaks. Relative abundances of the Bacteroidetes and Tenericutes phyla in the rumen fluid were significantly increased in HH than LL yaks, but significantly decreased for Firmicutes. Relative abundances of the Succiniclasticum, Butyrivibrio 2, Prevotella 1, and Prevotellaceae UCG-001 genera in the rumen fluid of HH yaks was significantly increased, but significantly decreased for Christensenellaceae R-7 group and Coprococcus 1. Principal coordinates analysis on unweighted UniFrac distances revealed that the bacterial community structure of rumen differed between yaks with high and low milk protein yields. Furthermore, rumen microbiota were functionally enriched in relation to transporters, ABC transporters, ribosome, and urine metabolism, and also significantly altered in HH and LL yaks. Conclusion: We observed significant differences in the composition, diversity, fermentation product concentrations, and function of ruminal microorganisms between yaks with high and low milk protein yields, suggesting the potential influence of rumen microbiota on milk protein yield in yaks. A deeper understanding of this process may allow future modulation of the rumen microbiome for improved agricultural yield through bacterial community design.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Program for Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDA20100102), the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research: Grassland Ecosystem and Ecological Animal Husbandry (Grant No. 2019QZKK0302), Innovative Research Team of the Ministry of Education (Grant No. IRT_17R50), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (lzujbky-2021-it01).

References

  1. Xue MY, Sun HZ, Wu HX, Guan LL, Liu JX. Assessment of rumen bacteria in dairy cows with varied milk protein yield. J Dairy Sci 2019;102:5031-41. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15974
  2. Baumgard LH, Collier RJ, Bauman DE. A 100-year review: regulation of nutrient partitioning to support lactation. J Dairy Sci 2017;100:10353-66. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13242
  3. Hernandez-Sanabria E, Guan LL, Goonewardene LA, et al. Correlation of particular bacterial PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis patterns with bovine ruminal fermentation parameters and feed efficiency traits. Appl Environ Microbiol 2010;76:6338-50. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01052-10
  4. Lima FS, Oikonomou G, Lima SF, et al. Prepartum and post-partum rumen fluid microbiomes: characterization and correlation with production traits in dairy cows. Appl Environ Microbiol 2015;81:1327-37. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03138-14
  5. Jami E, White BA, Mizrahi I. Potential role of the bovine rumen microbiome in modulating milk composition and feed efficiency. PLoS One 2014;9:e85423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085423
  6. Bergman EN. Energy contributions of volatile fatty acids from the gastrointestinal tract in various species. Physiol Rev 1990;70:567-90. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.1990.70.2.567
  7. Hackmann TJ, Firkins JL. Maximizing efficiency of rumen microbial protein production. Front Microbiol 2015;6:465. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00465
  8. Hurtaud C, Rulquin H, Verite R. Effect of infused volatile fatty acids and caseinate on milk composition and coagulation in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 1993;76:3011-20. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(93)77640-7
  9. Connor EE, Hutchison JL, Olson KM, Norman HD. Triennial Lactation Symposium: Opportunities for improving milk production efficiency in dairy cattle. J Anim Sci 2012;90:1687-94. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4528
  10. Arndt C, Powell JM, Aguerre MJ, Crump PM, Wattiaux MA. Feed conversion efficiency in dairy cows: Repeatability, variation in digestion and metabolism of energy and nitrogen, and ruminal methanogens. J Dairy Sci 2015;98:3938-50. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8449
  11. Pryce JE, Arias J, Bowman PJ, et al. Accuracy of genomic predictions of residual feed intake and 250-day body weight in growing heifers using 625,000 single nucleotide polymorphism markers. J Dairy Sci 2012;95:2108-19. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4628
  12. VandeHaar MJ, Armentano LE, Weigel K, Spurlock DM, Tempelman RJ, Veerkamp R. Harnessing the genetics of the modern dairy cow to continue improvements in feed efficiency. J Dairy Sci 2016;99:4941-54. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10352
  13. Jewell KA, McCormick CA, Odt CL, Weimer PJ, Suen G. Ruminal bacterial community composition in dairy cows is dynamic over the course of multiple lactations and correlates with feed efficiency. Appl Environ Microbiol 2015;81:4697-710. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00720-15
  14. Shabat SKB, Sasson G, Doronfaigenboim A, et al. Specific microbiome-dependent mechanisms underlie the energy harvest efficiency of ruminants. ISME J 2016;10:2958-72. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2016.62
  15. Fan QS, Wanapat M, Hou FJ. Mineral nutritional status of yaks (Bos Grunniens) grazing on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Animals 2019;9:468. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9070468
  16. Fan Q, Wanapat M, Hou F. Chemical composition of milk and rumen microbiome diversity of yak, impacting by herbage grown at different phenological periods on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau. Animals 2020;10:1030. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10061030
  17. Xia W, Osorio JS, Yang YX, Liu DL, Jiang MF. Short communication: Characterization of gene expression profiles related to yak milk protein synthesis during the lactation cycle. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:11150-8. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14715
  18. Yang CY, Zhang Y, Hou FJ, Millner JP, Wang ZF, Chang SH. Grazing activity increases decomposition of yak dung and litter in an alpine meadow on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau. Plant Soil 2019;444:239-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04272-x
  19. AOAC. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists International (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC International; 2002.
  20. National Food Safety Standard of China. Determination of lactose and sucrose in foods for infants and young children milk and milk products: GB 5413.21-2010. Beijing, China: Ministry of Health of the People's Republic of China; 2010.
  21. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  22. Ma L, Xu SX, Liu HJ, et al. Yak rumen microbial diversity at different forage growth stages of an alpine meadow on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau. Peer J 2019;7:e7645. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7645
  23. Chaney AL, Marbach EP. Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clin Chem 1962;8:130-2. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/8.2.130
  24. Dennis KL, Wang YW, Blatner NR, et al. Adenomatous polyps are driven by microbe-instigated focal inflammation and are controlled by IL-10-producing T cells. Cancer Res 2013;73:5905-13. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-1511
  25. Magoc T, Salzberg SL. FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2011;27:2957-63. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507
  26. 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
  27. Edgar RC. UPARSE: Highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat Methods 2013;10:996-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2604
  28. Lozupone C, Knight R. UniFrac: A new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005;71:8228-35. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.12.8228-8235.2005
  29. Berry D, Widder S. Deciphering microbial interactions and detecting keystone species with co-occurrence networks. Front Microbiol 2014;5:219. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00219
  30. Asshauer KP, Wemheuer B, Daniel R, Meinicke P. Tax4Fun: predicting functional profiles from metagenomic 16S rRNA data. Bioinformatics 2015;31:2882-4. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv287
  31. Kiddy CA. A review of research on genetic variation in physiological characteristics related to performance in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 1979;62:818-24. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(79)83333-0
  32. Grant RJ, Albright JL. Feeding behavior and management factors during the transition period in dairy cattle. J Anim Sci 1995;73:2791-803. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.7392791x
  33. Xue D, Chen H, Zhao X, et al. Rumen prokaryotic communities of ruminants under different feeding paradigms on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Syst Appl Microbiol 2017;40:227-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2017.03.006
  34. Li F, Guan LL. Metatranscriptomic profiling reveals linkages between the active rumen microbiome and feed efficiency in beef cattle. Appl Environ Microbiol 2017;83:e00061-17. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00061-17
  35. Bickhart DM, Weimer PJ. Symposium review: host-rumen microbe interactions may be leveraged to improve the productivity of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:7680-9. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13328
  36. Purushe J, Fouts DE, Morrison M, et al. Comparative genome analysis of Prevotella ruminicola and Prevotella bryantii: insights into their environmental niche. Microb Ecol 2010;60:721-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-010-9692-8
  37. Morotomi M, Nagai F, Watanabe Y. Description of Christensenella minuta gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from human faeces, which forms a distinct branch in the order Clostridiales, and proposal of Christensenellaceae fam. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2012;62:144-9. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.026989-0
  38. Liu C, Wu H, Liu SJ, Chai ST, Meng QX, Zhou ZM. Dynamic alterations in yak rumen bacteria community and metabolome characteristics in response to feed type. Front Microbiol 2019;10:1116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01116
  39. Power ME, Tilman D, Estes JA, et al. Challenges in the quest for keystones: identifying keystone species is difficult-but essential to understanding how loss of species will affect ecosystems. BioSci 1996;46:609-20. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312990
  40. Indugu N, Vecchiarelli B, Baker LD, Ferguson JD, Vanamala JKP, Pitta DW. Comparison of rumen bacterial communities in dairy herds of different production. BMC Microbiol 2017;17:190. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-017-1098-z
  41. Cunha CS, Veloso CM, Marcondes MI, et al. Assessing the impact of rumen microbial communities on methane emissions and production traits in Holstein cows in a tropical climate. Syst Appl Microbiol 2017;40:492-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2017.07.008
  42. Fernando SC, Purvis HTI, Najar FZ, et al. Rumen microbial population dynamics during adaptation to a high-grain diet. Appl Environ Microbiol 2010;76:7482-90. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00388-10
  43. Wallace RJ, Rooke JA, Mckain N, et al. The rumen microbial metagenome associated with high methane production in cattle. BMC Genomics 2015;16:839. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-2032-0
  44. McCabe MS, Cormican P, Keogh K, et al. Illumina MiSeq phylogenetic amplicon sequencing shows a large reduction of an uncharacterised Succinivibrionaceae and an increase of the Methanobrevibacter gottschalkii Clade in feed restricted cattle. PLoS One 2015;10:e0133234. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133234
  45. Pope PB, Smith W, Denman SE, et al. Isolation of Succinivibrionaceae implicated in low methane emissions from Tammar wallabies. Science 2011;333:646-8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1205760
  46. Liu H, Zhao K, Liu J. Effects of glucose availability on expression of the key genes involved in synthesis of milk fat, lactose and glucose metabolism in bovine mammary epithelial cells. PLoS One 2013;8:e66092. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066092
  47. Martin R, Nauta AJ, Ben Amor K, Knippels LMJ, Knol J, Garssen J. Early life: gut microbiota and immune development in infancy. Benef Microbes 2010;1:367-82. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2010.0027
  48. Kamke J, Kittelmann S, Soni P, et al. Rumen metagenome and metatranscriptome analyses of low methane yield sheep reveals a Sharpea-enriched microbiome characterised by lactic acid formation and utilisation. Microbiome 2016;4:56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-016-0201-2
  49. Shi W, Moon CD, Leahy SC, et al. Methane yield phenotypes linked to differential gene expression in the sheep rumen microbiome. Genome Res 2014;24:1517-25. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.168245.113
  50. Zeng SZ, Huang ZJ, Hou DW, Liu J, Weng SP, He JG. Composition, diversity and function of intestinal microbiota in pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) at different culture stages. Peer J 2017;5:e3986. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3986
  51. Hamana K, Itoh T, Sakamoto M, Hayashi H. Covalently linked polyamines in the cell wall peptidoglycan of the anaerobes belonging to the order Selenomonadales. J Gen Appl Microbiol 2012;58:339-47. https://doi.org/10.2323/jgam.58.339
  52. Xue MY, Sun HZ, Wu XH, Liu JX, Guan LL. Multi-omics reveals that the rumen microbiome and its metabolome together with the host metabolome contribute to individualized dairy cow performance. Microbiome 2020;8:64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-020-00819-8

Cited by

  1. Rumen Microbiota of Tibetan Sheep (Ovis aries) Adaptation to Extremely Cold Season on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau vol.8, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.673822