AIMS: To examine the effects of five inhibitors of methanogenesis, 2-bromoethanesulphonate (BES), 3-bromopropanesulphonate (BPS), lumazine, propynoic acid and ethyl 2-butynoate, on CH4 production of the ruminal methanogens Methanobrevibacter ruminantium, Methanosarcina mazei and Methanomicrobium mobile. METHODS AND RESULTS: Methanogens were grown in MS medium including 25% (v/v) clarified ruminal fluid. Methane production was measured after 4 and 6 days of incubation. Methanobrevibacter ruminantium was the most sensitive species to BES, propynoic acid and ethyl 2-butynoate. Methanosarcina mazei was the least sensitive species to those chemical additives, and Mm. mobile was intermediate. BPS failed to inhibit any of the methanogens. All three species were almost completely inhibited by 50- and 100%-lumazine saturated media, but the inhibition was somewhat lower with a 25%-lumazine saturated media. CONCLUSIONS: There were important differences among species of methanogens regarding their sensitivity to the different inhibitors. In general, Ms. mazei was the most resistant to inhibitors, Mb. ruminantium the least resistant, and Mm. mobile was intermediate. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Differences among methanogens regarding their resistance to chemical inhibitors should be considered when designing strategies of inhibition of ruminal methanogenesis, as selection of resistant species may result. Copyright 2004 The Society for Applied Microbiology
AIMS: To examine the effects of five inhibitors of methanogenesis, 2-bromoethanesulphonate (BES), 3-bromopropanesulphonate (BPS), lumazine, propynoic acid and ethyl 2-butynoate, on CH4 production of the ruminal methanogens Methanobrevibacter ruminantium, Methanosarcina mazei and Methanomicrobium mobile. METHODS AND RESULTS: Methanogens were grown in MS medium including 25% (v/v) clarified ruminal fluid. Methane production was measured after 4 and 6 days of incubation. Methanobrevibacter ruminantium was the most sensitive species to BES, propynoic acid and ethyl 2-butynoate. Methanosarcina mazei was the least sensitive species to those chemical additives, and Mm. mobile was intermediate. BPS failed to inhibit any of the methanogens. All three species were almost completely inhibited by 50- and 100%-lumazine saturated media, but the inhibition was somewhat lower with a 25%-lumazine saturated media. CONCLUSIONS: There were important differences among species of methanogens regarding their sensitivity to the different inhibitors. In general, Ms. mazei was the most resistant to inhibitors, Mb. ruminantium the least resistant, and Mm. mobile was intermediate. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Differences among methanogens regarding their resistance to chemical inhibitors should be considered when designing strategies of inhibition of ruminal methanogenesis, as selection of resistant species may result. Copyright 2004 The Society for Applied Microbiology
Authors: Evert C Duin; Tristan Wagner; Seigo Shima; Divya Prakash; Bryan Cronin; David R Yáñez-Ruiz; Stephane Duval; Robert Rümbeli; René T Stemmler; Rudolf Kurt Thauer; Maik Kindermann Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Tara M Webster; Adam L Smith; Raghav R Reddy; Ameet J Pinto; Kim F Hayes; Lutgarde Raskin Journal: Microbiologyopen Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 3.139
Authors: Gonzalo Martinez-Fernandez; Stuart E Denman; Chunlei Yang; Jane Cheung; Makoto Mitsumori; Christopher S McSweeney Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 5.640