| Literature DB >> 24642871 |
Joshua C McCann1, Leanne M Wiley1, T David Forbes2, Francis M Rouquette3, Luis O Tedeschi1.
Abstract
Residual feed intake (RFI) testing has increased selection pressure on biological efficiency in cattle. The objective of this study was to assess the association of the rumen microbiome in inefficient, positive RFI (p-RFI) and efficient, negative RFI (n-RFI) Brahman bulls grazing 'Coastal' bermudagrass [Cynodondactylon (L.) Pers.]under two levels of forage allowance (high and low stocking intensity). Sixteen Brahman bulls were previously fed in confinement for 70 d to determine the RFI phenotype. Bulls were then allotted 60 d stocking on bermudagrass pastures to estimate RFI using the n-alkane technique. At the conclusion of the grazing period, rumen liquid samples were collected from each bull by stomach tube to evaluate the rumen microbiome. Extraction of DNA, amplification of the V4-V6 region of the 16S rRNA gene, and 454 pyrosequencing were performed on each sample. After denoising the sequences, chimera checking, and quality trimming, 4,573 ± 1,287 sequences were generated per sample. Sequences were then assigned taxonomy from the Greengenes database using the RDP classifier. Overall, 67.5 and 22.9% of sequences were classified as Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes, respectively. Within the phylum Bacteroidetes, Prevotella was the most predominant genus and was observed in greater relative abundance in p-RFI bulls compared with n-RFI bulls (P = 0.01). In contrast, an unidentified Bacteroidales family was greater in relative abundance for n-RFI bulls than p-RFI (26.7 vs. 19.1%; P = 0.03). Ruminococcaceae was the third most abundant family in our samples, but it was not affected by RFI phenotype. No effect of stocking intensity was observed for bacterial taxa, but there was a tendency for alpha diversity and operational taxonomic unit richness to increase with lower stocking intensity. Results suggested the rumen microbiome of p-RFI Brahman bulls has greater levels of Prevotella, but the bacterial community composition was unaffected by stocking intensity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24642871 PMCID: PMC3958397 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091864
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Effect of RFIc and SI on OTU richness and alpha diversity at 97% similarity after rarefaction to 1,800 sequences per sample.1
| n-RFI | p-RFI |
| ||||||
| Item | High SI | Low SI | High SI | Low SI | SEM | SI | RFIc | RFIc*SI |
| Shannon | 7.8 | 8.3 | 6.5 | 8.4 | 0.38 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.11 |
| ACE | 1480.1 | 1714.6 | 1299.9 | 1654.3 | 96.2 | 0.10 | 0.21 | 0.52 |
| Observed OTUs | 605.2 | 697.0 | 512.3 | 695.8 | 36.1 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.23 |
RFIc = residual feed intake in confinement; SI = stocking intensity; OTU = operational taxonomic unit.
Shannon index as calculated by Shannon and Weaver (1949).
SEM = standard error of the mean.
Figure 1Relative abundance of ruminal bacteria phyla of Brahman bulls at low and high stocking intensities.
Effect of RFIc and SI on relative abundance of bacteria phyla.1
| n-RFI | p-RFI |
| |||||
| Phyla | High SI | Low SI | High SI | Low SI | SI | RFIc | RFIc*SI |
|
| 66.9 | 61.7 | 78.4 | 62.8 | 0.35 | 0.20 | 0.27 |
|
| 21.3 | 29.7 | 14.6 | 26.0 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.62 |
|
| 2.8 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 0.41 | 0.54 | 0.09 |
|
| 1.3 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 0.91 | 0.59 | 0.30 |
|
| 1.2 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 0.31 | 0.63 | 0.42 |
|
| 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.89 | 0.51 | 0.63 |
RFIc = residual feed intake in confinement; SI = stocking intensity; relative abundance = percent of total bacteria sequences; phyla listed were detected at greater than 1% relative abundance averaged across all samples.
Effect of RFIc and SI on relative abundance of bacteria families.1
| n-RFI | p-RFI |
| |||||
| Families | High SI | Low SI | High SI | Low SI | SI | RFIc | RFIc*SI |
|
| 19.5 | 19.8 | 40.5 | 25.9 | 0.54 | 0.01 | 0.15 |
| Unidentified family 1 | 25.4 | 28.0 | 14.5 | 23.8 | 0.17 | 0.03 | 0.20 |
|
| 11.7 | 13.7 | 8.5 | 14.1 | 0.35 | 0.54 | 0.46 |
| BS11 | 3.2 | 3.9 | 9.3 | 3.9 | 0.57 | 0.32 | 0.31 |
|
| 5.9 | 2.6 | 3.2 | 4.1 | 0.40 | 0.74 | 0.04 |
|
| 2.9 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 4.2 | 0.20 | 0.44 | 0.28 |
|
| 2.8 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 0.41 | 0.54 | 0.09 |
|
| 1.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.49 |
| Unidentified family 2 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 0.66 | 0.27 | 0.77 |
| Unidentified family 3 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.44 | 0.33 | 0.82 |
| Unidentified family 4 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 0.61 | 0.98 | 0.20 |
| Unidentified family 5 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.77 |
|
| 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.95 | 0.64 | 0.38 |
RFIc = residual feed intake in confinement; SI = stocking intensity; relative abundance = percent of total bacteria sequences; families listed were detected at greater than 1% relative abundance averaged across all samples.
Order Bacteroidales.
Order Coriobacteriales.
Order Clostridiales.
Class Clostridia.
Core microbiome OTUs detected in all samples.1
| Phylum | Class | Order | Family | Genus | Species |
|
|
|
|
| CF231 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
OTUs = operational taxonomic units; taxonomic classification is given at the greatest taxonomic resolution based on RDP bootstrap score >0.8.