| Literature DB >> 25276350 |
Ciara A Carberry1, David A Kenny2, Alan K Kelly3, Sinéad M Waters2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methane (CH4) emissions in cattle are an undesirable end product of rumen methanogenic fermentative activity as they are associated not only with negative environmental impacts but also with reduced host feed efficiency. The aim of this study was to quantify total and specific rumen microbial methanogenic populations in beef cattle divergently selected for residual feed intake (RFI) while offered (i) a low energy high forage (HF) diet followed by (ii) a high energy low forage (LF) diet. Ruminal fluid was collected from 14 high (H) and 14 low (L) RFI animals across both dietary periods. Quantitative real time PCR (qRT-PCR) analysis was conducted to quantify the abundance of total and specific rumen methanogenic microbes. Spearman correlation analysis was used to investigate the association between the relative abundance of methanogens and animal performance, rumen fermentation variables and diet digestibility.Entities:
Keywords: Bovine; Residual feed intake; Rumen methaongens; qRT-PCR
Year: 2014 PMID: 25276350 PMCID: PMC4177383 DOI: 10.1186/2049-1891-5-41
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Sci Biotechnol ISSN: 1674-9782
PCR primers used for SYBR green qRT-PCR analysis
| 16 s V33 | CCTACGGGAGGCAGCAG | ATTACCGCGGCTGCTGG | 2.00 | 194 | Muyzer et al., 1993 [ |
| Total methanogens | GGATTAGATACCCSGGTAGT | GTTGARTCCAATTAAACCGCA | 1.96 | 173 | Hook et al., 2009 [ |
| CTTAACTATAAGAATTGCTGGAG | TTCGTTACTCACCGTCAAGATC | 2.01 | 150 | Zhou et al., 2009 [ | |
15’→3’.
2Efficiency.
3Primers used for qRT-PCR normalisation.
PCR primers and probes used in this study for TaqManqRT-PCR analysis
| CCGGGTATCTAATCCGGTTC | | | Dridi et al., 2009 [ | |
| CTCCCAGGGTAGAGGTGAAA | 1.98 | 123 | Dridi et al., 2009 [ | |
| CCGTCAGAATCGTTCCAGTCAG | | | Dridi et al., 2009 [ | |
| CCGGGTATCTAATCCGGTTC | | | Dridi et al., 2009 [ | |
| CTCCCAGGGTAGAGGTGAAA | 2.02 | 123 | Dridi et al., 2009 [ | |
| CCGTCAGGTTCGTTCCAGTTAG | Current study |
Effect of phenotypic RFI and diet on ruminalmethanogen populations
| Methanogens1 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.010 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.010 | 0.71 | 0.01 | 0.08 |
| 0.36 | 0.37 | 0.069 | 0.09 | 0.64 | 0.069 | 0.44 | <0.0001 | 0.68 | |
| 0.32 | 0.25 | 0.057 | 0.14 | 0.43 | 0.057 | 0.29 | <0.0001 | 0.33 | |
| 0.18 | 0.29 | 0.089 | 0.04 | 0.43 | 0.089 | 0.65 | <0.0001 | 0.92 | |
1Methanogens measured as a proportion of total estimated rumen bacterial 16S rDNA, relative quantification = 2-(Ct target-Ct total bacteria).
2Methanogen spp. measured as a proportion of total estimated rumen methanogen 16S rDNA, relative quantification = 2-(Ct target-Ct total methanogens).
3Diet = HF = high forage (grass silage), LF = Low forage (maize silage (30):concentrate (70)).
4Significance values for transformed data. Back transformed means presented for clarity. R = RFI, D = DIET.
Association between physiological and rumen fermentation variables and relative methanogen abundance in beef heifers divergent for residual feed intake (RFI)
| DMI2 | -0.30 | -0.05 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.13 | -0.14 | 0.22 | 0.08 |
| CH43 | -0.27 | -0.36 | -0.36a | -0.38* | 0.13 | -0.47** | -0.07 | 0.03 |
| MLW4 | -0.19 | -0.07 | -0.17 | -0.15 | 0.22 | 0.14 | -0.20 | -0.06 |
| tVFA5 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.08 | -0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | -0.00 | -0.18 |
| acetate | -0.01 | 0.06 | 0.11 | -0.04 | 0.44** | 0.07 | -0.18 | -0.14 |
| propionate | 0.01 | 0.00 | -0.13 | -0.08 | -0.41** | 0.30 | -0.23 | 0.09 |
| isobutyrate | 0.07 | -0.05 | -0.12 | 0.06 | 0.20 | -0.15 | -0.21 | 0.08 |
| butyrate | -0.01 | 0.06 | -0.24 | -0.16 | 0.15 | 0.03 | -0.08 | -0.19 |
| isovalerate | -0.01 | -0.05 | 0.08 | -0.30 | -0.12 | -0.13 | 0.17 | 0.12 |
| valerate | -0.02 | -0.06 | 0.11 | -0.05 | -0.31 | -0.10 | 0.14 | 0.18 |
| A:P6 | -0.02 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.42** | -0.14 | 0.22 | 0.08 |
| pH | -0.11 | -0.05 | 0.14 | 0.07 | -0.49** | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.08 |
| CH4GEI7 | -0.01 | -0.03 | -0.15 | -0.15 | 0.03 | -0.23 | -0.24 | -0.05 |
| DMD8 | 0.21 | 0.16 | -0.21 | -0.25 | 0.35* | 0.14 | -0.21 | -0.16 |
| OMD9 | 0.22 | 0.15 | -0.20 | -0.14 | 0.34* | 0.14 | -0.22 | -0.15 |
| CPD10 | 0.14 | 0.20 | -0.23 | -0.24 | 0.38* | 0.17 | -0.22 | -0.17 |
| NDFD11 | 0.05 | 0.09 | -0.18 | -0.14 | 0.20 | 0.13 | -0.24 | -0.16 |
| ADFD12 | 0.05 | 0.09 | -0.17 | -0.13 | 0.26 | 0.13 | -0.24 | -0.23 |
| GED13 | 0.17 | 0.14 | -0.18 | -0.13 | 0.35 | 0.16 | -0.25 | -0.16 |
1Spearman correlation coefficient in boldface are different from zero (P < 0.10).
2Dry matter intake.
3Methane.
4Mean live weight.
5Total volatile fatty acids.
6Acetate:propionate ratio.
7Methane energy from gross energy intake.
8Dry matter digestibility.
9Organic matter digestibility.
10Crude protein digestibility.
11Neutral detergent fiber digestibility.
12Acid detergent fiber digestibility.
13Gross energy digestibility.
*P < 0.10, **P < 0.05.