| Literature DB >> 25606402 |
K M Singh1, P R Pandya2, A K Tripathi1, G R Patel2, S Parnerkar2, R K Kothari3, C G Joshi1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to detect the major bacteria present in rumen microbiota. Here, we performed qPCR based absolute quantitation of selected rumen microbes in rumen fluid of river buffalo adapted to varying proportion of concentrate to roughage diets. Animals were adapted to roughage-to-concentrate ratio in the proportion of 100:00 (T1), 75:25 (T2), 50:50 (T3) and 25:75 (T4) respectively for 30 days. At the end of each treatment, rumen fluid was collected at 0 h and 2 h after feeding. It was found that among fibrolytic bacteria Ruminococcus flavefaciens (2.22 × 10(8) copies/ml) were highest in T2 group and followed by 1.11 × 10(8) copies/ml for Fibrobacter succinogenes (T2), 2.56 × 10(7) copies/ml for Prevotella ruminicola (T1) and 1.25 × 10(7) copies/ml for Ruminococcus albus (T4). In non-fibrolytic bacteria, the Selenomonas ruminantium (2.62 × 10(7) copies/ml) was predominant in group T3 and followed by Treponema bryantii (2.52 × 10(7)copies/ml) in group T1, Ruminobacter amylophilus (1.31 × 10(7)copies/ml) in group T1 and Anaerovibrio lipolytica (2.58 × 10(6) copies/ml) in group T4. It is most notable that R. flavefaciens were the highest in population in the rumen of Surti buffalo fed wheat straw as roughage source.Entities:
Keywords: Fibrolytic and non-fibrolytic bacteria; Roughage:concentrate; Surti buffalo
Year: 2014 PMID: 25606402 PMCID: PMC4287863 DOI: 10.1016/j.mgene.2014.01.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Meta Gene ISSN: 2214-5400
Primers for real time PCR assay and PCR conditions.
| Target | Primer sequence (5′–3′) | Annealing temp. (°C) | Product size (bp) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total bacteria | P1 — CCTACGGGAGGCAGCAG | 60 | 194 | ( |
| P1 — GGTATGGGATGAGCTTGC | 60 | 446 | ( | |
| P1 — CCCTAAAAGCAGTCTTAGTTCG | 60 | 175 | ( | |
| P1 — GGACGATAATGACGGTACTT | 55 | 295 | ( | |
| P1 — AGTCGAGCGGTAAGATTG | 68 | 540 | ( | |
| P1 — GGTTATCTTGAGTGAGTT′ | 53 | 485 | ( | |
| P1 — TGGGTGTTAGAAATGGATTC | 57 | 597 | ||
| P1 — CAACCAGTCGCATTCAGA | 57 | 642 | ( | |
| P1 — TGCTAATACCGAATGTTG | 57 | 513 | ( | |
| P1 — ACTGCAGCGCGAACTGTCAGA | 57 | 412 | ( | |
Fig. 1Qualitative PCR detection of fibrolytic bacteria and non-fibrolytic bacteria. Lane: 1, Ruminococcus albus; 2, Fibrobacter succinogenes; 3, Ruminococcus flavefaciens; 4, Prevotella bryantii; 5, Prevotella ruminicola; 6, total bacteria; 7, Ruminobacter amylophilus; 8, Anaerovibrio lipolytica; 9, Selenomonas ruminantium; 10, Treponema bryantii; lane M, DNA size marker.
Fig. 2Population of the fibrolytic bacterial species of Surti buffalo fed different roughage (wheat straw)-to-concentrate ratios while values were averaged from samples taken at 0 and 2 h after feeding.
Fig. 3Population of the non-fibrolytic bacterial species of Surti buffalo fed different roughage (wheat straw)-to-concentrate ratios while values were averaged from samples taken at 0 and 2 h after feeding.
Comparative quantity of fibrolytic bacterial DNA from rumen fluid and sampling hours using real-time PCR techniques.
| Sampling hours | Species (copies/ml | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 h | 1.00 × 107 | 1.78 × 108 | 4.53 × 107 | 1.34 × 107 | 1.52 × 104 |
| 2 h | 9.30 × 106 | 1.76 × 108 | 4.18 × 107 | 1.34 × 107 | 1.67 × 104 |
| p-Value | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.89 | 1.00 | 0.79 |
The values were averaged on all the four diets.
Comparative quantity of non-fibrolytic bacterial DNA from rumen fluid and sampling hours using real-time PCR techniques.
| Sampling hours | Species (copies/ml | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 h | 2.03 × 107 | 7.54 × 106 | 1.67 × 107 | 1.19 × 106 |
| 2 h | 9.05 × 106 | 1.47 × 107 | 1.67 × 107 | 1.19 × 106 |
| p-Value | 0.21 | 0.14 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
The values were averaged on all the four diets.
Proportions of fibrolytic and non-fibrolytic bacteria of total bacteria to ruminal fluid of Surti buffalo at 0 h.
| % Total bacteria | |
|---|---|
| 0.045 | |
| 0.82 | |
| 0.20 | |
| 0.062 | |
| 00 | |
| 0.051 | |
| 0.068 | |
| 0.077 | |
| 0.0055 | |
The values were averaged on all the four diets.