| Literature DB >> 29457028 |
Arianna Buccioni1, Grazia Pallara1, Roberta Pastorelli2, Letizia Bellini1, Alice Cappucci3, Federica Mannelli1, Sara Minieri4, Valentina Roscini5, Stefano Rapaccini1, Marcello Mele3, Luciana Giovannetti1, Carlo Viti1, Mariano Pauselli5.
Abstract
Ruminants derived products have a prominent role in diets and economy worldwide; therefore, the capability to control the rumen microbial ecosystem, for ameliorating their quality, is of fundamental importance in the livestock sector. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of dietary supplementation with chestnut and quebracho tannins on microbial community and fatty acid profile, in the rumen fluid of dairy ewes. Multivariate analysis of PCR-DGGE profiles of rumen microbial communities showed a correlation among the presence of chestnut or quebracho in the diet, the specific Butyrivibrio group DGGE profiles, the increase in 18:3 cis9, cis12, and cis15; 18:2 cis9 and cis12; 18:2 cis9 and trans11; 18:2 trans11 and cis15; and 18:1 trans11 content, and the decrease in 18:0 concentration. Phylogenetic analysis of DGGE band sequences revealed the presence of bacteria representatives related to the genera Hungatella, Ruminococcus, and Eubacterium and unclassified Lachnospiraceae family members, suggesting that these taxa could be affected by tannins presence in the diets. The results of this study showed that tannins from chestnut and quebracho can reduce the biohydrogenation of unsaturated fatty acids through changes in rumen microbial communities.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29457028 PMCID: PMC5804114 DOI: 10.1155/2017/4969076
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Ingredients, chemical composition, and fatty acids profile of the experimental concentrates and of the hay and rolled barley administered to the ewes.
| Grass hay | Rolled barley | Control diet | CHT diet | QUE diet | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Barley | 213.8 | 213.8 | 213.8 | ||
| Corn | 211.3 | 211.3 | 211.3 | ||
| Wheat bran | 158.5 | 158.5 | 158.5 | ||
| Soybean meal (44 CP) | 126.8 | 126.8 | 126.8 | ||
| Beet pulp | 89.8 | 89.8 | 89.8 | ||
| Soybean oil1 | 84.5 | 84.5 | 84.5 | ||
| Bentonite | 52.8 | - | - | ||
| Chestnut tannin extract2 | - | 52.8 | - | ||
| Quebracho tannin extract3 | - | - | 52.8 | ||
| Molasses | 41.3 | 41.3 | 41.3 | ||
| CaCO3 | 10.6 | 10.6 | 10.6 | ||
| Sodium bicarbonate | 5.3 | 5.3 | 5.3 | ||
| Dicalcium phosphate | 5.3 | 5.3 | 5.3 | ||
|
| |||||
| Organic matter | 847.0 | 859.9 | 816.9 | 858.1 | 869.6 |
| Crude protein | 111.2 | 121.0 | 165.6 | 173.7 | 170.3 |
| Ether extract | 12.0 | 16.1 | 109.4 | 105.4 | 102.4 |
| NDF | 636.4 | 134.1 | 174.7 | 181.4 | 172.1 |
| ADF | 501.3 | 54.2 | 77.6 | 72.4 | 74.3 |
| ADL | 105.7 | 14.9 | 10.6 | 13.3 | 8.7 |
| Ash | 69.6 | 21.0 | 84.6 | 39.9 | 39.4 |
| ME (MJ kg−1 DM) | 7.8 | 9.9 | 13.1 | 14.1 | 14.1 |
| NEl (Mcal kg−1 DM) | 0.9 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.1 |
|
| |||||
| 16:0 | 35.5 | 18.2 | 14.0 | 14.4 | 14.9 |
| SA, 18:0 | 5.8 | 4.6 | 3.6 | 3.4 | 3.4 |
| 18:1 | 9.3 | 21.2 | 23.3 | 22.9 | 22.0 |
| LA, 18:2 | 28.5 | 45.0 | 51.4 | 51.7 | 51.8 |
| LNA, 18:3 | 2.8 | 6.0 | 5.8 | 5.6 | 5.8 |
| Other FA | 18.1 | 4.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.1 |
1Fatty acid profile of soybean oil (g/100 g of total fatty acids): C16:0, 11.01; C18:0, 3.6; C18:1 cis9, 22.09; C18:2 cis9 and cis12, 53.7; C18:3 cis9, cis12, and cis15, 7.2. 2Hydrolysable tannins extracted from chestnut wood (Castanea sativa Mill.) containing 750 g of equivalent tannic acid/kg DM (provided by Gruppo Mauro Saviola Srl Radicofani, Siena, Italy). 3Condensed tannins extracted from quebracho (Schinopsis lorentzii) containing 456 g of equivalent tannic acid/kg DM (provided by Guido Lapi SpA, Castel Franco di Sotto, Pisa, Italy).
Fatty acid profile of rumen liquor from sheep fed with 800 g/head/day of a concentrate containing 84 g kg−1 DM of soybean oil plus 0 (control) or 52.8 g kg−1 DM of a chestnut tannin extract (CHT) or 52.8 g kg−1 of DM of quebracho tannin extract (QUE).
| FA g/100 g of total fatty acids | Control | CHT | QUE | SEM1 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10:0 | 0.197 b | 0.186 b | 0.439 a | 0.077 | 0.0473 |
| 12:0 | 0.237 b | 0.387 a | 0.261 b | 0.041 | 0.0402 |
| 12:0 | 0.297 b | 0.318 b | 0.656 a | 0.087 | 0.0213 |
| 13:0 | 0.305 c | 0.453 b | 0.542 a | 0.024 | <0.0001 |
| 14:0 | 0.317 b | 0.613 a | 0.404 b | 0.068 | 0.0184 |
| 14:0 | 0.485 b | 0.556 b | 1.438 a | 0.076 | <0.0001 |
| 15:0 | 0.116 c | 0.185 b | 0.239 a | 0.020 | 0.0030 |
| 15:0 | 0.378 b | 0.376 b | 0.507 a | 0.039 | 0.0499 |
| 15:0 | 0.776 b | 0.605 c | 1.054 a | 0.017 | <0.0001 |
| 16:0 | 0.175 b | 0.178 b | 0.276 a | 0.029 | 0.0353 |
| 16:0 | 10,428 c | 17.423 b | 23.108 a | 0.712 | <0.0001 |
| 17:0 | 7.544 a | 7.418 a | 6.135 b | 0.288 | 0.0039 |
| 17:0 | 0.189 b | 0.154 c | 0.247 a | 0.010 | <0.0001 |
| 17:0 | 0.327 b | 0.342 b | 0.532 a | 0.037 | 0.0013 |
| SA, 18:0 | 50.447 a | 44.616 b | 32.770 c | 1.307 | <0.0001 |
| 18:1 | 0.051 c | 0.313 a | 0.132 b | 0.055 | 0.0122 |
| 18:1 | 0.476 c | 0.682 b | 1.134 a | 0.131 | 0.0051 |
| 18:1 | 0.334 c | 0.602 b | 0.665 a | 0.016 | <0.0001 |
| 18:1 | 0.681 b | 1.254 a | 1.359 a | 0.147 | 0.0071 |
| VA, 18:1 | 1.922 c | 6.304 b | 7.589 a | 0.244 | <0.0001 |
| 18:1 | 0.535 c | 0.792 b | 1.299 a | 0.033 | <0.0001 |
| 18:1 | 0.374 b | 0.697 a | 0.799 a | 0.069 | 0.0007 |
| 18:1 | 0.510 c | 1.297 b | 1.498 a | 0.064 | <0.0001 |
| 18:1 | 2.337 c | 3.879 b | 5.340 a | 0.111 | <0.0001 |
| 18:1 | 0.414 c | 0.702 b | 0.892 a | 0.014 | 0.0137 |
| 18:1 | 0.258 | 0.315 | 0.363 | 0.042 | 0.1927 |
| VLA, 18:2 | 0.123 | 0.181 | 0.179 | 0.049 | 0.5901 |
| LA, 18:2 | 0.845 c | 1.096 b | 1.926 a | 0.075 | <0.0001 |
| LNA, 18:3 | 0.305 c | 0.363 b | 0.467 a | 0.023 | 0.0004 |
| RA, 18:2 | 0.651 c | 2.137 b | 2.600 a | 0.042 | <0.0001 |
| CLA | 0.163 b | 0.162 b | 0.258 a | 0.017 | 0.0008 |
| 20:0 | 0.230 b | 0.323 b | 0.637 a | 0.025 | <0.0001 |
| 20:4 | 0.738 | 1.016 | 0.959 | 0.110 | 0.1855 |
| 22:0 | 0.144 c | 0.226 b | 0.399 a | 0.021 | <0.0001 |
1Standard error mean; 2probability of significant effect (a, b, and c for P < 0.05).
P values from PERMANOVA pair-wise comparison of band profiles from 16S rDNA bacterial DGGE (in boldface, upper right side) and from 16S rDNA Butyrivibrio group DGGE (in italics, lower left side).
| Diet | Control | CHT | QUE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control |
|
| |
| CHT |
|
| |
| QUE |
|
|
aSignificant value (P < 0.05).
Figure 1Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) ordination diagram of ruminal bacterial communities and ruminal fatty acids variables [(a) FA assumed to be mainly implicated in BH process (SA, 18:0; VA, 18:1 trans11; VLA, 18:1 trans11, cis15; LA; LNA; RA); (b) FA assumed to be markers of rumen microbial metabolism (15:0 iso; 15:0 ante; 17:0 iso; 17:0 ante)] (vectors) defined by the first and second axes. DGGE band scores were also plotted (black filled circle). For each diagram significance (global test) is reported in upper right side.
Figure 2Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) ordination diagram of ruminal Butyrivibrio-related communities (symbols) and ruminal fatty acids variables [(a) FA assumed to be mainly implicated in BH process (SA, 18:0; VA, 18:1 trans11; VLA, 18:1 trans11, cis15; LA; LNA; RA); (b) FA assumed to be markers of rumen microbial metabolism (15:0 iso; 15:0 ante; 17:0 iso; 17 ante)] (vectors) defined by the first and second axes. DGGE band scores were also plotted (black filled circle). For each diagram significance (global test) is reported in upper right side.
Identification of the selected polymerase chain reaction denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (16S rDNA PCR-DGGE) fragments.
| PCR-DGGE | Nearest match | Relative taxonomic classification |
|---|---|---|
| (1) |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae |
| (2) |
|
|
| (3) |
|
|
| (4) |
|
|
| (5) |
|
|
| (6) |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae |
| (7) |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae |
| (8) |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae |
| (9) |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae |
| (10) |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae |
| (11) |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae |
| (12) |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae |
| (13) |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae |
| (14) |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae |
| (15) |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae |
Figure 3Phylogenetic analysis of Butyrivibrio partial 16S rRNA sequences obtained from PCR-DGGE bands using primers F968/B fib and identified species. Sequences obtained in this study are shown in boldface. Bootstrap values of >50% based on 1000 replications are indicated at the nodes. The 16S rRNA gene sequence of Escherichia coli (NR_024570) was selected as the outgroup.