| Literature DB >> 29587855 |
Mi Zhou1, Yong-Jia Peng2, Yanhong Chen1, Christen M Klinger1, Masahito Oba1, Jian-Xin Liu2, Le Luo Guan3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the host impact on its symbiotic microbiota is important in redirecting the rumen microbiota and thus improving animal performance. The current study aimed to understand how rumen microbiota were altered and re-established after being emptied and receiving content from donor, thus to understand the impact of such process on rumen microbial fermentation and to explore the microbial phylotypes with higher manipulation potentials.Entities:
Keywords: Adaptation; Beef cattle; Rumen microbiota; Transfaunation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29587855 PMCID: PMC5869788 DOI: 10.1186/s40168-018-0447-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
Animal information and transplantation pair design
| Group | Exchange pair | Animal ID | Exchange type (recipient RFI-donor RFI) | RFI (measured before selection) | Body weight before transfaunation (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9/231 | 9 | LL | − 0.95 (L) | 488 |
| 231 | LL | − 1.11 (L) | 459 | ||
| 1 | 31/107 | 31 | LH | − 0.91 (L) | 480 |
| 107 | HL | 1.99 (H) | 468 | ||
| 1 | 485/463 | 485 | HL | 0.78 (H) | 405 |
| 463 | LH | − 1.08 (L) | 459 | ||
| 1 | 223/135 | 223 | HH | 1.03 (H) | 447 |
| 135 | HH | 0.86 (H) | 458 | ||
| 1 | Control | 73 | – | 1.14 (H) | 469 |
| 2 | 201/247 | 201 | LL | − 1.75 (L) | 356 |
| 247 | LL | − 1.18 (L) | 361 | ||
| 2 | 483/481 | 483 | LH | − 0.73 (L) | 398 |
| 481 | HL | 0.99 (H) | 417 | ||
| 2 | 67/89 | 67 | HL | 1.68 (H) | 495 |
| 89 | LH | − 1.25 (L) | 446 | ||
| 2 | 59/35 | 59 | HH | 1.68 (H) | 496 |
| 35 | HH | 1.55 (H) | 472 | ||
| 2 | Control | 169 | – | 0.81 (H) | 412 |
Comparison of rumen parameters and microbial population among transfaunation types
| Period | HH ( | HL ( | LH ( | LL ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VFAs | Total VFA, mM | Before | 124.1 ± 7.2 | 156.2 ± 9.5 | 127.6 ± 7.2 | 123.2 ± 12.5 |
| After | 147.7 ± 10.6 | 165.5 ± 10.3 | 144.1 ± 5.4 | 146.6 ± 14.4 | ||
|
| * | NS | NS | NS | ||
| Acetate, mol/100 mol VFA | Before | 53.1 ± 2.3 | 50.3 ± 2.7 | 50.0 ± 3.4 | 51.2 ± 2.7 | |
| After | 47.0 ± 2.6 | 44.1 ± 3.4 | 48.5 ± 3.1 | 49.3 ± 0.5 | ||
|
| † | † | NS | NS | ||
| Propionate, mol/100 mol VFA | Before | 29.7 ± 5.0 | 37.1 ± 5.3 | 33.3 ± 5.3 | 35.0 ± 6.2 | |
| After | 35.3 ± 3.9 | 40.9 ± 4.8 | 33.9 ± 4.1 | 37.6 ± 1.4 | ||
|
| NS | NS | NS | NS | ||
| Butyrate, mol/100 mol VFA | Before | 11.8 ± 3.1 | 7.4 ± 1.6 | 11.9 ± 2.4 | 9.7 ± 3.4 | |
| After | 12.2 ± 2.6 | 10.0 ± 1.4 | 12.9 ± 1.8 | 8.9 ± 1.1 | ||
|
| NS | NS | NS | NS | ||
| N-NH3 | Ammonia, μg/ml | Before | 10.5 ± 2.5 | 10.2 ± 1.5 | 13.9 ± 2.0 | 10.8 ± 3.6 |
| After | 8.3 ± 1.2 | 7.0 ± 1.5 | 12.3 ± 4.5 | 9.4 ± 2.0 | ||
|
| NS | NS | NS | NS | ||
| pH | Before | 5.90 ± 0.05 | 5.64 ± 0.15 | 5.83 ± 0.10 | 5.82 ± 0.13 | |
| After | 5.83 ± 0.15 | 5.48 ± 0.07 | 5.81 ± 0.02 | 5.78 ± 0.07 | ||
|
| NS | NS | NS | NS | ||
| Microbial population | Total bacteria, × 1011/g | Before | 1.51 ± 1.12 | 9.00 ± 7.09 | 13.01 ± 6.65 | 0.90 ± 0.55 |
| After | 3.04 ± 1.07 | 7.52 ± 5.96 | 9.50 ± 5.90 | 2.48 ± 0.54 | ||
|
| NS | NS | NS | NS | ||
| Total archaea, × 108/g | Before | 8.04 ± 1.01 | 4.84 ± 0.74 | 5.85 ± 1.50 | 7.05 ± 1.94 | |
| After | 17.38 ± 6.16 | 15.08 ± 3.21 | 12.79 ± 2.08 | 16.04 ± 2.92 | ||
|
| NS | ** | * | * |
NS non-significant
†0.05 ≤ P < 0.1
*0.01 ≤ P < 0.05
**P < 0.01
Fig. 1Microbial community dynamics in control animals. a Bacterial phyla identified along the experiment. b PCoA plot of the bacterial profiles from 454 sequencing
Fig. 2PCoA plot of bacterial profiles of D0 from 454 pyrosequencing
Fig. 3Recovery patterns of the bacterial communities. a Clustering of bacterial profiles at D0, D1, D7, and D28 with different classifications. b Bacterial community alteration along experiment at phylum level. c Bacterial diversity alteration along experiment at genus level
Fig. 4Changes in the observed OTUs along the re-establishment process
Fig. 5Common and distinctive bacterial genera among the samples by Venn’s diagram. a Genera distribution among the four exchange types. b Genera distribution among individuals belonging to the same transfaunation type