| Literature DB >> 34220728 |
Veronica Kaplan-Shabtai1, Nagaraju Indugu1, Meagan Leslie Hennessy1, Bonnie Vecchiarelli1, Joseph Samuel Bender1, Darko Stefanovski1, Camila Flavia De Assis Lage2, Susanna Elisabeth Räisänen2, Audino Melgar2, Krum Nedelkov2, Molly Elizabeth Fetter2, Andrea Fernandez1, Addison Spitzer1, Alexander Nikolov Hristov2, Dipti Wilhelmina Pitta1.
Abstract
Microbial syntrophy (obligate metabolic mutualism) is the hallmark of energy-constrained anaerobic microbial ecosystems. For example, methanogenic archaea and fermenting bacteria coexist by interspecies hydrogen transfer in the complex microbial ecosystem in the foregut of ruminants; however, these synergistic interactions between different microbes in the rumen are seldom investigated. We hypothesized that certain bacteria and archaea interact and form specific microbial cohorts in the rumen. To this end, we examined the total (DNA-based) and potentially metabolically active (cDNA-based) bacterial and archaeal communities in rumen samples of dairy cows collected at different times in a 24 h period. Notably, we found the presence of distinct bacterial and archaeal networks showing potential metabolic interactions that were correlated with molar proportions of specific volatile fatty acids (VFAs). We employed hypothesis-driven structural equation modeling to test the significance of and to quantify the extent of these relationships between bacteria-archaea-VFAs in the rumen. Furthermore, we demonstrated that these distinct microbial networks were host-specific and differed between cows indicating a natural variation in specific microbial networks in the rumen of dairy cows. This study provides new insights on potential microbial metabolic interactions in anoxic environments that have broader applications in methane mitigation, energy conservation, and agricultural production.Entities:
Keywords: dairy cows; host-microbe interactions; inter-species hydrogen transfer; metabolically- active microbes; microbial syntrophy; rumen microbiota
Year: 2021 PMID: 34220728 PMCID: PMC8248675 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.611951
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
FIGURE 1Comparison of DNA-based bacterial (A) and archaeal (B) community composition between sample types TS (tube solid) and CS (cannula solid), and between individual cows using principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on weighted UniFrac distances. PCoA based on Bray Curtis distances using VFA profiles (C) between sample types TS (tube solid) and CS (cannula solid) and between individual cows.
FIGURE 2Comparison of total (DNA-based) and potentially metabolically active (cDNA-based) bacterial (A,B) and archaeal (C,D) communities using principal coordinate analysis based on weighted UniFrac distances in CS (cannula solid; A,C) and TS (tube solid; B,D) samples.
FIGURE 3Analysis of association patterns among microbial lineages scored using Spearman correlation for (A) DNA and (B) cDNA. Individual taxa were considered present in a sample if their sequence proportion was at least 0.01% of relative abundance. Correlations are shown by the color code (blue: positive correlations, red: negative correlations).
FIGURE 4Association pattern between bacterial genera and VFA (volatile fatty acids; acetate, butyrate, and propionate) based on Spearman’s correlations. Abundant bacterial taxa were selected (ANCOM test) and correlation coefficients (r) greater than 0.6 (+ve or –ve) and P ≤ 0.01 were considered significant. The red color indicates positive correlations (ranged from 0.6 to 0.8). The blue color indicates negative correlations (ranged from –0.6 to –0.8).
Relative abundance (%) of the most abundant cDNA-derived bacteria and archaea at the genus level in the rumen of cows identified within each cluster from cannula solid (CS) samples.
| 16.7 | 15.6 | 16.1 | 36.0 | 33.0 | 25.4 | |
| 1.3 | 3.1 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 2.0 | |
| 19.8 | 17.7 | 19.7 | 5.3 | 8.0 | 7.0 | |
| 12.4 | 15.1 | 13.3 | 12.2 | 12.9 | 14.8 | |
| 11.3 | 13.0 | 11.1 | 11.1 | 10.1 | 8.1 | |
| 10.8 | 9.5 | 9.7 | 5.9 | 5.7 | 6.3 | |
| 4.1 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 2.4 | |
| 3.3 | 2.7 | 5.0 | 7.5 | 8.3 | 4.6 | |
| 3.2 | 2.6 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 2.4 | 2.4 | |
| 88.8 | 90.8 | 90.7 | 83.5 | 87.6 | 90.3 | |
| 11.1 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 16.4 | 12.0 | 9.4 | |
FIGURE 5Cluster 1 (A), cluster 2 (B), and cluster 3 (C) connections derived using SEM (structural equations modeling). Black arrows indicate significant associations (P < 0.05).