| Literature DB >> 34261531 |
Déborah Romaskevis Gomes Lopes1, Márcio de Souza Duarte2, Alex J La Reau3, Ibrahim Zuniga Chaves3, Tiago Antônio de Oliveira Mendes4, Edenio Detmann2, Cláudia Braga Pereira Bento1, Maria Eugênia Zerlotti Mercadante5, Sarah Figueiredo Martins Bonilha5, Garret Suen3, Hilário Cuquetto Mantovani6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ruminants rely upon a complex community of microbes in their rumen to convert host-indigestible feed into nutrients. However, little is known about the association between the rumen microbiota and feed efficiency traits in Nellore (Bos indicus) cattle, a breed of major economic importance to the global beef market. Here, we compare the composition of the bacterial, archaeal and fungal communities in the rumen of Nellore steers with high and low feed efficiency (FE) phenotypes, as measured by residual feed intake (RFI).Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA gene; Beef cattle; ITS1 region; Next-generation sequencing; RFI; Rumen microbiota
Year: 2021 PMID: 34261531 PMCID: PMC8281616 DOI: 10.1186/s40104-021-00599-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Sci Biotechnol ISSN: 1674-9782
Alpha diversity of microbial communities in the rumen of steers according to RFI groupa
| Liquid | Solid | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-RFI | n-RFI | p-RFI | n-RFI | |||
| Bacteria | ||||||
| Chao | 1730 ± 301 | 1750 ± 281 | 0.863 | 1442 ± 388 | 1564 ± 379 | 0.417 |
| Shannon | 5.35 ± 0.34 | 5.44 ± 0.21 | 0.404 | 5.28 ± 0.27 | 5.32 ± 0.20 | 0.690 |
| Simpson | 0.018 ± 0.008 | 0.015 ± 0.007 | 0.345 | 0.017 ± 0.006 | 0.016 ± 0.006 | 0.903 |
| Archaea | ||||||
| Chao | 37.57 ± 9.36 | 48.11 ± 12.93 | < 0.05 | 34.87 ± 6.87 | 42.26 ± 9.27 | < 0.05 |
| Shannon | 1.86 ± 0.31 | 1.72 ± 0.34 | 0.292 | 1.81 ± 0.24 | 1.78 ± 0.33 | 0.898 |
| Simpson | 0.26 ± 0.12 | 0.3 ± 0.15 | 0.488 | 0.27 ± 0.09 | 0.28 ± 0.13 | 0.980 |
| Fungi | ||||||
| Chao | 289 ± 390 | 151 ± 71 | 0.199 | 128 ± 78 | 143 ± 71 | 0.602 |
| Shannon | 2.33 ± 0.42 | 2.27 ± 0.38 | 0.671 | 2.03 ± 0.65 | 2.18 ± 0.38 | 0.461 |
| Simpson | 0.20 ± 0.10 | 0.20 ± 0.09 | 0.999 | 0.29 ± 0.20 | 0.24 ± 0.13 | 0.452 |
aValues of alpha diversity represent the mean ± standard deviation
Fig. 1Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plots of the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index for bacterial (a) archaeal (b) and fungal (c) communities in the rumen of Nellore steers. Individual points represent a rumen sample and colors represent ruminal fractions and RFI groups
Fig. 2Taxonomic groups showing significant differences (White’s non-parametric t-test, P < 0.05) in relative abundance in liquid (a) and solid (b) ruminal fractions between p-RFI and n-RFI steers. The blue bars represent the p-RFI group and the red bars represent n-RFI group. Data are expressed as relative abundance mean and the standard error
Fig. 3The Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio in liquid (RL) and solid (RS) ruminal phase, according to the RFI group. White bars represent the p-RFI steers and grey bars represent the n-RFI steers. (*) Significantly different (P < 0.05) by the t-test
Fig. 4Biomarker bacterial OTUs identified by Linear discriminant analysis Effect Size (LEfSe, P < 0.05) in the liquid (a) and solid (b) fractions of rumen contents from Nellore steers showing low (p-RFI) or high (n-RFI) feed efficiency. Red bars represent enriched or exclusive OTUs in animals with high feed efficiency (n-RFI), while green bars represent enriched or exclusive OTUs in animals with low feed efficiency (p-RFI)
Relative abundance of biomarker OTUs identified by LEfSe in the rumen of steers according to RFI
| Taxonomy | p-RFI | n-RFI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria | |||||
| Rumen liquid | Otu00210 | Bacteroidales BS11 gut group ge | 0.1680 | 0.0101 | 0.0332 |
| Otu00603 | 0.0614 | 0.0207 | 0.0433 | ||
| Otu00782 | Ruminococcaceae UCG 14 | 0.0428 | 0.0008 | 0.0097 | |
| Otu01027 | Ruminococcaceae ge | 0.0201 | 0.0042 | 0.0073 | |
| Otu01481 | Prevotellaceae unclassified | 0.0087 | 0.0025 | 0.0366 | |
| Otu01482 | Christensenellaceae R 7 group | 0.0107 | 0.0017 | 0.0063 | |
| Otu01642 | Christensenellaceae R 7 group | 0.0047 | – | 0.0078 | |
| Otu01696 | Clostridiales unclassified | 0.0080 | 0.0008 | 0.0296 | |
| Otu01791 | Verrucomicrobia WCHB1 41 ge | 0.0113 | – | 0.0078 | |
| Otu01796 | 0.0053 | 0.0008 | 0.0461 | ||
| Otu01866 | Lachnospiraceae unclassified | 0.0067 | – | 0.0037 | |
| Otu01897 | 0.0033 | – | 0.0308 | ||
| Otu01993 | Mollicutes RF9 ge | 0.0033 | – | 0.0308 | |
| Otu02003 | 0.0040 | – | 0.0308 | ||
| Otu02005 | Lachnospiraceae ge | 0.0034 | – | 0.0308 | |
| Otu02092 | Ruminococcaceae UCG 9 | 0.0047 | 0.0008 | 0.0344 | |
| Otu02680 | Mollicutes RF9 ge | 0.0033 | – | 0.0308 | |
| Otu00040 | Bacteroidales RF16 group ge | 0.4565 | 1.0930 | 0.0047 | |
| Otu00078 | Lachnospiraceae ge | 0.1190 | 0.1784 | 0.0404 | |
| Otu00118 | Prevotellaceae UCG 3 | 0.1459 | 0.3424 | 0.0192 | |
| Otu00129 | Lachnospiraceae unclassified | 0.0653 | 0.1537 | 0.0453 | |
| Otu00148 | Bacteroidales S24 7 group ge | 0.1176 | 0.1994 | 0.0279 | |
| Otu00149 | Lachnospiraceae XPB1014 group | 0.0468 | 0.1130 | 0.0157 | |
| Otu00163 | Lachnospiraceae probable genus 10 | 0.0121 | 0.1013 | 0.0454 | |
| Otu00205 | Verrucomicrobia WCHB1 41 ge | 0.1008 | 0.1479 | 0.0273 | |
| Otu00212 | Bacteroidales BS11 gut group ge | 0.0457 | 0.2683 | 0.0335 | |
| Otu00301 | Lachnospiraceae probable genus 10 | 0.0100 | 0.0429 | 0.0488 | |
| Otu00314 | Bacteroidales S24 7 group ge | 0.0532 | 0.1390 | 0.0129 | |
| Otu00323 | Prevotellaceae UCG 3 | 0.0381 | 0.0765 | 0.0279 | |
| Otu00442 | Lachnospiraceae NK3A20 group | 0.0207 | 0.0344 | 0.0218 | |
| Otu00489 | Prevotellaceae unclassified | – | 0.0652 | 0.0069 | |
| Otu00563 | Lachnospiraceae NK3A20 group | 0.0080 | 0.0287 | 0.0467 | |
| Otu00585 | – | 0.0833 | 0.0443 | ||
| Otu00626 | 0.0207 | 0.0494 | 0.0298 | ||
| Otu00649 | Lachnospiraceae ND3007 group | 0.0160 | 0.0503 | 0.0487 | |
| Otu00653 | Prevotellaceae UCG 3 | 0.0027 | 0.0760 | 0.0012 | |
| Otu00685 | Ruminococcaceae unclassified | 0.0060 | 0.0151 | 0.0012 | |
| Otu00694 | Ruminococcaceae UCG 14 | 0.0120 | 0.0319 | 0.0126 | |
| Otu00841 | Prevotellaceae unclassified | 0.0040 | 0.0337 | 0.0058 | |
| Otu00868 | Bacteria unclassified | 0.0074 | 0.0343 | 0.0492 | |
| Otu01031 | Bacteroidales BS11 gut group ge | 0.0020 | 0.0326 | 0.0320 | |
| Otu01132 | Ruminiclostridium 1 | 0.0040 | 0.0134 | 0.0050 | |
| Otu01253 | Lachnospiraceae NK3A20 group | 0.0040 | 0.0117 | 0.0291 | |
| Otu01439 | Prevotellaceae unclassified | – | 0.0210 | 0.0069 | |
| Otu01709 | Ruminococcaceae ge | 0.0020 | 0.0084 | 0.0180 | |
| Otu02176 | Clostridiales unclassified | 0.0007 | 0.0042 | 0.0320 | |
| Otu02273 | Ruminococcaceae ge | 0.0007 | 0.0050 | 0.0161 | |
| Rumen solid | Otu00007 | Ruminococcaceae NK4A214 group | 1.4051 | 1.0663 | 0.0318 |
| Otu00103 | Ruminococcaceae NK4A214 group | 0.2949 | 0.1909 | 0.0218 | |
| Otu00123 | Bacteroidales BS11 gut group ge | 0.2003 | 0.1735 | 0.0294 | |
| Otu00142 | 0.0525 | 0.0216 | 0.0246 | ||
| Otu00159 | Ruminococcaceae NK4A214 group | 0.1357 | 0.1060 | 0.0281 | |
| Otu00233 | 0.1041 | 0.0192 | 0.0129 | ||
| Otu00266 | Ruminococcaceae UCG 10 | 0.0564 | 0.0275 | 0.0244 | |
| Otu00451 | 0.0343 | – | 0.0308 | ||
| Otu00454 | Erysipelotrichaceae UCG 4 | 0.0348 | 0.0034 | 0.0311 | |
| Otu00496 | Christensenellaceae R 7 group | 0.0517 | 0.0266 | 0.0191 | |
| Otu00519 | Clostridiales Family XIII AD3011 group | 0.0491 | 0.0174 | 0.0303 | |
| Otu01217 | Lachnospiraceae unclassified | 0.0175 | 0.0008 | 0.0217 | |
| Otu00118 | Prevotellaceae UCG 3 | 0.0815 | 0.1299 | 0.0318 | |
| Otu00144 | 0.1101 | 0.1608 | 0.0359 | ||
| Otu00148 | Bacteroidales S24 7 group ge | 0.0724 | 0.1467 | 0.0145 | |
| Otu00163 | Lachnospiraceae probable genus 10 | 0.0594 | 0.2891 | 0.0457 | |
| Otu00212 | Bacteroidales BS11 gut group ge | 0.0391 | 0.1197 | 0.0335 | |
| Otu00256 | Prevotellaceae NK3B31 group | 0.0154 | 0.1712 | 0.0426 | |
| Otu00314 | Bacteroidales S24 7 group ge | 0.0087 | 0.0267 | 0.0159 | |
| Otu00408 | Rikenellaceae RC9 gut group | 0.0073 | 0.0459 | 0.0403 | |
| Otu00447 | Bacteroidales S24 7 group ge | 0.0129 | 0.0596 | 0.0366 | |
| Otu00455 | Lachnospiraceae unclassified | 0.0195 | 0.0884 | 0.0401 | |
| Archaea | |||||
| Rumen liquid | Otu0012 | 2.3912 | 0.0787 | 0.0220 | |
| Otu0016 | 0.3747 | 0.1574 | 0.0343 | ||
| Otu0044 | 0.0493 | – | 0.0249 | ||
| Fungi | |||||
| Rumen liquid | Otu000015 | Neocallimastigaceae unclassified | 1.2594 | 0.1456 | 0.0082 |
| Otu000057 | Neocallimastix unclassified | 0.2374 | 0.0987 | 0.0353 | |
| Otu000004 | 10.3505 | 18.7319 | 0.0281 | ||
| Otu000052 | Fungi unclassified | 0.1377 | 1.4443 | 0.0311 | |
| Otu000097 | Neocallimastigaceae unclassified | 0.0173 | 0.1382 | 0.0399 | |
| Otu000138 | Fungi unclassified | – | 0.0826 | 0.0443 | |
| Otu000167 | Fungi unclassified | – | 0.2110 | 0.0443 | |
| Otu000197 | – | 0.0760 | 0.0179 | ||
| Otu000233 | Fungi unclassified | – | 0.0465 | 0.0443 | |
| Otu000360 | – | 0.0264 | 0.0443 | ||
| Otu000442 | Fungi unclassified | – | 0.0601 | 0.0179 | |
| Otu000447 | – | 0.0556 | 0.0443 | ||
| Otu000553 | Fungi unclassified | – | 0.0326 | 0.0443 | |
| Otu000827 | Fungi unclassified | – | 0.0388 | 0.0443 | |
| Rumen solid | Otu000004 | 4.4228 | 11.5187 | 0.0047 | |
| Otu000005 | 3.6348 | 10.0991 | 0.0102 | ||
| Otu000068 | Neocallimastigaceae unclassified | – | 0.0540 | 0.0354 | |
| Otu000197 | – | 0.0889 | 0.0132 | ||
| Otu000232 | 0.0046 | 0.0944 | 0.0185 | ||
| Otu000243 | – | 0.0525 | 0.0354 | ||
| Otu000336 | 0.0084 | 0.0532 | 0.0223 | ||
| Otu000370 | 0.0042 | 0.0414 | 0.0185 | ||
| Otu000404 | 0.0044 | 0.0301 | 0.0456 | ||
| Otu000510 | – | 0.0418 | 0.0354 | ||
| Otu000559 | Neocallimastigaceae unclassified | – | 0.0179 | 0.0354 | |
| Otu000666 | Neocallimastigaceae unclassified | – | 0.0177 | 0.0354 | |
Bolded biomarker OTUs indicates as increase in Nellore steers showing high (n-RFI) feed efficiency
aTaxonomy for each OTU is given at the highest classifiable level
Fig. 5Biomarker archaeal OTUs identified by Linear discriminant analysis Effect Size (LEfSe, P < 0.05) in the liquid rumen fraction of Nellore steers showing low (p-RFI) or high (n-RFI) feed efficiency. Red bars represent enriched or exclusive OTUs in animals with low feed efficiency (p-RFI)
Fig. 6Biomarker fungal OTUs identified by Linear discriminant analysis Effect Size (LEfSe, P < 0.05) in the liquid (a) and solid (b) fractions of rumen contents from Nellore steers showing low (p-RFI) or high (n-RFI) feed efficiency. Red bars represent enriched or exclusive OTUs in animals with higher feed efficiency (n-RFI), while green bars represent enriched or exclusive OTUs in animals with lower feed efficiency (p-RFI)
Fig. 7Correlation network between liquid and solid bacterial OTUs and ruminal fermentation variables according to each RFI group. The edges represent significant associations, as determined by Spearman’s rank correlation (P < 0.05). These analyses were performed using OTUs that were shared by at least 50% of the steers in each feed efficiency group. Biochemical parameters: molar proportion of acetic, Ace; propionic, Prop; succinic, Suc; butyric, But; isobutyric, Isobut; valeric, Val; and isovaleric acids, Isoval; acetate-to-propionate ratio, Ace/Prop; total concentration of these volatile fatty acids, VFAt; ammonia concentration, NH3; and ruminal pH)