| Literature DB >> 36034898 |
Xue Zhang1, Lijuan Han1, Shengzhen Hou1, Sayed Haidar Abbas Raza2, Linsheng Gui1, Shengnan Sun1, Zhiyou Wang1, Baochun Yang1, Zhenzhen Yuan1, Jesus Simal-Gandara3, Ahmed M El-Shehawi4, Amal Alswat4, Muneefah A Alenezi5, Mustafa Shukry6, Samy M Sayed7, Bandar Hamad Aloufi8.
Abstract
This study aims to determine the impact of dietary energy levels on rumen microbial composition and its relationship to the quality of Black Tibetan sheep meat by applying metabolomics and Pearson's correlation analyses. For this purpose, UHPLC-QTOF-MS was used to identify the metabolome, whereas 16S rDNA sequencing was used to detect the rumen microbiota. Eventually, we observed that the high energy diet group (HS) improved the carcass quality of Black Tibetan sheep and fat deposition in the longissimus lumborum (LL) compared to the medium energy diet group (MS). However, HS considerably increased the texture, water holding capacity (WHC), and volatile flavor of the LL when compared to that of MS and the low energy diet group (LS). Metabolomics and correlation analyses revealed that dietary energy levels mainly affected the metabolism of carbohydrates and lipids of the LL, which consequently influenced the content of volatile flavor compounds (VOCs) and fats. Furthermore, HS increased the abundance of Quinella, Ruminococcus 2, (Eubacterium) coprostanoligenes, and Succinivibrionaceae UCG-001, all of which participate in the carbohydrate metabolism in rumen and thus influence the metabolite levels (stachyose, isomaltose, etc.) in the LL. Overall, a high-energy diet is desirable for the production of Black Tibetan sheep mutton because it improves the mouthfeel and flavor of meat by altering the composition of rumen microbiota, which influences the metabolism in the LL.Entities:
Keywords: black Tibetan sheep; dietary energy levels; meat quality; metabolomics; rumen microbiota
Year: 2022 PMID: 36034898 PMCID: PMC9405419 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.915558
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Dietary ingredients, nutrients, and fatty acid composition of three different energy level diets (dry matter basis).
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Dietary ingredients (% DM) | |||
| Corn | 42.28 | 30.18 | 16.22 |
| Soybean meal | 2.45 | 1.69 | 0.77 |
| Rapeseed meal | 12.96 | 7.15 | 3.92 |
| Cottonseed meal | 5.11 | 3.78 | 1.89 |
| Oat silage | 15.00 | 25.00 | 35.00 |
| Oat hay | 15.00 | 25.00 | 35.00 |
| Mineral salt | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 |
| Limestone | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 |
| Baking soda | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Mineral/vitamin premix | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
| Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| Nutritional levels (% DM) | |||
| Digestive energy DE (MJ/kg) | 11.08 | 10.12 | 9.20 |
| Crude protein | 13.25 | 12.83 | 12.47 |
| Crude ash | 4.53 | 5.22 | 6.06 |
| Crude fat | 5.13 | 4.32 | 3.55 |
| Neutral detergent fiber NDF | 26.38 | 36.47 | 46.54 |
| Acid detergent fiber ADF | 16.99 | 22.84 | 29.69 |
| Calcium | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.79 |
| Phosphorus | 1.02 | 0.83 | 0.66 |
| Fatty acid (mg/100 g DM) | |||
| ∑SFA | 174.99 | 162.71 | 150.43 |
| 12:0 | 13.84 | 9.99 | 6.14 |
| 14:0 | 5.76 | 4.61 | 3.45 |
| 16:0 | 110.28 | 104.21 | 98.14 |
| 18:0 | 38.74 | 36.91 | 35.09 |
| 20:0 | 2.03 | 1.86 | 1.69 |
| 21:0 | 1.08 | 1.60 | 2.11 |
| 22:0 | 1.41 | 1.51 | 1.62 |
| 23:0 | 0.27 | 0.34 | 0.42 |
| 24:0 | 1.59 | 1.68 | 1.77 |
| ∑MUFA | 134.06 | 118.46 | 102.87 |
| c9-16:1 | 0.44 | 0.38 | 0.33 |
| c9-18:1 | 102.94 | 91.38 | 79.82 |
| c11-20:1 | 3.18 | 2.69 | 2.21 |
| c13-22:1 | 26.48 | 23.00 | 19.51 |
| c15-24:1 | 1.01 | 1.01 | 1.00 |
| ∑PUFA | 191.39 | 184.78 | 178.17 |
| 18:2n-6 | 158.20 | 141.34 | 124.47 |
| 18:3n-6 | 0.11 | 0.18 | 0.26 |
| 18:3n-3 | 29.94 | 40.08 | 50.23 |
| 20:2n-6 | 0.58 | 0.47 | 0.37 |
| 20:3n-3 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.18 |
| 20:4n-6 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.18 |
| 22:2n-6 | 0.75 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| 20:5n-3 | 0.28 | 0.34 | 0.40 |
| 22:6n-3 | 1.39 | 1.40 | 1.41 |
The premix provided the following per kg of diet: Fe (as ferrous sulfate) 4.5 g/kg; Cu (as copper sulfate) 1.0 g/kg; Zn (as zinc sulfate) 6.0 g/kg; Mn (as manganese sulfate 3.0 g/kg; Co (as cobalt sulfate) 0.02 g/kg, Se 0.02 g/kg; I 0.04 g/kg; VA 250000 IU/kg; VD 30000 IU/kg; VE 25000 IU/kg.
Effect of different energy level diets on the carcass quality of Tibetan sheep.
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| Eye muscle area (cm2) | 22.97 | 18.52 | 18.24 | 2.93 | 0.14 |
| Rib fat thickness (cm) | 3.38 | 3.67 | 3.50 | 0.36 | 0.73 |
| Back fat thickness(cm) | 5.81 | 5.02 | 4.86 | 0.79 | 0.24 |
| Abdominal fat thickness (cm) | 5.49 | 5.28 | 4.68 | 0.53 | 0.15 |
| Live body weight (kg) | 33.93 | 28.80 | 30.87 | 1.29 | 0.16 |
| Hot carcass weight (kg) | 17.12 | 12.63 | 13.82 | 0.88 | 0.06 |
| Dressing percentage (%) | 50.52 | 43.89 | 44.73 | 2.57 | 0.08 |
means within a row with different subscripts differ when P-value < 0.05.
Effect of different energy level diets on the edible quality and nutritional components of the longissimus lumborum of Tibetan sheep.
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| The edible quality | |||||
| Initial pH (0 h) | 6.05 | 6.43 | 6.52 | 0.06 | <0.01 |
| Ultimate pH (24 h) | 5.77 | 5.82 | 5.82 | 0.04 | 0.16 |
| Color (45 min) | |||||
| L* | 26.00 | 27.28 | 25.72 | 1.10 | 0.81 |
| a* | 9.67 | 7.84 | 9.73 | 1.87 | 0.98 |
| b* | 5.81 | 5.46 | 6.77 | 1.03 | 0.36 |
| Shear force (N) | 11.01 | 10.22 | 9.01 | 1.09 | 0.07 |
| Thaw loss (%) | 7.24 | 10.19 | 10.44 | 0.39 | <0.01 |
| Drip loss (%) | 3.94 | 5.14 | 7.09 | 0.49 | <0.01 |
| Cooking loss (%) | 17.39 | 25.99 | 24.05 | 2.55 | 0.02 |
| Cooked meat percentage (%) | 76.72 | 69.57 | 69.89 | 2.70 | 0.02 |
| Hardness (g) | 758.33 | 2120.44 | 1912.22 | 145.04 | <0.01 |
| Elasticity (mm) | 1.54 | 1.62 | 1.55 | 0.08 | 0.86 |
| Viscosity (mJ) | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.28 |
| Adhesion (g) | 263.56 | 545.33 | 596.56 | 56.83 | <0.01 |
| Cohesion | 0.35 | 0.29 | 0.30 | 0.04 | 0.18 |
| Chewiness (mJ) | 5.14 | 8.52 | 7.71 | 0.86 | 0.01 |
| The nutritional components (%) | |||||
| Moisture | 74.58 | 75.36 | 75.08 | 0.57 | 0.39 |
| Ash | 1.00 | 1.01 | 0.96 | 0.03 | 0.21 |
| Fat | 3.77 | 2.73 | 3.23 | 0.26 | 0.10 |
| Protein | 21.22 | 21.30 | 21.04 | 0.52 | 0.74 |
means within a row with different subscripts differ when P-value < 0.05.
Figure 1The fingerprint of volatile flavor compounds obtained from the longissimus lumborum of Tibetan sheep under different energy level diets. M: monomer, D: dimer, T: polymer. 1–7 means unidentified compounds.
Effect of different energy level diets on the volatile flavor compounds in the longissimus lumborum of Tibetan sheep (% of total volatile flavor compounds).
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| hexanal M | 1.64 | 4.17 | 3.48 | 0.35 | 0.05 |
| hexanal D | 0.87 | 6.19 | 4.44 | 0.32 | 0.06 |
| Heptanal M | 0.95 | 4.45 | 3.35 | 0.18 | 0.05 |
| n-Nonanal M | 1.29 | 2.94 | 2.06 | 0.13 | 0.22 |
| benzaldehyde M | 2.46 | 3.22 | 3.33 | 0.20 | <0.01 |
| benzaldehyde D | 0.46 | 0.60 | 0.68 | 0.07 | 0.01 |
| benzaldehyde T | 0.79 | 1.10 | 1.35 | 0.08 | <0.01 |
| aldehydes | 12.75 | 30.56 | 25.32 | 1.14 | 0.04 |
| alcohols | 50.27 | 41.17 | 45.80 | 2.12 | 0.25 |
| ketones | 20.06 | 24.34 | 25.75 | 1.84 | 0.02 |
| esters | 0.49 | 0.53 | 0.52 | 0.06 | 0.53 |
| terpenoids | 2.19 | – | – | – | – |
| heterocycles | 6.03 | – | – | – | – |
means within a row with different subscripts differ when P-value < 0.05. M: monomer, D, dimer; T, polymer. –means represents undetected compound.
Effect of different energy level diets on the amino acid composition in the longissimus lumborum of Tibetan sheep (mg/100 g tissue).
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| Glycine | 32.32 | 53.05 | 31.42 | 8.55 | 0.94 |
| Serine | 5.54 | 6.81 | 4.30 | 0.89 | 0.32 |
| Asparagine | 4.39 | 6.52 | 3.63 | 1.07 | 0.62 |
| Glutamine | 121.26 | 154.41 | 92.50 | 21.54 | 0.35 |
| Taurine | 101.47 | 45.13 | 57.83 | 21.64 | 0.13 |
| Choline | 2.21 | 3.55 | 2.62 | 0.32 | 0.50 |
| EAAs | 34.42 | 34.89 | 30.95 | 4.72 | 0.46 |
| NEAAs | 478.20 | 490.01 | 396.26 | 82.66 | 0.34 |
| TAAs | 512.62 | 524.90 | 427.21 | 86.57 | 0.34 |
means within a row with different subscripts differ when P-value < 0.05. Only amino acids with a significant difference in at least one of the comparisons were presented. EAAs, essential amino acids; NEAAs: non-essential amino acids; TAAs, total amino acids.
Effect of different energy level diets on the fatty acid composition in the longissimus lumborum of Tibetan sheep (mg/100 g tissue).
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| ∑SFA | 301.02 | 306.82 | 483.16 | 107.09 | 0.13 |
| 6:0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.65 |
| 10:0 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.23 | 0.07 | 0.09 |
| 11:0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.05 |
| 12:0 | 0.39 | 0.43 | 0.79 | 0.22 | 0.10 |
| 13:0 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.10 |
| 14:0 | 13.01 | 11.92 | 24.47 | 7.67 | 0.18 |
| 15:0 | 1.22 | 1.30 | 2.68 | 0.74 | 0.09 |
| 16:0 | 156.01 | 162.51 | 243.58 | 54.25 | 0.14 |
| 17:0 | 4.90 | 5.16 | 9.49 | 2.28 | 0.09 |
| 18:0 | 123.74 | 123.74 | 199.51 | 41.95 | 0.12 |
| 20:0 | 0.87 | 0.83 | 1.48 | 0.35 | 0.13 |
| 21:0 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.03 | 0.70 |
| 22:0 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.05 | 0.20 |
| 23:0 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.01 | 0.44 |
| 24:0 | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 0.10 |
| ∑MUFA | 283.92 | 288.99 | 400.68 | 84.11 | 0.19 |
| c9-14:1 | 0.44 | 0.37 | 0.64 | 0.22 | 0.39 |
| c10-15:1 | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.63 | 0.16 | 0.12 |
| c9-16:1 | 13.00 | 12.17 | 19.69 | 5.67 | 0.27 |
| c10-17:1 | 4.02 | 4.25 | 6.80 | 1.29 | 0.07 |
| c9-18:1 | 263.03 | 269.05 | 368.89 | 76.21 | 0.19 |
| c11-20:1 | 2.25 | 2.06 | 2.86 | 0.51 | 0.28 |
| c13-22:1 | 0.83 | 0.75 | 1.17 | 0.32 | 0.32 |
| ∑PUFA | 85.84 | 79.72 | 86.36 | 6.56 | 0.94 |
| ∑n-3 | 27.46 | 27.09 | 27.37 | 0.97 | 0.92 |
| 18:3n-3 | 2.65 | 2.42 | 3.40 | 0.48 | 0.19 |
| 20:3n-3 | 18.78 | 18.88 | 16.89 | 0.59 | 0.03 |
| 20:5n-3 | 1.44 | 1.29 | 1.89 | 0.19 | 0.11 |
| 22:5n-3 | 3.91 | 3.95 | 4.47 | 0.34 | 0.13 |
| 22:6n-3 | 0.68 | 0.55 | 0.72 | 0.10 | 0.71 |
| ∑n-6 | 58.37 | 52.63 | 58.99 | 5.62 | 0.92 |
| 18:2n-6 | 52.01 | 46.67 | 53.89 | 5.42 | 0.75 |
| 18:3n-6 | 0.62 | 0.50 | 0.53 | 0.08 | 0.29 |
| 20:3n-6 | 1.87 | 1.68 | 1.89 | 0.13 | 0.88 |
| 20:4n-6 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.02 | 0.15 |
| 22:2n-6 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.67 |
| 22:4n-6 | 2.75 | 2.74 | 1.89 | 0.29 | 0.03 |
| 22:5n-6 | 0.80 | 0.74 | 0.51 | 0.06 | <0.01 |
means within a row with different subscripts differ when P-value < 0.05. c: cis. ∑SFA: sum of saturated fatty acids (6:0, 10:0, 11:0, 12:0, 13:0, 14:0, 15:0, 16:0, 17:0, 18:0, 20:0, 21:0, 22:0, 23:0, 24:0); ∑MUFA: sum of monounsaturated fatty acids (c9-14:1, c10-15:1, c9-16:1, c10-17:1, c9-18:1, c11-20:1, c13-22:1); ∑PUFA: sum of polyunsaturated fatty acids (∑n-3 + ∑n-6); ∑n-3: sum of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (18:3n-3, 20:3n-3, 20:5n-3, 22:5n-3, 22:6n-3); ∑n-6: sum of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (18:2n-6, 18:3n-6, 20:3n-6, 20:4n-6, 22:2n-6, 22:4n-6, 22:5n-6).
Figure 23D PCA score of the overall samples in the positive (A) and negative (B) ion detection mode. The HS group is marked as red, the MS group is marked as green, the LS group is marked as blue, and the QC samples are indicated with purple. PC1 represents principal component 1, PC2 represents principal component 2, and PC3 represents principal component 3.
Figure 3Venn diagram illustrates the overlap of differential metabolites connected with the KEGG metabolic pathways among the three comparisons (HS vs. MS; HS vs. LS; MS vs. LS) in the longissimus lumborum of Tibetan sheep. The color red and blue represent the upregulation and downregulation of metabolites, respectively.
Figure 4The enrichment of KEGG metabolic pathways of differential metabolites in the longissimus lumborum of Tibetan sheep. In the bubble diagram, each bubble represents a metabolic pathway. The larger the bubble is, the greater the impact factor is; the darker the bubble is, the more significant the degree of enrichment is.
Differential metabolites in the key metabolic pathways among the three comparisons (HS vs. MS; MS vs. LS; and MS vs. LS) in the longissimus lumborum of Tibetan sheep (accounting for the absolute value of differential abundance score ≥ 0.5).
|
|
|
|---|---|
| HS vs. MS | |
| upregulation in the HS group | |
| Glycerophospholipid metabolism | sn-Glycerol 3-phosphoethanolamine, Glycerophosphate(2), Choline, Glycerophosphocholine |
| Carbohydrate digestion and absorption | Maltotriose, D-lactose, D-glucose 6-phosphate |
| Ether lipid metabolism | sn-Glycerol 3-phosphoethanolamine, Glycerophosphocholine |
| Starch and sucrose metabolism | Isomaltose, D-glucose 6-phosphate |
| Galactose metabolism | D-lactose, Stachyose |
| Phosphotransferase system (PTS) | D-lactose, D-mannose 6-phosphate, D-glucose 6-phosphate, D-glucosaminic acid, D-Mannose-6-phosphate |
| downregulation in the HS group | |
| D-Glutamine and D-glutamate metabolism | Glutamine, L-Glutamine, D-glutamine, D-pyroglutamic acid |
| HS vs. LS | |
| upregulation in the HS group | |
| Carbohydrate digestion and absorption | Maltotriose, D-lactose |
| Galactose metabolism | D-lactose, Stachyose |
| Purine metabolism | Adenine, Inosine, Hypoxanthine, Adenosine 5'-diphosphate |
| downregulation in the HS group | |
| AMPK signaling pathway | D-fructose 1,6-bisphosphate, Adenosine 5'-diphosphate |
| MS vs. LS | |
| upregulation in the MS group | |
| D-Glutamine and D-glutamate metabolism | Glutamine, D-pyroglutamic acid, L-Glutamine, D-glutamine |
| downregulation in the MS group | |
| Galactose metabolism | Dihydroxyacetone phosphate, alpha-D-Galactose 1-phosphate, alpha-D-Glucose 1-phosphate, D-Fructose-6-phosphate |
| Amino sugar and nucleotide sugar metabolism | Udp-n-acetylglucosamine, D-mannose 6-phosphate, D-glucosamine 6-phosphate, alpha-D-Galactose 1-phosphate, alpha-D-Glucose 1-phosphate, D-Mannose-6-phosphate |
| Glycerolipid metabolism | Dihydroxyacetone phosphate, Glycerophosphate(2), DL-2-Phosphoglycerate, alpha-D-Glucose 1-phosphate |
| Starch and sucrose metabolism | D-glucose 6-phosphate, alpha-D-Glucose 1-phosphate, D-Fructose-6-phosphate |
| Ether lipid metabolism | sn-Glycerol 3-phosphoethanolamine, Glycerophosphocholine |
Effect of different energy level diets on rumen fermentation characteristics of Tibetan sheep.
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| pH | 5.71 | 6.11 | 6.20 | 0.13 | <0.01 |
| Ammonia-N (mmol/L) | 21.68 | 22.26 | 17.74 | 3.20 | 0.23 |
| Acetate (mmol/L) | 60.10 | 48.36 | 52.41 | 3.10 | 0.04 |
| Propionate (mmol/L) | 23.42 | 17.63 | 17.07 | 1.30 | <0.01 |
| Isobutyrate (mmol/L) | 0.83 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.17 | 0.83 |
| Butyrate (mmol/L) | 18.37 | 12.20 | 15.99 | 2.29 | 0.35 |
| Isovalerate (mmol/L) | 3.65 | 2.21 | 1.95 | 0.44 | <0.01 |
| Valerate (mmol/L) | 1.35 | 0.94 | 0.89 | 0.17 | 0.01 |
| Total VFAs (mmol/L) | 107.71 | 82.20 | 89.18 | 4.90 | <0.01 |
| A/P | 2.57 | 2.80 | 3.06 | 0.13 | <0.01 |
means within a row with different subscripts differ when P-value < 0.05. VFAs: volatile fatty acids; A: acetate; P: propionate.
Figure 5OTUs Venn diagram of the overlap of rumen microbiota among the three groups (A). Anosim analysis (B) and PCoA plot (C) of the overall samples of rumen microbiota. Relative abundance of bacteria community proportion at the phylum (D) and genus (E) levels among the three groups. Boxplot of the prediction of the most important diff rumen function (F).
The main differential rumen bacteria at the phylum and genus levels among the three groups (accounting for the relative abundance in top 10).
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| Phylum level (%) | |||||
| Actinobacteria | 2.65 | 0.79 | 0.47 | 0.54 | <0.01 |
| Bacteroidetes | 32.66 | 61.39 | 62.18 | 4.64 | <0.01 |
| Firmicutes | 46.32 | 22.08 | 22.82 | 3.42 | <0.01 |
| Synergistetes | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.04 | <0.01 |
| Genus level (%) | |||||
| Uncultured rumen bacterium | 12.91 | 34.97 | 37.99 | 8.17 | <0.01 |
| Quinella | 10.98 | 0.66 | 0.94 | 0.49 | <0.01 |
| Ruminococcus 2 | 5.08 | 1.08 | 1.67 | 1.37 | 0.04 |
| [Eubacterium] coprostanoligenes group | 3.30 | 1.51 | 1.11 | 0.59 | <0.01 |
| Rikenellaceae RC9 gut group | 1.23 | 2.16 | 1.16 | 0.35 | 0.88 |
| Succinivibrionaceae UCG-001 | 0.52 | 0.22 | 0.00 | 0.12 | <0.01 |
means within a row with different subscripts differ when P-value < 0.05.
Figure 6(A) The correlation heat map between meat quality parameters and muscle metabolomics analysis. (B) The correlation heat map between muscle metabolomics analysis and rumen bacteria. The color red and blue represent positive and negative correlations, respectively. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01. G: glycerol; PE: phosphoethanolamine; GP(2): glycerophosphate(2); GPC: glycerophosphocholine.
Figure 7Hypothesized scheme pathways and potential mechanisms related to the changes in rumen microbiota, muscle metabolome, and meat quality. Metabolites and bacteria in blue and red indicate them downregulated and upregulated significantly in each comparison, respectively. The gray line denotes the regulatory pathways of meat quality. A: adenine; HAT: hypoxanthine; HxR: inosine; PE: phosphoethanolamine; GP(2): glycerophosphate(2); GPC: glycerophosphocholine; LA: linoleic acid; G: glycerol. pHd: the extent of pH decline (within 24 h after slaughter).