| Literature DB >> 36187944 |
Yabo Zhao1, Yanmei Zhang1, Erdene Khas1, Changjin Ao1, Chen Bai1.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of Allium mongolicum Regel ethanol extract (AME) on the concentration of three branched-chain fatty acids (BCFAs) related to flavor, fermentation parameters and the bacteria and their correlations in the rumen of lambs. A total of thirty 3-month-old male, Small-tailed Han sheep (33.60 ± 1.23 kg) were randomly distributed into 2 groups as follows: control group (CON) was fed a basal diet and AME group was fed a basal diet supplemented with 2.8 g⋅lamb-1⋅d-1 A. mongolicum Regel ethanol extract. AME supplementation decreased (P = 0.022) 4-methyloctanoic acid (MOA) content and tended to lower (P = 0.055) 4-methylnonanoic acid (MNA) content in the rumen. Compared to CON group, the ruminal concentrations of valerate and isovalerate were higher (P = 0.046 and P = 0.024, respectively), and propionate was lower (P = 0.020) in the AME group. At the phylum level, the AME group had a lower abundance of Bacteroidetes (P = 0.014) and a higher abundance of Firmicutes (P = 0.020) than the CON group. At the genus level, the relative abundances of Prevotella (P = 0.001), Christensenellaceae_R-7_group (P = 0.003), Succiniclasticum (P = 0.004), and Selenomonas (P = 0.001) were significantly lower in the AME group than in the CON group, while the relative abundances of Ruminococcus (P < 0.001), Quinella (P = 0.013), and Lachnospiraceae_XPB1014_group (P = 0.001) were significantly higher. The relative abundances of Prevotella (P = 0.029, R = 0.685; P = 0.009, R = 0.770), Christensenellaceae_R-7_group (P = 0.019, R = 0.721; P = 0.029, R = 0.685), and Succiniclasticum (P = 0.002, R = 0.842; P = 0.001, R = 0.879) was positively correlated with MOA and MNA levels, and the relative abundance of Lachnospiraceae_XPB1014_group (P = 0.033, R = -0.673) was negatively correlated with MOA. The relative abundance of Christensenellaceae_R-7_group (P = 0.014, R = -0.744) and Prevotellaceae_UCG-003 (P = 0.023, R = -0.706) correlated negatively with the EOA content. In conclusion, these findings suggest that the AME affected the concentration of BCFAs, fermentation parameters and the rumen bacteria in the rumen of lambs.Entities:
Keywords: Allium mongolicum Regel ethanol extract; branched-chain fatty acids; lamb; mutton flavor; rumen bacteria
Year: 2022 PMID: 36187944 PMCID: PMC9520700 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.978057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Composition and nutrient levels of the basal diet (dry matter basis %).
| Item | Content (%) |
| Chinese wildrye | 25.00 |
| Caragana | 17.80 |
| Whole corn silage | 23.60 |
| Wheat bran | 5.15 |
| Sunflower seed meal | 21.35 |
| Pea stem and leaf | 2.64 |
| Red jujube | 2.04 |
| CaHPO4 | 0.74 |
| NaCl | 0.68 |
| Premix | 1.0 |
| Total | 100.00 |
| Nutrient level | |
| DE | 13.46 |
| CP | 16.87 |
| NDF | 38.72 |
| ADF | 27.51 |
| Ca | 1.33 |
| P | 0.53 |
Nutritional composition of premix per kilogram: Mn 30.00 mg, Fe 25.00 mg, Zn 29.00 mg, Cu 8.00 mg, Co 0.10 mg, I 0.04 mg, VA 3200 IU, VD 1200 IU, VE 20 IU.
DE was a calculated value, and the others were measured values; DE, digestible energy.
Effect of AME on the growth performance of lambs.
| Items | CON | AME | SEM | |
| IBW | 33.40 | 34.14 | 0.37 | 0.342 |
| FBW | 50.22 | 51.28 | 1.14 | 0.526 |
| ADG | 240.6 | 287.2 | 0.01 | 0.098 |
| DMI | 1095.23 | 1117.38 | 21.42 | 0.659 |
CON, basal diet; AME, basal diet + 2.8 g⋅lamb–1⋅d–1 AME.
aIBW, initial body weight.
bFBW, final body weight.
cADG, average daily gain.
dDMI, dry matter intake.
FIGURE 1Effect of AME on the concentration of BCFAs in the rumen of lambs. CON, basal diet; AME, basal diet + 2.8 g⋅lamb–1⋅d–1 A. mongolicum Regel ethanol extract (AME).
Effect of AME on rumen fermentation in lambs.
| Items | CON | AME | SEM | |
| pH | 7.00 | 7.17 | 0.07 | 0.276 |
| NH3-N | 7.12 | 6.51 | 0.17 | 0.078 |
| TVFA | 61.60 | 60.42 | 0.81 | 0.424 |
| Acetate, mmol/L | 37.94 | 37.03 | 0.54 | 0.494 |
| Propionate, mmol/L | 12.07 | 10.84 | 0.29 | 0.020 |
| Butyrate, mmol/L | 8.13 | 8.58 | 0.36 | 0.565 |
| Iso-butyrate, mmol/L | 1.27 | 1.35 | 0.05 | 0.376 |
| Valerate, mmol/L | 0.67 | 0.77 | 0.03 | 0.046 |
| Iso-valerate, mmol/L | 1.52 | 1.84 | 0.08 | 0.024 |
| Acetate/Propionate | 3.16 | 3.42 | 0.09 | 0.150 |
CON, basal diet; AME, basal diet + 2.8 g⋅lamb–1⋅d–1 AME.
aNH3-N, ammonia nitrogen.
bTVFA, total volatile fatty acid.
Effect of AME on OTUs and alpha indices in lambs.
| Items | CON | AME | SEM | |
| OTU | 1,108 | 1,150 | 4.62 | 0.358 |
| ACE | 766.02 | 711.42 | 5.90 | 0.480 |
| Coverage | 99.70% | 99.79 | 0.0002 | 0.070 |
| Chao1 | 770.60 | 714.82 | 7.29 | 0.487 |
| Shannon | 4.30 | 4.38 | 0.11 | 0.766 |
| Simpson | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.905 |
CON, basal diet; AME, basal diet + 2.8 g⋅lamb–1⋅d–1 AME.
aOTUs, operational taxonomic units.
bACE, abundance-based coverage estimator.
Effect of AME on bacterial abundance at the phylum level in the rumen of lambs (%).
| Items | CON | AME | SEM | |
| Bacteroidetes | 55.18 | 36.84 | 4.13 | 0.014 |
| Firmicutes | 42.35 | 59.12 | 3.92 | 0.020 |
| Actinobacteriota | 0.66 | 0.56 | 0.18 | 0.801 |
| Desulfobacterota | 0.56 | 0.92 | 0.10 | 0.052 |
| Synergistota | 0.36 | 0.51 | 0.14 | 0.623 |
| Spirochaetota | 0.31 | 0.25 | 0.05 | 0.578 |
| Proteobacteria | 0.18 | 0.72 | 0.12 | 0.001 |
| Patescibacteria | 0.17 | 0.34 | 0.07 | 0.266 |
| unclassified_k__norank_d__Bacteria | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.860 |
| Cyanobacteria | 0.06 | 0.25 | 0.04 | 0.001 |
CON, basal diet; AME, basal diet + 2.8 g⋅lamb–1⋅d–1 AME.
Effect of AME on bacterial abundance at the genus level in the rumen for lambs (>1% at least in one group).
| Items | CON | AME | SEM | |
| Prevotella | 22.47 | 11.99 | 2.02 | 0.001 |
| norank_f__Bacteroidales_RF16_group | 8.63 | 3.90 | 0.90 | 0.001 |
| Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group | 7.00 | 5.65 | 0.46 | 0.155 |
| Ruminococcus | 5.56 | 16.39 | 1.60 | <0.001 |
| Christensenellaceae_R-7_group | 4.50 | 1.71 | 0.56 | 0.003 |
| norank_f__p-251-o5 | 3.89 | 1.35 | 0.53 | 0.006 |
| norank_f__F082 | 3.53 | 2.58 | 0.32 | 0.150 |
| Prevotellaceae_UCG-003 | 3.46 | 2.57 | 0.31 | 0.167 |
| Succiniclasticum | 2.94 | 1.93 | 0.21 | 0.004 |
| Quinella | 2.77 | 9.55 | 1.51 | 0.013 |
| Selenomonas | 2.76 | 0.76 | 0.20 | 0.001 |
| Veillonellaceae_UCG-001 | 2.65 | 1.82 | 0.25 | 0.102 |
| Veillonella | 2.65 | 1.82 | 0.31 | 0.199 |
| unclassified_f__Selenomonadaceae | 2.24 | 1.63 | 0.35 | 0.422 |
| Eubacterium_Coprostanoligenes_group | 2.21 | 2.02 | 0.22 | 0.701 |
| NK4A214_group | 2.21 | 2.11 | 0.36 | 0.901 |
| Prevotellaceae_UCG-001 | 2.18 | 2.59 | 0.43 | 0.657 |
| Lachnospiraceae_NK3A20_group | 2.08 | 1.79 | 0.28 | 0.635 |
| Anaerovibrio | 1.47 | 2.00 | 0.40 | 0.541 |
| norank_f__Muribaculaceae | 1.39 | 3.52 | 0.38 | <0.001 |
| unclassified_f__Ruminococcaceae | 1.38 | 4.24 | 0.53 | <0.001 |
| Lachnospiraceae_XPB1014_group | 0.37 | 2.12 | 0.33 | 0.001 |
CON, basal diet; AME, basal diet + 2.8 g⋅lamb–1⋅d–1 AME.
FIGURE 2Correlations between VFA contents, microbial taxa and BCFA contents (A–C). (A) Correlation between the concentration of BCFAs and VFAs. (B) Correlation between the concentration of BCFAs and the top 10 microbial taxa at the phylum level. (C) Correlation between the concentration of BCFAs and genera with relative abundances > 1% (at least in one group). Significant correlations are shown by *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001. Blue represents positive correlation coefficients. Red represents negative correlation coefficients.