Diversity, abundance and novel 16S rRNA gene sequences of methanogens in rumen liquid, solid and epithelium fractions of Jinnan cattle

Pei, Caixia; Mao, Shengyong; Cheng, Yanfen; Zhu, Weiyun

doi:10.1017/s1751731109990681

Cited by 53 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Information concerning the latter group is still scarce (Shin et al, 2004;Pei et al, 2010), but the rumen epithelium seems to sustain high concentration of methanogens and some novel phylotypes (Pei et al, 2010). It is not known whether this methanogenic community has a significant role in rumen methanogenesis but methanogens attached to the gut epithelium have been described in termites (Leadbetter and Breznak, 1996), and in such a microaerobic environment they are capable of producing methane and reducing oxygen at the same time (Tholen et al, 2007).…”

Section: Rumen Methanogensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants

Morgavi

Forano²,

Martin

et al. 2010

Animal

500

397

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ruminant production is under increased public scrutiny in terms of the importance of cattle and other ruminants as major producers of the greenhouse gas methane. Methanogenesis is performed by methanogenic archaea, a specialised group of microbes present in several anaerobic environments including the rumen. In the rumen, methanogens utilise predominantly H 2 and CO 2 as substrates to produce methane, filling an important functional niche in the ecosystem. However, in addition to methanogens, other microbes also have an influence on methane production either because they are involved in hydrogen (H 2 ) metabolism or because they affect the numbers of methanogens or other members of the microbiota. This study explores the relationship between some of these microbes and methanogenesis and highlights some functional groups that could play a role in decreasing methane emissions. Dihydrogen ('H 2 ' from this point on) is the key element that drives methane production in the rumen. Among H 2 producers, protozoa have a prominent position, which is strengthened by their close physical association with methanogens, which favours H 2 transfer from one to the other. A strong positive interaction was found between protozoal numbers and methane emissions, and because this group is possibly not essential for rumen function, protozoa might be a target for methane mitigation. An important function that is associated with production of H 2 is the degradation of fibrous plant material. However, not all members of the rumen fibrolytic community produce H 2 . Increasing the proportion of non-H 2 producing fibrolytic microorganisms might decrease methane production without affecting forage degradability. Alternative pathways that use electron acceptors other than CO 2 to oxidise H 2 also exist in the rumen. Bacteria with this type of metabolism normally occupy a distinct ecological niche and are not dominant members of the microbiota; however, their numbers can increase if the right potential electron acceptor is present in the diet. Nitrate is an alternative electron sinks that can promote the growth of particular bacteria able to compete with methanogens. Because of the toxicity of the intermediate product, nitrite, the use of nitrate has not been fully explored, but in adapted animals, nitrite does not accumulate and nitrate supplementation may be an alternative under some dietary conditions that deserves to be further studied. In conclusion, methanogens in the rumen co-exist with other microbes, which have contrasting activities. A better understanding of these populations and the pathways that compete with methanogenesis may provide novel targets for emissions abatement in ruminant production.

show abstract

Section: Rumen Methanogensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants

Morgavi

Forano²,

Martin

et al. 2010

Animal

500

397

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considering that methanogens and Thermoplasmatales all belong to the Archaea, which indicated that these five DGGE bands are likely to be methanogenic strains or species, that have not yet been identified. Likewise, methanogens related to the Thermoplasmatales clade were also found in ruminants (Whitford et al, 2001;Wright et al, 2006;Pei et al, 2010) and pig feces (Mao et al, 2011). The increased methanogen diversity from gilts fed LFD in the in vivo trial contradicted the low methanogenic diversity of the control treatment incubated with low-fiber inocula in the in vitro fermentation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of dietary fiber on the methanogen community in the hindgut of Lantang gilts

Cao

Liang

Liao

et al. 2016

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the effect of dietary fiber on methanogenic diversity and community composition in the hindgut of indigenous Chinese Lantang gilts to explain the unexpected findings reported earlier that Lantang gilts fed low-fiber diet (LFD) produced more methane than those fed high-fiber diet (HFD). In total, 12 Lantang gilts (58.7 ± 0.37 kg) were randomly divided into two dietary groups (six replicates (pigs) per group) and fed either LFD (NDF = 201.46 g/kg) or HFD (NDF = 329.70 g/kg). Wheat bran was the main source of fiber for the LFD, whereas ground rice hull (mixture of rice hull and rice bran) was used for the HFD. Results showed that the methanogens in the hindgut of Lantang gilts belonged to four known species (Methanobrevibacter ruminantium, Methanobrevibacter wolinii, Methanosphaera stadtmanae and Methanobrevibacter smithii), with about 89% of the methanogens belonging to the genus Methanobrevibacter. The 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene copies of Methanobrevibacter were more than three times higher (P < 0.05) for gilts fed LFD (3.31 × 10 9 copies/g dry matter (DM)) than gilts fed HFD (1.02 × 10 9 copies/g DM). No difference (P > 0.05) was observed in 16S rRNA gene copies of Fibrobacter succinogenes between the two dietary groups, and 18S rRNA gene copies of anaerobic fungi in gilts fed LFD were lower than (P < 0.05) those fed HFD. To better explain the effect of different fiber source on the methanogen community, a follow-up in vitro fermentation using a factorial design comprised of two inocula (prepared from hindgut content of gilts fed two diets differing in their dietary fiber) × four substrates (LFD, HFD, wheat bran, ground rice hull) was conducted. Results of the in vitro fermentation confirmed that the predominant methanogens belonged to the genus of Methanobrevibacter, and about 23% methanogens was found to be distantly related (90%) to Thermogymnomonas acidicola. In vitro fermentation also seems to suggest that fiber source did change the methanogens community. Although the density of Methanobrevibacter species was positively correlated with CH 4 production in both in vivo (P < 0.01, r = 0.737) and in vitro trials (P < 0.05, r = 0.854), which could partly explain the higher methane production from gilts fed LFD compared with those in the HFD group. Further investigation is needed to explain how the rice hull affected the methanogens and inhibited CH 4 emission from gilts fed HFD.

show abstract

“…Ample evidence exists on the different abundance and diversity of bacteria associated with the liquid and solid ruminal contents (Pei et al, 2010). The pH and VFA concentration varies between different sections of the reticulo-rumen in cattle (Bryant 1964).…”

Section: Sampling Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design, implementation and interpretation of in vitro batch culture experiments to assess enteric methane mitigation in ruminants—a review

Yáñez-Ruíz

Bannink

Dijkstra

et al. 2016

Animal Feed Science and Technology

123

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn vitro fermentation techniques (IVFT) have been widely used to evaluate the nutritive value of feeds for ruminants and in the last decade to assess the effect of different nutritional strategies on methane (CH4) production. However, many technical factors may influence the results obtained. The present review has been prepared by the 'Global Network' FACCE-JPI international research consortium to provide a critical evaluation of the main factors that need to be considered when designing, conducting and interpreting IVFT experiments that investigate nutritional strategies to mitigate CH 4 emission from ruminants. Given the increasing and wide-scale use of IVFT, there is a need to critically review reports in the literature and establish what criteria are essential to the establishment and implementation of in vitro techniques. Key aspects considered include: i) donor animal species and number of animal used, ii) diet fed to donor animals, iii) collection and processing of rumen fluid as inoculum, iv) choice of substrate and incubation buffer, v) incubation procedures and CH 4 measurements, vi) headspace gas composition and vii) comparability of in vitro and in vivo measurements. Based on an evaluation of experimental evidence, a set of technical recommendations are presented to harmonize IVFT for feed evaluation, assessment of rumen function and CH 4 production.

show abstract

Diversity, abundance and novel 16S rRNA gene sequences of methanogens in rumen liquid, solid and epithelium fractions of Jinnan cattle

Cited by 53 publications

References 31 publications

Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants

Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants

Effect of dietary fiber on the methanogen community in the hindgut of Lantang gilts

Design, implementation and interpretation of in vitro batch culture experiments to assess enteric methane mitigation in ruminants—a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About