Microbe-microbe interactions

539

406

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.

Section: Rumen Methanogensmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Rumen Microbiotamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Plant Fibre Degradation and H 2 Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminants

Morgavi

Forano²,

Martin

et al. 2010

539

406

“…These two activities are linked as the use of plant structural carbohydrates and the removal of hydrogen are both significant elements in the efficient use of forage feed resources and the optimisation of fermentation in the anaerobic conditions of the rumen (Wolin et al, 1997). In addition, hydrogen is the central element influencing enteric methane production (Janssen, 2010).…”

Section: The Ruminant Superorganismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rumen microbial (meta)genomics and its application to ruminant production

Morgavi

Kelly

Janssen

et al. 2013

211

163

Meat and milk produced by ruminants are important agricultural products and are major sources of protein for humans. Ruminant production is of considerable economic value and underpins food security in many regions of the world. However, the sector faces major challenges because of diminishing natural resources and ensuing increases in production costs, and also because of the increased awareness of the environmental impact of farming ruminants. The digestion of feed and the production of enteric methane are key functions that could be manipulated by having a thorough understanding of the rumen microbiome. Advances in DNA sequencing technologies and bioinformatics are transforming our understanding of complex microbial ecosystems, including the gastrointestinal tract of mammals. The application of these techniques to the rumen ecosystem has allowed the study of the microbial diversity under different dietary and production conditions. Furthermore, the sequencing of genomes from several cultured rumen bacterial and archaeal species is providing detailed information about their physiology. More recently, metagenomics, mainly aimed at understanding the enzymatic machinery involved in the degradation of plant structural polysaccharides, is starting to produce new insights by allowing access to the total community and sidestepping the limitations imposed by cultivation. These advances highlight the promise of these approaches for characterising the rumen microbial community structure and linking this with the functions of the rumen microbiota. Initial results using high-throughput culture-independent technologies have also shown that the rumen microbiome is far more complex and diverse than the human caecum. Therefore, cataloguing its genes will require a considerable sequencing and bioinformatic effort. Nevertheless, the construction of a rumen microbial gene catalogue through metagenomics and genomic sequencing of key populations is an attainable goal. A rumen microbial gene catalogue is necessary to understand the function of the microbiome and its interaction with the host animal and feeds, and it will provide a basis for integrative microbiome–host models and inform strategies promoting less-polluting, more robust and efficient ruminants.

“…Interspecies hydrogen transfer has been well described in vitro, especially between cellulolytics and methanogens (Wolin et al, 1997). Ruminococcus albus, Ruminococcus flavefaciens and all the rumen fungi and protozoa produce hydrogen and they interact positively with methanogens (Joblin et al, 1990;Pavlostathis et al, 1990;Williams et al, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of disodium fumarate on ruminal fermentation and microbial communities in sheep fed on high-forage diets

Zhou

McSweeney

Wang

et al. 2012

This study was conducted to investigate effects of disodium fumarate (DF) on fermentation characteristics and microbial populations in the rumen of Hu sheep fed on high-forage diets. Two complementary feeding trials were conducted. In Trial 1, six Hu sheep fitted with ruminal cannulae were randomly allocated to a 2 3 2 cross-over design involving dietary treatments of either 0 or 20 g DF daily. Total DNA was extracted from the fluid-and solid-associated rumen microbes, respectively. Numbers of 16S rDNA gene copies associated with rumen methanogens and bacteria, and 18S rDNA gene copies associated with rumen protozoa and fungi were measured using real-time PCR, and expressed as proportion of total rumen bacteria 16S rDNA. Ruminal pH decreased in the DF group compared with the control (P , 0.05). Total volatile fatty acids increased (P , 0.001), but butyrate decreased (P , 0.01). Addition of DF inhibited the growth of methanogens, protozoa, fungi and Ruminococcus flavefaciens in fluid samples. Both Ruminococcus albus and Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens populations increased (P , 0.001) in particle-associated samples. Trial 2 was conducted to investigate the adaptive response of rumen microbes to DF. Three cannulated sheep were fed on basal diet for 2 weeks and continuously for 4 weeks with supplementation of DF at a level of 20 g/day. Ruminal samples were collected every week to analyze fermentation parameters and microbial populations. No effects of DF were observed on pH, acetate and butyrate (P . 0.05). Populations of methanogens and R. flavefaciens decreased in the fluid samples (P , 0.001), whereas addition of DF stimulated the population of solid-associated Fibrobacter succinogenes. Population of R. albus increased in the 2nd to 4th week in fluid-associated samples and was threefold higher in the 4th week than control week in solid samples. Analysis of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis fingerprints revealed that there were significant changes in rumen microbiota after adding DF. Ten of 15 clone sequences from cut-out bands appearing in both the 2nd and the 4th week were 94% to 100% similar to Prevotella-like bacteria, and four sequences showed 95% to 98% similarity to Selenomonas dianae. Another 15 sequences were obtained from bands, which appeared in the 4th week only. Thirteen of these 15 sequences showed 95% to 99% similarity to Clostridium sp., and the other two showed 95% and 100% similarity to Ruminococcus sp. In summary, the microorganisms positively responding to DF addition were the cellulolytic bacteria, R. albus, F. succinogenes and B. fibrisolvens as well as proteolytic bacteria, B. fibrisolvens, P. ruminicola and Clostridium sp.