Microbial Ecology

, Volume 59, Issue 3, pp 511–522 | Cite as

Rumen Bacterial Diversity Dynamics Associated with Changing from Bermudagrass Hay to Grazed Winter Wheat Diets

  • Dipti W. Pitta
  • William E. Pinchak
  • Scott E. Dowd
  • Jason Osterstock
  • Viktoria Gontcharova
  • Eunseog Youn
  • Kristy Dorton
  • Ilkyu Yoon
  • Byeng R. Min
  • J. D. Fulford
  • Tryon A. Wickersham
  • Dariusz P. Malinowski
Host Microbe Interactions


Rumen bacterial communities in forage-fed and grazing cattle continually adapt to a wide range of changing dietary composition, nutrient density, and environmental conditions. We hypothesized that very distinct community assemblages would develop between the fiber and liquid fractions of rumen contents in animals transitioned from bermudagrass hay diet to a grazed wheat diet. To address this hypothesis, we designed an experiment utilizing a 16S-based bTEFAP pyrosequencing technique to characterize and elucidate changes in bacterial diversity among the fiber and liquid rumen fractions and whole rumen contents of 14 (Angus × Hereford) ruminally cannulated steers sequentially fed bermudagrass hay (Cynodon dactylon; 34 days) and grazing wheat forage (28 days). Bermudagrass hay was a conserved C4 perennial grass lower in protein and higher in fiber (11% and 67%, respectively) content than grazed winter wheat (Triticum aestivum), a C3 annual grass with higher protein (20%) and a large (66%) soluble fraction. Significant differences in the OTU estimates (Chao1, Ace, and Rarefaction) were detected between fractions of both diets, with bermudagrass hay supporting greater diversity than wheat forage. Sequences were compared with a 16S database using BLASTn and assigned sequences to respective genera and genera-like units based on the similarity value to known sequences in the database. Predominant genera were Prevotella (up to 33%) and Rikenella-like (up to 28%) genera on the bermudagrass diet and Prevotella (up to 56%) genus on the wheat diet irrespective of the fractions. Principle component analyses accounted for over 95% of variation in 16S estimated bacterial community composition in all three fractions and clearly differentiated communities associated with each diet. Overall, bermudagrass hay diets clustered more clearly than wheat diets. These data are the first to explore bacterial diversity dynamics in a common population of animals in response to contrasting grass forage diets.


Liquid Fraction Neutral Detergent Fiber Fiber Fraction Bermudagrass Rumen Fluid 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Funding for this research was provided by Diamond V Mills, Inc and Texas AgriLife Research. We wish to thank the farming crew from the Vernon Texas AgriLife Research Center for preparation and planting of the wheat used in this experiment and L. Stillwell for laboratory assistance.


  1. 1.
    AOAC (1990) Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acosta Martinez V, Dowd SE, Sun Y, Allen V (2008) Tag-encoded pyrosequencing analysis of bacterial diversity in a single soil type as affected by management and land use. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2762–2770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akin DE (1986) Interaction of ruminal bacteria and fungi with Southern forages. J Anim Sci 63:962–977Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brulc JM, Antonopoulos DA, Berg Miller ME, Wilson KM, Yannarell CA, Dinsdale AE, Edwards ER, Frank ED, Emerson BJ, Wacklin P, Coutinho MP, Henrissat B, Nelson EK, White AB (2009) Gene-centric metagenomics of the fiber-adherent bovine rumen microbiome reveals forage specific glycoside hydrolases. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(6):1948–1953CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Callaway TR, Dowd SE, Wolcott RD, Sun Y, McReynolds JL, Edrington TS, Byrd JA, Anderson RC, Krueger N, Nisbet DJ (2009) Evaluation of the bacterial diversity in cecal contents of laying hens fed various molting diets by using bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing. Poult Sci 88:298–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheng KJ, Fay JP, Coleman RN, Milligan LP, Costerton JW (1981) Formation of bacterial microcolonies on feed particles in the rumen. Appl Environ Microbiol 41:298–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Collins MD, Lawson PA, Willems A, Cordoba JJ, Fernandez-Garayzabal J, Garcia P, Cai J, Hippe H, Farrow JAE (1994) The phylogeny of the genus Clostridium: proposal of five new genera and eleven new species combinations. Int J Syst Bacteriol 44:812–826CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dinsdale EA, Pantos O, Smriga S, Edwards RA, Angly F, Weglet L, Hatay M, Hall D, Brown E, Haynes M, Krause L, Sala E, Sandin SA, Thurber RV, Willis BL, Azam F, Knowlton N, Rohwer F (2008) Microbial ecology of four coral atolls in Northern Line Islands. PLoS ONE 3(2):1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dowd SE, Sun Y, Secor PR, Rhoads DD, Wolcott BM, James GA, Wolcott RD (2008) Survey of bacterial diversity in chronic wounds using pyrosequencing, DGGE, and full ribosome shotgun sequencing. BMC Microbiology 8(1):43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Se D, Sun Y, Wolcott RD, Domingo A, Carroll JA (2008) Bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP) for microbiome studies: bacterial diversity in the ileum of newly weaned Salmonella-infected pigs. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 5(4):459–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dowd SE, Wolcott RD, Sun Y, McKeehan T, Smith E, Rhoads D (2008) Polymicrobial nature of chronic diabetic foot ulcer biofilm infections determined using bacterial tag encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP). PLoS ONE 3:e3326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edwards JE, McEwan NR, Travis AJ, Wallace RJ (2004) 16S rDNA library-based analysis of ruminal bacterial diversity. Antonie Leewenhoek 86:263–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Golub T, Slonum D, Tamayo P, Huard C, Gaasenbeek M, Mesirov J, Coller H, Loh M, Downing J, Caligiuri M, Bloomfield C, Lander E (1999) Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science 286:531–537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hudspeth MK, Gerardo S, Maiden MFJ, Citron DM, Goldstein EJC (1999) Characterization of Bacteroides forsythus strains from cat and dog bite wounds in humans and comparison with monkey and human oral strains. J Clin Microbiol 37(6):2003–2006PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huston JE, Pinchak WE (1991) Range animal nutrition. In: Heitschmidt RK, Stuth JW (eds) Grazing management—an ecological perspective. Timber Press, Inc, Portland, pp 27–63Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaneuchi C, Mitsuoka T (1978) Bacteroides microfusus, a new species from the intestines of calves, chickens and Japanese quails. Int J Syst Bacteriol 28:478–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kocherginskaya SA, Aminov RI, White BA (2001) Analysis of the rumen bacterial diversity under two different diet conditions using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis, random sequencing, and statistical ecology approaches. Anaerobe 7:119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krause DO, Russell JB (1996) How many ruminal bacteria are there? J Dairy Sci 79(8):1467–1475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larue R, Yu Z, Parisi VA, Egan AR, Morrison M (2005) Novel microbial diversity adherent to plant biomass in the herbivore gastrointestinal tract, as revealed by ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis and rrs gene sequencing. Environ Microbiol 7:530–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Min BR, Pinchak WE, Fulford JD, Puchala R (2005) Effect of feed additives on in vitro and in vivo rumen characteristics and frothy bloat dynamics in steers grazing wheat pasture. Anim Feed Sci Technol 124:615–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Min BR, Pinchak WE, Anderson RC, Hume ME (2006) In vitro bacterial growth and in vivo ruminal microbiota populations associated with bloat in steers grazing wheat forage. J Anim Sci 84:2873–2882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morozova O, Marra AM (2008) Applications of next-generation sequencing technologies in functional genomics. Genomics 92:255–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Quince C, Lanzen A, Curtis TP, Davenport RJ, Hall N, Head IM, Read LF, Sloan WT (2009) Accurate determination of microbial diversity from 454 pyrosequencing. Nat Methods 6:639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roesch LFW, Fulthorpe RR, Riva A, Casella G, Hadwin AKM, Kent AD, Daroub SH, Camargo FAO, Farmeries WG, Triplett EW (2007) Pyrosequencing enumerates and contrasts soil microbial diversity. ISME J 1:283–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sakamoto M, Suzuki M, Umeda M, Ishikawa I, Benno Y et al (2002) Reclassification of Bacteroides forsythus (Tanner et al. 1986) as Tannerella forsythensis corrig, gen nov, comb nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 52:841–849CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sharma A, Inagaki S, Sigurdson W, Kuramitsu HK (2005) Synergy between Tannerella forsythia and Fusobacterium nucleatum in biofilm formation. Oral Microbiol Immun 20:39–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stevenson DM, Weimer PJ (2007) Dominance of Prevotella and low abundance of classical ruminal bacterial species in the bovine rumen revealed by relative quantification real-time PCR. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 75(1):165–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stewart CS, Flint HJ, Bryant MP (1997) The rumen bacteria. In: Hobson PN, Stewart CS (eds) The rumen microbial ecosystem, 2nd edn. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, pp 10–72Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sun Y, Dowd SE, Smith E, Rhoads DD, Randall D, Wolcott MD (2008) In vitro multispecies Lubbock chronic wound biofilm model. Wound Repair Regen 16:805–813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tajima K, Aminov RI, Nagamine T, Ogata K, Nakamura M, Matsui H, Benno Y (1999) Rumen bacterial diversity as determined by sequence analysis of 16S rDNA libraries. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 29:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tajima K, Arai S, Ogata K, Nagamine T, Matsui H, Nakamura M, Aminov RI, Benno Y (2000) Rumen bacterial community transition during adaptation to high-grain diet. Anaerobe 6:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tajima K, Nonaka I, Higuchi K, Takusari N, Kurihara M, Takenaka A, Mitsumori M, Kajikawa H, Aminov RI (2007) Influence of high temperature and humidity on rumen bacterial diversity in Holstein heifers. Anaerobe 13:57–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Gylswyk NO (1995) Succiniclasticum ruminis gen nov, sp nov, a ruminal bacterium converting succinate to propionate as the sole energy-yielding mechanism. Int J Syst Bacteriol 45:297–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Whitford MF, Foster RJ, Beard CE, Gong J, Teather RM (1998) Phylogenetic analysis of rumen bacteria by comparative sequence analysis of cloned 16S rRNA genes. Anaerobe 4:153–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dipti W. Pitta
    • 1
  • William E. Pinchak
    • 1
  • Scott E. Dowd
    • 2
    • 4
  • Jason Osterstock
    • 3
  • Viktoria Gontcharova
    • 2
  • Eunseog Youn
    • 4
    • 5
  • Kristy Dorton
    • 6
  • Ilkyu Yoon
    • 6
  • Byeng R. Min
    • 1
  • J. D. Fulford
    • 1
  • Tryon A. Wickersham
    • 7
  • Dariusz P. Malinowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas AgriLife ResearchVernonUSA
  2. 2.Research and Testing LaboratoryLubbockUSA
  3. 3.Texas AgriLife ResearchAmarilloUSA
  4. 4.Medical Biofilm Research InstituteLubbockUSA
  5. 5.Department of Computer ScienceTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  6. 6.Diamond V Mills, IncCedar RapidsUSA
  7. 7.Department of Animal ScienceTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations