Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 165–174

Dominance of Prevotella and low abundance of classical ruminal bacterial species in the bovine rumen revealed by relative quantification real-time PCR

Applied Microbial and Cell Physiology

Abstract

Relative quantification real-time PCR was used to quantify several bacterial species in ruminal samples from two lactating cows, each sampled 3 h after feeding on two successive days. Abundance of each target taxon was calculated as a fraction of the total 16S rRNA gene copies in the samples, using taxon-specific and eubacterial domain-level primers. Bacterial populations showed a clear predominance of members of the genus Prevotella, which comprised 42% to 60% of the bacterial rRNA gene copies in the samples. However, only 2% to 4% of the bacterial rRNA gene copies were represented by the classical ruminal Prevotella species Prevotella bryantii, Prevotella ruminicola and Prevotella brevis. The proportion of rRNA gene copies attributable to Fibrobacter succinogenes, Ruminococcus flavefaciens, Selenomonas ruminantium and Succinivibrio dextrinosolvens were each generally in the 0.5% to 1% range. Proportions for Ruminobacter amylophilus and Eubacterium ruminantium were lower (0.1% to 0.2%), while Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens, Streptococcus bovis, Ruminococcus albus and Megasphaera elsdenii were even less abundant, each comprising <0.03% of the bacterial rRNA gene copies. The data suggest that the aggregate abundance of the most intensively studied ruminal bacterial species is relatively low and that a large fraction of the uncultured population represents a single bacterial genus.

Keywords

Bovine PCR Prevotella Primers Real-time PCR Rumen 

References

  1. Avgustin G, Wallace RJ, Flint HJ (1997) Phenotypic diversity among ruminal isolates of Prevotella ruminicola: proposal of Prevotella brevis, sp. nov., Prevotella bryantii sp. nov., and Prevotella albensis, sp. nov. and redefinition of Prevotella rumincola. Int J Syst Bacteriol 47:284–288Google Scholar
  2. Bryant MP, Burkey LA (1953) Numbers and some predominant groups of bacteria in the rumen of cows fed different rations. J Dairy Sci 36:218–224Google Scholar
  3. Dehority BA, Grubb JA (1980) Effect of short-term chilling of rumen contents on viable bacterial numbers. Appl Environ Microbiol 39:376–381Google Scholar
  4. Ferme D, Banjac M, Calsamiglia S, Busquet M, Kamel C, Avgustin G (2004) The effects of plant extracts on microbial community structure in a rumen-simulating continuous-culture system as revealed by molecular profiling. Folia Microbiol (Praha) 49:151–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fredricks DN, Fielder TL, Marrazzo JM (2005) Molecular identification of bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis. New Engl J Med 353:1899–1911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hungate RE (1966) The rumen and its microbes. Academic, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  7. Janssen PH (2006) Identifying the dominant soil bacterial taxa in libraries of 16S rRNA and 16S rRNA genes. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:1719–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Klieve AV, Hennessy D, Ouwerkerk D, Forster RJ, Mackie RI, Attwood GT (2003) Establishing populations of Megasphaera elsdenii YE34 and Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens YE44 in the rumen of cattle fed high grain diets. J Appl Microbiol 95:621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Krause DO, Russell JB (1996) How many ruminal bacteria are there? J Dairy Sci 79:1467–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krause DO, Dalrymple BP, Smith WJ, Mackie RI, McSweeney CS (1999) 16S rDNA sequencing of Ruminococcus albus and Ruminococcus flavefaciens: design of a signature probe and its application in adult sheep. Microbiology 145:1797–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pfaffl MW (2001) A new mathematical model for relative quantification in real-time RT-PCR. Nucleic Acids Res 29:2002–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ruiz TR, Andrews S, Smith GB (2000) Identification and characterization of nuclease activities in anaerobic environmental samples. Can J Microbiol 46:736–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Slyter LL, Oltjen RR, Kern DL, Blank FC (1970) Influence of type and level of grain and diethylstilbestrol on rumen microbial populations of steers fed all-concentrate diets. J Anim Sci 31:996–1002Google Scholar
  14. Tajima K, Aminov RI, Nagamine T, Matsui H, Nakamura M, Benno Y (2001) Diet-dependent shifts in the bacterial population of the rumen revealed with real-time PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:2766–2774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tepsic K, Avgustin G (2001) Molecular monitoring of ruminal prevotellas. Folia Microbiol (Praha) 46:87–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Varel VH, Dehority BA (1989) Ruminal cellulolytic bacteria and protozoa from bison, cattle–bison hybrids, and cattle fed three alfalfa–corn diets. Appl Environ Microbiol 55:148–153Google Scholar
  17. Weimer PJ, Waghorn GC, Odt CL, Mertens DR (1999) Effect of diet on populations of three species of ruminal cellulolytic bacteria in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 82:122–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. White BA, Cann IKO, Kocherginskaya SA, Aminov RI, Thill LA, Mackie RI, Onodera R (1999) Molecular analysis of archaea, bacteria and eucarya communities in the rumen: review. Asian–Australas J Anim Sci 12:129–138Google Scholar
  19. Wood J, Scott KP, Avgustin G, Newbold CJ, Flint HJ (1998) Estimation of the relative abundance of different Bacteroides and Prevotella ribotypes in gut samples by restriction enzyme profiling of PCR-amplified 16S rRNA gene sequences. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:3683–3689Google Scholar
  20. Yu Y, Lee C, Kim J, Hwang S (2005) Group-specific primer and probe sets to detect methanogenic communities using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Biotechnol Bioeng 89:670–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.United States Dairy Forage Research Center, Agricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BacteriologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations