Advertisement

Bacterial colonisation of reeds and cottonseed hulls in the rumen of Tarim red deer (Cervus elaphus yarkandensis)

  • Wenxi Qian
  • Weiping Ao
  • Cunhui Jia
  • Zhipeng LiEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The rumen microbiome contributes greatly to the degradation of plant fibres to volatile fatty acids and microbial products, affecting the health and productivity of ruminants. In this study, we investigated the dynamics of colonisation by bacterial communities attached to reeds and cottonseed hulls in the rumen of Tarim red deer, a native species distributed in the desert of the Tarim Basin. The reed and cottonseed hull samples incubated in nylon bags for 1, 6, 12, and 48 h were collected and used to examine the bacterial communities by next-generation sequencing of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene. Prevotella1 and Rikenellaceae RC9 were the most abundant taxa in both the reed and cottonseed hull groups at various times, indicating a key role of these organisms in rumen fermentation in Tarim red deer. The relative abundances of cellulolytic bacteria, such as members of Fibrobacter, Treponema 2, Ruminococcaceae NK4A214 and Succiniclasticum increased, while that of the genus Prevotella 1 decreased, with increasing incubation time in both reeds and cottonseed hulls. Moreover, the temporal changes in bacterial diversity between reeds and cottonseed hulls were different, as demonstrated by the variations in the taxa Ruminococcaceae UCG 010 and Papillibacter in the reed group and Sphaerochaeta and Erysipelotrichaceae UCG 004 in the cottonseed hull group; the abundances of these bacteria first decreased and then increased. In conclusion, our results reveal the dynamics of bacterial colonisation of reeds and cottonseed hulls in the rumen of Tarim red deer.

Keywords

Tarim red deer Dynamics PrevotellaCellulolytic bacteria 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the Opening Project of Key Laboratory of Tarim Animal Husbandry Science and Technology, Xinjiang Production and Construction Group (Grant No. HS201702) to ZPL, and National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 31460610 and 31660671) to WXQ.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare no conflict of interest exits among the authors, and manuscript is approved by all authors for submission. All authors declare that the work is original research that has not been published previously, and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Human and animal participants

All animal care procedures were approved and authorised by the animal ethics committee of Tarim University.

Supplementary material

10482_2019_1260_MOESM1_ESM.tif (780 kb)
Figure S1. The dynamic composition at the phylum level of bacteria attached to reeds after 1, 6, 12, and 48 h of incubation in the rumen of Tarim red deer. (TIFF 779 kb)
10482_2019_1260_MOESM2_ESM.tif (731 kb)
Figure S2. The dynamic composition at the phylum level of bacteria attached to cottonseed hulls after 1, 6, 12, and 48 h of incubation in the rumen of Tarim red deer. (TIFF 731 kb)
10482_2019_1260_MOESM3_ESM.tif (1 mb)
Figure S3. Taxonomic representation showing the statistically and biologically difference in reed after 1, 6, 12, and 48 h of incubation in the rumen of Tarim red deer. Differences are represented by the colour of the most abundant class (Green, purple, red and blue indicating the samples after 1, 6, 12 and 48 h). The diameter of each circle’s diameter is proportional to the taxa abundance. (TIFF 1027 kb)
10482_2019_1260_MOESM4_ESM.tif (1.2 mb)
Figure S4. Taxonomic representation showing the statistically and biologically difference in cottonseed hulls over the incubation time. Differences are represented by the colour of the most abundant class (Green, purple, red and blue indicating the samples after 1, 6, 12 and 48 h). The diameter of each circle’s diameter is proportional to the taxa abundance. (TIFF 1225 kb)

References

  1. Abdul Rahman N, Parks D, Vanwonterghem I, Morrison M, Tyson GW, Hugenholtz P (2016) A phylogenomic analysis of the bacterial phylum Fibrobacteres. Front Microbiol.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01469 Google Scholar
  2. Amato KR et al (2018) Evolutionary trends in host physiology outweigh dietary niche in structuring primate gut microbiomes. ISME J 1:2.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0175-0 Google Scholar
  3. AOAC (2000) Official methods of analysis, 17th edn. AOAC, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
  4. Bekele AZ, Koike S, Kobayashi Y (2010) Genetic diversity and diet specificity of ruminal Prevotella revealed by 16S rRNA gene-based analysis. FEMS Microbiol Lett 305:49–57.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2010.01911.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Béra-Maillet C, Ribot Y, Forano E (2004) Fiber-degrading systems of different strains of the genus Fibrobacter. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:2172–2179.  https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.70.4.2172-2179.2004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergman EN (1990) Energy contributions of volatile fatty acids from the gastrointestinal tract in various species. Physiol Rev 70:567–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosshard PP, Zbinden R, Altwegg M (2002) Turicibacter sanguinis gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel anaerobic, Gram-positive bacterium. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 52:1263–1266.  https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-52-4-1263 Google Scholar
  8. Brook SM, Donnithorne-Tait D, Lorenzini R, Lovari S, Masseti M, Pereladova O, Ahmad K, Thakur M (2017) Cervus hanglu (amended version of 2017 assessment). The IUCN Red list of threatened species 2017 e.T4261A120733024.  https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-2.RLTS.T113259123A113281791.en
  9. Bui TPN, Ritari J, Boeren S, de Waard P, Plugge CM, de Vos WM (2015) Production of butyrate from lysine and the Amadori product fructoselysine by a human gut commensal. Nat Commun 6:10062.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bui TPN, Shetty SA, Lagkouvardos I, Ritari J, Chamlagain B, Douillard FP, Paulin L, Piironen V, Clavel T, Plugge CM, de Vos WM (2016) Comparative genomics and physiology of the butyrate-producing bacterium Intestinimonas butyriciproducens. Environ Microbiol Rep 8:1024–1037.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-2229.12483 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caporaso JG, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, DeSantis TZ, Andersen GL, Knight R (2010a) PyNAST: a flexible tool for aligning sequences to a template alignment. Bioinformatics 26:266–267.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp636 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, Fierer N, Pena AG, Goodrich JK, Gordon JI (2010b) QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 7:335–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Huntley J, Fierer N, Owens SM, Betley J, Fraser L, Bauer M, Gormley N, Gilbert JA, Smith G, Knight R (2012) Ultra-high-throughput microbial community analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. ISME J 6:1621–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caro-Quintero A, Ritalahti KM, Cusick KD, Löffler FE, Konstantinidis KT (2012) The chimeric genome of sphaerochaeta: nonspiral spirochetes that break with the prevalent dogma in spirochete biology. mBio.  https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00025-12 Google Scholar
  15. Christopherson MR, Dawson JA, Stevenson DM, Cunningham AC, Bramhacharya S, Weimer PJ, Kendziorski C, Suen G (2014) Unique aspects of fiber degradation by the ruminal ethanologen Ruminococcus albus 7 revealed by physiological and transcriptomic analysis. BMC Genom 15:1066.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-1066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cotta M (1992) Interaction of ruminal bacteria in the production and utilization of maltooligosaccharides from starch. Appl Environ Microbiol 58:48–54Google Scholar
  17. De Mulder T, Goossens K, Peiren N, Vandaele L, Haegeman A, De Tender C, Ruttink T, de Wiele TV, De Campeneere S (2017) Exploring the methanogen and bacterial communities of rumen environments: solid adherent, fluid and epimural. FEMS Microbiol Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiw251 Google Scholar
  18. Defnoun S, Labat M, Ambrosio M, Garcia JL, Patel BK (2000) Papillibacter cinnamivorans gen. nov., sp. nov., a cinnamate-transforming bacterium from a shea cake digester. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 50:1221–1228.  https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-50-3-1221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dehority BA (1966) Characterization of several bovine rumen bacteria isolated with a xylan medium. J Bacteriol 91:1724–1729Google Scholar
  20. Ding LM, Lascano GJ, Heinrichs AJ (2015) Effect of precision feeding high- and low-quality forage with different rumen protein degradability levels on nutrient utilization by dairy heifers. J Anim Sci 93:3066–3075.  https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-8260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dodd D, Mackie RI, Cann IKO (2011) Xylan degradation, a metabolic property shared by rumen and human colonic Bacteroidetes. Mol Microbiol 79:292–304.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2010.07473.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dufrene M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2963459 Google Scholar
  23. Edgar RC (2013) UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat Methods 10:996–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Edgar RC, Haas BJ, Clemente JC, Quince C, Knight R (2011) UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 27:2194–2200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eisler MC, Lee MR, Tarlton JF, Martin GB, Beddington J, Dungait JA, Greathead H, Liu J, Mathew S, Miller H, Misselbrook T, Murray P, Vinod VK, Van Saun R, Winter M (2014) Agriculture: steps to sustainable livestock. Nature 507:32–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gardner RG, Wells JE, Russell JB, Wilson DB (1995) The cellular location of Prevotella ruminicola beta-1,4-D-endoglucanase and its occurrence in other strains of ruminal bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 61:3288–3292Google Scholar
  27. Gruninger RJ, Sensen CW, McAllister TA, Forster RJ (2014) Diversity of rumen bacteria in Canadian cervids. PLoS One 9:e89682.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamer HM, Jonkers D, Venema K, Vanhoutvinn S, Troost FJ, Brummer RJ (2008) Review article: the role of butyrate on colonic function. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 27:104–119.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03562.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. He B, Nohara K, Ajami NJ, Michalek RD, Tian X, Wong M, Losee-Olson SH, Petrosino JF, Yoo SH, Shimomura K, Chen Z (2015) Transmissible microbial and metabolomic remodeling by soluble dietary fiber improves metabolic homeostasis. Sci Rep 5:10604.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Henderson G, Cox F, Ganesh S, Jonker A, Young W, Janssen PH (2015) Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Sci Rep 5:14567.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14567 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hess M, Sczyrba A, Egan R, Kim TW, Chokhawala H, Schroth G, Luo S, Clark DS, Chen F, Zhang T, Mackie RI, Pennacchio LA, Tringe SG, Visel A, Woyke T, Wang Z, Rubin EM (2011) Metagenomic discovery of biomass-degrading genes and genomes from cow rumen. Science 331:463–467.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huws SA, Mayorga OL, Theodorou MK, Onime LA, Kim EJ, Cookson AH, Newbold CJ, Kingston-Smith AH (2013) Successional colonization of perennial ryegrass by rumen bacteria. Lett Appl Microbiol 56:186–196.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lam.12033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huws SA, Edwards JE, Creevey CJ, Rees Stevens P, Lin W, Girdwood SE, Pachebat JA, Kingston-Smith AH (2016) Temporal dynamics of the metabolically active rumen bacteria colonizing fresh perennial ryegrass. FEMS Microbiol Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiv137 Google Scholar
  34. Ishaq SL, Wright ADG (2014) High-throughput DNA sequencing of the ruminal bacteria from Moose (Alces alces) in Vermont, Alaska, and Norway. Microb Ecol 68:185–195.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-014-0399-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jin W, Wang Y, Li Y, Cheng Y, Zhu W (2018) Temporal changes of the bacterial community colonizing wheat straw in the cow rumen. Anaerobe 50:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2018.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kabel MA, Yeoman CJ, Han Y, Dodd D, Abbas CA, de Bont JA, Morrison M, Cann IK, Mackie RI (2011) Biochemical characterization and relative expression levels of multiple carbohydrate esterases of the xylanolytic rumen bacterium Prevotella ruminicola 23 grown on an ester-enriched substrate. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:5671–5681.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.05321-11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim H, Lee I, Kwon Y, Kim BC, Ha S, Lee J-H, Kim J (2011) Immobilization of glucose oxidase into polyaniline nanofiber matrix for biofuel cell applications. Biosens Bioelectron 26:3908–3913.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2011.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim JN, Méndez-García C, Geier RR, Iakiviak M, Chang J, Cann I, Mackie RI (2017) Metabolic networks for nitrogen utilization in Prevotella ruminicola 23. Sci Rep 7:7851.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08463-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kläring K, Hanske L, Bui N, Charrier C, Blaut M, Haller D, Plugge CM, Clavel T (2013) Intestinimonas butyriciproducens gen. nov., sp. nov., a butyrate-producing bacterium from the mouse intestine. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 63:4606–4612.  https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.051441-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kohl KD, Denise Dearing M, Bordenstein SR (2018) Microbial communities exhibit host species distinguishability and phylosymbiosis along the length of the gastrointestinal tract. Mol Ecol 27:1874–1883.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kononoff PJ, Heinrichs AJ (2003) The effect of corn silage particle size and cottonseed hulls on cows in early lactation. J Dairy Sci 86:2438–2451.  https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73838-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kovatcheva-Datchary P, Nilsson A, Akrami R, Lee Ying S, De Vadder F, Arora T, Hallen A, Martens E, Björck I, Bäckhed F (2015) Dietary fiber-induced improvement in glucose metabolism is associated with increased abundance of Prevotella. Cell Metab 22:971–982.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2015.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 7:530–543.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2005.00721.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Li ZP, Liu HL, Li GY, Bao K, Wang KY, Xu C, Yang YF, Yang FH, Wright ADG (2013) Molecular diversity of rumen bacterial communities from tannin-rich and fiber-rich forage fed domestic Sika deer (Cervus nippon) in China. BMC Microbiol 13:151.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-13-151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Li ZP, Zhang ZG, Xu C, Zhao JB, Liu HL, Fan ZY, Yang F, Wright ADG, Li GY (2014) Bacteria and methanogens differ along the gastrointestinal tract of Chinese roe deer (Capreolus pygargus). PLoS One 9:e114513.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liu J, Pu YY, Xie Q, Wang JK, Liu JX (2015) Pectin induces an in vitro rumen microbial population shift attributed to the pectinolytic Treponema group. Curr Microbiol 70:67–74.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-014-0672-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Liu J, Zhang M, Xue C, Zhu W, Mao S (2016) Characterization and comparison of the temporal dynamics of ruminal bacterial microbiota colonizing rice straw and alfalfa hay within ruminants. J Dairy Sci 99:9668–9681.  https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lozupone C, Lladser ME, Knights D, Stombaugh J, Knight R (2011) UniFrac: an effective distance metric for microbial community comparison. ISME J 5:169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Malmuthuge N, Griebel PJ, Guan LL (2014) Taxonomic identification of commensal bacteria associated with the mucosa and digesta throughout the gastrointestinal tracts of preweaned calves. Appl Environ Microbiol 80:2021–2028.  https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.03864-13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mao SY, Huo WJ, Zhu WY (2016) Microbiome-metabolome analysis reveals unhealthy alterations in the composition and metabolism of ruminal microbiota with increasing dietary grain in a goat model. Environ Microbiol 18:525–541.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12724 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McAllister TA, Bae HD, Jones GA, Cheng KJ (1994) Microbial attachment and feed digestion in the rumen. J Anim Sci 72:3004–3018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moeller AH, Peeters M, Ndjango J-B, Li Y, Hahn BH, Ochman H (2013) Sympatric chimpanzees and gorillas harbor convergent gut microbial communities. Genome Res 23:1715–1720.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.154773.113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Paster BJ, Canale-Parola E (1982) Physiological diversity of rumen spirochetes. Appl Environ Microbiol 43:686–693Google Scholar
  54. Peng B, Huang S, Liu T, Geng A (2015) Bacterial xylose isomerases from the mammal gut Bacteroidetes cluster function in Saccharomyces cerevisiae for effective xylose fermentation. Microb Cell Factories 14:70.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-015-0253-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Piao H, Lachman M, Malfatti S, Sczyrba A, Knierim B, Auer M, Tringe SG, Mackie RI, Yeoman CJ, Hess M (2014) Temporal dynamics of fibrolytic and methanogenic rumen microorganisms during in situ incubation of switchgrass determined by 16S rRNA gene profiling. Front Microbiol.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00307 Google Scholar
  56. Pitta DW, Kumar S, Veiccharelli B, Parmar N, Reddy B, Joshi CG (2014) Bacterial diversity associated with feeding dry forage at different dietary concentrations in the rumen contents of Mehshana buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) using 16S pyrotags. Anaerobe 25:31–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2013.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP (2009) FastTree: computing large minimum evolution trees with profiles instead of a distance matrix. Mol Biol Evol 26:1641–1650.  https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msp077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Purushe J, Fouts D, Morrison M, White B, Mackie R, Coutinho P, Henrissat B, Nelson K (2010) Comparative genome analysis of Prevotella ruminicola and Prevotella bryantii: insights into their environmental niche. Microb Ecol 60:721–729.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-010-9692-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Qian WX, Li ZP, Ao WP, Zhao GY, Li GY, Wu JP (2017) Bacterial community composition and fermentation in the rumen of Xinjiang brown cattle (Bos taurus), Tarim red deer (Cervus elaphus yarkandensis), and Karakul sheep (Ovis aries). Can J Microbiol 63:375–383.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjm-2016-0596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Qiao J, Yang W, Gao X (2006) Natural diet and food habitat use of the Tarim red deer, Cervus elaphus yarkandensis. Chin Sci Bull 51:147–152.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-006-8219-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, Peplies J, Glockner FO (2013) The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res 41:D590–D596.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rosewarne CP, Cheung JL, Smith WJM, Evans PN, Tomkins NW, Denman SE, Cuiv PO, Morrison M (2012) Draft genome sequence of Treponema sp strain JC4, a novel spirochete isolated from the bovine rumen. J Bacteriol 194:4130.  https://doi.org/10.1128/Jb.00754-12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rubino F, Carberry C, Waters SM, Kenny D, McCabe MS, Creevey CJ (2017) Divergent functional isoforms drive niche specialisation for nutrient acquisition and use in rumen microbiome. ISME J 11:932–944.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2016.172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Russell JB, Rychlik JL (2001) Factors that alter rumen microbial ecology. Science 292:1119–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Seshadri R et al (2018) Cultivation and sequencing of rumen microbiome members from the Hungate1000 collection. Nat Biotechnol 1:2.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4110 Google Scholar
  66. Stanton TB, Canale-Parola E (1980) Treponema bryantii sp. nov., a rumen spirochete that interacts with cellulolytic bacteria. Arch Microbiol 127:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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 75:165–174.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-006-0802-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sundset MA, Praesteng KE, Cann IK, Mathiesen SD, Mackie RI (2007) Novel rumen bacterial diversity in two geographically separated sub-species of reindeer. Microb Ecol 54:424–438.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-007-9254-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Svartström O, Alneberg J, Terrapon N, Lombard V, de Bruijn I, Malmsten J, Dalin A-M, El Muller E, Shah P, Wilmes P, Henrissat B, Aspeborg H, Andersson AF (2017) Ninety-nine de novo assembled genomes from the moose (Alces alces) rumen microbiome provide new insights into microbial plant biomass degradation. ISME J 11:2538.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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 67:2766–2774.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.67.6.2766-2774.2001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tumur A, Abliz D, Halik M (2013) Habitat dynamics and its influence on the genetic diversity of Tarim red deer (Cervus elaphus yarkandensis) Xayar population of Xinjiang, China. Quat Int 311:140–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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 45:297–300.  https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-45-2-297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597.  https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Xie X, Yang C, Guan LL, Wang J, Xue M, Liu JX (2018) Persistence of cellulolytic bacteria Fibrobacter and Treponema after short-term corn stover-based dietary intervention reveals the potential to improve rumen fibrolytic function. Front Microbiol.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01363 Google Scholar
  75. Yu F, McNabb WC, Barry TN, Waghorn GC (1995) Effect of condensed tannin in cottonseed hulls upon the in vitro degradation of cottonseed kernel proteins by rumen microorganisms. J Sci Food Agric 69:223–234.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740690213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zhao L, Meng Q, Ren L, Liu W, Zhang X, Huo Y, Zhou Z (2015) Effects of nitrate addition on rumen fermentation, bacterial biodiversity and abundance. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 28:1433–1441.  https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Animal ScienceTarim UniversityAlarChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Tarim Animal Husbandry Science and Technology, Xinjiang Production and Construction GroupAlarChina
  3. 3.Department of Special Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, Institute of Special Animal and Plant SciencesChinese Academy of Agricultural SciencesChangchunChina

Personalised recommendations