World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 669–680 | Cite as

Impact of subacute ruminal acidosis on the diversity of liquid and solid-associated bacteria in the rumen of goats

Original Paper


This study was aimed to investigate the impact of subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) on the diversity of liquid (LAB) and solid-associated bacteria (SAB) following high-grain feeding. Six ruminally cannulated goats were divided into two groups: one group was fed a hay diet (COD), and the other group was fed a high grain diet (SAID). Rumen liquids and rumen solids were sampled after 2 weeks adaption. SARA was diagnosed with a pH below 5.8 for 8 h. SAID decreased ruminal pH (P < 0.001) and increased the acetate (P = 0.017), propionate (P = 0.001), butyrate (P < 0.001) and total volatile fatty acid (P < 0.001) concentration in rumen compared with the COD. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis fingerprints analysis revealed a clear separation between both the diet and the fraction of rumen digesta in bacterial communities. Pyrosequencing analysis showed that the proportion of phylum Bacteroidetes in the SAID-LAB and SAID-SAB communities was less than in the COD group, whereas the SAID group had a greater percentage of Firmicutes in both the LAB and SAB libraries. UniFrac analyses and a Venn diagram revealed a large difference between the two diets in the diversity of rumen bacterial communities. Overall, our findings revealed that SARA feeding did alter the community structure of rumen liquids and rumen solids. Thus, manipulation of dietary factors, such as ratio of forage to concentrate may have the potential to alter the microbial composition of rumen liquid and rumen solid.


Subacute ruminal acidosis Pyrosequencing Microbiota Goat 



This work was supported by grants from the Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (31172228) and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (KYZ201114).

Supplementary material

11274_2013_1489_MOESM1_ESM.docx (69 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 68 kb)
11274_2013_1489_MOESM2_ESM.docx (68 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 67 kb)
11274_2013_1489_MOESM3_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 23 kb)
11274_2013_1489_MOESM4_ESM.doc (44 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOC 42 kb)
11274_2013_1489_MOESM5_ESM.doc (38 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOC 37 kb)
11274_2013_1489_MOESM6_ESM.doc (146 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (DOC 141 kb)
11274_2013_1489_MOESM7_ESM.doc (128 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (DOC 124 kb)
11274_2013_1489_MOESM8_ESM.doc (143 kb)
Supplementary material 8 (DOC 139 kb)


  1. Aminov RI, Benno Y (2000) Rumen bacterial community transition during adaptation to high-grain diet. Anaerobe 6:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 ruminicola. Int J Syst Bacteriol 47:284–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 305:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belanche A, de la Fuente G, Pinloche E, Newbold CJ, Balcells J (2012) Effect of diet and absence of protozoa on the rumen microbial community and on the representativeness of bacterial fractions used in the determination of microbial protein synthesis. J Anim Sci 90:3924–3936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belenguer A, Duncan SH, Holtrop G, Anderson SE, Lobley GE, Flint HJ (2007) Impact of pH on lactate formation and utilization by human fecal microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:6526–6533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boguhn J, Kluth H, Rodehutscord M (2006) Effect of total mixed ration composition on amino acid profiles of different fractions of ruminal microbes in vitro. J Dairy Sci 89:1592–1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheung MK, Au CH, Chu KH, Kwan HS, Wong CK (2010) Composition and genetic diversity of picoeukaryotes in subtropical coastal waters as revealed by 454 pyrosequencing. ISME 4:1053–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craig WM, Brown DR, Broderick GA, Ricker DB (1987) Post-prandial compositional changes of fluid- and particle-associated ruminal microorganisms. J Anim Sci 65:1042–1048Google Scholar
  9. Cunha IS, Barreto CC, Costa OY, Bomfim MA, Castro AP, Kruger RH, Quirino BF (2011) Bacteria and Archaea community structure in the rumen microbiome of goats (Capra hircus) from the semiarid region of Brazil. Anaerobe 17:118–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duncan SH, Louis P, Flint HJ (2004) Lactate-utilizing bacteria, isolated from human feces that produce butyrate as a major fermentation product. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:5810–5817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eadie FM (1962) The development of rumen microbial populations in lambs and calves under various conditions of management. J Gen Microbiol 29:563–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fernando SC, Purvis HT II, Najar FZ, Sukharnikov LO, Krehbiel CR, Nagaraja TG, Roe BA, DeSilva U (2010) Rumen microbial population dynamics during adaptation to a high-grain diet. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:7482–7490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flint HJ, Bayer EA, Rincon MT, Lamed R, White BA (2008) Polysaccharide utilization by gut bacteria: potential for new insights from genomic analysis. Nat Rev Microbiol 6:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forsberg CW, Lam K (1977) Use of adenosine 5′-triphosphate as an indicator of the microbiota biomass in rumen contents. Appl Environ Microbiol 33:528–537Google Scholar
  15. Ghorbani GR, Morgavi DP, Beauchemin KA, Leedle JA (2002) Effects of bacterial direct-fed microbials on ruminal fermentation blood variables and the microbial populations of feedlot cattle. J Anim Sci 80:1977–1985Google Scholar
  16. Godoy-Vitorino F, Goldfarb KC, Karaoz U, Leal S, Garcia-Amado MA, Hugenholtz P, Tringe SG, Brodie EL, Dominguez-Bello MG (2012) Comparative analyses of foregut and hindgut bacterial communities in hoatzins and cows. ISME J 6:531–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hashizume K, Tsukahara T, Yamada K, Koyama H, Ushida K (2003) Megasphaera elsdenii JCM1772T normalizes hyperlactate production in the large intestine of fructooligosaccharide-fed rats by stimulating butyrate production. J Nutr 133:3187–3190Google Scholar
  18. Hook SE, Steele MA, Northwood KS, Dijkstra J, France J, Wright AD, McBride BW (2011) Impact of subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) adaptation and recovery on the density and diversity of bacteria in the rumen of dairy cows. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 78:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ipharraguerre IR, Reynal SM, Liñeiro M, Broderick GA, Clark JH (2007) A comparison of sampling sites, digesta and microbial markers, and microbial references for assessing the postruminal supply of nutrients in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 90:1904–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khafipour E, Li S, Plaizier JC, Krause DO (2009) Rumen microbiome composition determined using two nutritional models of subacute ruminal acidosis. Appl Environ Microbiol 175:7115–7124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim M, Morrison M, Yu Z (2011) Status of the phylogenetic diversity census of ruminal microbiomes. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 76:49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 7:530–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee HJ, Jung JY, Oh YK, Lee SS, Madsen EL, Jeon CO (2012) Comparative survey of rumen microbial communities and metabolites across one caprine and three bovine groups, using bar-coded pyrosequencing and 1H nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:5983–5993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lozupone C, Knight R (2005) UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:8228–8235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mackie RI, Gilchrist FM (1979) Changes in lactate-producing and lactate-utilizing bacteria in relation to pH in the rumen of sheep during stepwise adaptation to a high-concentrate diet. Appl Environ Microbiol 38:422–430Google Scholar
  26. Mao SY, Zhang G, Zhu WY (2008) Effect of disodium fumarate on ruminal metabolism and rumen bacterial communities in goat as revealed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of 16S ribosomal DNA. Anim Feed Sci Technol 140:293–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McAllister TA, Bae HD, Jones GA, Cheng KJ (1994) Microbial attachment and feed digestion in the rumen. J Anim Sci 72:3004–3018Google Scholar
  28. Merry RJ, McAllan AB (1983) A comparison of the chemical composition of mixed bacteria harvested from the liquid and solid fractions of rumen digesta. Br J Nutr 50:701–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miron J, Ben-Ghedalia D, Morrison M (2001) Invited review: adhesion mechanisms of rumen cellulolytic bacteria. J Dairy Sci 84:1294–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muyzer G, Waal EC, Uitterlinden AG (1993) Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes encoding for 16 s rRna. Appl Environ Microbiol 9:695–700Google Scholar
  31. Nagaraja TG, Titgemeyer EC (2007) Ruminal acidosis in beef cattle: the current microbiological and nutritional outlook. J Dairy Sci 1:17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nübel U, Engelen B, Felske A, Snaidr J, Wieshuber A, Amann RI, Ludwig W, Backhaus H (1996) Sequence heterogeneities of genes encoding 16S rRNAs in Paenibacillus polymixa detected by temperature gradient gel electrophoresis. J Bacteriol 178:5636–5643Google Scholar
  33. Pei CX, Liu Q, Dong CS, Li H, Jiang JB, Gao WJ (2010) Diversity and abundance of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequences in forestomach of alpacas (Lama pacos) and sheep (Ovis aries). Anaerobe 16:426–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pruesse E, Quast C, Knittel K, Fuchs BM, Ludwig W, Peplies J, Glöckner FO (2007) SILVA: a comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB. Nucleic Acids Res 35:7188–7196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Purushe J, Fouts DE, Morrison M, White BA, Mackie RI, Coutinho PM, Nelson KE (2010) Comparative genome analysis of Prevotella ruminicola and Prevotella bryantii: insights into their environmental niche. Microbial Ecol 60:721–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Quince C, Lanzen A, Davenport RJ, Turnbaugh PJ (2011) Removing noise from pyrosequenced amplicons. BMC Bioinformatics. doi:10.1186/2011/1471-2105-12-38
  37. Sanguinetti CJ, Dias NE, Simpson AJ (1994) Rapid silver staining and recovery of pcr products separated on polyacrylamide gels. Biotechnuques 17:914–921Google Scholar
  38. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, Lesniewski RA, Oakley BB, Parks DH, Robinson CJ, Sahl JW, Stres B, Thallinger GG, Van Horn DJ, Weber CF (2009) Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:7537–7541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shi PJ, Meng K, Zhou ZG, Wang YR, Diao QY, Yao B (2008) The host species affects the microbial community in the goat rumen. Lett Appl Microbiol 46:132–135Google Scholar
  40. 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 75:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stewart CS, Flint HJ, Bryant MP (1997) The rumen bacteria. In: Hobson PN, Stewart CS (eds) The rumen microbial ecosystem. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 10–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Strobel E, Seeling K, Tebbe CC (2008) Diversity responses of rumen microbial communities to Fusarium-contaminated feed, evaluated with rumen simulating technology (Rusitec). Environ Microbiol 10:483–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Su Y, Li B, Zhu WY (2013) Fecal microbiota of piglets prefer utilizing dl-lactate mixture as compared to d-lactate and l-lactate in vitro. Anaerobe 19:27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Tsukahara T, Koyama H, Okada M, Ushida K (2002) Stimulation of butyrate production by gluconic acid in batch culture of pig cecal digesta and identification of butyrate-producing bacteria. J Nutr 132:2229–2234Google Scholar
  46. Wallace RJ (1994) Ruminal microbiology, biotechnology, and ruminant nutrition: progress and problems. J Anim Sci 72:2992–3003Google Scholar
  47. Wright AD, Williams AJ, Winder B, Christophersen CT, Rodgers SL, Smith KD (2004) Molecular diversity of rumen methanogens from sheep in Western Australia. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:1263–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wright AD, Auckland CH, Lynn DH (2007) Molecular diversity of methanogens in feedlot cattle from Ontario and Prince Edward Island, Canada. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:4206–4210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zebeli Q, Tafaj M, Weber I, Steingass H, Drochner W (2008) Effects of dietary forage particle size and concentrate level on fermentation profile, in vitro degradation characteristics and concentration of liquid- or solid-associated bacterial mass in the rumen of dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 140:307–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Microbiology, College of Animal Science and TechnologyNanjing Agricultural UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations