Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of Probiotic Geotrichum candidum QAUGC01 on Health, Productivity, and Gut Microbial Diversity of Dairy Cattle

  • Published:
Current Microbiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gut microbial diversity is a determinant of animal productivity and health. Probiotic supplementation in feed has been known to modulate the gut microbial diversity resulting in better feed utilization and resistance against diseases. The current study was designed to determine the probiotic potential of Geotrichum candidum QAUGC01 (VHDP00000000) in Sahiwal-Friesian crossbred dairy cows and its impact on gut microbial diversity, health, and productivity. To evaluate health and productivity, growth performance, determination of blood parameters, serum biochemistry, feed efficiency, milk yield & composition, and nutrients digestibility was determined and compared between control and experimental groups. Moreover, at the end of the experiment, the gut microbial diversity was evaluated through MiSeq (Illumina) sequencing of bacterial and fungal/yeast DNA in dung samples of both control and experimental cows. Inspite of a significant reduction in dry matter intake the increase in feed efficiency and milk yield was observed in experimental cows with normal hematological and serum biochemical profile. The increase in anaerobic bacterial count and decrease in the shredding of pathogenic flora was observed in experimental cows. Metagenomic analysis revealed Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Bacteroidetes to be the four dominating phyla among bacteria and, Ascomycota followed by Basidiomycota and Neocallimastigomycota among the fungal population in both groups. The diversity of the core microbiome revealed high bacterial and Fungal Alpha diversity in the experimental group than in control via the Shannon index. This study provided insights into the safe use of G. candidum as a probiotic, to improve growth performance, health, productivity and gut microbial diversity of dairy cattle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All sequenced data are published in the NCBI Bio project (Accession: PRJNA495109). Raw data and outputs may also be available upon request.

Code Availability

N/A.

References

  1. Abdulrahman YM (2017) Historical-chronological emergence of universities in Nigeria: the perspectives in “Colomilicivilian” periodization

  2. Puniya AK, Salem AZM, Kumar S et al (2015) Role of live microbial feed supplements with reference to anaerobic fungi in ruminant productivity: a review. J Integr Agric 14(3):550–560

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pinloche E, McEwan N, Marden JP, Bayourthe C, Auclair E, Newbold CJ (2013) The effects of a probiotic yeast on the bacterial diversity and population structure in the rumen of cattle. PLoS ONE 8(7):e67824

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Nimrat S, Khaopong W, Sangsong J, Boonthai T, Vuthiphandchai V (2021) Dietary administration of Bacillus and yeast probiotics improves the growth, survival, and microbial community of juvenile whiteleg shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei. J Appl Aquac 33(1):15–31

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pottier I, Gente S, Vernoux JP, Guéguen M (2008) Safety assessment of dairy microorganisms: Geotrichum candidum. Int J Food Microbiol 126(3):327–332

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Amir I, Zuberi A, Kamran M, Imran M, Murtaza MH (2019) Evaluation of commercial application of dietary encapsulated probiotic (Geotrichum candidum QAUGC01): effect on growth and immunological indices of rohu (Labeo rohita, Hamilton 1822) in semi-intensive culture system. Fish Shellfish Immunol 95:464–472

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Boutrou R, Aziza M, Amrane A (2006) Enhanced proteolytic activities of Geotrichum candidum and Penicillium camembertii in mixed culture. Enzym Microb Technol 39(2):325–331

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ghori I, Tabassum M, Ahmad T, Zuberi A, Imran M (2018) Geotrichum candidum enhanced the Enterococcus faecium impact in improving physiology, and health of Labeo rohita (Hamilton, 1822) by modulating gut microbiome under mimic aquaculture conditions. Turkish J Fish Aquat Sci 18:1255–1267

    Google Scholar 

  9. Edmonson AJ, Lean IJ, Weaver LD, Farver T, Webster G (1989) A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 72(1):68–78

    Google Scholar 

  10. Anjum MI, Mirza IH, Begum I, Javaid S (2014) Effects of varying levels of calcium in rations for buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) calves on growth rate and nutrient digestibility. J Anim Plant Sci 24:24–29

    Google Scholar 

  11. AOAC (2000) Official Methods of Analysis of the AOAC. Assoc Arlingt County, VA

  12. Van Soest PJ, Mason VC (1991) The influence of the Maillard reaction upon the nutritive value of fibrous feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol 32(1–3):45–53

    Google Scholar 

  13. Warnick GR, Knopp RH, Fitzpatrick V, Branson L (1990) Estimating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by the Friedewald equation is adequate for classifying patients on the basis of nationally recommended cutpoints. Clin Chem 36(1):15–19

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Skoglund J (2016) Quantification of short chain fatty acids in serum and plasma

  15. Kessler EC, Gross JJ, Bruckmaier RM, Albrecht C (2014) Cholesterol metabolism, transport, and hepatic regulation in dairy cows during transition and early lactation. J Dairy Sci 97(9):5481–5490

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA et al (2011) Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(Suppl 1):4516–4522

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N et al (2006) Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(7):5069–5072

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Timmerman HM, Mulder L, Everts H et al (2005) Health and growth of veal calves fed milk replacers with or without probiotics. J Dairy Sci 88(6):2154–2165

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cakiroglu D, Meral Y, Pekmezci D, Akdag F (2010) Effects of live yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) on milk production and blood lipid levels of Jersey cows in early lactation. J Anim Vet Adv 9(9):1370–1374

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Schingoethe DJ, Linke KN, Kalscheur KF, Hippen AR, Rennich DR, Yoon I (2004) Feed efficiency of mid-lactation dairy cows fed yeast culture during summer. J Dairy Sci 87(12):4178–4181

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shakira G, Qubtia M, Ahmed I, Hasan F, Anjum MI, Imran M (2018) Effect of indigenously isolated saccharomyces cerevisiae probiotics on milk production, nutrient digestibility, blood chemistry and fecal microbiota in lactating dairy cows. J Anim Plant Sci 28(2):407–420

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dailidavičienė J, Budreckienė R, Gruzauskas R, Kerzienė S, Andruleviciute V, Sinkevičienė I (2018) The influence of probiotic additives or multienzyme composition on blood biochemical parameters and milk quality of Lithuanian Black-and-White cattle. Arq Bras Med Veterinária e Zootec 70:939–945

    Google Scholar 

  23. Syal P, Vohra A (2014) Probiotic attributes of a yeast-like fungus, Geotrichum klebahnii. Afr J Microbiol Res 8(20):2037–2043

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bakr HA, Hassan M, Giadinis N et al (2015) Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on health and performance of dairy cows during transition and early lactation period. Biotechnol Anim Husb 31:349–364

    Google Scholar 

  25. Zhu W, Wei Z, Xu N et al (2017) Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products on performance and rumen fermentation and microbiota in dairy cows fed a diet containing low quality forage. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 8:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  26. Strzałkowska N, Jóźwik A, Bagnicka E, Krzyżewski J, Cooper GR, Horbańczuk JO (2010) Factors affecting the cholesterol content of milk of cows fed conserved feeds in a TMR system throughout the year. Mljekarstvo časopis za unaprjeđenje Proizv i prerade mlijeka 60(4):273–279

    Google Scholar 

  27. Faye B, Bengoumi M, Al-Masaud A, Konuspayeva G (2015) Comparative milk and serum cholesterol content in dairy cow and camel. J King Saud Univ Sci 27(2):168–175

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kawakami SI, Yamada T, Nakanishi N, Cai Y (2010) Feeding of lactic acid bacteria and yeast on growth and diarrhea of Holstein Calves. J Anim Vet Adv 9(7):1112–1114

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Chaucheyras-Durand F, Walker ND, Bach A (2008) Effects of active dry yeasts on the rumen microbial ecosystem: past, present and future. Anim Feed Sci Technol 145(1–4):5–26

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bunešová V, Vlková E, Killer J, Rada V, Ročková Š (2012) Identification of Bifidobacterium strains from faeces of lambs. Small Rumin Res 105(1–3):355–360

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mao S, Zhang M, Liu J, Zhu W (2015) Characterising the bacterial microbiota across the gastrointestinal tracts of dairy cattle: membership and potential function. Sci Rep 5(1):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  32. Girija D, Deepa K, Xavier F, Antony I, Shidhi PR (2013) Analysis of cow dung microbiota—a metagenomic approach

  33. Niewerth H, Schuldes J, Parschat K et al (2012) Complete genome sequence and metabolic potential of the quinaldine-degrading bacterium Arthrobacter sp. Rue61a. BMC Genomics 13(1):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jami E, Mizrahi I (2012) Composition and similarity of bovine rumen microbiota across individual animals. PLoS ONE 7(3):e33306

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Li M, Penner GB, Hernandez-Sanabria E, Oba M, Guan LL (2009) Effects of sampling location and time, and host animal on assessment of bacterial diversity and fermentation parameters in the bovine rumen. J Appl Microbiol 107(6):1924–1934

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Magrini V, Mardis ER, Gordon JI (2006) An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature 444(7122):1027–1031

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wallace J, Newbold C (1995) Microbial feed additives for ruminants

  38. Mosoni P, Chaucheyras-Durand F, Béra-Maillet C, Forano E (2007) Quantification by real-time PCR of cellulolytic bacteria in the rumen of sheep after supplementation of a forage diet with readily fermentable carbohydrates: effect of a yeast additive. J Appl Microbiol 103(6):2676–2685

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Guedes C, Gonçalves D, Rodrigues M, Dias-da-Silva A (2008) Effects of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast on ruminal fermentation and fibre degradation of maize silages in cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 145:27–40

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Martens EC, Chiang HC, Gordon JI (2008) Mucosal glycan foraging enhances fitness and transmission of a saccharolytic human gut bacterial symbiont. Cell Host Microbe 4(5):447–457

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Graf J (2014) The family Rikenellaceae. In: Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F (eds) The Prokaryotes. Springer, Berlin, pp 857–859

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lenoir J (1984) The surface flora and its role in the ripening of cheese. Bull Int Lait 171:3–20

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Indugu N, Vecchiarelli B, Baker LD, Ferguson JD, Vanamala JKP, Pitta DW (2017) Comparison of rumen bacterial communities in dairy herds of different production. BMC Microbiol 17(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  44. Thareja A, Puniya AK, Goel G et al (2006) In vitro degradation of wheat straw by anaerobic fungi from small ruminants. Arch Anim Nutr 60(5):412–417

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Li Y, Meng Z, Xu Y et al (2021) Interactions between anaerobic fungi and methanogens in the rumen and their biotechnological potential in biogas production from lignocellulosic materials. Microorganisms 9(1):190

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Breuer U, Harms H (2006) Debaryomyces hansenii—an extremophilic yeast with biotechnological potential. Yeast 23(6):415–437

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Muhammad A, Ali S, Bokhari I et al (2017) Purification and characterization of extracellular lipase by Geotrichum candidum of dairy origin. Pak J Bot 49(2):757–761

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Mapperson RR, Kotiw M, Davis RA, Dearnaley JDW (2014) The diversity and antimicrobial activity of Preussia sp. endophytes isolated from Australian dry rainforests. Curr Microbiol 68(1):30–37

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to Shafi Reso Chemicals (SRC) (Pvt) Ltd. dairy farm Lahore for their support, particularly for providing facilities to perform this work. We also thank Dr. Naimat Ullah Khan (College of Veterinary Sciences, Abdul Wali Khan University), Dr. Shakirullah (Department of Animal and Poultry Production, Gomal University) and Qalab Abbas (Department of Microbiology, Quaid-i-Azam University) for their support during the sample analysis. Funding was provided by Pakistan Science Foundation (PSF).

Funding

This work was supported by Pakistan Science Foundation (PSF) Research Project No. PSF/ILP/C-QU/BIOTECH (078) Development of microbial-based feed supplement and evaluation of its efficiency on growth, production, and health of dairy cattle.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad, 45320, Pakistan

    Shahid Zaman, Madeeha Gohar, Hafsa Kanwal, Afia Chaudhary & Muhammad Imran

  2. Department of Livestock and Dairy Development (Ext), Peshawar, 25000, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

    Shahid Zaman

Authors
  1. Shahid Zaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madeeha Gohar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hafsa Kanwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Afia Chaudhary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Muhammad Imran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, SZ, and MI; Data curation, SZ, Funding acquisition: MI.; Investigation: SZ; Methodology: SZ; Supervision: MI; Roles/Writing—original draft, AC, MG, and HK; Writing—review & editing, HK and MG. All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Imran.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All the practices (housing, nutrition, experimental procedures, etc.) were according to the “Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching” and approved by the ethical committee of Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Consent to Participate

N/A.

Consent for Publication

N/A.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 229 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zaman, S., Gohar, M., Kanwal, H. et al. Impact of Probiotic Geotrichum candidum QAUGC01 on Health, Productivity, and Gut Microbial Diversity of Dairy Cattle. Curr Microbiol 79, 376 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-022-03074-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-022-03074-2

Search

Navigation