Skip to main content

Microbial profiles of liquid and solid fraction associated biomaterial in buffalo rumen fed green and dry roughage diets by tagged 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing

Molecular Biology Reports volume 42, pages 95–103 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

The microbiome of buffalo rumen plays an important role in animal health and productivity. The rumen bacterial composition of both liquid and solid fraction was surveyed using pyrosequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. Sequences were analyzed using taxonomy-dependent clustering methods and revealed that the dominant ruminal bacteria shared by samples belonged to phyla Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Fibrobacteres and Proteobacteria. The core rumen microbiome of the rumen consisted of 10 phyla, 19 classes, 22 orders and 25 families. However, the relative abundance of these bacterial groups was markedly affected by diet composition as well as in type of biomaterial. In animals fed with a green and dry roughage diet, the cellulolytic bacteria, Ruminococcaceae, and Fibrobacteraceae was found in highest abundance in all biomaterials which reflected the need for enhanced fiber-digesting capacity in buffalo. The polysaccharide-degrading Prevotellaceae bacteria were most abundant in buffalo rumen. In taxonomic comparison of rumen bacteria, about 26 genera were differentially abundant among liquid and solid fraction of ruminal fluid. These results highlight the buffalo ruminal microbiome’s ability to adapt to feed with different composition.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Hespell RB, Akin DE, Dehority BA (1997) In: Mackie RI, White BA, Isaacson R (eds) Gastrointestinal microbiology, vol 2. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 59–186

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Klieve AV, Bauchop T (1988) Morphological diversity of ruminal bacteriophages from sheep and cattle. Appl Environ Microbiol 54:1637–1641

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Li RW, Sparks M, Connor EE (2011) Dynamics of the rumen microbiota. Metagenomics and its applications in agriculture, biomedicine and environmental studies. Nova Science, New York, pp 135–164

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gregg K (1995) Engineering gut flora of ruminant livestock to reduce forage toxicity: progress and problems. Trends Biotechnol 13:418–421

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hess M, Sczyrba A, Egan R, Kim TW, Chokhawala H et al (2011) Metagenomic discovery of biomass-degrading genes and genomes from cow rumen. Science 331:463–467

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jones RT, Robeson MS, Lauber CL, Hamady M, Knight R, Fierer NA (2009) Comprehensive survey of soil acidobacterial diversity using pyrosequencing and clone library analyses. ISME J 3(4):442–453

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim M, Morrison M, Yu Z (2011) Status of the phylogenetic diversity census of ruminal microbiomes. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 76:49–63

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dowd SE, Callaway TR, Wallcott RD, Sun Y, McKeehan T, Hagevoort RG, Edrington TS (2008) Evaluation of the bacterial diversity in the feces of cattle using 16S rDNAbacterial tag-encoded FLX ampliconpyrosequencing (bTEFAP). Microbiology 8:125

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Edwards JE, McEwan NR, Travis AJ, Wallace RJ (2004) 16S rDNA library-based analysis of ruminal bacterial diversity. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 86:263–281

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Singh KM, Shah T, Deshpande S, Jakhesara S, Koringa PG, Rank DN, Joshi CG (2012) High through put 16S rRNA gene-based pyrosequencing analysis of the fecal microbiota of high FCR and low FCR broiler growers. Mol Biol Rep 39(12):10595–10602

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Buee M, Reich M, Murat C, Morin E, Nilsson RH, Uroz S, Martin F (2009) 454 Pyrosequencing analyses of forest soils reveal an unexpectedly high fungal diversity. New Phytol 184(2):449–456

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Humblot C, Guyot JP (2009) Pyrosequencing of tagged 16S rRNA gene amplicons for rapid deciphering of the microbiomes of fermented foods such as pearl millet slurries. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:4354–4361

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sanapareddy N, Hamp TJ, Gonzalez LC, Hilger HA, Fodor AA, Clinton SM (2009) Molecular diversity of a North Carolina wastewater treatment plant as revealed by pyrosequencing. Appl Environ Microbiol 75(6):1688–1696

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Andersson AF, Lindberg M, Jakobsson H, Backhed F, Nyren P, Engstrand L (2008) Comparative analysis of human gut microbiota by barcoded pyrosequencing. PLoS One 3:e2836

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pitta DW, Pinchak E, Dowd SE, Osterstock J, Gontcharova V, Youn E, Dorton K, Yoon I, Min BR, Fulford JD, Wickersham TA, Malinowski DP (2010) Rumen bacterial diversity dynamics associated with changing from bermuda grass hay to grazed winter wheat diets. Microb Ecol 59:511–522

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Singh KM, Ahir VB, Tripathi AK, Ramani UV, Sajnani M, Koringa PG, Jakhesara S, Pandya PR, Rank DN, Murty DS, Kothari RK, Joshi CG (2012) Metagenomic analysis of Surti buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) rumen: a preliminary study. Mol Biol Rep 39:4841–4848

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR (2007) Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol 73(16):5261–5526

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Parks DH, Beiko G (2010) Identifying biologically relevant differences between metagenomic communities. Bioinformatics 26:715–721

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. John Wallace R (2008) Gut microbiology—broad genetic diversity, yet specific metabolic niches. Animal 2:661–668

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Thoetkiattikul Honglada, Mhuantong Wuttichai, Laothanachareon Thanaporn, Pattarajinda Sithichoke Tangphatsornruang Virote, Eurwilaichitr Lily, Champreda Verawat (2013) Comparative analysis of microbial profiles in cow rumen fed with different dietary fiber by tagged 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing. Curr Microbiol 67:130–137

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu S, Baldwin RL, Li W, Li C, Connor EE, Li RW (2012) The bacterial community composition of the bovine rumen detected using pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA genes. Metagenomics. doi:10.4303/mg/235571

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pandya PR, Singh KM, Parnerkar S, Tripathi AK, Mehta HH, Rank DN, Kothari RK, Joshi CG (2010) Bacterial diversity in the rumen of Indian Surti buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), assessed by 16S rDNA analysis. J Appl Genet 51:395–402

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chandler DP, Fredrickson JK, Brockman FJ (1997) Effect of PCR template concentration on the composition and distribution of total community 16S rDNA clone libraries. Mol Ecol 6:475–482

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Avgusˇtin G, Ramsˇak A, Peterka M (2001) Systematics and evolution of ruminal species of the genus Prevotella. Folia Microbiol 46:40–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Meyer M, Stenzel U, Hofreiter M (2008) Parallel tagged sequencing on the 454 platform. Nat Protoc 3(2):267–278

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Matsui H, Ogata K, Tajima K, Nakamura M, Nagamine T, Aminov RI, Benno Y (2000) Phenotypic characterization of polysaccharidases produced by four Prevotella type strains. Curr Microbiol 41:45–49

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ramsak A, Peterka M, Tajima K, Martin JC, Wood J et al (2000) Unravelling the genetic diversity of ruminal bacteria belonging to the CFB phylum. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 33:69–79

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Purushe J, Fouts DE, Morrison M, White BA, Mackie RI et al (2010) Comparative genome analysis of Prevotella ruminicola and Prevotella bryantii: insights into their environmental niche. Microb Ecol 60:721–729

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 47:284–288

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Evans NJ, Brown JM, Murray RD, Getty B, Birtles RJ, Hart CA, Carter SD (2011) Characterization of novel bovine gastrointestinal tract Treponema isolates and comparison with bovine digital dermatitis treponemes. Appl Environ Microbiol 77:138–177

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kamra DN (2005) Rumen microbial ecosystem. Curr Sci 89:124–135

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lee HJ, Jung JY, Oh YK, Lee SS, Madsen EL, Jeon CO (2012) Comparative survey of rumen microbial communities and metabolites across caprine and three bovine groups, using barcoded pyrosequencing and 1H nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:5983–5993

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nathani NM, Patel AK, Dhamannapatil PS, Kothari RK, Singh KM, Joshi CG (2013) Comparative evaluation of rumen metagenome community using qPCR and MG-RAST. AMB Express 3(1):55

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Prins RA, Lankhorst A, Van der Meer P, Van Nevel CJ (1975) Some characteristics of anaerovibrio lipolytica a rumen lipolytic organism. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 41:1–11

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research work was supported by Niche area of excellence project funded by Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India.

Author information

Author notes

  1. K. M. Singh

    Present address: Xcelris Genomics, Xcelris Labs Ltd, Old Premchandnagar Road, Opp. Satyagrah Chhavani, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad, 380054, India

Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Biotechnology, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, India

    K. M. Singh, T. K. Jisha, Bhaskar Reddy, Nidhi Parmar, Anand Patel, A. K. Patel & C. G. Joshi

Authors
  1. K. M. Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. K. Jisha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bhaskar Reddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nidhi Parmar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anand Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. K. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C. G. Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to K. M. Singh or C. G. Joshi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, K.M., Jisha, T.K., Reddy, B. et al. Microbial profiles of liquid and solid fraction associated biomaterial in buffalo rumen fed green and dry roughage diets by tagged 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing. Mol Biol Rep 42, 95–103 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-014-3746-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-014-3746-9

Keywords

  • Buffalo
  • Microbiota
  • Pyrosequencing
  • 16S r RNA