Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:56:21.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shifts in microbial populations in Rusitec fermenters as affected by the type of diet and impact of the method for estimating microbial growth (15N v. microbial DNA)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2017

I. Mateos ,
M. J. Ranilla ,
C. Saro  and
M. D. Carro
I. Mateos
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Universidad de León, 24007 León, Spain
M. J. Ranilla
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Universidad de León, 24007 León, Spain Instituto de Ganadería de Montaña (CSIC-ULE), 24346 León, Spain
C. Saro
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, Universidad de León, 24007 León, Spain
M. D. Carro*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Agraria, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
*
†E-mail: mariadolores.carro@upm.es
Get access

Abstract

Rusitec fermenters are in vitro systems widely used to study ruminal fermentation, but little is known about the microbial populations establishing in them. This study was designed to assess the time evolution of microbial populations in fermenters fed medium- (MC; 50% alfalfa hay : concentrate) and high-concentrate diets (HC; 15 : 85 barley straw : concentrate). Samples from solid (SOL) and liquid (LIQ) content of fermenters were taken immediately before feeding on days 3, 8 and 14 of incubation for quantitative polymerase chain reaction and automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis analyses. In SOL, total bacterial DNA concentration and relative abundance of Ruminococcus flavefaciens remained unchanged over the incubation period, but protozoal DNA concentration and abundance of Fibrobacter succinogenes, Ruminococcus albus and fungi decreased and abundance of methanogenic archaea increased. In LIQ, total bacterial DNA concentration increased with time, whereas concentration of protozoal DNA and abundance of methanogens and fungi decreased. Diet×time interactions were observed for bacterial and protozoal DNA and relative abundance of F. succinogenes and R. albus in SOL, as well as for protozoal DNA in LIQ. Bacterial diversity in SOL increased with time, but no changes were observed in LIQ. The incubated diet influenced all microbial populations, with the exception of total bacteria and fungi abundance in LIQ. Bacterial diversity was higher in MC-fed than in HC-fed fermenters in SOL, but no differences were detected in LIQ. Values of pH, daily production of volatile fatty acids and CH4 and isobutyrate proportions remained stable over the incubation period, but other fermentation parameters varied with time. The relationships among microbial populations and fermentation parameters were in well agreement with those previously reported in in vivo studies. Using 15N as a microbial marker or quantifying total microbial DNA for estimating microbial protein synthesis offered similar results for diets comparison, but both methods presented contrasting results for microbial growth in SOL and LIQ phases. The study showed that fermentation parameters remained fairly stable over the commonly used sampling period (days 8 to 14), but shifts in microbial populations were detected. Moreover, microbial populations differed markedly from those in the inocula, which indicates the difficulty of directly transposing results on microbial populations developed in Rusitec fermenters to in vivo conditions.

Keywords

Rusitec fermentersmicrobial populationsbacterial diversityqPCRsheep
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 11 , November 2017 , pp. 1939 - 1948
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Belanche, A, de la Fuente, G, Yañez-Ruiz, DR, Newbold, CJ, Calleja, L and Balcells, J 2011. Technical note: the persistence of microbial-specific DNA sequences through gastric digestion in lambs and their potential use as microbial markers. Journal of Animal Science 89, 2812–2816.Google Scholar
Carro, MD, Lebzien, P and Rohr, K 1995. Effects of pore size of nylon bags and dilution rate on fermentation parameters in a semi-continuous artificial rumen. Small Ruminant Research 15, 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denman, SE and McSweeney, CS 2006. Development of a real-time PCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal and cellulolytic bacterial populations within the rumen. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 58, 572–582.Google Scholar
Denman, SE, Tomkins, NW and McSweeney, CS 2007. Quantitation and diversity analysis of ruminal methanogenic populations in response to the antimethanogenic compound bromochloromethane. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 62, 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giraldo, LA, Ranilla, MJ, Tejido, ML and Carro, MD 2007. Influence of exogenous fibrolytic enzyme and fumarate on methane production, microbial growth and fermentation in Rusitec fermenters. British Journal of Nutrition 98, 753–761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kocherginskaya, SA, Aminov, RI and White, BA 2001. Analysis of the rumen bacterial diversity under two different diet conditions using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis, random sequencing, and statistical ecology approaches. Anaerobe 7, 119–134.Google Scholar
Koike, S and Kobayashi, Y 2001. Development and use of competitive PCR assays for the rumen cellulolytic bacteria: Fibrobacter succinogenes, Ruminococcus albus and Ruminococcus flavefaciens . FEMS Microbiology Letters 204, 361–366.Google Scholar
Lengowski, MB, Zuber, KHR, Witzig, M, Möhring, J, Boguhn, J and Rodehutscord, M 2016. Changes in rumen microbial community composition during adaption to an in vitro system and the impact of different forages. PLoS ONE 11, e0150115.Google Scholar
Martínez, ME, Ranilla, MJ, Tejido, ML, Ramos, S and Carro, MD 2010a. Comparison of fermentation of diets of variable composition in the rumen of sheep and Rusitec fermenters: II. Protozoa populations and diversity of bacterial communities. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 3699–3712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martínez, ME, Ranilla, MJ, Tejido, ML, Ramos, S and Carro, MD 2010b. The effect of the diet fed to donor sheep on in vitro methane production and ruminal fermentation of diets of variable composition. Animal Feed Science and Technology 158, 126–135.Google Scholar
Martínez, ME, Ranilla, MJ, Tejido, ML, Ramos, S and Carro, MD 2010c. Comparison of fermentation of diets of variable composition in the rumen of sheep and Rusitec fermenters: I. Digestibility, fermentation parameters and efficiency of microbial protein synthesis. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 3684–3698.Google Scholar
Martínez, ME, Ranilla, MJ, Ramos, S, Tejido, ML and Carro, MD 2011a. Protozoa evolution in Rusitec fermenters fed diets differing in forage:concentrate ratio and forage type. Options Mediterranéennes Serie A 99, 97–102.Google Scholar
Martínez, ME, Ranilla, MJ, Ramos, S, Tejido, ML and Carro, MD 2011b. Evolution of fermentation parameters in Rusitec fermenters operated at different dilution rates and concentrate retention times. Options Mediterranéennes, Serie A 99, 121–126.Google Scholar
Martínez-Fernández, G, Abecia, L, Martin-Garcia, AI, Ramos-Morales, E, Denman, SE, Newbold, CJ, Molina-Alcaide, E and Yáñez-Ruiz, DR 2015. Response of the rumen archaeal and bacterial populations to anti-methanogenic organosulphur compounds in continuous-culture fermenters. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 91, fiv079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michalet-Doreau, B, Fernandez, I, Peyron, C, Millet, L and Fonty, G 2001. Fibrolytic activities and cellulolytic bacterial community structure in the solid and liquid phases of rumen contents. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development 41, 187–194.Google Scholar
Mosoni, P, Chaucheyras-Durand, F, Béra-Maillet, C and 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. Journal of Applied Microbioly 103, 2676–2685.Google Scholar
Muetzel, S, Lawrence, P., Hoffmann, LM and Becker, K 2009. Evaluation of a stratified continuous rumen incubation system. Animal Feed Science and Technology 151, 32–43.Google Scholar
Nakamura, F and Kurihara, Y 1978. Maintenance of a certain rumen protozoal population in a continuous in vitro fermentation system. Applied and Environmental Microbioly 35, 500–506.Google Scholar
Oksanen, J, Blanchet, FG, Kindt, R, Legendre, P, Minchin, PR, O’Hara, RB, Simpson, GL, Solymos, P, Stevens, MHH and Wagner, H 2015. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.3-2.Google Scholar
Prevot, S, Senaud, J and Prensier, G 1994. Variation in the composition of the ruminal bacterial microflora during the adaptation phase in an artificial fermenter (Rusitec). Zoological Science 11, 871–882.Google Scholar
Ramos, S, Tejido, ML, Martínez, ME, Ranilla, MJ and Carro, MD 2009a. Microbial protein synthesis, ruminal digestion, microbial populations, and N balance in sheep fed diets varying in forage to concentrate ratio and type of forage. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2924–2934.Google Scholar
Ramos, S, Tejido, ML, Ranilla, MJ, Martínez, ME, Saro, C and Carro, MD. 2009b. Influence of detachment procedure and diet on recovery of solid-associated bacteria from sheep ruminal digesta and representativeness of bacterial isolates as assessed by automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis-polymerase chain reaction. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5659–5668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saro, C, Ranilla, MJ and Carro, MD 2012. Postprandial changes of fiber-degrading microbes in the rumen of sheep fed diets varying in type of forage as monitored by real-time PCR and automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4487–4494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saro, C, Ranilla, MJ, Cifuentes, A, Roselló-Mora, R and Carro, MD 2014a. Technical note: comparison of automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis (ARISA) and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) to assess bacterial diversity in the rumen of sheep. Journal of Animal Science 92, 1083–1088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saro, C, Ranilla, MJ, Tejido, ML and Carro, MD 2014b. Influence of forage type in the diet of sheep on rumen microbiota and fermentation characteristics. Livestock Science 160, 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soto, EC, Molina-Alcaide, E, Khelil, H and Yáñez-Ruiz, DR 2013. Ruminal microbiota developing in different in vitro simulation systems inoculated with goats’ rumen liquor. Animal Feed Science and Technology 185, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soto, EC, Yáñez-Ruiz, DR, Cantalapiedra-Hijar, G, Vivas, A and Molina-Alcaide, E 2012. Changes in ruminal microbiota due to rumen content processing and incubation in single-flow continuous-culture fermenters. Animal Production Science 52, 813–822.Google Scholar
Sylvester, JT, Karnati, SKR, Yu, Z, Morrison, M and Firkins, JL 2004. Development of an assay to quantify rumen ciliate protozoal biomass in cows using real-time PCR. Journal of Nutrition 134, 3378–3384.Google Scholar
Thauer, RK, Kaster, AK, Seedorf, H, Buckel, W and Hedderich, R 2008. Methanogenic archaea: ecologically relevant differences in energy conservation. Nature Reviews Microbioly 6, 579–591.Google Scholar
Tholen, A, Pester, M and Brune, A 2007. Simultaneous methanogenesis and oxygen reduction by methanobrevibacter cuticularis at low oxygen fluxes. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 62, 303–312.Google Scholar
van Kessel, JAS and Russell, JB 1996. The effect of pH on ruminal methanogenesis. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 20, 205–210.Google Scholar
Yu, Z and Morrison, M 2004. Improved extraction of PCR-quality community DNA from digesta and fecal samples. BioTechniques 36, 808–812.Google Scholar