Next Article in Journal
Core Sulphate-Reducing Microorganisms in Metal-Removing Semi-Passive Biochemical Reactors and the Co-Occurrence of Methanogens
Next Article in Special Issue
Identification of Uncultured Bacterial Species from Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes and CANDIDATUS Saccharibacteria as Candidate Cellulose Utilizers from the Rumen of Beef Cows
Previous Article in Journal
Bacterial Microbiota of Rice Roots: 16S-Based Taxonomic Profiling of Endophytic and Rhizospheric Diversity, Endophytes Isolation and Simplified Endophytic Community
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Comparison of Rumen and Manure Microbiomes and Implications for the Inoculation of Anaerobic Digesters

1
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Maslak, 34469 Istanbul, Turkey
2
Department of Environmental Microbiology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
3
Institute of Environmental Sciences, Boğaziçi University, Bebek, 34342 Istanbul, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2018, 6(1), 15; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6010015
Submission received: 8 December 2017 / Revised: 1 February 2018 / Accepted: 12 February 2018 / Published: 14 February 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Metabolic Diversity of Anaerobic Microbial Communities)

Abstract

:
Cattle manure is frequently used as an inoculum for the start-up of agricultural biogas plants or as a co-substrate in the anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic feedstock. Ruminal microbiota are considered to be effective plant fiber degraders, but the microbes contained in manure do not necessarily reflect the rumen microbiome. The aim of this study was to compare the microbial community composition of cow rumen and manure with respect to plant fiber-digesting microbes. Bacterial and methanogenic communities of rumen and manure samples were examined by 454 amplicon sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA genes and mcrA genes, respectively. Rumen fluid samples were dominated by Prevotellaceae (29%), whereas Ruminococcaceae was the most abundant family in the manure samples (31%). Fibrobacteraceae (12%) and Bacteroidaceae (13%) were the second most abundant families in rumen fluid and manure, respectively. The high abundances of fiber-degrading bacteria belonging to Prevotellaceae and Fibrobacteraceae might explain the better performance of anaerobic digesters inoculated with rumen fluid. Members of the genus Methanobrevibacter were the predominant methanogens in the rumen fluid, whereas methanogenic communities of the manure samples were dominated by the candidate genus Methanoplasma. Our results suggest that inoculation or bioaugmentation with fiber-digesting rumen microbiota can enhance the anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass.

1. Introduction

During the last decade, demand for livestock products, particularly in developing countries, has massively grown as a result of population growth, urbanization, and rising income [1]. The increasing number and size of animal production plants creates the need for better waste management in livestock farming. Biogas production from crop residues and animal manure by anaerobic digestion is a sustainable approach for waste reduction and energy recovery. Hydrolysis is considered as the rate-limiting step during the anaerobic digestion of these waste streams due to their high content of lignocellulosic materials. Consequently, numerous studies have focused on the development of feedstock pretreatment methods and inoculation strategies in order to improve the hydrolytic efficiency and consequently enhance the rates of acidogenesis and methanogenesis.
Ruminants have unique digestive systems bearing on a symbiotic relationship between bacteria, archaea, protozoa, and fungi within the rumen environment [2,3]. Plant polymers such as cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin components are degraded by hydrolytic exoenzymes released or exposed by microbes and subsequently converted by acidogenic fermentation into short chain fatty acids, which are consumed as nutrient by the ruminant. Thus, ruminants can utilize plant material more effectively and conserve more of its energy than other herbivores, which is due to the dense and diverse microbial consortia in the rumen that carry out these metabolic activities [4]. Besides bacterial communities, the rumen microbiota includes methanogens which utilize H2 and CO2 to produce methane and reduce hydrogen accumulation [5]. The fermentation of plant materials in the ruminant digestive tract and environmental conditions in the rumen, such as pH, temperature, and redox potential, resemble the anaerobic digestion process in a biogas reactor, at least concerning the first steps of the process (hydrolysis and acidogenesis) and hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis [6]. The use of rumen fluid as an inoculum for anaerobic digesters fed with plant fibers is thus an approach that has gained increasing attention in recent years. Inoculum selection is of major importance in the start-up period of anaerobic digesters and the use of rumen fluid promises to increase the decomposition of plant fibers [7,8,9]. Though cattle manure is a suitable substrate for anaerobic digesters, its recalcitrant fiber structure and high water content results in a low methane yield in mono-digestion. The combination of different substrates with manure facilitates the digestion by increasing the easily degradable fraction and thus enhancing the methane yield [10]. Cattle manure is commonly considered as an inoculum well-suited for the start-up of anaerobic digesters, since it contains a diverse microbial community that can easily adapt to changing operational conditions [11,12]. Most studies on the rumen environment focused on microbial community dynamics depending on the dietary differentiation of animals [3,13,14]. However, the microbial diversity and especially possible differences between the structures of microbial communities in the rumen and the manure of the same animal has not yet received much attention. This knowledge, however, is required to identify the key microorganisms of use for efficient lignocellulose degradation.
The microbial community composition of the rumen environment had been studied primarily by cultivation-based methods for many decades until the 1980s, when these techniques were replaced by molecular tools which facilitate the study of complex environments [15]. Recently, a considerable literature on the microbial community composition of the rumen ecosystem arose thanks to the development of precise molecular techniques [3,4,13,16,17,18,19,20,21]. However, only a few attempts have been made to compare the rumen and manure microbial communities [20].
The aim of this study was to determine the composition of the microbiota in cow rumen and manure to reveal similarities and differences between these two communities. Microbial resources from these environments might help improve the efficiency of anaerobic digesters treating lignocellulosic feedstocks.

2. Materials and Methods

Three mature, non-medicated healthy Jersey cows (average body weight 450 kg) used in this study were cared for and handled in a barn of the Veterinary Faculty of Leipzig University, Germany. All cows were fed the same diet, which consisted of 81% hay, 11% concentrated corn with minerals and vitamins, and 8% soybean meal (based on dry matter). Rumen fluid was sampled via rumen fistulae and feces were sampled from the rectum according to institutional animal care guidelines. From each cow, 50 mL grab samples were taken and kept at 38 °C during transfer to the lab. Afterwards, samples were aliquoted in Eppendorf tubes, frozen immediately, and stored at −80 °C until DNA extraction. DNA was extracted from 400 µL aliquots using the NucleoSpin Kit for Soil (Macherey-Nagel, Düren, Germany). Amplicon sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA genes was done as described previously [22]. Methanogenic communities were analyzed based on mcrA amplicon sequencing using the primers mlas and mcrA-rev [23]. Sequence data were analyzed with the QIIME pipeline (Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology; http://qiime.org) as described previously [24,25]. The bacterial and methanogenic community profiles were visualized by Krona graphs [26]. Venn diagrams were prepared to show the number of shared and unique operational taxonomic units (OTUs) between the samples by using Venny 2.1.0 [27]. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plots based on the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index were calculated as described previously [21].
Sequence data were submitted to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under the accession numbers PRJEB19600, PRJEB19601, and PRJEB19525.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Bacterial Communities of Rumen and Manure

The community compositions of rumen and manure samples as determined by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing are visualized as Krona charts generated from the combined sequence dataset from the three animals (Figure 1). Krona graphs showing the individual community compositions are shown in the Supplementary Material (Figure S1). The rumen community (Figure 1A) was dominated by Bacteroidetes (54%), Fibrobacteres (12%), Firmicutes (10%), and Lentisphaerae (8%). Only 1.4% of the sequence reads could not be assigned to any bacterial phylum (unclassified bacteria). The remaining sequences were assigned to minor phyla, mainly Proteobacteria (4%), Tenericutes (4%), and candidate phylum SR1 (2%). The bacterial community of the manure sample (Figure 1B) was dominated by Firmicutes (46%), while Bacteroidetes was the second most abundant phylum (36%). The remaining phyla comprised Lentisphaerae (6%), Proteobacteria (5%), and Verrucomicrobia (2%), besides other minor phyla. Differently from rumen fluid, the abundance of the phylum Fibrobacteres was much lower in the manure samples (<0.1%), which was one of the main differences between the rumen and manure bacterial community profiles. As in the rumen samples, only a small portion (1%) of the reads could not be assigned to any bacterial phylum (unclassified bacteria).
In line with previous studies, the bacterial communities of both the rumen fluid and manure samples were dominated by the phyla Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes [3,19,20,21,28,29,30]. These findings are supported by previous studies employing clone libraries and Sanger sequencing [13,15]. Similar to our study, Liu and colleagues found a higher percentage of Firmicutes in feces than in rumen samples [20]. The changing ratios between the two major phyla show how the bacterial communities shift upon passing through the digestive tract of the ruminant. The phylum Fibrobacteres was much more abundant in our rumen samples compared to most previous studies, which found Fibrobacteres belonging to the cattle rumen core microbiome, but in lower amounts of less than 1% [3] or up to 3–4% [18]. On the one hand, this deviation might be due to a methodical bias such as different PCR primers or coverage of the different databases used for taxonomic assignment. On the other hand, it is known that the abundance of Fibrobacteres is affected by the fiber content of the diet. Several studies have recorded higher portions of this phylum in cattle fed a dry roughage diet [19] or in beef steers fed a higher percentage of hay compared to dairy cows, while including concentrate or starch and oil additives in the diet decreased the share of Fibrobacteres [3,4]. In accordance with our data, de Menezes et al. [21] detected up to 10% Fibrobacteres sequences in the solid phase of rumen content of dairy cows that were fed total mixed ration including straw. As we did not sieve our samples but included the particulate matter of rumen fluid in the analysis, this might further explain the high percentage of Fibrobacteres in our rumen samples.
At the family level, by far the greatest share of the sequences of the rumen fluid was assigned to Prevotellaceae (phylum Bacteroidetes; 28%). Prevotella, which belongs to the Prevotellaceae family, was the most dominant genus in the rumen fluid, coinciding with the results of previous studies on rumen microbiota [15,18,20,21]. Members of this genus play an important role in breaking down proteins and carbohydrates and represent the most numerous bacteria that are cultivable from the rumen and hindgut of cattle [20]. Moreover, some of the Prevotella species isolated from rumen produce cellulolytic enzymes like CMCase and xylanase [31]. Besides, it was suggested that Prevotella species may act synergistically with other cellulolytic organisms and are involved in ruminal fibrolytic activity [18,32]. In contrast, Prevotellaceae were not detected in the manure samples.
In the manure samples, Ruminococcaceae was the predominant family (31%), which includes the genus Ruminococcus. Species of this genus were suggested to play a key role in ruminal cellulose decomposition [33]. However, the abundance of Ruminococcus in the rumen was much lower (4%) than that in the manure. This is in accordance with the study of Zened and colleagues, who found that less than 1% of the rumen bacterial community was contributed by the genus Ruminococcus [3]. The second most dominant families were Fibrobacteraceae (12%) in the rumen and Bacteroidaceae (13%) in the manure samples. Members of the Bacteroidaceae family have been described to ferment cellulosic material and produce acetic acid and hydrogen [34]. The family Fibrobacteraceae (phylum: Fibrobacteres) includes two cultured species, Fibrobacter succinogenes and Fibrobacter intestinalis, which have been suggested to be the main cellulose degraders in ruminant gut systems [35,36]. Wu et al. found a 570-fold increased abundance of Fibrobacter in mature rumen communities compared to the rumen of pre-ruminant calves, underpinning the importance of Fibrobacteraceae for plant-fiber digestion in cattle rumen [18].
The shared and unique OTUs between total rumen and manure samples and between the individual rumen and manure samples are presented in Figure 2. According to the Venn diagram in the upper panel, 722 OTUs were compartment-specific, whereas only 42 OTUs were detected in both rumen and manure samples. Comparing the individual animals, 247 OTUs were shared between all manure samples and 103 OTUs between all rumen samples, while only 78 and 87 OTUs, respectively, were individual-specific.
As Venn diagrams show only the number of shared and unique OTUs regardless of their abundances, we compared the community profiles based on the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index, which considers the presence/absence as well as relative abundance of OTUs. As illustrated in Figure 3a, the data points of the bacterial community profiles clustered according to the compartment but not to the individual, with a higher variance of the rumen samples compared to the manure samples. The higher variance of the manure bacterial communities compared to the rumen bacterial communities is also visible in the individual Krona graphs (Figure S1).
The estimated bacterial richness and evenness are shown in Table 1. The bacterial community of the manure was more diverse in terms of OTU number as well as Chao1 and Shannon indices compared to the rumen community.

3.2. Methanogenic Communities of Rumen and Manure

The compositions of the methanogenic communities as determined by amplicon sequencing of mcrA genes are presented in Figure 4. Krona graphs showing the individual mcrA compositions are shown in the Supplementary Material (Figure S2). The rumen methanogenic community was dominated by the genera Methanobrevibacter (order Methanobacteriales) and the candidate genus Methanoplasma (order Methanomassiliicoccales), which together accounted for 85% of all mcrA reads. Minor percentages of the sequences were assigned to Methanococcales and Methanomicrobia. Differently from the rumen, Methanocorpusculum (order Methanomicrobiales) was the most abundant genus in the manure community with 66%, while only 5% of the manure sequences were assigned to Candidatus Methanoplasma. Compared to the bacterial communities, the methanogenic community profiles showed a much higher variance between the three individuals but still formed distinct compartment-specific clusters in the NMDS plot (Figure 3b). The genera Methanobacterium, Methanobrevibacter, and Methanomicrobium have been described as characteristic hydrogenotrophic rumen methanogens [6]. In accordance with our results, Methanobrevibacter was also found as the dominant genus among the rumen methanogens [38,39]. The other abundant genus in the rumen samples, Candidatus Methanoplasma, has been described as an H2-dependent methylotrophic methanogen [40].
As shown in Table 1, the rumen methanogenic communities had higher OTU numbers as well as higher Chao1 and Shannon indices compared to the manure samples. Compared to the bacterial communities, the methanogenic communities displayed a more uneven species distribution, and the manure communities were more uneven than the rumen communities.

3.3. Functional Implications of the Differences in Rumen and Manure Microbiomes

The main function of the rumen microbiome is the hydrolysis and fermentation of plant polymers, resulting in the formation of short chain fatty acids with CO2 and H2 arising as by-products. While fatty acids are consumed by the ruminant, rumen methanogens use CO2 and H2 to produce CH4. Thus, they act as a hydrogen sink, thereby supporting the activity of fermentative bacteria. Moreover, post decomposition of cellulosic compounds occurs in the large intestine and the colon in foregut ruminants [41]. The digestate passes through the large intestine where water is absorbed and eventually remainders are excreted. Thus, the microbial community of manure reflects the large intestine’s microbiome including the same taxa generally found across the gastrointestinal tract of cattle. However, the abundances of these taxa change across the digestive tract [42]. It has been suggested that the lignocellulolytic bacteria in the residual feed may be involved in downstream fermentation in the lower part of the digestive tract [43]. However, methane is mainly produced in the rumen, whereas only a small portion (11%) of the total methane is formed in the lower part of the digestive system [44].
The microorganisms in the rumen excrete specialized enzymes for lignocellulose degradation. When rumen fluid is used as an inoculum for anaerobic digesters treating lignocellulosic biomass, this adds hydrolytic activity due to the capability of the microbial community to produce the necessary enzymes [45]. Several studies have shown that adding rumen fluid has a positive effect on the performance of anaerobic digesters treating lignocellulosic biomass [7,46].

4. Conclusions

The results of our study revealed substantial differences in the bacterial communities of rumen and manure microbiomes with regard to the hydrolytic bacteria known to be involved in plant fiber degradation. Although Bacteroidetes was a dominant phylum in both environments, the families Prevotellaceae and Fibrobacteraceae, both of them dominant in the rumen and known as key cellulose degraders, were not detected in the manure samples, whereas the latter contained a higher proportion of hydrolytic bacteria assigned to the Ruminococcaceae family. Additionally, the methanogenic communities in both environments showed different profiles. The findings of this study provide insights to the rumen microbiome that can be used as seed for anaerobic digesters treating lignocellulosic feedstock due to the high abundance of lignocellulose-degrading bacteria. Although cattle manure is a suitable inoculum for anaerobic digesters providing hydrogenotrophic methanogens and hydrolytic/fermenting bacteria of the orders Clostridiales and Bacteroidales, rumen fluid might be more effective by introducing plant fiber-degrading specialists. However, rumen fluid is not as readily available as manure and therefore inoculation or bioaugmentation with rumen microbiota is difficult on a practical scale. An option to overcome this limitation could be the enrichment and propagation of high-performance lignocellulolytic consortia from rumen samples for inoculation or bioaugmentation with the aim of enhancing biogas production in anaerobic digesters treating lignocellulosic feedstock.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/6/1/15/s1.
Supplementary File 1

Acknowledgments

Emine Gozde Ozbayram was supported by the Research Fellowship Programme of the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (grant no. 2214A). The authors are grateful to Alexander Starke and Matthias Kaiser from the Veterinary Faculty of Leipzig University for providing access to fistulated cows and support in rumen and manure sampling. The authors also would like to acknowledge Ute Lohse (UFZ) for technical assistance in pyrosequencing and Denny Popp (UFZ) and Canan Karakoç (UFZ) for their valuable help in sequence data analysis.

Author Contributions

Emine Gozde Ozbayram and Sabine Kleinsteuber conceived and designed the experiments; Bahar Ince and Orhan Ince contributed to the conception of the work; Emine Gozde Ozbayram performed the experiments and analyzed the data; Emine Gozde Ozbayram and Sabine Kleinsteuber wrote the paper; Hauke Harms critically revised the manuscript. All authors have approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Thornton, P.K. Livestock production: Recent trends, future prospects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2853–2867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Denman, S.E.; McSweeney, C.S. Development of a real-time PCR assay for monitoring anaerobic fungal and cellulolytic bacterial populations within the rumen. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2006, 58, 572–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Zened, A.; Combes, S.; Cauquil, L.; Mariette, J.; Klopp, C.; Bouchez, O.; Troegeler-Meynadier, A.; Enjalbert, F. Microbial ecology of the rumen evaluated by 454 GS FLX pyrosequencing is affected by starch and oil supplementation of diets. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2013, 83, 504–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Henderson, G.; Cox, F.; Ganesh, S.; Jonker, A.; Young, W.; Janssen, P.H. Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 14567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Khiaosa-Ard, R.; Zebeli, Q. Cattle’s variation in rumen ecology and metabolism and its contributions to feed efficiency. Livest. Sci. 2014, 162, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bayané, A.; Guiot, S.R. Animal digestive strategies versus anaerobic digestion bioprocesses for biogas production from lignocellulosic biomass. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hu, Z.H.; Yu, H.Q. Application of rumen microorganisms for enhanced anaerobic fermentation of corn stover. Process Biochem. 2005, 40, 2371–2377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alrawi, R.A.; Ahmad, A.; Ismail, N.; Kadir, M.O.A. Anaerobic co-digestion of palm oil mill effluent with rumen fluid as a co-substrate. Desalination 2011, 269, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jin, W.; Cheng, Y.F.; Mao, S.Y.; Zhu, W.Y. Discovery of a novel rumen methanogen in the anaerobic fungal culture and its distribution in the rumen as revealed by real-time PCR. BMC Microbiol. 2014, 14, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Angelidaki, I.; Ellegaard, L. Codigestion of manure and organic wastes in centralized biogas plants: Status and future trends. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2003, 109, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Janke, L.; Leite, A.F.; Nikolausz, M.; Radetski, C.M.; Nelles, M.; Stinner, W. Comparison of start-up strategies and process performance during semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of sugarcane filter cake co-digested with bagasse. Waste Manag. 2016, 48, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Goberna, M.; Gadermaier, M.; Franke-Whittle, I.H.; García, C.; Wett, B.; Insam, H. Start-up strategies in manure-fed biogas reactors: Process parameters and methanogenic communities. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 75, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kong, Y.; Teather, R.; Forster, R. Composition, spatial distribution, and diversity of the bacterial communities in the rumen of cows fed different forages. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2010, 74, 612–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kittelmann, S.; Janssen, P.H. Characterization of rumen ciliate community composition in domestic sheep, deer, and cattle, feeding on varying diets, by means of PCR-DGGE and clone libraries. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2011, 75, 468–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kim, M.; Morrison, M.; Yu, Z. Status of the phylogenetic diversity census of ruminal microbiomes. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2011, 76, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Dowd, S.E.; Callaway, T.R.; Wolcott, R.D.; Sun, Y.; McKeehan, T.; Hagevoort, R.G.; Edrington, T.S. Evaluation of the bacterial diversity in the feces of cattle using 16S rDNA bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP). BMC Microbiol. 2008, 8, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Durso, L.M.; Harhay, G.P.; Smith, T.P.L.; Bono, J.L.; Desantis, T.Z.; Harhay, D.M.; Gary, L.; Keen, J.E.; Laegreid, W.W.; Clawson, L.; et al. Animal-to-animal variation in fecal microbial diversity among beef cattle. 2010, 76, 4858–4862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Wu, S.; Baldwin, R.L.; Li, W.; Li, C.; Connor, E.E.; Li, R.W. The bacterial community composition of the bovine rumen detected using pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA genes. Metagenomics 2012, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pitta, D.W.; Kumar, S.; Veiccharelli, B.; Parmar, N.; Reddy, B.; Joshi, C.G. Bacterial diversity associated with feeding dry forage at different dietary concentrations in the rumen contents of Mehshana buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) using 16S pyrotags. Anaerobe 2014, 25, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Liu, J.H.; Zhang, M.L.; Zhang, R.Y.; Zhu, W.Y.; Mao, S.Y. Comparative studies of the composition of bacterial microbiota associated with the ruminal content, ruminal epithelium and in the faeces of lactating dairy cows. Microb. Biotechnol. 2016, 9, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. De Menezes, A.B.; Lewis, E.; O’Donovan, M.; O’Neill, B.F.; Clipson, N.; Doyle, E.M. Microbiome analysis of dairy cows fed pasture or total mixed ration diets. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2011, 78, 256–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ziganshin, A.M.; Liebetrau, J.; Pröter, J.; Kleinsteuber, S. Microbial community structure and dynamics during anaerobic digestion of various agricultural waste materials. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 97, 5161–5174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Steinberg, L.M.; Regan, J.M. Phylogenetic comparison of the methanogenic communities from an acidic, oligotrophic fen and an anaerobic digester treating municipal wastewater sludge. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 6663–6671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lucas, R.; Kuchenbuch, A.; Fetzer, I.; Harms, H.; Kleinsteuber, S. Long-term monitoring reveals stable and remarkably similar microbial communities in parallel full-scale biogas reactors digesting energy crops. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2015, 91, fiv004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Popp, D.; Plugge, C.M.; Kleinsteuber, S.; Harms, H.; Sträuber, H. Inhibitory effect of coumarin on syntrophic fatty acid-oxidizing and methanogenic cultures and biogas reactor microbiomes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2017, 83, e00438-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ondov, B.D.; Bergman, N.H.; Phillippy, A.M. Interactive metagenomic visualization in a Web browser. BMC Bioinform. 2011, 12, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Oliveros, J.C. Venny. An Interactive Tool for Comparing Lists with Venn’s Diagrams. 2007–2015. Available online: http://bioinfogp.cnb.csic.es/tools/venny/index.html (accessed on 9 January 2018).
  28. Shanks, O.C.; Kelty, C.A.; Archibeque, S.; Jenkins, M.; Newton, R.J.; McLellan, S.L.; Huse, S.M.; Sogin, M.L. Community structures of fecal bacteria in cattle from different animal feeding operations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 2992–3001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mao, S.; Zhang, R.; Wang, D.; Zhu, W. The diversity of the fecal bacterial community and its relationship with the concentration of volatile fatty acids in the feces during subacute rumen acidosis in dairy cows. BMC Vet. Res. 2012, 8, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Sun, L.; Pope, P.B.; Eijsink, V.G.H.; Schnürer, A. Characterization of microbial community structure during continuous anaerobic digestion of straw and cow manure. Microb. Biotechnol. 2015, 8, 815–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Nyonyo, T.; Shinkai, T.; Mitsumori, M. Improved culturability of cellulolytic rumen bacteria and phylogenetic diversity of culturable cellulolytic and xylanolytic bacteria newly isolated from the bovine rumen. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2014, 88, 528–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Naas, A.E.; Mackenzie, A.K.; Mravec, J.; Schückel, J.; Willats, W.G.T.; Eijsink, V.G.H.; Pope, P.B. Do rumen Bacteroidetes utilize an alternative mechanism for cellulose degradation? MBio 2014, 5, e01401-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wang, L.; Hatem, A.; Catalyurek, U.V.; Morrison, M.; Yu, Z. Metagenomic insights into the carbohydrate-active enzymes carried by the microorganisms adhering to solid digesta in the rumen of cows. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e78507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Khan, A.W.; Saddler, J.N.; Patel, G.B.; Colvin, J.R.; Martin, S.M. Degradation of cellulose by a newly isolated mesophilic anaerobe, Bacteroidaceae family. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1980, 7, 47–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ransom-Jones, E.; Jones, D.L.; McCarthy, A.J.; McDonald, J.E. The Fibrobacteres: An important phylum of cellulose-degrading bacteria. Microb. Ecol. 2012, 63, 267–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Suen, G.; Weimer, P.J.; Stevenson, D.M.; Aylward, F.O.; Boyum, J.; Deneke, J.; Drinkwater, C.; Ivanova, N.N.; Mikhailova, N.; Chertkov, O.; et al. The complete genome sequence of Fibrobacter succinogenes s85 reveals a cellulolytic and metabolic specialist. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e18814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lucas, R.; Groeneveld, J.; Harms, H.; Johst, K.; Frank, K.; Kleinsteuber, S. A critical evaluation of ecological indices for the comparative analysis of microbial communities based on molecular datasets. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2017, 93, fiw209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. McSweeney, C.; Mackie, R. Micro-Organisms and Ruminant Digestion: State of knowledge, Trends and Future Prospects. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Background Study Paper No. 61. 2012. Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/me992e/me992e.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2018).
  39. King, E.E.; Smith, R.P.; St-Pierre, B.; Wright, A.D.G. Differences in the rumen methanogen populations of lactating Jersey and holstein dairy cows under the same diet regimen. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 5682–5687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Lang, K.; Schuldes, J.; Klingl, A.; Poehlein, A.; Daniel, R.; Brune, A. New mode of energy metabolism in the seventh order of methanogens as revealed by comparative genome analysis of “Candidatus Methanoplasma termitum”. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 1338–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Armstrong, D.G.; Smithard, R.R. The fate of carbohydrates in the small and large intestines of the ruminant. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1979, 38, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. De Oliveira, M.N.V.; Jewell, K.A.; Freitas, F.S.; Benjamin, L.A.; Tótola, M.R.; Borges, A.C.; Moraes, C.A.; Suen, G. Characterizing the microbiota across the gastrointestinal tract of a Brazilian Nelore steer. Vet. Microbiol. 2013, 164, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Myer, P.R.; Wells, J.E.; Smith, T.P.L.; Kuehn, L.A.; Freetly, H.C. Microbial community profiles of the colon from steers differing in feed efficiency. SpringerPlus 2015, 4, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Hook, S.E.; Wright, A.D.G.; McBride, B.W. Methanogens: Methane producers of the rumen and mitigation strategies. Archaea 2010, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Yu, S.; Zhang, G.; Li, J.; Zhao, Z.; Kang, X. Effect of endogenous hydrolytic enzymes pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion of sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 146, 758–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Yue, Z.B.; Li, W.W.; Yu, H.Q. Application of rumen microorganisms for anaerobic bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 128, 738–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Krona charts illustrating the bacterial community composition of (A) the rumen samples and (B) the manure samples on phylum, class, order, and family levels. Sequence data from three individuals were combined.
Figure 1. Krona charts illustrating the bacterial community composition of (A) the rumen samples and (B) the manure samples on phylum, class, order, and family levels. Sequence data from three individuals were combined.
Microorganisms 06 00015 g001
Figure 2. Venn diagrams of the bacterial communities showing the number of shared and unique operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in the rumen and manure samples.
Figure 2. Venn diagrams of the bacterial communities showing the number of shared and unique operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in the rumen and manure samples.
Microorganisms 06 00015 g002
Figure 3. NMDS plots showing the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity of (a) the bacterial communities of rumen and manure samples based on 16S rRNA sequences and (b) the methanogenic communities of rumen and manure samples based on mcrA sequences.
Figure 3. NMDS plots showing the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity of (a) the bacterial communities of rumen and manure samples based on 16S rRNA sequences and (b) the methanogenic communities of rumen and manure samples based on mcrA sequences.
Microorganisms 06 00015 g003
Figure 4. Krona charts illustrating the methanogenic community composition of (A) the rumen samples and (B) the manure samples on phylum, class, order, and family levels. Sequence data from three individuals were combined.
Figure 4. Krona charts illustrating the methanogenic community composition of (A) the rumen samples and (B) the manure samples on phylum, class, order, and family levels. Sequence data from three individuals were combined.
Microorganisms 06 00015 g004
Table 1. Summary of the estimated richness and evenness of the bacterial and methanogenic communities of both compartments. Diversity indices were calculated with the QIIME pipeline, except the Shannon index, which was calculated according to Lucas et al. [37].
Table 1. Summary of the estimated richness and evenness of the bacterial and methanogenic communities of both compartments. Diversity indices were calculated with the QIIME pipeline, except the Shannon index, which was calculated according to Lucas et al. [37].
SampleNo. of ReadsNo. of OTUsChao1ShannonSimpsonPielou’s Evenness
Rumen bacteria69982172935.260.990.92
Manure bacteria12,2324025135.890.990.94
Rumen methanogens99061902924.090.970.76
Manure methanogens7915911612.390.780.51

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ozbayram, E.G.; Ince, O.; Ince, B.; Harms, H.; Kleinsteuber, S. Comparison of Rumen and Manure Microbiomes and Implications for the Inoculation of Anaerobic Digesters. Microorganisms 2018, 6, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6010015

AMA Style

Ozbayram EG, Ince O, Ince B, Harms H, Kleinsteuber S. Comparison of Rumen and Manure Microbiomes and Implications for the Inoculation of Anaerobic Digesters. Microorganisms. 2018; 6(1):15. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6010015

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ozbayram, Emine Gozde, Orhan Ince, Bahar Ince, Hauke Harms, and Sabine Kleinsteuber. 2018. "Comparison of Rumen and Manure Microbiomes and Implications for the Inoculation of Anaerobic Digesters" Microorganisms 6, no. 1: 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms6010015

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop