Whole rumen metagenome sequencing allows classifying and predicting feed efficiency and intake levels in cattle.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 01 2019
09 01 2019
Historique:
received:
04
06
2018
accepted:
26
11
2018
entrez:
11
1
2019
pubmed:
11
1
2019
medline:
31
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The current research was carried out to determine the associations between the rumen microbiota and traits related with feed efficiency in a Holstein cattle population (n = 30) using whole metagenome sequencing. Improving feed efficiency (FE) is important for a more sustainable livestock production. The variability for the efficiency of feed utilization in ruminants is partially controlled by the gastrointestinal microbiota. Modulating the microbiota composition can promote a more sustainable and efficient livestock. This study revealed that most efficient cows had larger relative abundance of Bacteroidetes (P = 0.041) and Prevotella (P = 0.003), while lower, but non-significant (P = 0.119), relative abundance of Firmicutes. Methanobacteria (P = 0.004) and Methanobrevibacter (P = 0.003) were also less abundant in the high-efficiency cows. A de novo metagenome assembly was carried out using de Bruijn graphs in MEGAHIT resulting in 496,375 contigs. An agnostic pre-selection of microbial contigs allowed high classification accuracy for FE and intake levels using hierarchical classification. These microbial contigs were also able to predict FE and intake levels with accuracy of 0.19 and 0.39, respectively, in an independent population (n = 31). Nonetheless, a larger potential accuracy up to 0.69 was foreseen in this study for datasets that allowed a larger statistical power. Enrichment analyses showed that genes within these contigs were mainly involved in fatty acids and cellulose degradation pathways. The findings indicated that there are differences between the microbiota compositions of high and low-efficiency animals both at the taxonomical and gene levels. These differences are even more evident in terms of intake levels. Some of these differences remain even between populations under different diets and environments, and can provide information on the feed utilization performance without information on the individual intake level.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30626904
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-36673-w
pii: 10.1038/s41598-018-36673-w
pmc: PMC6327033
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
11Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
J Dairy Sci. 2010 Apr;93(4):1320-34
pubmed: 20338409
J Anim Breed Genet. 2007 Dec;124(6):377-89
pubmed: 18076475
J Dairy Sci. 2015 Oct;98(10):7340-50
pubmed: 26254533
BMC Microbiol. 2013 Feb 07;13:30
pubmed: 23391125
ISME J. 2013 Jun;7(6):1069-79
pubmed: 23426008
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997 Apr;63(4):1483-8
pubmed: 16535575
Methods. 2016 Jun 1;102:3-11
pubmed: 27012178
PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e21800
pubmed: 21789182
Nutr Clin Pract. 2015 Dec;30(6):787-97
pubmed: 26452391
Bioinformatics. 2006 Jun 15;22(12):1540-2
pubmed: 16595560
Nat Methods. 2017 Apr;14(4):417-419
pubmed: 28263959
Meta Gene. 2014 Feb 19;2:191-9
pubmed: 25606402
Bioinformatics. 2014 Jul 15;30(14):2068-9
pubmed: 24642063
Nature. 2006 Dec 21;444(7122):1027-31
pubmed: 17183312
Lett Appl Microbiol. 2004;39(3):257-60
pubmed: 15287871
Sci Rep. 2015 Oct 09;5:14567
pubmed: 26449758
PLoS Genet. 2016 Feb 18;12(2):e1005846
pubmed: 26891056
PLoS One. 2010 Jan 28;5(1):e8926
pubmed: 20126622
Front Microbiol. 2015 Nov 26;6:1313
pubmed: 26635774
PLoS Comput Biol. 2016 Jun 21;12(6):e1004957
pubmed: 27327495
Nat Protoc. 2009;4(1):44-57
pubmed: 19131956
Front Microbiol. 2017 Dec 07;8:2445
pubmed: 29270165
Science. 2011 Jan 28;331(6016):463-7
pubmed: 21273488
JAMA Surg. 2013 Jun;148(6):563-9
pubmed: 23571517
Methods Mol Biol. 2010;593:49-65
pubmed: 19957144
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 22;9(1):e85423
pubmed: 24465556
Genetics. 2017 Jul;206(3):1637-1644
pubmed: 28468904
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Mar;101(3):2285-2292
pubmed: 29274973
Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Apr;36(4):359-367
pubmed: 29553575
Genome Biol. 2016 Sep 26;17(1):189
pubmed: 27666579
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 04;8(9):e73056
pubmed: 24023808
Genome Res. 2014 Sep;24(9):1517-25
pubmed: 24907284
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015 Jul;81(14):4697-710
pubmed: 25934629
J Anim Sci. 2012 Dec;90(12):4495-504
pubmed: 22829613
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Oct;75(20):6524-33
pubmed: 19717632
J Dairy Sci. 2016 Jan;99(1):468-79
pubmed: 26585474
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016 Aug;14(8):508-22
pubmed: 27396567
Cell. 2014 Oct 9;159(2):227-30
pubmed: 25303518
Indian J Microbiol. 2010 Sep;50(3):253-62
pubmed: 23100838
Nat Rev Genet. 2017 Nov;18(11):690-699
pubmed: 28824167
Gut. 2018 Jan;67(1):108-119
pubmed: 27802154
Genetics. 2001 Apr;157(4):1819-29
pubmed: 11290733
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010 Jun;76(12):3776-86
pubmed: 20418436
Nat Methods. 2015 Jan;12(1):59-60
pubmed: 25402007
Nat Genet. 2016 Nov;48(11):1407-1412
pubmed: 27694959
J Dairy Sci. 2014;97(6):3883-93
pubmed: 24679937
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998 Aug;64(8):2836-43
pubmed: 9687438
J Dairy Sci. 2015 Sep;98(9):6522-34
pubmed: 26188577
Res Microbiol. 1991 Feb-Apr;142(2-3):269-77
pubmed: 1656497
J Dairy Sci. 2014 Mar;97(3):1427-35
pubmed: 24377796
Environ Microbiol. 2011 Jun;13(6):1500-12
pubmed: 21418494