Effect of the macroalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis on methane production and rumen microbiome assemblage.
16S rRNA community profiling
Asparagopsis taxiformis
Feed supplementation
Greenhouse gas mitigation
In-vitro rumen fermentation
Macroalgae
Rumen microbiome
Journal
Animal microbiome
ISSN: 2524-4671
Titre abrégé: Anim Microbiome
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101759457
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Feb 2019
12 Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
19
09
2018
accepted:
17
01
2019
entrez:
27
1
2021
pubmed:
12
2
2019
medline:
12
2
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Recent studies using batch-fermentation suggest that the red macroalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis has the potential to reduce methane (CH Fermentation in a semi-continuous in-vitro rumen system suggests that A. taxiformis can reduce methane production from enteric fermentation in dairy cattle by 95% when added at a 5% OM inclusion rate without any obvious negative impacts on volatile fatty acid production. High-throughput 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene amplicon sequencing showed that seaweed amendment effects rumen microbiome consistent with the Anna Karenina hypothesis, with increased β-diversity, over time scales of approximately 3 days. The relative abundance of methanogens in the fermentation vessels amended with A. taxiformis decreased significantly compared to control vessels, but this reduction in methanogen abundance was only significant when averaged over the course of the experiment. Alternatively, significant reductions of CH The methane reducing effect of A. taxiformis during rumen fermentation makes this macroalgae a promising candidate as a biotic methane mitigation strategy for dairy cattle. But its effect in-vivo (i.e. in dairy cattle) remains to be investigated in animal trials. Furthermore, to obtain a holistic understanding of the biochemistry responsible for the significant reduction of methane, gene expression profiles of the rumen microbiome and the host animal are warranted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Recent studies using batch-fermentation suggest that the red macroalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis has the potential to reduce methane (CH
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fermentation in a semi-continuous in-vitro rumen system suggests that A. taxiformis can reduce methane production from enteric fermentation in dairy cattle by 95% when added at a 5% OM inclusion rate without any obvious negative impacts on volatile fatty acid production. High-throughput 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene amplicon sequencing showed that seaweed amendment effects rumen microbiome consistent with the Anna Karenina hypothesis, with increased β-diversity, over time scales of approximately 3 days. The relative abundance of methanogens in the fermentation vessels amended with A. taxiformis decreased significantly compared to control vessels, but this reduction in methanogen abundance was only significant when averaged over the course of the experiment. Alternatively, significant reductions of CH
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The methane reducing effect of A. taxiformis during rumen fermentation makes this macroalgae a promising candidate as a biotic methane mitigation strategy for dairy cattle. But its effect in-vivo (i.e. in dairy cattle) remains to be investigated in animal trials. Furthermore, to obtain a holistic understanding of the biochemistry responsible for the significant reduction of methane, gene expression profiles of the rumen microbiome and the host animal are warranted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33499933
doi: 10.1186/s42523-019-0004-4
pii: 10.1186/s42523-019-0004-4
pmc: PMC7803124
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3Subventions
Organisme : Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
ID : DE-AC02-05CH11231
Organisme : Hellman Foundation
ID : None
Organisme : US Department of Agriculture
ID : 2017-67007-25944
Références
Br J Nutr. 2016 Apr 14;115(7):1240-53
pubmed: 26879487
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan;41(Database issue):D590-6
pubmed: 23193283
mSystems. 2015 Dec 22;1(1):
pubmed: 27822518
Genetics. 1992 Jun;131(2):479-91
pubmed: 1644282
Animal. 2014 Apr;8(4):580-6
pubmed: 24438753
Front Microbiol. 2014 Aug 06;5:366
pubmed: 25147543
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 26;12(4):e0174848
pubmed: 28445513
J Gen Microbiol. 1980 Aug;119(2):485-91
pubmed: 6785381
Rev Biol Trop. 2009 Dec;57(4):1271-81
pubmed: 20073352
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013 Sep;79(17):5112-20
pubmed: 23793624
Food Chem Toxicol. 2006 Jul;44(7):1144-50
pubmed: 16554116
Microb Ecol. 2018 Apr;75(3):811-818
pubmed: 29018917
Br J Nutr. 1977 Nov;38(3):371-84
pubmed: 588537
Br J Nutr. 2010 May;103(9):1345-53
pubmed: 19968892
Nat Prod Rep. 2012 Feb;29(2):144-222
pubmed: 22193773
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Dec;75(23):7537-41
pubmed: 19801464
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2014 Dec;90(3):663-77
pubmed: 25195951
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 22;9(1):e85289
pubmed: 24465524
J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2017 Jan 26;8:13
pubmed: 28149512
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014 Oct;80(20):6403-12
pubmed: 25107965
ISME J. 2012 Aug;6(8):1621-4
pubmed: 22402401
Nat Microbiol. 2017 Aug 24;2:17121
pubmed: 28836573
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Jul;72(7):5069-72
pubmed: 16820507
Animal. 2010 Jul;4(7):1024-36
pubmed: 22444607
J Ethnopharmacol. 2008 Feb 28;116(1):187-90
pubmed: 18079077
Int Microbiol. 2001 Mar;4(1):35-40
pubmed: 11770818
J Dairy Sci. 2005 Jul;88(7):2594-600
pubmed: 15956320
Lett Appl Microbiol. 1995 Oct;21(4):230-4
pubmed: 7576513
Biochemistry. 1968 May;7(5):1707-13
pubmed: 4870333
J Anim Sci. 2013 Nov;91(11):5045-69
pubmed: 24045497
PeerJ. 2018 Mar 5;6:e4459
pubmed: 29527414
J Sci Food Agric. 2016 Apr;96(6):1856-66
pubmed: 26455344
J Anim Sci. 2006 Jun;84(6):1489-96
pubmed: 16699105
Bioinformatics. 2011 Aug 15;27(16):2194-200
pubmed: 21700674