Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T02:27:43.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taxonomic and functional assessment using metatranscriptomics reveals the effect of Angus cattle on rumen microbial signatures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2019

A. L. A. Neves ,
Y. Chen ,
K.-A. Lê Cao ,
S. Mandal ,
T. J. Sharpton ,
T. McAllister  and
L. L. Guan Open the ORCID record for L. L. Guan [Opens in a new window]
A. L. A. Neves
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G2P5 Alberta, Canada
Y. Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G2P5 Alberta, Canada
K.-A. Lê Cao
Affiliation:
Melbourne Integrative Genomics, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia
S. Mandal
Affiliation:
Public Health Foundation of IndiaPlot 47, Sector 44, Gurgaon, 122002, India
T. J. Sharpton
Affiliation:
Departments of Microbiology and Statistics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR97331, Oregon, USA
T. McAllister
Affiliation:
Lethbridge Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, T1J4P4, Alberta, Canada
L. L. Guan*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G2P5 Alberta, Canada
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A greater understanding of the rumen microbiota and its function may help find new strategies to improve feed efficiency in cattle. This study aimed to investigate whether the cattle breed affects specific ruminal taxonomic microbial groups and functions associated with feed conversion ratio (FCR), using two genetically related Angus breeds as a model. Total RNA was extracted from 24 rumen content samples collected from purebred Black and Red Angus bulls fed the same forage diet and then subjected to metatranscriptomic analysis. Multivariate discriminant analysis (sparse partial least square discriminant analysis (sPLS-DA)) and analysis of composition of microbiomes were conducted to identify microbial signatures characterizing Black and Red Angus cattle. Our analyses revealed relationships among bacterial signatures, host breeds and FCR. Although Black and Red Angus are genetically similar, sPLS-DA detected 25 bacterial species and 10 functions that differentiated the rumen microbial signatures between those two breeds. In Black Angus, we identified bacterial taxa Chitinophaga pinensis, Clostridium stercorarium and microbial functions with large and small subunits ribosomal proteins L16 and S7 exhibiting a higher abundance in the rumen microbiome. In Red Angus, nonetheless, we identified the poorly characterized bacterial taxon Oscillibacter valericigenes with a higher abundance and pathways related to carbohydrate metabolism. Analysis of composition of microbiomes revealed that C. pinensis and C. stercorarium exhibited a higher abundance in Black Angus compared to Red Angus associated with FCR, suggesting that these bacterial species may play a key role in the feed conversion efficiency of forage-fed bulls. This study highlights how the discovery of signatures of bacterial taxa and their functions can be used to harness the full potential of the rumen microbiome in Angus cattle.

Keywords

beef cattlefeed efficiencymicrobiomerumen bacteriarumen microbial functions
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , April 2020 , pp. 731 - 744
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aitchison, J 1982. The statistical analysis of compositional data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B-Methodological 44, 139–177.Google Scholar
Anikaev, A, Isaev, A, Korobeinikova, A, Garber, M and Gongadze, G 2016. Role of protein L25 and its contact with protein L16 in maintaining the active state of Escherichia coli ribosomes in vivo. Biochemistry 81, 19–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Bolger, AM, Lohse, M and Usadel, B 2014. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christopherson, MR, Dawson, JA, Stevenson, DM, Cunningham, AC, Bramhacharya, S, Weimer, PJ, Kendziorski, C and Suen, G 2014. Unique aspects of fiber degradation by the ruminal ethanologen Ruminococcus albus 7 revealed by physiological and transcriptomic analysis. BMC Genomics 15, 1066.10.1186/1471-2164-15-1066CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Creevey, CJ, Kelly, WJ, Henderson, G and Leahy, SC 2014. Determining the culturability of the rumen bacterial microbiome. Microbial Biotechnology 7, 467–479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crews, DH Jr, Shannon, NH, Genswein, BMA, Crews, RE, Johnson, CM and Kendrick, BA 2005. Genetic parameters for net feed efficiency of beef cattle measured during postweaning growing versus finishing periods. Proceedings Western Section American Society of Animal Science 54, 125–128.Google Scholar
Franzosa, EA, Morgan, XC, Segata, N, Waldron, L, Reyes, J, Earl, AM, Giannoukos, G, Boylan, MR, Ciulla, D, Gevers, D, Izard, J, Garrett, WS, Chan, AT and Huttenhower, C 2014. Relating the metatranscriptome and metagenome of the human gut. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, E2329–E2338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geishauser, T 1993. An Instrument for collection and transfer of ruminal fluid and for administration of water soluble drugs in adult cattle. The Bovine Practitioner 27, 38–42.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, I, Dejean, S, Martin, PGP and Baccini, A 2008. CCA: an R package to extend canonical correlation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 23, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guan, LL, Nkrumah, JD, Basarab, JA and Moore, SS 2008. Linkage of microbial ecology to phenotype: correlation of rumen microbial ecology to cattle’s feed efficiency. FEMS Microbiology Letters 288, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hackmann, TJ, Tao, J, Ngugi, DK and Firkins, JL 2017. Genomes of rumen bacteria encode atypical pathways for fermenting hexoses to short-chain fatty acids. Environmental Microbiology 19, 4670–4683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, G, Cox, F, Ganesh, S, Jonker, A, Young, W, Janssen, PH and Global Rumen Census C 2016. Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Scientific Reports 6, 14567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanehisa, M, Goto, S, Kawashima, S, Okuno, Y and Hattori, M 2004. The KEGG resource for deciphering the genome. Nucleic Acids Research 32, D277–D280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knights, D, Parfrey, LW, Zaneveld, J, Lozupone, C and Knight, R 2011. Human-associated microbial signatures: examining their predictive value. Cell Host & Microbe 10, 292–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kopylova, E, Noé, L and Touzet, H 2012. SortMeRNA: fast and accurate filtering of ribosomal RNAs in metatranscriptomic data. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 28, 3211–3217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsbrink, J, Tuveng, TR, Pope, PB, Eijsink, VGH, Bulone, V, Brumer, H and McKee, LS 2017. Proteomic data on enzyme secretion and activity in the bacterium Chitinophaga pinensis. Data in Brief 11, 484–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lê Cao, KA, Costello, ME, Lakis, VA, Bartolo, F, Chua, XY, Brazeilles, R and Rondeau, P 2016. MixMC: a multivariate statistical framework to gain insight into microbial communities. Plos One 11, e0160169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, S, Sung, J, Lee, J and Ko, G 2011. Comparison of the gut microbiotas of healthy adult twins living in South Korea and the United States. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 77, 7433–7437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, DH, Liu, CM, Luo, RB, Sadakane, K and Lam, TW 2015. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 31, 1674–1676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, F and Guan, LL 2017. Metatranscriptomic profiling reveals linkages between the active rumen microbiome and feed efficiency in beef cattle. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 83, 1–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, F, Hitch, TCA, Chen, Y, Creevey, CJ and Guan, LL 2019. Comparative metagenomic and metatranscriptomic analyses reveal the breed effect on the rumen microbiome and its associations with feed efficiency in beef cattle. Microbiome 7, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, ZP, Wright, ADG, Si, HZ, Wang, XX, Qian, WX, Zhang, ZG and Li, GY 2016. Changes in the rumen microbiome and metabolites reveal the effect of host genetics on hybrid crosses. Environmental Microbiology Reports 8, 1016–1023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandal, S, Van Treuren, W, White, RA, Eggesbo, M, Knight, R and Peddada, SD 2015. Analysis of composition of microbiomes: a novel method for studying microbial composition. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 26, 27663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marquez, GC, Speidel, SE, Enns, RM and Garrick, DJ 2010. Genetic diversity and population structure of American Red Angus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 88, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLean, KL and Schmutz, SM 2009. Associations of melanocortin 1 receptor genotype with growth and carcass traits in beef cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 89, 295–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nayfach, S, Bradley, PH, Wyman, SK, Laurent, TJ, Williams, A, Pollard, KS, Sharpton, TJ and Eisen, JA 2015. Automated and accurate estimation of gene family abundance from shotgun metagenomes. Plos Computational Biology 11, e1004573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neves, ALA, Li, F, Ghoshal, B, McAllister, T and Guan, LL 2017. Enhancing the resolution of rumen microbial classification from metatranscriptomic data using Kraken and Mothur. Frontiers in Microbiology 8, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pajarillo, EAB, Chae, JP, Balolong, MP, Kim, HB, Kang, D-K and Seo, K-S 2015. Characterization of the fecal microbial communities of duroc pigs using 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing. Asia Australasia Journal of Animal Science 28, 584–591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Roehe, R, Dewhurst, RJ, Duthie, CA, Rooke, JA, McKain, N, Ross, DW, Hyslop, JJ, Waterhouse, A, Freeman, TC, Watson, M and Wallace, RJ 2016. Bovine host genetic variation influences rumen microbial methane production with best selection criterion for low methane emitting and efficiently feed converting hosts based on metagenomic gene abundance. Plos Genetics 12, e1005846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohart, F, Gautier, B, Singh, A and Lê Cao, K-A 2017. mixOmics: an R package for ‘omics feature selection and multiple data integration. Plos Computational Biology 13, e1005752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, JB and Rychlik, JL 2001. Factors that alter rumen microbial ecology. Science 292, 1119–1122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schellenberg, JJ, Verbeke, TJ, Sparling, R, McQueen, P, Krokhin, OV, Wilkins, JA, Zhang, X, Alvare, G, Fristensky, B, Levin, DB, Thallinger, GG and Henrissat, B 2014. Enhanced whole genome sequence and annotation of Clostridium stercorarium DSM8532T using RNA-seq transcriptomics and high-throughput proteomics. BMC Genomics 15, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seshadri, R, Leahy, SC, Attwood, GT, Teh, KH, Lambie, SC, Cookson, AL, Eloe-Fadrosh, EA, Pavlopoulos, GA, Hadjithomas, M, Varghese, NJ, Paez-Espino, D, Perry, R, Henderson, G, Creevey, CJ, Terrapon, N, Lapebie, P, Drula, E, Lombard, V, Rubin, E, Kyrpides, NC, Henrissat, B, Woyke, T, Ivanova, NN and Kelly, WJ 2018. Cultivation and sequencing of rumen microbiome members from the Hungate1000 Collection. Nature Biotechnology 36, 359–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, RD, Auffret, MD, Warr, A, Wiser, AH, Press, MO, Langford, KW, Liachko, I, Snelling, TJ, Dewhurst, RJ, Walker, AW, Roehe, R and Watson, M 2018. Assembly of 913 microbial genomes from metagenomic sequencing of the cow rumen. Nature Communications 9, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, S. (2015). The effect of diet type on residual feed intake and the use of infrared thermography as a method to predict efficiency in beef bulls. Master’s thesis, University of Manitoba; Winnipeg, MB.Google Scholar
Wang, L, Hatem, A, Catalyurek, UV, Morrison, M and Yu, Z 2013. Metagenomic insights into the carbohydrate-active enzymes carried by the microorganisms adhering to solid digesta in the rumen of cows. Plos One 8, 1–11.Google ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y and McAllister, TA 2002. Rumen microbes, enzymes and feed digestion – A Review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 15, 1659–1676.Google Scholar
Weiss, S, Xu, ZZ, Peddada, S, Amir, A, Bittinger, K, Gonzalez, A, Lozupone, C, Zaneveld, JR, Vazquez-Baeza, Y, Birmingham, A, Hyde, ER and Knight, R 2017. Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics. Microbiome 5, 27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimberly, BT, Ramakrishnan, V and White, SW 1997. The structure of ribosomal protein S7 at 1.9 Å resolution reveals a β-hairpin motif that binds double-stranded nucleic acids. Structure 5, 1187–1198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfger, B, Quinn, C, Torres, GW, Taylor, M and Orsel, K 2016. Comparison of feeding behavior between black and red Angus feeder heifers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 96, 404–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, DE and Salzberg, SL 2014. Kraken: ultrafast metagenomic sequence classification using exact alignments. Genome Biology 15, R46–R46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, M, Peng, YJ, Chen, Y, Klinger, CM, Oba, M, Liu, J-X and Guan, LL 2018. Assessment of microbiome changes after rumen transfaunation: implications on improving feed efficiency in beef cattle. Microbiome 6, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Neves et al. supplementary material

Neves et al. supplementary material 1

Download Neves et al. supplementary material(File)
File 44.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Neves et al. supplementary material

Neves et al. supplementary material 2

Download Neves et al. supplementary material(File)
File 72.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Neves et al. supplementary material

Neves et al. supplementary material 3

Download Neves et al. supplementary material(File)
File 128 KB
Supplementary material: File

Neves et al. supplementary material

Neves et al. supplementary material 4

Download Neves et al. supplementary material(File)
File 256.8 KB