分子营养 Molecular Nutrition

降解不同牧草的瘤胃细菌群落多样性研究

展开
  • 1. 江西省农业科学院, 南昌 330200;
    2. 扬州大学动物科学与技术学院, 扬州 225009;
    3. 南昌市农业科学院, 南昌 330008;
    4. 新疆阿勒泰市第一牧场畜牧兽医站, 阿勒泰 836500
徐俊(1986-),男,江西南昌人,助理研究员,博士,研究方向为畜禽产品质量安全与动物营养。E-mail:xujun0125@163.com

收稿日期: 2018-04-04

  网络出版日期: 2018-10-20

基金资助

国家自然科学基金(31560647)

Diversity of Ruminal Bacterial Communities in Different Forages Degradation

Expand
  • 1. Jiangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanchang 330200, China;
    2. College of Animal Science and Technology, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China;
    3. Nanchang Academy of Agriculture Science, Nanchang 330008, China;
    4. Institute of Animal Husbandry and Vet of State-Owned First Pasture, Aletai 836500, China

Received date: 2018-04-04

  Online published: 2018-10-20

摘要

本试验旨在通过高通量测序技术研究降解不同牧草的瘤胃细菌群落多样性。选择苜蓿、燕麦草、羊草和稻草为试验材料,分别将其粉碎后称取3.0 g放入尼龙袋投入瘤胃中,降解24 h后全部取出,洗净后提取总DNA,根据Miseq高通量测序要求进行样品制备和上机分析。结果表明:1)属水平上,序列比对得到91个属,4种牧草上的优势菌属均为丁酸弧菌属、普雷沃氏菌属、纤维杆菌属和密螺旋体属。2)基于UniFrac的加权主坐标分析,其第一主成分和第二主成分的贡献率分别为52.89%和19.43%。3)苜蓿、燕麦草、羊草和稻草中操作分类单元(OTU)数目分别为5 778、6 984、5 220和6 018,4组牧草共享2 913个OTU,占细菌总OTU数目的32.38%。综合得出,4种不同牧草在相同降解时间下的微生物群落结构多样性存在明显差异。

本文引用格式

徐俊, 邬磊, 陈庆隆, 胡丽芳, 侯玉洁, 赵国琦, 孙建勇, 吴斯骏, 周瑶敏 . 降解不同牧草的瘤胃细菌群落多样性研究[J]. 动物营养学报, 2018 , 30(10) : 4028 -4036 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2018.10.028

Abstract

In this study, we used high throughput sequencing to investigate the diversity of ruminal bacterial communities in different forages degradation. Alfalfa, oat hay, Leymus chinensis and rice straw were choose as experimental materials, smashed and weighted 3.0 g, put in a nylon bag then put into the rumen, put out after degraded for 24 h, washed and extracted the total DNA, and sample preparation and machine analysis were according for Miseq high throughput sequencing. The results showed as follows:1) at the level of the genus, the sequence alignment obtained 91 genera, Butyrivibrio, Prevotella, Fibrobacter and Treponema were the dominant genera in the four forages. 2) Based on the principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) by UniFrac, the contribution rates of the first principal component and the second principal component were 52.89% and 19.43%, respectively. 3) The numbers of operational taxonomic units (OTU) of alfalfa, oat hay, Leymus chinensis and rice straw were 5 778, 6 984, 5 220 and 6 018, respectively, a total of 2 913 OTUs were shared by four forages and which got 32.38% of the total number of OTU in bacteria. These results showed that the diversity of bacterial communities were different in the four forages which degraded at the same time.

参考文献

[1] 徐俊,侯玉洁,赵国琦,等.瘤胃微生物对苜蓿茎降解特性及超微结构的影响[J].动物营养学报,2014,26(3):776-782.

[2] MCALLISTER T A,BAE H D,JONES G A,et al.Microbial attachment and feed digestion in the rumen[J].Journal of Animal Science,1994,72(11):3004-3018.  

[3] KOIKE S,KOBAYASHI Y.Development and use of competitive PCR assays for the rumen cellulolytic bacteria:Fibrobacter succinogenes,Ruminococcus albus and Ruminococcus flavefaciens[J].FEMS Microbiology Letters,2006,204(2):361-366.

[4] KRAUSE D O,DENMAN S E,MACKIE R I,et al.Opportunities to improve fiber degradation in the rumen:microbiology,ecology and genomics[J].FEMS Microbiology Reviews,2006,27(5):663-693.

[5] TAJIMA K,AMINOV R I,NAGAMINE T,et al.Diet-dependent shifts in the bacterial population of the rumen revealed with real-time PCR[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology,2001,67(6):2766-2774.  

[6] EDWARDS J E,HUWS S A,KIM E J,et al.Characterization of the dynamics of initial bacterial colonization of nonconserved forage in the bovine rumen[J].FEMS Microbiology Ecology,2007,62(3):323-335.  

[7] AKIN D E.Evaluation by electron microscopy and anaerobic culture of types of rumen bacteria associated with digestion of forage cell walls[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology,1980,39(1):242-252.

[8] KOIKE S,PAN J,KOBAYASHI Y,et al.Kinetics of in sacco fiber-attachment of representative ruminal cellulolytic bacteria monitored by competitive PCR[J].Journal of Dairy Science,2003,86(4):1429-1435.  

[9] GHASEMI S,NASERIAN A A,VALIZADEH R,et al.Partial and total substitution of alfalfa hay by pistachio byproduct modulated the counts of selected cellulolytic ruminal bacteria attached to alfalfa hay in sheep[J].Livestock Science,2012,150(1/2/3):342-348.

[10] AOAC.Official methods of analysis[M].[s.n.]:Washington,D.C.,1980.

[11] VAN SOEST P J,ROBERTSON J B,LEWIS B A.Methods for dietary fiber,neutral detergent fiber,and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition[J].Journal of Dairy Science,1991,74(10):3583-3597.  

[12] 徐俊.不同牧草来源的NDF在瘤胃中降解特性及其对细菌群落结构的影响[D].博士学位论文.扬州:扬州大学,2014.

[13] 刘艺端,余凯凡,朱伟云.食物主要成分与动物肠道微生物组成及其代谢的关系[J].世界华人消化杂志,2016,24(5):706-713.

[14] MATSUI H,OGATA K,TAJIMA K,et al.Phenotypic characterization of polysaccharidases produced by four Prevotella type strains[J].Current Microbiology,2000,41(1):45-49.  

[15] TAJIMA K,AMINOV R I,NAGAMINE T,et al.Rumen bacterial diversity as determined by sequence analysis of 16S rDNA libraries[J].FEMS Microbiology Ecology,1999,29(2):159-169.  

[16] EVANS N J,BROWN J M,MURRAY R D,et al.Characterization of novel bovine gastrointestinal tract Treponema isolates and comparison with bovine digital dermatitis treponemes[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology,2011,77(1):138-147.  

[17] VARGA G A,KOLVER E S.Microbial and animal limitations to fiber digestion and utilization[J].The Journal of Nutrition,1997,127(5):819S-823S.

[18] SUN Y Z,MAO S Y,YAO W,et al.DGGE and 16S rDNA analysis reveals a highly diverse and rapidly colonising bacterial community on different substrates in the rumen of goats[J].Animal,2008,2(3):391-398.

[19] LATHAM M J,BROOKER B E,PETTIPHER G L,et al.Adhesion of Bacteroides succinogenes in pure culture and in the presence of Ruminococcus flavefaciens to cell walls in leaves of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne)[J].Applied and Environmental Microbiology,1978,35(6):1166-1173.

[20] CHENG K J,STEWART C S,DINSDALE D,et al.Electron microscopy of bacteria involved in the digestion of plant cell walls[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,1984,10(2/3):93-120.

[21] BRIESACHER S L,MAY T,GRIGSBY K N,et al.Use of DNA probes to monitor nutritional effects on ruminal prokaryotes and Fibrobacter succinogenes S85[J].Journal of Animal Science,1992,70(1):289-295.  

[22] KRAUSE D O,DALRYMPLE B P,SMITH W J,et al.16S rDNA sequencing of Ruminococcus albus and Ruminococcus flavefaciens:design of a signature probe and its application in adult sheep[J].Microbiology,1999,145(7):1797-1807.  

[23] LIN C Z,FLESHER B,CAPMAN W C,et al.Taxon specific hybridization probes for fiber-digesting bacteria suggest novel gut-associated Fibrobacter[J].Systematic and Applied Microbiology,1994,17(3):418-424.  

[24] HO Y W,ABDULLAH N,JALALUDIN S.Micorbial Colonisation and degradation of some fibrous crop residues in the rumen of goats[J].Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences,1996,9(5):519-524.  

[25] 徐俊,侯玉洁,杨宏波,等.尼龙袋法研究燕麦草茎杆在瘤胃中降解超微结构的动态变化[J].中国畜牧杂志,2014,50(7):35-39.

[26] 徐俊,侯玉洁,赵国琦,等.羊草茎在奶牛瘤胃中降解特性及其对食糜纤维分解菌数量的影响[J].草业学报,2016,25(4):166-171.

[27] 徐俊,丁健,侯玉洁,等.稻草茎在奶牛瘤胃中的降解动态[J].江苏农业科学,2013,41(8):191-194.
文章导航

/