4.6 Article

Impact of levels of total digestible nutrients on microbiome, enzyme profile and degradation of feeds in buffalo rumen

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172051

关键词

-

资金

  1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Ministry of agriculture, India [27(17)/2011-HRD]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study was aimed at understanding a shift in rumen microbiome of buffaloes fed various levels of total digestible nutrients. To understand the process, the metagenomics of rumen microbes, in vivo and in vitro rumen fermentation studies were carried out. Three rumen fistulated adult male Murrah buffaloes were fed three isonitrogenous diets varying in total digestible nutrients (70, 85 and 100% of TDN requirement) in 3X3 switch over design. On dry matter basis, wheat straw/roughage content were 81, 63 and 51% and that of maize grain was 8, 16 and 21% in three diets respectively. After 20 d of feeding, rumen liquor and rumen contents were sampled just before (0h) and 4h post feeding. Ruminococcus flavefaciens and R. albus (estimated with real time PCR) were higher in high roughage diets. The predominant phyla in all the three groups were Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes followed by Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Fibrobacteres. A core group of more than fifty rumen bacteria was present in all the animals with very little variations due to level of TDN. The most predominant bacterial genera reported in order of decreasing abundance were: Prevotella, Bacteroides, Clostridium, Ruminococcus, Eubacterium, Parabacteroides, Fibrobacter, Butyrivibrio etc. The higher diversity of the enyzmes families GH 23, GH 28, GH 39, GH 97, GH 106, and GH 127 (the enzymes active in fibre and starch degradation) were significantly higher on 100% TDN diet while CE 14 (required for the hydrolysis of bond between carbohydrate and lignin) was higher on low TDN (70%) diet, indicating ester bond cleavage was better in animals fed high roughage (wheat straw) diet.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据