Ruminal bacterial communities differ in early-lactation dairy cows with differing risk of ruminal acidosis

Helen Marie Golder, Josh Rehberger, Alexandra Helena Smith, Elliot Block, Ian John Lean
{"title":"Ruminal bacterial communities differ in early-lactation dairy cows with differing risk of ruminal acidosis","authors":"Helen Marie Golder, Josh Rehberger, Alexandra Helena Smith, Elliot Block, Ian John Lean","doi":"10.3389/frmbi.2023.1212255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Early-lactation Holstein cows ( n = 261) from 32 herds in three regions (Australia, California, and Canada) were previously categorized using a discriminant analysis model as being at a high (26.1% of cows), medium (26.8% of cows), or low risk (47.1% of cows) of ruminal acidosis. We aimed to investigate if (1) risk of acidosis would be associated with ruminal bacterial taxa and dietary nutrient components, (2) there would be individual or combinations of bacterial taxa associated with acidosis-risk groups, and (3) the abundance of bacterial taxa would be associated with the intake of dietary nutrient components. Methods Diets ranged from pasture supplemented with concentrates to total mixed rations. Bacteria 16S ribosomal DNA sequences from rumen samples collected < 3 hours after feeding via stomach tube were analyzed to determine bacterial presence. The relative abundance of each bacterial phylum and family was center log transformed and the transformed family data were subjected to two redundancy analysis biplots, one for acidosis risk group and one for region, to identify the 20 best-fit bacterial families from each respective redundancy analysis. A total of 29 unique families were identified when the lists of 20 families were combined from each redundancy analysis, and these 29 families were termed \"influential\" families.\" The association of acidosis-risk groups with the abundance of individual influential families was assessed by mixed models. Backward stepwise elimination mixed models were used to determine the bacterial taxa associated with each acidosis-risk group and the dietary nutrients associated with the abundance of the bacterial taxa. Results and discussion High-risk acidosis cows were associated with increased abundances of Anaerocella_f and Veillonellaceae and decreased abundances of several bacterial families with different characteristics. Five phyla: Firmicutes [odds ratio (OR) = 7.47 ± 7.43], Spirochaetes (OR = 1.28 ± 0.14), Lentisphaerae (OR = 0.70 ± 0.07), Planctomycetes (OR = 0.70 ± 0.09), and Tenericutes (OR = 0.44 ± 0.15), and nine families were associated with a higher risk of acidosis. Of the nine phyla identified to be of interest based on abundance and strength of association with acidosis-risk groups, all had one or more dietary nutrient that predicted their abundance. Sugar was the most frequently associated nutrient with the nine phyla, and was present in 78% (seven out of nine phyla) of the models; crude protein was present in 56% of models and crude fat was present in 44% of the models. Sugar and crude protein were most associated with the influential families and all but three families had one or more nutrient predictive of their abundance. Ruminal bacterial taxa are associated with ruminal acidosis; dietary sugar and crude protein are vital predictors of these and, thus, of ruminal acidosis risk.","PeriodicalId":73089,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in microbiomes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in microbiomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frmbi.2023.1212255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Early-lactation Holstein cows ( n = 261) from 32 herds in three regions (Australia, California, and Canada) were previously categorized using a discriminant analysis model as being at a high (26.1% of cows), medium (26.8% of cows), or low risk (47.1% of cows) of ruminal acidosis. We aimed to investigate if (1) risk of acidosis would be associated with ruminal bacterial taxa and dietary nutrient components, (2) there would be individual or combinations of bacterial taxa associated with acidosis-risk groups, and (3) the abundance of bacterial taxa would be associated with the intake of dietary nutrient components. Methods Diets ranged from pasture supplemented with concentrates to total mixed rations. Bacteria 16S ribosomal DNA sequences from rumen samples collected < 3 hours after feeding via stomach tube were analyzed to determine bacterial presence. The relative abundance of each bacterial phylum and family was center log transformed and the transformed family data were subjected to two redundancy analysis biplots, one for acidosis risk group and one for region, to identify the 20 best-fit bacterial families from each respective redundancy analysis. A total of 29 unique families were identified when the lists of 20 families were combined from each redundancy analysis, and these 29 families were termed "influential" families." The association of acidosis-risk groups with the abundance of individual influential families was assessed by mixed models. Backward stepwise elimination mixed models were used to determine the bacterial taxa associated with each acidosis-risk group and the dietary nutrients associated with the abundance of the bacterial taxa. Results and discussion High-risk acidosis cows were associated with increased abundances of Anaerocella_f and Veillonellaceae and decreased abundances of several bacterial families with different characteristics. Five phyla: Firmicutes [odds ratio (OR) = 7.47 ± 7.43], Spirochaetes (OR = 1.28 ± 0.14), Lentisphaerae (OR = 0.70 ± 0.07), Planctomycetes (OR = 0.70 ± 0.09), and Tenericutes (OR = 0.44 ± 0.15), and nine families were associated with a higher risk of acidosis. Of the nine phyla identified to be of interest based on abundance and strength of association with acidosis-risk groups, all had one or more dietary nutrient that predicted their abundance. Sugar was the most frequently associated nutrient with the nine phyla, and was present in 78% (seven out of nine phyla) of the models; crude protein was present in 56% of models and crude fat was present in 44% of the models. Sugar and crude protein were most associated with the influential families and all but three families had one or more nutrient predictive of their abundance. Ruminal bacterial taxa are associated with ruminal acidosis; dietary sugar and crude protein are vital predictors of these and, thus, of ruminal acidosis risk.
泌乳早期奶牛瘤胃细菌群落不同,瘤胃酸中毒风险不同
来自三个地区(澳大利亚、加利福尼亚和加拿大)32个畜群的泌乳早期荷斯坦奶牛(n = 261)先前使用判别分析模型将其分为高(26.1%)、中(26.8%)和低(47.1%)风险的瘤胃酸中毒。我们的目的是研究(1)酸中毒风险是否与瘤胃细菌分类群和饲粮营养成分相关,(2)酸中毒风险群体是否与细菌分类群的个体或组合相关,以及(3)细菌分类群的丰度是否与饲粮营养成分的摄入量相关。方法采用牧草加精料和全混合口粮两种饲喂方式。从收集的瘤胃样本中提取细菌16S核糖体DNA序列<经胃管喂养3小时后进行细菌检测。对每个细菌门和家族的相对丰度进行中心对数变换,并对转换后的家族数据进行酸中毒风险组和地区两个冗余分析双图,从每个冗余分析中确定20个最适合的细菌家族。当从每个冗余分析中合并20个家族的列表时,总共确定了29个独特的家族,这29个家族被称为“有影响力的”家族。通过混合模型评估酸中毒风险群体与个体影响家庭数量的关系。采用后向逐步消除混合模型确定了与酸中毒风险组相关的细菌类群以及与细菌类群丰度相关的膳食营养成分。结果与讨论高危酸中毒奶牛与厌氧细胞f和微囊菌科菌群丰度升高有关,与不同特征的细菌科菌群丰度降低有关。5门:厚壁菌门[比值比(OR) = 7.47±7.43]、螺旋体门(OR = 1.28±0.14)、慢孢子门(OR = 0.70±0.07)、植物门(OR = 0.70±0.09)、微孢子门(OR = 0.44±0.15),9个家族与较高的酸中毒风险相关。根据与酸中毒风险群体的丰度和关联强度确定的九个门中,所有门都有一种或多种可预测其丰度的膳食营养素。糖是9个门中最常见的营养物质,在78%(9个门中的7个)的模型中存在;56%的模型含有粗蛋白质,44%的模型含有粗脂肪。糖和粗蛋白质与影响家族的关系最为密切,除三个家族外,其余家族都有一种或多种营养物质预测其丰度。瘤胃细菌分类群与瘤胃酸中毒有关;膳食糖和粗蛋白质是这些的重要预测因子,因此是瘤胃酸中毒风险的重要预测因子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信