1887

Access Microbiology open research platform logo

Volume 4, Issue 2

Dominant remodelling of cattle rumen microbiome by (tall fescue) KY-31 carrying a fungal endophyte Open Access

Abstract

Tall fescue KY-31 is an important primary forage for beef cattle. It carries a fungal endophyte that produces ergovaline, the main cause of tall fescue toxicosis that leads to major revenue loss for livestock producers. The MaxQ, an engineered cultivar, hosts an ergovaline nonproducing strain of the fungus and consequently is nontoxic. However, it is less attractive economically. It is not known how rumen microbiome processes these two forages towards nutrient generation and ergovaline transformation. We have analysed the rumen microbiome compositions of cattle that grazed MaxQ with an intervening KY-31 grazing period using the 16S rRNA-V4 element as an identifier and found that KY-31 remodelled the microbiome substantially, encompassing both cellulolytic and saccharolytic functions. The effect was not evident at the whole microbiome levels but was identified by analysing the sessile and planktonic fractions separately. A move from MaxQ to KY-31 lowered the Firmicutes abundance in the sessile fraction and increased it in planktonic part and caused an opposite effect for Bacteroidetes, although the total abundances of these dominant rumen organisms remained unchanged. The abundances of , which degrades less degradable fibres, and certain cellulolytic Firmicutes such as and 2, dropped in the sessile fraction, and these losses were apparently compensated by increased occurrences of and specific and . A return to MaxQ restored the original Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes distributions. However, several KY-31 induced changes, such as the low abundance of and two remained in place, and their substitutes maintained significant presence. The rumen microbiome was distinct from previously reported faecal microbiomes. In summary, KY-31 and MaxQ were digested in the cattle rumen with distinct consortia and the KY-31-specific features were dominant. The study also identified candidate ergovaline transforming bacteria. It highlighted the importance of analysing sessile and planktonic fractions separately.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): cattle , degradation , ergovaline , grazing , KY-31 , MaxQ , pasture , remodeling , rumen microbiome , tall fescue and tall fescue toxicosis
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Genetics, Bioinformatics, and Computational Biology Ph.D. Program of the Virginia Tech (Award Graduate Fellowship)
    • Principle Award Recipient: BelaHaifa Khairunisa
  • Agricultural Experiment Station Hatch Program at Virginia Tech (Award CRIS project VA-160151)
    • Principle Award Recipient: BiswarupMukhopadhyay
  • College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Award Pratt Endowment Fellowship)
    • Principle Award Recipient: BelaHaifa Khairunisa
  • College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Award Pratt Endowment grant)
    • Principle Award Recipient: ChristopherD Teutsch
  • College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Award Pratt Endowment grant)
    • Principle Award Recipient: BrianT Campbell
  • College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Award Pratt Endowment grant)
    • Principle Award Recipient: BiswarupMukhopadhyay
  • Virginia Research and Extension Innovation Initiative and Virginia Cooperative Extension at Virginia Tech (Award Capacity Building grant)
    • Principle Award Recipient: BrianT Campbell
  • Virginia Research and Extension Innovation Initiative and Virginia Cooperative Extension at Virginia Tech (Award Capacity Building grant)
    • Principle Award Recipient: BiswarupMukhopadhyay
© 2022 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000322
2022-02-24
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/acmi/4/2/acmi000322.html?itemId=/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000322&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Russell JB. Rumen Microbiology and Its Role in Ruminant Nutrition Department of Microbiology, Cornell University; 2002
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Weimer PJ, Russell JB, Muck RE. Lessons from the cow: what the ruminant animal can teach us about consolidated bioprocessing of cellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 2009; 100:5323–5331 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Hall SL, McCulley RL, Barney RJ, Phillips TD. Does fungal endophyte infection improve tall fescue’s growth response to fire and water limitation?. PLoS One 2014; 9:e86904 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Haschek WM, Voss KA. Chapter 39 - Mycotoxin. In Haschek WM, Rousseaux CG, Wallig MA. eds Haschek and Rousseaux’s Handbook of Toxicologic Pathology. II, 3rd ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press; 2013 pp 1187–1258
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Hume DE, Sewell JC. Agronomic advantages conferred by endophyte infection of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) in Australia. Crop Pasture Sci 2014; 65:747 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Milne G. Management in New Zealand, Australia, and South America. In Fribourg H, Hannaway D, West C. eds Tall Fescue for the Twenty-First Century Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. Crop Science Society of America: Soil Science Society of America; 2009 pp 115–116
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Guo J, McCulley RL, McNear DH. Tall fescue cultivar and fungal endophyte combinations influence plant growth and root exudate composition. Front Plant Sci 2015; 6:183 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Melchior EA, Smith JK, Schneider LG, Mulliniks JT, Bates GE et al. Effects of red clover isoflavones on tall fescue seed fermentation and microbial populations in vitro. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0201866 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Young CA, Charlton ND, Takach JE, Swoboda GA, Trammell MA et al. Characterization of Epichloë coenophiala within the US: are all tall fescue endophytes created equal?. Front Chem 2014; 2:95 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Andrae JCL. Is MaxQ Tall Fescue Economical for Cow Calf Producers?. University of Georgia Extension Publications; 2004 http://hdl.handle.net/10724/34327
  11. Campbell BT, Kojima CJ, Cooper TA, Bastin BC, Wojakiewicz L et al. A single nucleotide polymorphism in the dopamine receptor D2 gene may be informative for resistance to fescue toxicosis in angus-based cattle. Anim Biotechnol 2014; 25:1–12 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bastin BC, Houser A, Bagley CP, Ely KM, Payton RR et al. A polymorphism in XKR4 is significantly associated with serum prolactin concentrations in beef cows grazing tall fescue. Anim Genet 2014; 45:439–441 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ayers AW, Hill NS, Rottinghaus GE, Stuedemann JA, Thompson FN et al. Ruminal metabolism and transport of tall fescue ergot alkaloids. Crop Sci 2009; 49:2309–2316 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Mote RS, Hill NS, Skarlupka JH, Turner ZB, Sanders ZP et al. Response of beef cattle fecal microbiota to grazing on toxic tall fescue. Appl Environ Microbiol 2019; 85:15 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Mote RS, Hill NS, Skarlupka JH, Tran VT, Walker DI et al. Toxic tall fescue grazing increases susceptibility of the Angus steer fecal microbiota and plasma/urine metabolome to environmental effects. Sci Rep 2020; 10:2497 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Chai J, Alrashedi S, Coffey K, Burke JM, Feye K et al. Endophyte-infected tall fescue affects rumen microbiota in grazing ewes at gestation and lactation. Front Vet Sci 2020; 7:544707 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. de Oliveira Franco M, Detmann E, de Campos Valadares Filho S, Batista ED, de Almeida Rufino LM et al. Intake, digestibility, and rumen and metabolic characteristics of cattle fed low-quality tropical forage and supplemented with nitrogen and different levels of starch. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2017; 30:797–803 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Wright A-DG, Auckland CH, Lynn DH. Molecular diversity of methanogens in feedlot cattle from Ontario and Prince Edward Island, Canada. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007; 73:4206–4210 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Liu J, Zhang M, Xue C, Zhu W, Mao S. Characterization and comparison of the temporal dynamics of ruminal bacterial microbiota colonizing rice straw and alfalfa hay within ruminants. J Dairy Sci 2016; 99:9668–9681 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Nkrumah JD, Okine EK, Mathison GW, Schmid K, Li C et al. Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance, and feeding behavior with metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. J Anim Sci 2006; 84:145–153 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. USDA E. Cattle - Beef: Sector at a glance 2020; 2020 https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/sector-at-a-glance/#:~:text=Cattle%20production%20is%20the%20most,for%20agricultural%20commodities%20in%202019
  22. Bar Diamond I. Bovine surgery for fistulation of the rumen and cannula placement; 2011 https://bardiamond.com/animal-care-surgery-guides/
  23. Bouton JH, Latch GCM, Hill NS, Hoveland CS, McCann MA et al. Reinfection of tall fescue cultivars with non-ergot alkaloid–producing endophytes. Agron J 2002; 94: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Sambrook J, Fritsch ETM. Molecular Cloning: a Laboratory Manual, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1989
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lane DJ. 16S/23S rRNA Sequencing. In Stackebrandt E, Goodfellow M. eds Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematic New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1991 pp 115–175
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Walters W, Hyde ER, Berg-Lyons D, Ackermann G, Humphrey G et al. Improved bacterial 16S rRNA Gene (V4 and V4-5) and fungal internal transcribed spacer marker gene primers for microbial community surveys. mSystems 2016; 1:e00009-15 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA. QIIME 2:reproducible, interactive, scalable, and extensible microbiome datascience. PerrJ Preprints 2018; 6:e27295v2. DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27295v2 [Preprint]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods 2016; 13:581–583 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahé F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ 2016; 4:e2584 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Henderson G, Yilmaz P, Kumar S, Forster RJ, Kelly WJ et al. Improved taxonomic assignment of rumen bacterial 16S rRNA sequences using a revised SILVA taxonomic framework. PeerJ 2019; 7:e6496 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. R-Core-Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria: Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2012
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Ssekagiri AT, Sloan W, Zeeshan IU. microbiomeSeq: an R package for analysis of microbial communities in an environmental context Entebbe, Uganda: ISCB Africa ASBCB Conference; 2017
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Lê Cao K-A, Costello M-E, Lakis VA, Bartolo F, Chua X-Y et al. MixMC: A Multivariate Statistical Framework to Gain Insight into Microbial Communities. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0160169 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Aitchison J. The statistical analysis of compositional data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 1982; 44:139–160 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS One 2013; 8:e61217 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Oksanen J, Blanchet F, Firiendly M, Kindt R, Laegendre P et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-6. 2019; 2019 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
  37. Lahti L, Sudarshan G, Obechain R, JS V, Blake T et al. Tools for microbiome analysis in R. Microbiome package version.19.12; 2017 http://microbiome.github.com/microbiome
  38. Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol 2014; 15:12 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kruskal WH, Wallis WA. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1952; 47:583–621 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Wilcoxon F. Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1945; 1:80 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Harlow BE, Goodman JP, Lynn BC, Flythe MD, Ji H et al. Ruminal tryptophan-utilizing bacteria degrade ergovaline from tall fescue seed extract. J Anim Sci 2017; 95:980–988 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Koester LR, Poole DH, Serão NVL, Schmitz-Esser S. Beef cattle that respond differently to fescue toxicosis have distinct gastrointestinal tract microbiota. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0229192 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Petri RM, Schwaiger T, Penner GB, Beauchemin KA, Forster RJ et al. Characterization of the core rumen microbiome in cattle during transition from forage to concentrate as well as during and after an acidotic challenge. PLoS One 2013; 8:e83424 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Li RW, Wu S, Baldwin RL 6th, Li W, Li C. Perturbation dynamics of the rumen microbiota in response to exogenous butyrate. PLoS One 2012; 7:e29392 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Azad E, Derakhshani H, Forster RJ, Gruninger RJ, Acharya S et al. Characterization of the rumen and fecal microbiome in bloated and non-bloated cattle grazing alfalfa pastures and subjected to bloat prevention strategies. Sci Rep 2019; 9:4272 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Bowen JM, McCabe MS, Lister SJ, Cormican P, Dewhurst RJ. Evaluation of Microbial Communities Associated With the Liquid and Solid Phases of the Rumen of Cattle Offered a Diet of Perennial Ryegrass or White Clover. Front Microbiol 2018; 9:2389 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Min BR, Gurung N, Shange R, Solaiman S. Potential role of rumen microbiota in altering average daily gain and feed efficiency in meat goats fed simple and mixed pastures using bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing1. J Anim Sci 2019; 97:3523–3534 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Noel SJ, Attwood GT, Rakonjac J, Moon CD, Waghorn GC et al. Seasonal changes in the digesta-adherent rumen bacterial communities of dairy cattle grazing pasture. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0173819 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Pitta DW, Pinchak WE, Dowd S, Dorton K, Yoon I et al. Longitudinal shifts in bacterial diversity and fermentation pattern in the rumen of steers grazing wheat pasture. Anaerobe 2014; 30:11–17 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Lourenco JM, Kieran TJ, Seidel DS, Glenn TC, Silveira MF da et al. Comparison of the ruminal and fecal microbiotas in beef calves supplemented or not with concentrate. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0231533 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Parmar NR, Nirmal Kumar JI, Joshi CG. Exploring diet-dependent shifts in methanogen and methanotroph diversity in the rumen of Mehsani buffalo by a metagenomics approach. Frontiers in Life Science 2015; 8:371–378 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Koike S, Kobayashi Y. Fibrolytic Rumen Bacteria: Their Ecology and Functions. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 2009; 22:131–138 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Miyazaki K, Hino T, Itabashi AH. Effects of extracellular pH on the intracellular pH and membrane potential of cellulolytic ruminal bacteria, Ruminococcus albus, Ruminococcus flavefaciens, and Fibrobacter succinogenes. J Gen Appl Microbiol 1992; 38:567–573 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Ogunade I, Pech-Cervantes A, Schweickart H. Metatranscriptomic analysis of sub-acute ruminal acidosis in beef cattle. Animals (Basel) 2019; 9:E232 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Majak W, Cheng KJ. Identification of rumen bacteria that anaerobically degrade aliphatic nitrotoxins. Can J Microbiol 1981; 27:646–650 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Martinez-Fernandez G, Denman SE, Cheung J, McSweeney CS. Phloroglucinol degradation in the rumen promotes the capture of excess hydrogen generated from methanogenesis inhibition. Front Microbiol 2017; 8:1871 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Joblin KN, Naylor GE. The ruminal mycoplasmas: a review. Journal of Applied Animal Research 2002; 21:161–179 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Ungerfeld EM. Metabolic hydrogen flows in rumen fermentation: principles and possibilities of interventions. Front Microbiol 2020; 11:589 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Boone DR, Whitman WB, Rouviere P. Diversity and taxonomy of methanogens. In Ferry JG. eds Methanogenesis: Ecology, Physiology, Biochemistry and Genetics New York, NY: Chapman and Hall; 1993 pp 35–80
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Mukhopadhyay B, Purwantini E, Conway de Macario E, Daniels L. Characterization of aMethanosarcina strain isolated from goat feces, and that grows on H2-CO2 only after adaptation. Current Microbiology 1991; 23:165–173 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Xie X, Yang C, Guan LL, Wang J, Xue M et al. Persistence of cellulolytic bacteria Fibrobacter and Treponema after short-term corn stover-based dietary intervention reveals the potential to improve rumen fibrolytic function. Front Microbiol 2018; 9:1363 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Kudo H, Cheng KJ, Costerton JW. Interactions between Treponema bryantii and cellulolytic bacteria in the in vitro degradation of straw cellulose. Can J Microbiol 1987; 33:244–248 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Hannah SM, Paterson JA, Williams JE, Kerley MS, Miner JL. Effects of increasing dietary levels of endophyte-infected tall fescue seed on diet digestibility and ruminal kinetics in sheep. J Anim Sci 1990; 68:1693–1701 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Bush LP, Burton H, Boling JA. Activity of tall fescue alkaloids and analogues in in vitro rumen fermentation. J Agric Food Chem 2002; 24:869–872 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Silley P. The effect of plant alkaloids on in vitro rumen microbial fermentation. J Appl Bacteriol 1986; 60:45–49 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Godoy-Vitorino F, Goldfarb KC, Karaoz U, Leal S, Garcia-Amado MA et al. Comparative analyses of foregut and hindgut bacterial communities in hoatzins and cows. ISME J 2012; 6:531–541 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Bergmann GT. Microbial community composition along the digestive tract in forage- and grain-fed bison. BMC Vet Res 2017; 13:253 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Mao S, Zhang M, Liu J, Zhu W. Characterising the bacterial microbiota across the gastrointestinal tracts of dairy cattle: membership and potential function. Sci Rep 2015; 5:16116 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  69. De Lorme MJM, Lodge-Ivey SL, Craig AM. Physiological and digestive effects of Neotyphodium coenophialum-infected tall fescue fed to lambs. J Anim Sci 2007; 85:1199–1206 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000322
Loading
Dominant remodelling of cattle rumen microbiome by Schedonorus arundinaceus (tall fescue) KY-31 carrying a fungal endophyte
Access Microbiology 4, 000322 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1099/acmi.0.000322
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000322
/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000322
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error