4.2 Article

Characterization of microbial communities from rumen and large intestine of lactating creole goats grazing in arid plant communities

期刊

MICROBIOLOGY-SGM
卷 167, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/mic.0.001092

关键词

16S/18S metagenomics; diet; faeces; grazing; rumen content; scrublands

资金

  1. CONACYT/Mexico

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that lactating creole goats grazing in arid plant communities in the Sonoran Desert have different diet preferences, but exhibit some similarities in microbial communities in the rumen and large intestine, with low presence of archaea.
Arid plant communities provide variable diets that can affect digestive microbial communities of free-foraging ruminants. Thus, we used next-generation sequencing of 16S and 18S rDNA to characterize microbial communities in the rumen (regurgitated digesta) and large intestine (faeces) and diet composition of lactating creole goats from five flocks grazing in native plant communities in the Sonoran Desert in the rainy season. The bacterial communities in the rumen and large intestine of the five flocks had similar alpha diversity (Chao1, Shannon, and Simpson indices). However, bacterial community compositions were different: a bacterial community dominated by Proteobacteria in the rumen transitioned to a community dominated by Firmicutes in the large intestine. Bacterial communities of rumen were similar across flocks; similarly occurred with large-intestine communities. Archaea had a minimum presence in the goat digestive tract. We detected phylum Basidiomycota, Ascomycota, and Apicomplexa as the main fungi and protozoa. Analyses suggested different diet compositions; forbs and grasses composed the bulk of plants in the rumen and forbs and shrubs in faeces. Therefore, lactating goats consuming different diets in the Sonoran Desert in the rainy season share a similar core bacterial community in the rumen and another in the large intestine and present low archaeal communities.

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

4.2
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