Divergent functional isoforms drive niche specialisation for nutrient acquisition and use in rumen microbiome
Open accessAbstract
Many microbes in complex competitive environments share genes for acquiring and utilising nutrients, questioning whether niche specialisation exists and if so, how it is maintained. We investigated the genomic signatures of niche specialisation in the rumen microbiome, a highly competitive, anaerobic environment, with limited nutrient availability determined by the biomass consumed by the host. We generated individual metagenomic libraries from 14 cows fed an ad libitum diet of grass silage and calculated functional isoform diversity for each microbial gene identified. The animal replicates were used to calculate confidence intervals to test for differences in diversity of functional isoforms between microbes that may drive niche specialisation. We identified 153 genes with significant differences in functional isoform diversity between the two most abundant bacterial genera in the rumen (Prevotella and Clostridium). We found Prevotella possesses a more diverse range of isoforms capable of degrading hemicellulose, whereas Clostridium for cellulose. Furthermore, significant differences were observed in key metabolic processes indicating that isoform diversity plays an important role in maintaining their niche specialisation. The methods presented represent a novel approach for untangling complex interactions between microorganisms in natural environments and have resulted in an expanded catalogue of gene targets central to rumen cellulosic biomass degradation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Metagenomic sequences have resulted in an enhanced understanding of niche specialization within rumen bacteria.
“More recently, metagenomic sequences have also resulted in an enhanced understanding of niche specialization within rumen bacteria (Rubino et al., 2017).”
From Addressing global ruminant agricultural challenges through understanding the rumen microbiome: past, present, and future (2018) · cites this paper as Rubino et al., 2017
Isoform diversity maintains selective advantage and niche specialization within Prevotella and Clostridium genera.
“Their data suggests that isoform diversity maintains selective advantage and niche specialization within these genera.”
From Addressing global ruminant agricultural challenges through understanding the rumen microbiome: past, present, and future (2018) · cites this paper as Rubino et al., 2017
Within metagenome sequences from 14 silage-fed cows, Prevotella possessed higher levels of glycosyl hydrolase isoforms relating to hemicellulose degradation, while Clostridium contained higher levels of GH isoforms for cellulose degradation.
“Rubino et al. (2017) showed that, within metagenome sequences from 14 silage-fed cows, that the genus Prevotella possessed higher levels of glycosyl hydrolase (GH) isoforms relating specifically to the degradation of hemicellulose, whilst Clostridium contained higher levels of GH isoforms for enzymes specifically involved in cellulose degradation.”
From Addressing global ruminant agricultural challenges through understanding the rumen microbiome: past, present, and future (2018) · cites this paper as Rubino et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 71 · Cited by 101
- Authors
- Rubino, F., Carberry, C., Waters, S. M., Kenny, D., McCabe, M. S., & Creevey, C. J.
- Affiliations
- Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority (IE)
- University College Dublin (IE)
- Aberystwyth University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Creevey, Christopher J
- Venue
- The ISME Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2017-01-13
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 932-944
- ISSN
- 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
- 1751-7370
- PMC
- PMC5364355
- OpenAlex
- W2577373560
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 15.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2017-05-16)
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The ISME Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- T-Stór (Teagasc) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- European Commission (266018)
- Science Foundation Ireland (07/SK/B1236a)
- Teagasc
- Directorate for Biological Sciences
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/E/W/10964A01, BBS/E/W/10964A01A)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
- Keywords
- rumen microbiome, ecological specialization, nutrient acquisition, Prevotella, Clostridium, hemicellulose degradation, cellulose degradation, grass silage, metagenomics
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Bacteria, Cattle, Digestion, Female, Rumen, Bacterial Physiological Phenomena, Metagenomics, Microbiota
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review