Cited by 188Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionGut microbiota and health

Ninety-nine de novo assembled genomes from the moose ( Alces alces ) rumen microbiome provide new insights into microbial plant biomass degradation

Open access
Svartström, Olov, Alneberg, Johannes, Terrapon, Nicolas, Lombard, Vincent, de Bruijn, Ino, Malmsten, Jonas, Dalin, Ann-Marie, EL Muller, Emilie +5 more·2017·The ISME Journal

Abstract

The moose (Alces alces) is a ruminant that harvests energy from fiber-rich lignocellulose material through carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZymes) produced by its rumen microbes. We applied shotgun metagenomics to rumen contents from six moose to obtain insights into this microbiome. Following binning, 99 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) belonging to 11 prokaryotic phyla were reconstructed and characterized based on phylogeny and CAZyme profile. The taxonomy of these MAGs reflected the overall composition of the metagenome, with dominance of the phyla Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes. Unlike in other ruminants, Spirochaetes constituted a significant proportion of the community and our analyses indicate that the corresponding strains are primarily pectin digesters. Pectin-degrading genes were also common in MAGs of Ruminococcus, Fibrobacteres and Bacteroidetes and were overall overrepresented in the moose microbiome compared with other ruminants. Phylogenomic analyses revealed several clades within the Bacteriodetes without previously characterized genomes. Several of these MAGs encoded a large numbers of dockerins, a module usually associated with cellulosomes. The Bacteroidetes dockerins were often linked to CAZymes and sometimes encoded inside polysaccharide utilization loci, which has never been reported before. The almost 100 CAZyme-annotated genomes reconstructed in this study provide an in-depth view of an efficient lignocellulose-degrading microbiome and prospects for developing enzyme technology for biorefineries.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ismej.2017.108

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Svartstrom et al. (2017) assembled 99 microbial genomes from the moose rumen, Stewart et al. (2018) assembled 913 microbial genomes from the rumen of cattle, and Parks et al. (2017) assembled over 8,000 novel microbial genomes from 1,500 public datasets, some of which originated from the rumen.

    “Subsequently, Svartstrom et al. (2017) assembled 99 microbial genomes from the moose rumen, Stewart et al. (2018) assembled 913 microbial genomes from the rumen of cattle, and Parks et al. (2017) assembled over 8,000 novel microbial genomes from 1,500 public datasets, some of which originated from the rumen.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Svartström, O., Alneberg, J., Terrapon, N., Lombard, V., de Bruijn, I., Malmsten, J., Dalin, A.-M., EL Muller, E., Shah, P., Wilmes, P., Henrissat, B., Aspeborg, H., & Andersson, A. F.
Affiliations
  • KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
  • Science for Life Laboratory (SE)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • School of Biotechnology, Division of Gene Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Science for Life Laboratory , Stockholm, Sweden
  • Swedish Veterinary Agency (SE)
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
  • Luxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine, University of Luxembourg , Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
  • University of Luxembourg (LU)
Corresponding author
  • Aspeborg, Henrik
  • Andersson, Anders F
Venue
The ISME Journal
Published
2017-07-21
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
2538-2551
ISSN
  • 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-7370
OpenAlex
W2737166528
Cited by
161
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 1
FWCI
29.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The ISME Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas (2012-1513, 2014-176)
  • Vetenskapsrådet (2014-176, 2012-1513)
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (322820)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
moose, rumen microbiome, metagenome-assembled genomes, carbohydrate-active enzymes, lignocellulose degradation, plant biomass degradation, pectin degradation, spirochetes, Bacteroidetes, dockerin, polysaccharide utilization loci, cellulosome, Ruminococcus, Fibrobacteres, ruminant digestion
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Animals, Animal Feed, Bacteria, Deer, Poaceae, Lignin, Phylogeny, Rumen, Genome, Bacterial, Biomass, Metagenome, Metagenomics

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