CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyGut microbiota and healthAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

Metagenomic Sequencing Reveals that High-Grain Feeding Alters the Composition and Metabolism of Cecal Microbiota and Induces Cecal Mucosal Injury in Sheep

Open access
Xie, Fei, Xu, Lei, Wang, Yue, Mao, Shengyong·2021·mSystems
DOI 10.1128/msystems.00915-21PMC PMC8547435
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

High-grain (HG) diets are known to alter the rumen microbiome. However, the responses of the hindgut microbiota and its epithelial function need further investigation in ruminants.

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 · 10.1128/msystems.00915-21

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.

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?

  • Proteins involved in VFA absorption and intracellular pH regulation (HMGCS, HMGCL, ATPeV1B, BDH) were expressed at a higher level in the rumen than in the cecum.

    “proteins involved in VFA absorption and intracellular pH regulation, including 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA synthase (HMGCS), 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA lyase (HMGCL), vacuolar H+ ATPase subunit B (ATPeV1B), and β-hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase (BDH) [26–28], were expressed at a higher level in the rumen than in the cecum (p < 0.001, Fig. 1I).”

    From Reductive acetogenesis is a dominant process in the ruminant hindgut (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Results section on epithelial gene expression identifies HMGCS1, HMGCL, and BDH1/BDH2 as VFA-metabolism or ketogenesis genes, but lists different genes for VFA absorption and intracellular pH regulation; it does not address ATPeV1B. The rumen-versus-cecum expression comparison is presented after the citation as the citing paper’s own Fig. 1I result, so it is not assessed as a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. [1]Eisler MC, Lee MR, Tarlton JF, Martin GB, Beddington J, Dungait JA, Greathead H, Liu J, Mathew S, Miller H, Misselbrook T, Murray P, Vinod VK, Saun RV, Winter M. 2014. Agriculture: steps to sustainable livestock. Nature 507: 32– 34. doi: 10.1038/507032a. 24605375 · DOI
  2. [2]Godoy-Vitorino F, Goldfarb KC, Karaoz U, Leal S, Garcia-Amado MA, Hugenholtz P, Tringe SG, Brodie EL, Dominguez-Bello MG. 2012. Comparative analyses of foregut and hindgut bacterial communities in hoatzins and cows. ISME J 6: 531– 541. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2011.131. 21938024 PMC3280141 · DOI
  3. [3]Stevens CE, Hume ID. 1998. Contributions of microbes in vertebrate gastrointestinal tract to production and conservation of nutrients. Physiol Rev 78: 393– 427. doi: 10.1152/physrev.1998.78.2.393. 9562034 · DOI
  4. [4]Russell JB, Rychlik JL. 2001. Factors that alter rumen microbial ecology. Science 292: 1119– 1122. doi: 10.1126/science.1058830. 11352069 · DOI
  5. [5]Moraïs S, Mizrahi I. 2019. The road not taken: the rumen microbiome, functional groups, and community states. Trends Microbiol 27: 538– 549. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2018.12.011. 30679075 · DOI
  6. [6]Martinez-Guryn K, Leone V, Chang EB. 2019. Regional diversity of the gastrointestinal microbiome. Cell Host Microbe 26: 314– 324. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2019.08.011. 31513770 PMC6750279 · DOI
  7. [7]O’Hara E, Neves ALA, Song Y, Guan LL. 2020. The role of the gut microbiome in cattle production and health: driver or passenger? Annu Rev Anim Biosci 8: 199– 220. doi: 10.1146/annurev-animal-021419-083952. 32069435 · DOI
  8. [8]Dixon RM, Nolan JV. 1982. Studies of the large intestine of sheep. 1. Fermentation and absorption in sections of the large intestine. Br J Nutr 47: 289– 300. doi: 10.1079/bjn19820038. 7066290 · DOI
  9. [9]Gressley TF, Hall MB, Armentano LE. 2011. Ruminant nutrition symposium: productivity, digestion, and health responses to hindgut acidosis in ruminants. J Anim Sci 89: 1120– 1130. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3460. 21415422 · DOI
  10. [10]Wetzels SU, Mann E, Metzler-Zebeli BU, Wagner M, Klevenhusen F, Zebeli Q, Schmitz-Esser S. 2015. Pyrosequencing reveals shifts in the bacterial epimural community relative to dietary concentrate amount in goats. J Dairy Sci 98: 5572– 5587. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-9166. 26051320 · DOI
  11. [11]Seddik H, Xu L, Wang Y, Mao S. 2019. A rapid shift to high-grain diet results in dynamic changes in rumen epimural microbiome in sheep. Animal 13: 1614– 1622. doi: 10.1017/S1751731118003269. 30560755 · DOI
  12. [12]Krause KM, Oetzel GR. 2006. Understanding and preventing subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy herds: a review. Anim Feed Sci Technol 126: 215– 236. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.08.004. · DOI
  13. [13]Mao S, Huo W, Zhu W. 2016. Microbiome-metabolome analysis reveals unhealthy alterations in the composition and metabolism of ruminal microbiota with increasing dietary grain in a goat model. Environ Microbiol 18: 525– 541. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12724. 25471302 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [14]Wolff SM, Ellison MJ, Hao Y, Cockrum RR, Austin KJ, Baraboo M, Burch K, Lee HJ, Maurer T, Patil R, Ravelo A, Taxis TM, Truong H, Lamberson WR, Cammack KM, Conant GC. 2017. Diet shifts provoke complex and variable changes in the metabolic networks of the ruminal microbiome. Microbiome 5: 60. doi: 10.1186/s40168-017-0274-6. 28595639 PMC5465553 · DOI
  15. [15]Wang Y, Xu L, Liu J, Zhu W, Mao S. 2017. A high grain diet dynamically shifted the composition of mucosa-associated microbiota and induced mucosal injuries in the colon of sheep. Front Microbiol 8: 2080. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02080. 29123511 PMC5662643 · DOI
  16. [16]Liu J, Xu T, Zhu W, Mao S. 2014. High-grain feeding alters caecal bacterial microbiota composition and fermentation and results in caecal mucosal injury in goats. Br J Nutr 112: 416– 427. doi: 10.1017/S0007114514000993. 24846282 · DOI
  17. [17]Biddle A, Stewart L, Blanchard J, Leschine S. 2013. Untangling the genetic basis of fibrolytic specialization by Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae in diverse gut communities. Diversity 5: 627– 640. doi: 10.3390/d5030627. · DOI
  18. [18]Kokou F, Sasson G, Friedman J, Eyal S, Ovadia O, Harpaz S, Cnaani A, Mizrahi I. 2019. Core gut microbial communities are maintained by beneficial interactions and strain variability in fish. Nat Microbiol 4: 2456– 2465. doi: 10.1038/s41564-019-0560-0. 31548685 · DOI
  19. [19]Xie F, Jin W, Si H, Yuan Y, Tao Y, Liu J, Wang X, Yang C, Li Q, Yan X, Lin L, Jiang Q, Zhang L, Guo C, Greening C, Heller R, Guan LL, Pope PB, Tan Z, Zhu W, Wang M, Qiu Q, Li Z, Mao S. 2021. An integrated gene catalog and over 10,000 metagenome-assembled genomes from the gastrointestinal microbiome of ruminants. Microbiome 9: 137. doi: 10.1186/s40168-021-01078-x. 34118976 PMC8199421 · DOI
  20. [20]Malmuthuge N, Li M, Chen Y, Fries P, Griebel PJ, Baurhoo B, Zhao X, Guan LL. 2012. Distinct commensal bacteria associated with ingesta and mucosal epithelium in the gastrointestinal tracts of calves and chickens. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 79: 337– 347. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01220.x. 22092450 · DOI
  21. [21]Vital M, Howe AC, Tiedje JM. 2014. Revealing the bacterial butyrate synthesis pathways by analyzing (meta)genomic data. mBio 5: e00889-14. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00889-14. 24757212 PMC3994512 · DOI
  22. [22]Ze X, Duncan SH, Louis P, Flint HJ. 2012. Ruminococcus bromii is a keystone species for the degradation of resistant starch in the human colon. ISME J 6: 1535– 1543. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2012.4. 22343308 PMC3400402 · DOI · Paper page
  23. [23]Quan J, Wu Z, Ye Y, Peng L, Wu J, Ruan D, Qiu Y, Ding R, Wang X, Zheng E, Cai G, Huang W, Yang J. 2020. Metagenomic characterization of intestinal regions in pigs with contrasting feed efficiency. Front Microbiol 11: 32. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00032. 32038603 PMC6989599 · DOI
  24. [24]Wallace RJ, McKain N, Broderick GA, Rode LM, Walker ND, Newbold CJ, Kopecny J. 1997. Peptidases of the rumen bacterium, Prevotella ruminicola. Anaerobe 3: 35– 42. doi: 10.1006/anae.1996.0065. 16887560 · DOI
  25. [25]Belzer C, de Vos WM. 2012. Microbes inside—from diversity to function: the case of Akkermansia. ISME J 6: 1449– 1458. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2012.6. 22437156 PMC3401025 · DOI
  26. [26]Gao X, Oba M. 2016. Characteristics of dairy cows with a greater or lower risk of subacute ruminal acidosis: volatile fatty acid absorption, rumen digestion, and expression of genes in rumen epithelial cells. J Dairy Sci 99: 8733– 8745. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11570. 27638257 · DOI
  27. [27]Brown K, DeCoffe D, Molcan E, Gibson DL. 2012. Diet-induced dysbiosis of the intestinal microbiota and the effects on immunity and disease. Nutrients 4: 1095– 1119. doi: 10.3390/nu4081095. 23016134 PMC3448089 · DOI
  28. [28]Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. 2014. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30: 2114– 2120. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170. 24695404 PMC4103590 · DOI · Paper page
  29. [29]Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, Fierer N, Peña AG, Goodrich JK, Gordon JI, Huttley GA, Kelley ST, Knights D, Koenig JE, Ley RE, Lozupone CA, McDonald D, Muegge BD, Pirrung M, Reeder J, Sevinsky JR, Turnbaugh PJ, Walters WA, Widmann J, Yatsunenko T, Zaneveld J, Knight R. 2010. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 7: 335– 336. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.f.303. 20383131 PMC3156573 · DOI · Paper page
  30. [30]Edgar RC. 2013. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat Methods 10: 996– 998. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2604. 23955772 · DOI
  31. [31]Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, Peplies J, Glöckner FO. 2013. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and Web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res 41: D590– D596. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219. 23193283 PMC3531112 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [32]Li H, Durbin R. 2010. Fast and accurate long-read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 26: 589– 595. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp698. 20080505 PMC2828108 · DOI · Paper page
  33. [33]Li D, Liu CM, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam TW. 2015. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 31: 1674– 1676. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv033. 25609793 · DOI
  34. [34]Hyatt D, Chen GL, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. 2010. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics 11: 119. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-119. 20211023 PMC2848648 · DOI
  35. [35]Fu L, Niu B, Zhu Z, Wu S, Li W. 2012. CD-HIT: accelerated for clustering the next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 28: 3150– 3152. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts565. 23060610 PMC3516142 · DOI · Paper page
  36. [36]Buchfink B, Xie C, Huson DH. 2015. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat Methods 12: 59– 60. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3176. 25402007 · DOI · Paper page
  37. [37]Kanehisa M, Goto S, Kawashima S, Okuno Y, Hattori M. 2004. The KEGG resource for deciphering the genome. Nucleic Acids Res 32: D277– D280. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh063. 14681412 PMC308797 · DOI
  38. [38]Wu YW, Simmons BA, Singer SW. 2016. MaxBin 2.0: an automated binning algorithm to recover genomes from multiple metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics 32: 605– 607. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv638. 26515820 · DOI
  39. [39]Kang DD, Froula J, Egan R, Wang Z. 2015. MetaBAT, an efficient tool for accurately reconstructing single genomes from complex microbial communities. PeerJ 3: e1165. doi: 10.7717/peerj.1165. 26336640 PMC4556158 · DOI
  40. [40]Alneberg J, Bjarnason BS, de Bruijn I, Schirmer M, Quick J, Ijaz UZ, Lahti L, Loman NJ, Andersson AF, Quince C. 2014. Binning metagenomic contigs by coverage and composition. Nat Methods 11: 1144– 1146. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3103. 25218180 · DOI
  41. [41]Sieber CMK, Probst AJ, Sharrar A, Thomas BC, Hess M, Tringe SG, Banfield JF. 2018. Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation and scoring strategy. Nat Microbiol 3: 836– 843. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0171-1. 29807988 PMC6786971 · DOI
  42. [42]Olm MR, Brown CT, Brooks B, Banfield JF. 2017. dRep: a tool for fast and accurate genomic comparisons that enables improved genome recovery from metagenomes through de-replication. ISME J 11: 2864– 2868. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.126. 28742071 PMC5702732 · DOI · Paper page
  43. [43]Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. 2015. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res 25: 1043– 1055. doi: 10.1101/gr.186072.114. 25977477 PMC4484387 · DOI · Paper page
  44. [44]Parks DH, Chuvochina M, Waite DW, Rinke C, Skarshewski A, Chaumeil PA, Hugenholtz P. 2018. A standardized bacterial taxonomy based on genome phylogeny substantially revises the tree of life. Nat Biotechnol 36: 996– 1004. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4229. 30148503 · DOI · Paper page
  45. [45]Uritskiy GV, DiRuggiero J, Taylor J. 2018. MetaWRAP—a flexible pipeline for genome-resolved metagenomic data analysis. Microbiome 6: 158. doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0541-1. 30219103 PMC6138922 · DOI · Paper page
  46. [46]Segata N, Börnigen D, Morgan XC, Huttenhower C. 2013. PhyloPhlAn is a new method for improved phylogenetic and taxonomic placement of microbes. Nat Commun 4: 2304. doi: 10.1038/ncomms3304. 23942190 PMC3760377 · DOI
  47. [47]Letunic I, Bork P. 2016. Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL) v3: an online tool for the display and annotation of phylogenetic and other trees. Nucleic Acids Res 44: W242– W245. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw290. 27095192 PMC4987883 · DOI
  48. [48]Langfelder P, Horvath S. 2008. WGCNA: an R package for weighted correlation network analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 9: 559. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-9-559. 19114008 PMC2631488 · DOI · Paper page
  49. [49]Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. 2009. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks, p 361– 362. In Proceedings of the Third International AAAI Conference of on Weblogs and Social Media. AAAI Publications, Menlo Park, CA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xie, F., Xu, L., Wang, Y., & Mao, S.
Affiliations
Nanjing Agricultural University (CN)
Corresponding author
Mao, Shengyong
ORCID
Venue
mSystems
Publisher
American Society for Microbiology
Published
2021-10-26
Volume
6
Issue
5
Pages
e0091521-e0091521
ISSN
2379-5077 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1128/msystems.00915-21
PMC
PMC8547435
OpenAlex
W3203605325
Cited by
38
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4
FWCI
6.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • mSystems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Six-Talent Peaks Project in Jiangsu Province (NY-050)
  • Jiangsu Agriculture Science and Technology Innovation Fund (CX(19)1006)
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
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
high-concentrate diet, cecal microbiota, hindgut microbiome, sheep, microbial fermentation, epithelial gene expression, tight junction proteins, cytokines, mucosal inflammation, ruminant nutrition

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