Cited by 1,121Gut microbiota and healthRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

Evaluation of the bacterial diversity in the feces of cattle using 16S rDNA bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP)

Open access
Dowd, Scot E, Callaway, Todd R, Wolcott, Randall D, Sun, Yan, McKeehan, Trevor, Hagevoort, Robert G, Edrington, Thomas S·2008·BMC Microbiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The microbiota of an animal's intestinal tract plays important roles in the animal's overall health, productivity and well-being. There is still a scarcity of information on the microbial diversity in the gut of livestock species such as cattle. The primary reason for this lack of data relates to the expense of methods needed to generate such data. Here we have utilized a bacterial tag-encoded FLX 16s rDNA amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP) approach that is able to perform diversity analyses of gastrointestinal populations. bTEFAP is relatively inexpensive in terms of both time and labor due to the implementation of a novel tag priming method and an efficient bioinformatics pipeline. We have evaluated the microbiome from the feces of 20 commercial, lactating dairy cows. RESULTS: Ubiquitous bacteria detected from the cattle feces included Clostridium, Bacteroides, Porpyhyromonas, Ruminococcus, Alistipes, Lachnospiraceae, Prevotella, Lachnospira, Enterococcus, Oscillospira, Cytophage, Anaerotruncus, and Acidaminococcus spp. Foodborne pathogenic bacteria were detected in several of the cattle, a total of 4 cows were found to be positive for Salmonella spp (tentative enterica) and 6 cows were positive for Campylobacter spp. (tentative lanienae). CONCLUSION: Using bTEFAP we have examined the microbiota in the feces of cattle. As these methods continue to mature we will better understand the ecology of the major populations of bacteria the lower intestinal tract. This in turn will allow for a better understanding of ways in which the intestinal microbiome contributes to animal health, productivity and wellbeing.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2180-8-125

Cites

82 of 82 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?

  • Prevotella, Bacteroides, Ruminococcus, Faecalibacterium, Roseburia and Clostridium are consistently identified in fecal samples from ruminants and are considered part of the core microbiota.

    “Prevotella, Bacteroides, Ruminococcus, Faecalibacterium, Roseburia and Clostridium are consistently identified in fecal samples from ruminants and are considered part of the core microbiota (Dowd et al., 2008; Durso et al., 2012).”

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
Dowd, S. E., Callaway, T. R., Wolcott, R. D., Sun, Y., McKeehan, T., Hagevoort, R. G., & Edrington, T. S.
Affiliations
Agricultural Research Service (US)
Corresponding author
Dowd, Scot E
Venue
BMC Microbiology
Published
2008
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
125
ISSN
1471-2180 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2105807803
Cited by
1,121
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 105 · 2016: 116 · 2015: 121 · 2014: 129 · 2013: 99 · 2012: 75
FWCI
11.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
fecal microbiota, bacterial diversity, dairy cattle, Clostridium, Bacteroides, Ruminococcus, Lachnospiraceae, foodborne pathogens, Salmonella, Campylobacter, gut microbiota
MeSH terms
Animals, Bacteria, Cattle, DNA, Bacterial, DNA, Ribosomal, Feces, Female, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Gastrointestinal Tract, Biodiversity

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