Cited by 277Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionGut microbiota and health

Two different bacterial community types are linked with the low-methane emission trait in sheep.

Open access
Kittelmann, Sandra, Pinares-Patiño, Cesar S., Seedorf, Henning, Kirk, Michelle R., Ganesh, Siva, McEwan, John C., Janssen, Peter H.·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

The potent greenhouse gas methane (CH4) is produced in the rumens of ruminant animals from hydrogen produced during microbial degradation of ingested feed. The natural animal-to-animal variation in the amount of CH4 emitted and the heritability of this trait offer a means for reducing CH4 emissions by selecting low-CH4 emitting animals for breeding. We demonstrate that differences in rumen microbial community structure are linked to high and low CH4 emissions in sheep. Bacterial community structures in 236 rumen samples from 118 high- and low-CH4 emitting sheep formed gradual transitions between three ruminotypes. Two of these (Q and S) were linked to significantly lower CH4 yields (14.4 and 13.6 g CH4/kg dry matter intake [DMI], respectively) than the third type (H; 15.9 g CH4/kg DMI; p<0.001). Low-CH4 ruminotype Q was associated with a significantly lower ruminal acetate to propionate ratio (3.7±0.4) than S (4.4±0.7; p<0.001) and H (4.3±0.5; p<0.001), and harbored high relative abundances of the propionate-producing Quinella ovalis. Low-CH4 ruminotype S was characterized by lactate- and succinate-producing Fibrobacter spp., Kandleria vitulina, Olsenella spp., Prevotella bryantii, and Sharpea azabuensis. High-CH4 ruminotype H had higher relative abundances of species belonging to Ruminococcus, other Ruminococcaceae, Lachnospiraceae, Catabacteriaceae, Coprococcus, other Clostridiales, Prevotella, other Bacteroidales, and Alphaproteobacteria, many of which are known to form significant amounts of hydrogen. We hypothesize that lower CH4 yields are the result of bacterial communities that ferment ingested feed to relatively less hydrogen, which results in less CH4 being formed.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0103171

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?

  • Hydrogen-producing microbes provide the reducing power for hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, and sheep producing more hydrogen also produced more CH4 than those that produced less hydrogen.

    “Hydrogen-producing microbes provide the reducing power for hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, and indeed, sheep producing more hydrogen also produced more CH4 than those that produced less hydrogen (Kittelmann et al., 2014).”

    From Comparative Analysis of the Microbiota Between Sheep Rumen and Rabbit Cecum Provides New Insight Into Their Differential Methane Production (2018) · cites this paper as Kittelmann et al., 2014

    The Introduction states that rumen microbes produce H2 and methanogenic archaea use it to produce CH4. The Abstract and Discussion link higher CH4 yields in sheep to bacterial communities thought to produce more H2, but describe the difference in H2 production as a hypothesis, not a measured result for individual sheep. Page numbers were not supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • CH4 output is positively associated with bacterial populations that ferment ingested feed to relatively more hydrogen in sheep.

    “CH4 output was found to be positively associated with bacterial populations that ferment ingested feed to relatively more hydrogen in sheep (Kittelmann et al., 2014).”

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 45 · Cited by 277

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. [4]Ross E, Moate P, Marett L, Cocks B, Hayes B (2013) Investigating the effect of two methane-mitigating diets on the rumen microbiome using massively parallel sequencing. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 6030– 6046. 23871375
  2. [5]Zened A, Combes S, Cauquil L, Mariette J, Klopp C, et al (2013) Microbial ecology of the rumen evaluated by 454 GS FLX pyrosequencing is affected by starch and oil supplementation of diets. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 83: 504– 514. 22974422
  3. [6]Miller TL, Wolin MJ (2001) Inhibition of growth of methane-producing bacteria of the ruminant forestomach by hydroxymethylglutaryl-SCoA reductase inhibitors. Journal of Dairy Science 84: 1445– 1448. 11417704
  4. [7]Haisan J, Sun Y, Guan LL, Beauchemin KA, Iwaasa A, et al (2014) The effects of feeding 3-nitrooxypropanol on methane emissions and productivity of Holstein cows in mid lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 97: 3110– 3119. 24630651
  5. [9]Wedlock DN, Janssen PH, Leahy S, Shu D, Buddle BM (2013) Progress in the development of vaccines against rumen methanogens. Animal 7: 244– 252. 23739467
  6. [10]Pinares-Patiño CS, Ulyatt M, Lassey K, Barry T, Holmes CW (2003) Persistence of differences between sheep in methane emission under generous grazing conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science 140: 227– 233.
  7. [11]Pinares-Patiño CS, Hickey SM, Young EA, Dodds KG, MacLean S, et al (2013) Heritability estimates of methane emissions from sheep. Animal 7: 316– 321. PMC3691003 23739473
  8. [12]Janssen PH, Kirs M (2008) Structure of the archaeal community of the rumen. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 74: 3619– 3625. 18424540 PMC2446570
  9. [14]Arumugam M, et al (2011) Enterotypes of the human gut microbiome. Nature 473: 174– 180. 21508958 PMC3728647
  10. [15]Wu GD, Chen J, Hoffmann C, Bittinger K, Chen YY, Keilbaugh SA, et al (2011) Linking long-term dietary patterns with gut microbial enterotypes. Science 334: 105– 108. 21885731 PMC3368382
  11. [16]Moeller AH, Degnan PH, Pusey AE, Wilson ML, Hahn BH, et al (2012) Chimpanzees and humans harbour compositionally similar gut enterotypes. Nature Communications 3: 1179. PMC3520023 23149725
  12. [17]Hildebrand F, Nguyen TL, Brinkman B, Yunta RG, Cauwe B, et al (2013) Inflammation-associated enterotypes, host genotype, cage and inter-individual effects drive gut microbiota variation in common laboratory mice. Genome Biology 14: R4. 23347395 PMC4053703
  13. [19]Krumholz L, Bryant MP, Brulla WJ, Vicini JL, Clark JH, et al (1993) Proposal of Quinella ovalis gen. nov., sp. nov., based on phylogenetic analysis. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 43: 293– 296. 7684240
  14. [20]Quin J (1943) Studies on the alimentary tract of Merino sheep in South Africa. VII. Fermentation in the forestomachs of sheep. The Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Science & Animal Industry 18: 91– 112.
  15. [21]Vicini JL, Brulla WJ, Davis CL, Bryant M (1987) Quin’s oval and other microbiota in the rumens of molasses-fed sheep. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 53: 1273– 1276. 3300549 PMC203854
  16. [23]Morita H, Shiratori C, Murakami M, Takami H, Toh H, et al (2008) Sharpea azabuensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a Gram-positive, strictly anaerobic bacterium isolated from the faeces of thoroughbred horses. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 58: 2682– 2686. 19060040
  17. [24]Salvetti E, Felis GE, Dellaglio F, Castioni A, Torriani S, et al (2011) Reclassification of Lactobacillus catenaformis (Eggerth 1935) Moore and Holdeman 1970 and Lactobacillus vitulinus Sharpe et al. 1973 as Eggerthia catenaformis gen. nov., comb. nov. and Kandleria vitulina gen. nov., comb. nov., respectively. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 61: 2520– 2524. 21112984
  18. [25]Sharpe ME, Latham M, Garvie EI, Zirngibl J, Kandler O (1973) Two new species of Lactobacillus isolated from the bovine rumen, Lactobacillus ruminis sp. nov. and Lactobacillus vitulinus sp. nov. Journal of General Microbiology 77: 37– 49. 4723944
  19. [26]Dewhirst FE, Paster BJ, Tzellas N, Coleman B, Downes J, et al (2001) Characterization of novel human oral isolates and cloned 16S rDNA sequences that fall in the family Coriobacteriaceae: description of Olsenella gen. nov., reclassification of Lactobacillus uli as Olsenella uli comb. nov. and description of Olsenella profusa sp. nov. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 51: 1797– 1804. 11594611
  20. [27]Bryant M, Doetsch R (1954) A study of actively cellulolytic rod-shaped bacteria of the bovine rumen. Journal of Dairy Science 37: 1176– 1183.
  21. [28]Howlett M, Mountfort D, Turner K, Roberton A (1976) Metabolism and growth yields in Bacteroides ruminicola strain B14. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 32: 274– 283. 970946 PMC170048
  22. [29]Holdeman LV, Moore W (1974) New genus, Coprococcus, twelve new species, and emended descriptions of four previously described species of bacteria from human feces. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 24: 260– 277.
  23. [32]Popova M, Morgavi DP, Martin C (2013) Methanogens and methanogenesis in the rumens and ceca of lambs fed two different high-grain-content diets. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 79: 1777– 1786. 23241983 PMC3592211
  24. [33]Nkrumah J, Okine EK, Mathison GW, Schmid K, Li C, et al (2006) Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance, and feeding behavior with metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 84: 145– 153. 16361501
  25. [34]Zhou M, Hernandez-Sanabria E, Guan L (2009) Assessment of the microbial ecology of ruminal methanogens in cattle with different feed efficiencies. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 75: 6524– 6533. 19717632 PMC2765141
  26. [35]Goopy JP, Donaldson A, Hegarty R, Vercoe PE, Haynes F, et al (2014) Low-methane yield sheep have smaller rumens and shorter rumen retention time. British Journal of Nutrition 111: 578– 585. 24103253
  27. [36]Fricke WF, Seedorf H, Henne A, Krüer M, Liesegang H, et al (2006) The genome sequence of Methanosphaera stadtmanae reveals why this human intestinal archaeon is restricted to methanol and H2 for methane formation and ATP synthesis. Journal of Bacteriology 188: 642– 658. 16385054 PMC1347301
  28. [37]Miller TL, Wolin MJ (1985) Methanosphaera stadtmaniae gen. nov., sp. nov.: a species that forms methane by reducing methanol with hydrogen. Archives of Microbiology 141: 116– 122. 3994486
  29. [38]Kittelmann S, Seedorf H, Walters WA, Clemente JC, Knight R, et al (2013) Simultaneous amplicon sequencing to explore co-occurrence patterns of bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic microorganisms in rumen microbial communities. PLOS ONE 8: e47879. 23408926 PMC3568148
  30. [39]Newbold CJ, Lassalas B, Jouany JP (1995) The importance of methanogens associated with ciliate protozoa in ruminal methane production in vitro. Letters in Applied Microbiology 21: 230– 234. 7576513
  31. [40]Zeitz JO, Kreuzer M, Soliva CR (2013) In vitro methane formation and carbohydrate fermentation by rumen microbes as influenced by selected rumen ciliate species. European Journal of Protistology 49: 389– 399. 23578814
  32. [41]Pinares-Patiño CS, Ulyatt MJ, Lassey KR, Barry TN, Holmes CW (2003) Rumen function and digestion parameters associated with differences between sheep in methane emissions when fed chaffed lucerne hay. Journal of Agricultural Science 140: 205– 214.
  33. [44]Rius A, Kittelmann S, Macdonald KA, Waghorn GC, Janssen PH, et al (2012) Nitrogen metabolism and rumen microbial enumeration in lactating cows with divergent residual feed intake fed high-digestibility pasture. Journal of Dairy Science 95: 5024– 5034. 22916906
  34. [45]Jeyanathan J, Kirs M, Ronimus RS, Hoskin SO, Janssen PH (2011) Methanogen community structure in the rumens of farmed sheep, cattle and red deer fed different diets. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 76: 311– 326. 21255054
  35. [46]Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, et al (2010) QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nature Methods 7: 335– 336. 20383131 PMC3156573

Authors
Kittelmann, S., Pinares-Patiño, C. S., Seedorf, H., Kirk, M. R., Ganesh, S., McEwan, J. C., & Janssen, P. H.
Affiliations
AgResearch (NZ)
Corresponding author
Janssen, Peter H.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-07-31
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
e103171
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001624721
Cited by
277
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 1
FWCI
38.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
AgResearch
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
methane emissions, sheep, rumen microbiota, rumen bacteria, acetate to propionate ratio, hydrogen production, methane mitigation, animal-to-animal variation, rumen fermentation, breed selection
MeSH terms
Animals, Bacteria, Methane, Rumen, Sheep

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