Cited by 125Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionGut microbiota and health

Oral Samples as non-invasive proxies for assessing the composition of the rumen microbial community

Open access
Tapio, Ilma, Shingfield, Kevin J., McKain, Nest, Bonin, Aurélie, Fischer, Daniel, Bayat, Ali R., Vilkki, Johanna, Taberlet, Pierre +2 more·2016·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Microbial community analysis was carried out on ruminal digesta obtained directly via rumen fistula and buccal fluid, regurgitated digesta (bolus) and faeces of dairy cattle to assess if non-invasive samples could be used as proxies for ruminal digesta. Samples were collected from five cows receiving grass silage based diets containing no additional lipid or four different lipid supplements in a 5 x 5 Latin square design. Extracted DNA was analysed by qPCR and by sequencing 16S and 18S rRNA genes or the fungal ITS1 amplicons. Faeces contained few protozoa, and bacterial, fungal and archaeal communities were substantially different to ruminal digesta. Buccal and bolus samples gave much more similar profiles to ruminal digesta, although fewer archaea were detected in buccal and bolus samples. Bolus samples overall were most similar to ruminal samples. The differences between both buccal and bolus samples and ruminal digesta were consistent across all treatments. It can be concluded that either proxy sample type could be used as a predictor of the rumen microbial community, thereby enabling more convenient large-scale animal sampling for phenotyping and possible use in future animal breeding programs aimed at selecting cattle with a lower environmental footprint.

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.0151220

Cites

61 of 61 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [20]European Union. Council Directive 86/609/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Off J L 358, 1–28 (1986). 20397315
  2. [47]Roehe R, Rooke JA, McKain N, Duthie C-A, Hyslop JJ, Ross DW et al Sire and breed effects on bovine methane emissions and feed efficiency correlate with the ruminal metagenome, indicating that microbial gene abundance can be used as a trait to breed more efficient livestock. BMC Genomics (in press)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tapio, I., Shingfield, K. J., McKain, N., Bonin, A., Fischer, D., Bayat, A. R., Vilkki, J., Taberlet, P., Snelling, T. J., & Wallace, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Natural Resources Institute Finland (FI)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Wallace, R. John
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2016-03-17
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
e0151220
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2299486820
Cited by
125
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 3
FWCI
21.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • Jukuri (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Jukuri (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Commission (289319)
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
rumen microbiota, non-invasive sampling, feces, rumen contents, dairy cattle, rumen protozoa, rumen archaea, rumen fungi, rumen bacteria, lipid supplementation, 16S rRNA, 18S rRNA, ITS1, animal breeding
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Archaea, Bacteria, Cattle, Diet, Feces, Female, Fungi, Poaceae, Mouth, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, RNA, Ribosomal, 18S, Rumen, Silage, Dietary Supplements, Alveolata

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