Cited by 59Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyAnimal health and immunology

Natural and artificial feeding management before weaning promote different rumen microbial colonization but not differences in gene expression levels at the rumen epithelium of newborn goats

Open access
Abecia, Leticia, Jiménez, Elisabeth, Martínez-Fernandez, Gonzalo, Martín-García, A. Ignacio, Ramos-Morales, Eva, Pinloche, Eric, Denman, Stuart E., Newbold, C. Jamie +1 more·2017·PLoS ONE

Abstract

The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of feeding management during the first month of life (natural with the mother, NAT, or artificial with milk replacer, ART) on the rumen microbial colonization and the host innate immune response. Thirty pregnant goats carrying two fetuses were used. At birth one kid was taken immediately away from the doe and fed milk replacer (ART) while the other remained with the mother (NAT). Kids from groups received colostrum during first 2 days of life. Groups of four kids (from ART and NAT experimental groups) were slaughtered at 1, 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days of life. On the sampling day, after slaughtering, the rumen content was sampled and epithelial rumen tissue was collected. Pyrosequencing analyses of the bacterial community structure on samples collected at 3, 7, 14 and 28 days showed that both systems promoted significantly different colonization patterns (P = 0.001). Diversity indices increased with age and were higher in NAT feeding system. Lower mRNA abundance was detected in TLR2, TLR8 and TLR10 in days 3 and 5 compared to the other days (7, 14, 21 and 28). Only TLR5 showed a significantly different level of expression according to the feeding system, presenting higher mRNA abundances in ART kids. PGLYRP1 showed significantly higher abundance levels in days 3, 5 and 7, and then experienced a decline independently of the feeding system. These observations confirmed a highly diverse microbial colonisation from the first day of life in the undeveloped rumen, and show that the colonization pattern substantially differs between pre-ruminants reared under natural or artificial milk feeding systems. However, the rumen epithelial immune development does not differentially respond to distinct microbial colonization patterns.

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.0182235

Cites

65 of 65 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. [22]Fonty G, Chaucheyras-Durand F. Les ecosystemes digestifs In: Les Communautes microbiennes du tube digestif des mammiferes: Diversite et structure. Tec&Doc Lavoisier, Paris, France 2007 pp. 71– 126.
  2. [27]Alexander M. Microbial Ecology. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons Inc; 1971.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abecia, L., Jiménez, E., Martínez-Fernandez, G., Martín-García, A. I., Ramos-Morales, E., Pinloche, E., Denman, S. E., Newbold, C. J., & Yáñez-Ruiz, D. R.
Affiliations
  • Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
  • Aberystwyth University (GB)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2017-08-16
Volume
12
Issue
8
Pages
e0182235
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2745463354
Cited by
59
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
13.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • 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
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal health and immunology
Keywords
milk replacer feeding, rumen epithelium, innate immune gene expression, Toll-like receptors, PGLYRP1, colostrum, rumen bacterial diversity, weaning
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Animals, Animal Feed, Female, Gastric Mucosa, Goats, Immunoglobulin A, Immunoglobulin G, Pregnancy, Rumen, Weaning, Biomarkers, Gene Expression, Nutritional Support, Biodiversity, Metagenome, Metagenomics, DNA Barcoding, Taxonomic

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