The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Host specificity of the ruminal bacterial community in the dairy cow following near-total exchange of ruminal contents
Open accessAbstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the stability and host specificity of a cow's ruminal bacterial community following massive challenge with ruminal microflora from another cow. In each of 2 experiments, 1 pair of cows was selected on the basis of differences in ruminal bacterial community composition (BCC), determined by automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis (ARISA), a culture-independent "community fingerprinting" technique. Each pair of cows was then subjected to a 1-time exchange of >95% of ruminal contents without changing the composition of a corn silage/alfalfa haylage-based TMR. In experiment 1, the 2 cows differed (P<0.01) in prefeed ruminal pH (mean = 6.88 vs. 6.14) and prefeed total VFA concentration (mean = 57 vs. 77 mM), averaged over 3 d. Following exchange of ruminal contents, ruminal pH and total VFA concentration in both cows returned to their preexchange values within 24h. Ruminal BCC also returned to near its original profile, but this change required 14 d for 1 cow and 61 d for the other cow. In experiment 2, the 2 other cows differed in prefeed ruminal pH (mean = 6.69 vs. 6.20) and total VFA concentration (mean = 101 vs. 136 mM). Following exchange of ruminal contents, the first cow returned to its preexchange pH and VFA values within 24h; the second cow's rumen rapidly stabilized to a higher prefeed pH (mean = 6.47) and lower prefeed VFA concentration (mean = 120 mM) that was retained over the 62-d test period. Both cows reached somewhat different BCC than before the exchange. However, the BCC of both cows remained distinct and were ultimately more similar to that of the preexchange BCC than of the donor animal BCC. The data indicate that the host animal can quickly reestablish its characteristic ruminal pH and VFA concentration despite dramatic perturbation of its ruminal microbial community. The data also suggest that ruminal BCC displays substantial host specificity that can reestablish itself with varying success when challenged with a microbial community optimally adapted to ruminal conditions of a different host animal.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Evidence of the influence of the host on the rumen microbiome was first postulated by Weimer et al. (2010) who found that after near total exchange of the rumen contents between cows, individuals restored their bacterial composition back to pre-exchange conditions, which also returned rumen pH and volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration to pre-exchange values.”
From Addressing global ruminant agricultural challenges through understanding the rumen microbiome: past, present, and future (2018) · cites this paper as Weimer et al., 2010
Citations
Cites
Non‐parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure
Clarke, K. R. (1993) · Australian Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.x · Cited by 14,449
Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities
Allison, S., & Martiny, J. B. H. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0801925105 · Cited by 3,181
Hungate, R. E. (2013) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2013-0-12555-x · Cited by 3,060
Fisher, M. M., & Triplett, E. W. (1999) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.65.10.4630-4636.1999 · Cited by 843
Stevenson, D. M., & Weimer, P. J. (2007) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s00253-006-0802-y · Cited by 833
Measuring the Inertia and Resilience of Ecosystems
Westman, W. E. (1978) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1307321 · Cited by 324
Brown, M. V., Schwalbach, M. S., Hewson, I., & Fuhrman, J. A. (2005) · Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2005.00835.x · Cited by 254
Jones, R. J., & Megarrity, R. (1986) · Australian Veterinary Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.1986.tb02990.x · Cited by 230
Penner Gregory, B., Aschenbach, J. R., Gäbel, G., Rackwitz, R., & Oba, M. (2009) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.3945/jn.109.108506 · Cited by 215
Manipulating ruminal fermentation: a microbial ecological perspective.
Weimer, P. J. (1998) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/1998.76123114x · Cited by 172
The influence of habitat heterogeneity on freshwater bacterial community composition and dynamics
Shade, A. L., Jones, S. E., & McMahon, K. D. (2008) · Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01527.x · Cited by 157
Welkie, D. G., Stevenson, D. M., & Weimer, P. J. (2009) · Anaerobe · doi:10.1016/j.anaerobe.2009.07.002 · Cited by 137
Weimer, P. J., Stevenson, D. M., & Mertens, D. R. (2010) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2206 · Cited by 113
Weimer, P. J., Shi, Y., & Odt, C. L. (1991) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/bf00164416 · Cited by 108
Genetically Modified Ruminal Bacteria Protect Sheep from Fluoroacetate Poisoning
Gregg, K., Hamdorf, B. J., Henderson, K., Kopečný, J., & Wong, C. M. (1998) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.64.9.3496-3498.1998 · Cited by 108
How Many Ruminal Bacteria Are There?
Krause, D. O., & Russell, J. B. (1996) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(96)76506-2 · Cited by 99
Paul, S. S., Kamra, D. N., Sastry, V. R. B., Sahu, N. P., & Agarwal, N. (2004) · Animal Feed Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2004.01.010 · Cited by 50
Krause, D. O., Smith, W. J. M., Ryan, F. M. E., Mackie, R. I., & McSweeney, C. S. (1999) · Microbial Ecology · doi:10.1007/s002489901006 · Cited by 44
Chiquette, J., Talbot, G., Markwell, F., Nili, N., & Forster, R. J. (2007) · Canadian Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.4141/a06-066 · Cited by 37
Addition of cellulolytic clostridia to the bovine rumen and pig intestinal tract
Varel, V. H., Yen, J. T., & Kreikemeier, K. K. (1995) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.61.3.1116-1119.1995 · Cited by 32
Cole, N. A. (1991) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/1991.6941795x · Cited by 26
Effect of Abrupt Ration Changes on Milk and Blood Components
Satter, L. D., & Bringe, A. N. (1969) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(69)86840-2 · Cited by 23
TATSUOKA, N., Mohammed, N., Mitsumori, M., Tajima, K., Hara, K., KURIHARA, M., & ITABASHI, H. (2007) · Animal Science Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00470.x · Cited by 10
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Weimer, P. J. (2015) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.00296 · Cited by 487
Huws, S. A., Creevey, C. J., Oyama, L. B., Mizrahi, I., Denman, S. E., Popova, M., Muñoz-Tamayo, R., Forano, E., Waters, S. M., Hess, M., et al. (2018) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.02161 · Cited by 487
Self-citationPetri, R. M., Schwaiger, T., Penner, G. B., Beauchemin, K. A., Forster, R. J., McKinnon, J. J., & McAllister, T. A. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083424 · Cited by 425
Rumen Microbiome from Steers Differing in Feed Efficiency
Myer, P. R., Smith, T. P. L., Wells, J. E., Kuehn, L. A., & Freetly, H. C. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129174 · Cited by 434
The ruminal microbiome associated with methane emissions from ruminant livestock
Tapio, I., Snelling, T. J., Strozzi, F., & Wallace, R. J. (2017) · Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology · doi:10.1186/s40104-017-0141-0 · Cited by 391
Metadata
- Authors
- Weimer, P. J., Stevenson, D. M., Mantovani, H. C., & Man, S. L. C.
- Affiliations
- Agricultural Research Service (US)
- U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center (US)
- Universidade Federal de Viçosa (BR)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Corresponding author
- Weimer, P.J.
- Venue
- Journal of Dairy Science
- Publisher
- American Dairy Science Association
- Published
- 2010-12
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 5902-5912
- ISSN
- 0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2126092649
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 15.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Wisconsin-Madison
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
- Keywords
- host specificity, dairy cattle, rumen pH, volatile fatty acids, microbial community stability, ARISA, rumen microbiota
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cattle, Fatty Acids, Volatile, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Rumen, Host Specificity
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