Cargando…

Sample Processing Methods Impacts on Rumen Microbiome

The standardization of collection and processing methods for rumen samples is crucial to reduce the level of errors that may affect the analysis and interpretation of the data. The aim of this study was to compare two processing methods and their impacts on the microbial community composition analys...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martinez-Fernandez, Gonzalo, Denman, Stuart E., McSweeney, Christopher S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31114550
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00861
_version_ 1783416328874360832
author Martinez-Fernandez, Gonzalo
Denman, Stuart E.
McSweeney, Christopher S.
author_facet Martinez-Fernandez, Gonzalo
Denman, Stuart E.
McSweeney, Christopher S.
author_sort Martinez-Fernandez, Gonzalo
collection PubMed
description The standardization of collection and processing methods for rumen samples is crucial to reduce the level of errors that may affect the analysis and interpretation of the data. The aim of this study was to compare two processing methods and their impacts on the microbial community composition analysis, from material that was either immediately frozen or samples that were stored as cell pellets after removing the supernatant prior to freezing. Eight rumen-fistulated Brahman steers received chloroform as an antimethanogenic compound for 21 days. Rumen fluid samples (60 mL per animal) were collected using a probe covered with two layers of cheesecloth at 3 h post feeding at day 0 prior-treatment (control period) and day 21 of treatment. One sub-set of samples were placed in dry ice and stored at −80°C (Method 1) for subsequent DNA extraction, while a second subset of samples was centrifuged, the supernatant removed and the microbial pellet and rumen contents placed in dry ice and stored at −80°C (Method 2) prior to DNA extractions. Phylogenetic based methods (Illumina Miseq) targeting the 16S rRNA gene were used to characterize the bacterial and archaeal communities from both collection methods for the control and treatment periods. The results from this study showed that the chloroform treatment was significantly different for all beta diversity measures regardless of the processing method used. Significant differences in the relative abundances of some bacteria and archaea, such as Elusimicrobia, Fibrobacteres, Lentisphaerae, Spirochaetes, and Verrucomicrobia and Methanomassiliicoccaceae, were observed at higher levels in the Method 2. These microbial populations are known to have fragile cell wall structures and are susceptible to cell lysis. Regardless of the processing method used, both identified the key microbial groups and can be used to compare the relative shifts in the rumen microbiome between treatments. However, immediately freezing samples might alter the abundance of material from species that are more readily lysed and will not be suitable for studies that aim to assign absolute abundance values to these species within the rumen.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6502991
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65029912019-05-21 Sample Processing Methods Impacts on Rumen Microbiome Martinez-Fernandez, Gonzalo Denman, Stuart E. McSweeney, Christopher S. Front Microbiol Microbiology The standardization of collection and processing methods for rumen samples is crucial to reduce the level of errors that may affect the analysis and interpretation of the data. The aim of this study was to compare two processing methods and their impacts on the microbial community composition analysis, from material that was either immediately frozen or samples that were stored as cell pellets after removing the supernatant prior to freezing. Eight rumen-fistulated Brahman steers received chloroform as an antimethanogenic compound for 21 days. Rumen fluid samples (60 mL per animal) were collected using a probe covered with two layers of cheesecloth at 3 h post feeding at day 0 prior-treatment (control period) and day 21 of treatment. One sub-set of samples were placed in dry ice and stored at −80°C (Method 1) for subsequent DNA extraction, while a second subset of samples was centrifuged, the supernatant removed and the microbial pellet and rumen contents placed in dry ice and stored at −80°C (Method 2) prior to DNA extractions. Phylogenetic based methods (Illumina Miseq) targeting the 16S rRNA gene were used to characterize the bacterial and archaeal communities from both collection methods for the control and treatment periods. The results from this study showed that the chloroform treatment was significantly different for all beta diversity measures regardless of the processing method used. Significant differences in the relative abundances of some bacteria and archaea, such as Elusimicrobia, Fibrobacteres, Lentisphaerae, Spirochaetes, and Verrucomicrobia and Methanomassiliicoccaceae, were observed at higher levels in the Method 2. These microbial populations are known to have fragile cell wall structures and are susceptible to cell lysis. Regardless of the processing method used, both identified the key microbial groups and can be used to compare the relative shifts in the rumen microbiome between treatments. However, immediately freezing samples might alter the abundance of material from species that are more readily lysed and will not be suitable for studies that aim to assign absolute abundance values to these species within the rumen. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6502991/ /pubmed/31114550 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00861 Text en Copyright © 2019 Martinez-Fernandez, Denman and McSweeney. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Microbiology
Martinez-Fernandez, Gonzalo
Denman, Stuart E.
McSweeney, Christopher S.
Sample Processing Methods Impacts on Rumen Microbiome
title Sample Processing Methods Impacts on Rumen Microbiome
title_full Sample Processing Methods Impacts on Rumen Microbiome
title_fullStr Sample Processing Methods Impacts on Rumen Microbiome
title_full_unstemmed Sample Processing Methods Impacts on Rumen Microbiome
title_short Sample Processing Methods Impacts on Rumen Microbiome
title_sort sample processing methods impacts on rumen microbiome
topic Microbiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31114550
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00861
work_keys_str_mv AT martinezfernandezgonzalo sampleprocessingmethodsimpactsonrumenmicrobiome
AT denmanstuarte sampleprocessingmethodsimpactsonrumenmicrobiome
AT mcsweeneychristophers sampleprocessingmethodsimpactsonrumenmicrobiome