Integrated metagenomic analysis of the rumen microbiome of cattle reveals key biological mechanisms associated with methane traits.

Methane is one of the major contributors to global warming. The rumen microbiota is directly involved in methane production in cattle. The link between variation in rumen microbial communities and host genetics has important applications and implications in bioscience. Having the potential to reveal the full extent of microbial gene diversity and complex microbial interactions, integrated metagenomics and network analysis holds great promise in this endeavour. This study investigates the rumen microbial community in cattle through the integration of metagenomic and network-based approaches. Based on the relative abundance of 1570 microbial genes identified in a metagenomics analysis, the co-abundance network was constructed and functional modules of microbial genes were identified. One of the main contributions is to develop a random matrix theory-based approach to automatically determining the correlation threshold used to construct the co-abundance network. The resulting network, consisting of 549 microbial genes and 3349 connections, exhibits a clear modular structure with certain trait-specific genes highly over-represented in modules. More specifically, all the 20 genes previously identified to be associated with methane emissions are found in a module (hypergeometric test, p<10-11). One third of genes are involved in methane metabolism pathways. The further examination of abundance profiles across 8 samples of genes highlights that the revealed pattern of metagenomics abundance has a strong association with methane emissions. Furthermore, the module is significantly enriched with microbial genes encoding enzymes that are directly involved in methanogenesis (hypergeometric test, p<10-9).

[1]  Feng Luo,et al.  Molecular ecological network analyses , 2012, BMC Bioinformatics.

[2]  Matthias Hemmje,et al.  Modeling Context for Digital Preservation , 2010, Smart Information and Knowledge Management.

[3]  E. Wigner.  On the Distribution of the Roots of Certain Symmetric Matrices , 1958 .

[4]  Min Wang,et al.  Erratum: Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[5]  J. Faith,et al.  Predicting a Human Gut Microbiota’s Response to Diet in Gnotobiotic Mice , 2011, Science.

[6]  D. Beever.  The impact of controlled nutrition during the dry period on dairy cow health, fertility and performance. , 2006, Animal reproduction science.

[7]  Mick Watson,et al.  The rumen microbial metagenome associated with high methane production in cattle , 2015, BMC Genomics.

[8]  Mick Watson,et al.  Bovine Host Genetic Variation Influences Rumen Microbial Methane Production with Best Selection Criterion for Low Methane Emitting and Efficiently Feed Converting Hosts Based on Metagenomic Gene Abundance , 2016, PLoS genetics.

[9]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[10]  Alberto de la Fuente,et al.  Discovery of meaningful associations in genomic data using partial correlation coefficients , 2004, Bioinform..

[11]  Cynthia M. Lakon,et al.  How Correlated Are Network Centrality Measures? , 2008, Connections.

[12]  P. Shannon,et al.  Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. , 2003, Genome research.

[13]  A. Gessner,et al.  Analyses of Intestinal Microbiota: Culture versus Sequencing. , 2015, ILAR journal.

[14]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Accelerating in silico research with workflows: A lesson in Simplicity , 2013, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[15]  Pradip K. Srimani,et al.  Application of Random Matrix Theory to Analyze Biological Data , 2011 .

[16]  Feng Luo,et al.  Constructing gene co-expression networks and predicting functions of unknown genes by random matrix theory , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[17]  Kazuyuki Aihara,et al.  Detecting early-warning signals for sudden deterioration of complex diseases by dynamical network biomarkers , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[18]  Julien Boccard,et al.  Rumen microbial communities influence metabolic phenotypes in lambs , 2015, Front. Microbiol..

[19]  Gemma Henderson,et al.  Determining the culturability of the rumen bacterial microbiome , 2014, Microbial biotechnology.

[20]  J. Bouchaud,et al.  Financial Applications of Random Matrix Theory: a short review , 2009, 0910.1205.

[21]  J. Handelsman.  Metagenomics: Application of Genomics to Uncultured Microorganisms , 2004, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews.

[22]  J. Hyslop,et al.  Hydrogen and methane emissions from beef cattle and their rumen microbial community vary with diet, time after feeding and genotype , 2014, British Journal of Nutrition.

[23]  S. Denman,et al.  Recent developments in nucleic acid based techniques for use in rumen manipulation , 2009 .

[24]  Gábor Iván,et al.  Equal Opportunity for Low-Degree Network Nodes: A PageRank-Based Method for Protein Target Identification in Metabolic Graphs , 2013, PloS one.

[25]  Melissa Haendel,et al.  A sea of standards for omics data: sink or swim? , 2013, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[26]  P. Cochat,et al.  Et al , 2008, Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie.

[27]  N. Schork,et al.  Utility of network integrity methods in therapeutic target identification , 2013, Front. Genet..

[28]  Peter H. Janssen,et al.  Structure of the Archaeal Community of the Rumen , 2008, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[29]  Jens Möhring,et al.  Changes in Rumen Microbial Community Composition during Adaption to an In Vitro System and the Impact of Different Forages , 2016, PloS one.

[30]  Fidel Ramírez,et al.  Computing topological parameters of biological networks , 2008, Bioinform..

[31]  M. P. Bryant,et al.  Bacterial species of the rumen. , 1959, Bacteriological reviews.

[32]  Jukka-Pekka Onnela,et al.  Community Structure in Time-Dependent, Multiscale, and Multiplex Networks , 2009, Science.

[33]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Lethality and centrality in protein networks , 2001, Nature.

[34]  Huiru Zheng,et al.  Integrating Omic Data with a Multiplex Network-based Approach for the Identification of Cancer Subtypes. , 2016, IEEE transactions on nanobioscience.

[35]  Georgios A. Pavlopoulos,et al.  Metagenomics: Tools and Insights for Analyzing Next-Generation Sequencing Data Derived from Biodiversity Studies , 2015, Bioinformatics and biology insights.

[36]  Huiru Zheng,et al.  Analysis of rumen microbial community in cattle through the integration of metagenomic and network-based approaches , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM).

[37]  Korbinian Strimmer,et al.  From correlation to causation networks: a simple approximate learning algorithm and its application to high-dimensional plant gene expression data , 2007, BMC Systems Biology.

[38]  Giovanni Scardoni,et al.  Analyzing biological network parameters with CentiScaPe , 2009, Bioinform..

[39]  Yannick Malevergne,et al.  Collective origin of the coexistence of apparent random matrix theory noise and of factors in large sample correlation matrices , 2002, cond-mat/0210115.

[40]  Eugene L. Madsen,et al.  Comparative Survey of Rumen Microbial Communities and Metabolites across One Caprine and Three Bovine Groups, Using Bar-Coded Pyrosequencing and 1H Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy , 2012, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[41]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  The Importance of Bottlenecks in Protein Networks: Correlation with Gene Essentiality and Expression Dynamics , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..