In vitro predation of pure bacterial species by rumen protozoa from monofaunated sheep, determined by qPCR

Predation of bacteria has important implications on rumen microbial ecology and metabolism. The predation rate of bacteria by protozoa in vitro was studied by bacterial DNA quantification. Entodinium caudatum (EC), Diplodinium dentatum (DD) and Metadinium medium (MM) from monofaunated sheep rumen contents were incubated with two pure cultures of bacteria: the fibrolytic Ruminococcus albus (Ra) and the amylolytic Streptococcus bovis (Sb). Total bacterial and protozoal numbers were counted in the media by microscopy, and concentration of Ra, Sb and total bacterial DNA was measured in the protozoal fraction as an index of predation. No differences (P>0.10) were observed in the proportion of DNA from Ra in the different protozoal fractions, but MM predated a higher amount of total bacteria than EC (P=0.045). Proportion of Ra and Sb in the protozoal fraction agrees with that in the medium, precluding selective predation. Protozoal fraction from EC showed a higher (P=0.018) proportion of Sb DNA and a lower amount of total bacterial DNA than MM (P 0.10), suggesting that the predation rate of each protozoa was similar to the intracellular digestion rate.

[1]  Mengzhi Wang,et al.  The Preliminary Report on Rumen Protozoa Grazing Rate on Bacteria with a Fluorescence-Labeled Technique , 2008 .

[2]  P. Weimer,et al.  Dominance of Prevotella and low abundance of classical ruminal bacterial species in the bovine rumen revealed by relative quantification real-time PCR , 2007, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology.

[3]  S. Takashiba,et al.  Quantitative real-time PCR using TaqMan and SYBR Green for Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, tetQ gene and total bacteria. , 2003, FEMS immunology and medical microbiology.

[4]  Thomas D. Schmittgen,et al.  Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. , 2001, Methods.

[5]  S. Koike,et al.  Development and use of competitive PCR assays for the rumen cellulolytic bacteria: Fibrobacter succinogenes, Ruminococcus albus and Ruminococcus flavefaciens. , 2001, FEMS microbiology letters.

[6]  Y. Benno,et al.  Diet-Dependent Shifts in the Bacterial Population of the Rumen Revealed with Real-Time PCR , 2001, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[7]  J. Firkins,et al.  Quantification of intraruminal recycling of microbial nitrogen using nitrogen-15. , 1992, Journal of animal science.

[8]  G. Coleman,et al.  The Rumen Protozoa , 1992, Brock/Springer Series in Contemporary Bioscience.

[9]  G. Coleman,et al.  The engulfment and digestion of mixed rumen bacteria and individual bacterial species by single and mixed species of rumen ciliate protozoa grown in vivo , 1979, The Journal of Agricultural Science.

[10]  A. Warner,et al.  Digestion and metabolism in the ruminant. , 1975 .

[11]  P. Williams,et al.  Antibiotic Susceptibility of Anaerobic Ruminal Bacteria , 1968, Applied microbiology.

[12]  A. L. Chaney,et al.  Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. , 1962, Clinical chemistry.