Oral samples as non-invasive proxies for assessing the composition of the rumen microbial community
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 11, Issue: 3, Page: e0151220
2016
- 65Citations
- 168Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations65
- Citation Indexes65
- CrossRef65
- 65
- Captures168
- Readers168
- 168
Article Description
Microbial community analysis was carried out on ruminal digesta obtained directly via rumen fistula and buccal fluid, regurgitated digesta (bolus) and faeces of dairy cattle to assess if non-invasive samples could be used as proxies for ruminal digesta. Samples were collected from five cows receiving grass silage based diets containing no additional lipid or four different lipid supplements in a 5 x 5 Latin square design. Extracted DNA was analysed by qPCR and by sequencing 16S and 18S rRNA genes or the fungal ITS1 amplicons. Faeces contained few protozoa, and bacterial, fungal and archaeal communities were substantially different to ruminal digesta. Buccal and bolus samples gave much more similar profiles to ruminal digesta, although fewer archaea were detected in buccal and bolus samples. Bolus samples overall were most similar to ruminal samples. The differences between both buccal and bolus samples and ruminal digesta were consistent across all treatments. It can be concluded that either proxy sample type could be used as a predictor of the rumen microbial community, thereby enabling more convenient large-scale animal sampling for phenotyping and possible use in future animal breeding programs aimed at selecting cattle with a lower environmental footprint.
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0151220; 10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g005; 10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g004; 10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g003
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84981155291&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26986467; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g005; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g005; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g004; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g004; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151220; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g005; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g005; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g004; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g004; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151220&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g005; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g001; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151220&type=printable; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151220; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0151220; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g002; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g003; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151220.g004
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know