Quantification of anaerobic cellulolytic bacteria from the rumenof cattle: comparison of three techniques

Authors

  • Andres F. Londoño-Zapata University of Antioquia
  • Jaime A. Fernández-Correa University of Antioquia
  • Licet P. Molina-Guzman University of Antioquia
  • Diana Polanco-Echeverry University of Antioquia
  • Lina A. Gutiérrez-Builes University of Antioquia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.hm.10878

Keywords:

anaerobic bacteria, cellulolytic activity, laboratory techniques and procedures, rumen, rumen microorganisms

Abstract

Introduction
Rumen microorganisms are responsible for digestion of plants material consumed by ruminants. Cellulolytic bacteria have the ability to degrade structural carbohydrates, so the abundance and enzymatic activity
of these is essential for developing strategies to manipulate the rumen fermentation.
Objective
Compare the methods for quantification of bacterial growth: most probable number, viable cell count and Roll-tube plate for enumeration of rumen bacteria.
Materials and methods
Comparative experimental study. We evaluated three methods for quantification of bacterial growth: most probable number, viable cell count and Roll-tube plate with respect to the density and diversity of ruminal
cellulolytic bacteria in rumen fluid samples collected from two cannulated Holstein females to rumen.
Results
High and positive correlation was observed with statistical significance (0.826; p=0.000) between the quantification of viable cells by the Roll Tube method and the plaque viable cells quantification method.
Another correlation, this time negative, moderated and weak, was observed between the quantification
of viable cells obtained by the “most probable number” method with the Roll Tube method and the plaque method too. (-0.514; p=0.237;-0.374; p=0.147 respectively). The results from the determination coefficient corroborate this information. On the one hand, the “most probable number” method detected low diversity, on the other hand the other methods (Roll Tube and plaque), demonstrated consistency with regard to density and bacteria diversity.
Conclusions
The data suggest that the technique of counting viable cells in plaque may be most appropriate to quantify ruminal cellulolytic bacteria.
|Abstract
= 576 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 1318 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Andres F. Londoño-Zapata , University of Antioquia

Student of Industrial and Environmental Microbiology, Veterinary Microbiology Research Group, School of Microbiology, University of Antioquia. Medellín- Colombia. 

Jaime A. Fernández-Correa, University of Antioquia

Student of Industrial and Environmental Microbiology, Veterinary Microbiology Research Group, School of Microbiology, University of Antioquia. Medellín- Colombia.

Licet P. Molina-Guzman, University of Antioquia

Microbiologist and Bioanalyst, Master's Student in Microbiology and Bioanalysis, Veterinary Microbiology Research Group, School of Microbiology, University of Antioquia. Medellín-Colombia.

Diana Polanco-Echeverry, University of Antioquia

Bacteriologist and Clinical Laboratorian, Master in Biological Sciences, Veterinary Microbiology Research Group, School of Microbiology, University of Antioquia. Medellín-Colombia.

Lina A. Gutiérrez-Builes, University of Antioquia

Bacteriologist and Clinical Laboratorian, Doctor in Basic Biomedical Sciences with emphasis on Microbiology and Parasitology. Veterinary Microbiology Research Group, School of Microbiology, University of Antioquia,. Medellín-Colombia.

References

Phillipson at. Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant. New Castle: Ed. Cornell University; 1970. p.310-23.

Cronjé P. Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth, and reproduction. New York: Ed. Cabi; 2000. p.475.

Grubb JA, Dehority BA. Variation in colony counts of total viable anaerobic rumen bacteria as influenced by media and cultural methods. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1976 Feb; 31(2): 262-7.

Obispo NE. Una mirada al ecosistema ruminal. Revista Ceniap Hoy; 2006: 12.

Estrada J. Pastos y Forrajes para el trópico colombiano. Caldas: Colección Ciencias agropecuarias; 2002. p.105-40.

Pabon m, Ossa J. Bioquimica, nutricion y alimentacion de la vaca. Ed. Biogenesis. Medellín. 2005. Pag: 330.

Bryant MP, Small N, Bouma C, Robinson IM. Characteristics of ruminal anaerobic celluloytic cocci and Cillobacterium cellulosolvens n. sp. J Bacteriol. 1958 Nov; 76(5): 529-37.

Makkar HP, McSweeney CS. Methods in Gut Microbial Ecology for Ruminants. Ed. Springer .Netherlands. 2005. Pag: 225.- 230.

Irmak S, Dunford nt, Gilliland SE, Banskalieva V, Eisenmenger M. Biocatalysis of linoleic acid to conjugated linoleic acid. Lipids. 2006 Aug; 41(8): 771-6.

Miron, Morag, Bayer, Lamed, Ben G. An adhesion-defective mutant of Ruminococcus albus SY3 is impaired in its capability to degrade cellulose. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1998; 84(2): 249-54.

And, Dong X, Dong Z. Prokaryote diversity in the rumen of yak (Bos grunniens) and Jinnan cattle (Bos taurus) estimated by 16S rDNA homology analyses. Anaerobe. 2005 Aug; 11(4): 207-15.

Cheng KJ, Costerton JW. Ultrastructure of Butyrivi-brio fibrisolvens: a gram-positive bacterium. J Bacte-riol. 1977 Mar;129(3):1506-12.

Wolfe RS. Anaerobic life-a centennial view. J Bacteriol. 1999 Jun; 181(11): 3317-20.

Dehority ba. Carbon dioxide requirement of va-rious species of rumen bacteria. J Bacteriol. 1971 Jan; 105(1): 70-6.

Dehority, ba. Rumen microbiology. Nottingham: Nottingham University Press; 2003. p.372.

Bryant mP. Commentary on the Hungate technique for culture of anaerobic bacteria. Am J Clin Nutr. 1972 Dec; 25(12): 1324-8.

Attebery HR, Finegold Sm. Combined screw-cap and rubber-stopper closure for Hungate tubes (prereduced anaerobically sterilized roll tubes and liquid media). Appl Microbiol. 1969 Oct; 18(4): 558-61.

Dehority BA, Tirabasso PA, Grifo AP Jr. Most-probable-number procedures for enumerating ruminal bacteria, including the simultaneous estimation of total and cellulolytic numbers in one medium. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1989 Nov; 55(11): 2789-92.

Vervaeke IJ, Van nevel cJ. Comparison of three techniques for the total count of anaerobes from intestinal contents of pigs. Appl Microbiol. 1972 Sep; 24(3): 513-5.

Gutiérrez, L. Manual de procedimientos parte I: Microbiota. Laboratorio de biotecnología ruminal. Medellín: Universidad Nacional de Colombia; 2004.

Obispo, NE. Notebook of media and procedures; 1994.

Rodríguez, F. Diaz, T. Mackenzie, G. Guativa L. Afanador, G. Aislamiento, patrón de fermentación de carbohidratos y caracterización morfológica de bacterias celuloliticas del rumen bovinos alimentados con heno de Raigras en Colombia. 1996. Rev. Copoica. 1996; 1: 23-8.

Marvin P. B. Bacterial species of the rumen. Bacteriol Rev. 1959; 3: 125–53.

Macgregor BJ, Toze S, Alm EW, Sharp R, Ziemer CJ, Stahl da. Distribution and abundance of Gram-positive bacteria in the environment: development of a group-specific probe. J Microbiol Methods. 2001 Apr; 44(3): 193-203.

Wu SHW, Papas a. Rumen-stable delivery systems. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 1997; 28(3): 323-34.

Published

2012-01-17

How to Cite

Londoño-Zapata , A. F., Fernández-Correa, J. A., Molina-Guzman, L. P., Polanco-Echeverry, D., & Gutiérrez-Builes, L. A. (2012). Quantification of anaerobic cellulolytic bacteria from the rumenof cattle: comparison of three techniques. Hechos Microbiológicos, 2(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.hm.10878

Issue

Section

Artículos de investigación original

Most read articles by the same author(s)