Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27159387›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Rumen and Cecum Microbiomes in Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) Are Changed in Response to a Lichen Diet and May Affect Enteric Methane Emissions.

Alejandro Salgado-Flores, Live H Hagen, Suzanne L Ishaq, Mirzaman Zamanzadeh, André-Denis G Wright, Phillip B Pope, Monica A Sundset

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Comparative Analysis of the Ruminal Bacterial Population in Reindeer (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Alejandro Salgado-FloresDepartment of Arctic and Marine Biology, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8229-226X
Live H HagenDepartment of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway.
Suzanne L IshaqDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, United States of America.
Mirzaman ZamanzadehUniversity of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
André-Denis G WrightSchool of Animal and Comparative Biomedical Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Phillip B PopeDepartment of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway.
Monica A SundsetDepartment of Arctic and Marine Biology, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Norwegian University of Life Sciences · NOUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOMontana State University · USUniversity of Arizona · USUniversity of Waterloo · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) are large Holarctic herbivores whose heterogeneous diet has led to the development of a unique gastrointestinal microbiota, essential for the digestion of arctic flora, which may include a large proportion of lichens during winter. Lichens are rich in plant secondary metabolites, which may affect members of the gut microbial consortium, such as the methane-producing methanogenic archaea. Little is known about the effect of lichen consumption on the rumen and cecum microbiotas and how this may affect methanogenesis in reindeer. Here, we examined the effects of dietary lichens on the reindeer gut microbiota, especially methanogens. Samples from the rumen and cecum were collected from two groups of reindeer, fed either lichens (Ld: n = 4), or a standard pelleted feed (Pd: n = 3). Microbial densities (methanogens, bacteria and protozoa) were quantified using quantitative real-time PCR and methanogen and bacterial diversities were determined by 454 pyrosequencing of the 16S rRNA genes. In general, the density of methanogens were not significantly affected (p>0.05) by the intake of lichens. Methanobrevibacter constituted the main archaeal genus (>95% of reads), with Mbr. thaueri CW as the dominant species in both groups of reindeer. Bacteria belonging to the uncharacterized Ruminococcaceae and the genus Prevotella were the dominant phylotypes in the rumen and cecum, in both diets (ranging between 16-38% total sequences). Bacteria belonging to the genus Ruminococcus (3.5% to 0.6%; p = 0.001) and uncharacterized phylotypes within the order Bacteroidales (8.4% to 1.3%; p = 0.027), were significantly decreased in the rumen of lichen-fed reindeer, but not in the cecum (p = 0.2 and p = 0.087, respectively). UniFrac-based analyses showed archaeal and bacterial libraries were significantly different between diets, in both the cecum and the rumen (vegan::Adonis: pseudo-F<0.05). Based upon previous literature, we suggest that the altered methanogen and bacterial profiles may account for expected lower methane emissions from lichen-fed reindeer.

Indexed as

DietLichensMicrobiotaAnimalsArchaeaBacteriaCecumMethaneReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReindeerRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRumenMethaneRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID27159387
PMCPMC4861291
OpenAlexW2345568447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.