Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32085816›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2020

Can rumen bacteria communicate to each other?

Mi-Young Won, Linda B Oyama, Stephen J Courtney, Christopher J Creevey, Sharon A Huws

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mi-Young WonInstitute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences (IBERS), Aberystwyth University, Penglais Campus, Aberystwyth, SY23 3DA, UK.
Linda B OyamaSchool of Biological Sciences, Institute for Global Food Security, Queen's University of Belfast, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast BT9 5DL, Northern Ireland, UK.
Stephen J CourtneySchool of Biological Sciences, Institute for Global Food Security, Queen's University of Belfast, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast BT9 5DL, Northern Ireland, UK.
Christopher J CreeveySchool of Biological Sciences, Institute for Global Food Security, Queen's University of Belfast, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast BT9 5DL, Northern Ireland, UK.
Sharon A HuwsSchool of Biological Sciences, Institute for Global Food Security, Queen's University of Belfast, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast BT9 5DL, Northern Ireland, UK. S.Huws@qub.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9284-2453
Queen's University Belfast · GBAberystwyth University · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/W/10964A01D
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rumen contains a myriad of microbes whose primary role is to degrade and ferment dietary nutrients, which then provide the host with energy and nutrients. Rumen microbes commonly attach to ingested plant materials and form biofilms for effective plant degradation. Quorum sensing (QS) is a well-recognised form of bacterial communication in most biofilm communities, with homoserine lactone (AHL)-based QS commonly being used by Gram-negative bacteria alone and AI-2 Lux-based QS communication being used to communicate across Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. However, bacterial cell to cell communication in the rumen is poorly understood. In this study, rumen bacterial genomes from the Hungate collection and Genbank were prospected for QS-related genes. To check that the discovered QS genes are actually expressed in the rumen, we investigated expression levels in rumen metatranscriptome datasets.

resultsA total of 448 rumen bacterial genomes from the Hungate collection and Genbank, comprised of 311 Gram-positive, 136 Gram-negative and 1 Gram stain variable bacterium, were analysed. Abundance and distribution of AHL and AI-2 signalling genes showed that only one species (Citrobacter sp. NLAE-zl-C269) of a Gram-negative bacteria appeared to possess an AHL synthase gene, while the Lux-based genes (AI-2 QS) were identified in both Gram-positive and Gram-positive bacteria (191 genomes representing 38.2% of total genomes). Of these 192 genomes, 139 are from Gram-positive bactreetteria and 53 from Gram-negative bacteria. We also found that the genera Butyrivibrio, Prevotella, Ruminococcus and Pseudobutyrivibrio, which are well known as the most abundant bacterial genera in the rumen, possessed the most lux-based AI-2 QS genes. Gene expression levels within the metatranscriptome dataset showed that Prevotella, in particular, expressed high levels of LuxS synthase suggesting that this genus plays an important role in QS within the rumen.

conclusionThis is the most comprehensive study of QS in the rumen microbiome to date. This study shows that AI-2-based QS is rife in the rumen. These results allow a greater understanding on plant-microbe interactions in the rumen.

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialQuorum Sensing4-ButyrolactoneAnimalsBacterial ProteinsBiofilmsCarbon-Sulfur LyasesGene Expression ProfilingGram-Negative BacteriaGram-Positive BacteriaRumen4-ButyrolactoneBacterial ProteinsCarbon-Sulfur Lyaseshomoserine lactoneLuxS protein, BacteriaAcyl-homoserine lactoneAI-2BacteriaLuxSQuorum sensingRumen

Identifiers

PMID32085816
PMCPMC7035670
OpenAlexW3007662431

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.