ArticleAnimal microbiome2025
Strain-resolved comparison of beef and draft cattle rumen microbiomes using single-microbe genomics.
Article in Animal microbiome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBeef and draft cattle have distinct rumen microbiota that can influence their metabolic processes and body composition. However, traditional metagenomic sequencing methods only provide broad surveys of the rumen microbial genomic contents. In this study, we utilized high-throughput single-cell genome sequencing to investigate these differences at the strain level.
resultsFollowing quality control and contig assembly, we obtained 97 bacterial genomes, 17 archaeal genomes, and 241 subspecies genomes from the rumen samples of Angus and Wuling cattle. Our analysis revealed a higher bacterial abundance in Angus rumen, characterized by an enrichment of the Succiniclasticum and Limivicinus genera. In contrast, the rumen of Wuling cattle exhibited a higher archaeal abundance. Additionally, we observed variations in the types and abundance of microbial-derived enzymes responsible for plant fiber degradation and volatile fatty acid (VFA) production between the two cattle breeds. The Angus rumen was found to harbor a higher diversity and abundance of cellulases and hemicellulases, particularly from the Ruminococcus unknown_0 genus. Furthermore, genera such as Succiniclasticum, Butyrivibrio, Limivicinus, UBA2868, and Prevotella were identified as key contributors to VFA production. Our findings suggest that the Angus rumen may have a stronger VFA production capacity due to the higher abundance of acidogenic genera. Interestingly, we also observed a greater abundance of Methanobrevibacter_A methanogens, which play a crucial role in energy flow in the rumen ecosystem, in Wuling cattle compared to Angus cattle.
conclusionOur study highlights differences in the rumen microbiome of Angus and Wuling cattle. This difference could, at least partially, account for the variation in fat content that ultimately results in the superior meat quality of Angus cattle and the sustained muscle activity required by draft cattle. Overall, single-cell genome sequencing reveals distinct microbial composition and metabolic pathways between the two breeds, providing insights into their unique physiological and metabolic needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.