FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / A Comparison of Methods to Maintain the Equine Cecal Microbi...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2022; 12(15); 2009; doi: 10.3390/ani12152009

A Comparison of Methods to Maintain the Equine Cecal Microbial Environment In Vitro Utilizing Cecal and Fecal Material.

Abstract: The equine gastrointestinal (GI) microbiota is intimately related to the horse. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the microbiome and metabolome of cecal inoculum maintained in an anaerobic chamber or chemostat batch fermenter, as well as the fecal slurry maintained in an anaerobic chamber over 48 h. Cecal and fecal content were collected from healthy adult horses immediately upon death. Cecal fluid was used to inoculate chemostat vessels (chemostat cecal, = 11) and vessels containing cecal fluid (anaerobic cecal, = 15) or 5% fecal slurry (anaerobic fecal, = 6) were maintained in an anaerobic chamber. Sampling for microbiome and metabolome analysis was performed at vessel establishment (0 h), and after 24 h and 48 h of fermentation. Illumina sequencing was performed, and metabolites were identified via nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Alpha and beta diversity indices, as well as individual metabolite concentrations and metabolite regression equations, were analyzed and compared between groups and over time. No differences were evident between alpha or beta diversity in cecal fluid maintained in either an anaerobic chamber or chemostat. The microbiome of the fecal inoculum maintained anaerobically shifted over 48 h and was not comparable to that of the cecal inoculum. Metabolite concentrations were consistently highest in chemostat vessels and lowest in anaerobic fecal vessels. Interestingly, the rate of metabolite change in anaerobic cecal and chemostat cecal vessels was comparable. In conclusion, maintaining an equine cecal inoculum in either an anaerobic chamber or chemostat vessel for 48 h is comparable in terms of the microbiome. However, the microbiome and metabolome of fecal material is not comparable with a cecal inoculum. Future research is required to better understand the factors that influence the level of microbial activity in vitro, particularly when microbiome data identify analogous communities.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2022-08-08 PubMed ID: 35953998PubMed Central: PMC9367579DOI: 10.3390/ani12152009Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This study investigates different methods to maintain the microbial environment of the horse gastrointestinal system using both cecal and fecal materials in vitro, and compares the microbiome and metabolome in these two environments. The research concludes that while there are no significant differences between the various methods in terms of microbiome, there are significant differences in metabolite concentrations and the microbiome of fecal material does not match that of the cecal inoculum.

Research Context and Objectives

  • The study aimed to evaluate the microbiome (the combined genetic material of all the microorganisms in a particular environment) and metabolome (the total collection of the metabolites, which are small molecules, in a biological organism, system, or sample) of cecal inoculum maintained in an anaerobic chamber or chemostat batch fermenter, and the fecal slurry maintained in an anaerobic chamber over a 48-hour period.
  • The cecal and fecal contents used for the study were collected from healthy adult horses immediately after their death.

Methodology

  • The researchers used cecal fluid to inoculate chemostat vessels (chemostat’s cecal) and vessels containing cecal fluid (anaerobic cecal), while 5% of fecal slurry (anaerobic fecal) was maintained in an anaerobic chamber.
  • Sampling for microbial and metabolic analysis was done at vessel setup, and after 24 hours and 48 hours of fermentation. The research team carried out Illumina sequencing and identified metabolites via nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).

Results and Analysis

  • The study found no differences in the alpha or beta diversity in cecal fluid maintained in either an anaerobic chamber or chemostat.
  • The microbiome of the fecal inoculum maintained anaerobically shifted over 48 hours and did not match that of the axial inoculum.
  • The metabolite concentrations consistently appeared highest in the chemostat vessels and lowest in the anaerobic fecal vessels. However, the rate of metabolite change in the anaerobic cecal and chemostat cecal vessels was the same.

Conclusions and Recommendations

  • The research concluded that maintaining equine cecal inoculum either in an anaerobic chamber or chemostat vessel for 48 hours is equivalent in terms of the presence and diversity of microbiome. Still, the microbiome and metabolome of fecal material do not coincide with the cecal inoculum.
  • The authors suggested that further research is required to better understand the factors influencing the level of microbial activity in vitro, especially when microbiome data show similar communities.’

Cite This Article

APA
MacNicol JL, Renwick S, Ganobis CM, Allen-Vercoe E, Weese JS, Pearson W. (2022). A Comparison of Methods to Maintain the Equine Cecal Microbial Environment In Vitro Utilizing Cecal and Fecal Material. Animals (Basel), 12(15), 2009. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12152009

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 12
Issue: 15
PII: 2009

Researcher Affiliations

MacNicol, Jennifer L
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
Renwick, Simone
  • Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
Ganobis, Caroline M
  • Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
Allen-Vercoe, Emma
  • Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
Weese, Jeffery Scott
  • Department of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
Pearson, Wendy
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Grant Funding

  • N/A / Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
  • N/A / Selected Bioprodcts INC.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

This article includes 49 references
  1. Geor RJ, Harris PA, Coenen M. Equine Applied and Clinical Nutrition: Health, Welfare and Performance. .
  2. Glinsky MJ, Smith RM, Spires HR, Davis CL. Measurement of volatile fatty acid production rates in the cecum of the pony.. J Anim Sci 1976 Jun;42(6):1465-70.
    doi: 10.2527/jas1976.4261465xpubmed: 931822google scholar: lookup
  3. Firouzabadi MSS, Hajikolaei MRH, Baniadam A, Mashhadi ARG, Ghorbanpoor M. Cecal Cannulation in Horse; An Experimental Study. Iran. J. Vet. Med. 2017;11:353–360.
  4. Lowe JE, Hintz HF, Schryver HF. A new technique for long-term cecal fistulation in ponies.. Am J Vet Res 1970 Jun;31(6):1109-11.
    pubmed: 5418935
  5. Venable EB, Reed SK, Jacobs RD, Jerina ML, Gordon ME. Development and Management of a Cannulated Horse Herd. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;52:55–56.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.03.048google scholar: lookup
  6. Beard WL, Slough TL, Gunkel CD. Technical note: a 2-stage cecal cannulation technique in standing horses.. J Anim Sci 2011 Aug;89(8):2425-9.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3718pubmed: 21421828google scholar: lookup
  7. Dunkley KD, Dunkley CS, Njongmeta NL, Callaway TR, Hume ME, Kubena LF, Nisbet DJ, Ricke SC. Comparison of in vitro fermentation and molecular microbial profiles of high-fiber feed substrates incubated with chicken cecal inocula.. Poult Sci 2007 May;86(5):801-10.
    doi: 10.1093/ps/86.5.801pubmed: 17435012google scholar: lookup
  8. Donalson LM, Kim WK, Chalova VI, Herrera P, McReynolds JL, Gotcheva VG, Vidanovic D, Woodward CL, Kubena LF, Nisbet DJ, Ricke SC. In vitro fermentation response of laying hen cecal bacteria to combinations of fructooligosaccharide prebiotics with alfalfa or a layer ration.. Poult Sci 2008 Jul;87(7):1263-75.
    doi: 10.3382/ps.2007-00179pubmed: 18577604google scholar: lookup
  9. Busquet M, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, Kamel C. Plant extracts affect in vitro rumen microbial fermentation.. J Dairy Sci 2006 Feb;89(2):761-71.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72137-3pubmed: 16428643google scholar: lookup
  10. Cardozo PW, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, Kamel C. Screening for the effects of natural plant extracts at different pH on in vitro rumen microbial fermentation of a high-concentrate diet for beef cattle.. J Anim Sci 2005 Nov;83(11):2572-9.
    doi: 10.2527/2005.83112572xpubmed: 16230654google scholar: lookup
  11. Lowman RS, Theodorou MK, Hyslop JJ, Dhanoa MS, Cí·¯ord D. Evulation of an in Vitro Batch Culture Technique for Estimating the in Vivo Digestibility and Digestible Energy Content of Equine Feeds Using Equine Faeces as the Source of Microbial Inoculum. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1999;80:11–27.
    doi: 10.1016/S0377-8401(99)00039-5google scholar: lookup
  12. Abdouli H, Attia S Ben. Evaluation of a Two-Stage in Vitro Technique for Estimating Digestibility of Equine Feeds Using Horse Faeces as the Source of Microbial Inoculum. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2007;132:155–162.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.03.005google scholar: lookup
  13. Deneka N, Canb A. Use of Faecel Fluid for Dry Matter Digestibility of Ruminant Feeds. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2007;31:29–32.
    doi: 10.1080/09712119.2007.9706624google scholar: lookup
  14. O'Donnell D, Sukovaty L, Webb G. Impact of Storage Conditions on Equine Fecal Inoculum for Estimating In Vitro Digestibility.. Animals (Basel) 2021 Nov 9;11(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11113195pmc: PMC8614252pubmed: 34827926google scholar: lookup
  15. Lester GD, Merritt AM, Neuwirth L, Vetro-Widenhouse T, Steible C, Rice B, Mauragis DF, Madison JB. Myoelectric activity of the ileum, cecum, and right ventral colon, and cecal emptying of radiolabeled markers in clinically normal ponies.. Am J Vet Res 1998 Mar;59(3):313-9.
    pubmed: 9522951
  16. Argenzio RA, Southworth M, Stevens CE. Sites of organic acid production and absorption in the equine gastrointestinal tract.. Am J Physiol 1974 May;226(5):1043-50.
    doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1974.226.5.1043pubmed: 4824856google scholar: lookup
  17. Argenzio RA, Lowe JE, Pickard DW, Stevens CE. Digesta passage and water exchange in the equine large intestine.. Am J Physiol 1974 May;226(5):1035-42.
    doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1974.226.5.1035pubmed: 4207578google scholar: lookup
  18. Argenzio RA, Southworth M, Lowe JE, Stevens CE. Interrelationship of Na, HCO3, and volatile fatty acid transport by equine large intestine.. Am J Physiol 1977 Dec;233(6):E469-78.
    doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1977.233.6.E469pubmed: 596440google scholar: lookup
  19. Ericsson AC, Johnson PJ, Lopes MA, Perry SC, Lanter HR. A Microbiological Map of the Healthy Equine Gastrointestinal Tract.. PLoS One 2016;11(11):e0166523.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166523pmc: PMC5112786pubmed: 27846295google scholar: lookup
  20. Costa MC, Silva G, Ramos RV, Staempfli HR, Arroyo LG, Kim P, Weese JS. Characterization and comparison of the bacterial microbiota in different gastrointestinal tract compartments in horses.. Vet J 2015 Jul;205(1):74-80.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.03.018pubmed: 25975855google scholar: lookup
  21. Fliegerova K, Mura E, Mrázek J, Moniello G. A Comparison of Microbial Profiles of Different Regions of the Equine Hindgut. Livest. Sci. 2016;190:16–19.
    doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2016.05.015google scholar: lookup
  22. Ganobis CM, Al-Abdul-Wahid MS, Renwick S, Yen S, Carriero C, Aucoin MG, Allen-Vercoe E. 1D (1) H NMR as a Tool for Fecal Metabolomics.. Curr Protoc Chem Biol 2020 Sep;12(3):e83.
    doi: 10.1002/cpch.83pmc: PMC7968567pubmed: 32805089google scholar: lookup
  23. Song SJ, Amir A, Metcalf JL, Amato KR, Xu ZZ, Humphrey G, Knight R. Preservation Methods Differ in Fecal Microbiome Stability, Affecting Suitability for Field Studies.. mSystems 2016 May-Jun;1(3).
    doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00021-16pmc: PMC5069758pubmed: 27822526google scholar: lookup
  24. Vogtmann E, Chen J, Amir A, Shi J, Abnet CC, Nelson H, Knight R, Chia N, Sinha R. Comparison of Collection Methods for Fecal Samples in Microbiome Studies.. Am J Epidemiol 2017 Jan 15;185(2):115-123.
    pmc: PMC5253972pubmed: 27986704doi: 10.1093/aje/kww177google scholar: lookup
  25. Hale VL, Tan CL, Knight R, Amato KR. Effect of preservation method on spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi) fecal microbiota over 8 weeks.. J Microbiol Methods 2015 Jun;113:16-26.
    doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2015.03.021pubmed: 25819008google scholar: lookup
  26. Walters W, Hyde ER, Berg-Lyons D, Ackermann G, Humphrey G, Parada A, Gilbert JA, Jansson JK, Caporaso JG, Fuhrman JA, Apprill A, Knight R. Improved Bacterial 16S rRNA Gene (V4 and V4-5) and Fungal Internal Transcribed Spacer Marker Gene Primers for Microbial Community Surveys.. mSystems 2016 Jan-Feb;1(1).
    doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00009-15pmc: PMC5069754pubmed: 27822518google scholar: lookup
  27. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, Lesniewski RA, Oakley BB, Parks DH, Robinson CJ, Sahl JW, Stres B, Thallinger GG, Van Horn DJ, Weber CF. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities.. Appl Environ Microbiol 2009 Dec;75(23):7537-41.
    doi: 10.1128/AEM.01541-09pmc: PMC2786419pubmed: 19801464google scholar: lookup
  28. Kozich JJ, Westcott SL, Baxter NT, Highlander SK, Schloss PD. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform.. Appl Environ Microbiol 2013 Sep;79(17):5112-20.
    doi: 10.1128/AEM.01043-13pmc: PMC3753973pubmed: 23793624google scholar: lookup
  29. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy.. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007 Aug;73(16):5261-7.
    doi: 10.1128/AEM.00062-07pmc: PMC1950982pubmed: 17586664google scholar: lookup
  30. Earing JE, Cassill BD, Hayes SH, Vanzant ES, Lawrence LM. Comparison of in vitro digestibility estimates using the DaisyII incubator with in vivo digestibility estimates in horses.. J Anim Sci 2010 Dec;88(12):3954-63.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-2989pubmed: 20709869google scholar: lookup
  31. Moya A, Ferrer M. Functional Redundancy-Induced Stability of Gut Microbiota Subjected to Disturbance.. Trends Microbiol 2016 May;24(5):402-413.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2016.02.002pubmed: 26996765google scholar: lookup
  32. Bailey SR, Baillon ML, Rycroft AN, Harris PA, Elliott J. Identification of equine cecal bacteria producing amines in an in vitro model of carbohydrate overload.. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003 Apr;69(4):2087-93.
    doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.4.2087-2093.2003pmc: PMC154823pubmed: 12676687google scholar: lookup
  33. Biddle AS, Black SJ, Blanchard JL. An in vitro model of the horse gut microbiome enables identification of lactate-utilizing bacteria that differentially respond to starch induction.. PLoS One 2013;8(10):e77599.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077599pmc: PMC3788102pubmed: 24098591google scholar: lookup
  34. Salem SE, Maddox TW, Berg A, Antczak P, Ketley JM, Williams NJ, Archer DC. Variation in faecal microbiota in a group of horses managed at pasture over a 12-month period.. Sci Rep 2018 May 31;8(1):8510.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26930-3pmc: PMC5981443pubmed: 29855517google scholar: lookup
  35. Garber A, Hastie P, Murray JA. Factors Influencing Equine Gut Microbiota: Current Knowledge.. J Equine Vet Sci 2020 May;88:102943.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.102943pubmed: 32303307google scholar: lookup
  36. Blackmore TM, Dugdale A, Argo CM, Curtis G, Pinloche E, Harris PA, Worgan HJ, Girdwood SE, Dougal K, Newbold CJ, McEwan NR. Strong stability and host specific bacterial community in faeces of ponies.. PLoS One 2013;8(9):e75079.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075079pmc: PMC3770578pubmed: 24040388google scholar: lookup
  37. Proudman CJ, Hunter JO, Darby AC, Escalona EE, Batty C, Turner C. Characterisation of the faecal metabolome and microbiome of Thoroughbred racehorses.. Equine Vet J 2015 Sep;47(5):580-6.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12324pubmed: 25041526google scholar: lookup
  38. Bailey SR, Rycroft A, Elliott J. Production of amines in equine cecal contents in an in vitro model of carbohydrate overload.. J Anim Sci 2002 Oct;80(10):2656-62.
    doi: 10.2527/2002.80102656xpubmed: 12413088google scholar: lookup
  39. Poeikhampha T, Bunchasak C. Effect of Sodium Gluconate on PH Value, Ammonia and Short Chain Fatty Acids Concentration in Batch Culture of Porcine Cecal Digesta. J. Appl. Sci. 2010;10:1471–1475.
    doi: 10.3923/jas.2010.1471.1475google scholar: lookup
  40. Sakata T, Kojima T, Fujieda M, Miyakozawa M, Takahashi M, Ushida K. Probiotic preparations dose-dependently increase net production rates of organic acids and decrease that of ammonia by pig cecal bacteria in batch culture.. Dig Dis Sci 1999 Jul;44(7):1485-93.
    doi: 10.1023/A:1026624423767pubmed: 10489936google scholar: lookup
  41. Murray JAMD, McMullin P, Handel I, Hastie PM. The Effect of Freezing on the Fermentative Activity of Equine Faecal Inocula for Use in an in Vitro Gas Production Technique. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2012;178:175–182.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.09.013google scholar: lookup
  42. Penfold WJ. On the Nature of Bacterial Lag.. J Hyg (Lond) 1914 Jul;14(2):215-41.
    doi: 10.1017/S0022172400005817pmc: PMC2206768pubmed: 20474577google scholar: lookup
  43. Duncan SH, Louis P, Thomson JM, Flint HJ. The role of pH in determining the species composition of the human colonic microbiota.. Environ Microbiol 2009 Aug;11(8):2112-22.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.01931.xpubmed: 19397676google scholar: lookup
  44. Walker AW, Duncan SH, McWilliam Leitch EC, Child MW, Flint HJ. pH and peptide supply can radically alter bacterial populations and short-chain fatty acid ratios within microbial communities from the human colon.. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005 Jul;71(7):3692-700.
    doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.7.3692-3700.2005pmc: PMC1169066pubmed: 16000778google scholar: lookup
  45. Busquet M, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A, Kamel C. Screening for Effects of Plant Extracts and Active Compounds of Plants on Dairy Cattle Rumen Microbial Fermentation in a Continuous Culture System. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2005;123:597–613.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.03.008google scholar: lookup
  46. Hoover WH, Knowlton PH, Stern MD, Sniffen CJ. Effects of Differential Solid-Liquid Removal Rates on Fermentation Parameters in Continuous Cultures of Rumen Contents. J. Anim. Sci. 1976;43:535–542.
    doi: 10.2527/jas1976.432535xgoogle scholar: lookup
  47. Ale MT, Pinelo M, Meyer AS. Assessing Effects and interactions among key variables affecting the growth of mixotrophic microalgae: pH, inoculum volume, and growth medium composition.. Prep Biochem Biotechnol 2014;44(3):242-56.
    doi: 10.1080/10826068.2013.812562pubmed: 24274013google scholar: lookup
  48. Moorhead KK, Nordstedt RA. Batch Anaerobic Digestion of Water Hyacinth: Effects of Particle Size, Plant Nitrogen Content, and Inoculum Volume. Bioresour. Technol. 1993;44:71–76.
    doi: 10.1016/0960-8524(93)90211-Sgoogle scholar: lookup
  49. Bonhomme A. Attachment of horse cecal bacteria to forage cell walls.. Nihon Juigaku Zasshi 1986 Apr;48(2):313-22.
    doi: 10.1292/jvms1939.48.313pubmed: 3712892google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 2 times.
  1. Lagounova M, MacNicol JL, Weese JS, Pearson W. The Effect of Dietary Synbiotics in Actively Racing Standardbred Horses Receiving Trimethoprim/Sulfadiazine.. Animals (Basel) 2023 Jul 18;13(14).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13142344pubmed: 37508120google scholar: lookup
  2. MacNicol JL, Renwick S, Ganobis CM, Allen-Vercoe E, Weese JS, Pearson W. The influence of a probiotic/prebiotic supplement on microbial and metabolic parameters of equine cecal fluid or fecal slurry in vitro.. J Anim Sci 2023 Jan 3;101.
    doi: 10.1093/jas/skad034pubmed: 36715114google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.