Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:11:55.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The distribution of carboxymethylcellulase between fractions taken from the rumens of sheep containing no protozoa or one of five different protozoal populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. S. Coleman
G. S. Coleman
Affiliation:
Biochemistry Department, Agricultural and Food Research Council, Institute of Animal Physiology, Babraham, Cambridge, CB2 4AT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The distribution of carboxymethylcellulase (CMCase) between various rumen fractions has been determined at three times after feeding in sheep containing no ciliate protozoa or five different protozoal populations. The total rumen CMCase was lowest in defaunated animals and tended to be higher in animals containing the amylolytic Entodinium caudatum or a natural mixed protozoal population and highest in sheep containing single cellulolytic species. In animals containing the cellulolytic species, Epidinium ecaudatum caudatum or Eudiplodinium maggii, 70% of the CMCase was associated with the protozoal fraction whereas less than 15% was present in a fraction prepared in the same way from sheep containing no protozoa or only Entodinium caudatum. The activity associated with the free bacteria was higher in sheep containing only Entodinium caudatum than in defaunated animals or those containing the cellulolytic species. Similar results were obtained 1·5, 6·5 or 24 h after feeding. Almost no activity was present in the cell-free rumen liquor under any condition. A variable amount of CMCase (up to 25% of the total) was associated with the plant debris in the rumen and the specific activity of the enzyme released by sonication was often higherthan that released from the free bacteria under the same conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 106 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 121 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Coleman, G. S. (1978). Rumen entodiniomorphid protozoa. In Methods of Cultivating Parasites in vitro (ed. Baker, J. R. and Taylor, A. E. R.), pp. 39–54. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, G. S. (1983). Preliminary observations on the separation of the cellulases of tho rumen ciliates Eremoplastron bovis and Eudiplodinium maggii. Journal of Protozoology 30, 36A.Google Scholar
Coleman, G. S. (1985 a). The cellulase content of 15 species of entodiniomorphid protozoa, mixed bacteria and plant debris isolated from the ovine rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 104, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, G. S. (1985 b). Possible causes of the high death rate of ciliate protozoa in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 105, 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, G. S., Laurie, J. I. & Bailey, J. E. (1977). The cultivation of the rumen ciliate Entodinium bursa in the presence of Entodinium caudatum. Journal of General Microbiology 101, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, G. S., Laurie, J. I., Bailey, J. E. & Holdgate, S. A. (1976). The cultivation of cellulolytic protozoa isolated from the rumen. Journal of General Microbiology 95, 144–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, G. S. & Sandford, D. C. (1979). The engulfment and digestion of mixed rumen bacteria and individual bacterial species by single and mixed species of rumen ciliate protozoa grown in vivo. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 729–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, G. S. & Sandford, D. C. (1980). The uptake and metabolism of bacteria, amino acids, glucose and starch by the spined and spineless forms of the rumen ciliate Entodinium caudatum. Journal of General Microbiology 117, 411–418.Google ScholarPubMed
Eadie, J. M. (1962). Interrelationships between certain rumen ciliate protozoa. Journal of General Microbiology 29, 579–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. M. (1967). Studies on the ecology of certain rumen ciliate protozoa. Journal of General Microbiology 49, 175–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forsberg, C. W. & Lam, K. (1977). Use of adenosine 5'-triphosphate as an indicator of the microbiota biomass in rumen contents. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 33, 528–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Itabashi, H. & Matsukawa, T. (1979). Studies on nutritional significance of rumen ciliate protozoa in cattle. 3. Influences of protozoa on growth rate, food intake, rumen fermentation and various plasma components in calves under different planes of nutrition. Bulletin of the Tohoku National Agricultural and Experimental Station 59, 111–128.Google Scholar
Jouany, J. P. & Senaud, J. (1979). Role of rumen protozoa in the digestion of food cellulosic materials. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 10, 261–263.Google ScholarPubMed
Kayouli, C., Demeyer, D. & Van Nevel, C. (1982). La defaunation du rumen: technique pour ameliorer la production des ruminants tropicaux? In Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Tropical Animal Production for the Benefit of Man, Antwerp, pp. 302–308.Google Scholar
Knight, R., Sutton, J., McAllan, A. & Smith, R. H. (1978). The effect of dietary lipid supplementation on digestion and synthesis in the stomach of sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 37, 14A.Google ScholarPubMed
Kurihara, Y., Takechi, T. & Shibata, F. (1978). Relationship between bacteria and ciliate protozoa in the rumen of sheep fed on a purified diet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leedle, J. A. Z., Bryant, M. P. & Hespell, R. B. (1982). Diurnal variations in bacterial numbers and fluid parameters in ruminal contents of animals fed low- or high-forage diets. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 44, 402–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindsay, J. R. & Hogan, J. P. (1972). Digestion of two legumes and rumen bacterial growth in defaunated sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. (1951). Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry 193, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luther, R., Trenkle, A. & Burroughs, W. (1966). Influence of rumen protozoa on volatile acid production and ration digestibility in lambs. Journal of Animal Science 25, 1116–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalowski, T. & Muszynski, P. (1978). Diurnal variation in number of ciliate protozoa in the rumen of sheep fed once or twice daily. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minato, H., Endo, A., Higuchi, M., Ootomo, Y. & Uemura, T. (1966). Ecological treatise on the rumen fermentation. 1. The fractionation of bacteria attached to the rumen digesta solids. Journal of General and Applied Microbiology 12, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmquist, D. L. & Baldwin, R. L. (1966). Enzymatic techniques for the study of pathways of carbohydrate utilization in the rumen. Applied Microbiology 14, 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teather, R. M., Mahadevan, S., Erfle, J. D. & Sauer, F. D. (1984). Negative correlation between protozoal and bacterial levels in rumen samples and its relation to the determination of dietary effects on the rumen microbial population. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 47, 566–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. (1966). Diurnal changes in the concentrations of micro-organisms in the rumen of sheep fed limited diets once daily. Journal of General Microbiology 45, 213–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, A. G. & Strachan, N. H. (1984). The distribution of polysaccharide-degrading enzymes in the bovine rumen digesta ecosystem. Current Microbiology 10, 215–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoder, R. D., Trenkle, A. & Burroughs, W. (1965). Influence of rumen protozoa and bacteria upon cellulose digestion in vitro. Journal of Animal Science 25, 609–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar