Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T02:52:34.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the action of rumen bacteria on cell walls from Eragrostis tef

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. Jane Morris  and
N. O. Van Gylswyk
E. Jane Morris
Affiliation:
National Chemical Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 395, Pretoria 0001, Republic of South Africa
N. O. Van Gylswyk
Affiliation:
National Chemical Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 395, Pretoria 0001, Republic of South Africa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A selection of the hemicellulose-utilizing rumen bacteria isolated by Henning (1979) were partially characterized. These and a number of other cellulolytic organisms were incubated in vitro with teff (Eragrostis tef) cell walls, and the extent of solubilization and utilization by the bacteria of individual cell wall sugars was determined. Results were compared with the action of the bacteria on isolated xylan and cellulose.

The cellulolytic rumen bacteria solubilized more of both cellulosic and hemicellulosic sugars in the cell wall than the non-cellulolytic organisms. Bacteria which were unable to solubilize isolated cellulose could also degrade very little of the cell wall cellulose, and this appeared to limit the amount of cell wall hemicellulose which could be attacked.

There was no direct relationship between the extent of degradation of isolated xylan and solubilization of cell wall hemicellulose, but those xylanolytic organisms which produced freely diffusible enzymes (as evidenced by production of clearings in 3 % xylan-agar) were more effective in attacking the cell wall than those which did not.

Examination of thin sections in the electron microscope showed no relationship between attachment of bacteria to the cell walls and ability to degrade them.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 95 , Issue 2 , October 1980 , pp. 313 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Ash Well, G. (1957). In Methods in Enzymology (ed. Colowick, S. P. and Kaplan, N. O.), vol. III, pp. 73–105. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ayers, W. A. (1959). Phosphorolysis and synthesis of cellobiose by cell extracts from Euminococcus flavefaciens. Journal of Biological Chemistry 234, 2819–2822.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bacon, J. S. D., Gordon, A. H., Morris, E. J. & Farmer, V. C. (1975). Acetyl groups in cell-wall preparations from higher plants. Biochemical Journal 149, 485–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumenkrantz, N. & Asboe-Hansen, G. (1973). New method for quantitative determination of uronic acids. Analytical Biochemistry 54, 484–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mannheim, Boehringer (1976–1977). Methods of Enzymatic Food Analysis. Boehringer Mannheim GmbH, Biochemica, West Germany.Google Scholar
Bryant, M. P. (1978). Cellulose digesting bacteria from human, feces. The American Journal of Clinical Nutritional, S113–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cato, E. P., Cummins, C. S., Johnson, J. L., Smibert, R. M., Smith, L. D. S. & Wilkins, T. D. (1973). Anaerobe Laboratory Manual, 2nd ed. (ed. Holdeman, L. V. and Moore, W. E. C.). VPI Anaerobe Laboratory, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.Google Scholar
Coen, J. A. & Dehority, B. A. (1970). Degradation and utilization of hemicellulose from intact forages by pure cultures of rumen bacteria. Applied Microbiology 20, 362–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbett, W. M. (1963). In Methods in Carbohydrate Chemistry (ed. Whistler, R. J.), vol. III, pp. 3–4. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dehority, B. A. (1965). Degradation and utilization of isolated hemicellulose by pure cultures of cellulolytic rumen bacteria. Journal of Bacteriology 89, 1515–1520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehority, B. A. (1966). Characterization of several bovine rumen bacteria isolated with a xylan medium. Journal of Bacteriology 91, 1724–1729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehority, B. A. (1969). Pectin-fermenting bacteria isolated from the bovine rumen. Journal of Bacteriology 99, 189–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehority, B. A. & Scott, H. W. (1967). Extent of cellulose and hemicellulose digestion in various forages by pure cultures of rumen bacteria. Journal of Dairy Science 50, 1136–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinsdale, D., Morris, E. J. & Bacon, J. S. D. (1978). Electron microscopy of the microbial populations present and their modes of attack on various cellulosic substrates undergoing digestion in the sheep rumen. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 36, 160–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fairbairn, N. J. (1953). Modified anthrone reagent. Chemistry and Industry 86.Google Scholar
Gradel, C. M. & Dehority, B. A. (1972). Fermentation of isolated pectin and pectin from intact forages by pure cultures of rumen bacteria. Applied Microbiology 23, 332–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halliwell, G. & Bryant, M. P. (1963). The cellulolytic activity of pure strains of bacteria from the rumen of cattle. Journal of General Microbiology 32, 441–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartley, R. D. (1972). p-Coumaric and ferulic components of cell walls of ryegrass and relationship with lignin and digestibility. Journal, the Science of Food and Agriculture 23, 1347–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henning, P. A. (1979). Examination of methods enumerating hemicellulose-utilizing bacteria in i rumen. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henning, P. A. & Van Der Walt, A. E.Inclusion of xylan in a medium for the enumeratii of total culturable rumen bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 35, 1008–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höppner, T. & Knappe, J. (1974). In Methods of Enzymatic Analysis (ed. Bergmeyer, H. V.) vol. 3, pp. 1551—1555. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1966). The Rumen and its Microbes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kertesz, Z. I. (1951). The Peclic Substances. London and New York: Interscience Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
Labavitch, J. M. & Ray, P. M. (1978). Structure of hemicellulosic polysaccharides of Avena coleoptile cell walls. Phytochemistry 17, 933–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latham, M. J., Brooker, B. E., Pettipher, G. L.Harris, P. J. (1978a). Ruminococcus flavefaciens coat and adhesion to cotton cellulose and to cell wa in leaves of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenn Applied and Environmental Microbiology 35, 156—16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latham, M. J., Brooker, B. E., Pettipher, G. L.Harris, P. J. (1978b). Adhesion of Bacteroidt succinogenes in pure culture and in the presence Ruminococcus flavefaciens to cell walls in loaves perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Applied and Environmental Microbiology 35, 1166–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, E. J. (1980). The coll walls of Eragrostis tef: variations in chemical composition and digestibility. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95, 305–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, E. J. & Bacon, J. S. D. (1977). The fate of acetyl groups and sugar components during the digestion of grass cell walls in sheep. Journal Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, I. M. (1973). Isolation and analysis of lignincarbohydrate complexes from Lolium multiflorum, Phytochemistry 12, 2979–2984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H., Irvin, R., Costerton, J. W. & Cheng, K. J. (1975). infrastructure and adhesion properties of Ruminococcus albus. Journal of Bacteriology 122, 278–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettipher, G. L. & Latham, M. J. (1979a). Character istics of enzymes produced by Ruminococcus flavefaciens which degrade plant cell walls. Journal General Microbiology 110, 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettipher, G. L. & Latham, M. J. (1979b). Production of enzymes degrading plant cell walls and fermentation of cellobiose by Ruminococcus flavefaciens in batch and continuous culture. Journal of Microbiology 110, 29–38.Google Scholar
Shane, B. S., Gouws, L. & Kistner, A. (1969). Cellulolytic bacteria occurring in the rumen of shoop conditioned to low protein teff hay. Journal if General Microbiology 55, 445–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, G. (1965). Disinfection and Sterilization. London: E.and F. N. Spon.Google Scholar
Van Gylswyk, N. O. (1970). The effect of supplementing a low-protein hay on the cellulolytic bacteria in the rumen of sheep and on the digestibility of cellulose and hemicellulose. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 74, 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gylswyk, N. O. (1980). Fusobacterium polysaccharolyticum sp.nov., a Gram-negative rod from the rumen that produces butyrate and ferments cellulose and starch. Journal of General Microbiology 116, 157–163.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Gylswyk, N. O. & Hoffman, J. P. L. (1970). Characteristics of cellulolytic cillobacteria from the rumens of sheep fed teff (Eragrostis tef) hay diets. Journal of General Microbiology 60, 381–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Gylswyk, N. O. & Labuschagne, J. P. L. (1971). Relative efficiency of pure cultures of different species of cellulolytic rumen bacteria in solubilizing cellulose in vitro. Journal of General Microbiology 66, 109–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkie, K. C. B. & Woo, S.-L. (1977). A heteroxylan and hemicellulosic materials from bamboo leaves, and a reconsideration of the general nature of commonly occurring xylans and other hemicelluloses. Carbohydrate Research 57, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar