63
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Toward the identification of methanogenic archaeal groups as targets of methane mitigation in livestock animalsr

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In herbivores, enteric methane is a by-product from the digestion of plant biomass by mutualistic gastrointestinal tract (GIT) microbial communities. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that is not assimilated by the host and is released into the environment where it contributes to climate change. Since enteric methane is exclusively produced by methanogenic archaea, the investigation of mutualistic methanogen communities in the GIT of herbivores has been the subject of ongoing research by a number of research groups. In an effort to uncover trends that would facilitate the development of efficient methane mitigation strategies for livestock species, we have in this review summarized and compared currently available results from published studies on this subject. We also offer our perspectives on the importance of pursuing current research efforts on the sequencing of gut methanogen genomes, as well as investigating their cellular physiology and interactions with other GIT microorganisms.

          Related collections

          Most cited references86

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Methane emissions from cattle.

          Increasing atmospheric concentrations of methane have led scientists to examine its sources of origin. Ruminant livestock can produce 250 to 500 L of methane per day. This level of production results in estimates of the contribution by cattle to global warming that may occur in the next 50 to 100 yr to be a little less than 2%. Many factors influence methane emissions from cattle and include the following: level of feed intake, type of carbohydrate in the diet, feed processing, addition of lipids or ionophores to the diet, and alterations in the ruminal microflora. Manipulation of these factors can reduce methane emissions from cattle. Many techniques exist to quantify methane emissions from individual or groups of animals. Enclosure techniques are precise but require trained animals and may limit animal movement. Isotopic and nonisotopic tracer techniques may also be used effectively. Prediction equations based on fermentation balance or feed characteristics have been used to estimate methane production. These equations are useful, but the assumptions and conditions that must be met for each equation limit their ability to accurately predict methane production. Methane production from groups of animals can be measured by mass balance, micrometeorological, or tracer methods. These techniques can measure methane emissions from animals in either indoor or outdoor enclosures. Use of these techniques and knowledge of the factors that impact methane production can result in the development of mitigation strategies to reduce methane losses by cattle. Implementation of these strategies should result in enhanced animal productivity and decreased contributions by cattle to the atmospheric methane budget.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Methanogenic archaea: ecologically relevant differences in energy conservation.

            Most methanogenic archaea can reduce CO(2) with H(2) to methane, and it is generally assumed that the reactions and mechanisms of energy conservation that are involved are largely the same in all methanogens. However, this does not take into account the fact that methanogens with cytochromes have considerably higher growth yields and threshold concentrations for H(2) than methanogens without cytochromes. These and other differences can be explained by the proposal outlined in this Review that in methanogens with cytochromes, the first and last steps in methanogenesis from CO(2) are coupled chemiosmotically, whereas in methanogens without cytochromes, these steps are energetically coupled by a cytoplasmic enzyme complex that mediates flavin-based electron bifurcation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Mesophilic Crenarchaeota: proposal for a third archaeal phylum, the Thaumarchaeota.

              The archaeal domain is currently divided into two major phyla, the Euryarchaeota and Crenarchaeota. During the past few years, diverse groups of uncultivated mesophilic archaea have been discovered and affiliated with the Crenarchaeota. It was recently recognized that these archaea have a major role in geochemical cycles. Based on the first genome sequence of a crenarchaeote, Cenarchaeum symbiosum, we show that these mesophilic archaea are different from hyperthermophilic Crenarchaeota and branch deeper than was previously assumed. Our results indicate that C. symbiosum and its relatives are not Crenarchaeota, but should be considered as a third archaeal phylum, which we propose to name Thaumarchaeota (from the Greek 'thaumas', meaning wonder).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Microbiol
                Front Microbiol
                Front. Microbiol.
                Frontiers in Microbiology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-302X
                30 July 2015
                2015
                : 6
                : 776
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Animal Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings SD, USA
                [2] 2Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Vermont, Burlington VT, USA
                [3] 3Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman MT, USA
                [4] 4School of Animal and Comparative Biomedical Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ, USA
                Author notes

                Edited by: Emilio M. Ungerfeld, Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias – Carillanca, Chile

                Reviewed by: Henning Seedorf, AgResearch Ltd., New Zealand; Gunjan Goel, Jaypee University of Information Technology, India

                *Correspondence: André-Denis G. Wright, School of Animal and Comparative Biomedical Sciences, University of Arizona, 1117 E. Lowell Street, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA, adwright@ 123456email.arizona.edu

                This article was submitted to Systems Microbiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Microbiology

                Article
                10.3389/fmicb.2015.00776
                4519756
                26284054
                749271d9-ff41-4e51-b092-6e2c6be1a639
                Copyright © 2015 St-Pierre, Cersosimo, Ishaq and Wright.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 07 May 2015
                : 14 July 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 95, Pages: 10, Words: 0
                Categories
                Microbiology
                Review

                Microbiology & Virology
                methanogens,16s rrna analysis,herbivores,rumen microbiology,methane mitigation

                Comments

                Comment on this article