The rumen microbiome: Abrief review
https://doi.org/10.21323/2414-438X-2026-11-1-45-56
Abstract
The rumen microbiome is a complex dynamic community of microorganisms that participate in digestion and provide an utmost impact on the cattle efficiency. Despite significant advancements in microbiome research, understanding the formation and management of the rumen microbiome still remains a significant scientific challenge. This topic holds both economic and environmental importance. The purpose of this literature review is to analyze and arrange structurally the current knowledge about the composition and functions of the rumen microbiome for further application of this knowledge in livestock farming. The article emphasizes that diet is an important factor that defines the composition and variability of the microbiome. This work demonstrates that the main functions of the rumen are provided by mutually coordinated groups of bacteria, methanogenic archaea, bacteriophages, protozoa, and fungi. The review covers various microbial groups in the rumen and their functions, as well as the factors that influence changes in the microbial community. Traditional methods of studying the rumen microbiome, based on culture-based techniques, have been significantly improved by the introduction of modern sequencing technologies. The review also explores the history of microbiome research and the “Hungate 1000 collection” project. This work demonstrates how metagenomics, metatranscriptomics, and metaproteomics have not only discovered numerous previously unknown microorganisms, but also provided insights into their functional roles. The systematization of knowledge presented in this review provides a comprehensive understanding of the rumen microbiome as a dynamic object for innovation targeted at improving the productivity, sustainability, and environmental safety of modern livestock farming.
Supporting agencies: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (Agreement on the provision of grants from the federal budget in the form of subsidies in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 78.1 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation No. 075-15-2022-1143 dated July 7, 2022).
About the Authors
A. A. Novikova
Far Eastern Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alina A. Novikova, Master of Science in Biomedical Sciences, Assistant, Head of the Laboratory of Systems and Product Quality Control, Department of Bioeconomics and Biosafety, Institute of Biotechnology, Bioengineering and Food Systems, Advanced Engineering School
10 Ajax Bay, Russky Island, 690922, Vladivostok
A. A. Maksimenko
Far Eastern Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anastasiia A. Maksimenko, PhD in Agriculture, Associate Professor, Department of Integrated Projects, Institute of Biotechnology, Bioengineering and Food Systems, Advanced Engineering School
10 Ajax Bay, Russky Island, 690922, Vladivostok
A. V. Sidorenko
Far Eastern Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey V. Sidorenko, Assistant Professor, Department of Integrated Projects, Institute of Biotechnology, Bioengineering and Food Systems, Advanced Engineering School
10 Ajax Bay, Russky Island, 690922, Vladivostok
A. B. Podvolotskaya
Far Eastern Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anna B. Podvolotskaya, Candidate of Medical Sciences, Dean of the Faculty of Bioeconomics and Biosafety, Institute of Biotechnology, Bioengineering and Food Systems, Advanced Engineering School
10 Ajax Bay, Russky Island, 690922, Vladivostok
L. A. Tekutyeva
Far Eastern Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Liudmila A. Tekutyeva, Candidate of Technical Sciences, Institute of Biotechnology, Bioengineering and Food Systems, Director of Advanced Engineering School
10 Ajax Bay, Russky Island, 690922, Vladivostok
References
1. Henderson, G., Cox, F., Ganesh, S., Jonker, A., Young, W., Abecia, L. et al. (2015). Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Scientific Reports, 5(1), Article 14567. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14567
2. Mao, Y., Wang, F., Kong, W., Wang, R., Liu, X., Ding, H. et al. (2023). Dynamic changes of rumen bacteria and their fermentative ability in high-producing dairy cows during the late perinatal period. Frontiers in Microbiology, 14, Article 1269123. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1269123
3. Solomon, R., Wein, T., Levy, B., Eshed, S., Dror, R., Reiss, V. et al. (2022). Protozoa populations are ecosystem engineers that shape prokaryotic community structure and function of the rumen microbial ecosystem. The ISME Journal, 16(4), 1187– 1197. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-01170-y
4. Wang, R., He, S., Huang, D., He, S., Guo, T., Chen, T. et al. (2023). Differences in composition and diversity of rumen fungi in buff lo fed different diets. Animal Biotechnology, 34(9), 5075–5086. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495398.2023.2276974
5. Wang, H., Li, P., Liu, X., Zhang, C., Lu, Q., Xi, D. et al. (2019). The composition of fungal communities in the rumen of Gayals (Bos frontalis), Yaks (Bos grunniens), and Yunnan and Tibetan Yellow cattle (Bos taurs). Polish Journal of Microbiology, 68(4), 505–514. https://doi.org/10.33073/pjm-2019-050
6. Anderson, C. J., Koester, L. R., Schmitz-Esser, S. (2021). Rumen epithelial communities share a core bacterial microbiota: A meta-analysis of 16S rRNA Gene Illumina MiSeq sequencing datasets. Frontiers in Microbiology, 12, Article 625400. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.625400
7. Weimer, P. J.(2015). Redundancy, resilience, and host specificity of the ruminal microbiota: Implications for engineering improved ruminal fermentations. Frontiers in Microbiology, 6, Article 296. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00296
8. Krehbiel, C. R. (2014). Invited review: Applied nutrition of ruminants: Fermentation and digestive physiology. The Professional Animal Scientist, 30(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30100-5
9. Sbardellati, D. L., Fischer, A., Cox, M. S., Li, W., Kalscheur, K. F., Suen, G. (2020). The bovine epimural microbiota displays compositional and structural heterogeneity across different ruminal locations. Journal of Dairy Science, 103(4), 3636– 3647. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17649
10. Ma, Z., Wang, R., Wang, M., Zhang, X., Mao, H., Tan, Z. (2018). Short communication: Variability in fermentation end-products and methanogen communities in different rumen sites of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 101(6), 5153–5158. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-14096
11. Huws, S. A., Creevey, C. J., Oyama, L. B., Mizrahi, I., Denman, S. E., Popova, M. et al. (2018). Addressing global ruminant agricultural challenges through understanding the rumen microbiome: Past, present, and future. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9, Article 2161. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02161
12. Lobo, R. R., Faciola, A. P. (2021). Ruminal phages — A review. Frontiers in Microbiology, 12, Article 763416. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.763416
13. Qi, W., Xue, M.-Y., Jia, M.-H., Zhang, S., Yan, Q., Sun, H.-Z. (2024). Understanding the functionality of the rumen microbiota: Searching for better opportunities for rumen microbial manipulation. Animal Bioscience, 37(2), 370–384. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.23.0308
14. Jiang, B., Qin, C., Xu, Y., Song, X., Fu, Y., Li, R. et al. (2024). Multi-omics reveals the mechanism of rumen microbiome and its metabolome together with host metabolome participating in the regulation of milk production traits in dairy buffaloes. Frontiers in Microbiology, 15, Article 1301292. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1301292
15. Wu, R., Ji, P., Hua, Y., Li, H., Zhang, W., Wei, Y. (2024). Research progress in isolation and identification of rumen probiotics. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 14, Article 1411482. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2024.1411482
16. Friedersdorff, J.C. A., Thomas, B. J., Pidcock, S. E., Hart, E. H., Rubino, F., Creevey, C. J.(2020). Genome sequencing and the rumen microbiome. Chapter in a book: Improving rumen function. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, 2020. https://doi.org/10.19103/AS.2020.0067.06
17. Monroe, C. F., Perkins, A. E. (1939). A study of the pH values of the ingesta of the bovine rumen. Journal of Dairy Science, 22(12), 983–991. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S00220302(39)92951-6
18. Hungate, R.E. (1942). The culture of Eudiplodinium neglectum with experiments on the digestion of cellulose. The Biological Bulletin, 83(3), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.2307/1538229
19. Hungate, R.E. (1943). Further experiments on cellulose digestion by the protozoa in the rumen of cattle. The Biological Bulletin, 84(2), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/1538178
20. Gall, L.S., Thomas, W.E., Loosli, J.K., Huhranen, C.N. (1951). The effect of purified diets upon rumen flora. The Journal of Nutrition, 44(1), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/44.1.113
21. Hungate, R.E. (1947). Studies on cellulose fermentation: III. The culture and isolation for cellulose-decomposing bacteria from the rumen of cattle. Journal of Bacteriology, 53(5), 631– 645. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.53.5.631-645.1947
22. Hungate, R.E. (1960). Symposium: Selected topics in microbial ecology. I. Microbial ecology of the rumen. Journal of Bacteriology, 24(4), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1128/br.24.4.353-364.1960
23. Fleischmann, R. D., Adams, M. D., White, O., Clayton, R. A., Kirkness, E. F., Kerlavage, A. R. et al. (1995). Whole-genome random sequencing and assembly of Haemophilus influenzae Rd. Science, 269(5223), 496–512. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7542800
24. Fraser, C. M., Gocayne, J.D., White, O., Adams, M. D., Clayton, R. A., Fleischmann, R. D. et al. (1995). The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium. Science, 270(5235), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.270.5235.397
25. Baar, C., Eppinger, M., Raddatz, G., Simon, J., Lanz, C., Klimmek, O. et al. (2003). Complete genome sequence and analysis of Wolinella succinogenes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(20), 11690–11695. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1932838100
26. Brede, M., Orton, T., Pinior, B., Roch, F.-F., Dzieciol, M., Zwirzitz, B. et al. (2020). PacBio and Illumina MiSeq amplicon sequencing confirm full recovery of the bacterial community after subacute ruminal acidosis challenge in the RUSITEC system. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, Article 1813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01813
27. Seshadri, R., Leahy, S. C., Attwood, G. T., Teh, K. H., Lambie, S. C., Cookson, A. L. et al. (2018). Cultivation and sequencing of rumen microbiome members from the Hungate1000 Collection. Nature Biotechnology, 36(4), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4110
28. Hess, M., Sczyrba, A., Egan, R., Kim, T.-W., Chokhawala, H., Schroth, G. et al. (2011). Metagenomic discovery of biomassdegrading genes and genomes from cow rumen. Science, 331(6016), 463–467. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200387
29. Ross, E. M., Petrovski, S., Moate, P. J., Hayes, B. J.(2013). Metagenomics of rumen bacteriophage from thirteen lactating dairy cattle. BMC Microbiology, 13(1), Article 242. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-13-242
30. López-García, P, Gutiérrez-Preciado, A, Krupovic, M, Ciobanu, M, Deschamps, P, Jardillier, L. et al. (2023). Metagenomederived virus-microbe ratios across ecosystems. The ISME Journal, 17(10), 1552–1563. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396023-01431-y
31. Wallace, R.J., Snelling, T.J., McCartney, C.A., Tapio, I., Strozzi, F. (2017). Application of meta-omics techniques to understand greenhouse gas emissions originating from ruminal metabolism. Genetics Selection Evolution, 49(1), Article 9. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-017-0304-7
32. Wilkinson, T.J., Huws, S.A., Edwards, J.E., Kingston-Smith, A.H., Siu-Ting, K., Hughes, M. (2018). CowPI: A rumen microbiome focussed version of the PICRUSt functional inference software. Frontiers in Microbiology, 25(9), Article 1095. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01095
33. Khairunisa, B. H., Heryakusuma, C., Ike, K., Mukhopadhyay, B., Susanti, D. (2023). Evolving understanding of rumen methanogen ecophysiology. Frontiers in Microbiology, 14, Article 1296008. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1296008
34. Matthews, C., Crispie, F., Lewis, E., Reid, M., O’Toole, P. W., Cotter, P. D. (2019). The rumen microbiome: a crucial consideration when optimising milk and meat production and nitrogen utilisation efficiency. Gut Microbes, 10(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2018.1505176
35. Lilian, M., Rawlynce, B., Charles, G., Felix, K. (2023). Potential role of rumen bacteria in modulating milk production and composition of admixed dairy cows. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 76(2), Article ovad007. https://doi.org/10.1093/lambio/ovad007
36. Jewell, K.A., McCormick, C.A., Odt, C.L., Weimer, P.J., Suen, G. (2015). Ruminal bacterial community composition in dairy cows is dynamic over the course of two lactations and correlates with feed efficiency. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 81(14), 4697–4710. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00720-15
37. Kameshwar, A. K. S., Qin, W. (2018). Genome wide analysis reveals the extrinsic cellulolytic and biohydrogen generating abilities of Neocallimastigomycota fungi. Journal of Genomics, 6, 74–87. https://doi.org/10.7150/jgen.25648
38. Henderson, G., Cox, F., Ganesh, S., Jonker, A., Young, W., Abecia, L. et al. (2015). Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Scientific Reports, 5(1), Article 14567. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14567
39. Han, Z., Willer, T., Li, L., Pielsticker, C., Rychlik, I., Velge, P. et al. (2017). Influence of the gut microbiota composition on Campylobacter jejuni colonization in chickens. Infection and Immunity, 85(11), Article iai.00380–17. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.00380-17
40. Kraimi, N., Dawkins, M., Gebhardt-Henrich, S. G., Velge, P., Rychlik, I., Volf, J.et al. (2019). Influence of the microbiotagut-brain axis on behavior and welfare in farm animals: A review. Physiology and Behavior, 210, Article 112658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.112658
41. Ji, S., Zhang, H., Yan, H., Azarfar, A., Shi, H., Alugongo, G. et al. (2017). Comparison of rumen bacteria distribution in original rumen digesta, rumen liquid and solid fractions in lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 8(1), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-017-0142-z
42. De Mulder, T., Goossens, K., Peiren, N., Vandaele, L., Haegeman, A., De Tender, C. et al. (2016). Exploring the methanogen and bacterial communities of rumen environments: Solid adherent, fluid and epimural. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 93(3), Article fiw251. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiw251
43. Na, S. W., Guan, L. L. (2022). Understanding the role of rumen epithelial host-microbe interactions in cattle feed efficiency. Animal Nutrition, 10, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2022.04.002
44. Schmitz-Esser, S. (2021). The rumen epithelial microbiota: Possible gatekeepers of the rumen epithelium and its potential contributions to epithelial barrier function and animal health and performance. Meat and Muscle Biology, 4(2), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.11672
45. Petri, R. M., Neubauer, V., Humer, E., Kröger, I., Reisinger, N., Zebeli, Q. (2020). Feed additives differentially impact the epimural microbiota and host epithelial gene expression of the bovine rumen fed diets rich in concentrates. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, Article 119. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00119
46. de Menezes, A. B., Lewis, E., O’Donovan, M., O’Neill, B. F., Clipson, N., Doyle, E. M. (2011). Microbiome analysis of dairy cows fed pasture or total mixed ration diets. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 78(2), 256–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01151.x
47. Durso, L. M., Miller, D. N., Schmidt, T. B., Callaway, T. (2017). Tracking bacteria through the entire gastrointestinal tract of a beef steer. Agricultural and Environmental Letters, 2(1), Article 170016. https://doi.org/10.2134/ael2017.05.0016
48. Castillo-Gonzalez, A.R., Burrola-Barraza, M.E., Viveros, J.D. (2014). Rumen microorganisms and fermentation. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria, 46(3), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0301-732X2014000300003
49. Ziemer, C.J.(2013). Newly cultured bacteria with broad diversity isolated from eight-week continuous culture enrichments of cow feces on complex polysaccharides. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 80(2), 574–585. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03016-13
50. Koike, S., Kobayashi, Y. (2009). Fibrolytic rumen bacteria: Their ecology and functions. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 22(1), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2009.r.01
51. Hungate, R.E. (1950). The anaerobic mesophilic cellulolytic bacteria. Bacteriological Reviews, 14(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1128/br.14.1.1-49.1950
52. Russell, J.B., Muck, R.E., Weimer, P.J.(2009). Quantitative analysis of cellulose degradation and growth of cellulolytic bacteria in the rumen. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 67(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00633.x
53. Ratti, R. P., Botta, L. S., Sakamoto, I. K., Silva, E. L., Varesche, M. B. A. (2014). Production of H2 from cellulose by rumen microorganisms: Effects of inocula pre-treatment and enzymatic hydrolysis. Biotechnology Letters, 36(3), 537–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529–013–1395-z
54. Odenyo, A.A., Mackie, R.I., Stahl, D.A., White, B.A. (1994). The use of 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes to study competition between ruminal fibrolytic bacteria: Development of probes for Ruminococcus species and evidence for bacteriocin production. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 60(10), 3688–3696. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.60.10.3688–3696.1994
55. Fernando, S. C., Purvis II, H. T., Najar, F. Z., Sukharnikov, L. O., Krehbiel, C. R., Nagaraja, T. G. et al. (2010). Rumen microbial population dynamics during adaptation to a highgrain diet. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 76(22), 7482–7490. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00388-10
56. Duskova, D., Marounek, M. (2001). Fermentation of pectin and glucose, and activity of pectin-degrading enzymes in the rumen bacterium Lachnospira multiparus. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 33(2), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472765x.2001.00970.x
57. Chen, Y., Oba, M., Guan, L. L. (2012). Variation of bacterial communities and expression of Toll-like receptor genes in the rumen of steers differing in susceptibility to subacute ruminal acidosis. Veterinary Microbiology, 159(3–4), 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2012.04.032
58. Santos, G. T., Lima, L. S., Schogor, A. L. B., Romero, J.V., De Marchi, F. E., Grande, P. A. et al. (2014). Citrus pulp as a dietary source of antioxidants for lactating holstein cows fed highly polyunsaturated fatty acid diets. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 27(8), 1104–1113. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13836
59. de Almeida, P. N. M., Duarte, E. R., Abrão, F. O., Freitas, C. E. S., Geraseev, L. C., Rosa, C. A. (2012). Aerobic fungi in the rumen fluid from dairy cattle fed different sources of forage. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 41(11), 2336–2342. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982012001100006
60. Gruninger, R. J., Puniya, A. K., Callaghan, T. M., Edwards, J.E., Youssef, N., Dagar, S. S. et al. (2014). Anaerobic fungi (phylum Neocallimastigomycota): Advances in understanding their taxonomy, life cycle, ecology, role and biotechnological potential. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 90(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6941.12383
61. Wang, R., He, S., Huang, D., He, S., Guo, T., Chen, T. et al. (2023). Differences in composition and diversity of rumen fungi in buff lo fed different diets. Animal Biotechnology, 34(9), 5075–5086. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495398.2023.2276974
62. Li, F., Li, C., Chen, Y., Liu, J., Zhang, C., Irving, B. et al. (2019). Host genetics influence the rumen microbiota and heritable rumen microbial features associate with feed efficiency in cattle. Microbiome, 7(1), Article 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-019-0699-1
63. Lin, C., Raskin, L., Stahl, D. A. (2006). Microbial community structure in gastrointestinal tracts of domestic animals: Comparative analyses using rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 22(4), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.1997.tb00380.x
64. Hook, S. E., Wright, A.-D. G., McBride, B. W. (2010). Methanogens: Methane producers of the rumen and mitigation strategies. Archaea, 2010, Article 945785. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/945785
65. Leahy, S. C., Kelly, W. J., Ronimus, R. S., Wedlock, N., Altermann, E., Attwood, G. T. (2013). Genome sequencing of rumen bacteria and archaea and its application to methane mitigation strategies. Animal, 7(Suppl 2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000700
66. Goopy, J.P., Donaldson, A., Hegarty, R., Vercoe, P. E., Haynes, F., Barnett, M. et al. (2014). Low-methane yield sheep have smaller rumens and shorter rumen retention time. British Journal of Nutrition, 111(4), 578–585. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114513002936
67. FAO. (2023). Pathways towards lower emissions — A global assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options from livestock agrifood systems. Rome, 2023. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc9029en
68. Khairunisa, B. H., Heryakusuma, C., Ike, K., Mukhopadhyay, B., Susanti, D. (2023). Evolving understanding of rumen methanogen ecophysiology. Frontiers in Microbiology, 14, Article 1296008. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1296008
69. Tsai, B. (2007). Penetration of nonenveloped viruses into the cytoplasm. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, 23(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.23.090506.123454
70. Paynter, M.J.B., Ewert, D.L., Chalupa, W. (1969). Some morphological types of bacteriophages in bovine rumen contents. Applied Microbiology, 18(5), 942–943. https://doi.org/10.1128/AM.18.5.942-943.1969
71. Klieve, A.V., Swain, R.A. (1993). Estimation of ruminal bacteriophage numbers by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and laser densitometry. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 59(7), 2299–2303. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.59.7.2299-2303.1993
72. Yan, M., Yu, Z. (2024). Viruses contribute to microbial diversification in the rumen ecosystem and are associated with certain animal production traits. Microbiome, 12(1), Article 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-024-01791-3
73. Liu, X., Tang, Y., Chen, H., Liu, J.-X., Sun, H.-Z. (2025). Rumen DNA virome and its relationship with feed efficiency in dairy cows. Microbiome, 13(1), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-024-02019-0
74. Zhernov, Y.V., Konstantinov, A.I., Zherebker, A., Nikolaev, E., Orlov, A,. Savinykh, M.I. et al. (2021). Antiviral activity of natural humic substances and shilajit materials against HIV-1: Relation to structure. Environmental Research, 193, Article 110312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110312
75. Sato, Y. (2025). Rumen DNA virome in beef cattle reveals an unexplored diverse community with potential links to carcass traits. ISME Communications, 5(1), Article ycaf021. https://doi.org/10.1093/ismeco/ycaf021
76. Sato, Y., Takebe, H., Tominaga, K., Yasuda, J., Kumagai, H., Hirooka, H. et al. (2025). A rumen virosphere with implications of contribution to fermentation and methane production, and endemism in cattle breeds and individuals. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 90(1), Article e0158123. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.01581-23
77. Indikova, I., Humphrey, T. J., Hilbert, F. (2015). Survival with a helping hand: Campylobacter and microbiota. Frontiers in Microbiology, 6, Article 1266. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01266
78. Olofsson, J., Axelsson-Olsson, D., Brudin, L., Olsen, B., Ellström, P. (2013). Campylobacter jejuni actively invades the amoeba acanthamoeba polyphaga and survives within non digestive vacuoles. PLoS ONE, 8(11), Article e78873. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078873
79. Sahin, O., Fitzgerald, C., Stroika, S., Zhao, S., Sippy, R. J., Kwan, P. et al. (2012). Molecular evidence for zoonotic transmission of an emergent, highly pathogenic Campylobacter jejuni clone in the United States. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 50(3), 680–687. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.06167-11
80. Cedrola, F, Senra, M.V.X., Rossi, M.F., Fregulia, P., D’Agosto, M., Dias, R.J.P. (2020). Trichostomatid ciliates (Alveolata, Ciliophora, Trichostomatia) systematics and diversity: Past, present, and future. (2020). Frontiers in Microbiology, 10, Article 2967. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02967
81. Cedrola, F., Bordim, S. C., Arcuri, P. B., da Costa Carneiro, J., Dias, R.J.P. (2024). Rumen ciliates (Ciliophora, Trichostomatia) in Brazilian domestic cattle feeding on diets with crescent urea levels. European Journal of Protistology, 93, Article 126063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejop.2024.126063
82. Williams, C.L., Thomas, B.J., McEwan, N.R., Stevens, P.R., Creevey, C.J., Huws, S.A. (2020). Rumen protozoa play a significant role in fungal predation and plant carbohydrate breakdown. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, Article 720. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00720
83. Devillard, E., Bera-Maillet, C., Flint, H.J, Scott, K.P., Newbold, J., Wallace, J.et al. (2003). Characterization of XYN10B, a modular xylanase from the ruminal protozoan Polyplastron multivesiculatum, with a family 22 carbohydratebinding module that binds to cellulose. Biochemical Journal, 373(Pt 2), 495–503. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj20021784
84. Andersen, T.O., Altshuler, I., de León, A.V.-P., Walter, J.M., McGovern, E., Keogh, K. et al. (2023). Metabolic influence of core ciliates within the rumen microbiome. The ISME Journal, 17(7), 1128–1140. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396023-01407-y
85. Park, T,, Mao, H., Yu, Z. (2019). Inhibition of rumen protozoa by specific inhibitors of lysozyme and peptidases in vitro. Frontiers in Microbiology, 10, Article 2822. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02822
86. Wang, L., Abu-Doleh, A., Plank, J., Catalyurek, U.V., Firkins, J.L., Yu. Z. (2019). The transcriptome of the rumen ciliate Entodinium caudatum reveals some of its metabolic features. BMC Genomics, 20(1), Article 1008. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-6382-x
87. Stefanska, B., Sroka, J., Katzer, F., Golinski, P., Nowak, W. (2020). The effect of probiotics, phytobiotics and their combination as feed additives in the diet of dairy calves on performance, rumen fermentation and blood metabolites during the preweaning period. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 272, Article 114728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114738
88. Park, T., Yang, C., Yu, Z. (2019). Specific inhibitors of lysozyme and peptidases inhibit the growth of the rumen protozoan Entodinium caudatum without decreasing feed digestion or fermentation in vitro. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 127(3), 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.14341
89. Monteiro, H. F., Zhou, Z., Gomes, M. S., Peixoto, P. M. G., Bonsaglia, E. C. R., Canisso, I. F. et al. (2022). Rumen and lower gut microbiomes relationship with feed efficiency and production traits throughout the lactation of Holstein dairy cows. Scientific Reports, 12(1), Article 4904. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08761-5
90. Clemmons, B. A., Voy, B. H., Myer, P. R. (2019). Altering the gut microbiome of cattle: Considerations of host-microbiome interactions for persistent microbiome manipulation. Microbial Ecology, 77(2), 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-018-1234-9
91. Snelling, T. J., Auffret, M. D., Duthie, C.-A., Stewart, R. D., Watson, M., Dewhurst, R. J.et al. (2019). Temporal stability of the rumen microbiota in beef cattle, and response to diet and supplements. Animal Microbiome, 1(1), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42523-019-0018-y
92. Loor, J.J., Elolimy, A. A., McCann, J.C. (2016). Dietary impacts on rumen microbiota in beef and dairy production. Animal Frontiers, 6(3), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2016-0030
93. Carberry, C. A., Kenny, D. A., Han, S., McCabe, M. S., Waters, S. M. (2012). Effect of phenotypic residual feed intake and dietary forage content on the rumen microbial community of beef cattle. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 78(14), 4949–4958. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.07759-11
Review
For citations:
Novikova A.A., Maksimenko A.A., Sidorenko A.V., Podvolotskaya A.B., Tekutyeva L.A. The rumen microbiome: Abrief review. Theory and practice of meat processing. 2026;11(1):45-56. https://doi.org/10.21323/2414-438X-2026-11-1-45-56
Views:
648
JATS XML
Email this article 