Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Sep 13;18(9):e0291243. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291243

The extent of nitrogen isotopic fractionation in rumen bacteria is associated with changes in rumen nitrogen metabolism

Gonzalo Cantalapiedra-Hijar 1,*,#, Gonzalo Martinez-Fernandez 2,*,#, Evelyne Forano 3, Stuart E Denman 2, Diego Morgavi 1, Christopher S McSweeney 2
Editor: Adham A Al-Sagheer4
PMCID: PMC10499230  PMID: 37703250

Abstract

Nitrogen use efficiency is an important index in ruminants and can be indirectly evaluated through the N isotopic discrimination between the animal and its diet (Δ15Nanimal-diet). The concentration and source of N may determine both the extent of the N isotopic discrimination in bacteria and N use efficiency. We hypothesised that the uptake and release of ammonia by rumen bacteria will affect the natural 15N enrichment of the bacterial biomass over their substrates (Δ15Nbacteria-substrate) and thereby further impacting Δ15Nanimal-diet. To test this hypothesis, two independent in vitro experiments were conducted using two contrasting N sources (organic vs inorganic) at different levels either in pure rumen bacteria culture incubations (Experiment #1) or in mixed rumen cultures (Experiment #2). In Experiment #1, tryptone casein or ammonium chloride were tested at low (1 mM N) and high (11.5 mM N) concentrations on three rumen bacterial strains (Fibrobacter succinogenes, Eubacterium limosum and Xylanibacter ruminicola) incubated in triplicate in anaerobic batch monocultures during 48h. In Experiment #2 mixed rumen cultures were incubated during 120 h with peptone or ammonium chloride at five different levels of N (1.5, 3, 4.5, 6 and 12-mM). In experiment #1, Δ15Nbacteria-substrate was lowest when the ammonia-consumer bacterium Fibrobacter succinogenes was grown on ammonium chloride, and highest when the proteolytic bacterial strain Xylanibacter ruminicola was grown on tryptone. In experiment #2, Δ15Nbacteria-substrate was lower with inorganic (ammonium chloride) vs organic (peptone) N source. A strong negative correlation between Δ15Nbacteria-substrate and Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group, a potential fibrolytic rumen bacterium, was detected. Together, our results showed that Δ15Nbacteria-substrate may change according to the balance between synthesis of microbial protein from ammonia versus non-ammonia N sources and confirm the key role of rumen bacteria as modulators of Δ15Nanimal-diet.

Introduction

Nitrogen exists in the environment as two stable isotopes forms: 14N and the less abundant and heavier 15N isotope. Ruminant proteins are naturally 15N enriched over their diet due to enzymatic isotopic fractionation (i.e. changes in isotopic composition of a reaction product relative to the substrate) occurring during rumen N metabolism [1] and liver amino acid catabolism [2]. The resulting N isotopic discrimination, (i.e. the uptake or assimilation by living organisms of a particular isotope in preference to another isotope of the same element) between the animal and its diet (Δ15Nanimal-diet) has been shown to correlate with the animal’s ability to transform the feed N into animal proteins [35] thus representing a promising biomarker for N use efficiency (NUE) in ruminants [6]. However, the potential of this biomarker appears to be diet-dependent [6, 7] and influenced to some extent by the rumen microbial activity [1, 7]. Yet, the precise mechanism underlying the role of the rumen microbiota on Δ15Nanimal-diet remains unclear.

Pathways that govern ammonia-N uptake [8] and release [9] from bacterial cells are thought to be mainly responsible for the N isotopic fractionation in bacteria. Both reactions favour the use of compounds containing the lighter (14N) over the heavier isotope (15N), the final isotopic signature of bacteria likely depends on the dominating process. Less is known about N isotope use in transamination reactions involved in the catabolism as well as synthesis of amino acids (AA) when bacteria take up and assimilate peptides for growth although the 14NH2 appears to incorporate faster than the 15NH2 [10]. Evidence also exists that the concentration of N (organic and inorganic) may determine the extent of the N isotopic discrimination in bacteria [1, 8]. Available information is scarce but, based on existing reports [1, 9, 11], it can be hypothesized that when rumen bacteria take up ammonia-N to synthesize their protein (improving the animal NUE) they will lower their 15N abundance (contributing to decrease the Δ15Nanimal-diet). Conversely, when rumen bacteria catabolize AA for obtaining energy the resulting ammonia release (decreasing animal NUE) is associated to a greater 15N abundance of bacteria (contributing to increase Δ15Nanimal-diet). Because rumen bacteria differ in their N metabolism it is expected their natural 15N enrichment would reflect their prevailing ability to assimilate or release ammonia. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the N isotopic fractionation occurring first in three different rumen bacteria: Fibrobacter succinogenes, Eubacterium limosum and Xylanibacter ruminicola (previously named Prevotella ruminicola). These bacteria, selected for their distinct N metabolism, were grown in pure cultures with N substrates that varied in nature and level; and second with mixed rumen bacteria grown on cellulose and the same nitrogenous substrates but at different N levels.

Materials and methods

Two in vitro experiments were conducted in batch cultures (Experiment #1 at INRAE [Clermont-Ferrand-Theix; France] and Experiment #2 at CSIRO [Brisbane; Australia]) to assess the effects of rumen bacterial populations, nitrogen sources and levels on nitrogen isotopic fractionation between bacteria and substrates (Δ15Nbacteria-substrate).

Animals used as donors of rumen fluid for media preparation and as source of mixed rumen cultures were managed following animal ethics guidelines. In France, all procedures were carried out in accordance with guidelines for animal research of the French Ministry of Agriculture and guidelines for animal experimentation in the European Union (European Commission, 2010). These procedures were approved by the regional ethics committee (Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, France) and subsequently validated by the French Ministry of Agriculture under the authorization number APAFIS#7138–2016092709177605 v6. In Australia, procedures complied with the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (eighth edition, 2013) and was approved by the CSIRO Wildlife and Large Animal Ethics Committee, application number 2016–12. Both experiments complied with the ARRIVE guidelines [12]. Low-stress animal handling techniques were consistently employed to ensure the welfare of the animals during the collection of rumen fluid. The staff responsible for collecting rumen fluid, either through stomach tubing or rumen cannula, were highly trained and experienced in minimizing any potential adverse effects. The time taken to collect rumen fluid from each animal was always kept below 5 minutes to minimize any potential suffering. Importantly, it is worth noting that no animal sacrifice, anaesthesia or analgesia was required for these procedures.

Experiment #1: Pure culture incubations

Three different rumen bacterial strains in terms of N metabolism were chosen for this study: i) Fibrobacter succinogenes S85, is a fibrolytic rumen bacterium that uses ammonia as main nitrogen source ii) Eubacterium limosum (DSM 20543) possesses high deamination activity and iii) Xylanibacter ruminicola [13] (previously named Prevotella ruminicola) (ATCC 19189™); Prevotella is a predominant rumen genus that has proteolytic activity and uses either ammonia or peptides as a N source (ammonia-N user or producer). The identity of strains and purity of cultures was verified by 16S rRNA sequencing. The effect of two nitrogen sources supplied at two levels on Δ15Nbacteria-substrate was tested on these three strains grown in monoculture. Organic (tryptone casein) and inorganic (ammonium chloride, Sigma-Aldrich) N sources were supplied at low (1 mM N) or high (11.5 mM N) concentrations added to a culture medium (adapted from previously developed medium [14], S1 Table), which contained 2 mM of ammonia-N as the baseline level and cellobiose and starch as main carbohydrate sources. To ensure consistency between experiments involving pure strains (Exp #1) and mixed cultures (Exp #2) the culture medium was the identical between the two experiments. The strains were incubated in triplicate anaerobic batch cultures at 39° C for 48 h (four replicates per combination of strain × source × N level plus three blanks).

Cultures were started by inoculating 50 ml of medium (S1 Table) prepared using standard anaerobic techniques [15] in 125 ml serum bottles with 1 mL of 24 h-cultures of the respective rumen bacterial strain. After 48 h of incubation, the fermentation was stopped by placing the bottles in ice. The content was centrifuged at 4° C, 10 min, 4000 × g. Samples of supernatant were stored at − 20°C until analysis for volatile fatty acid (VFA—0.8 mL in 0.5 mL of a 0.5 M HCl solution containing 2% [wt/vol] metaphosphoric acid and 0.4% [wt/vol] crotonic acid) and ammonia content (1 mL in 0.1 mL of 5% [wt/vol] orthophosphoric acid). The bacterial pellet and 2 mL of the media sampled before the incubation were stored at -80° C until N isotopic analyses.

Experiment #2: Mixed culture incubations

A second in vitro experiment was conducted in mixed rumen cultures to assess the effects of two N sources supplied at five levels on Δ15Nbacteria-substrate. Organic (peptone, Oxoid Ltd.) and inorganic (ammonium chloride, Sigma-Aldrich) N were used as N sources. The five levels of N used were: 1.5, 3, 4.5, 6 and 12-mM N (final concentration in the media).

A selective medium for cellulolytic bacteria with cotton thread and acid swollen filter paper as cellulose sources was used in the experiment (adapted from previously developed medium [14], S1 Table). The basal medium was adjusted to have a maximum ammonia-N concentration of 0.5 mM. The inoculum source was collected from three pasture fed steers grazing low quality pasture and stored at −80°C in a glycerol-based cryoprotectant modified from the storage solution outlined by our colleagues [14]. Once thawed, 1.5 mL of inoculum (0.5 mL from each glycerol tube) was inoculated in 100 ml of the selective medium for cellulolytic bacteria described above. The fibrolytic enrichment cultures were grown at 39°C and transferred twice to new media every four days before the experiment started. Two mL of the used media were sampled before the incubations and stored at -80°C for N isotopic analysis.

A 120-h incubation was carried out with three replicates per source × N level combination plus three blanks. The selective medium for cellulolytic bacteria was prepared using standard anaerobic techniques [15], dispensed in an anaerobic chamber with an atmosphere of 95% CO2 and 5% H2 (COY Laboratory Products Inc., Ann Arbor, MI) as 78 ml aliquots in 250 ml Ankom bottles (AnkomRF Gas Production, Ankom Technology, NY, USA) and 2.5 mL of fibrolytic enrichment cultures were inoculated per bottle. The commercial wireless system (AnkomRF Gas Production, Ankom Technology, NY, USA) consisting of bottles equipped with pressure sensor modules and a reception base station connected to a computer was used to release pressure [16]. No gas production measures were conducted in this in vitro experiment due to a technical problem. After 120 h of incubation at 39°C, the fermentation was stopped by placing the bottles in ice. The content was centrifuged at 4° C, 10 min, 4000 × g. Samples of supernatant were stored at − 20°C until analysis for volatile fatty acid and ammonia (1 mL content in 0.25 mL of 25% [wt/vol] metaphosphoric acid). The bacterial pellets were stored at -80° C until N isotopic analyses.

DNA extractions and Illumina Miseq sequencing

DNA extractions from bacterial pellets (Experiment #2) collected at the end of the incubation were performed following previously published methodology [17]. The bacterial populations were characterized by amplifying the v4 region of the 16S rRNA gene using the established primers (F515/R806) [18]. Each DNA sample was amplified using the target specific primers and a unique barcode combination [19]. Amplification products were visualized by performing gel electrophoresis. Product quantities were calculated, and an equal molar amount of each target product was pooled. The pooled target products were run in a 1.5% agarose gel and bands were visualized and excised under blue light trans-illumination. The amplicons were gel purified with a QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) prior to submission for 2 × 250 bp Illumina MiSeq sequencing.

Paired-end short-read sequence data generated on the Illumina MiSeq was processed using the VSEARCH package [20]. De-multiplexed paired-end sequences were first passed through cutadapt for primer removal [21] and then merged prior to sequence quality filtering, followed by error correction [22], chimera checking [23], and clustering of sequences to Amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) [24]. Taxonomic classification of bacterial ASVs was done using the IDTAXA algorithm implemented in the DECIPHER R package against the SILVA SSU r132 training set [25]. Regression analysis of ASVs and their relationship to δ15N was performed using the mixOmics R package [26] using Sparse Partial Least Squares (sPLS) [27]. In the initial analysis we used a stepwise process to first build a basic sPLS model that was further optimised and tuned. The tuning involves selecting the number of components that best explains the variance in the data and the number of features (ASVs) that maximise the correlation between the predicted and actual components. The number of features was limited to a maximum of 100 ASVs per component. Tuning involved cross-validation in which the data was randomly split into 10 subgroups to train sub models to predict the accuracy of these models. Selected ASV’s were transformed using Centered log-ratio (CLR) and visualised using ggplot2 [28]. The sequences obtained in this paper have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/) under the accession number PRJEB63213.

Fermentation analysis

Concentrations of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) (acetate, propionate, n-butyrate, iso-butyrate, iso-valerate and n-valerate) were measured by gas chromatography using standardized procedures adapted to each laboratory. In experiment #1, a Perkin-Elmer Clarus 580 GC (Perkin Elmer, Courtaboeuf, France) was used with crotonic acid as internal standard [29]. In Experiment #2 the method previously published [30] was used. The ammonia-N rumen concentration were determined by using the previously published colorimetric method [31]. Total VFA and ammonia concentrations and individual VFA proportions were determined by subtracting the concentration measured in the blank samples from those measure at the end of the incubation period. In experiment #1, when corrections using blanks yielded negative values, we assigned them a value of zero.

Natural abundance analysis of nitrogen stable isotopes

The bacterial pellets and media were freeze-dried in Eppendorf tubes. The N stable isotopic composition (δ15N, i.e. natural relative abundance of the rare stable isotope of N) of bacterial pellets, media and substrates (tryptone casein, ammonium chloride) was determined using an isotope-ratio mass spectrometer (Isoprime, VG Instruments, Manchester, UK) coupled to an elemental analyser (EA Isoprime, VG Instruments, Manchester, UK) or an elemental analyser (Carlo Erba NA1500) coupled to a Delta V plus isotope-ratio mass spectrometer via a Conflo V (Thermo Scientific) for experiment #1 and #2 respectively. The analyses and calculations were performed based on previously published methodology [2, 32] for experiment #1 and #2 respectively. In experiment #1, internal in-house standards (glutamic acid) were included every 5 samples of each run to correct for possible variations in the raw values determined by the mass spectrometer. Typical replicate measurement errors for these reference materials were 0.10‰. In vitro data on natural abundance of 15N and fermentation products are publicly available at DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8082282.

Statistical analyses

Data from experiment #1 and #2 were analysed as a univariate analysis of variance using the GLM procedure of SPSS (IBM, version 21.0), with the bottle as the experimental unit. In experiment #1, the bacterial strain, source of N, level of N and their interactions were considered as fixed effects for the analyses. In experiment #2, the level of N, source of N and their interaction were considered as fixed effects. Linear (L), quadratic (Q) and cubic (C) components of the response to incremental levels of nitrogen were evaluated using polynomial contrasts. Effects were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05. When significant differences were detected, differences among means were tested by pairwise comparisons (LSD test).

Results

Nitrogen isotopic fractionation in pure culture (Experiment #1)

Both the N level (high vs low) and source (ammonium chloride vs protein) significantly influenced the Δ15Nbacteria-substrate values (Fig 1) and ammonia-N but in a different way depending on the specific bacterial N metabolism (Table 1; bacteria × N source × N level interaction; P < 0.001). When the N level shifted from low to high the Δ15Nbacteria-substrate increased (P<0.001), except when ammonium chloride was used as nitrogen source for F. succinogenes (Bacteria × N level interaction effect; P < 0.001). When the ammonia-consumer bacterium F. succinogenes was grown on ammonium chloride, the Δ15Nbacteria-substrate observed was the lowest compared to the other strains and levels (P<0.001).

Fig 1. Isotopic N discrimination between the pure bacteria and their substrates in in vitro cultures using different N sources (tryptone [organic] vs ammonium [inorganic]) and levels (low [1.5 mM] vs high [11.5 mM]) in trial 1.

Fig 1

Negative values correspond to bacteria pellets depleted in 15N relative to their substrates.

Table 1. Nitrogen isotopic fractionation and fermentation products from rumen bacteria cultured with different N sources (tryptone casein [organic] vs ammonium chloride [inorganic]) and N levels (low [1.5 mM] vs high [11.5 mM]) in Experiment #1.

  Eubacterium limosum  Fibrobacter succinogenes  Xylanibacter ruminicola1    P-values2
  Tryptone3  Ammonium chloride  Tryptone3  Ammonium chloride  Tryptone3  Ammonium chloride  SEM  B × S  B × L  B × S × L 
  Low  High  Low  High  Low  High  Low  High  Low  High  Low  High               
Δ15Nbacteria-substrate4, ‰  -5.08c  -3.33b  -2.92b  0.87a  -4.83b  -2.71a  -5.92c  -6.75d  -2.83c  -0.78a  -3.38d  -1.62b  0.06  <0.001  0.092  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001  <0.001 
Ammonia-N5, mM  1.44b  2.60a  0.87c  0.06d  0.62a  0.53a  -0.56b  -1.19b  -0.18b  2.15a  -1.28c  -2.29d  0.06  <0.001  <0.001  0.181  <0.001  0.005  <0.001 
VFA6, mM  3.55 2.81  2.92 2.68  2.91 2.27 3.92 2.73  10.2 7.88 8.98 7.16  0.17  <0.001  0.53  0.002  0.13  0.162 0.76 
VFA7 mol/100 mol                                      
Acetate  49.3 28.5 60.9 65.7 92.9 96.3 93.8 94.3 66.7 47.5 69.6 65.5 1.56 <0.001 <0.001 0.070 0.012 0.206 0.18
Propionate  4.03 0.00 5.85 0.00 3.70 2.06 4.21 3.55 32.8 38.7 30.4 34.5 0.44 <0.001 0.59 0.67 0.092 <0.001 0.76
Iso-butyrate  0.53 0.18 0.99 0.28 0.19 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.32b 3.54a 0.00b 0.00b 0.06 <0.001 <0.001 0.008 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Butyrate  41.9 68.1 28.3 29.3 0.68 0.00 0.26 0.20 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 <0.001 0.007 0.15 0.002 0.115 0.15
Valerate  0.21 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.009 0.34 0.42 0.20 0.77 0.49
Iso-valerate  4.10 3.05 3.95 2.88 2.57a 1.68b 1.63b 2.00b 0.00b 10.3a 0.00b 0.00b 0.15 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Caproate  0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.383 0.32 0.32 0.38 0.38 0.38

a,b,c,d Mean comparisons were conducted when significant interactions were detected for B × S × L. Within a row and bacteria strain mean with different letters differ significantly (P<0.05)

1 Previously named as Prevotella ruminicola

2 B = rumen bacteria strain; S = protein source; L = Nitrogen level

3Pancreatic digest of casein

4Difference in natural 15N abundance between the isolated rumen bacteria pellets and their media (including the tested N sources) after 48h incubation

5Ammonia-N concentration at the end of the incubation period minus ammonia concentration of the culture medium before bacteria inoculation (ammonia-N from the 2 levels of ammonium chloride source were also subtracted)

6Volatile fatty acids concentration at the end of the incubation period minus volatile fatty acid of the culture medium before bacteria inoculation (blanks)

7 When corrections using blanks yielded negative values, we assigned them a value of zero (no production).

However, we did not observe higher Δ15Nbacteria-substrate values when E. limosum was grown with tryptone casein as compared to ammonium chloride. Regarding X. ruminicola, a proteolytic bacterium, the highest Δ15Nbacteria-substrate was observed with the high level of tryptone casein. The highest concentration of ammonia-N was observed when E. limosum was grown with the tryptone, followed by X. ruminicola and F. succinogenes grown on the same medium. When ammonium-chloride was used as the sole N source, X. ruminicola consumed the greatest amount of ammonia-N followed by F. succinogenes and E. limosum (Table 1). Total VFAs concentration and individual profile were different (P < 0.001) between strains, with X. ruminicola being the highest producer of the quantified VFAs. In terms of VFA profile, acetate proportion was higher with F. succionegens, whereas propionate and butyrate were in greater proportion with X. ruminocola and E. limosum, respectively. The N source and level significantly (P < 0.001) affected the relative concentration of acetate, butyrate, iso-butyrate and iso-valerate. Acetate increased with the inorganic N source, whereas butyrate and branched volatile fatty acids increased with the organic source. The only significant (P < 0.001) bacteria × N source × N level interaction was observed for iso-valerate and iso-butyrate.

Nitrogen isotopic fractionation in mixed rumen bacteria (Experiment #2)

The mixed enriched bacterial culture totally degraded the cotton cellulose source on all the treatments after 120 h of incubation. A significant (P < 0.001) interaction by N source and levels was observed for ammonia-N and VFAs (Table 2). When bacteria were cultured with inorganic N (ammonium chloride), the bacterial pellet was linearly depleted in 15N compared to the lowest level (from -2.95 to -5.50) and numerically there was a decreasing trend in Δ15Nbacteria-substrate as ammonia N increased.

Table 2. Nitrogen isotopic fractionation and fermentation products from batch mixed rumen bacteria cultured with different N sources (peptone [organic] vs ammonium chloride [inorganic]) and N levels in Experiment #2.

Peptone Ammonium chloride P-values1
1.5 mM 3 mM 4.5 mM 6 mM 12 mM 1.5 mM 3 mM 4.5 mM 6 mM 12 mM SEM L S L x S Constrast2
δ15N bacterial pellet, ‰ -2.09c -1.38bc -0.54b -0.21ab 0.58a -2.95a -4.03b -4.65bc -5.13cd -5.50cd 0.09 0.90 <0.001 <0.001 LAP
Δ15Nbacteria-substrate3, ‰ -2.23 -2.32 -2.07 -2.19 -2.48 -2.00 -2.68 -3.02 -3.29 -3.15 0.09 0.15 0.004 0.17
Ammonia-N4, mM 1.46e 3.35d 4.47c 5.45b 8.96a 0.34a -0.33b -0.41b -0.44b -1.53c 0.87 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 LCAPQP
Total VFA5, mM 26.1b 26.4b 27.9 28.0b 32.8a 17.4c 25.9a 24.8a 24.5a 19.6b 0.47 0.019 <0.001 0.002 LP QA
VFA mol/100 mol
    Acetate 67.1a 67.2a 66.5a 65.6a 63.3b 65.2b 65.1b 69.2a 66.9b 65.4b 0.23 0.005 0.38 0.008 LP QAP
    Propionate 22.4 21.3 21.2 20.7 20.8 24.2 24.1 20.9 22.9 23.7 0.17 0.015 <0.001 0.077
    Iso-butyrate 0.90d 0.98cd 1.08c 1.63b 1.90a 0.92a 0.94a 0.80b 0.84ab 0.91ab 0.01 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 LQCP
    Butyrate 6.97d 7.40cd 7.87bc 8.17b 8.78a 7.44ab 7.17abc 6.95c 7.06bc 7.57a 0.05 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 LP QA
    Iso-valerate 1.51d 1.81c 1.93c 2.22b 2.93a 1.56 1.54 1.34 1.46 1.39 0.03 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 LQCP
    Valerate 1.10d 1.25cd 1.41bc 1.66b 2.23a 1.06a 1.15a 0.88b 0.88b 0.99a 0.03 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 LQCP
Acetate:Propionate 3.00 3.15 3.14 3.16 3.04 2.74 2.72 3.31 2.93 2.77 0.03 0.023 0.005 0.11 Q

a,b,c,d Within a row (for each N source) without a common letter differ, P < 0.05.

1 L = nitrogen level; S = protein source

2 Significant (P <0.05) linear (L), quadratic (Q) or cubic (C) effects of the response to incremental levels of nitrogen estimated by polynomial contrast for peptone P or ammonium chloride A, when L x S interaction was significant.

3 Difference in natural 15N abundance between the rumen bacteria pellets and their media (including the tested N sources)

4Ammonia-N concentration at the end of the incubation period minus ammonia concentration of the medium before mixed bacteria inoculation (ammonia-N from the levels of ammonium chloride source were also subtracted)

5Volatile fatty acids concentration at the end of the incubation period minus volatile fatty acid of the medium before mixed bacteria inoculation

In contrast, when the N source was organic N (peptone) the bacterial pellet was linearly enriched in 15N compared to the lowest level of N (from -2.09 to 0.58; P > 0.05). Only the N source influenced (P < 0.001) the Δ15Nbacteria-substrate, with the lowest Δ15Nbacteria-substrate observed with the inorganic nitrogen source. Ammonia-N concentration increased linearly (P < 0.001) from 1.46 to 9.0 mM with higher levels of peptone and decreased linearly (P < 0.001) from 0.4 to -1.53 mM with higher levels of the inorganic N source. Total VFAs concentration and individual profile were differed (P < 0.05) by level and nitrogen source, with a higher concentration of total VFAs observed for the organic N source. Propionate increased with the inorganic N source, whereas butyrate, valerate and branched VFAs increased with the organic N source. Acetate concentration was only affected by the level of N. All the parameters showed a significant (P < 0.001) Level x Source interaction, except for Δ15N, propionate concentration and acetate to propionate ratio. The supervised multivariate approach: sparse Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (sPLS-DA), showed distinctive correlations of selective bacterial ASVs to Δ15N for each nitrogen source (Fig 2; Panels A and B). Regression analysis of these bacterial ASVs to Δ15N for each nitrogen source (Fig 2; Panels C and D) showed the main ASVs with a strong negative correlation (coefficient of correlation = -0.72 to -0.87) to isotopic N fractionation, suggesting a more efficient N utilization, were classified to Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group for both nitrogen sources and Desulfovibrio with the organic nitrogen ASVs. ASVs with the stronger positive correlation (R2 = 0.66 to 0.82) to Δ15N were classified to the families Veillonellaceae, Prevotellaceae and unclassified bacteria F082 for the inorganic nitrogen source, and Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceaea with the organic nitrogen.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Clustering analysis using a heatmap based on the selected bacterial ASVs correlating to Δ15N when peptone (A) or ammonium chloride (B) were used as nitrogen source. Regression plots of key ASVs correlating to Δ15N for peptone (C) and ammonium chloride (D). Experiment #2.

Discussion

Rumen bacteria [1, 33] and protozoa [7] fractionate N isotopes thus contributing to the natural 15N enrichment of ruminant proteins over the diet and explains to some extent the biological basis relating Δ15Nanimal-diet to NUE in ruminants [6, 7]. Results from the present study confirm that the higher Δ15Nanimal-diet usually observed in ruminants fed high vs low N diets [34] and related to low NUE [6] would arise to some extent from the rumen bacterial activity. However, while this finding seems to be true when bacterial strains (Exp #1) were grown on organic N substrates such as tryptone, it was not always the case when ammonia was the main N source. Furthermore, although no significant interaction was observed between the N level and the N source in the batch rumen mixed culture trial (Exp#2; P = 0.17), numerical trends pointed to a greater N isotopic depletion (lower Δ15Nbacteria-substrate) when the N source in mixed culture was an inorganic vs organic substrate (-1.15‰ vs -0.25‰ difference between the highest and lowest N level, respectively). Our results agree with previous studies reporting different N isotopic signatures in rumen bacteria when shifting from organic to non-organic N substrates at similar N levels [1]. We highlight a clear opposite trend in bacterial N isotopic fractionation in relation to the bacterial ability to use ammonia-N, with 15N depletions only occurring when ammonia-N is taken up by rumen bacteria. Indeed, when using a cellulolytic bacterial strain such as Fibrobacter succinogenes S85 (Exp #1) or alternatively a mixed cultured batch enriched for a cellulolytic bacterial population (Exp #2) greater ammonia-N levels promoted lower isotopic N discrimination. The balance between N assimilation (uptake) and dissimilation (release) is a key determinant of the N isotopic signatures of soil microbial biomass as previously demonstrated in a conceptual model [35]. Our results may further indicate that N isotopic signature in rumen bacteria may also change according to the balance between synthesis of microbial protein from ammonia versus non-ammonia N sources. In this regard, other authors [36] found that Escherichia coli grown on organic nitrogen sources released NH4+ and were enriched in 15N (relative to the nitrogen source) while it was highly depleted in 15N when grown on an inorganic nitrogen source. The ability of rumen bacteria to use peptides or ammonia under different nutritional contexts seems thus to determine the extent of N isotopic fractionation in the rumen.

Several metabolic pathways could be involved in the N isotopic fractionation occurring in the rumen. Although N isotopic fractionation by bacteria could theoretically originate from transport, assimilation, transfer, synthesis and excretion of N compounds [37], current knowledge suggest that the main fractionation pathways are related to bacterial ammonia assimilation and release [35, 36], the latter as a result of peptide degradation and amino acid deamination. Some of the bacterial enzymes involved in ammonia assimilation (in ruminants the glutamine synthetase [GS], glutamate synthase [GOGAT], glutamate dehydrogenase [GDH], and alanine dehydrogenase [ADH]; [38]) have been demonstrated to preferentially use 14NH4 vs 15NH4 [39] and explains somehow why the 15N depletion of rumen [1]; present study), soil [35] and marine [8] bacteria increases as ammonia assimilation is improved. Wang and co-workers [38] suggested that the amidation of glutamate to produce glutamine and the subsequent conversion of glutamine plus α-ketoglutarate to glutamate is the dominant pathway for ammonia assimilation in most rumen bacteria when ammonia N is low and is governed by the coupled GS-GOGAT enzymes. An alternative pathway for ammonia assimilation in some bacteria is through glutamate synthesis performed by GDH via the amination of α-ketoglutarate when ammonia-N is high [40]. However recent results indicate that both pathways for ammonia assimilation may operate concurrently within a bacterium under non-limiting ammonia-N conditions [4143]. Less is known about N isotope use in transamination reactions involved in the catabolism as well as synthesis of amino acids when bacteria take up and assimilate peptides for growth, although the 14NH2 appears to incorporate faster than the 15NH2- [10]. Transamination reactions involved in the assimilation of amino acids into protein appear to be important for the Prevotella genus when organic sources of nitrogen are abundant in the rumen [42]. In our study, 15N was more depleted when X. ruminicola was grown on ammonia versus peptides which may indicate that the final isotopic signature of this bacterium in the rumen will reflect the net contribution of both of these N assimilation pathways. Interestingly, a recent study in dairy cows found a negative rather than positive correlation between the relative abundance of Prevotella taxa in the rumen and natural abundance of 15N in plasma [44], which may suggest that in those particular conditions Prevotella species could be a net ammonia user rather than ammonia producer. Indeed, Prevotella is a very diverse genus, based on genetic diversity and also phenotypic diversity of the cultured rumen isolates [4547]. In addition, the relative abundance of the various Prevotella taxa may vary according to the diet [45].

According to other study [38] there exists a correlation between the Prevotella ruminicola and Fibrobacter succinogenes populations and GDH and ADH activities, respectively. These two enzymes have been shown to be discriminant against 15N in the bovine liver and in Bacillus subtilis cultures, respectively [48]. This may explain why in our study at similar N levels the 15N natural abundances in Prevotella ruminicola and Fibrobacter succinogenes (Exp #1) were lower with ammonia chloride vs tryptone sources. Interestingly, this pattern was not observed with the third bacterium, Eubacterium limosum, having the greater ammonia production in our conditions even when ammonia chloride was the N source. Eubacterium limosum is one of the few acetogens that can produce butyrate [49] as observed in our study from their higher butyrate molar proportion compared to the other two strains. This rumen strain is very versatile in utilization of N sources, such as peptides, ammonia and single amino acids [50]. However, the greater 15N enrichment of E. limosum when ammonium chloride replaced tryptone (a finding not observed with the other strains) might indicate its poor ability to use inorganic N sources.

Other colleagues [8] reviewed some studies reporting N isotope fractionation in several microorganisms using ammonia for growth, including bacteria, and found that microbial biomass was always 15N depleted compared to ammonia substrate. The enzymes GDH and GS as well as membrane NH4 transport were believed to be the main fractionation pathways involved in ammonia assimilation by marine bacteria [8, 51]. Fibrobacter succinogenes is one of the major fibrolytic rumen bacteria and it is known that the strain S85 of this species utilizes ammonia as its sole nitrogen source [52, 53]. However, Atasoglu [54] demonstrated that another strain of Fibrobacter succinogenes (strain BL2) was able to utilise non-ammonia nitrogen at high concentrations of peptides and amino acids. Furthermore, the main pathways of ammonia assimilation (GDH, ADH and GS) for Fibrobacter succinogenes S85 have been identified using nuclear magnetic resonance [55] and genome sequencing [56]. These findings support the 15N depletion observed with Fibrobacter succinogenes S85 in the current study, and indicates that this rumen microorganism might preferentially use 14NH4 vs 15NH4.

The 16S rDNA amplicon sequencing analysis (Experiment #2) revealed ASVs strongly correlated to Δ15N for both nitrogen sources. Several ASVs classified to the RC9_gut_group showed a negative relationship with Δ15N for both nitrogen sources. A recent published study [57] indicated that RC9 possess fibrolytic activity in the rumen and identified genes encoding saccharolytic activity against mannan, xylan and pectin, however to the best of our knowledge the nitrogen metabolism of this bacterial group has not been studied. In experiment #1 another fibrolytic bacterium, Fibrobacter succinogenes, promoted lower isotopic N discrimination which indicates that fibrolytic bacteria may be involved in 15N depletion and more efficient N utilization at the rumen level. On the other hand, F082 group appeared to be associated with a less efficient nitrogen utilization at the rumen level when inorganic nitrogen was provided. Interestingly, RC9 and F082 have been found to increase in the rumen of cattle grazing in dry tropical rangelands during the dry season [32], when nitrogen sources are scarce and inorganic nitrogen is being supplemented to animals. Further research needs to be done to determine the role of these novel rumen bacterial populations in nitrogen utilization and fractionation in animals under different feeding conditions and nitrogen sources.

Conclusion

Our results confirmed that N isotopic fractionation by rumen bacteria may change according to the balance between synthesis of microbial protein from ammonia versus non-ammonia N sources and suggest that the extent of ammonia uptake and release strongly affects the N isotopic signature of rumen bacteria. Interestingly, a stronger 15N depletion occurred when a rumen fibrolytic bacterium specialised in ammonia assimilation was grown on non-organic N sources compared to other bacteria. These results confirm the key role of rumen bacteria as modulators of N isotopic fractionation and the subsequent link with N use efficiency in ruminants. Also, results strongly suggest that this contribution may be dependent on the type of diet used and the predominant rumen bacteria populations. Further studies should determine whether natural 15N abundances in rumen bacteria or ruminant body proteins could also reflect the efficiency of N utilization for bacterial protein synthesis in the rumen.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Composition of in vitro media for experiment #1 and #2.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge W. Smith and R. Viana Costa for their technical support in the lab and R. Andy and C. Chantelauze for analysing the natural abundance of nitrogen stable isotopes.

Data Availability

The sequences obtained in this paper have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive under the accession number PRJEB63213 (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/). Likewise, the data concerning the in vitro fermentation parameters and isotopic values have been deposited in a Zenodo repository (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8082282) and reported in the manuscript.

Funding Statement

The travel expenses for G. Cantalapiedra-Hijar and G. Martinez-Fernandez between France (Experiment #1) and Australia (Experiment #2) were funded by the INRA-CSIRO linkage program. Additionally, the expenses for in vitro experiments and analysis were financed by internal funds from the research teams involved in this study. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Wattiaux MA, Reed JD. Fractionation of nitrogen isotopes by mixed ruminal bacteria. J Anim Sci. 1995;73(1):257–66. doi: 10.2527/1995.731257x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cantalapiedra-Hijar G, Ortigues-Marty I, Sepchat B, Agabriel J, Huneau JF, Fouillet H. Diet-animal fractionation of nitrogen stable isotopes reflects the efficiency of nitrogen assimilation in ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition. 2015;113(7):1158–69. doi: 10.1017/S0007114514004449 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cheng P, Nicol AM, Dewhurst RJ, Edwards G. The effects of dietary nitrogen to water-soluble carbohydrate ratio on isotopic fractionation and partitioning of nitrogen in non-lactating sheep. Animal. 2013; 7(8):1274–1279. doi: 10.1017/S1751731113000311 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Correa-Luna M, Johansen M, Noziere P, Chantelauze C, Nasrollahi S, Lund P, et al. Nitrogen isotopic discrimination as a biomarker of between-cow variation in the efficiency of nitrogen utilization for milk production: A meta-analysis. J Dairy Sci. 2022;105(6):5004–23. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-21498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cantalapiedra-Hijar G, Morel I, Sepchat B, Chantelauze C, Miller GA, Duthie C-A, et al. Identifying cattle with superior growth feed efficiency through their natural 15N abundance and plasma urea concentration: A meta-analysis. Peer Community Journal. 2022;2. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cantalapiedra-Hijar G, Dewhurst RJ, Cheng L, Cabrita ARJ, Fonseca AJM, Noziere P, et al. Nitrogen isotopic fractionation as a biomarker for nitrogen use efficiency in ruminants: a meta-analysis. Animal. 2018;12(9):1827–37. doi: 10.1017/S1751731117003391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nasrollahi SM, Meale SJ, Morgavi DP, Schiphorst AM, Robins RJ, Ortigues-Marty I, et al. The origin of N isotopic discrimination and its relationship with feed efficiency in fattening yearling bulls is diet-dependent. Plos one. 2020;15(6):e0234344. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hoch MP, Fogel ML, Kirchman DL. Isotope fractionation associated with ammonium uptake by a marine bacterium. Limnology and oceanography. 1992;37(7):1447–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Macko SA, Estep ML. Microbial alteration of stable nitrogen and carbon isotopic compositions of organic matter. Organic Geochemistry. 1984;6:787–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Macko SA, Estep MLF, Engel MH, Hare P. Kinetic fractionation of stable nitrogen isotopes during amino acid transamination. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 1986;50(10):2143–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Cantalapiedra-Hijar G, Fouillet H, Huneau J-F, Fanchone A, Doreau M, Noziere P, et al. Relationship between efficiency of nitrogen utilization and isotopic nitrogen fractionation in dairy cows: contribution of digestion v. metabolism? Animal. 2016;10(2):221–9. doi: 10.1017/S1751731115002025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism. 2020;40(9):1769–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hitch TC, Bisdorf K, Afrizal A, Riedel T, Overmann J, Strowig T, et al. A taxonomic note on the genus Prevotella: Description of four novel genera and emended description of the genera Hallella and Xylanibacter. Systematic and Applied Microbiology. 2022;45(6):126354. doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2022.126354 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.McSweeney CS, Denman SE, Mackie RI . Rumen bacteria. Methods in gut microbial ecology for ruminants: Springer; 2005. p. 23–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hungate R. Chapter IV A Roll Tube Method for Cultivation of Strict Anaerobes. Methods in microbiology. 1969;3:117–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cornou C, Storm IMLD, Hindrichsen IK, Worgan H, Bakewell E, Ruiz DRY, et al. A ring test of a wireless in vitro gas production system. Anim Prod Sci. 2013;53(6):585–92. doi: 10.1071/An12091 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Martinez-Fernandez G, Denman SE, Yang CL, Cheung JE, Mitsumori M, McSweeney CS. Methane Inhibition Alters the Microbial Community, Hydrogen Flow, and Fermentation Response in the Rumen of Cattle. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1122. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Lozupone CA, Turnbaugh PJ, et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:4516–22. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1000080107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.de Carcer DA, Denman SE, McSweeney C, Morrison M. Strategy for Modular Tagged High-Throughput Amplicon Sequencing. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77(17):6310–2. doi: 10.1128/AEM.05146-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahe F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. Peerj. 2016;4. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet journal. 2011;17(1):10–2. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Edgar RC, Flyvbjerg H. Error filtering, pair assembly and error correction for next-generation sequencing reads. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(21):3476–82. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Edgar RC, Haas BJ, Clemente JC, Quince C, Knight R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(16):2194–200. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Holmes SP. Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis. Isme J. 2017;11(12):2639–43. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Murali A, Bhargava A, Wright ES . IDTAXA: a novel approach for accurate taxonomic classification of microbiome sequences. Microbiome. 2018;6. doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0521-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rohart F, Gautier B, Singh A, Le Cao KA. mixOmics: An R package for ’omics feature selection and multiple data integration. Plos Comput Biol. 2017;13(11). doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005752 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Le Cao KA, Rossouw D, Robert-Granie C, Besse P. A Sparse PLS for Variable Selection when Integrating Omics Data. Stat Appl Genet Mol. 2008;7(1). doi: 10.2202/1544-6115.1390 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis: Springer; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Morgavi DP, Martin C, Boudra H. Fungal secondary metabolites from Monascus spp. reduce rumen methane production in vitro and in vivo. J Anim Sci. 2013;91(2):848–60. doi: 10.2527/jas.2012-5665 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gagen EJ, Wang JK, Padmanabha J, Liu J, de Carvalho IPC, Liu JX, et al. Investigation of a new acetogen isolated from an enrichment of the tammar wallaby forestomach. Bmc Microbiol. 2014;14:314. doi: 10.1186/s12866-014-0314-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chaney AL, Marbach EP. Modified Reagents for Determination of Urea and Ammonia. Clin Chem. 1962;8(2):130–2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Martinez-Fernandez G, Jiao JZ, Padmanabha J, Denman SE, McSweeney CS. Seasonal and Nutrient Supplement Responses in Rumen Microbiota Structure and Metabolites of Tropical Rangeland Cattle. Microorganisms. 2020;8(10). doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8101550 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sutoh M, Obara Y, Yoneyama T. The effects of feeding regimen and dietary sucrose supplementation on natural abundance of 15N in some components of ruminal fluid and plasma of sheep. J Anim Sci. 1993;71(1):226–31. doi: 10.2527/1993.711226x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sponheimer M, Robinson T, Ayliffe L, Roeder B, Hammer J, Passey B, et al. Nitrogen isotopes in mammalian herbivores: hair δ15N values from a controlled feeding study. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. 2003;13(1‐2):80–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Dijkstra P, LaViolette CM, Coyle JS, Doucett RR, Schwartz E, Hart SC, et al. 15N enrichment as an integrator of the effects of C and N on microbial metabolism and ecosystem function. Ecology letters. 2008;11(4):389–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01154.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Collins JG, Dijkstra P, Hart SC, Hungate BA, Flood NM, Schwartz E. Nitrogen source influences natural abundance 15N of Escherichia coli. FEMS microbiology letters. 2008;282(2):246–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008.01133.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Macko SA, Fogel ML, Hare PE, Hoering T. Isotopic fractionation of nitrogen and carbon in the synthesis of amino acids by microorganisms. Chemical Geology: Isotope Geoscience section. 1987;65(1):79–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wang PP, Tan ZL, Guan LL, Tang SX, Zhou CS, Han XF, et al. Ammonia and amino acids modulates enzymes associated with ammonia assimilation pathway by ruminal microbiota in vitro. Livestock Science. 2015;178:130–9. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Handley L, Raven JA. The use of natural abundance of nitrogen isotopes in plant physiology and ecology. Plant, Cell & Environment. 1992;15(9):965–85. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Schulz AA, Collett HJ, Reid SJ. Nitrogen and carbon regulation of glutamine synthetase and glutamate synthase in Corynebacterium glutamicum ATCC 13032. FEMS microbiology letters. 2001;205(2):361–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2001.tb10973.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kim JN, Henriksen ED, Cann IK, Mackie RI. Nitrogen utilization and metabolism in Ruminococcus albus 8. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014;80(10):3095–102. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00029-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kim JN, Méndez–García C, Geier RR, Iakiviak M, Chang J, Cann I, et al. Metabolic networks for nitrogen utilization in Prevotella ruminicola 23. Sci Rep-Uk. 2017;7(1):1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08463-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Firkins J, Mackie R. Ruminal protein breakdown and ammonia assimilation. Improving Rumen Function. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Li M, Zhong H, Li M, Zheng N, Wang J, Zhao S. Contribution of Ruminal Bacteriome to the Individual Variation of Nitrogen Utilization Efficiency of Dairy Cows. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:815225. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.815225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bekele AZ, Koike S, Kobayashi Y. Genetic diversity and diet specificity of ruminal Prevotella revealed by 16S rRNA gene-based analysis. FEMS microbiology letters. 2010;305(1):49–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2010.01911.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Griswold KE, White BA, Mackie RI. Diversity of extracellular proteolytic activities among Prevotella species from the rumen. Curr Microbiol. 1999;39(4):187–94. doi: 10.1007/s002849900443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Avguštin G, Wallace RJ, Flint HJ. Phenotypic diversity among ruminal isolates of Prevotella ruminicola: proposal of Prevotella brevis sp. nov., Prevotella bryantii sp. nov., and Prevotella albensis sp. nov. and redefinition of Prevotella ruminicola. Int J Syst Evol Micr. 1997;47(2):284–8. doi: 10.1099/00207713-47-2-284 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Weiss PM, Chen CY, Cleland W, Cook PF. Use of primary deuterium and nitrogen-15 isotope effects to deduce the relative rates of steps in the mechanisms of alanine and glutamate dehydrogenases. Biochemistry. 1988;27(13):4814–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Jeong J, Bertsch J, Hess V, Choi S, Choi I-G, Chang IS, et al. Energy conservation model based on genomic and experimental analyses of a carbon monoxide-utilizing, butyrate-forming acetogen, Eubacterium limosum KIST612. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81(14):4782–90. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00675-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Genthner B, Davis C, Bryant M. Features of rumen and sewage sludge strains of Eubacterium limosum, a methanol-and H2-CO2-utilizing species. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1981;42(1):12–9. doi: 10.1128/aem.42.1.12-19.1981 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Vo J, Inwood W, Hayes JM, Kustu S. Mechanism for nitrogen isotope fractionation during ammonium assimilation by Escherichia coli K12. P Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110(21):8696–701. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1216683110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bryant M, Doetsch R. Factors necessary for the growth of Bacteroides succinogenes in the volatile acid fraction of rumen fluid. J Dairy Sci. 1955;38(4):340–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Bryant M, Robinson I. Studies on the nitrogen requirements of some ruminal cellulolytic bacteria. Applied microbiology. 1961;9(2):96–103. doi: 10.1128/am.9.2.96-103.1961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Atasoglu C, Newbold CJ, Wallace RJ. Incorporation of [15N] ammonia by the cellulolytic ruminal bacteria Fibrobacter succinogenes BL2, Ruminococcus albus SY3, and Ruminococcus flavefaciens 17. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67(6):2819–22. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.6.2819-2822.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Matheron C, Delort A-M, Gaudet G, Liptaj T, Forano E. Interactions between carbon and nitrogen metabolism in fibrobacter succinogenes S85: a 1H and 13C nuclear magnetic resonance and enzymatic study. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999;65(5):1941–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Suen G, Weimer PJ, Stevenson DM, Aylward FO, Boyum J, Deneke J, et al. The Complete Genome Sequence of Fibrobacter succinogenes S85 Reveals a Cellulolytic and Metabolic Specialist. Plos One. 2011;6(4). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018814 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Svartström O, Alneberg J, Terrapon N, Lombard V, de Bruijn I, Malmsten J, et al. Ninety-nine de novo assembled genomes from the moose (Alces alces) rumen microbiome provide new insights into microbial plant biomass degradation. The ISME journal. 2017;11(11):2538–51. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Adham A Al-Sagheer

29 May 2023

PONE-D-23-04164The extent of nitrogen isotopic fractionation in rumen bacteria is associated with changes in rumen nitrogen metabolismPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cantalapiedra-Hijar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 10 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Adham A. Al-Sagheer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Daily-methane-emissions-of-wethers-n-6-before-during_fig3_234105896

https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2350552/v1/0d1d0a41-6555-439f-8a88-477693608894.pdf?c=1671033111

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

4. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

This research was partially funded by the INRA-CSIRO linkage program.

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

The authors declare no conflict of interest. 

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper reports on two interesting studies, which confirm the much earlier work of Wattiaux and Reed. The studies appear well conducted and analysed,. My comments mostly relate to improving the text:

Line 19 ‘Nitrogen use’ is not an index – better ‘Nitrogen use efficiency’

Line 21 can delete ‘Evidence also exists that’

Line 23 ‘have an impact on’ = ‘affect’

Lines 41-41 section in parentheses is not needed

Line 62 is this correct (wouldn’t it increase?)

Line 102 bottles

Line 117/119 these two sentences should be merged (not sure why the sentence at lines 118-119 sits between them)

Line 204 superscripting

Table 1 & 2 Need to be clearer that ammonia and VFA values are corrected for initial values (e.g. in the Table heading

rather than just as footnotes). Were the proportions of different VFA and the acetate:propionate ratio also

corrected for initial values?

Line 262 is there any issue with multiple analysis here? Was there any need to correct for the fact that you could

explore these relationships with many hundreds of microbial taxa and so identify spurious significant

correlations?

Line 381 confirmed – as these effects were shown previously by Wattiaux and Reed

Reviewer #2: Thank you for conducting this study, it is a nice study. I have attached my comments in a separate file. Please respond them carefully. Make sure that all the data generated by the sequencing are uploaded one suitable database.

best wishes

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Alaa Emara Rabee

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-N isotopic-Report.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Sep 13;18(9):e0291243. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291243.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Jul 2023

Reviewer #1: The paper reports on two interesting studies, which confirm the much earlier work of Wattiaux and Reed. The studies appear well conducted and analysed. My comments mostly relate to improving the text:

[Authors]: Thank you for providing us with your valuable comments on our research article. We are confident that the revised version of the article now encompasses a more comprehensive and robust analysis, addressing the concerns you raised.

Line 19 ‘Nitrogen use’ is not an index – better ‘Nitrogen use efficiency’

[Authors]: Corrected

Line 21 can delete ‘Evidence also exists that’

[Authors]: Removed

Line 23 ‘have an impact on’ = ‘affect’

[Authors]: Changed to “affect”

Lines 41-41 section in parentheses is not needed

[Authors]: Considering the length of the sentence and the need to establish clear definitions for different concepts, we would prefer to retain the parentheses in this case.

Line 62 is this correct (wouldn’t it increase?)

[Authors]: You are right, thank you for bringing this mistake to our attention.

Line 102 bottles

[Authors]: Corrected

Line 117/119 these two sentences should be merged (not sure why the sentence at lines 118-119 sits between them)

[Authors]: Thanks for the suggestion. We have removed the second sentence and explained better in S1 Table how the medium was prepared.

Line 204 superscripting

[Authors]: Done

Table 1 & 2 Need to be clearer that ammonia and VFA values are corrected for initial values (e.g. in the Table heading rather than just as footnotes). Were the proportions of different VFA and the acetate:propionate ratio also corrected for initial values?

[Authors]: We appreciate your suggestion. We would like to clarify that while we did correct total VFA and ammonia concentrations for their initial values, we have now realized that the individual VFA proportions in experiment #1 (only Table 1) were not calculated by subtracting the initial concentrations. We apologize for this oversight. In response to this, we have revised our manuscript. The new values of individual VFA proportions, where initial concentrations were subtracted from the final concentration, are now included in Table 1. We have provided a clearer explanation of this calculation in the Materials and Methods (section L179-182) and changed the table heading according to your suggestion.

Line 262 is there any issue with multiple analysis here? Was there any need to correct for the fact that you could explore these relationships with many hundreds of microbial taxa and so identify spurious significant correlations?

[Authors]: The final model and analysis for correlation of ASVs to metabolite data is performed on an identified subset of ASVs. In the initial analysis we used a stepwise process to first build a basic sPLS model that is further optimised and tuned. The tuning involves selecting the number of components that best explains the variance in the data and the number of features (ASVs) that maximise the correlation between the predicted and actual components. The number of features was limited to a maximum of 100 ASVs per component. Tuning involved cross-validation in which the data was randomly split into 10 subgroups to train sub models to predict the accuracy of these models. The final parameters were then used to identified the ASVs that are presented here. This explanation appears now in the Material and Methods section (L164-171).

Line 381 confirmed – as these effects were shown previously by Wattiaux and Reed

[Authors]: Right, this has been changed. Thank you

The extent of nitrogen isotopic fractionation in rumen bacteria is associated with changes in rumen nitrogen metabolism

Thank you for sending this manuscript to me. The manuscript discusses the effect of N sources and levels on the Δ15Nbacteria-substrate of pure and mixed bacterial rumen bacteria. The idea is brilliant and the manuscript provides more details about the N metabolism by rumen bacteria. The manuscript still needs some improvements to be published.

[Authors]: We extend our heartfelt appreciation to you for taking the time to provide us with your invaluable comments regarding our research article. The revisions made to the article have resulted in a more robust analysis, effectively addressing the concerns you raised.

Abstract:

Could you make the experimental design clearer in the abstract?

[Authors]: Considerable efforts have been made to enhance the clarity of the experimental design within the abstract (L27-L32)

Please write the full name of bacterial strains that were used.

[Authors]: Done

Introduction:

Line 60: Could you explain the AA?

[Authors]: We have implemented the use of the abbreviation "AA" for amino acids when it is first mentioned in the text

Material and methods

Why didn’t you use any component of animal diet (hay, soya meal) as substrate in the bacterial incubation besides the organic and inorganic nitrogen sources?

[Authors]: The objective of this study was to assess the nitrogen isotopic fractionation in both pure and mixed cultures across varying levels of organic and inorganic nitrogen. To maintain precise control over the nitrogen supply, we opted not to include typical animal feed such as hay or soya meal as substrates. This decision was influenced by the inherent variability and heterogeneity of these feeds, which would have posed significant challenges in maintaining consistent nitrogen levels. For the experimental setup, we utilized a modified version of a previously published medium for rumen bacteria, as described by McSweeney et al. [40]. In the case of mixed cultures, cellulose sources such as cotton thread and acid swollen filter paper were included. As for the pure cultures, cellobiose and starch were utilized as the primary carbohydrate sources within the medium (as indicated in S1 Table). These selections were made to ensure appropriate nutrient availability and create suitable conditions for the respective cultures. By employing these specific methodologies and carefully controlling the nutrient sources, we aimed to obtain accurate and reliable results regarding the nitrogen isotopic fractionation in our study.

Why the authors used a mixture of VFAs in the growth of the pure strains, the pure strains do not need all those VFAs in the growth. Also, the authors should explain the presence of all the VFAs in the supernatant of the pure culture even after the subtraction of the quantity of VFAS of the incubation medium, because the single pure culture cannot produce all the VFAs. This point should be explained in the discussion.

[Authors]: To ensure consistency between the experiments involving pure strains and mixed cultures, we utilized a mixture of VFAs (volatile fatty acids) in all the media. This approach was taken with the intention of using a similar medium for both experiments. This justification is now clearly stated in the material and methods (L103-106). The composition of the media was based on a previously published medium for rumen bacteria, which was adapted from McSweeney et al. [40]. We would like to acknowledge that the reviewer's observation regarding the pure culture's inability to produce all the VFAs is correct, and we appreciate their attention to detail in highlighting this point. Indeed, the corrections made were solely focused on the total VFA concentrations and did not account for individual proportions. We apologize for this oversight. In the revised manuscript proportions of individual VFA from both experiments are corrected by subtraction of VFA from the medium. We thank the reviewer for bringing this issue to our attention, and we apologize for any confusion caused by the initial oversight.

Results

The authors should include a complete image of the effect of nitrogen sources on the alpha diversity and relative abundance of the bacterial community in mixed culture.

Where is the data on gas production and gas fraction besides the changes in the archaeal community in the mixed culture? This data could explain the relationship between nitrogen sources and methane and other gas production.

[Authors]: We appreciate your comment and would like to address the issue raised. Regrettably, we encountered a technical problem that prevented us from measuring gas production in the mixed culture experiment. However, we would like to emphasize that gas production is not inherently associated with N (nitrogen) isotope fractionation, and therefore, its absence in this particular experiment does not pose a significant problem. To ensure transparency and clarity, we have explicitly stated in the manuscript (lines 140-141) that gas production measurements were not conducted in the mixed culture experiment.

Discussion

The effect of nitrogen sources on the diversity and relative abundance of microbial communities should be discussed.

[Authors]: Thanks for your suggestion regarding the discussion of diversity and relative abundances of the microbial communities. While we appreciate the importance of these aspects, we have made a conscious decision not to include them in our study. This decision stems from the fact that our analysis focused on an in vitro culture endpoint trial, and therefore, caution must be exercised when extrapolating these results to in vivo conditions. The primary objective of our manuscript was to investigate the relationship with the N isotopic fractionation, and we believe that delving into the microbial diversity differences between the two sources could potentially divert the reader's attention, dilute the main storyline, and complicate the overall discussion. Consequently, we have concluded that the analyses included in the current version of the manuscript are the most relevant for addressing our research objectives.

The authors should justify the presence of mixed VFAs in the culture of single strains as the single strain produces one or more VFAs.

[Authors]: Individual VFA values were corrected in the revised manuscript (see above). Individual VFA from monocultures are now in agreement with the expected production from the strains.

It is not necessary to repeat the sentence “previously named Prevotella ruminicola”.

[Authors]: corrected

Decision Letter 1

Adham A Al-Sagheer

25 Aug 2023

The extent of nitrogen isotopic fractionation in rumen bacteria is associated with changes in rumen nitrogen metabolism

PONE-D-23-04164R1

Dear Dr. Cantalapiedra-Hijar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Adham A. Al-Sagheer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing the comments.

the manuscript was improved substantially.

I think its in publishable form.

Thanks

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes:

**********

Acceptance letter

Adham A Al-Sagheer

31 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-04164R1

The extent of nitrogen isotopic fractionation in rumen bacteria is associated with changes in rumen nitrogen metabolism

Dear Dr. Cantalapiedra-Hijar:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Adham A. Al-Sagheer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Composition of in vitro media for experiment #1 and #2.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-N isotopic-Report.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The sequences obtained in this paper have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive under the accession number PRJEB63213 (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/). Likewise, the data concerning the in vitro fermentation parameters and isotopic values have been deposited in a Zenodo repository (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8082282) and reported in the manuscript.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES