Skip to main content
PMC home page
Applied and Environmental Microbiology logoLink to Applied and Environmental Microbiology
. 1997 Feb;63(2):743–748. doi: 10.1128/aem.63.2.743-748.1997

Competition for cellobiose among three predominant ruminal cellulolytic bacteria under substrate-excess and substrate-limited conditions.

Y Shi 1, P J Weimer 1
PMCID: PMC168363  PMID: 9023951

Abstract

The ruminal cellulolytic bacteria Ruminococcus flavefaciens FD-1 and Fibrobacter succinogenes S85 coexisted in substrate-excess coculture with about equal population size, but R. flavefaciens outcompeted F. succinogenes for cellobiose in the substrate-limited cocultures whether the two strains were coinoculated or a steady-state culture of F. succinogenes was challenged by R. flavefaciens. This outcome of competition between these two strains is due to a classical pure and simple competition mechanism based on affinity for cellobiose. Although the population size of F. succinogenes was much higher (> 70%) than that of another cellulolytic species, Ruminococcus albus 7 in substrate-excess coculture, F. succinogenes was replaced by a population of R. albus in the substrate-limited coculture in both coinoculation and challenge experiments. R albus outcompeted F. succinogenes, apparently due to selection in the chemostat of a population of R. albus with a higher affinity for cellobiose. R. albus also outcompeted R. flavefaciens under substrate-limited conditions.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (2.9 MB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Balch W. E., Wolfe R. S. New approach to the cultivation of methanogenic bacteria: 2-mercaptoethanesulfonic acid (HS-CoM)-dependent growth of Methanobacterium ruminantium in a pressureized atmosphere. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1976 Dec;32(6):781–791. doi: 10.1128/aem.32.6.781-791.1976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hansen S. R., Hubbell S. P. Single-nutrient microbial competition: qualitative agreement between experimental and theoretically forecast outcomes. Science. 1980 Mar 28;207(4438):1491–1493. doi: 10.1126/science.6767274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Harder W., Kuenen J. G. A review. Microbial selection in continuous culture. J Appl Bacteriol. 1977 Aug;43(1):1–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1977.tb00717.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Helaszek C. T., White B. A. Cellobiose uptake and metabolism by Ruminococcus flavefaciens. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991 Jan;57(1):64–68. doi: 10.1128/aem.57.1.64-68.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kudo H., Cheng K. J., Costerton J. W. Electron microscopic study of the methylcellulose-mediated detachment of cellulolytic rumen bacteria from cellulose fibers. Can J Microbiol. 1987 Mar;33(3):267–272. doi: 10.1139/m87-045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Odenyo A. A., Mackie R. I., Stahl D. A., White B. A. 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. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1994 Oct;60(10):3688–3696. doi: 10.1128/aem.60.10.3688-3696.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Pavlostathis S. G., Miller T. L., Wolin M. J. Fermentation of Insoluble Cellulose by Continuous Cultures of Ruminococcus albus. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1988 Nov;54(11):2655–2659. doi: 10.1128/aem.54.11.2655-2659.1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Pavlostathis S. G., Miller T. L., Wolin M. J. Kinetics of Insoluble Cellulose Fermentation by Continuous Cultures of Ruminococcus albus. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1988 Nov;54(11):2660–2663. doi: 10.1128/aem.54.11.2660-2663.1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Russell J. B., Baldwin R. L. Comparison of substrate affinities among several rumen bacteria: a possible determinant of rumen bacterial competition. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1979 Mar;37(3):531–536. doi: 10.1128/aem.37.3.531-536.1979. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Russell J. B. Fermentation of cellodextrins by cellulolytic and noncellulolytic rumen bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1985 Mar;49(3):572–576. doi: 10.1128/aem.49.3.572-576.1985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Shi Y., Odt C. L., Weimer P. J. Competition for cellulose among three predominant ruminal cellulolytic bacteria under substrate-excess and substrate-limited conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997 Feb;63(2):734–742. doi: 10.1128/aem.63.2.734-742.1997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Shi Y., Weimer P. J. Response surface analysis of the effects of pH and dilution rate on Ruminococcus flavefaciens FD-1 in cellulose-fed continuous culture. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1992 Aug;58(8):2583–2591. doi: 10.1128/aem.58.8.2583-2591.1992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Shi Y., Weimer P. J. Utilization of individual cellodextrins by three predominant ruminal cellulolytic bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996 Mar;62(3):1084–1088. doi: 10.1128/aem.62.3.1084-1088.1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Thurston B., Dawson K. A., Strobel H. J. Pentose utilization by the ruminal bacterium Ruminococcus albus. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1994 Apr;60(4):1087–1092. doi: 10.1128/aem.60.4.1087-1092.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Weimer P. J. Effects of dilution rate and pH on the ruminal cellulolytic bacterium Fibrobacter succinogenes S85 in cellulose-fed continuous culture. Arch Microbiol. 1993;160(4):288–294. doi: 10.1007/BF00292079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wells J. E., Russell J. B., Shi Y., Weimer P. J. Cellodextrin efflux by the cellulolytic ruminal bacterium Fibrobacter succinogenes and its potential role in the growth of nonadherent bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995 May;61(5):1757–1762. doi: 10.1128/aem.61.5.1757-1762.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Applied and Environmental Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES