Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40524215›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2025

Microbial diurnal rhythmicity in the rumen fluid impacted by feeding regimes and exogenous microbiome providing novel mechanisms regulating dynamics of the rumen microbiome.

Yangyi Hao, Wei Wang, Mengmeng Li, Youyoung Choi, Mi Zhou, Yixin Wang, Zhijun Cao, Ya Jing Wang, Hongjian Yang, Linshu Jiang and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. New insights into the skeletal muscle circadian clock in ruminants.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  8. Rumen Fluid Transplantation fromFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Yangyi Hao *State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Wei Wang *State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Mengmeng LiState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Youyoung ChoiDepartment of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2P5, Canada.
Mi ZhouDepartment of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2P5, Canada.
Yixin WangDepartment of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2P5, Canada.
Zhijun CaoState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Ya Jing WangState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Hongjian YangState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Linshu JiangBeijing Key Laboratory of Dairy Cow Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, Beijing University of Agriculture, Beijing, 102206, China.
Le Luo GuanDepartment of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2P5, Canada. leluo.guan@ubc.ca.
Shengli LiState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition and Feeding, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China. lisheng0677@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiurnal oscillations have been reported on ruminal prokaryotes, but the daily rhythmicity of eukaryotes remains unknown. This study investigated diurnal oscillations of ruminal prokaryotes and eukaryotes under three different feeding managements and rumen fluid transplantation conditions, aiming to elucidate the regulatory mechanisms influencing the dynamic shifts of rumen microbiome through the daily feeding cycle.

resultsQuantification and profiling of the microbiota of 288 rumen samples collected from lactating dairy cows (n = 12) every 6-h over 48-h feeding cycles under ad libitum, restricted feeding at daytime and nighttime, respectively, revealed the rhythmicity in the population and abundance of ruminal bacteria, archaea, and protozoa. Under restricted-feeding regimes, 61.99% bacterial genera including Prevotella and Ruminococcus, and 7.19% archaeal species including Methanosphaera sp. ISO3-F5, and 66.93% protozoa genera including Entodinium and Isotricha showed feeding-time-influenced changes in circadian rhythms. However, 4.76% bacterial genera such as Prevotellaceae_UCG-001, and 0.29% archaeal species such as group 12 sp. ISO4-H5 exhibited non-feeding-time affected circadian rhythm pattern shifts. Further analysis of 176 rumen fluid samples collected after rumen fluid transplantation showed the proportion of bacterial, archaeal, and protozoal taxa displayed consistent (including Anaeroplasma and Fibrobacter), inconsistent (including Bacteroidales_UCG-001 and NK4A214_group), gain (including Prevotella and Succinivibrio), and loss (including Butyrivibrio and Mycoplasma) of circadian rhythms over the 48-h to 7-day period after transplantation. Similar circadian patterns were found among feed intake, ruminal volatile fatty acid concentrations, bacterial functions such as glycolysis/gluconeogenesis, and deterministic assembly processes of bacterial communities. However, different circadian patterns (12-h shifts) were observed for rumination time, ruminal pH, ammonia nitrogen concentration, and bacterial functions such as chemotaxis, nitrogen metabolism, and deterministic assembly processes of archaeal communities. Additionally, cross-lagged effects were observed between the relative abundance of microbial taxa and rumen fermentation parameters, which could affect feed intake, rumination time, microbial population/diversity, and microbial interactions. Video Abstract

conclusionsThe classified feeding-time responsive, multi-factor responsive, consistent, and inconsistent circadian rhythm of microbial taxa underscore the driven factors behind the daily dynamics of rumen microbes, which also filled the gaps for targeting specific microbial taxa for better animal production.

Indexed as

ArchaeaBacteriaCircadian RhythmGastrointestinal MicrobiomeRumenAnimal FeedAnimalsCattleFemaleCircadian rhythmFeeding regimeRumen fluid transplantationRumen microbes

Identifiers

PMID40524215
PMCPMC12168421

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.