Rumen Ciliates (Ciliophora, Trichostomatia) of Domestic Cattle (Bos taurus taurus Linnaeus, 1758) in Kyrgyzstan

Abstract

The present study provides an assessment of the rumen ciliate composition in domestic cattle sampled from Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Examination of rumen contents from 15 individuals revealed a total of 4 morphotypes and 20 ciliate species assigned to 10 genera and 2 families. The genus Entodinium dominated ciliate composition, detected in all hosts, with Entodinium simulans exhibiting 100% prevalence. In contrast, Entodinium bimastus, Diplodinium dentatum, and Ostracodinium trivesiculatum were each recorded in a single individual, corresponding to a prevalence of 6.7%. Species richness per host ranged from 2 to 15, with a mean of 7.1 ± 3.6. The average density of rumen ciliates was estimated at 10.8 ± 6.2 × 10⁴ cells mL⁻¹. These findings constitute the first detailed characterization of rumen ciliate composition in cattle from Kyrgyzstan.

Keywords

• community
• endosymbiont
• eukaryotic microorganism
• host
• protozoa
• ruminant

Supporting Institution

Kastamonu University and Kyrgyz Turkish Manas University

Project Number

(KUBAP-01/2014-22), (KTMUBAP 2013-FBE-05)

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval is not required for this study.

Thanks

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Scientific Research Project Commission of Kastamonu University (KUBAP-01/2014-22) and the Scientific Research Project Commission of Kyrgyz Turkish Manas University (KTMUBAP 2013-FBE-05).

Kırgızistan’daki Evcil Sığırların (Bos taurus taurus Linnaeus, 1758) İşkembe Siliyatları (Ciliophora, Trichostomatia)

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Kırgızistan’ın Bişkek kentinden örneklenen evcil sığırlarda işkembe siliyat kompozisyonunun bir değerlendirmesini sunmaktadır. On beş bireyden elde edilen işkembe içeriklerinin incelenmesi sonucunda, 2 familya ve 10 cinse ait toplam 20 siliyat türü ile birlikte 4 morfotip belirlenmiştir. Entodinium cinsi bütün konaklarda Entodinium simulans türü ile tespit edilmiş olup, %100 yaygınlıkla siliyat kompozisyon yapısındaki baskın cinstir. Buna karşılık, Entodinium bimastus, Diplodinium dentatum ve Ostracodinium trivesiculatum türlerinin her biri %6.7 yaygınlıkla tek bir bireyden kayıt edilmiştir. Konak başına tespit edilen tür çeşitliliği 2 ile 15 arasında değişmekte olup ortalama 7.1 ± 3.6’dır. İşkembe siliyatlarının ortalama yoğunluğu 10.8 ± 6.2 × 10⁴ hücre mL⁻¹’dir. Bu bulgular, Kırgızistan’daki sığırların işkembe siliyat kompozisyonuna ilişkin ilk ayrıntılı tanımlamayı sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• komünite
• endosimbiyont
• ökaryotik mikroorganizma
• konak
• protozoonlar
• geviş getiren hayvan

Supporting Institution

Kastamonu Üniversitesi ve Kırgız Türk Manas Universitesi

Project Number

(KUBAP-01/2014-22), (KTMUBAP 2013-FBE-05)

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma için etik izine ihtiyaç yoktur.

Thanks

Yazarlar Kastamonu Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırmalar Proje Komisyonuna (KUBAP-01/2014-22) ve Kırgız Türk Manas Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırmalar Komisyonuna (KTMUBAP 2013-FBE-05) teşekkür ederler.

References

1. Abou Akkada, A.R., & Howard, B.H. (1960). The biochemistry of rumen protozoa. 3. The carbohydrate metabolism of Entodinium. Biochemical Journal, 76(3), 445–451. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0760445
2. Bush, A.O., Lafferty, K.D., Lotz, J.M., & Shostak, A.W. (1997). Parasitology meets ecology on its own terms: Margolis et al. revisited. Journal of Parasitology, 83, 575–583. https://doi.org/10.2307/3284227
3. Choudhury, P.K., Salem, A.Z.M., Jena, R., Kumar, S., Singh, R., & Puniya, A.K. (2015). Rumen microbiology: An overview. In A., Puniya, R., Singh, & D., Kamra (Eds.), Rumen microbiology: From evolution to revolution. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2401-3_1
4. Dehority, B.A. (1974). Rumen ciliate fauna of Alaskan moose (Alces americana), musk-ox (Ovibos moschatus), and Dall Mountain sheep (Ovis dalli). Journal of Protozoology, 21(2), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.1974.tb03612.x
5. Dehority, B.A. (1978). Specificity of rumen ciliate protozoa in cattle and sheep. Journal of Protozoology, 25(4), 509–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.1978.tb04177.x
6. Dehority, B.A. (1984). Evaluation of subsampling and fixation procedures used for counting rumen protozoa. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 48(1), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.48.1.182-185.1984
7. Dehority, B.A. (1986). Protozoa of the digestive tract of herbivorous mammals. Insect Science and Its Application, 7(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742758400009346
8. Dehority, B.A. (1993). Laboratory manual for classification and morphology of rumen ciliate protozoa. CRC Press.

9. Dogiel, V.A. (1927). Monographie der Familie Ophryoscolecidae. Archiv für Protistenkunde, 59, 1–288.
10. Eadie, J.M. (1957). The mid-winter rumen microfauna of the seaweed-eating sheep of North Ronaldshay. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B, 66(3), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0080455X00010055
11. Eadie, J.M. (1962). The development of rumen microbial populations in lambs and calves under various conditions of management. Journal of General Microbiology, 29(4), 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-29-4-563
12. Firkins, J.L., Yu, Z., Park, T., & Plank, J.E. (2020). Extending Burk Dehority’s perspectives on the role of ciliate protozoa in the rumen. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, 123. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00123
13. Franzolin, R., & Dehority, B.A. (1996). Effect of prolonged high-concentrate feeding on ruminal protozoa concentrations. Journal of Animal Science, 74(11), 2803–2809. https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74112803x
14. Göçmen, B., Dehority, B.A., & Rastgeldi, S. (2003). Ciliated protozoa in the rumen of Turkish domestic cattle (Bos taurus L.). Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology, 50(2), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2003.tb00242.x
15. Gruby, D., & Delafond, O. (1843). Recherches sur des animalcules su developpant en gland nombre dens I’estomac et les intestins, pendant la digestion des animaux herbivores et carnivores. Comptes Rendus Academy Science Paris, 17, 1304–1308
16. Gürelli, G. (2014). Rumen ciliate fauna (Ciliophora, Protista) of Turkish domestic goats living in İzmir, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 38, 136–143. https://doi.org/10.3906/zoo-1303-21
17. Gürelli, G. (2016). Rumen ciliates of domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus) in Kastamonu, Turkey with the description of a new species. European Journal of Protistology, 56, 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejop.2016.07.002
18. Gürelli, G., & Akman, F.T.B. (2017). Rumen ciliate biota of domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus) in İstanbul, Turkey and Infraciliature of Metadinium medium (Entodiniomorphida, Ophryoscolecidae). Acta Protozoologica, 56(3), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.4467/16890027AP.17.015.7496
19. Gürelli, G., & Mohamed, A.R.A. (2021). Comparative study of rumen ciliate fauna of goat and sheep in Libya. Türkiye Parazitoloji Dergisi, 45(4), 274–279. https://doi.org/10.4274/tpd.galenos.2021.39974
20. Gürelli, G., & Yürücüoğlu, N. (2019). Ruminal ciliate diversity of domestic cattle in Antalya, Turkey, with special emphasis on morphology of Entodinium rostratum (Entodiniomorphida, Ophryoscolecidae). Protistology, 13(2), 71–78.
21. Gürelli, G., & Yürücüoğlu, N. (2024). Antalya’daki keçi ve koyunların işkembe siliyat (Ciliophora, Trichostomatia) faunası ve işkembe siliyatlarının filogenisi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29(2), 429–437. https://doi.org/10.53433/yyufbed.1458622
22. Gürelli, G., Canbulat, S., Aldayarov, N., & Dehority, B.A. (2016). Rumen ciliate protozoa of domestic sheep (Ovis aries) and goat (Capra aegagrus hircus) in Kyrgyzstan. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 363, fnw028. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnw028
23. Hammer, Ø., Harper, A.T., & Ryan, P.D. (2001). Past: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4(1), 9.
24. Hungate, R.E. (1966). The rumen and its microbes. Academic Press.
25. Imai, S. (1998). Phylogenetic taxonomy of rumen ciliate protozoa based on their morphology and distribution. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 13, 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.1998.9706670
26. Imai, S., Katsuno, M., & Ogimoto, K. (1978). Distribution of rumen ciliate protozoa in cattle, sheep and goat and experimental transfaunation of them. Japanese Journal of Zootechnical Science, 49, 494–505. https://doi.org/10.2508/chikusan.49.494
27. Imai, S., Katsuno, M., & Ogimoto, K. (1979). Type of the pattern of the rumen ciliate composition of the domestic ruminants and the predator-prey interaction of ciliates. Japanese Journal of Zootechnical Science, 50, 79–87.
28. Imai, S., Han, S.S., Cheng, K.-J., & Kudo, H. (1989). Composition of the rumen ciliate population in experimental herds of cattle and sheep in Lethbridge, Alberta, Western Canada. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 35, 686–690. https://doi.org/10.1139/m89-112
29. Ito, A., & Imai, S. (1990). Ciliated protozoa in the rumen of Holstein-Friesian cattle (Bos taurus taurus) in Hokkaido, Japan, with the description of two new species. Zoological Science, 7(3), 449–458. https://doi.org/10.34425/zs000743
30. Ito, A., Imai, S., & Ogimoto, K. (1993). Rumen ciliates of ezo deer (Cervus nippon yesoensis) with the morphological comparison with those of cattle. The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, 55(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.55.93
31. Ito, A., Imai, S., & Ogimoto, K. (1994). Rumen ciliate composition and diversity of Japanese beef black cattle in comparison with those of Holstein-Friesian cattle. The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, 56(4), 707–714. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.56.707
32. Lynn, D.H. (2008). The ciliated protozoa, characterization, classification and guide to the literature. Springer.
33. Mizrahi, I. (2013). Rumen Symbioses. In E. Rosenberg, E.F. DeLong, S. Lory, E. Stackebrandt, & F. Thompson (Eds.), The Prokaryotes-Prokaryotic Biology and Symbiotic Associations. Springer-Verlag.
34. Moon-van der Staay, S.Y., van der Staay, G.W.M., Michalowski, T., Jauany, J.-P., Pristas, P., Javorský, P., …& Hackstein, J.H.P. (2014). The symbiotic intestinal ciliates and the evolution of their hosts. European Journal of Protistology, 50(2), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejop.2014.01.004
35. Newbold, C.J., de la Fuente, G., Belanche, A., Ramos-Morales, E., & McEwan, N.R. (2015). The role of ciliate protozoa in the rumen. Frontiers in Microbiology, 6, 1313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01313
36. Ogimoto, K., & Imai, S. (1981). Atlas of rumen microbiology. Japan Scientific Societies Press.
37. Öztürk, H., & Gür, G. (2021). Rumen physiology: microorganisms, fermentation and manipulation. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 68, 423–434. https://doi.org/10.33988/auvfd.960447
38. Park, T. (2024). Ruminal ciliates as modulators of the rumen microbiome. Animal Bioscience, 37(2), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.23.0309
39. Patel, S., & Ambalam, P. (2018). Role of rumen protozoa: metabolic and fibrolytic. Advances in Biotechnology & Microbiology, 10(4), 555793. https://doi.org/10.19080/AIBM.2018.10.555793
40. Pielou, E.C. (1984). The interpretation of ecological data: A primer of classification and ordination. John Wiley and Sons.
41. Solomon, R., & Jami, E. (2021). Rumen protozoa: from background actors to featured role in microbiome research. Environmental Microbiology Reports,13(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-2229.12902
42. Somasundaram, S., & Yu, Z. (2025). Internal transcribed spacers enable species-level metataxonomic analysis of ciliated protozoa. ISME Communications, 5(1), ycaf024. https://doi.org/10.1093/ismeco/ycaf024
43. Tung, K.-C., Wang, J.-S., & Shyu, C.-L. (1989). The detection of rumen ciliates of cattle in Taiwan. Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 38(1), 147–162.
44. Williams, A.G., & Coleman, G.S. (1992). The rumen protozoa. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2776-2
45. Yu, Z., Somasundaram, S., & Yan, M. (2025). International symposium on ruminant physiology: Rumen protozoa and viruses-new insights into their diversity and potential roles through omics lenses; A review. Journal of Dairy Science, 108, 7530–7544. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-25780