Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Microbial Ecology

Identification and Quantification of Methanogenic Archaea in Adult Chicken Ceca

Suwat Saengkerdsub, Robin C. Anderson, Heather H. Wilkinson, Woo-Kyun Kim, David J. Nisbet, Steven C. Ricke
Suwat Saengkerdsub
1Department of Poultry Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robin C. Anderson
2United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, College Station, Texas 77845
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Heather H. Wilkinson
3Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77845
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Woo-Kyun Kim
1Department of Poultry Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David J. Nisbet
2United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center, College Station, Texas 77845
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven C. Ricke
1Department of Poultry Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: sricke@uark.edu
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01931-06
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

By using molecular methods for the identification and quantification of methanogenic archaea in adult chicken ceca, 16S rRNA genes of 11 different phylotypes, 10 of which were 99% similar to Methanobrevibacter woesei, were found. Methanogen populations, as assessed by cultivation, and the 16S rRNA copy number were between 6.38 and 8.23 cells/g (wet weight) and 5.50 and 7.19 log10/g (wet weight), respectively.

Methanogens, members of the domain Archaea, have been isolated from various animals (13, 14). For avian species, only one report regarding the isolation of methanogens from chicken, goose, and turkey feces exists (13). Based on cell wall composition, however, the strains isolated from chicken and turkey feces appeared to belong to the genus Methanogenium (11). Analysis of the 16S rRNA genes of the methanogens from chicken and turkey feces have not been reported. In the present study, methanogens were identified by using 16S rRNA gene clone libraries. In addition, methanogens in these cecal contents were quantified by a most probable number (MPN) method and by real-time PCR.

Ceca were obtained from 56- to 72-week-old female leghorn chickens maintained on a layer ration described previously (3). Twenty-five chickens were divided into five groups and were sacrificed to remove their cecal contents. Ceca from each group were pooled in an anaerobic glove box and were designated samples 1 through 5. Samples for PCR analysis were isolated directly from the pooled ceca after introduction into an anaerobic hood (Coy Laboratory Products, Grass Lake, MI). Tenfold dilutions were inoculated into five serum tubes containing Balch 1 medium supplemented with rumen fluid and additional NH4Cl (1, 12). Each tube was flushed with 80% H2-20% CO2 under 200 kPa of pressure. The tubes were incubated while stationary at 37°C and mixed once per day manually. After 20 days, the level of methane in the headspace gas was determined with a gas chromatograph (model 8610C; SRI, Torrance, CA). Tubes with methane concentrations greater than 100 ppm (μg/ml) were counted positive for the determination of methanogens by the MPN method. The freeware MPN calculator (VB6 version; Michael Curiale [http://www.i2workout.com/mcuriale/mpn/index.html ]) was used to calculate the MPN. In this study, fresh bovine rumen fluid was used as a positive control. It was collected from a cannulated Holstein-Friesian cow maintained on a 50% alfalfa hay-50% flaked-corn diet. The cecal samples were stored at −80°C until DNA extraction. Microbial genomic DNA was isolated by the method of Wright et al. (25) with some modifications. The DNA solution was stored at −20°C.

Methanogenic 16S rRNA genes from five cecal samples were amplified using the methanogen-specific forward and reverse primers Met86F and Met1340R (26). The PCR conditions and cloning protocol followed the protocol described by Wright et al. (27). The PCR products from 420 clones were digested with HaeIII (Promega, Madison, WI). Clones representing all HaeIII restriction fragment length polymorphism patterns were bidirectionally sequenced with ABI Prism BigDye primer cycle sequencing kits (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA).

The 16S rRNA sequences from this study were used to query GenBank. To place these sequences within a phylogeny of representative methanogenic archaea, some 16S rRNA gene sequences from GenBank were included in the analysis. The alignment was generated with ClustalW (23). The neighbor joining tree was constructed using Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony and Other Methods software (PAUP* 4.0b) (21) employing a distance matrix calculated with the Jukes-Cantor correction model. The tree was subjected to 1,000 replicates of bootstrapping, and the percentages of replicates supporting a given node are indicated in Fig. 1.

FIG. 1.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG. 1.

Phylogeny of partial 16S rRNA sequences from chicken ceca placed within the context of several methanogenic species within the Archaea. Sequences harvested from GenBank are followed by accession numbers in brackets. The scale bar represents the nucleotide substitution rate. The Methanococcus voltae (U38488) sequence served as the outgroup.

Calibration standards for the quantitative PCR assays were developed with a 10-fold dilution series of plasmid containing sequence CH101. The plasmid copy number was calculated from the plasmid molecular weight, and the plasmid concentration was measured with Picogreen (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) using a Spectrafluor Plus microtiter plate reader (Tecan, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC). The quantitative PCRs using primers MBT857F and MBT1196R and TaqMan probe MBT929F were described previously by Yu et al. (28). The assays were performed in triplicate with two PCRs. Results are presented as means ± standard deviations.

In our study, 11 phylotypes were observed among the 420 clones. Of the total number of clones, 406 belonged to phylotype CH101, accounting for 92.86 to 100% of the total clone libraries in five samples, while the other phylotypes consisted of only 1 or 2 clones each (Table 1). Despite our finding of 11 different sequences in chicken ceca, sequence identity data show that all of the sequences, except sequence CH1270, were 98.97 to 99.45% similar to the 16S rRNA sequence of Methanobrevibacter woesei GS (U55237), a methanogen isolated from goose feces (13). Sequence CH1270 had 97.62% sequence identity to an uncultured archaeon, clone ConP1-11F (GenBank accession number AY911630.1). However, phylotype CH1270 was not identifiable to the species level.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

The 420 clones of 16S rRNA genes obtained in this study

Primers Met86F and Met1340R were designed from the conserved region of the 16S rRNA genes from 82 methanogens and can amplify 26 diverse strains of methanogens (26); therefore, these primers were used in this experiment. Factors such as the number of mismatches, the location of the mismatches, and the primer location in relation to secondary structures influence primer specificity (19). There was one mismatched base pair between the 16S rRNA genes of M. woesei (U55237) and primer Met1340R. However, primers Met86F and 1340R exactly match the 16S rRNA genes of Methanogenium cariaci (M59130) and Methanogenium organophilum (M59131). According to Skillman et al. (19), these primers have more specificity to Methanogenium cariaci and Methanogenium organophilum than to Methanobrevibacter woesei GS. However, Methanogenium-related sequences were not found in this study. Even though our approach is more accurate than the cultural methods, it still has a bias in amplification and formation of chimeric molecules (24). In addition, these primers may not recover sequences from some archaea existing in gastrointestinal tracts. Thermoplasmales- and Crenarchaeota-associated sequences have been observed in the gastrointestinal tracts of various animals (5, 8, 10, 17-19, 22).

Clearly, phylogenetic analysis supported the conclusion that the predominant methanogenic species found in chicken ceca is Methanobrevibacter woesei, while Miller et al. (13) isolated Methanogenium spp. from chicken and turkey feces. It is not surprising that all sequences, with the exception of sequence CH1270, were very closely related to M. woesei GS, as shown in Fig. 1. This is because previous studies have indicated that the primary methanogens in animal intestinal tracts belong to the genus Methanobrevibacter (9). Methanogenium spp., however, originate from aquatic environments (16). In contrast to that in ruminant animals, methanogen diversity in nonruminants appears to be minimal. In this study, 11 phylotypes were observed in chicken ceca while 65 phylotypes were identified in sheep rumen (27). Eckburg et al. (4) found that all 1,524 archaeal sequences in human intestinal tracts belonged to Methanobrevibacter smithii.

The numbers of methanogens quantified in the bovine rumen fluid sample and the four cecal samples are shown in Table 2. Based on an MPN enumeration, the methanogen population in bovine rumen fluid was found to be 7.15 log10 cells/ml. The number of methanogens in the rumen fluid was similar to that found in previous studies (15, 20). The number of methanogens in chicken ceca closely resembled that in both horse and pig ceca and ranged from 4 to 6 log10 cells/g (wet weight) and 6.78 16S rRNA copies/g (wet weight) (2, 15).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2.

Numbers of methanogenic archaea in bovine rumen fluid and chicken cecal contents

MBT primers (28), designed specifically for the order Methanobacteriales, were used to quantify the methanogen population. The meanlog10 16S rRNA copy numbers per gram (wet weight) of cecum and the corresponding standard deviations are shown in Table 2. We found that the 16S rRNA copy number per gram (wet weight) in the samples was between 5.50 and 7.19 log10. The results of this experiment revealed that the 16S rRNA copy number in four samples, particularly samples 4 and 5, were similar to the numbers estimated by the MPN method. The log10 16S rRNA copy numbers per gram (wet weight) in samples 2 and 3 were lower than the lower numbers of the 95% confidence limits enumerated by the MPN method used in this study. Our results show that methanogens in chicken ceca potentially have 1 16S rRNA copy per cell. In general, all methanogens have only one or two 16S rRNA genes (6). However, a recent study showed that the genome sequence of Methanosphaera stadtmanae contains four copies of 16S rRNA genes (7).

In conclusion, the results of culture-independent approaches and MPN enumeration show that the methanogen community is less diverse and that Methanobrevibacter woesei is the predominant methanogen in chicken ceca. The population levels of methanogenic archaea inhabiting this ecosystem are similar to those in other domestic animals studied.

Nucleotide sequence accession numbers.

The sequences obtained in this study are available in GenBank under accession numbers DQ445715 to DQ445725.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Meyer J. Wolin, Terry Miller, and Egidio Currenti of Wadsworth Center for providing M. woesei GS and technical assistance. We are grateful to Ann Marie Prazak of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center for supplying bovine rumen fluid. We appreciate the critical comments of Timothy Kral from the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas.

This research was supported by Hatch grant H8311 administered by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, USDA-NRI grant 2002-02614, and U.S. Poultry and Egg Association grant 485.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 14 August 2006.
    • Accepted 27 October 2006.
  • Copyright © 2007 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Balch, W. E., G. E. Fox, L. J. Magrum, C. R. Woese, and R. S. Wolfe. 1979. Methanogens: reevaluation of a unique biological group. Microbiol. Rev.43:260-296.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Butine, T. J., and J. A. Leedle. 1989. Enumeration of selected anaerobic bacterial groups in cecal and colonic contents of growing-finishing pigs. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.55:1112-1116.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Donalson, L. M., W. K. Kim, C. L. Woodward, P. Herrera, L. F. Kubena, D. J. Nisbet, and S. C. Ricke. 2005. Utilizing different ratios of alfalfa and layer ration for molt induction and performance in commercial laying hens. Poult. Sci.84:362-369.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Eckburg, P. B., E. M. Bik, C. N. Bernstein, E. Purdom, L. Dethlefsen, M. Sargent, S. R. Gill, K. E. Nelson, and D. A. Relman. 2005. Diversity of the human intestinal microbial flora. Science308:1635-1638.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Egert, M., B. Wagner, T. Lemke, A. Brune, and M. W. Friedrich. 2003. Microbial community structure in midgut and hindgut of the humus-feeding larva of Pachnoda ephippiata (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Appl. Environ. Microbiol.69:6659-6668.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Fogel, G. B., C. R. Collins, J. Li, and C. F. Brunk. 1999. Prokaryotic genome size and SSU rDNA copy number: estimation of microbial relative abundance from a mixed population. Microb. Ecol.38:93-113.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Fricke, W. F., H. Seedorf, A. Henne, M. Krüer, H. Liesegang, R. Hedderich, G. Gottschalk, and R. K. Thauer. 2006. The genome sequence of Methanosphaera stadtmanae reveals why this human intestinal archaeon is restricted to methanol and H2 for methane formation and ATP synthesis. J. Bacteriol.188:642-658.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Friedrich, M. W., D. Schmitt-Wagner, T. Lueders, and A. Brune. 2001. Axial differences in community structure of Crenarchaeota and Euryarchaeota in the highly compartmentalized gut of the soil-feeding termite Cubitermes orthognathus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.67:4880-4890.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    Garcia, J.-L., B. K. C. Patel, and B. Ollivier. 2000. Taxonomic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity of methanogenic archaea. Anaerobe6:205-226.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Hara, K., N. Shinzato, M. Seo, T. Oshima, and A. Yamagishi. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis of symbiotic archaea living in the gut of xylophagous cockroaches. Microb. Environ.17:185-190.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    König, H. 1986. Chemical composition of cell envelopes of methanogenic bacteria isolated from human and animal feces. Syst. Appl. Microbiol.8:159-162.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    Miller, T. L., and M. J. Wolin. 1982. Enumeration of Methanobrevibacter smithii in human feces. Arch. Microbiol.131:14-18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    Miller, T. L., M. J. Wolin, and E. A. Kusel. 1986. Isolation and characterization of methanogens from animal feces. Syst. Appl. Microbiol.8:234-238.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    Miller, T. L., and M. J. Wolin. 1986. Methanogens in human and animal intestinal tracts. Syst. Appl. Microbiol.7:223-229.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    Morvan, B., F. Bonnemoy, G. Fonty, and P. Gouet. 1996. Quantitative determination of H2-utilizing acetogenic and sulfate-reducing bacteria and methanogenic archaea from digestive tract of different mammals. Curr. Microbiol.32:129-133.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.↵
    Romesser, J. A. 2001. Genus IV. Methanogenium Romesser, Wolfe, Mayer, Spiess and Walther-Mauruschat 1981, 216VP, p. 256-258. In D. R. Boone, R. W. Castenholz, and G. M. Garrity (ed.), Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology, 2nd ed., vol. 1. Springer, New York, NY.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Shin, E. C., B. R. Choi, W. J. Lim, S. Y. Hong, C. L. An, K. M. Cho, Y. K. Kim, J. M. An, J. M. Kang, S. S. Lee, H. Kim, and H. D. Yun. 2004. Phylogenetic analysis of archaea in three fractions of cow rumen based on the 16S rDNA sequence. Anaerobe10:313-319.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.
    Shinzato, N., T. Matsumoto, I. Yamaoka, T. Oshima, and A. Yamagishi. 1999. Phylogenetic diversity of symbiotic methanogens living in the hindgut of the lower termite Reticulitermes speratus analyzed by PCR and in situ hybridization. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.65:837-840.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Skillman, L. C., P. N. Evans, C. Strompl, and K. N. Joblin. 2006. 16S rDNA directed PCR primers and detection of methanogens in the bovine rumen. Lett. Appl. Microbiol.42:222-228.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    Smith, P. H., and R. E. Hungate. 1958. Isolation and characterization of Methanobacterium ruminantium n. sp. J. Bacteriol.75:713-718.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
  22. 22.↵
    Tajima, K., T. Nagamine, H. Matsui, M. Nakamura, and R. I. Aminov. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of archaeal 16S rRNA libraries from the rumen suggests the existence of a novel group of archaea not associated with known methanogens. FEMS Microbiol. Lett.200:67-72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    Thompson, J. D., D. G. Higgins, and T. J. Gibson. 1994. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res.22:4673-4680.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    Wintzingerode, F. V., U. B. Göbel, and E. Stackebrandt. 1997. Determination of microbial diversity in environmental samples: pitfalls of PCR-based rRNA analysis. FEMS Microbiol. Rev.21:122-134.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Wright, A.-D. G., B. A. Dehority, and D. H. Lynn. 1997. Phylogeny of the rumen ciliates Entodinium, Epidinium and Polyplastron (Litostomatea: Entodiniomorphida) inferred from small subunit ribosomal RNA sequences. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol.44:61-67.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Wright, A.-D. G., and C. Pimm. 2003. Improved strategy for presumptive identification of methanogens using 16S riboprinting. J. Microbiol. Methods55:337-349.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    Wright, A.-D. G., A. J. Williams, B. Winder, C. T. Christophersen, S. L. Rodgers, and K. D. Smith. 2004. Molecular diversity of rumen methanogens from sheep in Western Australia. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.70:1263-1270.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    Yu, Y., C. Lee, J. Kim, and S. Hwang. 2005. Group-specific primer and probe sets to detect methanogenic communities using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Biotechnol. Bioeng.89:670-679.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Identification and Quantification of Methanogenic Archaea in Adult Chicken Ceca
Suwat Saengkerdsub, Robin C. Anderson, Heather H. Wilkinson, Woo-Kyun Kim, David J. Nisbet, Steven C. Ricke
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Dec 2006, 73 (1) 353-356; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01931-06

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Applied and Environmental Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Identification and Quantification of Methanogenic Archaea in Adult Chicken Ceca
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Applied and Environmental Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Identification and Quantification of Methanogenic Archaea in Adult Chicken Ceca
Suwat Saengkerdsub, Robin C. Anderson, Heather H. Wilkinson, Woo-Kyun Kim, David J. Nisbet, Steven C. Ricke
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Dec 2006, 73 (1) 353-356; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01931-06
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • Nucleotide sequence accession numbers.
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Archaea
cecum
chickens
methane

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AEM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AppEnvMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

 

Print ISSN: 0099-2240; Online ISSN: 1098-5336