Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Sep;100(9):7246-7261.
doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-12647. Epub 2017 Jul 12.

Ratio of dietary rumen degradable protein to rumen undegradable protein affects nitrogen partitioning but does not affect the bovine milk proteome produced by mid-lactation Holstein dairy cows

Affiliations

Ratio of dietary rumen degradable protein to rumen undegradable protein affects nitrogen partitioning but does not affect the bovine milk proteome produced by mid-lactation Holstein dairy cows

R Tacoma et al. J Dairy Sci. 2017 Sep.

Abstract

Little is known about the bovine milk proteome or whether it can be affected by diet. The objective of this study was to determine if the dietary rumen degradable protein (RDP):rumen undegradable protein (RUP) ratio could alter the bovine milk proteome. Six Holstein cows (parity: 2.5 ± 0.8) in mid lactation were blocked by days in milk (80 ± 43 d in milk) and milk yield (57.5 ± 6.0 kg) and randomly assigned to treatment groups. The experiment was conducted as a double-crossover design consisting of three 21-d periods. Within each period, treatment groups received diets with either (1) a high RDP:RUP ratio (RDP treatment: 62.4:37.6% of crude protein) or (2) a low RDP:RUP ratio (RUP treatment: 51.3:48.7% of crude protein). Both diets were isonitrogenous and isoenergetic (crude protein: 18.5%, net energy for lactation: 1.8 Mcal/kg of dry matter). To confirm N and energy status of cows, dry matter intake was determined daily, rumen fluid samples were collected for volatile fatty acid analysis, blood samples were collected for plasma glucose, β-hydroxybutyrate, urea nitrogen, and fatty acid analysis, and total 24-h urine and fecal samples were collected for N analysis. Milk samples were collected to determine the general milk composition and the protein profile. Milk samples collected for high-abundance protein analysis were subjected to HPLC analysis to determine the content of α-casein, β-casein, and κ-casein, as well as α-lactalbumin and β-lactoglobulin. Samples collected for low-abundance protein analysis were fractionated, enriched using ProteoMiner treatment, and separated using sodium dodecyl sulfate-PAGE. After excision and digestion, the peptides were analyzed using liquid chromatography (LC) tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). The LC-MS/MS data were analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX of SAS (version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and adjusted using the MULTTEST procedure. All other parameters were analyzed using PROC MIXED of SAS. No treatment differences were observed in dry matter intake, milk yield, general milk composition, plasma parameters, or rumen volatile fatty acid concentrations, indicating no shift in total energy or protein available. Milk urea N and plasma urea N concentrations were higher in the RDP group, indicating some shift in N partitioning due to diet. A total of 595 milk proteins were identified, with 83% of these proteins known to be involved in cellular processes. Although none of the low-abundance proteins identified by LC-MS/MS were affected by diet, feeding a diet high in RUP decreased β-casein, κ-casein, and total milk casein concentration. Further investigations of the interactions between diet and the milk protein profile are needed to manipulate the milk proteome using diet.

Keywords: bioactive; low-abundance protein; milk protein; proteomics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Barber DG, Houlihan AV, Lynch FC, and Poppi DP 2005. The influence of nutrition, genotype and stage of lactation on milk casein composition. Pages 203–216 in Indicators of Milk and Beef Quality Hocquette JF and Gigli S, ed. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
    1. Bionaz M, and Loor JJ 2011. Gene networks driving bovine mam-mary protein synthesis during the lactation cycle. Bioinform. Biol. Insights 5:83–98. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boehmer JL, Ward JL, Peters RR, Shefcheck KJ, Mc-Farland MA, and Bannerman DD 2010b. Proteomic analysis of the temporal expression of bovine milk proteins during coliform masti-tis and label-free relative quantification. J. Dairy Sci 93:593–603. - PubMed
    1. Bordin G, Raposo FC, de la Calle B, and Rodriguez AR 2001. Identification and quantification of major bovine milk proteins by liquid chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 928:63–76. 10.1016/S0021-9673(01)01097-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brito AF, and Broderick GA 2007. Effects of different protein supplements on milk production and nutrient utilization in lactat-ing dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci 90:1816–1827. - PubMed