Effects of forage type on diversity in bacterial pellets isolated from liquid and solid phases of the rumen content in sheep and goats.

Two sheep and two goats, fitted with a ruminal cannula, received two diets composed of 30% concentrate and 70% of either alfalfa hay (AL) or grass hay (GR) as forage in a two-period crossover design. Solid and liquid phases of the rumen were sampled from each animal immediately before feeding and 4 h post-feeding. Pellets containing solid associated bacteria (SAB) and liquid associated bacteria (LAB) were isolated from the corresponding ruminal phase and composited by time to obtain 2 pellets per animal (one SAB and one LAB) before DNA extraction. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) analysis of 16S ribosomal DNA was used to analyze bacterial diversity. A total of 78 and 77 bands were detected in the DGGE gel from sheep and goats samples, respectively. There were 18 bands only found in the pellets from sheep fed AL-fed sheep and 7 found exclusively in samples from sheep fed the GR diet. In goats, 21 bands were found only in animals fed the AL diet and 17 were found exclusively in GR-fed ones. In all animals, feeding AL diet tended (P < 0.10) to promote greater NB and SI in LAB and SAB pellets compared with the GR diet. The dendrogram generated by the cluster analysis showed that in both animal species all samples can be included in two major clusters. The four SAB pellets within each animal species clustered together and the four LAB pellets grouped in a different cluster. Moreover, SAB and LAB clusters contained two clear subclusters according to forage type. Results show that in all animals bacterial diversity was more markedly affected by the ruminal phase (solid vs. liquid) than by the type of forage in the diet.

Quantifying Reproducibility in Computational Biology: The Case of the Tuberculosis Drugome

How easy is it to reproduce the results found in a typical computational biology paper? Either through experience or intuition the reader will already know that the answer is with difficulty or not at all. In this paper we attempt to quantify this difficulty by reproducing a previously published paper for different classes of users (ranging from users with little expertise to domain experts) and suggest ways in which the situation might be improved. Quantification is achieved by estimating the time required to reproduce each of the steps in the method described in the original paper and make them part of an explicit workflow that reproduces the original results. Reproducing the method took several months of effort, and required using new versions and new software that posed challenges to reconstructing and validating the results. The quantification leads to “reproducibility maps” that reveal that novice researchers would only be able to reproduce a few of the steps in the method, and that only expert researchers with advance knowledge of the domain would be able to reproduce the method in its entirety. The workflow itself is published as an online resource together with supporting software and data. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the complexities of requiring reproducibility in terms of cost versus benefit, and a desiderata with our observations and guidelines for improving reproducibility. This has implications not only in reproducing the work of others from published papers, but reproducing work from one’s own laboratory.