MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416788447 · doi:10.1128/aem.01033-25

Investigating the antimethanogenic effects of selected nitro-compounds on methane production, rumen fermentation, and methanogenic archaea <i>in vitro</i>

2025· article· en· W4416788447 on OpenAlexafffund
Alicia Castañeda, Nagaraju Indugu, Krishna Challa, Kapil Singh Narayan, Alexa M. Johnson, Darko Stefanovski, Terry Webb, Xin Zhao, Dipti Pitta

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied and Environmental Microbiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureMcGill UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsPropionateRumenFermentationMethanogenesisButyrateArchaeaMethaneNitrateMethanomicrobiales

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Enteric methane emissions (EME) cause adverse environmental effects and energy losses to the host. Given the potent antimethanogenic effects of the nitro compounds (NC) ethyl-nitroacetate (ENA), ethyl-2-nitropropionate (ENP), and nitrate (NO₃⁻), we hypothesized that they could effectively mitigate EME. Phase 1 determined dose responses of each NC, identified optimal doses, and evaluated their effects on gaseous composition, rumen fermentation, and bacterial-archaea populations. ENA and ENP tested at 8 and 16 mM inhibited CH 4 production by 100%, whereas NO₃⁻ tested at 12 and 24 mM reduced CH 4 production by 72%. However, the amount of spared H 2 differed among NC, revealing differential effects on fermentation pathways. ENA increased propionate and butyrate concentrations at the expense of acetate, whereas ENP slightly reduced acetate and modestly increased propionate at 24 h post-incubation. NO₃⁻ acted as an alternative H 2 sink without changing fermentation end products. The overall methanogenic community was not altered, but each NC differentially reduced the abundance of Methanobrevibacter ruminantium M1, Methanosphaera stadtmanae , and the methanogenic archaeon ISO4-H5. ENA greatly altered the bacterial profiles, followed by ENP and NO₃⁻. Phase 2 investigated the impact of NC (0–1.25 mM) on M. stadtmanae cultures at 24 and 48 h post-incubation. The findings aligned with phase 1, confirming reduced CH 4 production and H 2 flux dynamics. ENA and ENP inhibited M. stadtmanae growth and CH 4 production at all tested doses, whereas NO₃⁻ was effective at concentrations above 0.75 mM. These results highlight distinct mechanisms for CH 4 mitigation, warranting further studies on additional methanogenic species to refine mitigation strategies. IMPORTANCE EME signify detrimental environmental impacts and constitutes an energy loss for the host. ENA, ENP, and NO₃⁻ showed distinct antimethanogenic effects, resulting in varied impacts on gas composition, rumen fermentation, and bacterial-archaea populations. ENA exerted the strongest and most direct inhibitory effect on methanogenesis, leading to notable changes in H 2 and VFA accumulations and archaeal populations. Although ENP completely inhibited CH 4 production, it resulted in low H 2 accumulations, suggesting an indirect effect and a dose-dependent modulation of fermentation pathways. NO₃⁻ produced a moderate reduction in CH 4 output by diverting H 2 toward NH 3 production while maintaining fermentation stability. M. stadtmanae cultures verified that ENA, ENP, and NO₃⁻ have distinct mechanisms of action, thereby affecting methanogenesis differently. These findings highlight the potential of nitro-compounds for CH 4 reduction, underscoring the need for in vivo validation alongside detailed multi-omics analyses to fully understand their effects on rumen microbiota and metabolic networks.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied and Environmental Microbiology→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→