首页> 外文期刊>Ecology and Evolution >Are there phylogenetic differences in salivary tannin‐binding proteins between browsers and grazers, and ruminants and hindgut fermenters?
【24h】

Are there phylogenetic differences in salivary tannin‐binding proteins between browsers and grazers, and ruminants and hindgut fermenters?

机译:在浏览器和格拉泽之间的唾液单宁结合蛋白质和反刍动物和后肠发酵罐是否有系统发育差异?

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

While feeding, mammalian browsers (primarily eat woody plants) encounter secondary metabolites such as tannins. Browsers may bind these tannins using salivary proteins, whereas mammalian grazers (primarily eat grasses that generally lack tannins) likely would not. Ruminant browsers rechew their food (ruminate) to increase the effectiveness of digestion, which may make them more effective at binding tannins than nonruminants. Few studies have included a sufficient number of species to consider possible scaling with body mass or phylogenetic effects on salivary proteins. Controlling for phylogeny, we ran inhibition radial diffusion assays of the saliva of 28 species of African herbivores that varied in size, feeding strategy, and digestive system. We could not detect the presence of salivary proline‐rich proteins that bind tannins in any of these species. However, using the inhibition radial diffusion assay, we found considerable abilities to cope with tannins in all species, albeit to varying degrees. We found no differences between browsers and grazers in the effectiveness of their salivary proteins to bind to and precipitate tannins, nor between ruminants and nonruminants, or scaling with body mass. Three species bound all tannins, but their feeding niches included one browser (gray duiker), one mixed feeder (bush pig), and one grazer (red hartebeest). Five closely related species of small ruminant browsers were very effective in binding tannins. Megaherbivores, considered generalists on account of their large body size, were capable of binding tannins. However, the grazing white rhinoceros was almost as effective at binding tannins as the megaherbivore browsers. We conclude, contrary to earlier predictions, that there were no differences in the relative salivary tannin‐binding capability that was related to common ancestry (phylogeny) or to differences in body size.
机译:喂养时,哺乳动物浏览器(主要吃木质植物)遇到次生代谢物,如单宁。浏览器可以使用唾液蛋白染色这些单宁,而哺乳动物的格拉泽(主要吃一般缺乏单宁的草)可能不会。反刍动物浏览器能够重新充值他们的食物(响铃)以增加消化的有效性,这可能使它们在结合单宁而不是硝酸酯。少数研究包括足够数量的物种,以考虑具有对唾液蛋白的体重或系统肿块或系统发育作用的缩放。控制系统发育,我们在规模,饲养策略和消化系统中变化的28种非洲异草病唾液的抑制径向扩散测定。我们无法检测到富含唾液脯氨酸的蛋白质,其在任何这些物种中结合单宁。然而,使用抑制径向扩散测定,我们发现应对所有物种的单宁,尽管不同程度,但我们发现了相当大的能力。我们在唾液蛋白质的有效性中发现了浏览器和格拉泽之间的差异,以结合和沉淀单宁,也不是反刍动物和脱脂剂,或用体重缩放。三种物种束缚所有单宁,但他们的饲料德基斯包括一个浏览器(灰色Duiker),一个混合喂食器(灌木猪)和一个Grazer(Red Hartebe)。五种密切相关的小型反刍动物浏览器在结合单宁非常有效。 Megaherbivores,考虑到其体积大的体型,考虑到一般主义者,能够结合单宁。然而,放牧白色犀牛几乎与绑定单宁一样有效,作为Megaherbivore浏览器。与前面的预测相反,我们得出结论,与常见的血症(系统发生)或身体尺寸的差异有关的相对唾液单宁结合能力没有差异。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号