1 Cockrill, W. R., Fao, R. & AGA. The husbandry and health of the domestic buffalo. Tropical Animal Health & Production 7 (1975).
2 Scherf, B. & Scherf, B. World watch list for domestic animal diversity. World Watch List for Domestic Animal Diversity (2000).
3 Tanaka, K., Solis, C. D., Masangkay, J. S., Maeda, K. I. & Namikawa, T. Phylogenetic relationship among all living species of the genusBubalus based on DNA sequences of the cytochromeb gene. Biochemical Genetics 34, 443-452 (1996).
4 Kumar, S. et al. Mitochondrial DNA analyses of Indian water buffalo support a distinct genetic origin of river and swamp buffalo. Animal Genetics (2007).
5 Cockrill, W. R., Fao, R., Campaign, S. & Aga. The buffaloes of China. XF2006131266 (1978).
6 Lei, Y., Zhang, K., Guo, M., Li, G. & Wang, X. Exploring the Spatial-Temporal Microbiota of Compound Stomachs in a Pre-weaned Goat Model. Frontiers in Microbiology 9 (2018).
7 Batista, H. A. M., Autrey, K. M. & Von Tiesenhausen, I. M. E. V. Comparative In Vitro Digestibility of Forages by Buffalo, Zebu, and Holstein Cattle. Journal of Dairy ence 65, 746-748 (1982).
8 Sommer, F. & Bckhed, F. The gut microbiota — masters of host development and physiology. Nature Reviews Microbiology.
9 Burnet, M. C. et al. Evaluating Models of Cellulose Degradation by Fibrobacter succinogenes S85. PLoS One 10, e0143809, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143809 (2015).
10 Raut, M. P., Couto, N., Karunakaran, E., Biggs, C. A. & Wright, P. C. Deciphering the unique cellulose degradation mechanism of the ruminal bacterium Fibrobacter succinogenes S85. Sci Rep 9, 16542, doi:10.1038/s41598-019-52675-8 (2019).
11 Neumann, A. P. & Suen, G. The Phylogenomic Diversity of Herbivore-Associated Fibrobacter spp. Is Correlated to Lignocellulose-Degrading Potential. mSphere 3, doi:10.1128/mSphere.00593-18 (2018).
12 Palevich, N. et al. Comparative Genomics of Rumen <em>Butyrivibrio</em> spp. Uncovers a Continuum of Polysaccharide-Degrading Capabilities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 86, e01993-01919, doi:10.1128/aem.01993-19 (2019).
13 Anju, K. et al. Impact of levels of total digestible nutrients on microbiome, enzyme profile and degradation of feeds in buffalo rumen. Plos One 12, e0172051 (2017).
14 Hongbin et al. Microbial and metabolic alterations in gut microbiota of sows during pregnancy and lactation. Faseb Journal Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (2019).
15 Derakhshani, H. et al. Linking Peripartal Dynamics of Ruminal Microbiota to Dietary Changes and Production Parameters. Frontiers in Microbiology 7, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.02143 (2017).
16 Vargas, J. E. et al. Effect of Sunflower and Marine Oils on Ruminal Microbiota, In vitro Fermentation and Digesta Fatty Acid Profile. Frontiers in Microbiology 8, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.01124 (2017).
17 Chen, T. et al. Fiber-utilizing capacity varies in Prevotella- versus Bacteroides-dominated gut microbiota. Scientific Reports 7, 2594, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02995-4 (2017).
18 Stanislawski, M. A., Dabelea, D., Lange, L. A., Wagner, B. D. & Lozupone, C. A. Gut microbiota phenotypes of obesity. npj Biofilms and Microbiomes 5, 18, doi:10.1038/s41522-019-0091-8 (2019).
19 De Vadder, F. et al. Microbiota-Produced Succinate Improves Glucose Homeostasis via Intestinal Gluconeogenesis. Cell Metabolism 24, 151-157, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2016.06.013 (2016).
20 Rubino, F. et al. Divergent functional isoforms drive niche specialisation for nutrient acquisition and use in rumen microbiome. The ISME Journal 11, 932-944, doi:10.1038/ismej.2016.172 (2017).
21 Zhang, Q. et al. Bayesian modeling reveals host genetics associated with rumen microbiota jointly influence methane emission in dairy cows. The ISME Journal 14 (2020).
22 Kamke, J. et al. Rumen metagenome and metatranscriptome analyses of low methane yield sheep reveals a Sharpea -enriched microbiome characterised by lactic acid formation and utilisation. Microbiome 4, 1-16 (2016).
23 Borrel, G., Brugère, J.-F., Gribaldo, S., Schmitz, R. A. & Moissl-Eichinger, C. The host-associated archaeome. Nature Reviews Microbiology 18, 622-636, doi:10.1038/s41579-020-0407-y (2020).
24 Misiukiewicz, A. et al. Review: Methanogens and methane production in the digestive systems of nonruminant farm animals. Animal 15, 100060, doi:10.1016/j.animal.2020.100060 (2020).
25 Zhang, J., Xu, C., Huo, D., Hu, Q. & Peng, Q. Comparative study of the gut microbiome potentially related to milk protein in Murrah buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) and Chinese Holstein cattle. Sci Rep 7, 42189, doi:10.1038/srep42189 (2017).
26 Matthews, C. et al. The rumen microbiome: a crucial consideration when optimising milk and meat production and nitrogen utilisation efficiency. Gut Microbes 10, 115-132, doi:10.1080/19490976.2018.1505176 (2019).
27 Moraïs, S. & Mizrahi, I. The Road Not Taken: The Rumen Microbiome, Functional Groups, and Community States. Trends in Microbiology 27, 538-549, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2018.12.011 (2019).
28 Stewart, R. D. et al. Assembly of 913 microbial genomes from metagenomic sequencing of the cow rumen. Nature Communications 9, 870, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03317-6 (2018).
29 Mingyuan et al. Assessment of rumen microbiota from a large cattle cohort reveals the pan and core bacteriome contributing to varied phenotypes. Applied and environmental microbiology (2018).
30 Franco-Lopez, J., Duplessis, M., Bui, A., Reymond, C. & Ronholm, J. Correlations between the Composition of the Bovine Microbiota and Vitamin B 12 Abundance. mSystems 5 (2020).
31 Stewart, R. D. et al. Compendium of 4,941 rumen metagenome-assembled genomes for rumen microbiome biology and enzyme discovery. Nat Biotechnol 37, 953-961, doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0202-3 (2019).
32 Zebeli, Q., Ghareeb, K., Humer, E., Metzler-Zebeli, B. U. & Besenfelder, U. Nutrition, rumen health and inflammation in the transition period and their role on overall health and fertility in dairy cows. Res Vet Sci 103, 126-136, doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2015.09.020 (2015).
33 Stuart et al. Metagenomic analysis of the rumen microbial community following inhibition of methane formation by a halogenated methane analog. Frontiers in Microbiology (2015).
34 Cremonesi, P. et al. Evaluation of the effects of different diets on microbiome diversity and fatty acid composition of rumen liquor in dairy goat. Animal, 1-11 (2018).
35 Kyung-Tai et al. Metagenomic mining and functional characterization of a novel KG51 bifunctional cellulase/hemicellulase from black goat rumen. Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry (2018).
36 Peng, X. et al. Genomic and functional analyses of fungal and bacterial consortia that enable lignocellulose breakdown in goat gut microbiomes. Nat Microbiol, doi:10.1038/s41564-020-00861-0 (2021).
37 Arumugam, M. et al. Enterotypes of the human gut microbiome. Nature 473, 174-180, doi:10.1038/nature09944 (2011).
38 Wu, S. et al. GMrepo: a database of curated and consistently annotated human gut metagenomes. Nucleic Acids Res 48, D545-D553, doi:10.1093/nar/gkz764 (2020).
39 Pedersen, H. K. et al. Human gut microbes impact host serum metabolome and insulin sensitivity. Nature 535, 376-381, doi:10.1038/nature18646 (2016).
40 Qin, J. et al. A metagenome-wide association study of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes. Nature 490, 55-60, doi:10.1038/nature11450 (2012).
41 Li, J. et al. Gut microbiota dysbiosis contributes to the development of hypertension. Microbiome 5, 14, doi:10.1186/s40168-016-0222-x (2017).
42 Wirbel, J. et al. Meta-analysis of fecal metagenomes reveals global microbial signatures that are specific for colorectal cancer. Nat Med 25, 679-689, doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0406-6 (2019).
43 Dai, D., Wang, T., Wu, S., Gao, N. L. & Chen, W. H. Metabolic Dependencies Underlie Interaction Patterns of Gut Microbiota During Enteropathogenesis. Frontiers in microbiology 10, 1205, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2019.01205 (2019).
44 Stewart, C. J. et al. Temporal development of the gut microbiome in early childhood from the TEDDY study. Nature 562, 583-588, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0617-x (2018).
45 Pronovost, G. N. & Hsiao, E. Y. Perinatal Interactions between the Microbiome, Immunity, and Neurodevelopment. Immunity 50, 18-36, doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2018.11.016 (2019).
46 Forslund, K. et al. Disentangling type 2 diabetes and metformin treatment signatures in the human gut microbiota. Nature 528, 262-266, doi:10.1038/nature15766 (2015).
47 Routy, B. et al. Gut microbiome influences efficacy of PD-1-based immunotherapy against epithelial tumors. Science 359, 91-97, doi:10.1126/science.aan3706 (2018).
48 Jiang, P., Lai, S., Wu, S., Zhao, X.-M. & Chen, W.-H. Host DNA contents in fecal metagenomics as a biomarker for intestinal diseases and effective treatment. BMC Genomics 21, 348, doi:10.1186/s12864-020-6749-z (2020).
49 Stewart, R. D. et al. Assembly of 913 microbial genomes from metagenomic sequencing of the cow rumen. Nature Communications 9 (2018).
50 Xiao, L. et al. A reference gene catalogue of the pig gut microbiome. Nature Microbiology 1, 16161 (2016).
51 Chen, C. et al. Expanded catalog of microbial genes and metagenome-assembled genomes from the pig gut microbiome. Nature communications 12, 1106, doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21295-0 (2021).
52 Xiao, L. et al. A catalog of the mouse gut metagenome. Nat Biotechnol 33, 1103-1108, doi:10.1038/nbt.3353 (2015).
53 Lavrinienko, A., Tukalenko, E., Mousseau, T. A., Thompson, L. R. & Watts, P. C. Two hundred and fifty-four metagenome-assembled bacterial genomes from the bank vole gut microbiota. entific Data 7 (2020).
54 Huang, P. et al. The chicken gut metagenome and the modulatory effects of plant-derived benzylisoquinoline alkaloids. Microbiome 6, 211, doi:10.1186/s40168-018-0590-5 (2018).
55 Maki, J. J., Bobeck, E. A., Sylte, M. J. & Looft, T. Eggshell and environmental bacteria contribute to the intestinal microbiota of growing chickens. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 11, 60, doi:10.1186/s40104-020-00459-w (2020).
56 Jian, X., Zhu, Y., Ouyang, J., Lei, Q. & Zhou, W. Alterations of Gut Microbiome Accelerate Multiple Myeloma Progression By Increasing the Relative Abundances of Nitrogen Recycling Bacteria. Blood 134, 688-688 (2019).
57 Ridaura, V. K. et al. Gut microbiota from twins discordant for obesity modulate metabolism in mice. Science 341, 1241214, doi:10.1126/science.1241214 (2013).
58 Nurk, S., Meleshko, D., Korobeynikov, A. & Pevzner, P. A. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res 27, 824-834, doi:10.1101/gr.213959.116 (2017).
59 Li, D., Liu, C. M., Luo, R., Sadakane, K. & Lam, T. W. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 31, 1674-1676, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btv033 (2015).
60 Olm, M. R., Brown, C. T., Brooks, B. & Banfield, J. F. dRep: a tool for fast and accurate genomic comparisons that enables improved genome recovery from metagenomes through de-replication. Isme J 11, 2864-2868, doi:10.1038/ismej.2017.126 (2017).
61 Parks, D. H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C. T., Hugenholtz, P. & Tyson, G. W. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res 25, 1043-1055, doi:10.1101/gr.186072.114 (2015).
62 Parks, D. H. et al. Recovery of nearly 8,000 metagenome-assembled genomes substantially expands the tree of life (vol 2, pg 1533, 2017). Nature Microbiology 3, 253-253, doi:10.1038/s41564-017-0083-5 (2018).
63 Seshadri, R. et al. Cultivation and sequencing of rumen microbiome members from the Hungate1000 Collection. Nat Biotechnol 36, 359-367, doi:10.1038/nbt.4110 (2018).
64 Bowers, R. M. et al. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome- assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea (vol 35, pg 725, 2017). Nature Biotechnology 36, 660-660, doi:DOI 10.1038/nbt0718-660a (2018).
65 Almeida, A. et al. A unified sequence catalogue of over 280,000 genomes obtained from the human gut microbiome. (2019).
66 Xiao, L. et al. A reference gene catalogue of the pig gut microbiome. Nat Microbiol 1, 16161, doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.161 (2016).
67 Chaumeil, P. A., Mussig, A. J., Hugenholtz, P. & Parks, D. H. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btz848 (2019).
68 Quinlan, A. R. & Hall, I. M. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics 26, 841-842, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033 (2010).
69 Allison, M. J., Mayberry, W. R., Mcsweeney, C. S. & Stahl, D. A. Synergistes jonesii, gen. nov., sp.nov.: A Rumen Bacterium That Degrades Toxic Pyridinediols. System.appl.microbiol 15, 522-529 (1992).
70 Chiang, E. et al. Verrucomicrobia are prevalent in north-temperate freshwater lakes and display class-level preferences between lake habitats (vol 13, e0195112, 2018). Plos One 13, doi:ARTN e0206396
10.1371/journal.pone.0206396 (2018).
71 Turnbaugh, P. J. et al. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature 444, 1027-1031, doi:10.1038/nature05414 (2006).
72 Ley, R. E., Turnbaugh, P. J., Klein, S. & Gordon, J. I. Microbial ecology: human gut microbes associated with obesity. Nature 444, 1022-1023, doi:10.1038/4441022a (2006).
73 Jami, E., White, B. A. & Mizrahi, I. Potential role of the bovine rumen microbiome in modulating milk composition and feed efficiency. Plos One 9, e85423, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085423 (2014).
74 Jewell, K. A., McCormick, C. A., Odt, C. L., Weimer, P. J. & Suen, G. Ruminal Bacterial Community Composition in Dairy Cows Is Dynamic over the Course of Two Lactations and Correlates with Feed Efficiency. Appl Environ Microb 81, 4697-4710, doi:10.1128/Aem.00720-15 (2015).
75 Lima, F. S., Oikonomou, G., Lima, S. F., Bicalho, M. L. S. & Bicalho, R. C. Prepartum and Postpartum Rumen Fluid Microbiomes: Characterization and Correlation with Production Traits in Dairy Cows. Appl Environ Microb 81, 1327-1337 (2014).
76 Flint, H. J. & Stewart, C. S. in Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology (ed Richard K. Robinson) 198-203 (Elsevier, 1999).
77 Bandarupalli, V. V. K. & St-Pierre, B. Identification of a Candidate Starch Utilizing Strain of Prevotella albensis from Bovine Rumen. Microorganisms 8, doi:10.3390/microorganisms8122005 (2020).
78 Avgustin, G., Wallace Rj Fau - Flint, H. J. & Flint, H. J. Phenotypic diversity among ruminal isolates of Prevotella ruminicola: proposal of Prevotella brevis sp. nov., Prevotella bryantii sp. nov., and Prevotella albensis sp. nov. and redefinition of Prevotella ruminicola.
79 Ransom-Jones, E., Jones, D. L., McCarthy, A. J. & McDonald, J. E. The Fibrobacteres: an important phylum of cellulose-degrading bacteria. Microb Ecol 63, 267-281, doi:10.1007/s00248-011-9998-1 (2012).
80 Brown, D. W. & Moore, W. E. C. Distribution of Butyrivibrio Fibrisolvens in Nature. Journal of Dairy ence 43, 1570-1574 (1960).
81 Wang, Q. et al. A comparative study on rumen ecology of water buffalo and cattle calves under similar feeding regime. Vet Med Sci 6, 746-754, doi:10.1002/vms3.302 (2020).
82 Prins, R. A., Hungate, R. E. & Prast, E. R. Function of the omasum in several ruminant species. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology 43, 155-163, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(72)90477-X (1972).
83 Fu, L., Niu, B., Zhu, Z., Wu, S. & Li, W. CD-HIT: accelerated for clustering the next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 28, 3150-3152, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bts565 (2012).
84 Huerta-Cepas, J. et al. eggNOG 4.5: a hierarchical orthology framework with improved functional annotations for eukaryotic, prokaryotic and viral sequences. Nucleic Acids Research 44, D286-D293, doi:10.1093/nar/gkv1248 (2016).
85 Huerta-Cepas, J. et al. Fast Genome-Wide Functional Annotation through Orthology Assignment by eggNOG-Mapper. Mol Biol Evol 34, 2115-2122, doi:10.1093/molbev/msx148 (2017).
86 Cantarel, B. L. et al. The Carbohydrate-Active EnZymes database (CAZy): an expert resource for Glycogenomics. Nucleic Acids Res 37, D233-238, doi:10.1093/nar/gkn663 (2009).
87 Zhang, H. et al. dbCAN2: a meta server for automated carbohydrate-active enzyme annotation. Nucleic Acids Res 46, W95-W101, doi:10.1093/nar/gky418 (2018).
88 McCann, J. C., Wickersham, T. A. & Loor, J. J. High-throughput Methods Redefine the Rumen Microbiome and Its Relationship with Nutrition and Metabolism. Bioinform Biol Insights 8, 109-125, doi:10.4137/BBI.S15389 (2014).
89 Bolger, A. M., Marc, L. & Bjoern, U. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114-2120 (2014).
90 Luo, X. et al. Understanding divergent domestication traits from the whole-genome sequencing of swamp- and river-buffalo populations. National Science Review 7, 686-701, doi:10.1093/nsr/nwaa024 (2020).
91 Shen, Y. et al. Update soybean Zhonghuang 13 genome to a golden reference. Sci China Life Sci 62, 1257-1260, doi:10.1007/s11427-019-9822-2 (2019).
92 Jiao, Y. et al. Improved maize reference genome with single-molecule technologies. Nature 546, 524-527, doi:10.1038/nature22971 (2017).
93 Tang, H. et al. An improved genome release (version Mt4.0) for the model legume Medicago truncatula. BMC Genomics 15, 312, doi:10.1186/1471-2164-15-312 (2014).
94 Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 9, 357-359, doi:10.1038/nmeth.1923 (2012).
95 Kang, D. D. et al. MetaBAT 2: an adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies. PeerJ 7, e7359, doi:10.7717/peerj.7359 (2019).
96 Li, H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. ArXiv 1303 (2013).
97 Li, H. et al. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078-2079, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 (2009).
98 Asnicar, F., Weingart, G., Tickle, T. L., Huttenhower, C. & Segata, N. Compact graphical representation of phylogenetic data and metadata with GraPhlAn. PeerJ 3, e1029, doi:10.7717/peerj.1029 (2015).
99 Hyatt, D. et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics 11, 119, doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-119 (2010).