Advertisement

Lactobacillus reuteri KT260178 Supplementation Reduced Morbidity of Piglets Through Its Targeted Colonization, Improvement of Cecal Microbiota Profile, and Immune Functions

  • Jiajun Yang
  • Chonglong WangEmail author
  • Linqing Liu
  • Minhong Zhang
Article

Abstract

Supplementing suckling piglets with Lactobacillus reuteri isolated from a homologous source improves L. reuteri colonization number in the gastrointestinal tract, which can have health benefits. This study investigated dietary L. reuteri supplementation on the growth and health—including immune status—of piglets, as well as its colonization. A total of 60 sows with similar parity and body weight were allocated into one of three groups after secretion (n = 20 each, with 10 neonatal piglets of each): untreated control, L. reuteri supplementation, and antibiotic treatment. The experimental duration was 28 days, from birth of piglets to their group transferred. For the first 7 days after birth, all neonatal piglets were fed by sows. Piglets in the L. reuteri supplementation group were administered with 1.0 ml L. reuteri fermentation broth containing 5.0 × 107 CFU. From 7 to 28 days, piglets were given basal feed (control), basal feed supplemented with L. reuteri (1.0 × 107 CFU/g), or aureomycin (150 mg/kg). L. reuteri colonization in the distal jejunum and ileum was increased in piglets in the L. reuteri-supplemented as compared to the control group after 28 days, as determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization and real-time PCR analysis. Total Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium counts in the cecum were higher whereas total aerobic bacteria (Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus) counts were lower in the L. reuteri as compared to the control group. L. reuteri supplementation also improved body antioxidant status and immune function relative to control animals. Strain-specific L. reuteri administered to piglets colonizes the intestinal mucosa and improves cecal microbiota profile and whole-body antioxidant and immune status, leading to better growth and lower morbidity and mortality rates.

Keywords

Lactobacillus reuteri Strain-specific Piglet Colonization Nutrition 

Notes

Author Contributions

JY designed the study, isolated and cultured L. reuteri yjj, fed the piglets and recorded the growth data, wrote the paper, established the qRT-PCR assay; LL and CW measured the mRNA levels, and HZ was involved in technical direction. CW and MZ had primary responsibility for the final content.

Funding Information

The work was sponsored by the fund of Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences Key Laboratory Project (No.:18S0404), natural science foundation of Anhui province (No. 1708085QC72), State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition (No. 2004D125184f1703), and Anhui Science and Technology Key Project (No. 17030701008) and Key Laboratory of Safety.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. The experimental guidelines, the treatment, housing, and husbandry conditions conformed to Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of China. The experimental protocols in this study including animal husbandry and slaughter were approved by the Institution of Animal Science and Welfare of Anhui Province (no. IASWAP20170685).

Consent for Publication

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Niu Q, Li P, Hao S, Zhang Y, Kim SW, Li H, Ma X, Gao S, He L, Wu W, Huang X (2015) Dynamic distribution of the gut microbiota and the relationship with apparent crude fiber digestibility and growth stages in pigs. Sci Rep 5:9938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang JJ, Qian K, Wu D, Zhang W, Wu YJ, Xu YY (2017) Effects of different proportions of two bacillus strains on the growth performance, small intestinal morphology, caecal microbiota and plasma biochemical profile of Chinese Huainan partridge shank chickens. J Integr Agric 16:1383–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, Morelli L, Canani RB, Flint HJ, Salminen S, Calder PC, Sanders ME (2014) Expert consensus document. The international scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 11:506–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rycroft CE, Jones RM, Gibson GR, Rastall RA (2001) A comparative in vitro evaluation of the fermentation properties of prebiotic oligosaccharides. J Appl Microbiol 91:878–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Corr SC, Li Y, Riedel CU, O’Toole PW, Hill C, Gahan CG (2007) Bacteriocin production as a mechanism for the antiinfective activity of Lactobacillus salivarius UCC118. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:7617–7621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yan F, Cao H, Cover TL, Whitehead R, Washington MK, Polk DB (2007) Soluble proteins produced by probiotic bacteria regulate intestinal epithelial cell survival and growth. Gastroenterology 132:562–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kamada N, Chen GY, Inohara N, Nunez G (2013) Control of pathogens and pathobionts by the gut microbiota. Nat Immunol 14:685–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Louis P, Scott KP, Duncan SH, Flint HJ (2007) Understanding the effects of diet on bacterial metabolism in the large intestine. J Appl Microbiol 102:1197–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hooper LV, Macpherson AJ (2010) Immune adaptations that maintain homeostasis with the intestinal microbiota. Nat Rev Immunol 10:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhao S, Liu W, Wang J, Shi J, Sun Y, Wang W, Ning G, Liu R, Hong J (2017) Akkermansia muciniphila improves metabolic profiles by reducing inflammation in chow diet-fed mice. J Mol Endocrinol 58:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wells JM, Rossi O, Meijerink M, van Baarlen P (2011) Epithelial crosstalk at the microbiota–mucosal interface. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:4607–4614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sattler VA, Mohnl M, Klose V (2014) Development of a strain-specific real-time PCR assay for enumeration of a probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri in chicken feed and intestine. PLoS One 9:e90208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rinttila T, Kassinen A, Malinen E, Krogius L, Palva A (2004) Development of an extensive set of 16S rDNA-targeted primers for quantification of pathogenic and indigenous bacteria in faecal samples by real-time PCR. J Appl Microbiol 7:1166–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Martinis EC, Duvall RE, Hitchins AD (2007) Real-time PCR detection of 16S rRNA genes speeds most-probable-number enumeration of foodborne listeria monocytogenes. J Food Prot 70:1650–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tajima K, Aminov RI, Nagamine T, Matsui H, Nakamura M, Benno Y (2001) Diet dependent shifts in the bacterial population of the rumen revealed with real-time PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:2766–2774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang JJ, Qian K, Wang CL, Wu YJ (2018) Roles of probiotic Lactobacilli inclusion in helping piglets establish healthy intestinal inter-environment for pathogen defense. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 2:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brown RF, Jugg BJ, Harbanm FM, Ashley Z, Kenward CE, Platt J, Hill A, Rice P, Watkins PE (2002) Pathophysiological responses following phosgene exposure in the anaesthetized pig. J Appl Toxicol 22:263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jensen H, Roos S, Jonsson H, Rud I, Grimmer S, van Pijkeren JP, Britton RA, Axelsson L (2014) Role of Lactobacillus reuteri cell and mucus-binding protein a (CmbA) in adhesion to intestinal epithelial cells and mucus in vitro. Microbiology 160:671–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meijerink M, Mercenier A, Wells JM (2013) Challenges in translational research on probiotic lactobacilli: from in vitro assays to clinical trials. Benefic Microbes 4:83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    NRC (National Research Council) (1994) Nutrient Requirement of Poultry, 9th edn. National Academy Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mountzouris KC, Tsitrsikos P, Palamidi I, Arvaniti A, Mohnl M, Schatzmayr G, Fegeros K (2010) Effects of probiotic inclusion levels in broiler nutrition on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, plasma immunoglobulins, and cecal microflora composition. Poult Sci 89:58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang JJ, Xu YY, Qian K, Zhang W, Wu D, Wang CL (2016) Effects of chromium-enriched Bacillus subtilis KT260179 supplementation on growth performance, caecal microbiology, tissue chromium level, insulin receptor expression and plasma biochemical profile of mice under heat stress. Br J Nutr 115:774–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Donaldson GP, Lee SM, Mazmanian SK (2016) Gut biogeography of the bacterial 579 microbiota. Nat Rev Microbiol 14:20–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arora N, Sadovsky Y, Dermody TS, Coyne CB (2017) Microbial vertical transmission during human pregnancy. Cell Host Microbe 21:561–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Su Y, Chen X, Liu M, Guo X (2017) Effect of three lactobacilli with strain-specific activities on the growth performance, faecal microbiota and ileum mucosa proteomics of piglets. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 8:52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hou C, Zeng X, Yang F, Liu H, Qiao S (2015) Study and use of the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri in pigs: a review. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 6:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rao SC, Athalye-Jape GK, Deshpande GC, Simmer KN, Patole SK (2016) Probiotic supplementation and late-onset Sepsis in preterm infants: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 137:e20153684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rheinallt MJ (2016) The influence of the gut microbiota on host physiology: in pursuit of mechanisms. Yale J Biol Med 89:285–297Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zheng X, Duan Y, Dong H, Zhang J (2018) Effects of dietary Lactobacillus plantarum on growth performance, digestive enzymes and gut morphology of Litopenaeus vannamei. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 10:504–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li H, Lei Z, Chen L, Qi Z, Wang W, Qiao J (2016) Lactobacillus acidophilus, alleviates the inflammatory response to enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli, k88 via inhibition of the nf-κb and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathways in piglets. BMC Microbiol 16:273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang H, Ni X, Liu L, Zeng D, Lai J, Qing X, Li G, Pan K, Jing B (2017) Controlling of growth performance, lipid deposits and fatty acid composition of chicken meat through a probiotic, Lactobacillus johnsonii during subclinical Clostridium perfringens infection. Lipids Health Dis 16:38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harper AF, Kornegay ET, Bryant KL, Thomas HR (1983) Efficacy of virginiamycin and a commercially-available Lactobacillus probiotic in swine diets. Anim Feed Sci Technol 8:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lei K, Li YL, Yu DY, Rajput IR, Li WF (2013) Influence of dietary inclusion of Bacillus licheniformis on laying performance, egg quality, antioxidant enzyme activities, and intestinal barrier function of laying hens. Poult Sci 92:2389–2395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yang JJ, Qian K, Zhang W, Xu YY, Wu YJ (2016) Effects of chromium-enriched bacillus subtilis KT260179 supplementation on chicken growth performance, plasma lipid parameters, tissue chromium levels, cecal bacterial composition and breast meat quality. Lipids Health Dis 15:188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rozs M, Manczinger L, Vágvölgyi C, Kevei F (2001) Secretion of a trypsin-like thiol protease by a new keratinolytic strain of Bacillus licheniformis. FEMS Microbiol Lett 205:221–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Spanhaak S, Havenaar R, Schaafsma G (1998) The effect of consumption of milk fermented by Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota on the intestinal microflora and immune parameters in humans. Eur J Clin Nutr 52:899–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee YK, Ho PS, Low CS, Arvilommi H, Salminen S (2004) Permanent colonization by Lactobacillus casei is hindered by the low rate of cell division in mouse gut. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:670–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cervantes-Barragan L, Chai JN, Tianero MD, Di Luccia B, Ahern PP, Merriman J, Cortez VS, Caparon MG, Donia MS, Gilfillan S, Cella M, Gordon JI, Hsieh CS, Colonna M (2017) Lactobacillus reuteri induces gut intraepithelial CD4(+) CD8αα(+) T cells. Science 357:806–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lopez P, Gonzalez-Rodriguez I, Sanchez B, Ruas-Madiedo P, Suarez A, Margolles A, Gueimonde M (2012) Interaction of Bifidobacterium bifidum LMG13195 with HT29 cells influences regulatory-T cell associated chemokine receptor expression. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:850–2857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Belkaid Y, Hand TW (2014) Role of the microbiota in immunity and inflammation. Cell 157:121–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Engin KN, Yemisci B, Yigit U, Agachan A, Coskun C (2010) Variability of serum oxidative stress biomarkers relative to biochemical data and clinical parameters of glaucoma patients. Mol Vis 16:1260–1271PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ogawa F, Shimizu K, Muroi E, Hara T, Sato S (2011) Increasing levels of serum antioxidant status, total antioxidant power, in systemic sclerosis. Clin Rheumatol 30:921–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Liu H, Zhang J, Zhang S, Yang F, Thacker PA, Zhang G, Qiao S, Ma X (2014) Oral administration of Lactobacillus fermentum I5007 favors intestinal development and alters the intestinal microbiota in formula-fed piglets. J Agric Food Chem 62:860–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Munoz-Tamayo R, Laroche B, Walter E, Doré J, Duncan SH, Flint HJ, Leclerc M (2011) Kinetic modeling of lactate utilization and butyrate production by key human colonic bacterial species. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 76:615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Institute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary MedicineAnhui Academy of Agricultural SciencesHefeiChina
  2. 2.Anhui Province Key Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Product Safety EngineeringAnhui Academy of Agriculture ScienceHefeiChina
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of Pig Molecular Quantitative Genetics, Institute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary MedicineAnhui Academy of Agricultural SciencesHefeiChina
  4. 4.State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal SciencesChinese Academy of Agricultural SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations