Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:32:59.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural changes in the small intestine of female turkeys receiving a probiotic preparation are dose and region dependent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2019

P. Dobrowolski Open the ORCID record for P. Dobrowolski [Opens in a new window] ,
E. Tomaszewska ,
R. Klebaniuk ,
A. Tomczyk-Warunek ,
S. Szymańczyk ,
J. Donaldson Open the ORCID record for J. Donaldson [Opens in a new window] ,
I. Świetlicka ,
M. Mielnik-Błaszczak ,
D. Kuc  and
S. Muszyński
P. Dobrowolski*
Affiliation:
Department of Comparative Anatomy and Anthropology, Maria Curie Sklodowska University, Lublin, Poland
E. Tomaszewska*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Lublin, Poland
R. Klebaniuk
Affiliation:
Department of Bromatology and Food Physiology, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Lublin, Poland
A. Tomczyk-Warunek
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Lublin, Poland
S. Szymańczyk
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Lublin, Poland
J. Donaldson
Affiliation:
School of Physiology, University of the Witwatersrand, Parktown, South Africa
I. Świetlicka
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Faculty of Production Engineering, University of Life Sciences, Lublin, Poland
M. Mielnik-Błaszczak
Affiliation:
Chair and Department of Paedodontics, Medical University of Lublin, 20-081 Lublin, Poland
D. Kuc
Affiliation:
Chair and Department of Paedodontics, Medical University of Lublin, 20-081 Lublin, Poland
S. Muszyński
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Faculty of Production Engineering, University of Life Sciences, Lublin, Poland
*
†E-mail: piotr.dobrowolski@umcs.lublin.pl; ewa.tomaszewska@up.lublin.pl
†E-mail: piotr.dobrowolski@umcs.lublin.pl; ewa.tomaszewska@up.lublin.pl
Get access

Abstract

Gut microbiota have been shown to play a critical role in the maintenance of host health. Probiotics, which regulate gut microbiota balance, could serve as an effective alternative to antibiotic growth promoters. Since changes in the gastrointestinal tract, caused by a variety of different strains, groups and amounts of microorganisms, may be reflected in its histological structure, the aim of the present study was to examine the effects of rising doses of a mixed probiotic preparation on the structure and development of the small intestine of female turkeys. Eighty, three-day-old, healthy, female turkeys (Big-6 breed) were used in the current (16-week) study. The turkeys were randomly allocated to four weight-matched (59.70 ± 0.83 g) groups (n = 20), according to probiotic treatment dose (0, 107 cfu•g−1, 108 cfu•g−1 or 109 cfu•g−1, in 500 g•1000 kg−1) (cfu – a colony-forming unit). Three, non-genetically modified strains of probiotic cultures obtained from poultry, four bacterial and one yeast culture, were used. Histomorphometric analysis of the structure of the small intestinal wall of the duodenum and jejunum was performed. All probiotic doses used in the current study exerted a beneficial effect on the histological structure of the small intestine; however, the observed effect was dose and region dependent. Significant increases in villi height, crypt depth, villi and crypt width, mucosa thickness, epithelial height, enterocyte number, absorption surface and intestinal ganglia geometric indices were observed, specifically in the duodenum of birds receiving an intermediate dose of probiotic (108 cfu•g−1). The probiotic doses used in the current study differed significantly in their effect on the small intestine (P < 0.01), with the intermediate dose (108 cfu•g−1) significantly improving 58% of the parameters assessed, compared to the control. The duodenum was more susceptible to the favourable effects of the probiotic than the jejunum (56% v. 31% improvement in the parameters assessed) (P < 0.01). The weakest favourable effect was observed in the group that received the highest dose of probiotic.

Keywords

gut microbiotapoultryduodenumjejunumhistomorphometry
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 12 , December 2019 , pp. 2773 - 2781
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agboola, AF, Aroniyo, I, Suberu, S and Adeyemi, W 2014. Dietary supplementation of probiotics and synbiotics on intestinal microbial populations and gut morphology of turkey poults. African Journal of Livestock Extension 14, 13–20.Google Scholar
Aliakbarpour, HR, Chamani, M, Rahimi, G, Sadeghi, AA and Qujeq, D 2012. The Bacillus subtilis and lactic acid bacteria probiotics influences intestinal mucin gene expression, histomorphology and growth performance in broilers. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 25, 1285–1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Awad, WA, Böhm, J, Razzazi-Fazeli, E, Ghareeb, K and Zentek, J 2006. Effect of addition of a probiotic microorganism to broiler diets contaminated with deoxynivalenol on performance and histological alterations of intestinal villi of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 85, 974–979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Awad, WA, Ghareeb, K, Abdel-Raheem, S and Böhm, J 2009. Effects of dietary inclusion of probiotic and synbiotic on growth performance, organ weights, and intestinal histomorphology of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 88, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chamani, M 2016. Efficacy of Bactocell® and Toyocerin® as probiotics on growth performance, blood parameters and intestinal morphometry of Turkey poults. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science 6, 211–218.Google Scholar
Deplancke, B and Gaskins, HR 2001. Microbial modulation of innate defense: goblet cells and the intestinal mucus layer. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 73, 1131S–1141S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobrowolski, P, Huet, P, Karlsson, P, Eriksson, S, Tomaszewska, E, Gawron, A and Pierzynowski, SG 2012. Potato fiber protects the small intestinal wall against the toxic influence of acrylamide. Nutrition 28, 428–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrowolski, P, Tomaszewska, E, Kurlak, P and Pierzynowski, SG 2016. Dietary 2-oxoglutarate mitigates gastrectomy-evoked structural changes in cartilage of female rats. Experimental Biology and Medicine 241, 14–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Florou-Paneri, P, Christaki, E and Bonos, E 2013. Lactic acid bacteria as source of functional ingredients. In Lactic acid bacteria – R & D for food, health and livestock purposes (ed. Marcelino, J Kongo), pp. 589–614. IntechOpen Limited, London, UK.Google Scholar
Hanczakowska, E, Świątkiewicz, M, Natonek-Wiśniewska, M and Okoń, K 2017. Effect of glutamine and/or probiotic (Enterococcus faecium) feed supplementation on piglet performance, intestines structure, and antibacterial activity. Czech Journal of Animal Science 62, 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabir, SML 2009. The role of probiotics in the poultry industry. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 10, 3531–3546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kisielinski, K, Willis, S, Prescher, A, Klosterhalfen, B and Schumpelick, V 2002. A simple new method to calculate small intestine absorptive surface in the rat. Clinical and Experimental Medicine 2, 131–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotrlik, JW, Williams, HA and Jabor, MK 2011. Reporting and interpreting effect size in quantitative agricultural education research. Journal of Agricultural Education 52, 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, T, She, R, Wang, K, Bao, H, Zhang, Y, Luo, D, Hu, Y, Ding, Y, Wang, D and Peng, K 2008. Effects of rabbit sacculus rotundus antimicrobial peptides on the intestinal mucosal immunity in chickens. Poultry Science 87, 250–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markovic, R, Sefer, D, Krsti, M and Petrujki, B 2009. Effect of different growth promoters on broiler performance and gut morphology. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria 41, 163–169.Google Scholar
Marteau, PR, De Vrese, M and Cellier, CJ 2001. Protection from gastrointestinal diseases with the use of probiotics 1–3. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 73, 430S–436S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montalban-Arques, A, De Schryver, P, Bossier, P, Gorkiewicz, G, Mulero, V, Gatlin, DM and Galindo-Villegas, J 2015. Selective manipulation of the gut microbiota improves immune status in vertebrates. Frontiers in Immunology 6, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelicano, E, Souza, P, Souza, H, Figueiredo, D, Boiago, M, Carvalho, S and Bordon, V 2005. Intestinal mucosa development in broiler chickens fed natural growth promoters. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 7, 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahimi, S, Grimes, JL, Fletcher, O, Oviedo, E and Sheldon, BW 2009. Effect of a direct-fed microbial (Primalac) on structure and ultrastructure of small intestine in turkey poults. Poultry Science 88, 491–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rawski, M, Kieronczyk, B, Dlugosz, J, Swiatkiewicz, S and Józefiak, D 2016. Dietary probiotics affect gastrointestinal microbiota, histological structure and shell mineralization in turtles. PLoS ONE 11, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saarela, M, Lähteenmäki, L, Crittenden, R, Salminen, S and Mattila-Sandholm, T 2002. Gut bacteria and health foods – the European perspective. International Journal of Food Microbiology 78, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sekirov, I, Russell, S and Antunes, L 2010. Gut microbiota in health and disease. Physiological Reviews 90, 859–904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soccol, CR, Porto de Souza Vandenberghe, L, Rigon Spier, M, Bianchi Pedroni Medeiros, A, Tiemi Yamaguishi, C, De Dea Lindner, J, Pandey, A and Thomaz-Soccol, V 2013. The potential of probiotics: a review. Food Technology and Biotechnology 48, 413–434.Google Scholar
de los Santos, SF, Donoghue, AM, Farnell, MB, Huff, GR, Huff, WE and Donoghue, DJ 2007. Gastrointestinal maturation is accelerated in turkey poults supplemented with a mannan-oligosaccharide yeast extract (Alphamune). Poultry Science 86, 921–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suvarna, K, Layton, C and Bancroft John, D 2013. Bancroft’s theory and practice of histological techniques, 7th edition. Churchill Livingstone Elsevier, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Tomaszewska, E, Dobrowolski, P and Puzio, I 2012. Postnatal administration of 2-oxoglutaric acid improves the intestinal barrier affected by the prenatal action of dexamethasone in pigs. Nutrition 28, 190–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomaszewska, E, Kwiecien, M, Dobrowolski, P, Klebaniuk, R, Muszynski, S, Olcha, M, Blicharski, T and Grela, ER 2016. Dose-dependent effects of probiotic supplementation on bone characteristics and mineralisation in meat-type female Turkeys. Animal Production Science 58, 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y, Iji, PA and Choct, M 2009. Dietary modulation of gut microflora in broiler chickens: a review of the role of six kinds of alternatives to in-feed antibiotics. World’s Poultry Science Journal 65, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Dobrowolski et al. supplementary material

Dobrowolski et al. supplementary material 1

Download Dobrowolski et al. supplementary material(File)
File 40.3 KB