Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-2wqtr Total loading time: 0.342 Render date: 2021-09-22T22:29:04.575Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Comparative assessment of canine-origin Lactobacillus johnsonii CPN23 and dairy-origin Lactobacillus acidophillus NCDC 15 for nutrient digestibility, faecal fermentative metabolites and selected gut health indices in dogs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2017

Sachin Kumar
Affiliation:
Niche Area of Excellence in Clinical Nutrition, Division of Animal Nutrition, ICAR Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar-243 122, India
Ashok K. Pattanaik*
Affiliation:
Niche Area of Excellence in Clinical Nutrition, Division of Animal Nutrition, ICAR Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar-243 122, India
Shalini Sharma
Affiliation:
Niche Area of Excellence in Clinical Nutrition, Division of Animal Nutrition, ICAR Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar-243 122, India
Reema Gupta
Affiliation:
Niche Area of Excellence in Clinical Nutrition, Division of Animal Nutrition, ICAR Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar-243 122, India
Sunil E. Jadhav
Affiliation:
Niche Area of Excellence in Clinical Nutrition, Division of Animal Nutrition, ICAR Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar-243 122, India
Narayan Dutta
Affiliation:
Niche Area of Excellence in Clinical Nutrition, Division of Animal Nutrition, ICAR Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar-243 122, India
*Corresponding
* Corresponding author: Dr A. K. Pattanaik, fax +1 217 333 2289, email ashokkp@illinois.edu/akpattanaik1@gmail.com

Abstract

The present experiment was undertaken to validate a probiotic of canine origin for its potential use in dogs. A total of fifteen adult female Labrador dogs were allocated to three equal groups and fed a basal diet without probiotic (control) or with probiotic of either canine (Lactobacillus johnsonii CPN23; cPRO) or dairy (L. acidophilus NCDC 15; dPRO) origin for 9 weeks. The digestibility of most macronutrients remained similar among the groups; however, fibre digestibility was improved (P = 0·034) in dogs receiving cPRO. The faecal fermentative metabolites ammonia (P < 0·05) and lactate (P = 0·094) were altered favourably, indicating a positive influence of both probiotics. Faecal concentrations of acetate, propionate and butyrate were increased (P < 0·01) in both probiotic groups. However, improvements were higher in cPRO v. dPRO. The delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to intradermal inoculation of phytohaemagglutinin-P was higher (P = 0·053) in cPRO as compared with control. The antibody response to sheep erythrocytes was, however, similar across the three groups. Overall, in dogs, the canine-origin probiotic was superior when compared with the dairy-origin probiotic.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017

Probiotics are micro-organisms that are added to the diet to exert beneficial effects on the host. One important criterion for selection of a probiotic is the host species specificity( Reference Ouwehand, Salminen and Isolauri 1 ). It is believed that probiotic organisms should be naturally occurring in the target species to be effective( Reference Kailasapathy and Chin 2 ) by inducing a greater production of SCFA in the hindgut and effecting optimal mucosal immunity. SCFA, in turn, play important health-promoting roles in the maintenance of gut barrier function by contributing to energy needs of host cells, absorption of select nutrients and inhibition of pathogenic micro-organisms( Reference Rios-Covian, Ruas-Madiedo and Margolles 3 ). Probiotics have the potential to stimulate innate immune responses without inducing inflammation; they interact with dendritic cells and follicle-associated epithelial cells and initiate responses mediated by macrophages and T- and B-lymphocytes( Reference Vanderpool, Yan and Brent Polk 4 ).

Adhesion of probiotic bacteria to epithelial cells is host specific; hence, for improved colonisation, the probiotic bacteria should originate from the same host species( Reference Fuller 5 ). Commensal organisms may exert species-specific effects, and therefore, a successful canine probiotic organism would ideally be derived from the canine gastrointestinal tract( Reference McCoy and Gilliland 6 ). However, there are only a few studies on canine-sourced bacteria as probiotics for dogs( Reference Beasley, Manninen and Saris 7 , Reference Manninen, Rinkinen and Beasley 8 ).

Further, the available literature shows that most of the probiotics studies in dogs have been carried out with extruded pet foods as the basal diet. In most developing countries, including India, pet dogs are reared mainly on home-cooked diets of varied composition. However, few studies have examined the effects of probiotics when supplemented with homemade vegetarian diets. The present study, therefore, evaluated the potential of a canine-origin probiotic v. a dairy-origin probiotic for its possible use in dogs fed a homemade vegetarian diet.

Materials and methods

Animals, housing and management

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee, and was carried out in conformity with Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) guidelines. Dogs used for the study were housed under hygienic conditions in a well-ventilated kennel having separate cubicles (1·52 × 0·91 m2) for individual housing and care. The dogs were let out in an open space adjacent to the kennel in the morning and evening for exercise and socialisation except during the collection period.

Animals and diets

Fifteen adult female Labrador dogs (aged about 5 years; 22·9 (se 0·6) kg average body weight) were randomly allocated to three equal groups based on body weight and fed a pressure-cooked moist diet. The dogs had an ideal body condition score and were declared healthy by a veterinarian based on medical history, physical examination, complete blood count and serum biochemistry. The basal diet was specially formulated to meet National Research Council recommendations (adequate intake) for adult maintenance( 9 ) (Supplementary Table S1). The amount of food was calculated to meet the maintenance energy requirement (kcal = 130 × kg body weight0·75; kJ = 544 × kg body weight0·75)( 9 ). The diet was supplemented with either no probiotics (control), or with a probiotic of canine origin (Lactobacillus johnsonii CPN23; cPRO) or dairy origin (Lactobacillus acidophilus NCDC 15; dPRO). The control group received a placebo (De Man, Rogosa and Sharpe broth), while cPRO and dPRO groups received cultures of the respective probiotics (at 2·3 × 108 colony-forming units/animal per d) mixed with the basal diet.

The canine-origin probiotic L. johnsonii CPN23 was previously developed in our laboratory and characterised using 16S rRNA analyses (GenBank accession no. KP065494). A freeze-dried pure culture of the L. acidophilus NCDC 15 strain, procured from the National Collection of Dairy Culture (NCDC), National Dairy Research Institute (Karnal, India) was used for feeding the dPRO group.

All the dogs had 24 h access to clean and fresh water ad libitum. Before the study, dogs were adapted to the basal diet for a period of 15 d. Each individual dog's ration was divided into two equal portions and fed once each in the morning (09.00 hours) and evening (17.00 hours). Probiotics were administered only in the morning. The experimental period lasted for 9 weeks.

Experimental protocol

Food consumption was monitoring daily. A 4 d digestibility trial was conducted after 7 weeks of feeding as described earlier( Reference Kore, Pattanaik and Das 10 ) to calculate the apparent digestibility (nutrient intake – nutrient output/nutrient intake × 100). A 1–4-point palatability score was adopted for subjective assessment of the acceptability of the experimental diets( Reference Strickling, Harmon and Dawson 11 ). The faeces voided by individual dogs, collected quantitatively over the preceding 24 h, were weighed individually for each dog, mixed thoroughly and used for further sampling and analysis. The faecal consistency score was recorded based on a 1–5-point scale( Reference Strickling, Harmon and Dawson 11 ). Three different aliquots were drawn from the faecal samples and processed for the determination of DM, N and fermentative metabolites as described elsewhere( Reference Kore, Pattanaik and Das 10 ). The samples of faeces and food were dried at 60°C in a forced-draft oven, ground through a 2 mm screen in a laboratory mill (SM100; Retsch GmbH) and stored in airtight high-density polyethylene jars pending further analysis.

Laboratory analyses

The ground samples of food and faeces were analysed for DM, organic matter, crude protein, ether extract, crude fibre and crude ash, while N-free extract was calculated( 12 ). The pH of the faecal samples was determined by a pH meter (Eutech Instruments). Lactate, ammonia, SCFA and branched-chain fatty acid (BCFA) concentrations in the faecal samples were analysed as described earlier( Reference Samal, Chaturvedi and Saikumar 13 ).

Cell-mediated immunity (CMI) was assessed at 8 weeks by measurement of skin indurations as type-IV delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) reaction to phytohaemagglutinin-P (Sigma) as a mitogen, as detailed previously( Reference Pattanaik, Khan and Goswami 14 ). For the humoral immune response, dogs were intravenously injected with 1 ml of a 10 % suspension of washed sheep erythrocytes after 5 weeks of experimental feeding. Serum samples collected at periodic intervals (0, 7, 14, 21 and 28 d) were used for an antibody titre assay using the microtitre haemagglutination procedure( Reference Wegmann and Smithies 15 ).

Statistics

The data were analysed by one-way ANOVA using SPSS 20.0 (SPSS Inc.). Means were compared using Tukey's post hoc test. Additionally, contrast analysis was employed to ascertain the differences, if any, between the treatments cPRO and dPRO. Significance was declared at P ≤ 0·05.

Results and discussion

Nutrient intake and digestibility

Data on food intake and apparent digestibility are presented in Table 1. The palatability of the diet and daily food intake were similar among the groups. The apparent digestibility of DM, crude protein, ether extract and N-free extract was not influenced by the source of probiotics. However, the observed increase (P = 0·034) in crude fibre digestibility in the cPRO group could have been due to greater fermentability of the undigested fibre entering the hindgut, possibly due to an elevated population of fibrolytic microbes induced by the canine-origin probiotic L. johnsonii CPN23.

Table 1. Effect of source of probiotics on the food intake and digestibility of nutrients in Labrador dogs

(Mean values with their standard errors; n 5)

Control, basal diet alone; cPRO, basal diet supplemented with probiotic of canine origin; dPRO, basal diet supplemented with probiotic of dairy origin.

a,b Mean values with unlike superscript letters were significantly different (P ≤ 0·05).

* Based on one-way ANOVA.

Based on a 1–4-point scale.

Faecal characteristics

Data on faecal characteristics are presented in Table 2. There was no influence of the probiotics on the faecal score or on the frequency of defecation. A significant (P = 0·012) reduction in faecal ammonia concentration was evident in both the cPRO and dPRO groups in comparison with the control. Ammonia is formed during colonic fermentation of protein and is considered detrimental to health. Probiotics are presumed to induce lowered production of ammonia. Faecal lactate tended to be higher (P = 0·091) in the cPRO group as compared with control. Additionally, contrast analysis also revealed a trend for higher (P = 0·059) lactate in the cPRO group compared with the dPRO group. Increased lactate production along with SCFA lowers the pH of the hindgut which, besides facilitating greater protonation of ammonia, leading in turn to its higher faecal excretion( Reference Cummings, Hill and Jenkins 16 ), is considered detrimental to pathogenic micro-organisms( Reference Barrow and Fuller 17 ).

Table 2. Effect of source of probiotic on the physical and fermentative indices of faeces of Labrador dogs

(Mean values with their standard errors; n 5)

Control, basal diet alone; cPRO, basal diet supplemented with probiotic of canine origin; dPRO, basal diet supplemented with probiotic of dairy origin; BCFA, branched-chain fatty acids.

a,b,c Mean values with unlike superscript letters were significantly different (P ≤ 0·05).

* Significant differences between cPRO and dPRO by contrast analysis.

Based on one-way ANOVA.

Based on a 1–5-point scale.

Faecal concentrations of both acetate and butyrate were higher (P < 0·001) in the cPRO group than the dPRO group which, in turn, were higher as compared with control. Additionally, contrast analysis also revealed higher acetate (P = 0·019) and butyrate (P = 0·001) levels in the cPRO group than the dPRO group, indicative of better adaptation of the canine-origin probiotic in the hindgut of the dogs in comparison with the dairy-origin probiotic. Acceleration in the net production of SCFA and lactic acid by supplementation of probiotics lowers the net production of ammonia, and a similar result was evident in the present study. Faecal levels of isovalerate were lower (P = 0·037) in the dPRO group while those of valerate were lower (P < 0·05) in the cPRO group compared with control. Consequently, faecal levels of total BCFA were reduced (P < 0·01) in the cPRO group in comparison with control. The BCFA isobutyrate and isovalerate are produced from protein fermentation, specifically from the deamination of valine and leucine, respectively, and are generally believed to be putrefactive leading to production of toxic metabolites deleterious for host health( Reference Benyacoub, Maulden and Cavadini 18 , Reference Rehman, Heinsen and Koenen 19 ). The present observation of a generalised reduction in BCFA in both the probiotic-supplemented groups, therefore, is indicative of their health-promoting effects. Further, the reduction (P < 0·05) in the total BCFA in the cPRO group v. control is suggestive of the advantages of using the species-specific probiotic in dogs.

Immune response

Skin induration tended to improve (P = 0·053) in the cPRO group (8·3 (se 0·3) mm) group when compared with control (7·5 (se 0·2) mm) while that of the dPRO group (7·9 (se 0·3) mm) was comparable with both. There was, however, no variation in the antibody response against sheep erythrocytes among the three dietary groups. The CMI response, mediated by thymus-derived T-lymphocytes which are responsible for DTH reactions, is considered as a good indicator of the effector phase of the CMI response in vivo ( Reference Kim, Chew and Wong 20 ). The improvements evident in the DTH response by the cPRO group dogs v. the control, in turn, imply that the canine-origin probiotic acted better at inducing an augmented CMI response than that of the dairy-origin probiotic. Stimulation of systemic components of the immune system, in particular the CMI, may help to regulate changes in the gut microflora, for example by increasing macrophage phagocytic activity using lactic acid bacteria( Reference Hatcher and Lambrecht 21 ). Similarly, use of Jerusalem artichoke as a prebiotic has been reported to improve the DTH response to phytohaemagglutinin-P in dogs( Reference Samal, Chaturvedi and Baliyan 22 ).

Conclusion

The results are indicative of the superiority of a canine-origin probiotic over a dairy-origin probiotic, when supplemented in the diet of dogs.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2017.35

Acknowledgements

The first author (S. K.) acknowledges the financial assistance provided by the Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar in the form of a Senior Research Fellowship. This work was supported by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi under the Niche Area of Excellence programme.

S. K., A. K. P., S. E. J. and N. D. contributed to the experimental design; S. K. and S. S. performed the animal experiment; S. K., R. G. and S. S. performed the laboratory analyses; S. K. and A. K. P. performed the statistical analyses; S. K., N. D. and S. E. J. wrote the manuscript; A. K. P. critically reviewed the manuscript.

There were no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Present address: Dairy Cattle Nutrition Division, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal-132 001, India.

Present address: Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.

References

1. Ouwehand, AC, Salminen, S & Isolauri, E (2002) Probiotics: an overview of beneficial effects. Anton van Leeuwen 82, 279289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Kailasapathy, K & Chin, J (2000) Survival and therapeutic potential of probiotic organisms with reference to Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium spp. Immunol Cell Biol 78, 8088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Rios-Covian, D, Ruas-Madiedo, P, Margolles, A, et al. (2016) Intestinal short chain fatty acids and their link with diet and human health. Front Microbiol 7, 185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Vanderpool, C, Yan, F & Brent Polk, D (2008) Mechanism of probiotic action: implications for therapeutic application in inflammatory bowel diseases. Inflamm Bowel Dis 14, 15851596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Fuller, R (1986) Probiotics. Soc Appl Bacteriol Symp Ser 15, 1S7S.Google ScholarPubMed
6. McCoy, S & Gilliland, SE (2007) Isolation and characterization of Lactobacillus species having potential for use as probiotic cultures for dogs. J Food Sci 72, M94M97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Beasley, S, Manninen, TJK & Saris, PEJ (2006) Lactic acid bacteria isolated from canine faeces. J Appl Microbiol 101, 131138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Manninen, TJK, Rinkinen, ML, Beasley, SS, et al. (2006) Alteration of the canine small-intestinal lactic acid bacterium microbiota by feeding of potential probiotics. Appl Environ Microbiol 72, 65396543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. National Research Council (2006) Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google ScholarPubMed
10. Kore, KB, Pattanaik, AK, Das, A, et al. (2009) Evaluation of alternative cereal sources in dog diets: effect on nutrient utilisation and hindgut fermentation characteristics. J Sci Food Agric 89, 21742180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Strickling, JA, Harmon, DL, Dawson, KA, et al. (2000) Evaluation of oligosaccharide addition to dog diets: influences on nutrient digestion and microbial population. Anim Feed Sci Technol 86, 205219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1995) Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed. Washington, DC: AOAC International.Google ScholarPubMed
13. Samal, L, Chaturvedi, VB, Saikumar, G, et al. (2015) Prebiotic potential of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) in Wistar rats: effects of levels of supplementation on hindgut fermentation, intestinal morphology, blood metabolites and immune response. J Sci Food Agric 95, 16891696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Pattanaik, AK, Khan, SA & Goswami, TK (2007) Influence of iodine on nutritional, metabolic and immunological response of goats fed Leucaena leucocephala leaf meal diet. J Agric Sci 145, 395405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Wegmann, TG & Smithies, O (1966) A simple hemagglutination system requiring small amounts of red cells and antibodies. Transfusion 6, 6773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Cummings, JH, Hill, MJ, Jenkins, DJ, et al. (1976) Changes in faecal composition and colonic function due to cereal fiber. Am J Clin Nutr 29, 14681473.Google ScholarPubMed
17. Barrow, PA (1992) Probiotics for chickens. In Probiotics: The Scientific Basis, pp. 255257 [Fuller, R, editor]. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
18. Benyacoub, J, Maulden, GLC, Cavadini, C, et al. (2003) Supplementation of food with Enterococcus faecium (SF68) stimulates immune functions in young dogs. J Nutr 133, 11581162.Google ScholarPubMed
19. Rehman, A, Heinsen, FA, Koenen, ME, et al. (2012) Effects of probiotics and antibiotics on the intestinal homeostasis in a computer controlled model of the large intestine. BMC Microbiol 12, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Kim, HW, Chew, BP, Wong, TS, et al. (2000) Dietary lutein stimulates immune response in the canine. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 74, 315327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Hatcher, GE & Lambrecht, RS (1993) Augmentation of macrophage phagocytic activity by cell-free extracts of selected lactic acid-producing bacteria. J Dairy Sci 76, 24852492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Samal, L, Chaturvedi, VB, Baliyan, S, et al. (2012) Jerusalem artichoke as a potential prebiotic: influence on nutrient utilization, hindgut fermentation and immune response of Labrador dogs. Anim Nutr Feed Technol 12, 343352.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Effect of source of probiotics on the food intake and digestibility of nutrients in Labrador dogs(Mean values with their standard errors; n 5)

Figure 1

Table 2. Effect of source of probiotic on the physical and fermentative indices of faeces of Labrador dogs(Mean values with their standard errors; n 5)

Supplementary material: File

Kumar supplementary material

Table S1

Download Kumar supplementary material(File)
File 39 KB
You have Access
Open access
5
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Comparative assessment of canine-origin Lactobacillus johnsonii CPN23 and dairy-origin Lactobacillus acidophillus NCDC 15 for nutrient digestibility, faecal fermentative metabolites and selected gut health indices in dogs
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Comparative assessment of canine-origin Lactobacillus johnsonii CPN23 and dairy-origin Lactobacillus acidophillus NCDC 15 for nutrient digestibility, faecal fermentative metabolites and selected gut health indices in dogs
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Comparative assessment of canine-origin Lactobacillus johnsonii CPN23 and dairy-origin Lactobacillus acidophillus NCDC 15 for nutrient digestibility, faecal fermentative metabolites and selected gut health indices in dogs
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *