Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T00:51:32.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In vitro prebiotic potential of agricultural by-products on intestinal fermentation, gut barrier and inflammatory status of piglets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2019

Julie Uerlings
Affiliation:
Precision Livestock and Nutrition Unit, TERRA Teaching and Research Centre, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, ULiège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium Research Foundation for Industry and Agriculture, National Scientific Research Foundation (FRIA-FNRS), 1000 Brussels, Belgium
Martine Schroyen
Affiliation:
Precision Livestock and Nutrition Unit, TERRA Teaching and Research Centre, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, ULiège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium
An Bautil
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Food Chemistry and Biochemistry, Department of Microbial and Molecular Systems (M²S), KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
Christophe Courtin
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Food Chemistry and Biochemistry, Department of Microbial and Molecular Systems (M²S), KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
Aurore Richel
Affiliation:
Biomass and Green Technologies, TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, ULiège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium
Ester A. Sureda
Affiliation:
Precision Livestock and Nutrition Unit, TERRA Teaching and Research Centre, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, ULiège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium
Geert Bruggeman
Affiliation:
Royal Agrifirm Group, 7325 AW Apeldoorn, the Netherlands
Sofie Tanghe
Affiliation:
Royal Agrifirm Group, 7325 AW Apeldoorn, the Netherlands
Els Willems
Affiliation:
Royal Agrifirm Group, 7325 AW Apeldoorn, the Netherlands
Jérôme Bindelle
Affiliation:
Precision Livestock and Nutrition Unit, TERRA Teaching and Research Centre, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, ULiège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium
Nadia Everaert*
Affiliation:
Precision Livestock and Nutrition Unit, TERRA Teaching and Research Centre, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, ULiège, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium
*
*Corresponding author: Nadia Everaert, email nadia.everaert@uliege.be
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The inclusion of fibre-rich ingredients in diets is one possible strategy to enhance intestinal fermentation and positively impact gut ecology, barrier and immunity. Nowadays, inulin-type fructans are used as prebiotics in the feed of piglets to manipulate gut ecology for health purposes. Likewise, some by-products could be considered as sustainable and inexpensive ingredients to reduce gut disorders at weaning. In the present study, chicory root and pulp, citrus pulp, rye bran and soya hulls were tested in a three-step in vitro model of the piglet’s gastro-intestinal tract combining a pepsin-pancreatin hydrolysis (digestion), a dialysis step using cellulose membranes (absorption) and a colonic batch fermentation (fermentation). The fermentation kinetics, SCFA and microbiota profiles in the fermentation broth were assessed as indicators of prebiotic activity and compared with the ones of inulin. The immunomodulatory effects of fermentation supernatant (FS) were investigated in cultured intestinal porcine epithelial cells (IPEC-J2) by high-throughput quantitative PCR. Chicory root displayed a rapid and extensive fermentation and induced the second highest butyrate ratio after inulin. Citrus pulp demonstrated high acetate ratios and induced elevated Clostridium clusters IV and XIVa levels. Chicory root and pulp FS promoted the intestinal barrier integrity with up-regulated tight and adherens junction gene expressions in comparison with inulin FS. Chicory pulp FS exerted anti-inflammatory effects in cultured IPEC-J2. The novel approach combining an in vitro fermentation model with IPEC-J2 cells highlighted that both chicory root and pulp appear to be promising ingredients and should be considered to promote intestinal health at weaning.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
© The Authors 2019 
Figure 0

Table 1. Chemical composition (g/kg DM) of the ingredients and total constituent monosaccharide composition of the non-cellulosic polysaccharide fraction

Figure 1

Table 2. Nucleotide sequences of primers for the microbiota composition of fermentation supernatant

Figure 2

Table 3. Primer sequences for the gene expression levels of intestinal porcine epithelial cells treated with fermentation supernatants

Figure 3

Table 4. Gas fermentation parameters (A, B, RMAX, TMAX) modelled according to Groot et al.(41) of feed ingredients in the presence of faecal inoculum of pre-weaned 3-week-old-piglets (n 3 fermentation vials)* (Mean values with their standard errors)

Figure 4

Table 5. Fermentation product profile of the fermentation supernatant of the different ingredients after 6, 12 and 24 h of fermentation (n 6 fermentation vials)* (Mean values of six measurements with their standard errors)

Figure 5

Fig. 1. Microbiota composition of supernatants after 6, 12 and 24 h of fermentation. (A) Clostridium cluster IV; (B) Clostridium cluster XIVa; (C) butyryl-CoA:acetate-CoA transferase; (D) Lactobacillus spp.; (E) Bifidobacterium spp. Values are means (n 3 fermentation vials) with their standard errors per bacterial group. a,b,c,dFor one sampling time, mean values with unlike letters are significantly different (P < 0·05). Total bacteria was selected as the reference and was stable across treatment. Inulin at 6 h was considered as control and was set at a value of 1·000. a.u., Arbitrary unit. , 6 h; , 12 h; , 24 h.

Figure 6

Fig. 2. Modulation of intestinal porcine epithelial cell (IPEC-J2) viability by fermentation supernatant (FS) collected after 12 h. Values are means of six well-measurements with their standard errors. , Inulin; , chicory root; , chicory pulp; , rye bran; , soya hulls; , citrus pulp; , fermentation blank.

Figure 7

Fig. 3. Impact of fermentation supernatant (FS) 10 % (v/v) collected after 12 h on gene expression in intestinal porcine epithelial cells (IPEC-J2). (A) Chicory root; (B) chicory pulp; (C) rye bran; (D) soya hulls; (E) citrus pulp. Values are means of triplicate well-measurements with their standard errors of the mean. Gene expression was not stable between the control treatment and the 0·8-µm ø FS treatments for eleven reference genes studied; hence, the different fermented ingredients were compared with inulin. Figures display the % of difference of the different genes for one ingredient in comparison with inulin, considered as 100 %. Significantly different from inulin FS: *, **, *** for false discovery rate corrected-P <0·5, <0·01 and <0·0001, respectively. The geometric mean of ribosomal protein L 13a (RPL13a), glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), peptidylprolyl isomerase A (PPIA) and tyrosine 3-monooxygenase/tryptophan 5-monooxygenase activation protein zeta (YWHAZ) was used to normalise samples. AKT1, serine/threonine-protein kinase 1; MAPK14, mitogen-activated protein kinase 14; MyD88, myeloid differentiation primary response 88; NF-kBIα, NF-κB inhibitor alpha; NOD1, nucleotide-binding oligomerisation domain-containing protein 1; TLR, toll-like receptor; CCL5, chemokine ligand 5; COX2, cyclo-oxygenase 2; CXCL10, C-X-C motif chemokine 10; DEFβ, defensin beta; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; IFN, interferon; ILRN1, IL-1 receptor antagonist; MCP1, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1; CASP3, caspase 3; CDH1, E-cadherin; MARVELD2, tricellulin; MUC1, mucin 1; TGFβ1, transforming growth factor beta 1; VIL1, villin 1; ZO-1, zonula occludens-1.

Supplementary material: File

Uerlings et al. supplementary material

Table S1 and Figure S1

Download Uerlings et al. supplementary material(File)
File 62.1 KB