Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T09:53:36.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Supplemental Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 and enzymes, alone or in combination, as alternatives for antibiotics to improve growth performance, digestive enzyme activity, anti-oxidative status, immune response and the intestinal barrier of broiler chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2020

Yuanyuan Wang
Affiliation:
College of Animal Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China
Chianning Heng
Affiliation:
College of Animal Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China
Xihong Zhou
Affiliation:
Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, People’s Republic of China
Guangtian Cao
Affiliation:
College of Standardisation, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China
Lei Jiang
Affiliation:
College of Animal Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China
Jiangshui Wang
Affiliation:
College of Animal Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China
Kaixuan Li
Affiliation:
College of Animal Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China
Dianchun Wang
Affiliation:
College of Animal Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China
Xiuan Zhan*
Affiliation:
College of Animal Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China
*
* Corresponding author: Xiuan Zhan, email xazan@zju.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigated the effect of Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 (Ba) and enzymes (xylanase and β-glucanases; Enz), alone or in combination (BE) as antibiotic replacements, on the growth performance, digestive enzyme activity, immune response and the intestinal barrier of broiler chickens. In total, 1200 1-d-old broilers were randomly assigned to five dietary treatments, each with six replicate pens of forty birds for 63 d as follows: (a) basal diet (control), supplemented with (b) 1 × 109 colony-forming units (cfu)/kg Ba, (c) 300 mg/kg Enz, (d) 1 × 109 cfu/kg Ba and 300 mg/kg Enz and (e) 250 mg/kg enramycin (ER). Ba, Enz and BE, similar to ER, decreased the feed conversion rate, maintained intestinal integrity with a higher villus height:crypt depth ratio and increased the numbers of goblet cells. The BE group exhibited higher expression of claudin-1 and mucin 2 than the other four groups. BE supplementation significantly increased the α-diversity and β-diversity of the intestinal microbiota and markedly enhanced lipase activity in the duodenal mucosa. Serum endotoxin was significantly decreased in the BE group. Compared with those in the control group, increased superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase activities were observed in the jejunal mucosa of the Ba and BE groups, respectively. In conclusion, the results suggested that dietary treatment with Ba, Enz or BE has beneficial effects on growth performance and anti-oxidative capacity, and BE had better effects than Ba or Enz alone on digestive enzyme activity and the intestinal microbiota. Ba or Enz could be used as an alternative to antibiotics for broiler chickens.

Information

Type
Full Papers
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
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society
Figure 0

Table 1. Composition and nutrient level of the basal diet (% as fed basis)

Figure 1

Table 2. Effects of Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784, enzyme alone or in combination on the growth performance of broilers*

Figure 2

Fig. 1. (a) Representative haematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained images (top, scale bars = 80 μm) and transmission electron microscopy images (bottom, scale bars = 1 μm; red arrows indicate epithelial cell junctions) of cross-sections of the bird’s jejunum. (b) Statistical analysis of the histological parameter ‘villus height:crypt depth ratio’ in the jejunum. (c) Representative images of periodic acid–Schiff’s (PAS) reaction-stained jejunum sections in broilers (400×). (d) Number of PAS-stained goblet cells. (e) Representative images of cross-sections of the broilers jejunum stained for triphosphate-biotin nick end labeling (TUNEL) (200×). (f) Quantification of TUNEL-(bottom) positive cells in the jejunum. A, control group (); B, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 group (); C, enzyme (6225 U/g xylanase and 3200 U/g β-glucanases) group (); D, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 and enzyme group (); E, enramycin group (). Values are means (n 12), with standard deviations represented by vertical bars. a,b,c Mean values with unlike letters between different groups were significantly different (P < 0·05).

Figure 3

Fig. 2. (a) Expression of mucin 2 (MUC-2) and claudin-1 in jejunum tissue was determined by Western blot. (b) Relative changes in the density of MUC-2 and claudin-1 were analysed. Data are presented as relative MUC-2 and claudin-1 band intensity normalised to β-actin band intensity. Values are means (n 12), with standard deviations represented by vertical bars. (c) The expression of occludin and zonula occludens protein 1 (ZO-1) was measured using immune staining. 4′,6-Diamidino-2-phenylindole was used for staining nucleus. A, control group (); B, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 group (); C, enzyme (6225 U/g xylanase and 3200 U/g β-glucanases) group (); D, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 and enzyme group (); E, enramycin group (). a,b,c,d Mean values with unlike letters between different groups were significantly different (P < 0·05).

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Duodenal mucosa (a) and serum (b) biochemistry parameters of broilers chickens supplemented with Bacillus subtilis DSM29784, enzyme alone or in combination. A, control group (); B, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 group (); C, enzyme (6225 U/g xylanase and 3200 U/g β-glucanases) group (); D, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 and enzyme group (); E, enramycin group (). Values are means (n 12), with standard deviations represented by vertical bars. a,b,c Mean values with unlike letters between different groups were significantly different (P < 0·05).

Figure 5

Fig. 4. Effects of Bacillus subtilis DSM29784, enzyme alone or in combination on anti-oxidative capacity of broilers. The activities of anti-oxidative enzymes and levels of total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) and malondialdehyde (MDA) were determined in jejunal mucosa (a) and serum (b), respectively. SOD, superoxide dismutase; CAT, catalase; GSH-Px, glutathione peroxidase. A, control group (); B, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 group (); C, enzyme (6225 U/g xylanase and 3200 U/g β-glucanases) group (); D, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 and enzyme group (); E, enramycin group (). Values are means (n 12), with standard deviations represented by vertical bars. a,b,c Mean values with unlike letters between different groups were significantly different (P < 0·05).

Figure 6

Fig. 5. Effects of Bacillus subtilis DSM29784, enzyme alone or in combination on immune response of broilers in jejunal mucosa (a) and serum (b), respectively. A, control group (); B, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 group (); C, enzyme (6225 U/g xylanase and 3200 U/g β-glucanases) group (); D, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 and enzyme group (); E, enramycin group; sIgA, secretory IgA. Values are means (n 12), with standard deviations represented by vertical bars. a,b,c Mean values with unlike letters between different groups were significantly different (P < 0·05).

Figure 7

Fig. 6. The caecal bacterial community of broilers fed dietary Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784, multi-enzyme or enramycin supplementation among the five treatments (A, B, C, D and E). (a) The Venn diagram presents overlaps among the A–E treatments, as well as the unique operational taxonomic units for each group. (b) α-Diversity of gut microbial was analysed among A–E treatments by determination of principal dimension (PD) whole tree index. (c) β-Diversity based on unweighted UniFrac of caecum microbiota among the five groups. (d) Unweighted pair group method with arithmatic mean (UPGMA) clustering tree with weighted UniFrac distances. (e) Ternary plot of A–B–E, A–C–E and A–D–E. Different size of circles corresponds to the abundance of bacteria. The relative abundances of species at the phylum level (f) and genus level (g), respectively. The t test analyses of the abundances between A and D in differential species: (h) genus level and (i) species level. A, control group; B, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 group; C, enzyme (6225 U/g xylanase and 3200 U/g β-glucanases) group; D, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 and enzyme group; E, enramycin group.

Figure 8

Fig. 7. (a–e) Network analysis of microbial community in A, B, C, D and E groups based on the calculation of Spearman’s correlation coefficients. Nodes indicate taxonomic units at the genus level, while red lines indicate positive correlations and blue lines indicate negative correlations. The colour of a node represents the phylum to which it belongs, and the size of a node represents the relative abundance of a genus. The thickness of a line indicates the strength of correlation. (f) Typical coefficients derived from network analysis in the five groups (CC, clustering coefficient, GD, graph density, AD, average degree, APL, average path length). (g) Functional abundance cluster analysis. A, Control group; B, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 group; C, enzyme (6225 U/g xylanase and 3200 U/g β-glucanases) group; D, Bacillus subtilis DSM 29784 and enzyme group; E, enramycin group.