Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T05:47:27.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Antimicrobial treatment reduces intestinal microflora and improves protein digestive capacity without changes in villous structure in weanling pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2007

Thomas Thymann*
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Sciences, Dept. of Human Nutrition, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
Kristina U. Sørensen
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Sciences, Dept. of Human Nutrition, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
Mette S. Hedemann
Affiliation:
University of Aarhus, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
Jan Elnif
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Sciences, Dept. of Human Nutrition, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
Bent B. Jensen
Affiliation:
University of Aarhus, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
Henri Banga-Mboko
Affiliation:
University of Liege, Section of Animal Physiology and Reproduction, 4000 Liege, Belgium
Thomas D. Leser
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark, National Veterinary Institute, Section of Bacteriology, DK-1790 Copenhagen V, Denmark
Per T. Sangild
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Sciences, Dept. of Human Nutrition, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
*
*Corresponding author: Dr Thomas Thymann, fax +45 35 28 24 83,email ttn@life.ku.dk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The immediate post-weaning period is often associated with gut malfunction and diarrhoea for young pigs. Administration of antimicrobials remains an effective way to control weaning diarrhoea but it remains unclear how they affect gut physiology and microbiology although this is a prerequisite for being able to devise better alternatives. Hence, for 7 d we treated pigs, weaned at 24 d of age, with a combination of amoxicillin (25 mg/kg feed and injection of 8·75 mg/kg body weight per 12 h) and ZnO (2·5 g/kg feed). The pigs treated with antimicrobials (n 11) showed no signs of gut malfunction at any time, whereas untreated weaned controls (n 11) developed clinical diarrhoea. The antimicrobial treatment resulted in a higher daily weight gain compared with weaned controls (101 v. − 44 g/d, P < 0·0001), whereas both groups had a similar degree of villous atrophy compared with unweaned 24-d-old controls (n 8; P < 0·05). The antimicrobial treatment gave a dramatic reduction in small intestinal microbial diversity, and specifically prevented tissue colonization with Escherichia coli compared with weaned controls. Further, the antimicrobial treatment improved amylase, trypsin and small intestinal aminopeptidase A and N activities (all P < 0·05). Specifically for the colon, the antimicrobial treatment was associated with reduced tissue weight ( − 23 %, P < 0·05), reduced concentration of SCFA (P < 0·05), and increased mucosal goblet cell area (P < 0·0001) compared with weaned controls. We conclude that the beneficial effects of antimicrobials are mediated not only through reduction in intestinal bacterial load, but also through a stimulation of protein digestive function and goblet cell density.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2007
Figure 0

Table 1 Composition of diet for pigs following weaning

Figure 1

Table 2 Average daily gain, luminal content score and organ dimensions in weanling pigs (Mean values with their standard errors)

Figure 2

Fig. 1 Enzyme activities (expressed as U/g tissue) of aminopeptidase N (ApN), dipeptidylpeptidase IV (DPP IV), aminopeptidase A (ApA), chymotrypsin and trypsin (A), and sucrase, lactase, maltase and amylase (B). (C), Small intestinal in vitro absorption rate, expressed as mmol/g tissue per min of glucose, fructose, leucine and proline. Values are means with their standard errors depicted by vertical bars. a,b Mean values with unlike letters were significantly different (P < 0·05). ■, Unweaned control; , weaned control; , antimicrobial group.

Figure 3

Fig. 2 Morphometric dimensions of the small and large intestine expressed in μm. Values are means with their standard errors depicted by vertical bars. a,b Mean values with unlike letters were significantly different (P < 0·05). ■, Unweaned control; , weaned control; , antimicrobial group.

Figure 4

Fig. 3 Mucus-containing goblet cells in the colon of pigs treated with antimicrobials (ANTI; A–C) and weaned control pigs (D–F) using three different stainings: Alcian Blue (AB) pH 2·5 (A, D), AB pH 1·0 (B, E) or periodic acid-Schiffs reagent (PAS; C, F).

Figure 5

Fig. 4 Area of mucus-containing goblet cells in the small and large intestine. Data are expressed as area of positively stained cells relative to villus or crypt area using periodic acid-Schiffs reagent (PAS). Stainings with Alcian Blue gave similar results as PAS (data not shown). Values are means with their standard errors depicted by vertical bars. a,b Mean values with unlike letters were significantly different (P < 0·05). ■, Unweaned control; , weaned control; , antimicrobial group.

Figure 6

Fig. 5 Concentration of acetic acid, propionic acid and butyric acid in colon luminal content (mmol/kg content). Values are means with their standard errors depicted by vertical bars. a,b Mean values with unlike letters were significantly different (P < 0·05). ■, Unweaned control; , weaned control; , antimicrobial group.

Figure 7

Fig. 6 Gel containing bands of restriction fragments of bacterial 16S DNA from samples of distal small intestinal tissue and luminal content. The restriction fragment lengths of the four most dominating bands are indicated as number of base pairs. ANTI, antimicrobial group.

Figure 8

Table 3 Dice pairwise similarity coefficients within and between treatments* (Mean values with their standard errors)

Figure 9

Table 4 Dominating terminal restriction fragments (T-RF) in tissue and content and list of potential operational taxonomic units (OTU) and tentative bacterial identification (for details see Fig. 6)

Figure 10

Table 5 Prevalence of discriminative terminal restriction fragments (T-RF) that are differentially expressed between treatment groups (size of T-RF and suggestions for operational taxonomic unit (OTU) and tentative bacterial identifications are given)*