DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Protective effects of Bacillus subtilis against Salmonella infection in the microbiome of Hy-Line Brown layers

  • Oh, Ju Kyoung (Department of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University) ;
  • Pajarillo, Edward Alain B. (College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Florida A&M University) ;
  • Chae, Jong Pyo (Department of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, In Ho (Department of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University) ;
  • Kang, Dae-Kyung (Department of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University)
  • Received : 2017.01.31
  • Accepted : 2017.04.10
  • Published : 2017.09.01

Abstract

Objective: This study investigated the effects of Bacillus subtilis CSL2 (B. subtilis CSL2) administration before Salmonella challenge on the fecal microbiota and microbial functionality of Hy-line Brown (HLB) laying hens. Methods: Fecal samples were collected from control (CON), Salmonella-infected (SAL) and Salmonella-infected, probiotic-treated (PRO) groups before and after Salmonella challenge for microbiome analysis using 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing. Results: Infection with Salmonella led to decreased microbial diversity in hen feces; diversity was recovered with Bacillus administration. In addition, Salmonella infection triggered significant alterations in the composition of the fecal microbiota. The abundance of the phylum Firmicutes decreased while that of Proteobacteria, which includes a wide variety of pathogens, increased significantly. Bacillus administration resulted in normal levels of abundance of Firmicutes and Proteobacteria. Analysis of bacterial genera showed that Salmonella challenge decreased the population of Lactobacillus, the most abundant genus, and increased populations of Pseudomonas and Flavobacterium genera by a factor of 3 to 5. On the other hand, Bacillus administration caused the abundance of the Lactobacillus genus to recover to control levels and decreased the population of Pseudomonas significantly. Further analysis of operational taxonomic units revealed a high abundance of genes associated with two-component systems and secretion systems in the SAL group, whereas the PRO group had more genes associated with ribosomes. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that B. subtilis CSL2 administration can modulate the microbiota in HLB laying hens, potentially acting as a probiotic to protect against Salmonella Gallinarum infection.

Keywords

Bacillus subtilis;Intestinal Microbiota;Laying Hens;Probiotics;Salmonella Gallinarum

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Rural Development Administration

References

  1. Betancor L, Pereira M, Martinez A, et al. Prevalence of Salmonella enterica in poultry and eggs in Uruguay during an epidemic due to Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis. J Clin Microbiol 2010;48:2413-23. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02137-09
  2. Jeong JS, Kim IH. Effect of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 spores as a probiotic feed supplement on growth performance, noxious gas emission, and intestinal microflora in broilers. Poult Sci 2014;93:3097-103. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2014-04086
  3. Park JH, Kim IH. The effects of the supplementation of Bacillus subtilis RX7 and B2A strains on the performance, blood profiles, intestinal Salmonella concentration, noxious gas emission, organ weight and breast meat quality of broiler challenged with Salmonella typhimurium. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 2015;99:326-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12248
  4. Fanning S, Hall LJ, Cronin M, et al. Bifidobacterial surface-exopolysaccharide facilitates commensal-host interaction through immune modulation and pathogen protection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012;109:2108-13. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115621109
  5. Dekker JP, Frank KM. Salmonella, Shigella, and Yersinia. Clin Lab Med 2015;35:225-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2015.02.002
  6. Foley SL, Johnson TJ, Ricke SC, Nayak R, Danzeisen J. Salmonella pathogenicity and host adaptation in chicken-associated serovars. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2013;77:582-607. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00015-13
  7. Backhed F, Fraser CM, Ringel Y, et al. Defining a healthy human gut microbiome: current concepts, future directions, and clinical applications. Cell Host Microbe 2012;12:611-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2012.10.012
  8. Chae JP, Pajarillo EAB, Oh JK, Kim H, Kang D-K. Revealing the combined effects of lactulose and probiotic enterococci on the swine faecal microbiota using 454 pyrosequencing. Microb Biotechnol 2016;9:486-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12370
  9. Pajarillo EAB, Chae JP, Kim HB, Kim IH, Kang D-K. Barcoded pyrosequencing-based metagenomic analysis of the faecal microbiome of three purebred pig lines after cohabitation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2015;99:5647-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-6408-5
  10. Oh JK, Pajarillo EAB, Chae JP, et al. Effects of Bacillus subtilis CSL2 on the composition and functional diversity of the faecal microbiota of broiler chickens challenged with Salmonella Gallinarum. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 2017;8:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-016-0130-8
  11. Pajarillo EAB, Chae JP, Balolong MP, et al. Characterization of the fecal microbial communities of Duroc pigs using 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2015;28:584-91. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0651
  12. Videnska P, Sisak F, Havlickova H, Faldynova M, Rychlik I. Influence of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis infection on the composition of chicken cecal microbiota. BMC Vet Re. 2013;9:140. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-9-140
  13. Oakley BB, Lillehoj HS, Kogut MH, et al. The chicken gastrointestinal microbiome. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2014;360:100-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6968.12608
  14. Pajarillo EAB, Chae JP, Balolong MP, et al. Effects of probiotic Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 11181 administration on swine fecal microbiota diversity and composition using barcoded pyrosequencing. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2015;201:80-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.01.011
  15. Souto R, Silva-Boghossian CM, Colombo APV. Prevalence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. in subgingival biofilm and saliva of subjects with chronic periodontal infection. Braz J Microbiol 2014;45:495-501. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-83822014000200017
  16. Langille MGI, Zaneveld J, Caporaso JG, et al. Predictive functional profiling of microbial communities using 16S rRNA marker gene sequences. Nat Biotechnol 2013;31:814-21. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2676
  17. Conrad CC, Stanford K, Narvaez-Bravo C, Callaway T, McAllister T. Farm fairs and petting zoos: A review of animal contact as a source of zoonotic enteric disease. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2017;14:59-73. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2016.2185
  18. Choi KY, Lee TK, Sul WJ, Metagenomic analysis of chicken gut microbiota for improving metabolism and health of chickens - a review. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2015;28:1217-25. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0026
  19. Vancanneyt M, Segers P, Hauben L, et al. Flavobacterium meningosepticum, a pathogen in birds. J Clin Microbiol 1994;32:2398-403.
  20. Asahara T, Takahashi A, Yuki N, et al. Protective effect of a synbiotic against multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in a murine infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016;60:3041-50. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02928-15
  21. de Vos WM, Bron PA, Kleerebezem M. Post-genomics of lactic acid bacteria and other food-grade bacteria to discover gut functionality. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2004;15:86-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2004.02.006
  22. Sun Z, Harris HMB, McCann A, et al. Expanding the biotechnology potential of lactobacilli through comparative genomics of 213 strains and associated genera. Nat Commun 2015;6:8322. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9322
  23. Makarova K, Slesarev A, Wolf, Y, et al. Comparative genomics of the lactic acid bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006;103:15611-6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0607117103
  24. Lee JY, Pajarillo EAB, Kim MJ, Chae JP, Kang D-K. Proteomic and transcriptional analysis of Lactobacillus johnsonii PF01 during bile salt exposure by iTRAQ shotgun proteomics and quantitative RT-PCR. J Proteome Res 2013;12:432-43. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr300794y
  25. Pajarillo EAB, Kim SH, Lee JY, Valeriano VDV, Kang D-K. Quantitative proteogenomics and the reconstruction of the metabolic pathway in Lactobacillus mucosae LM1. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour 2015;35:692-702. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2015.35.5.692
  26. van den Nieuwboer M, van Hemert S, Claassen E, de Vos WM. Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1 and its host interaction: a dozen years after the genome. Microb Biotechnol 2016;9:452-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12368
  27. Dowd SE, Sun Y, Wolcott RD, Domingo A, Carroll JA. Bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP) for microbiome studies: bacterial diversity in the ileum of newly weaned Salmonella-infected pigs. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2008;5:459-72. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2008.0107
  28. Demeshkina N, Jenner L, Westhof E, Yusupov M, Yusupova G. A new understanding of the decoding principle on the ribosome. Nature 2012;484:256-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10913
  29. Ji Y, Li W, Zhang Y, et al. QseB mediates biofilm formation and invasion in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi. Microb Pathog 2017;104:6-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2017.01.010