Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of husbandry systems and Chinese indigenous chicken strain on cecum microbial diversity

  • Dong, Xiuxue (College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University) ;
  • Hu, Bing (College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University) ;
  • Wan, Wenlong (College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University) ;
  • Gong, Yanzhang (College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University) ;
  • Feng, Yanping (College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University)
  • Received : 2019.02.26
  • Accepted : 2019.10.10
  • Published : 2020.10.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This study was to evaluate the effect of husbandry systems and strains on cecum microbial diversity of Jingyang chickens under the same dietary conditions. Methods: A total of 320 laying hens (body weight, 1.70±0.15 kg; 47 weeks old) were randomly allocated to one of the four treatments: i) Silver-feathered hens in enrichment cages (SEC) with an individual cage (70×60×75 cm), ii) Silver-feathered hens in free range (SFR) with the stocking density of 1.5 chickens per ten square meters, iii) Gold-feathered hens in enrichment cages (GEC), iv) Gold-feathered hens in free range (GFR). The experiment lasted 8 weeks and the cecum fecal samples were collected for 16S rDNA high throughput sequencing at the end of experiment. Results: i) The core microbiota was composed of Bacteroidetes (49% to 60%), Firmicutes (21% to 32%) and Proteobacteria (2% to 4%) at the phylum level. ii) The core bacteria were Bacteroides (26% to 31%), Rikenellaceae (9% to 16%), Parabacteroides (2% to 5%) and Lachnoclostridium (2% to 6%) at the genus level. iii) The indexes of operational taxonomic unit, Shannon, Simpson and observed species were all higher in SFR group than in SEC group while in GEC group than in GFR group, with SFR group showing the greatest diversity of cecum microorganisms among the four groups. iv) The clustering result was consistent with the strain classification, with a similar composition of cecum bacteria in the two strains of laying hens. Conclusion: The core microbiota were not altered by husbandry systems or strains. The free-range system increased the diversity of cecal microbes only for silver feathered hens. However, the cecum microbial composition was similar in two strain treatments under the same dietary conditions.

Keywords

References

  1. Akyurek H, Orhan ZC. Effects of phytase supplementation on the performance and egg quality of free-range layers. Int J Curr Res 2016;8:44142-7.
  2. Sundrum A. Organic livestock farming: a critical review. Livest Prod Sci 2001;67:207-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(00)00188-3
  3. Albokhadai I. Hematological and some biochemical values of indigenous chickens in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia during summer season. Asian J Poult Sci 2012;6:138-45. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajpsaj.2012.138.145
  4. Danielsen M, Hornshoj H, Siggers RH, Jensen BB, van Kessel AG, Bendixen E. Effects of bacterial colonization on the porcine intestinal proteome. J Proteome Res 2007;6:2596-604. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr070038b
  5. Les D, Margaret MFN, Relman DA. An ecological and evolutionary perspective on human-microbe mutualism and disease. Nature 2007;449:811-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06245
  6. Turnbaugh P, Hamady M, Yatsunenko T, et al. A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature 2009;457:480-4. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07540
  7. Zhao L, Wang G, Siegel P, et al. Quantitative genetic background of the host influences gut microbiomes in chickens. Sci Rep 2013;3:1163. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01163
  8. Shira EB, Sklan D, Friedman A. Impaired immune responses in broiler hatchling hindgut following delayed access to feed. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2005;105:33-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2004.12.011
  9. Niba AT, Beal JD, Kudi AC, Brooks PH. Bacterial fermentation in the gastrointestinal tract of non-ruminants: Influence of fermented feeds and fermentable carbohydrates. Trop Anim Health Prod 2009;41:1393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-009-9327-6
  10. Wenk C. The role of dietary fibre in the digestive physiology of the pig. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2001;90:21-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00194-8
  11. Gong J, Yu H, Liu T, et al. Effects of zinc bacitracin, bird age and access to range on bacterial microbiota in the ileum and caeca of broiler chickens. J Appl Microbiol 2008;104:1372-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03699.x
  12. Gong J, Forster RJ, Yu H, et al. Diversity and phylogenetic analysis of bacteria in the mucosa of chicken ceca and comparison with bacteria in the cecal lumen. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2002;208:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2002.tb11051.x
  13. Smirnov A, Perez R, Amit-Romach E, Sklan D, Uni Z. Mucin dynamics and microbial populations in chicken small intestine are changed by dietary probiotic and antibiotic growth promoter supplementation. J Nutr 2005;135:187-92. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/135.2.187
  14. Lan PTN, Hayashi H, Sakamoto M, Benno Y. Phylogenetic analysis of cecal microbiota in chicken by the use of 16S rDNA clone libraries. Microbiol Immunol 2002;46:371-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1348-0421.2002.tb02709.x
  15. Kozich JJ, Westcott SL, Baxter NT, Highlander SK, Schloss PD. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. Appl Environ Microbiol 2013;79:5112-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01043-13
  16. Carmody R, Gerber G, Luevano Jr JM, et al. Diet Dominates host genotype in shaping the murine gut microbiota. Cell Host Microbe 2015;17:72-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2014.11.010
  17. Zhao L, Wang G, Siegel P, et al. Quantitative genetic background of the host influences gut microbiomes in chickens. Sci Rep 2013;3:1163. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01163
  18. Bailey MT, Dowd SE, Parry NM, Galley JD, Schauer DB, Lyte M. Stressor exposure disrupts commensal microbial populations in the intestines and leads to increased colonization by Citrobacter rodentium. Infect Immun 2010;78:1509-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00862-09
  19. Choe DW, Loh TC, Foo HL, Hairbejo M, Awis QS. Egg production, faecal pH and microbial population, small intestine morphology, and plasma and yolk cholesterol in laying hens given liquid metabolites produced by Lactobacillus plantarum strains. Br Poult Sci 2012;53:106-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2012.659653
  20. Lan PTN, Hayashi H, Sakamoto M, Benno Y. Phylogenetic analysis of cecal microbiota in chicken by the use of 16S rDNA clone libraries. Microbiol Immunol 2002;46:371-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1348-0421.2002.tb02709.x
  21. Xu Y, Yang H, Zhang L, et al. High-throughput sequencing technology to reveal the composition and function of cecal microbiota in Dagu chicken. BMC Microbiol 2016;16:259. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-016-0877-2
  22. Zhou X, Jiang X, Yang C, et al. Cecal microbiota of Tibetan Chickens from five geographic regions were determined by 16S rRNA sequencing. Microbiologyopen 2016;5:753-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.367
  23. Ley RE, Micah H, Catherine L, et al. Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. 2008;320:1647-51. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155725
  24. Leser TD, Amenuvor JZ, Jensen TK, Lindecrona RH, Mette B, Kristian ML. Culture-independent analysis of gut bacteria: the pig gastrointestinal tract microbiota revisited. Appl Environ Microbiol 2002;68:673-90. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.2.673-690.2002
  25. Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Vincent M, Mardis ER, Gordon JI. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature 2006;444:1027-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05414
  26. Carlotta DF, Duccio C, Monica DP, et al. Impact of diet in shaping gut microbiota revealed by a comparative study in children from Europe and rural Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010;107:14691-6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1005963107
  27. Saengkerdsub S, Herrera P, Woodward CL, Anderson RC, Nisbet DJ, Ricke SC. Detection of methane and quantification of methanogenic archaea in faeces from young broiler chickens using real-time PCR. Lett Appl Microbiol 2007;45:629-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2007.02243.x
  28. Lu J, Idris U, Harmon B, Hofacre C, Maurer JJ, Lee MD. Diversity and succession of the intestinal bacterial community of the maturing broiler chicken. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003; 69:6816-24. 10.1128/AEM.69.11.6816-6824.2003
  29. Latham MJ, Wolin MJ. Fermentation of cellulose by Ruminococcus flavefaciens in the presence and absence of Methanobacterium ruminantium. Appl Environ Microbiol 1977;34:297-301. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.34.3.297-301.1977
  30. Sybille T, June Z, Michael K, Roy M, Marco ML. The intestinal microbiota in aged mice is modulated by dietary resistant starch and correlated with improvements in host responses. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2013;83:299-309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01475.x