Dataset Information

Prebiotics and synbiotics – in ovo delivery for improved lifespan condition in chicken.

ABSTRACT: Commercially produced chickens have become key food-producing animals in the global food system. The scale of production in industrial settings has changed management systems to a point now very far from traditional methods. During the perinatal period, newly hatched chicks undergo processing, vaccination and transportation, which introduces a gap in access to feed and water. This gap, referred to as the hatching window, dampens the potential for microflora inoculation and as such, prevents proper microbiome, gastrointestinal system and innate immunity development. As a consequence, the industrial production of chickens with a poor microbial profile leads to enteric microbial infestation and infectious disease outbreaks, which became even more prevalent after the withdrawal of antibiotic growth promoters on many world markets (e.g., the EU).This review presents the rationale, methodology and life-long effects of in ovo stimulation of chicken microflora. In ovo stimulation provides efficient embryonic microbiome colonization with commensal microflora during the perinatal period. A carefully selected bioactive formulation (prebiotics, probiotics alone or combined into synbiotics) is delivered into the air cell of the egg on day 12 of egg incubation. The prebiotic penetrates the outer and inner egg membranes and stimulates development on the innate microflora in the embryonic guts. Probiotics are available after the mechanical breakage of the shell membranes by the chick’s beak at the beginning of hatching (day 19). The intestinal microflora after in ovo stimulation is potent enough for competitive exclusion and programs the lifespan condition. We present the effects of different combinations of prebiotic and probiotic delivered in ovo on day 12 of egg incubation on microflora, growth traits, feed efficiency, intestinal morphology, meat microstructure and quality, immune system development, physiological characteristics and the transcriptome of the broiler chickens.We discuss the differences between in ovo stimulation (day 12 of egg incubation) and in ovo feeding (days 17–18 of egg incubation) and speculate about possible future developments in this field. In summary, decades of research on in ovo stimulation and the lifelong effects support this method as efficient programming of lifespan conditions in commercially raised chickens.

SUBMITTER: Siwek M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6296066 | biostudies-other | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In ovo delivery of prebiotics and synbiotics in chickens allows for the development of intestinal microflora prior to hatching, which boosts their robustness. The goal of this study was to determine the transcriptomic profile of the spleen (S), cecal tonsils (CT), and large intestine (LI) of adult chickens injected with prebiotics and synbiotics in ovo. On day 12 of embryo development, incubating eggs were injected with prebiotics: inulin alone (P1) or in combination with Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis IBB2955 (S1), galactooligosaccharides (GOS) alone (P2) or in combination with Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris IBB477 (S2); control group (C) was mock injected with physiological saline. Gene expression analysis was conducted using an Affymetrix Chicken Gene 1.1 ST Array Strip. Most of the differentially expressed genes (DEG) were detected in the cecal tonsils of P2 (378 DEG), and were assigned to gene ontology categories: lymphocyte proliferation, activation and differentiation, and cytokine production. Ingenuity pathway analysis of the DEG (CT of P2) indicated the inhibition of humoral and cellular immune responses, e.g., role of NFAT in regulation of immune responses, phagocytosis, production of nitric oxide, NF-?B, IL-8, and CXCR4 signaling. The DEG with the highest up-regulation from S1 and P2 were involved in gene expression (PAPOLA, RPL27A, RPLP1, and RPS29) from P1 and P2 in transport (BEST4, SLC9A3, and SLC13A2), metabolism (OGT, ALPP, CA4, and CA7), signaling (FGG, G3BP2, UBB, G3BP2, CACNA1G, and ATP6V0A4), and immune responses (MSMB, LGALS3, CABIN1, CXCR5, PAX5, and TNFRSF14). Two DEG influencing the complement system (SERPING1 and MIR1674) were down-regulated in P2 and S1. In conclusion, GOS injected in ovo provided the most potent stimulation of the host transcriptome. This is likely due to its strong bifidogenic effect, which triggers proliferation of indigenous embryonic microflora in ovo, and indirectly influences gene expression regulation in host tissues, especially cecal tonsils.

Project description:Intestinal mucosa is the interface between the microbial content of the gut and the host's milieu. The goal of this study was to modulate chicken intestinal microflora by in ovo stimulation with galactooligosaccharides (GOS) prebiotic and to demonstrate the molecular responses of the host. The animal trial was performed on meat-type chickens (Ross 308). GOS was delivered by in ovo injection performed into the air cell on day 12 of egg incubation. Analysis of microbial communities and mucosal gene expression was performed at slaughter (day 42 post-hatching). Chyme (for DNA isolation) and intestinal mucosa (for RNA isolation) from four distinct intestinal segments (duodenum, jejunum, ileum, and caecum) was sampled. The relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. in DNA isolated from chyme samples was determined using qPCR. On the host side, the mRNA expression of 13 genes grouped into two panels was analysed with RT-qPCR. Panel (1) included genes related to intestinal innate immune responses (IL-1?, IL-10 and IL-12p40, AvBD1 and CATHL2). Panel (2) contained genes involved in intestinal barrier function (MUC6, CLDN1 and TJAP1) and nutrients sensing (FFAR2 and FFAR4, GLUT1, GLUT2 and GLUT5). GOS increased the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium in caecum (from 1.3% to 3.9%). Distinct effects of GOS on gene expression were manifested in jejunum and caecum. Cytokine genes (IL-1?, IL-10 and IL-12p40) were up-regulated in the jejunum and caecum of the GOS-treated group. Host defence peptides (AvBD1 and CATHL2) were up-regulated in the caecum of the GOS-treated group. Free fatty acid receptors (FFAR2 and FFAR4) were up-regulated in all three compartments of the intestine (except the duodenum). Glucose transporters were down-regulated in duodenum (GLUT2 and GLUT5) but up-regulated in the hindgut (GLUT1 and GLUT2). In conclusion, GOS delivered in ovo had a bifidogenic effect in adult chickens. It also modulated gene expression related to intestinal immune responses, gut barrier function, and nutrient sensing.

Dataset Information

Prebiotics and synbiotics – in ovo delivery for improved lifespan condition in chicken.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets