Influence of mulberry forage on gastrointestinal microbial composition and diversity in pigs
Paper Details
Influence of mulberry forage on gastrointestinal microbial composition and diversity in pigs
Abstract
This study was undertaken to evaluate the effects of mulberry forage on changes in bacterial communities in various segments of the gastrointestinal tract of pigs (jejunum, ileum and cecum). A total of 40 healthy pigs were divided into 5 groups and 1 group as the control group was fed standard diet, the other 4 groups were fed standard diet containing different levels of mulberry leaves. Intestinal content was collected from the jejunum, ileum and cecum from the 5 groups. Bacterial community compositions were analyzed using 16S rRNA gene-targeted metagenomicapproach. In our study, regardless of the diet, Firmicutes, Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes were the major components (>93%) of intestinal bacterial communities. Firmicutes and Proteobacteria predominated in the jejunum and ileum, and Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes predominated in the cecum. Furthermore, we also found that phylum Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes and class Clostridia, Bacilli were enriched in the mulberry diet group, while phylum Proteobacteria and class Gammaproteobacteria showed a higher abundance in the standard diet group. Our results revealed that although the intestinal bacteria varied due to the different composition of diet, substituting the commercial concentrate with mulberry forage did not result in a gastrointestinal disturbances in our study. Therefore, mulberry forage could be a valuable alternative protein-rich forage in pig feeding and could economize the pig production.
Ba NX, Giang VD, Ngoan LD. 2005. Ensiling of mulberryfoliage (Morus alba) and the nutritive value of mulberryfoliage silage for goats in central Vietnam. LivestockResearch for Rural Development 17, 1-9.
Benavides JE. 2002.Utilization of mulberry in animal production systems. Mulberry for animal production. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper. FAO, Rome 291.
Clemens ET, Stevens CE, Southworth M. 1975. Sites of organic acid production and pattern of digestamovement in the gastrointestinal tract of swine. Journal of Nutrition 105, 759-768.
Decuypere J, Van der Heyde H. 1972. Study of the gastro-intestinal microflora of suckling piglets and earlyweaned piglets reared using different feeding systems. Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig A 221, 492-510.
Doi RH. 2008. Cellulases of mesophilic microorganisms cellulosome and noncellulosome producers. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1125, 267-279.
Dowd SE, Sun Y, Wolcott RD,Domingo A, Carroll JA. 2008. Bacterial tag–encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP) for microbiome studies: Bacterial diversity in the ileum of newly weaned salmonella-infected pigs. Foodborne pathogens and disease 5, 459-472. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2008.0107
Edgar RC. 2013. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequencesfrom microbial amplicon reads. Nature Methods 10, 996-998. http://doi:10.1038/nmeth.2604
García DE, Medina MG, Cova LJ, Soca M, Pizzani P, BaldizánA, Domínguez CE. 2008. Acceptability oftropical tree fodder by cattle, sheep and goats in Trujillo state,Venezuela. Zootecnia Tropical 26, 191-196.
Isaacson R, Kim HB. 2012. The intestinal microbiome of the pig. Animal Health Research Reviews 13, 100-109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252312000084
Jensen BB. 1988. Effect of diet composition and viginiamycin on microbial activity in the digestive tract ofpigs. Proc. 4th Intern. Sem. On Digestive Physiology in the Pig. Jablonna. Poland, 392-400.
Kataeva IA, Seidel RD, Shah A, West LT, Li XL, Ljungdahl LG. 2002. The fibronectin type 3-like repeatfrom the Clostridium thermocellum cellobiohydrolase CbhA promotes hydrolysis of cellulose by modifyingits surface. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 68, 4292-4300. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.9.4292-4300.2002
Kim HB, Borewicz K, White BA, Singer RS, Sreevatsan S, Tu ZJ, Isaacson RE. 2011.Longitudinal investigation of the age-related bacterialdiversity in the feces of commercial pigs. Veterinary Microbial 153, 124-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.05.021
Knudsen KEB, Hansen I. 1991. Gastrointestinal implications in pigs of wheat and oat fractions. British Journal of Nutrition 65, 217-232. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19910082
Li Y, Meng Q, Zhou B, Zhou ZM. 2017. Effect of ensiled mulberry leaves and sun-dried mulberry fruit pomace on the fecal bacterial community composition in finishing steers. BMC Microbiology 17, 97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-017-1011-9
Li YH, Ding M, Wang J,Xu GJ, Zhao FK. 2006.A novel thermoacidophilic endoglucanase, Ba-EGA, from a new cellulose-degrading bacterium, Bacillus sp. AC-1. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 70, 430-436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-005-0075-x
Lin L, Kan X, Yan H, Wang DN. 2012. Characterization of extracellular cellulose-degrading enzymes from Bacillus thuringiensis strains. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 15, 2-2. https://doi.org/10.2225/vol15-issue3-fulltext-1
Liu Y, Willison JHM. 2013. Prospects for cultivating white mulberry (Morus alba) in the drawdown zone of the Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 20, 7142-7151. http://doi:10.1007/s11356-013-1896-2
Magoč T, Salzberg SL. 2011. FLASH: fast length adjustment of shortreads to improve genomeassemblies. Bioinformatics27, 2957-2963. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507
Ondov BD, Bergman NH, Phillippy AM. 2011. Interactive metagenomicvisualization in a Web browser. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 385.
Pieper R, Vahjen W, Zentek J. 2015. Dietary fibre and crude protein: impact on gastrointestinal microbial fermentation characteristics and host response. Animal Production Science55, 1367-1375. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15278
Salyers AA. 1979. Energy sources of major intestinal fermentativeanaerobes. American journal of clinical nutrition 32, 158-163.
Sanchez MD. 2002.Mulberry for animal production. FAO AnimalProduction and Health. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy147.
Spence C, Wells WG, Smith CJ. 2006. Characterization of theprimary starch utilization operon in the obligate anaerobeBacteroides fragilis: Regulation by carbon source and oxygen.Journal of Bacteriology 188, 4663-4672. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00125-06
Wang HZ, Xu QQ, Cui YD,Liang YL. 2007. Macrozoobenthic communityof Poyang Lake, the largest freshwater lake of China, in theYangtze floodplain. Journal of Limnology 8, 65-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-006-0190-0
Wongwilaiwalin S, Rattanachomsri U, Laothanachareon T, Eurwilaichitr L, Lgarashi Y, Champreda V. 2010.Analysis of a thermophilic lignocellulose degrading microbial consortium and multi-species lignocellulolytic enzyme system. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 47, 283-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2010.07.013
Yang H, Huang XC, Fang SM,Xin WS, Huang LS, Chen CY. 2016. Uncovering the composition of microbial community structure and metagenomics among three gut locations in pigs with distinct fatness. Scientific Reports6, 27427. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27427
Zhao WJ, Wang YP, Liu SY, Huang JJ, Zhai ZX, He C, Ding JM, Wang J, Wang HJ, Fan WB,Zhao JG, Meng H. 2015. The dynamic distribution of porcine microbiota across different ages and gastrointestinal tract segments. PloS One 10, e0117441. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117441
Ping Sheng, Yulong Yin, Dongsheng Wang, Li He, Jiangli Huang (2017), Influence of mulberry forage on gastrointestinal microbial composition and diversity in pigs; IJB, V11, N5, November, P32-42
https://innspub.net/influence-of-mulberry-forage-on-gastrointestinal-microbial-composition-and-diversity-in-pigs/
Copyright © 2017
By Authors and International
Network for Natural Sciences
(INNSPUB) https://innspub.net
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0