| Literature DB >> 21859465 |
Steen Nordentoft1, Lars Mølbak, Lotte Bjerrum, Jantina De Vylder, Filip Van Immerseel, Karl Pedersen.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the EU conventional cages for laying hens are forbidden beginning in January 2012, however concerns about a higher transmission rate of Salmonella in alternative cages systems have been raised. The extent to which cage systems may affect the intestinal microbiota of laying hens is not known, and different microbiota may demonstrate different resistance towards colonization with Salmonella. To investigate this, ileal and caecal samples from two experimental studies where laying hens were inoculated with Salmonella Enteritidis and housed in different systems (conventional cage, furnished cage or aviary), were compared using Terminal Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (T-RFLP). The distribution of genera in the microbiota in caecum was furthermore described by next generation sequencing of 16S rDNA libraries.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21859465 PMCID: PMC3188488 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-11-187
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Comparisons of T-RFLP profiles of microbiota in the ileum and caecum of layers housed in different cage systems
| Before Inoculation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean SD | ||||||
| Location | Cage | n | T-RF | Conventional | Furnished | Aviary |
| Ileum | Conventional | 4 | 10.5 ± 1.7 | 70.5 ± 12.4 | - | - |
| Furnished | 4 | 6.5 ± 2.7 | 67.4 ± 9.9 | 65.9 ± 7.5 | - | |
| Aviary | 4 | 7.3 ± 3.5 | 54.3 ± 9.6 | 66.8 ± 11.4 | 72.3 ± 7.0 | |
| Caecum | Conventional | 4 | 39.5 ± 6.6 | 66.4 ± 6.0 | - | - |
| Furnished | 4 | 39.8 ± 4.2 | 60.8 ± 3.5 | 75.1 ± 6.0 | - | |
| Aviary | 4 | 52.7 ± 23.5 | 38.6 ± 6.3 | 38.5 ± 4.8 | 45.4 ± 14.5 | |
| Mean SD | ||||||
| Location | Cage | n | T-RF | Conventional | Furnished | Aviary |
| Ileum | Conventional | 8 | 10.0 ± 1.2 | 86.5 ± 10.1 | - | - |
| Furnished | 8 | 6.9 ± 2.2 | 65.5 ± 9.3 | 81.1 ± 6.9 | - | |
| Aviary | 7 | 10.7 ± 2.7 | 66.8 ± 9.2 | 67.5 ± 9.2 | 73.8 ± 9.0 | |
| Caecum | Conventional | 8 | 58.0 ± 5.2 | 73.4 ± 5.8 | - | - |
| Furnished | 8 | 51.3 ± 7.3 | 57.7 ± 8.1 | 67.1 ± 8.6 | - | |
| Aviary | 8 | 63.6 ± 5.3 | 54.6 ± 4.7 | 58.2 ± 4.9 | 74.2 ± 4.9 | |
n: number of samples
SD: Dice similarity coefficient
T-RF: Terminal Restriction Fragments
Figure 1PCA comparison of T-RFLP profiles of the caecal flora in laying hens housed in different cage systems. PCA analysis of T-RFLP generated fingerprints of the bacterial community in caecal samples from 2 experimental studies. The first plot shows all samples from both experiments coloured according to sampling time and salmonella status. Samples collected before inoculation with S. Enteritidis (blue) were clearly separated from samples collected 4 weeks PI (red and yellow). The second experiment (green, light blue) was also clearly separated from the first experiment (X = 20.7%, Y = 10.1%, Z = 9.0%). Yellow and light blue represents samples positive for Salmonella. In the second plot, the same samples are marked according to cage system. Each cage type are separated in clusters with the major variance being 20.7% between experiments and Y = 10.7% between cages. Red dots: Aviary, Green dots: Conventional cage, Blue: Furnished cage.
The distribution of sequence reads, OTU's in absolute numbers and the ratio between Firmicutes and Bacteroides in pooled caecal samples
| Conventional cage | Furnished cage | Aviary | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before inoculation | 4 weeks PI | Before inoculation | 4 weeks PI | Before inoculation | 4 weeks PI | |
| Number of reads | 51,863 | 21,714 | 42,885 | 42,520 | 51,715 | 40,410 |
| Number of OTU/total number of OTU | 185/197 | 178/197 | 196/197 | 193/197 | 195/197 | 193/197 |
| 93.9% | 90.4% | 99.5% | 98.0% | 99.0% | 98.0% | |
| Firmicutes/Bacteroides ratioa | 0.81 | 0.61 | 0.87 | 0.74 | 0.69 | 0.68 |
a The ratio was calculated by dividing all OTU that could be affiliated to Firmicutes (Clostridia and Bacilli) by the number of OTU's from Bacteroides.
Figure 2The distribution of OTU's according to the prevalence in the microbiota. The number and prevalence of OTU based on the relative prevalence in each sample (cut off < 0.01%). The number of different OTU's in the group of less abundant genera was highest in furnished and aviary cage, in contrast to conventional cage where we observed fewer but more dominating genera.
Listing of the most prevalent genera in caecal samples accounting for more than 1% of sequence in one or more samples
| Conventional | Furnished | Aviary | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class | Family | Genus | Before inoculation (%)a | 4 Weeks PI (%) | Before inoculation (%) | 4 Weeks PI (%) | Before inoculation (%) | 4 Weeks PI (%) |
| 2.3 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.2 | |||
| 1.4 | 1.4 | 5.3 | 4.8 | 6.2 | 5.6 | |||
| 2.1 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 2.6 | |||
| 1.2 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 2.0 | 2.3 | 1.4 | |||
| 28.8 | 20.6 | 12.4 | 14.7 | 13.8 | 18.8 | |||
| 2.8 | 4.4 | 4.9 | 5.4 | 4.6 | 3.8 | |||
| Unclas. | 4.4 | 9.8 | 9.0 | 7.1 | 10.3 | 8.9 | ||
| Unclas. | 0.7 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 3.0 | 4.9 | 2.5 | ||
| Unclas. | 0.2 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 1.9 | ||
| 0.6 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 0.4 | |||
| 18.6 | 11.6 | 13.6 | 19.0 | 16.7 | 13.9 | |||
| 4.3 | 0.9 | 2.6 | 0.4 | 1.8 | 3.8 | |||
| 0.0 | 0.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.4 | |||
| 3.8 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | |||
| 2.3 | 4.8 | 5.4 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 5.0 | |||
| 1.5 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.6 | |||
| 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.8 | |||
| 2.2 | 1.3 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 0.1 | |||
| 1.7 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 1.9 | |||
| 0.9 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.9 | |||
| 0.5 | 0.6 | 3.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.8 | |||
| 0.9 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | |||
| Unclas. | 0.2 | 0.1 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 | ||
| Unclas. | Unclas. | 0.2 | 0.6 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | |
| Unclas. | Unclas. | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.6 | |
a) Percentages are presented as the relative distribution compared to all OTU's in the sample.
Figure 3Taxonomic distribution of bacterial classes in caecum. Taxonomic distribution of bacterial classes in caecum from layers caged in different cage systems. The distribution is based on pyrosequencing of 16S rDNA libraries generated from pooled caecal samples. Samples were taken before inoculation with S. Enteritidis and 4 weeks PI.