| Literature DB >> 21943280 |
Estela Costa1, Richard Re Uwiera, John P Kastelic, L Brent Selinger, G Douglas Inglis.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of efficacious alternatives to antimicrobial growth promoters (AGP) in livestock production is an urgent issue, but is hampered by a lack of knowledge regarding the mode of action of AGP. The belief that AGP modulate the intestinal microbiota has become prominent in the literature; however, there is a lack of experimental evidence to support this hypothesis. Using a chlortetracycline-murine-Citrobacter rodentium model, the ability of AGP to modulate the intestinal immune system in mammals was investigated.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21943280 PMCID: PMC3195107 DOI: 10.1186/1757-4749-3-14
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gut Pathog ISSN: 1757-4749 Impact factor: 4.181
Figure 1Mean quantities of . Vertical lines associated with individual markers at each sample time indicate standard error of the mean (n = 3). *Values differ (P < 0.05).
Figure 2Mean change in body weight (%) of mice. Treatments are: (Control) mice not inoculated with C. rodentium or administered CTC; (CTC) mice not inoculated with C. rodentium but administered CTC; (CR) mice inoculated with C. rodentium but not administered CTC; and (CTC+CR) mice inoculated with C. rodentium and administered CTC. Vertical lines associated with individual markers at each sample time indicate standard error of the mean (n = 3). *P < 0.05 when compared with Control mice; **P < 0.05 when compared with Control or CTC treatment mice; ***P < 0.05 when compared with Control, CTC or CTC+CR treatment mice.
Histopathological scores of the distal colons of mice
| Control | CTC | CR | CTC+CR | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cat/Day | 3 | 8 | 14 | 21 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 21 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 21 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 21 |
| EHa | 0b | 0 | 0 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 2-4 | 1-2 | 0 | 2 | 1-3 | 0-1 |
| CH | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-1 | 0 | 0-1 | 0 | 0-1 | 2 | 2-4 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 2-3 | 1-3 | 0-2 |
| EI | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3-4 | 2-3 | 0-2 | 0 | 3 | 0-4 | 0-2 |
| II | 0 | 0-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2-4 | 3-4 | 1-4 | 0 | 3-4 | 1-4 | 0-2 |
| MA | 0 | 0-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2-3 | 3 | 1 | 0-1 | 2-3 | 1-3 | 1-2 |
| GC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1-2 | 2-3 | 0-1 | 0 | 1-2 | 0-3 | 0 |
| Total | 0 | 0-1 | 0 | 0-1 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 13-15 | 16-20 | 4-12 | 0-1 | 14-16 | 4-20 | 1-9 |
aPathology categories (Cat): EH, epithelial hyperplasia; CH, crypt height; EI, epithelial injury; II, inflammatory infiltrates; MA, mitotic activity; GC, globlet cell depletion. Total score corresponds to the sum of scores of all categories.
bRange of scores were: 0 to 4 for EH, CH, EI, II; 0 to 3 for MA, GC; 0 to 22 for Total.
Pairwise analyses of histopathological changes in the distal colons of micea
| Control vs CR | Control vs CTC+CR | CR vs CTC+CR | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cat/Day | 3 | 8 | 14 | 21 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 21 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 21 |
| EHb | 0.317 | 0.034* | 0.076 | 0.090 | 1.000 | 0.025* | 0.075 | 0.456 | 0.317 | 0.317 | 0.261 | 0.197 |
| CH | 0.317 | 0.025* | 0.076 | 0.034* | 0.317 | 0.039* | 0.068 | 0.114 | 1.000 | 0.317 | 0.486 | 0.796 |
| II | 1.000 | 0.046* | 0.068 | 0.037* | 1.000 | 0.043* | 0.068 | 0.121 | 1.000 | 0.637 | 0.814 | 0.261 |
| EI | 1.000 | 0.034* | 0.068 | 0.114 | 1.000 | 0.025* | 0.197 | 0.317 | 1.000 | 0.317 | 0.816 | 0.456 |
| MA | 1.000 | 0.043* | 0.045* | 0.025* | 0.317 | 0.043* | 0.068 | 0.034* | 0.317 | 0.456 | 0.317 | 0.317 |
| GC | 1.000 | 0.034* | 0.068 | 0.317 | 1.000 | 0.034* | 0.182 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.796 | 0.317 |
| Total | 0.114 | 0.046* | 0.037* | 0.046* | 0.114 | 0.046* | 0.037* | 0.072 | 1.000 | 0.261 | 1.000 | 0.513 |
aPairwise comparisons were conducted using the Kruskal Wallis non-parametric test. P values marked with an asterisk are significantly different (P = 0.05).
bPathology categories (Cat): EH, epithelial hyperplasia; CH, crypt height; EI, epithelial injury; II, inflammatory infiltrates; MA, mitotic activity; GC, globlet cell depletion. Total score corresponds to the sum of scores of all categories.
Figure 3Mean colonic epithelial crypt height (μm). Treatments are: (Control) mice not inoculated with C. rodentium or administered CTC; (CTC) mice not inoculated with C. rodentium but administered CTC; (CR) mice inoculated with C. rodentium but not administered CTC; and (CTC+CR) mice inoculated with C. rodentium and administered CTC. Vertical lines associated with histogram bars indicate standard error of the mean (n = 3). Histogram bars at individual times not indicated with the same letter differ (P < 0.05).
Figure 4Relative mean mRNA expression (log [2. Treatments are: (Control) mice not inoculated with C. rodentium or administered CTC; (CTC) mice not inoculated with C. rodentium but administered CTC; (CR) mice inoculated with C. rodentium but not administered CTC; and (CTC+CR) mice inoculated with C. rodentium and administered CTC. Vertical lines associated with histogram bars indicated standard error of the means (n = 3). (A) IFN-γ; (B) TNF-α; (C) IL-2; (D) IL-17A; (E) IL-22; (F) IL-1β; (G) IL-6; (H) IL-4; (I) IL-10; (J) TGF-β. For each cytokine, histogram bars at individual times indicated by a different letter differ (P < 0.05).
Global analyses of T-RFLP community profilesa
| Treatment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day | Control | CTC | CR | CTC+CR |
| 3 | 0.888 | 0.249 | 0.487 | 0.069 |
| 8 | 0.003* | 0.708 | 0.287 | 0.033* |
| 14 | 0.391 | 0.709 | 0.575 | 0.717 |
| 21 | 0.070 | 0.085 | 0.035* | 0.035* |
aP values marked with an asterisk are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05).
Pairwise analyses of T-RFLP community profilesa
| Day / Group | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 8 | 14 | 21 | |||||
| Treatment Comparisons | A | B | A | B | A | B | A | B |
| Control (A) vs CTC (B) | 0.797 | 0.021* | 0.025* | 0.732 | 0.338 | 0.542 | 0.308 | 0.267 |
| Control (A) vs CR (B) | 0.908 | 0.423 | 0.023* | 0.441 | 0.570 | 0.547 | 0.181 | 0.151 |
| Control (A) vs CTC+CR (B) | 0.807 | 0.024* | 0.053 | 0.153 | 0.298 | 0.599 | 0.059 | 0.063 |
| CTC (A) vs CR (B) | 0.193 | 0.633 | 0.508 | 0.269 | 0.808 | 0.691 | 0.058 | 0.065 |
| CTC (A) vs CTC+CR (B) | 0.827 | 0.593 | 0.738 | 0.127 | 0.698 | 0.746 | 0.212 | 0.218 |
| CR (A) vs CTC+CR (B) | 0.416 | 0.042* | 0.227 | 0.008* | 0.450 | 0.653 | 0.057 | 0.052 |
aP values marked with an asterisk are significantly different (P = 0.05).