| Literature DB >> 25781608 |
Anna Ptak1, Michael R Bedford2, Sylwester Świątkiewicz3, Krzysztof Żyła4, Damian Józefiak5.
Abstract
Phytase is well studied and explored, however, little is known about its effects on the microbial ecology of the gastrointestinal tract. In total, 400 one-day-old female Ross 308 chicks were randomly distributed to four experimental groups. The dietary treatments were arranged as a 2 × 2 complete factorial design, with the factors being adequate (PC) or insufficient calcium (Ca) and digestible phosphor (dP)(NC) and with or without 5000 phytase units (FTU)/kg of Escherichia coli 6-phytase. The gastrointestinal tract pH values, ileal microbial communities and short-chain fatty acid concentrations in the digesta were determined. The reduction in Ca and dP concentration significantly affected pH in the crop and caeca, and addition of phytase to the NC resulted in a pH increase in the ileum. The reduction in Ca and dP concentration significantly lowered, while phytase supplementation increased ileal total bacterial counts. Additionally, the deficient diet reduced butyrate- but increased lactate-producing bacteria. The addition of phytase increased Lactobacillus sp./Enterococcus sp. whereas in case of Clostridium leptum subgroup, Clostridium coccoides-Eubacterium rectale cluster, Bifidobacterium sp. and Streptococcus/Lactococcus counts, a significant Ca and dP level x phytase interaction was found. However, the recorded interactions indicated that the effects of phytase and Ca and dP levels were not consistent. Furthermore, the reduction of Ca and dP level lowered Clostridium perfringens and Enterobacteriaceae counts. The analysis of fermentation products showed that reducing the Ca and dP content in the diet reduced total SCFA, DL-lactate, and acetic acid in the ileum whereas phytase increased concentrations of these acids in the NC group. This suggests that P is a factor which limits fermentation in the ileum. It may be concluded that phytase plays a role in modulating the gut microbiota of chicken, however, this is clearly linked with the levels of P and Ca in a diet.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25781608 PMCID: PMC4363628 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119770
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Composition of the basal diets and its calculated nutritive value.
| Starter diet (1–14d) | Finisher diet (15–42d) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ingredients (g/kg) | Positive control | Negative control | Positive control | Negative control |
| Wheat | 66.71 | 68.17 | 66.75 | 68.21 |
| Rapeseed expeller | 5.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 |
| Soybean meal | 22.19 | 21.91 | 15.29 | 14.02 |
| Soybean oil | 2.27 | 1.84 | 4.91 | 4.48 |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 1.78 | 0.81 | 1.20 | 0.24 |
| Limestone | 0.63 | 0.83 | 0.56 | 0.76 |
| Salt (NaCl) | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.21 | 0.21 |
| Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.12 |
| L-Lizyna HCl | 0.41 | 0.42 | 0.39 | 0.39 |
| Methionine hydroxy analogue | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.24 |
| L-Threonine | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Vitamin-mineral premix | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.30 |
| Calculated nutritive value | ||||
| AMEn, kcal/kg | 2900 | 2900 | 3100 | 3100 |
| Crude protein, % | 21.44 | 21.51 | 19.88 | 19.95 |
| Crude fat, % | 3.97 | 3.56 | 6.86 | 6.46 |
| Sodium-total, % | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.14 |
| Calcium-total, % | 0.85 | 0.71 | 0.70 | 0.56 |
| Phosphorus-total, % | 0.72 | 0.55 | 0.62 | 0.46 |
| P-digestible, g/kg | 4.00 | 2.69 | 3.20 | 1.89 |
| Lysine, % | 1.27 | 1.28 | 1.15 | 1.15 |
| Methionine, % | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.51 |
| Methionine + Cystine, % | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.89 |
| Threonine, % | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.72 | 0.72 |
aPositive control diet adequate in P and Ca; negative control diet with dP and Ca levels reduced by 0.13 and 0.14%, respectively. dP = digestible P.
bProvided the following per kilogram of diet: vitamin A, 11,166 IU; cholecalciferol, 2,500 IU; vitamin E, 80 mg; menadione, 2.50 mg; vitamin B12, 0.02 mg; folic acid, 1.17 mg; choline, 379 mg; d-pantothenic acid, 12.50 mg; riboflavin, 7.0 mg; niacin, 41.67 mg; thiamine, 2.17 mg; d-biotin, 0.18 mg; pyridoxine, 4.0 mg; ethoxyquin, 0.09 mg; Mn (MnO2), 73 mg; Zn (ZnO), 55 mg; Fe (FeSO4), 45 mg; Cu (CuSO4), 20 mg; I (CaI2O6), 0.62 mg; and Se (Na2SeO3), 0.3 mg.
Probes used in the determination of ileal microbiota by in situ fluorescent hybridization (FISH).
| Target | Probe | Sequence (5' to 3') |
|---|---|---|
|
| Bac303 | CCAATGTGGGGGACCTT |
|
| Erec482 | GCTTCTTAGTCARGTACCG |
|
| Enter1432 | CTTTTGCAACCCACT |
|
| Clept1240 | GTTTTRTCAACGGCAGTC |
|
| Strc493 | GTTAGCCGTCCCTTTCTGG |
|
| Bif228 | GATAGGGACGCGACCCCAT |
|
| Lab158 | GGTATTAGCAYCTGTTTCCA |
|
| Cpref191 | GTAGTAAGTTGGTTTCCTCG |
1[14]
2[16]
3[17]
4[18]
5[19]
6[20]
7[21]
Effects of the phytase and Ca/P levels on performance of broiler chickens.
| 1–14 d | 15–21 d | 22–42 d | 1–42 d | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | BWG, g | FI, g | FCR, g:g | BWG, g | FI, g | FCR, g:g | BWG, g | FI, g | FCR, g:g | BWG, g | FI, g | FCR, g:g |
| PC | 380 | 519 | 1.37 | 424 | 652 | 1.54 | 1742 | 3253 | 1.87 | 2546 | 4423 | 1.74 |
| PC + PHY | 406 | 530 | 1.31b | 428 | 649 | 1.52 | 1788 | 3228 | 1.81 | 2622 | 4406 | 1.68 |
| NC | 379b | 513 | 1.36 | 399b | 638 | 1.60 | 1738 | 3278 | 1.89 | 2515 | 4428 | 1.76 |
| NC + PHY | 407 | 531 | 1.31b | 426 | 659 | 1.55 | 1775 | 3270 | 1.85 | 2606 | 4460 | 1.71 |
| Pooled SEM | 3.800 | 3.566 | 0.008 | 3.582 | 4.435 | 0.010 | 12.437 | 18.292 | 0.013 | 16.861 | 22.089 | 0.010 |
| Model P | 0.002 | 0.200 | 0.006 | 0.007 | 0.419 | 0.007 | 0.427 | 0.798 | 0.109 | 0.076 | 0.871 | 0.027 |
| Main Effects | ||||||||||||
| P and Ca level | ||||||||||||
| Optimal | 393 | 524 | 1.34 | 426 | 650 | 1.53 | 1765 | 3241 | 1.84 | 2584 | 4415 | 1.71 |
| Deficient | 393 | 522 | 1.33 | 412 | 649 | 1.58 | 1756 | 3274 | 1.87 | 2561 | 4444 | 1.74 |
| Phytase | ||||||||||||
| None | 379 | 516 | 1.36 | 412 | 645 | 1.57 | 1740 | 3266 | 1.88 | 2531 | 4426 | 1.75 |
| 5000 FTU/kg | 406 | 531 | 1.31 | 427 | 654 | 1.53 | 1781 | 3249 | 1.83 | 2614 | 4433 | 1.70 |
| P-value | ||||||||||||
| P and Ca level | 0.976 | 0.727 | 0.592 | 0.029 | 0.851 | 0.005 | 0.726 | 0.388 | 0.242 | 0.467 | 0.533 | 0.164 |
| PHY | 0.0002 | 0.041 | 0.0006 | 0.017 | 0.316 | 0.033 | 0.111 | 0.667 | 0.034 | 0.013 | 0.871 | 0.007 |
| Interaction Terms | ||||||||||||
| P and Ca level x PHY | 0.880 | 0.623 | 0.720 | 0.078 | 0.185 | 0.402 | 0.864 | 0.820 | 0.644 | 0.806 | 0.602 | 0.893 |
PC – positive control (diet adequate in Ca and dP levels); NC – negative control (diet with reduced Ca and dP levels by 0.14 and 0.13% respectively); PC + PHY / NC + PHY – positive/negative control supplemented with 5000 FTU of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) per 1kg of complete feed
BWG -Body Weight Gain; FER—Feed Conversion Ratio; FI—Feed Intake
SEM—standard error of the mean
a-bWithin the same column, different superscripts indicate significant differences between treatments (P<0.05)
The effect of the phytase and Ca/P levels on pH in the gastrointestinal tract of broiler chicken.
| pH value | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Crop | Ileum | Caeca |
| PC | 6.47 | 7.01 | 7.36 |
| PC + PHY | 6.56 | 6.99 | 7.22 |
| NC | 6.48 | 6.48 | 6.98 |
| NC + PHY | 6.41 | 7,50 | 7.07 |
| Pooled SEM | 0.013 | 0.073 | 0.049 |
| Model P | 0.0004 | <.0001 | 0.027 |
| Main Effects | |||
| P and Ca level | |||
| Optimal | 6.51 | 7.00 | 7.29 |
| Deficient | 6.45 | 6.99 | 7.02 |
| Phytase | |||
| None | 6.47 | 6.74 | 7.17 |
| 5000 FTU/kg | 6.49 | 7.24 | 7.14 |
| P-value | |||
| P and Ca level | 0.005 | 0.895 | 0.005 |
| PHY | 0.523 | <.0001 | 0.775 |
| Interaction Terms | |||
| P and Ca level x PHY | 0.0008 | <.0001 | 0.241 |
PC – positive control (diet adequate in Ca and dP levels); NC – negative control (diet with reduced Ca and dP levels by 0.14 and 0.13% respectively); PC + PHY / NC + PHY – positive/negative control supplemented with 5000 FTU of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) per 1kg of complete feed
SEM—standard error of the mean
a-cWithin the same column, different superscripts indicate significant differences between treatments (P<0.05)
Effects of the phytase and Ca/P levels on ileal microbiota in broiler chickens (log cfu/ml digesta).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC | 9.139 | 7.933 | 8.103 | 8.225 | 7.858 | 7.604 | 7.656 | 7.784 | 7.915 |
| PC + PHY | 9.592 | 7.799 | 8.048 | 8.160 | 8.048 | 7.571 | 7.492 | 7.878 | 7.628 |
| NC | 8.572 | 7.942 | 7.868 | 7.985 | 8.002 | 7.510 | 7.567 | 7.703 | 7.934 |
| NC + PHY | 8.978 | 7.911 | 7.961 | 7.894 | 8.064 | 7.675 | 7.577 | 7.704 | 7.748 |
| Pooled SEM | 0.0467 | 0.0285 | 0.0390 | 0.0268 | 0.0200 | 0.0168 | 0.0159 | 0.0097 | 0.0169 |
| Model P | <.0001 | 0.2555 | 0.1558 | <.0001 | 0.0007 | 0.0041 | 0.0034 | <.0001 | <.0001 |
| Main Effects | |||||||||
| P and Ca level | |||||||||
| Optimal | 9.369 | 7.865 | 8.075 | 8.192 | 7.954 | 7.587 | 7.572 | 7.831 | 7.769 |
| Deficient | 8.775 | 7.926 | 7.914 | 7.939 | 8.033 | 7.593 | 7.572 | 7.704 | 7.841 |
| Phytase | |||||||||
| None | 8.851 | 7.938 | 7.983 | 8.103 | 7.931 | 7.556 | 7.611 | 7.743 | 7.924 |
| 5000 FTU/kg | 9.285 | 7.855 | 8.004 | 8.027 | 8.056 | 7.623 | 7.534 | 7.791 | 7.688 |
| P-value | |||||||||
| P and Ca level | <.0001 | 0.2870 | 0.0388 | <.0001 | 0.0350 | 0.8806 | 0.9564 | <.0001 | 0.0060 |
| PHY | <.0001 | 0.1474 | 0.8069 | 0.1107 | 0.0011 | 0.0407 | 0.0129 | 0.0013 | <.0001 |
| Interaction Terms | |||||||||
| P and Ca level x PHY | 0.7151 | 0.3679 | 0.3396 | 0.7899 | 0.0943 | 0.0025 | 0.0051 | 0.0015 | 0.0454 |
DAPI – total number of bacteria; BACTO – Bacteroides – Prevotella cluster; CPREF – Clostridium perfringens; ENTER – Enterobacteriaceae; LAB – Lactobacillus sp./Enterococcus sp.; CLEPT – Clostridium leptum subgroup; STRC – Streptococcus/Lactococcus; EREC – Clostridium coccoides—Eubacterium rectale cluster; BIF – Bifidobacterium sp.
PC – positive control (diet adequate in Ca and dP levels); NC – negative control (diet with reduced Ca and dP levels by 0.14 and 0.13% respectively); PC + PHY / NC + PHY – positive/negative control supplemented with 5000 FTU of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) per 1kg of complete feed
SEM—standard error of the mean
a-cWithin the same column, different superscripts indicate significant differences between treatments (P<0.05)
Effects of the phytase and Ca/P levels on SCFA concentration in crop and ileal digesta (mmol/kg digesta).
| Crop | Ileum | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Acetic acid | DL-Lactic acid | Total SCFA | Acetic acid | DL-Lactic acid | Total SCFA |
| PC | 4.25 | 3.97 | 8.23 | 6.475 | 6.99 | 13.47 |
| PC + PHY | 3.64 | 1.59 | 5.23 | 5.78 | 5.32 | 11.10 |
| NC | 3.35 | 1.24 | 4.59 | 3.47 | 5.53 | 9.12 |
| NC + PHY | 4.40 | 4.36 | 8.76 | 5.23 | 6.52 | 11.75 |
| Pooled SEM | 0.149 | 0.750 | 0.857 | 0.401 | 0.250 | 0.547 |
| Model P | 0.029 | 0.342 | 0.022 | 0.044 | 0.046 | 0.035 |
| Main Effects | ||||||
| P and Ca level | ||||||
| Optimal | 3.95 | 2.78 | 6.73 | 6.13 | 6.16 | 12.28 |
| Deficient | 3.88 | 2.80 | 6.68 | 4.35 | 6.03 | 10.43 |
| Phytase | ||||||
| None | 3.80 | 2.60 | 6.41 | 4.97 | 6.26 | 11.29 |
| 5000 FTU/kg | 4.02 | 2.97 | 6.99 | 5.50 | 5.92 | 11.42 |
| P-value | ||||||
| P and Ca level | 0.800 | 0.990 | 0.976 | 0.022 | 0.777 | 0.072 |
| PHY | 0.422 | 0.806 | 0.727 | 0.476 | 0.462 | 0.898 |
| Interaction Terms | ||||||
| P and Ca level x PHY | 0.004 | 0.075 | 0.040 | 0.105 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
PC – positive control (diet adequate in Ca and dP levels); NC – negative control (diet with reduced Ca and dP levels by 0.14 and 0.13% respectively); PC + PHY / NC + PHY – positive/negative control supplemented with 5000 FTU of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) per 1kg of complete feed
SEM—standard error of the mean
a-bWithin the same column, different superscripts indicate significant differences between treatments (P<0.05)
Effects of the phytase and Ca/P levels on SCFA concentration and profiles in caeca digesta (mmol/kg digesta).
| Treatment | Acetic acid | Propionic acid | Iso-butyric acid | n-Butyric acid | n-Valeric acid | Succinic acid | Total SCFA | %acetic | %propionic | %butyric |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC | 49.46 | 4.29 | 1.04 | 5.78 | 1.24 | 7.17 | 69.41 | 82.78 | 8.54 | 8.69 |
| PC + PHY | 46.10 | 6.52 | 0.91 | 5.22 | 1.24 | 4.59 | 64.58 | 79.96 | 11.16 | 8.88 |
| NC | 53.49 | 6.68 | 0.76 | 7.63 | 1.39 | 2.74 | 72.68 | 79.04 | 9.85 | 11.12 |
| NC + PHY | 48.16 | 5.60 | 0.71 | 8.50 | 1.33 | 1.73 | 66.03 | 77.63 | 9.16 | 13.21 |
| Pooled SEM | 1.809 | 0.333 | 0.040 | 0.589 | 0.060 | 0.794 | 2.199 | 0.575 | 0.554 | 0.678 |
| Model P | 0.548 | 0.034 | 0.006 | 0.161 | 0.773 | 0.071 | 0.586 | 0.007 | 0.392 | 0.051 |
| Main Effects | ||||||||||
| P and Ca level | ||||||||||
| Optimal | 47.78 | 5.41 | 0.98 | 5.50 | 1.24 | 5.88 | 66.99 | 81.37 | 9.85 | 8.78 |
| Deficient | 50.83 | 6.14 | 0.73 | 8.07 | 1.36 | 2.23 | 69.36 | 78.33 | 9.50 | 12.17 |
| Phytase | ||||||||||
| None | 51.48 | 5.49 | 0.90 | 6.70 | 1.31 | 4.95 | 71.04 | 80.91 | 9.19 | 9.90 |
| 5000 FTU/kg | 47.13 | 6.06 | 0.81 | 6.86 | 1.28 | 3.16 | 65.30 | 78.80 | 10.16 | 11.05 |
| P-value | ||||||||||
| P and Ca level | 0.414 | 0.234 | 0.001 | 0.031 | 0.324 | 0.020 | 0.602 | 0.004 | 0.756 | 0.011 |
| PHY | 0.246 | 0.349 | 0.195 | 0.892 | 0.808 | 0.236 | 0.210 | 0.039 | 0.389 | 0.366 |
| Interaction Terms | ||||||||||
| P and Ca level x PHY | 0.790 | 0.010 | 0.562 | 0.533 | 0.824 | 0.598 | 0.840 | 0.479 | 0.146 | 0.450 |
PC – positive control (diet adequate in Ca and dP levels); NC – negative control (diet with reduced Ca and dP levels by 0.14 and 0.13% respectively); PC + PHY / NC + PHY – positive/negative control supplemented with 5000 FTU of 6-phytase (EC 3.1.3.26) per 1kg of complete feed
SEM—standard error of the mean
a-cWithin the same column, different superscripts indicate significant differences between treatments (P<0.05)