| Literature DB >> 27386355 |
Geon Goo Han1, Eun Bae Kim2,3, Jinyoung Lee4, Yun-Jaie Choi1,5, Changsu Kong4, Jun-Yeong Lee1, Gwideuk Jin2, Jongbin Park6, Chul-Sung Huh7, Ill-Kyong Kwon2, Dong Yong Kil8.
Abstract
In the poultry industry, many efforts have been undertaken to further improve the growth performance of broilers and identification and modulation of body weight (BW)-related bacteria could be one of the strategies to improve productivity. However, studies regarding the relationship between microbiota and BW are scarce. The objective of the present study was to investigate the relationship between microbiota and BW in different sections of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). A total of twenty 18-day-old birds were selected based on the BW, and samples were collected from the three different sections of the GIT, which included the crop, ileum and cecum. Bacterial genomic DNA was extracted from the samples, and the V4 region of 16S rRNA gene were amplified. Amplicons were sequenced on Illumina MiSeq, and microbial communities were analyzed by using QIIME. In principal coordinate analysis, bacterial communities were clustered into three groups, based on the sections of GIT. Several BW-related bacterial groups were identified from linear regression analysis. At the genus level, Streptococcus from the ileum as well as Akkermansia in both ileum and cecum, were negatively related to BW, whereas Bifidobacterium in the ileum and Lactococcus in the cecum showed a positive correlation. The results from the present study showed that particular bacterial communities in the GIT were related to BW, and the study has broadened the understanding of the intestinal microbial ecosystem in broiler chickens.Entities:
Keywords: Body weight; Broiler chickens; Gastrointestinal tract; Microbiota; Relationship
Year: 2016 PMID: 27386355 PMCID: PMC4927549 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-2604-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1Principal coordinate analysis of unweighted and weighted UniFrac. Beta diversity patterns of crop samples (n = 19), ileal samples (n = 20) and cecal samples (n = 20) were explored using the principal coordinate analysis (PCoA). Subject color coding: blue crop samples; yellow ileal samples and red cecal samples
Relative abundance of phyla found in each section of the GIT
| Phylum | Abundance (%) | SD1 |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crop | Ileum | Cecum | |||
| Cyanobacteria | 12.89a | 3.41b | 1.34b | 3.27 | <0.001 |
| Bacteroidetes | 13.93a | 22.15b | 30.49c | 5.82 | <0.001 |
| Proteobacteria | 7.89a | 4.26b | 3.06b | 2.18 | <0.001 |
| Tenericutes | 0.85a | 0.94a | 1.63b | 0.51 | <0.001 |
| Firmicutes | 59.62ab | 64.15a | 58.37b | 6.85 | 0.027 |
| Euyarchaeota | 0.08a | 0.19b | 0.16ab | 0.12 | 0.033 |
| Verrucomicrobia | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.057 |
| Synergistetes | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.095 |
| Lentisphaerae | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.118 |
| Actinobacteria | 1.18 | 0.95 | 1.05 | 0.35 | 0.133 |
| Fibrobacteres | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.271 |
| Spirochaetes | 0.37 | 0.43 | 0.46 | 0.24 | 0.500 |
| Fusobacteria | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.842 |
|
| 19 | 20 | 20 | ||
One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test was used. Within a row, different superscript letters indicate significant difference (P < 0.05)
1Pooled standard deviation
Relative abundance of genera found in each section of the GIT
| Genus | Abundance (%) | SD1 |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crop | Ileum | Cecum | |||
|
| 4.34a | 1.50b | 1.37b | 0.85 | <0.001 |
|
| 4.22a | 7.54b | 12.59c | 2.66 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.00a | 1.34a | 2.38b | 0.49 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.14a | 1.47a | 4.62b | 1.30 | <0.001 |
|
| 0.22a | 0.27a | 0.44b | 0.10 | <0.001 |
|
| 0.21a | 0.30a | 0.45b | 0.12 | <0.001 |
|
| 0.99a | 1.24a | 1.85b | 0.43 | <0.001 |
|
| 0.09a | 0.22b | 0.13a | 0.07 | <0.001 |
|
| 28.62a | 30.81a | 18.12b | 7.77 | <0.001 |
|
| 0.03a | 0.04a | 0.10b | 0.04 | <0.001 |
|
| 0.17a | 0.23a | 0.34b | 0.11 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.56a | 1.18a | 0.67b | 0.60 | <0.001 |
|
| 1.18a | 1.11a | 0.75b | 0.32 | <0.001 |
|
| 0.96a | 0.79ab | 0.60b | 0.27 | <0.001 |
|
| 0.07a | 0.06a | 0.04b | 0.02 | 0.001 |
|
| 3.94a | 5.66b | 4.26a | 1.55 | 0.003 |
|
| 0.05a | 0.04a | 0.20b | 0.20 | 0.033 |
|
| 0.08a | 0.16b | 0.15ab | 0.11 | 0.045 |
|
| 0.10a | 0.09ab | 0.06b | 0.05 | 0.046 |
|
| 0.84 | 0.61 | 0.77 | 0.33 | 0.077 |
|
| 0.50 | 0.84 | 0.47 | 0.53 | 0.077 |
|
| 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.16 | 0.489 |
|
| 19 | 20 | 20 | ||
One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test was used. Within a row, different superscript letters indicate significant difference (P < 0.05)
1Pooled standard deviation
Fig. 2The relationship between BW and observed OTUs in chickens. The relationship was assessed by Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) and P values from simple linear regression in the crop (a), ileum (b) and cecum (c)
The relationship between BW and bacterial relative abundance in each section of the GIT
| Crop | Ileum | Cecum | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abundance (%) |
|
| Abundance (%) |
|
| Abundance (%) |
|
| |
| Phylum | |||||||||
| Actinobacteria | 1.18 | −0.65 | 0.003 | 0.95 | 0.08 | 0.729 | 1.05 | 0.00 | 0.990 |
| Bacteroidetes | 13.93 | 0.66 | 0.002 | 22.15 | 0.30 | 0.192 | 30.49 | <0.01 | 0.990 |
| Euryarchaeota | 0.08 | 0.52 | 0.023 | 0.19 | 0.52 | 0.018 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.558 |
| Firmicutes | 59.62 | −0.21 | 0.392 | 64.15 | −0.36 | 0.119 | 58.37 | 0.06 | 0.812 |
| Proteobacteria | 7.89 | −0.17 | 0.482 | 4.26 | 0.10 | 0.672 | 3.06 | −0.17 | 0.472 |
| Spirochaetes | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.172 | 0.43 | 0.47 | 0.035 | 0.46 | 0.23 | 0.323 |
| Verrucomicrobia | 0.09 | 0.30 | 0.208 | 0.06 | −0.10 | 0.690 | 0.22 | −0.41 | 0.073 |
| Genus | |||||||||
| | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.706 | 0.04 | −0.51 | 0.023 | 0.08 | −0.55 | 0.022 |
| | 0.35 | 0.20 | 0.413 | 0.44 | −0.20 | 0.398 | 0.29 | −0.81 | <0.001 |
| | 4.22 | 0.54 | 0.016 | 7.54 | 0.05 | 0.834 | 12.59 | −0.34 | 0.142 |
| | 0.84 | −0.64 | 0.003 | 0.61 | 0.49 | 0.029 | 0.77 | 0.01 | 0.981 |
| | 1.14 | 0.65 | 0.003 | 1.47 | 0.23 | 0.335 | 4.62 | 0.32 | 0.164 |
| | 28.62 | −0.39 | 0.099 | 30.81 | −0.32 | 0.172 | 18.12 | 0.02 | 0.924 |
| | 0.09 | 0.24 | 0.315 | 0.05 | 0.16 | 0.490 | 0.03 | 0.59 | 0.006 |
| | 0.08 | 0.52 | 0.024 | 0.16 | 0.56 | 0.010 | 0.15 | 0.18 | 0.435 |
| | 3.94 | 0.15 | 0.542 | 5.66 | 0.34 | 0.145 | 4.26 | −0.59 | 0.006 |
| | 0.99 | 0.72 | <0.001 | 1.24 | 0.08 | 0.746 | 1.85 | −0.35 | 0.132 |
| | 1.18 | 0.03 | 0.913 | 1.11 | −0.81 | <0.001 | 0.75 | −0.06 | 0.787 |
r is Pearson’s correlation coefficient
aThree outliers were identified using Grubb’s test and removed from the cecum data
Fig. 3Weight related genera in the chicken GIT. Streptococcus (a) and Akkermansia (b) were significantly correlated with BW in the ileum. Lactococcus (c) and Akkermansia (d) were significantly correlated with BW in the cecum. d Three outliers were identified using Grubb’s test and removed from the dataset. The relationship between abundance of microbial taxa and BW was assessed by Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) and P values from simple linear regression
Chemical composition of standard commercial starter diet
| Item | Contents per kg |
|---|---|
| Metabolizable energy | 3120 kcal |
| Crude protein | 215 g |
| Fat (ether extract) | 85.1 g |
| Crude fiber | 32.0 g |
| Calcium | 9.0 g |
| Phosphorous | 6.7 g |
| Lysine | 13.1 g |
| Sulfur-containing amino acids | 10.3 g |