| Literature DB >> 29152242 |
Sachin Kumar1, Ashok K Pattanaik1, Shalini Sharma1, Reema Gupta1, Sunil E Jadhav1, Narayan Dutta1.
Abstract
The present experiment was undertaken to validate a probiotic of canine origin for its potential use in dogs. A total of fifteen adult female Labrador dogs were allocated to three equal groups and fed a basal diet without probiotic (control) or with probiotic of either canine (Lactobacillus johnsonii CPN23; cPRO) or dairy (L. acidophilus NCDC 15; dPRO) origin for 9 weeks. The digestibility of most macronutrients remained similar among the groups; however, fibre digestibility was improved (P = 0·034) in dogs receiving cPRO. The faecal fermentative metabolites ammonia (P < 0·05) and lactate (P = 0·094) were altered favourably, indicating a positive influence of both probiotics. Faecal concentrations of acetate, propionate and butyrate were increased (P < 0·01) in both probiotic groups. However, improvements were higher in cPRO v. dPRO. The delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to intradermal inoculation of phytohaemagglutinin-P was higher (P = 0·053) in cPRO as compared with control. The antibody response to sheep erythrocytes was, however, similar across the three groups. Overall, in dogs, the canine-origin probiotic was superior when compared with the dairy-origin probiotic.Entities:
Keywords: BCFA, branched-chain fatty acid; CMI, cell-mediated immunity; Canine nutrition; DTH, delayed-type hypersensitivity; Faecal metabolites; Lactobacillus; Species-specific probiotics; cPRO, probiotic of canine origin (Lactobacillus johnsonii CPN23); dPRO, probiotic of dairy origin (Lactobacillus acidophilus NCDC 15)
Year: 2017 PMID: 29152242 PMCID: PMC5672308 DOI: 10.1017/jns.2017.35
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nutr Sci ISSN: 2048-6790
Effect of source of probiotics on the food intake and digestibility of nutrients in Labrador dogs
(Mean values with their standard errors; n 5)
| Dietary group | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | cPRO | dPRO | |||||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | |||||
| Palatability | 1·72 | 0·31 | 1·68 | 0·28 | 1·68 | 0·16 | 0·961 |
| Mean daily food (DM) intake | |||||||
| DM intake (g) | 354·4 | 22·9 | 361·8 | 50·2 | 364·9 | 20·1 | 0·883 |
| DM intake (g/kg body weight0·75) | 34·45 | 0·05 | 34·50 | 0·26 | 34·44 | 0·12 | 0·886 |
| Digestibility of nutrients (g/kg) | |||||||
| DM | 830 | 23·7 | 836 | 40·5 | 847 | 11·0 | 0·622 |
| Organic matter | 848 | 21·3 | 853 | 37·1 | 865 | 11·5 | 0·595 |
| Crude protein | 796 | 30·3 | 816 | 35·7 | 826 | 24·5 | 0·317 |
| Ether extract | 877 | 7·5 | 873 | 10·4 | 890 | 5·5 | 0·341 |
| Crude fibre | 354a | 15·4 | 419b | 13·7 | 386a,b | 16·4 | 0·034 |
| N-free extract | 904 | 9·0 | 901 | 17·7 | 914 | 6·6 | 0·720 |
Control, basal diet alone; cPRO, basal diet supplemented with probiotic of canine origin; dPRO, basal diet supplemented with probiotic of dairy origin.
a,b Mean values with unlike superscript letters were significantly different (P ≤ 0·05).
Based on one-way ANOVA.
Based on a 1–4-point scale.
Effect of source of probiotic on the physical and fermentative indices of faeces of Labrador dogs
(Mean values with their standard errors; n 5)
| Dietary group | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | cPRO | dPRO | |||||
| Attributes | Mean | Mean | Mean | ||||
| Physical characteristics | |||||||
| Faecal score | 2·53 | 0·06 | 2·76 | 0·54 | 2·67 | 0·15 | 0·553 |
| Defecation frequency (times/d) | 1·85 | 0·38 | 1·75 | 0·35 | 1·95 | 0·33 | 0·679 |
| Faeces voided (g/d) | |||||||
| Fresh (as is) | 225·15 | 52·54 | 221·89 | 42·87 | 211·89 | 46·07 | 0·900 |
| Dry | 60·24 | 9·61 | 58·24 | 11·60 | 55·63 | 4·15 | 0·727 |
| Faecal composition (g/kg) | |||||||
| DM | 217·2 | 36·5 | 208·5 | 10·7 | 213·2 | 29·7 | 0·888 |
| Moisture | 782·8 | 36·5 | 791·5 | 10·7 | 786·8 | 29·7 | 0·888 |
| Faeces (g/kg DM consumed) | |||||||
| Wet faeces | 639·5 | 161·8 | 624·7 | 145·3 | 579·1 | 109·9 | 0·783 |
| Dry faeces | 169·8 | 23·7 | 164·1 | 40·5 | 152·6 | 11·0 | 0·622 |
| Chemical characteristics | |||||||
| pH | 6·26 | 0·44 | 6·02 | 0·19 | 6·16 | 0·25 | 0·480 |
| Ammonia (μmol/g DM) | 32·63b | 3·23 | 26·45a | 3·18 | 27·20a | 2·36 | 0·012 |
| Lactate (μmol/g DM) | 16·93 | 3·48 | 22·13 | 2·50 | 19·98 | 4·11 | 0·094 |
| SCFA (μmol/g DM) | |||||||
| Acetate | 354·70a | 41·56 | 490·41c | 46·72 | 428·94b | 36·34 | 0·001* |
| Propionate | 199·21a | 32·78 | 213·51a,b | 20·07 | 244·69b | 34·53 | 0·086 |
| Butyrate | 73·39a | 10·14 | 116·33c | 13·59 | 88·20b | 7·11 | <0·0001* |
| Total SCFA | 627·31a | 81·22 | 820·26b | 67·82 | 761·82b | 49·83 | 0·002 |
| BCFA (μmol/g DM) | |||||||
| Isobutyrate | 4·75 | 1·33 | 4·25 | 1·01 | 3·85 | 0·80 | 0·435 |
| Isovalerate | 4·23b | 0·37 | 3·83a,b | 0·42 | 3·09a | 0·91 | 0·037 |
| Valerate | 14·98b | 3·40 | 9·57a | 1·61 | 13·21a,b | 3·86 | 0·049* |
| Total BCFA | 23·96b | 3·21 | 17·65a | 2·47 | 20·15a,b | 3·72 | 0·026 |
Control, basal diet alone; cPRO, basal diet supplemented with probiotic of canine origin; dPRO, basal diet supplemented with probiotic of dairy origin; BCFA, branched-chain fatty acids.
a,b,c Mean values with unlike superscript letters were significantly different (P ≤ 0·05).
* Significant differences between cPRO and dPRO by contrast analysis.
Based on one-way ANOVA.
Based on a 1–5-point scale.