Gloria I Solano-Aguilar1, Sukla Lakshman1, Saebyeol Jang1, Ethiopia Beshah1, Yue Xie2, Masoumeh Sikaroodi3, Richi Gupta3, Bryan Vinyard4, Aleksey Molokin1, Joseph F Urban1, Patrick Gillevet3, Cindy D Davis5. 1. Diet, Genomics and Immunology Laboratory, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, Northeast Area, US Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD. 2. Department of Parasitology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China. 3. Microbiome Analysis Center, George Mason University, Manassas, VA. 4. Biometrical Consulting Services, Agricultural Research Service, Northeast Area, US Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD. 5. Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dietary habits have been linked with variability of gut microbiota composition and disease risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of feeding a cocoa powder with or without a probiotic on the composition and function of the fecal microbiome of pigs. METHODS: Four groups of 8 pigs each were fed a standard growth diet supplemented with cocoa powder, Lactobacillus rhamnosus (LGG), cocoa powder + LGG, or an equal amount of fiber similar to that found in cocoa powder (control group). Fecal samples were collected prior to and 4 wk after initiation of the dietary intervention. Microbiota composition was determined after amplification of the first 2 variable regions of the 16S ribosomal DNA (rDNA). Predictions of metagenomic function were calculated using 16S rDNA sequence data through Phylogenetic Investigation of Communities by Reconstruction of Unobserved States (PICRUSt). RESULTS: After 4 wk of treatment, bacterial abundance analysis demonstrated a prebiotic effect of cocoa powder on endogenous Bifidobacteriaceae and Lactobacillaceae and increased abundance of saccharolytic butyrate-producing bacteria like Roseburia. An increased bacterial evenness, Shannon diversity index, and diverse metabolic profile were detected in microbiomes of pigs fed the cocoa powder + LGG (P < 0.05) but not in pigs in the other 3 groups. CONCLUSION: The data generated from this work demonstrated that 4-wk dietary treatment with cocoa powder alone or in combination with LGG probiotic had an impact on the composition and function of the fecal microbiota of healthy pigs.
BACKGROUND: Dietary habits have been linked with variability of gut microbiota composition and disease risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of feeding a cocoa powder with or without a probiotic on the composition and function of the fecal microbiome of pigs. METHODS: Four groups of 8 pigs each were fed a standard growth diet supplemented with cocoa powder, Lactobacillus rhamnosus (LGG), cocoa powder + LGG, or an equal amount of fiber similar to that found in cocoa powder (control group). Fecal samples were collected prior to and 4 wk after initiation of the dietary intervention. Microbiota composition was determined after amplification of the first 2 variable regions of the 16S ribosomal DNA (rDNA). Predictions of metagenomic function were calculated using 16S rDNA sequence data through Phylogenetic Investigation of Communities by Reconstruction of Unobserved States (PICRUSt). RESULTS: After 4 wk of treatment, bacterial abundance analysis demonstrated a prebiotic effect of cocoa powder on endogenous Bifidobacteriaceae and Lactobacillaceae and increased abundance of saccharolytic butyrate-producing bacteria like Roseburia. An increased bacterial evenness, Shannon diversity index, and diverse metabolic profile were detected in microbiomes of pigs fed the cocoa powder + LGG (P < 0.05) but not in pigs in the other 3 groups. CONCLUSION: The data generated from this work demonstrated that 4-wk dietary treatment with cocoa powder alone or in combination with LGG probiotic had an impact on the composition and function of the fecal microbiota of healthy pigs.
Authors: Sylvia H Duncan; Rustam I Aminov; Karen P Scott; Petra Louis; Thaddeus B Stanton; Harry J Flint Journal: Int J Syst Evol Microbiol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.747
Authors: Xenofon Tzounis; Ana Rodriguez-Mateos; Jelena Vulevic; Glenn R Gibson; Catherine Kwik-Uribe; Jeremy P E Spencer Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Regina Lamendella; Jorge W Santo Domingo; Shreya Ghosh; John Martinson; Daniel B Oerther Journal: BMC Microbiol Date: 2011-05-15 Impact factor: 3.605
Authors: Ruth E Ley; Micah Hamady; Catherine Lozupone; Peter J Turnbaugh; Rob Roy Ramey; J Stephen Bircher; Michael L Schlegel; Tammy A Tucker; Mark D Schrenzel; Rob Knight; Jeffrey I Gordon Journal: Science Date: 2008-05-22 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Daniela Gaio; Matthew Z DeMaere; Kay Anantanawat; Graeme J Eamens; Linda Falconer; Toni A Chapman; Steven Djordjevic; Aaron E Darling Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Gloria I Solano-Aguilar; Sukla Lakshman; Jonathan Shao; Celine Chen; Ethiopia Beshah; Harry D Dawson; Bryan Vinyard; Steven G Schroeder; Saebyeol Jang; Aleksey Molokin; Joseph F Urban Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 5.717