| Literature DB >> 30356293 |
Mathilde Le Sciellour1, Etienne Labussière1, Olivier Zemb2, David Renaudeau1.
Abstract
Microbial population in the gastrointestinal tract plays a central role in health and nutrient digestion. The objective of the present study was to investigate the relationships between microbiota and apparent digestibility coefficients with respect to age and diet. Pigs from Large-White, Duroc or Pietrain breeds were raised under the same housing conditions and fed alternately a low-fiber (LF) and a high-fiber diet (HF) during 4 successive 3-week periods. Data collection for digestibility measurements was achieved during the last week of each period. At the end of each period, fecal microbiota was collected for 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The microbiota remained stable across periods whereas digestibility of energy, crude proteins and cell wall components increased. The microbiota was resilient to diet effect and pigs fed the LF diet were discriminated to those fed the HF diet using 31 predicting OTUs with a mean classification error-rate of 3.9%. Clostridiaceae and Turicibacter were negatively correlated whereas Lactobacillus was positively correlated with protein and energy digestibility coefficients in the LF group. In addition, Lachnospiraceae and Prevotella were negatively correlated with cell wall component digestibility. In contrast, no significant correlation was found between microbiota composition and digestibility coefficients when pigs were fed the HF diet. Interestingly, it was also no longer possible to distinguish animals from different breeds once the animals were fed a HF diet, so that the microbiota could only trace the breed origin in the first period and in the LF group. In our experimental conditions, 3 weeks of adaptation to a new diet seems to be sufficient to observe resilience in growing pigs' microbiota. We demonstrated that fecal microbiota can be used to classify pigs according to their dietary treatment. Some bacteria are favorable or unfavorable to digestibility. This suggests that manipulations of bacterial populations can improve digestibility and feed efficiency.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30356293 PMCID: PMC6200266 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206159
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Experimental design and changes in the dietary treatments according to the experimental period.
LF and HF are for low and high fiber diets, respectively. Each one-week feces collection period (dashed squared) was preceded by 2 weeks of adaptation to the experimental diet. Feces samples for microbiota (Mi) analysis were collected on the last day of collection period, and body weights (BW) were recorded at the beginning and at the end of the feces collection period.
Composition of the experimental diets.
| LF | HF | |
|---|---|---|
| Corn | 34.58 | 17.77 |
| Barley | 17.77 | 17.77 |
| Wheat | 17.77 | 17.77 |
| Soybean meal | 15.74 | 9.18 |
| Rapeseed meal | - | 1.97 |
| Wheat bran | 2.50 | 15.00 |
| Soybean hulls | - | 10.00 |
| Sugar beet pulp | - | 5.00 |
| Cane molasses | 1.03 | 0.68 |
| Corn starch | 4.25 | - |
| Sunflower oil | 1.00 | - |
| L-Lysine HCL | 0.33 | 0.25 |
| L-Threonine | 0.15 | 0.10 |
| L-Tryptophan | 0.03 | 0.01 |
| DL-Methionine | 0.08 | 0.03 |
| Sodium chloride | 0.45 | 0.45 |
| Calcium carbonate | 0.82 | 0.62 |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 1.20 | 1.11 |
| Minerals and vitamins | 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Indigestible markers | 1.80 | 1.80 |
| Digestible Lysine / Net energy | 0.86 | 0.86 |
| Ash | 4.9 | 5.6 |
| Crude protein | 14.4 | 14.4 |
| Crude fat | 3.7 | 2.7 |
| Crude fiber | 2.8 | 7.7 |
| Neutral detergent fiber | 10 | 20 |
| Acid detergent fiber | 3.4 | 9.5 |
| Acid detergent lignin | 0.7 | 1.4 |
| Gross energy (MJ/kg) | 16 | 16 |
1 LF: low-fiber diet; HF: High-fiber diet.
2 Chemical compositions were adjusted for a dry matter content of 88%
Effect of diet, breed and period on growing and feeding performances in growing pigs.
| Diet | Breed | Period | RSD | p-values | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LF | HF | DU | LW | PI | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Diet | Breed | Period | DxB | DxP | BxP | ||
| n | 123 | 120 | 80 | 79 | 84 | 64 | 59 | 60 | 60 | |||||||
| BW (kg) | 54.5 | 54.8 | 50.1a | 55.4b | 58.2c | 35.8a | 48.6b | 61.0c | 74.3d | 3.0 | 0.337 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.924 | 0.006 | 0.734 |
| ADFI (g/d) | 1414 | 1405 | 1367a | 1465b | 1397c | 1242a | 1371b | 1462c | 1573d | 349 | 0.355 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.979 | 0.967 | <0.001 |
| ADG (g/d) | 673 | 570 | 595 | 621 | 649 | 613ab | 669a | 560b | 647a | 136 | <0.001 | 0.231 | 0.001 | 0.034 | 0.191 | <0.001 |
| FCR | 2.56 | 3.18 | 2.94 | 2.94 | 2.73 | 2.41a | 2.68ab | 3.40c | 3.00bc | 1.06 | <0.001 | 0.670 | <0.001 | 0.709 | 0.312 | 0.025 |
| OM | 88.3 | 80.6 | 84.5 | 84.3 | 84.8 | 82.8a | 84.1b | 85.4c | 85.9c | 1.7 | <0.001 | 0.211 | <0.001 | 0.240 | <0.001 | 0.061 |
| Energy | 86.5 | 78.3 | 82.4 | 82.2 | 82.7 | 80.7a | 82.1b | 83.3c | 83.8c | 1.8 | <0.001 | 0.223 | <0.001 | 0.336 | <0.001 | 0.073 |
| N | 86.0 | 76.1 | 80.7a | 80.8ab | 81.8b | 78.2a | 80.9b | 82.1c | 83.4d | 2.5 | <0.001 | 0.014 | <0.001 | 0.572 | 0.424 | 0.089 |
| Cell wall | ||||||||||||||||
| NDF | 56.5 | 60.3 | 58.4 | 57.6 | 59.1 | 52.8a | 56.9b | 61.1c | 63.1c | 5.3 | <0.001 | 0.101 | <0.001 | 0.172 | 0.049 | 0.002 |
| Hemicellulose | 58.8 | 60.1 | 59.5 | 58.9 | 60.0 | 54.2a | 58.4b | 62.4c | 63.2c | 4.7 | 0.002 | 0.206 | <0.001 | 0.072 | 0.816 | <0.001 |
| Cellulose | 50.9 | 63.2 | 57.1 | 56.0 | 57.8 | 50.7a | 54.7b | 59.5c | 63.4c | 7.8 | <0.001 | 0.272 | <0.001 | 0.094 | 0.002 | 0.029 |
| Lignin | 43.8 | 56.5 | 50.3 | 49.2 | 51.2 | 46.7a | 50.7bc | 50.2b | 53.6c | 7.0 | <0.001 | 0.143 | <0.001 | 0.104 | 0.022 | 0.095 |
1 LF and HF = low and high fiber diets, respectively. DU, LW, PI for Duroc, Large-White, and Pietrain breed, respectively. n = number of observations, BW = mean live body weight during the collection period, ADFI = average daily feed intake, ADG = average daily gain, OM = organic matter, N = nitrogen, NDF = neutral detergent fiber, hemicellulose: calculated as the difference between neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber, cellulose: calculated as the difference between acid detergent fiber and acid detergent lignin, lignin: acid detergent lignin.
2 Residual Standard Deviation
3 From the ANOVA with diet effect (D, n = 2), breed effect (B, n = 3), period effect (P, n = 4), and interactions. Least square means within one column for the different breeds and periods with the same letter exponent do not differ (P < 0.05).
Fig 2Evolution of digestibility coefficient of energy across periods 1 to 4 for the low-fiber (orange) or high-fiber (darkblue) diets in Duroc (▲), Large-White (◇) and Pietrain (●) pigs.
Fig 3Score plot of two-component sPLS-DA model showing feces samples clustering according to the breed with percentage of variance captured for each principal component (Δ: Duroc, □: Large-White, O: Pietrain) for the animals fed low-fiber diet during period 1.
According to the cross-validation permutation test, the misclassification error-rate was 14%.
Fig 4Discrimination of the breed through sPLS-DA across periods 1 to 4 for the low-fiber (orange) or high-fiber (darkblue) diets.
T-test resulting in p-value < 0.01: ***; p-value < 0.001: ***.
Fig 5Score plot of two-component sPLS-DA model showing feces sample clustering according to the diet with percentage of variance captured for each principal component (Δ: Low-fiber diet, o: High-fiber diet).
According to the cross-validation permutation test, the misclassification error rate was 3.9%.
Fig 6Variations of the relative abundancy of predictive OTUs of diet effect.
The three most contributive OTUS from Low-fiber diet (LF) (OTU 514: purple, OTU 1140: light blue, OTU 923: orange) and High-fiber diet (HF) (OTU 792: dark blue, OTU 689: red, OTU 1940: green) are extracted from the sPLS-DA analysis using the contribution on the first principal component.
Fig 7Correlated OTUs (represented by dots colored according to the taxonomical family of the corresponding bacteria) to digestibility coefficients (energy, N, hemicellulose and cellulose) in low-fiber diet through Pearson correlation.
The negative and positive correlations are represented by red and green lines, respectively.