| Literature DB >> 32121244 |
Ignasi Azagra-Boronat1,2, Alba Tres2,3, Malén Massot-Cladera1,2, Àngels Franch1,2, Margarida Castell1,2, Francesc Guardiola2,3, Francisco J Pérez-Cano1,2, Maria J Rodríguez-Lagunas1,2.
Abstract
Probiotics have shown potential for their use in early life. This study aimed to investEntities:
Keywords: breastfeeding; fatty acids; gestation; probiotic; rodents
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32121244 PMCID: PMC7140451 DOI: 10.3390/cells9030575
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cells ISSN: 2073-4409 Impact factor: 6.600
Detection of Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 in the cecal content (CC) of dams and pups.
| REF | LF | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| 50% | 25% | 25% | |||||||||
Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. (n = 4–6/group). Grey squares represent samples with positive detection (including the percentage of detection) and white squares samples with no detection. CC, cecal content; REF, reference group; LF, Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 group.
Growth and relative organ size of dams and pups.
| Dams | Pups | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| REF | LF | REF | LF | ||
|
|
| 406.24 ± 18.26 | 395.47 ± 12.12 | 9.91 ± 0.20 | 9.90 ± 0.16 |
|
| 345.57 ± 7.96 | 325.38 ± 11.80 | 28.94 ± 0.40 | 28.85 ± 0.59 | |
|
|
| 0.71 ± 0.04 | 0.68 ± 0.03 | 0.34 ± 0.01 | 0.34 ± 0.01 |
|
| 318.04 ± 8.19 | 315.19 ± 5.69 | 331.83 ± 1.30 | 332.90 ± 1.42 | |
|
|
| 0.94 ± 0.25 | 0.67 ± 0.02 | 0.65 ± 0.01 | 0.69 ± 0.05 |
|
| 3.93 ± 0.10 | 3.85 ± 0.06 | 3.06 ± 0.03 | 3.16 ± 0.03 | |
|
| 0.45 ± 0.02 | 0.48 ± 0.02 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | |
|
| 0.63 ± 0.05 | 0.57± 0.03 | 0.33 ± 0.05 | 0.28 ± 0.01 | |
|
| 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | 0.49 ± 0.01 | 0.52 ± 0.01 | |
|
| 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.46 ± 0.01 | 0.57 ± 0.09 | |
|
| 4.02 ± 0.15 | 4.16 ± 0.10 | 3.19 ± 0.04 | 3.02 ± 0.07 | |
|
| 0.57 ± 0.01 | 0.60 ± 0.02 | 1.15 ± 0.01 | 1.16 ± 0.01 | |
|
| 0.42 ± 0.06 | 0.41 ± 0.07 | 3.55 ± 0.06 | 3.72 ± 0.07 | |
|
| 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.10 ± 0.01 | - | - | |
|
| 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | - | - | |
|
| 0.34 ± 0.01 | 0.36 ± 0.01 | - | - | |
|
|
| 25.32 ± 2.43 | 23.25 ± 3.24 | 5.55 ± 0.18 | 135.88 ± 2.36 |
|
| 1.79 ± 0.06 | 1.92 ± 0.13 | - | - | |
|
| 5.63 ± 0.45 | 5.55 ± 0.18 | - | - | |
Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. (n = 6 dams/group and 48 pups/group). * Body weight expressed in g and organ weights expressed in 100 g of tissue/g of body, # Organ length expressed in cm of tissue/g of body. BMI, body mass index; REF, reference group; LF, Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 group, G21 (dams, before birth); L4 (pups, day 4 of life).
Figure 1Systemic and intestinal immune cell function of dams at L14. The (A) phagocytic activity and (B) phagocytic efficiency of blood monocytes and neutrophils was measured. Moreover, (C) the proliferation of mesenteric lymph node lymphocytes was assessed after stimulation with CD3/CD28, and (D) cytokines in the supernatants were quantified by Luminex Technique. Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. (n = 6/group). The fold change was calculated with respect to REF group. REF, reference group; LF, Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 group; MFI, median fluorescence intensity; St., stimulated; CK, cytokines; SN, supernatants.
Characterization of mesenteric lymph node cells phenotype of dams.
| REF | LF | |
|---|---|---|
|
| 26.93 ± 3.31 | 32.75 ± 5.02 |
| CD62L+ (%) | 78.62 ± 4.35 | 78.82 ± 3.87 |
| CD25+ (%) | 0.70 ± 0.12 | 0.86 ± 0.31 |
|
| 43.37 ± 1.36 | 40.23 ± 1.87 |
| CD62L+ (%) | 70.91 ± 1.53 | 70.98 ± 1.89 |
| CD25+ (%) | 6.81 ± 0.34 | 8.00 ± 0.43* |
| αE integrin (%) | 4.06 ± 0.76 | 5.70 ± 1.63 |
|
| 20.54 ± 0.51 | 17.15 ± 1.14* |
| CD62L+ (%) | 85.28 ± 1.70 | 86.81 ± 0.89 |
| CD25+ (%) | 2.58 ± 0.18 | 3.38 ± 0.68* |
| αE integrin (%) | 5.13 ± 1.26 | 7.07 ± 2.60 |
|
| 19.09 ± 0.49 | 15.57 ± 1.12* |
|
| 1.69 ± 0.14 | 1.89 ± 0.15 |
| CD8- TCRγδ+ (%) | 0.25 ± 0.02 | 0.31 ± 0.03 |
| CD8+ TCRγδ+ (%) | 1.45 ± 0.13 | 1.58 ± 0.13 |
| CD8αα+ TCRγδ+ (%) | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.02 |
| CD8αβ+ TCRγδ+ (%) | 1.31 ± 0.11 | 1.42 ± 0.12 |
|
| 2.49 ± 0.16 | 2.45 ± 0.26 |
|
| 2.11 ± 0.11 | 2.42 ± 0.19 |
Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. (n = 6/group). * p < 0.05 compared to REF. Th, T helper; Tc, T cytotoxic; REF, reference group; LF, Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 group.
Figure 2Mucosal immunoglobulins and cytokines of dams at L14. On the one hand, the evolution of (A) fecal IgA concentration was assessed throughout the study by ELISA. On the other hand, (B) the IgM and IgA were determined in submaxillary gland and mesenteric lymph nodes by ELISA at L14. Finally, (C) the concentration of cytokines in the gut wash and cecal content were analyzed by Luminex Technique at L14. Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. (n = 6/group). The fold change was calculated with respect to REF group. REF, reference group; LF, Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 group; Ig, immunoglobulins; SMG, submaxillary glands; MLN, mesenteric lymph nodes; CK, cytokines; GW, gut wash; CC, cecal content. * p < 0.05 compared to REF.
Evolution of pH, humidity and weight of the dams’ feces throughout the study.
| G0 | G7 | G14 | G21 | L7 | L14 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 5.88 ± 0.05 | 6.20 ± 0.10 | 6.09 ± 0.12 | 6.08 ± 0.06 | 6.48 ± 0.08 | 6.47 ± 0.05 |
|
| 6.07 ± 0.14 | 6.48 ± 0.19 | 6.40 ± 0.26 | 6.43 ± 0.14 | 6.50 ± 0.16 | 6.11 ± 0.12 | |
|
|
| - | 50.59 ± 3.33 | 55.91 ± 1.24 | 57.87 ± 2.10 | 62.97 ± 1.40 | 65.41 ± 0.78 |
|
| - | 53.44 ± 5.02 | 58.68 ± 2.81 | 58.53 ± 1.07 | 65.19 ± 2.39 | 62.07 ± 4.36 | |
|
|
| - | 259.4 ± 39.6 | 144.0 ± 19.2 | 249.3 ± 40.1 | 421.8 ± 53.9 | 452.6 ± 49.0 |
|
| - | 306.83 ± 50.2 | 278.0 ± 59.6 | 185.5 ± 16.5 | 369.3 ± 16.6 | 329.8 ± 32.6 |
Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. (n = 6/group). G, gestation; L, lactation; REF, reference group; LF, Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 group.
Figure 3Systemic and intestinal immunoglobulins and cytokines of dams and pups at L14. (A) IgM, IgG and IgA were quantified in the gut wash by ELISA. (B) IgM, IgG and its subtypes, IgA and (C) cytokines were quantified in serum by Luminex Technique. Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. (n = 6 dams/group and n = 16 pups/group). The fold change was calculated with respect to REF group. REF, reference group; LF, Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 group; Ig, immunoglobulins; GW, gut wash; CK cytokines. * p < 0.05 compared to REF. # p = 0.05–0.1 compared to REF.
Figure 4Fatty acid profile in serum of dams and pups at L14. (A) Saturated (SFA) and monounsaturated (MUFA) fatty acids, (B) polyunsaturated (PUFA) fatty acids were quantified by GC-FID. The analysis of principal components was performed for both (C) dams’ and (D) pups’ samples and represented in score and loading plots. Fatty acid data was mean centered and scaled to unit variance. The % of explained variance is presented in parentheses. Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. (n = 6 dams/group and n = 24 pups/group). The fold change was calculated in respect to REF group. REF, reference group; LF, Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 group. * p < 0.05 compared to REF.
Figure 5Cecal microbiota composition of dams’ and pups’ cecal content at L14. The main genera present in the cecal content are represented in stacked bars for (A) dams and (B) pups. Moreover, the richness of species and diversity of genera was analyzed by the calculation of Chao1 and Shannon Index, respectively, both for (C) dams and (D) pups. Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. (n = 3 animals/group). REF, reference group; LF, Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 group; CC, cecal content.
Figure 6Venn diagrams of the genera present in the cecal content of dams and pups at L14. A bacterial group was considered as present by establishing a cutoff of two animals (out of the three samples analyzed) displaying proportions higher than 0.001%. Venn diagrams are represented for (A) dams’ CC, (B) pups’ CC and (C) the comparison of dams’ and pups’ CC for the LF group. Moreover, the genera highlighted in (A,B) correspond to those genera present in two or three animals in each group, and none of the animals in the other group. The animals underlined correspond to those which are present in 3/3 animals. The animals highlighted in red correspond to those which appear due to the supplementation with LF. Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. (n = 3 animals/group). REF, reference; LF, Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716; CC, cecal content.