| Literature DB >> 32230755 |
Jeferson M Lourenco1, S Claire Nunn2, Eliza J Lee1, C Robert Dove1, Todd R Callaway1, Michael J Azain1.
Abstract
One-day-old chicks were assigned one of four dietary treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design in which the main effects were diet (adequate vs. low protein) and the addition of protease (0 vs. 200 g/1000 kg of feed). Chick performance (days 0-14) was recorded and their excreta were analyzed for short chain fatty acids, ammonia, and composition of the microbiota using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Birds fed the low protein diet had lower body weight gain and poorer overall feed conversion ratio (FCR) (p 0.04); however, these parameters were not affected by the inclusion of protease (p 0.27). Protease inclusion did not affect any particular bacterial genus in the excreta, but it increased the total number of observed OTUs (p = 0.04) and Faith's phylogenetic diversity (p = 0.05). Abundance of Proteus and Acinetobacter were lower in the excreta of chicks fed the low protein diet (p = 0.01). Abundance of Bacteroides was associated with poorer FCR, while Proteus was associated with improved FCR (p 0.009). Although diet had a stronger impact than protease on chick performance, both diet and protease yielded some changes in the intestinal microbiotas of the birds.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA; amino acids; chicks; feed efficiency; microbiome; protease; proteus
Year: 2020 PMID: 32230755 PMCID: PMC7232218 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8040475
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Composition and nutrient contents of the diets offered to chicks.
| Item | Diet 1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Ingredient, % of Inclusion | Adequate Protein | Low Protein |
| Corn | 53.85 | 63.25 |
| Soybean meal | 29.70 | 21.75 |
| Dried distillers’ grains with solubles | 10.00 | 10.00 |
| Fat | 2.52 | 1.08 |
| Limestone | 1.29 | 1.31 |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 1.47 | 1.52 |
| Salt | 0.30 | 0.30 |
| Vitamin premix 2 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
| Mineral premix 3 | 0.075 | 0.075 |
| L-lysine | 0.27 | 0.28 |
| DL-methionine | 0.28 | 0.18 |
|
| ||
| Metabolizable Energy, kcal/kg | 3010 | 3010 |
| Crude Protein, % | 22.30 | 19.23 |
| Ether Extract, % | 5.56 | 4.40 |
| Crude Fiber, % | 3.23 | 3.13 |
| Ca, % | 0.90 | 0.90 |
| Available P, % | 0.40 | 0.45 |
| Lysine, % | 1.30 | 1.10 |
| Total sulfur amino acids, % | 0.96 | 0.81 |
| Threonine, % | 0.86 | 0.73 |
| Tryptophan, % | 0.28 | 0.23 |
|
| ||
| Crude Protein, % | 20.83 | 18.95 |
| Lysine, % | 1.31 | 1.15 |
| Methionine, % | 0.55 | 0.46 |
| Cysteine, % | 0.34 | 0.30 |
| Threonine, % | 0.75 | 0.67 |
| Tryptophan, % | 0.23 | 0.21 |
1 Protease was added to both diets to create 2 additional treatments. 2 Supplied per kilogram of diet: vitamin A, 5511 IU; vitamin D3, 1102 ICU; Vitamin E, 11.02 IU; vitamin B12, 0.01 mg; Biotin, 0.11 mg; Menadione, 1.1 mg; Thiamine, 2.21 mg; Riboflavin, 4.41 mg; d-Pantothenic Acid, 11.02 mg; Vitamin B6, 2.21 mg; Niacin, 44.09 mg; Folic Acid, 0.55 mg; Choline, 191.36 mg. 3 Supplied per kilogram of diet: Mn, 107.2 mg; Zn, 85.6 mg; Mg, 21.44 mg; Fe, 21.04; Cu, 3.2 mg; I, 0.8 mg; Se, 0.32 mg. 4 Values represent the average of duplicate analysis conducted at the University of Missouri Experiment Station Chemical Laboratories.
Effect of diet 1 and protease on chick performance from day 0 to 14.
| Item | Adequate Protein | Low Protein | SEM 3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Protease | 200 g/t Protease | No Protease | 200 g/t Protease | Diet | Protease | Diet × Protease | ||
| Body weight day 0, g | 48.5 | 48.2 | 48.9 | 49.0 | 0.33 |
| 0.91 | 0.50 |
| Body weight day 7, g | 181.7 | 178.4 | 171.8 | 174.5 | 3.24 |
| 0.94 | 0.37 |
| Body weight day 14, g | 416.1 | 423.1 | 392.8 | 383.4 | 12.92 |
| 0.93 | 0.53 |
| ADG 4 day 0 to 7, g | 19.0 | 18.6 | 17.6 | 17.9 | 0.45 |
| 0.95 | 0.39 |
| ADG 4 day 7 to 14, g | 33.5 | 35.0 | 31.6 | 29.8 | 1.60 |
| 0.93 | 0.33 |
| ADG 4 day 0 to 14, g | 26.3 | 26.8 | 24.6 | 23.9 | 0.92 |
| 0.93 | 0.52 |
| Daily feed intake day 0 to 7, g | 23.0 | 22.7 | 23.0 | 24.4 | 0.59 | 0.16 | 0.39 | 0.19 |
| Daily feed intake day 7 to 14, g | 46.0 | 49.7 | 46.7 | 44.4 | 2.35 | 0.34 | 0.78 | 0.21 |
| Daily feed intake day 0 to 14, g | 34.5 | 36.2 | 34.9 | 34.4 | 1.37 | 0.61 | 0.67 | 0.43 |
| FCR 5 day 0 to 7 | 1.21 | 1.22 | 1.31 | 1.36 | 0.01 |
|
| 0.19 |
| FCR 5 day 7 to 14 | 1.37 | 1.42 | 1.48 | 1.51 | 0.04 |
| 0.41 | 0.80 |
| FCR 5 day 0 to 14 | 1.31 | 1.35 | 1.42 | 1.45 | 0.03 |
| 0.27 | 0.82 |
1 Adequate protein: diet with adequate levels of essential amino acids; low protein: diet with marginally deficient levels of essential amino acids. 2 p ≤ 0.05 are bolded to highlight significant differences. Trends, italicized, are defined as 0.10 ≥ p > 0.05. 3 SEM = standard error of the mean. 4 ADG = average daily body weight gain. 5 FCR = feed conversion ratio. Calculated as g of feed intake ÷ g of body weight gain.
Effect of diet 1 and protease on the concentration of ammonia-N, total short chain fatty acids (SCFA), and molar proportions of SCFA (mol/100 mol) in the excreta of chicks.
| Item | Adequate Protein | Low Protein | SEM 3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Protease | 200 g/t Protease | No Protease | 200 g/t Protease | Diet | Protease | Diet × Protease | ||
| Ammonia-N (mg/g) | 1.17 | 1.06 | 0.88 | 1.05 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.76 | 0.17 |
| Total SCFA, m | 58.27 | 58.70 | 46.52 | 52.05 | 5.11 |
| 0.57 | 0.63 |
| Acetate | 89.29 | 89.49 | 89.89 | 87.80 | 1.31 | 0.68 | 0.48 | 0.39 |
| Propionate | 1.31 | 0.97 | 1.16 | 1.99 | 0.23 |
| 0.31 |
|
| Butyrate | 6.88 | 8.04 | 6.22 | 8.14 | 1.14 | 0.81 | 0.20 | 0.74 |
| Isobutyrate | 0.43 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.29 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.50 | 0.09 |
| Valerate | 0.32 | 0.10 | 0.61 | 0.50 | 0.31 | 0.24 | 0.54 | 0.79 |
| Isovalerate | 0.95 | 0.52 | 0.53 | 0.47 | 0.13 |
|
| 0.18 |
| Caproate | 0.81 | 0.65 | 1.38 | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.67 | 0.66 | 0.80 |
1 Adequate protein: diet with adequate levels of essential amino acids; low protein: diet with marginally deficient levels of essential amino acids. 2 p ≤ 0.05 are emboldened to highlight significant differences. Trends, italicized, are defined as 0.10 ≥ p > 0.05. 3 SEM = standard error of the mean.
Effect of diet 1 and protease on α diversity indices at 97% similarity after rarefaction to 56,855 sequences per sample.
| Item | Adequate Protein | Low Protein | SEM 3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Protease | 200 g/t Protease | No Protease | 200 g/t Protease | Diet | Protease | Diet × Protease | ||
| Observed OTUs | 1132 | 1184 | 919 | 1206 | 76.76 | 0.23 |
| 0.15 |
| Chao1 | 1992 | 2052 | 1600 | 2030 | 135.79 | 0.15 |
| 0.19 |
| Phylogenetic diversity 4 | 47.2 | 48.9 | 39.5 | 49.7 | 2.83 | 0.24 |
| 0.15 |
| Shannon index | 5.0 | 5.1 | 4.3 | 4.9 | 0.23 |
| 0.15 | 0.23 |
| Evenness | 0.49 | 0.50 | 0.44 | 0.48 | 0.02 |
| 0.22 | 0.29 |
1 Adequate protein diet: diet with adequate levels of essential amino acids; low protein diet: diet with marginally deficient levels of essential amino acids. 2 p ≤ 0.05 are emboldened to highlight significant differences. Trends, italicized, are defined as 0.10 ≥ p > 0.05. 3 SEM = standard error of the mean. 4 Faith’s Phylogenetic Diversity Index.
Figure 1Principal coordinate analysis of β-diversity among sample groups. Bonferroni-corrected differences between treatments were not significant (p = 0.99).
Effect of diet 1 and protease on the relative abundance of the main bacterial phyla 2.
| Phyla | Adequate Protein | Low Protein | SEM 4 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Protease | 200 g/t Protease | No Protease | 200 g/t Protease | Diet | Protease | Diet × Protease | ||
|
| 46.5 | 46.9 | 40.9 | 53.6 | 5.93 | 0.93 | 0.29 | 0.31 |
|
| 48.4 | 45.0 | 53.9 | 34.0 | 6.42 | 0.67 |
| 0.22 |
|
| 2.8 | 6.5 | 4.0 | 10.8 | 2.93 | 0.36 |
| 0.61 |
|
| 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.32 | 0.09 | 0.55 | 0.20 |
|
| 58.7 | 140.5 | 25.4 | 18.9 | 69.56 | 0.28 | 0.60 | 0.54 |
1 Adequate protein: diet with adequate levels of essential amino acids; low protein: diet with marginally deficient levels of essential amino acids. 2 Phyla with overall relative abundance ≥ 0.10%. 3 p ≤ 0.05 are emboldened to highlight significant differences. Trends, italicized, are defined as 0.10 ≥ p > 0.05. 4 SEM = standard error of the mean.
Effect of diet 1 and protease on relative abundance (%) of the main bacterial genera 2.
| Genera | Adequate Protein | Low Protein | SEM 4 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Protease | 200 g/t Protease | No Protease | 200 g/t Protease | Diet | Protease | Diet × Protease | ||
| Unclassified, Family | 30.1 | 31.7 | 45.3 | 27.1 | 6.29 | 0.41 | 0.21 | 0.14 |
|
| 22.3 | 11.6 | 13.0 | 25.8 | 4.39 | 0.58 | 0.82 |
|
|
| 8.1 | 12.6 | 7.1 | 6.8 | 2.03 | 0.12 | 0.32 | 0.26 |
|
| 1.2 | 5.4 | 3.9 | 10.2 | 3.00 | 0.23 |
| 0.74 |
| Unclassified, Family | 5.1 | 7.3 | 6.6 | 1.6 | 3.14 | 0.52 | 0.67 | 0.27 |
|
| 5.3 | 3.9 | 5.6 | 2.5 | 1.29 | 0.66 |
| 0.52 |
|
| 2.6 | 2.3 | 3.6 | 4.8 | 1.43 | 0.23 | 0.75 | 0.62 |
|
| 4.8 | 4.2 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 1.16 |
| 0.61 | 0.97 |
|
| 2.4 | 3.7 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.59 |
| 0.26 | 0.32 |
| Unclassified, Family | 1.8 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 2.9 | 0.82 | 0.26 | 0.82 | 0.27 |
| Unclassified, Family | 3.7 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.5 | 2.00 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.22 |
| Unclassified, Order | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 0.80 | 0.17 | 0.53 | 0.93 |
|
| 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 0.39 | 0.69 | 0.53 | 0.45 |
|
| 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 0.58 | 0.15 | 0.40 | 0.62 |
1 Adequate protein: diet with adequate levels of essential amino acids; low protein: diet with marginally deficient levels of essential amino acids. 2 Genera with overall relative abundance ≥ 0.70%. Bacteria not identified at the genus level are presented at the subsequent taxonomic level. 3 p ≤ 0.05 are emboldened to highlight significant differences. Trends, italicized, are defined as 0.10 ≥ p > 0.05. 4 SEM = standard error of the mean.
Figure 2Relationship between overall feed conversion ratio (FCR) and abundance of the genera Proteus (A) and Bacteroides (B). Proteus had a negative correlation (ρ = −0.57; p = 0.009) with FCR. Bacteroides had a positive correlation (ρ = 0.60; p = 0.005) with FCR.