| Literature DB >> 32235462 |
Agata Józefiak1, Abdelbasset Benzertiha2,3, Bartosz Kierończyk2, Anna Łukomska1, Izabela Wesołowska1, Mateusz Rawski4.
Abstract
Gastrointestinal microbiota play an important role in regulating the metabolic processes of animals and humans. A properly balanced cecal microbiota modulates growth parameters and the risk of infections. The study examined the effect of the addition of 0.2% and 0.3% of Tenebrio molitor and Zophobas morio on cecal microbiome of broilers. The material was the cecum digesta. The obtained DNA was analyzed using 16S rRNA next generation sequencing. The results of the study show that the addition of a relatively small amount of Z. morio and T. molitor modulates the broiler cecum microbiome composition. The most positive effect on cecal microbiota was recorded in the 0.2% Z. morio diet. A significant increase in the relative amount of genus Lactobacillus, represented by the species Lactobacillus agilis and the amount of bacteria in the Clostridia class, was observed. Moreover, the addition of 0.2% ZM resulted in a significant increase of relative abundance of the family Bifidobacteriaceae with the highest relative abundance of genus Bifidobacterium pseudolongum. The obtained results indicate that the addition of a relatively small amount of insect meal in broiler diet stimulates colonization by probiotic and commensal bacteria, which may act as barriers against infection by pathogenic bacteria.Entities:
Keywords: GIT; cecum; chicken; insect diet; microbiome; probiotic bacteria
Year: 2020 PMID: 32235462 PMCID: PMC7223363 DOI: 10.3390/ani10040577
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 3.231
Composition of the experimental basal diets.
| Ingredients (g·kg−1) | 1–14 d | 15–35 d |
|---|---|---|
| Wheat | 487.4 | 513.4 |
| Rye | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Soybean meal | 207.8 | 169.5 |
| Rapeseed meal | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Fish meal | 20.0 | 20.0 |
| Soybean oil | 49.9 | 71.1 |
| Vitamin–mineral premix a | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Monocalcium phosphate | 13.1 | 6.7 |
| Limestone | 8.0 | 6.8 |
| Salt (NaCl) | 1.1 | 1.3 |
| Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) | 2.2 | 1.7 |
| L–Lysine HCl | 2.9 | 2.4 |
| Methionine 88% liquid | 3.1 | 2.5 |
| L–Threonine | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Titanium dioxide (TiO2) b | - | 2.0 |
| Calculated nutritive value (g·kg−1) | ||
| Crude protein | 215.6 | 200.6 |
| Ether extract | 65.4 | 86.3 |
| Crude fiber | 33.1 | 32.2 |
| Total phosphorus (P) | 7.9 | 6.3 |
| Calcium (Ca) | 8.5 | 7.0 |
| Methionine | 6.1 | 5.3 |
| Lysine | 12.5 | 11.2 |
| Methionine + cysteine | 9.9 | 9.0 |
| Threonine | 9.1 | 8.6 |
| AMEN (MJ·kg−1) | 12.56 | 13.31 |
a Provided the following per kilogram of diet: vitamin A, 11,166 IU; cholecalciferol, 2,500 IU; vitamin E, 80 mg; menadione, 2.50 mg; vitamin B12, 0.02 mg; folic acid, 1.17 mg; choline, 379 mg; D–pantothenic acid, 12.50 mg; riboflavin, 7.0 mg; niacin, 41.67 mg; thiamine, 2.17 mg; D–biotin, 0.18 mg; pyridoxine, 4.0 mg; ethoxyquin, 0.09 mg; Mn (MnO2), 73 mg; Zn (ZnO), 55 mg; Fe (FeSO4), 45 mg; Cu (CuSO4), 20 mg; I (CaI2O6), 0.62 mg; and Se (Na2SeO3), 0.3 mg. b Replaced the corresponding amount of wheat in each diet from 30 to 35 d of broiler growth.
Results of alpha diversity comparison among groups by Kruskal–Walls test.
| PC | NC | TM02 | ZM02 | TM03 | ZM03 | Chi-Squared |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chao | 1353,433689 | 1403,584812 | 1460,172589 | 1482,72019 | 1473,615167 | 1440,336954 | 2.5531 | 5 | 0.7715 |
| inverse Simpson | 24,04508234 | 26,76290487 | 20,86621696 | 27,18980723 | 29,13428671 | 29,73953594 | 4.4531 | 5 | 0.4862 |
| OTU | 1002,75 | 1048,6 | 1113,8 | 1099,6 | 1098 | 1066,2 | 3.5919 | 5 | 0.6095 |
| Shannon | 4,188089975 | 4,282324207 | 4,251156956 | 4,298738827 | 4,338615676 | 4,403900425 | 2.7703 | 5 | 0.7353 |
| Simpson | 0,957585469 | 0,960598925 | 0,949845404 | 0,960809514 | 0,955005403 | 0,965599882 | 4.4531 | 5 | 0.4862 |
PC—positive control (salinomycin, 60 ppm); NC—negative control (no additives); TM02—(0.2% T. molitor full-fat meal); ZM02—(0.2% Z. morio full-fat meal); TM03—(0.3% T. molitor full-fat meal); ZM03—(0.3% Z. morio full-fat meal); (df)—degrees of freedom; OUT—operational taxonomic units.
Figure 1Rarefaction curves of alpha diversity cecum digesta, legends refer to sample: PC—positive control (salinomycin, 60 ppm); NC—negative control (no additives); TM02—(0.2% T. molitor full-fat meal); ZM02—(0.2% Z. morio full-fat meal); TM03—(0.3% T. molitor full-fat meal); ZM03—(0.3% Z. morio full-fat meal).
Figure 2Principal component analysis (PCA) of obtained sequence from cecal digesta samples: PC—positive control (salinomycin, 60 ppm); NC—negative control (no additives); TM02—(0.2% T. molitor full-fat meal); ZM02—(0.2% Z. morio full-fat meal); TM03—(0.3% T. molitor full-fat meal); ZM03—(0.3% Z. morio full-fat meal).
Relative abundance of bacterial communities in cecal digesta of chickens fed: 0.2% Tenebrio molitor (TM02), 0.2% Zophobas morio (ZM02), 0.3% Tenebrio molitor (TM03), 0.3% Zophobas morio (ZM03).
| Treatment | RMSE | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC | SD | NC | SD | TM02 | SD | ZM02 | SD | TM03 | SD | ZM03 | SD | |||
| Kingdom | ||||||||||||||
| Bacteria | 99.77 | 0.09 | 99.41 | 0.16 | 99.37 | 0.33 | 99.43 | 0.20 | 99.53 | 0.23 | 99.53 | 0.15 | 0.002 |
|
| Unclasified | 0.23 | 0.09 | 0.59 | 0.16 | 0.63 | 0.33 | 0.57 | 0.20 | 0.47 | 0.23 | 0.47 | 0.15 | 0.002 |
|
| Phylum | ||||||||||||||
| Firmicutes | 89.47 | 3.07 | 93.42 | 3.67 | 92.49 | 1.99 | 89.85 | 3.40 | 92.14 | 2.77 | 89.51 | 2.72 | 0.028 |
|
| Actinobacteria | 4.89a | 0.00 | 1.66b | 0.00 | 1.19b | 0.00 | 3.58ab | 0.00 | 1.37b | 0.00 | 1.52b | 0.00 | 0.020 |
|
| Bacteroidetes | 1.42 | 2.09 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.62 | 1.05 | 0.12 | 0.29 | 0.84 | 1.33 | 1.44 | 2.17 | 0.014 |
|
| Proteobacteria | 2.30 | 3.36 | 2.34 | 2.34 | 0.32 | 0.28 | 2.18 | 3.08 | 1.36 | 1.03 | 2.25 | 2.56 | 0.024 |
|
| Class | ||||||||||||||
| Actinobacteria | 4.33a | 0,00 | 0.87b | 0,00 | 0.25b | 0,00 | 2.05ab | 0,00 | 0.69b | 0,00 | 0.87b | 0,00 | 0.019 |
|
| Bacilli | 25.60 | 5.89 | 21.40 | 6.25 | 18.71 | 5.62 | 26.09 | 0.76 | 20.85 | 4.61 | 24.24 | 4.50 | 0.053 |
|
| Clostridia | 62.79b | 7.15 | 70.70ab | 6.24 | 72.66a | 7.19 | 62.69b | 3.76 | 69.42ab | 3.73 | 63.48b | 4.64 | 0.058 |
|
| Order | ||||||||||||||
| Bifidobacteriales | 4.32a | 3.89 | 0.86b | 166 | 0.24b | 0.34 | 2.04ab | 2.32 | 0.67b | 1.05 | 0.86b | 1.16 | 0.019 |
|
| Lactobacillales | 25.49 | 5.78 | 21.30 | 6.14 | 18.51 | 5.61 | 25.79 | 0.81 | 20.67 | 4.64 | 24.12 | 4.47 | 0.052 |
|
| Clostridiales | 62.79b | 7.03 | 70.70ab | 5.86 | 72.66a | 6.99 | 62.69b | 4.05 | 69.42ab | 3.18 | 63.48b | 4.86 | 0.058 |
|
| Family | ||||||||||||||
| Bifidobacteriaceae | 4.32a | 3.89 | 0.86b | 1.66 | 0.24b | 0.34 | 2.04ab | 2.32 | 0.67b | 1.05 | 0.86b | 1.16 | 0.019 |
|
| Lactobacillaceae | 24.57 | 6.84 | 20.56 | 5.68 | 18.12 | 5.70 | 24.64 | 1.37 | 20.26 | 4.89 | 23.84 | 4.45 | 0.054 |
|
| Lachnospiraceae | 25.85 | 5.26 | 23.13 | 1.88 | 17.16 | 2.55 | 17.51 | 5.57 | 20.91 | 5.08 | 20.95 | 6.95 | 0.054 |
|
| Ruminococcaceae | 21.90b | 5.39 | 30.54ab | 7.95 | 33.48a | 4.11 | 25.24ab | 6.15 | 29.53ab | 5.09 | 21.83b | 6.18 | 0.065 |
|
| Genus | ||||||||||||||
|
| 4.32a | 3.89 | 0.86b | 1.66 | 0.24b | 0.34 | 2.04ab | 2.32 | 0.67b | 1.05 | 0.86b | 1.16 | 0.019 |
|
|
| 24.57 | 6.78 | 20.56 | 5.61 | 18.12 | 5.65 | 24.64 | 1.38 | 20.26 | 4.82 | 23.84 | 4.42 | 0.054 |
|
|
| 4.10 | 4.48 | 4.65 | 1.70 | 4.14 | 3.14 | 4.39 | 4.98 | 4.97 | 4.27 | 3.54 | 5.38 | 0.027 |
|
|
| 14.49c | 1.90 | 20.73abc | 2.64 | 26.57a | 1.57 | 18.41bc | 1.41 | 22.85ab | 1.71 | 15.21c | 2.64 | 0.054 |
|
|
| 5.39 | 6.27 | 7.97 | 8.52 | 5.22 | 4.36 | 4.81 | 5.03 | 4.59 | 4.91 | 4.95 | 6.49 | 0.034 |
|
| Species | ||||||||||||||
|
| 4.32a | 3.82 | 0.86b | 1.56 | 0.24b | 0.29 | 2.04ab | 2.28 | 0.67b | 0.95 | 0.86b | 1.03 | 0.019 |
|
|
| 1.99b | 1.51 | 1.63b | 2.47 | 0.99b | 1.17 | 10.62a | 3.15 | 1.29b | 1.13 | 1.14b | 0.68 | 0.019 |
|
|
| 10.14 | 4.11 | 8.26 | 5.13 | 10.97 | 3.61 | 8.35 | 2.66 | 8.75 | 4.66 | 7.29 | 2.14 | 0.038 |
|
|
| 5.39 | 3.67 | 7.97 | 4.20 | 5.22 | 2.50 | 4.81 | 3.44 | 4.59 | 2.70 | 4.95 | 3.89 | 0.034 |
|
Means represent 10 birds in 5 pooled samples, 2 birds per sample (n = 5); PC—positive control (salinomycin, 60 ppm); NC—negative control (no additives); TM02—(0.2% T. molitor full-fat meal); ZM02—(0.2% Z. morio full-fat meal); TM03—(0.3% T. molitor full-fat meal); ZM03—(0.3% Z. morio full-fat meal); SD – standard deviation, RMSE—root square error of the mean. The RMSE equation is: RMSE = √MSE, where MSE is mean square error, a-c means within a row with no common superscripts differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 3Effect of insect diet on chicken cecal microbiome composition at phylum-level. Legends refer to sample: PC—positive control (salinomycin, 60 ppm); NC—negative control (no additives); TM02—(0.2% T. molitor full-fat meal); ZM02—(0.2% Z. morio full-fat meal); TM03—(0.3% T. molitor full-fat meal); ZM03—(0.3% Z. morio full-fat meal).
Figure 4Effect of insect diet on chicken cecal microbiome composition at class-level. Legends refer to sample: PC—positive control (salinomycin, 60 ppm); NC—negative control (no additives); TM02—(0.2% T. molitor full-fat meal); ZM02—(0.2% Z. morio full-fat meal); TM03—(0.3% T. molitor full-fat meal); ZM03—(0.3% Z. morio full-fat meal).