| Literature DB >> 32326046 |
Juan J Quereda1, Empar García-Roselló1, Marta Barba1, María L Mocé1, Jesús Gomis1, Estrella Jiménez-Trigos1, Esther Bataller1, Rebeca Martínez-Boví1, Ángel García-Muñoz1, Ángel Gómez-Martín1.
Abstract
Sheep estrous synchronization is mainly based on progestagen-impregnated sponges which could cause vaginitis. Several species of Lactobacillus used as probiotics are commonly used in the treatment or prevention of urogenital infections in humans. However, no studies have been performed to analyze the potential use of probiotics to prevent urogenital infections in sheep. A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted with 21 one-year-old ewes to develop a model of probiotic infusion in vaginal sponges in order to study their influence in ewe's vaginal microbiota, general health status, fertility and prolificity. Synchronization of estrus was based on intravaginal sponges for 14 days. Bacterial communities (Enterobacteriaceae and lactic acid bacteria) were highly fluctuating over time and between animals. The safety of probiotic infusion (mix of Lactobacillus spp. 60% L. crispatus, 20% L. brevis and 20% L. gasseri) in the vagina of healthy ewes was firstly confirmed. Neutrophils were observed in 80% (8/10) of the control ewes compared to 36% (4/11) of the ewes in the probiotic group 2 days after sponge removal (p = 0.056). Fertility in the control and probiotic groups was 60% (6/10) and 91% (10/11), respectively p = 0.097. These results suggest that Lactobacillus spp. infusion in the ewe's vagina does not affect general health status or fertility.Entities:
Keywords: Lactobacillus; alternative to antibiotics; dysbiosis; estrus synchronization; lactic acid bacteria; vaginitis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32326046 PMCID: PMC7222760 DOI: 10.3390/ani10040719
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Figure 1Number of Enterobacteriaceae (log CFU/mL), LAB (log CFU/mL) and total number of bacteria in the control (A), probiotic (B) and control versus probiotic groups (C) groups at T0, T-Estrus and T-Pregnancy. Pregnant animals: C1Y-C6Y and P1Y-P10Y and Non pregnant animals: C7N-C10N and P11N. * At T-Pregnancy only pregnant animals were studied.
Number of Enterobacteriaceae (log CFU/mL) and total number of bacteria (log CFU/mL) at T-Estrus and T-Pregnancy in control and probiotic group.
| Time | Bacterial Isolation | Control Group | Probiotic Group |
|---|---|---|---|
| T0 | Enterobacteriaceae | 3.11 ± 1.12 | 3.29 ± 1.35 |
| Total Number of Bacteria | 3.56 ± 0.72 | 3.68 ± 1.30 | |
| T-Estrus | Enterobacteriaceae | 4 ± 1.31 | 4 ± 1.66 |
| Total Number of Bacteria | 4.05 ± 1.53 | 4.58 ± 1.26 | |
| T-Pregnancy | Enterobacteriaceae | 2.79 ± 1.54 | 2.53 ± 1.67 |
| Total Number of Bacteria | 4.32 ± 0.48 | 4.34 ± 0.76 |
Figure 2Relationship between the quantity of Enterobacteriaceae and the vaginal bacterial diversity of all ewes used in the study (control and probiotic group). Each dot represents the value for one ewe. Columns showing different letters (a, b, c) represent values significantly different from each other (p < 0.05).