| Literature DB >> 32590936 |
Martine Schroyen1, Julie Leblois2, Julie Uerlings1, Bing Li1, Ester Arévalo Sureda1, Sébastien Massart3, José Wavreille4, Jérôme Bindelle1, Nadia Everaert5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the past several years, the use of resistant starch (RS) as prebiotic has extensively been studied in pigs, and this mostly in the critical period around weaning. RS is believed to exert beneficial effects on the gastrointestinal tract mainly due to higher levels of short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and an improved microbiota profile. In this study, sows were fed digestible starch (DS) or RS during late gestation and lactation and the possible maternal effect of RS on the overall health of the progeny was assessed. Since RS is also described to have a positive effect on metabolism, and to investigate a metabolic programming of the progeny, half of the piglets per maternal diet were assigned to a high fat diet from weaning on to 10 weeks after.Entities:
Keywords: Maternal programming; Metabolic programming; Microbiota
Year: 2020 PMID: 32590936 PMCID: PMC7318506 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-020-06854-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Back fat thickness (mm), muscle thickness (mm), meat percentage (%) and bodyweight (kg) of piglets after the high fat challenge (n = 9 for DS CON, DS HF, RS CON and n = 11 for RS HF)
| Treatment | Back fat thickness | Muscle thickness | Meat percentage | Bodyweight at 10 weeks Post-weaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS CON | 6.0 | 42.3 | 63.5 | 37.6 |
| DS HF | 7.1 | 44.0 | 62.7 | 35.4 |
| RS CON | 5.8 | 40.6 | 63.4 | 38.0 |
| RS HF | 8.5 | 42.5 | 61.5 | 36.2 |
| Global SEM | 0.3 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.9 |
| Maternal treatment | 0.22 | 0.43 | 0.11 | 0.73 |
| Piglet treatment | 0.37 | 0.28 | ||
| Interaction | 0.10 | 0.94 | 0.19 | 0.92 |
DS CON digestible starch maternal diet combined with a control piglet diet, DS HF digestible starch maternal diet combined with a high fat piglet diet, RS CON resistant starch maternal diet combined with a control piglet diet, RS HF resistant starch maternal diet combined with a high fat piglet diet, SEM standard error to the mean
Total cholesterol (mg/dl), triglycerides (mg/dl), high density lipoprotein (mg/dl), low density lipoprotein (mg/dl) and ratio in fasted pigs’ serum after 6 weeks of HF challenge (n = 7/treatment)
| Treatment | TC | TG | HDL | LDL | ratio LDL/TC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS CON | 95.3a,b | 40.7b | 46.3b | 40.8a | 42.6a |
| DS HF | 105.3a | 44.0b | 58.7a | 37.8a,b | 35.9b |
| RS CON | 86.4b | 38.3b | 43.8b | 35.0ab | 40.4a,b |
| RS HF | 101.7a | 54.0a | 59.6a | 31.3b | 30.1c |
| Global SEM | 2.66 | 1.91 | 1.90 | 1.55 | 1.27 |
| Maternal treatment | 0.21 | 0.26 | 0.78 | ||
| Piglet treatment | 0.27 | ||||
| Interaction | 0.59 | 0.07 | 0.53 | 0.90 | 0.35 |
a, b Between treatments for every parameter measured, values having a different superscript letter are significantly different (p < 0.01)
DS CON digestible starch maternal diet combined with a control piglet diet, DS HF digestible starch maternal diet combined with a high fat piglet diet, RS CON resistant starch maternal diet combined with a control piglet diet, RS HF resistant starch maternal diet combined with a high fat piglet diet, SEM standard error to the mean. TC total cholesterol, TG triglycerides, HDL high density lipoprotein, LDL low density lipoprotein
Total SCFA production and molar ratios of acetate, propionate and butyrate in the large intestinal contents of the piglets born from DS or RS sows and fed CON or HF diets
| Maternal treatment | Piglet treatment | Total SCFA (mg/g) | % acetate | % propionate | % butyrate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caecum | DS | CON ( | 9.24ab | 62.49 | 27.03 | 10.08 |
| HF ( | 7.62b | 59.18 | 29.5 | 9.73 | ||
| RS | CON ( | 9.29a | 59.52 | 28.24 | 10.19 | |
| HF ( | 10.09a | 56 | 29.89 | 9.19 | ||
| Global SEM | 0.31 | 0.85 | 0.44 | 0.27 | ||
| P sow | 0.06 | 0.36 | 0.70 | |||
| P piglet | 0.48 | 0.23 | ||||
| P interaction | 0.95 | 0.64 | 0.55 | |||
| Proximal colon | DS | CON ( | 8.89 | 60.4 | 28.02 | 10.54 |
| HF ( | 8.76 | 58.3 | 28.55 | 10.26 | ||
| RS | CON ( | 9.58 | 59.3 | 28.69 | 10.53 | |
| HF ( | 10.29 | 56.2 | 29.31 | 9.5 | ||
| Global SEM | 0.23 | 0.76 | 0.46 | 0.27 | ||
| P sow | 0.30 | 0.47 | 0.49 | |||
| P piglet | 0.50 | 0.09 | 0.56 | 0.24 | ||
| P interaction | 0.33 | 0.74 | 0.96 | 0.50 | ||
| Distal colon | DS | CON ( | 7.93 | 55.01a | 22.64 | 14.23 |
| HF ( | 8.89 | 51.03b | 23.23 | 16.24 | ||
| RS | CON ( | 9.35 | 52.51ab | 21.97 | 16.36 | |
| HF ( | 8.61 | 54.91a | 22.95 | 15.11 | ||
| Global SEM | 0.22 | 0.68 | 0.36 | 0.44 | ||
| P sow | 0.19 | 0.60 | 0.53 | 0.57 | ||
| P piglet | 0.80 | 0.55 | 0.29 | 0.67 | ||
| P interaction | 0.06 | 0.79 | 0.07 |
DS digestible starch diet, RS resistant starch diet, CON control diet, HF high fat diet, SCFA short chain fatty acids
Fig. 1Principal component analysis of the microbial composition of the colonic contents. Every dot represents one of the 32 piglets analysed: 8 DS CON piglets (red), 8 DS HF piglets (blue), 8 RS CON piglets (orange) and 8 RS HF piglets (green)
Fig. 2Proportion of the main abundant phyla (a), families (b) and genera (c) in the different pig groups (n = 8/treatment). Only phyla, families and genera with a relative abundance higher than 0.05% are displayed. Dashed lines in Fig. 2b and Fig. 2c separate phyla. F=Firmicutes, B=Bacteriodetes, P=Proteobacteria, A = Actinobacteria, S=Spirochaetes
Fig. 3Overview of correlations of the significant modules in colon and liver. Correlations were calculated between the eigenvalue of the module and traits of interest: sow treatment (DS as 0, CON as 1), piglet treatment (CON as 0, HF as 1), piglet weight, backfat thickness, muscle thickness and meat percentage
Fig. 4Correlations between the 6 significant WGCNA modules for piglet treatment in the liver dataset with piglet treatment (CON as 0, HF as 1) with back fat thickness and meat percentage, as well as total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high density lipoprotein (HDL), low density lipoprotein (LDL) and ratio (LDL/TC) in pigs’ fasted serum after 6 weeks of HF challenge
Fig. 5Overlap between modules and DE expressed genes for piglet treatment in liver dataset. The coloured bars represent the percentage of genes in a module that are differentially expressed in the liver between piglets that received a control diet (CON) and those that received the high fat diet (HF). Modules that were significantly correlated with piglet treatment were pink (p = 0.02), greenyellow (p = 0.006), green (p = 0.02), grey60 (p = 0.01), purple (p = 0.004) and turquoise (p = 0.04)
Ingredients and analysed chemical composition of grower diets fed to piglets
| Ingredient (%) | Grower 1 (11–25 kg) | Grower 2 (25–50 kg) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | HF | CON | HF | |
| Barley | 17.7 | 17.7 | 11.25 | 11.25 |
| Maize | 13.5 | 13.5 | 9.4 | 9.4 |
| Wheat | 13 | 13 | 27 | 27 |
| Soybean meal 48% | 12.1 | 12.1 | 14.2 | 14.2 |
| Palm oil | – | 10 | – | 10 |
| Maize starch | 10 | – | 10 | – |
| Golden soy | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 |
| Nutex 68 (Dumoulin Inc) | 4.5 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Bread flour | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.95 | 4.95 |
| Biscuit flour | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.95 | 4.95 |
| wheat bran | 3.6 | 3.6 | 2.34 | 2.34 |
| Rapeseed cake | 2.2 | 2.2 | 4.95 | 4.95 |
| Sunflower cake | 0 | 0 | 3.15 | 3.15 |
| Chalk | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.36 | 1.36 |
| Beet pulp | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Fat | 0 | 0 | 1.67 | 1.67 |
| Maize gluten | 0 | 0 | 1.188 | 1.188 |
| Amino acids (Thr, Try, Met, Lys) | 1.132 | 1.132 | 0.775 | 0.775 |
| Minerals & Vitamins | 0.603 | 0.603 | 0.369 | 0.369 |
| Salt | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.333 | 0.333 |
| Molasses | 0 | 0 | 0.36 | 0.36 |
| Dry Matter | 88.8 | 89.7 | 89.94 | 89.41 |
| Crude Protein | 18.03 | 17.81 | 18.40 | 18.84 |
| Ether Extract | 5.05 | 15.94 | 4.77 | 14.88 |
| Acid Detergent Fibre | 5.15 | 5.55 | 5.29 | 5.37 |
| Neutral Detergent Fibre | 12.69 | 13.83 | 13.65 | 14.65 |
Primers used for qPCR validation
| Gene | Primer Sequence (5′ -- > 3′) | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| ELOVL2 | F: ATCTGGTGGTGTGTGCTGAA | Own design |
| R: GGAAGATGAGACAGCCGAAG | ||
| FGF21 | F: GAAGCCAGGGGTCATTCAAA | Rosenbaum et al. [ |
| R: GGTAAACGTTGTAGCCATCC | ||
| PPIA | F: ACTGCCAAGACTGAGTGGTAAG | Own design |
| R: CAGAGCAGGAACCAACAGCG | ||
| GAPDH | F: CATCCATGACAACTTCGGCA | Chatelais et al. [ |
| R: GCATGGACTGTGGTCATGAGTC |