| Literature DB >> 33138291 |
Yang Lyu1, Sandra Debevere1, Hermann Bourgeois2, Mavis Ran2, Bart J G Broeckx1, Lynn Vanhaecke3, Tom Van de Wiele4, Myriam Hesta2.
Abstract
In order to investigate the effect and appropriate dose of prebiotics, this study evaluated the effect of two levels of xylooligosaccharides (XOS) in cats. Twenty-four healthy adult cats were divided into three groups: no-XOS control diet with 1% cellulose; low XOS supplementation (LXOS) with 0.04% XOS and 0.96% cellulose; and high XOS supplementation (HXOS) with 0.40% XOS and 0.60% cellulose. Both XOS groups increased blood 3-hydroxybutyryl carnitine levels and decreased hexadecanedioyl carnitine levels. Both XOS treatments displayed an increased bacterial abundance of Blautia, Clostridium XI, and Collinsella and a decreased abundance of Megasphaera and Bifidobacterium. LXOS groups increased fecal pH and bacterial abundance of Streptococcus and Lactobacillus, decreased blood glutaryl carnitine concentration, and Catenibacterium abundance. HXOS group showed a more distinct microbiome profile and higher species richness, and an increased bacterial abundance of Subdoligranulum, Ruminococcaceae genus (unassigned genus), Erysipelotrichaceae genus, and Lachnospiraceae. Correlations between bacterial abundances and blood and fecal parameters were also observed. In conclusion, XOS could benefit feline gut health by altering microbiota; its effects dependant on the dose. The higher-dose XOS increased bacterial populations that possibly promoted intestinal fermentation, while the lower dose altered populations of carbohydrate-metabolic microbiota and possibly modulated host metabolism. Low-dose prebiotics may become a trend in future studies.Entities:
Keywords: cats; gut health; microbiome; prebiotics; xylooligosaccharides (XOS)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33138291 PMCID: PMC7662210 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25215030
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Effect of xylooligosaccharides (XOS) on fecal score and pH. Groups with different letters (a, b) are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Effect of XOS on the blood concentration of 3OH-C4, C5DC, and C16DC. 3OH-C4: 3-hydroxybutyryl carnitine; C5DC: glutaryl carnitine; C16DC: hexadecanedioyl carnitine. Groups with different letters (a, b) are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Impact of XOS supplementation on diversity, richness, and evenness of the fecal microbiome.
| Item. | Control | LXOS | HXOS | SEM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shannon index | 1.94 | 1.91 | 2.23 | 0.11 | 0.077 |
| Simpson index | 0.78 | 0.758 | 0.838 | 0.03 | 0.185 |
| Inverse Simpson index | 4.86 | 5.05 | 6.49 | 0.583 | 0.061 |
| Pielou’s evenness | 0.499 | 0.463 | 0.536 | 0.023 | 0.271 |
| Species richness | 49.4 a | 61.6 ab | 64.8 b | 4.41 | 0.022 |
a,b values within a row with different letters differ (p < 0.05). LXOS: low XOS supplementation group; HXOS: high XOS supplementation group.
Figure 3Heat map of the relative abundance and dendrogram clustering of the fecal microbiota genera. Colors with values represent log-transformed relative abundance of operational taxonomic units (OTUs).
Relative abundance of the operational taxonomic units (OTUs).
| Taxonomy | Control | LXOS | HXOS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Bacilli; Lactobacillales; | 13.468 a | 28.510 b | 7.561 a | <0.001 |
| Bacilli; Lactobacillales; | 7.044 a | 16.591 b | 11.403 ab | <0.001 |
| Clostridia; Clostridiales; | 1.523 a | 0.871 a | 4.522 b | <0.001 |
| Clostridia; Clostridiales; | 0.396 a | 1.077 b | 1.870 c | <0.001 |
| Erysipelotrichia; Erysipelotrichales; | 1.495 a | 2.193 a | 4.294 b | 0.001 |
| Clostridia; Clostridiales; | 0.240 a | 0.398 a | 0.771 b | 0.001 |
| Erysipelotrichia; Erysipelotrichales; | 1.669 b | 0.587 a | 1.178 ab | 0.010 |
| Clostridia; Clostridiales; | 2.024 a | 4.051 b | 2.085 a | 0.029 |
| Clostridia; Clostridiales; | 6.423 a | 12.713 b | 9.363 ab | 0.038 |
| Clostridia; Clostridiales; | 0.127 a | 0.399 ab | 0.505 b | 0.044 |
| Negativicutes; Selenomonadales; | 1.337 b | 0.790 a | 0.819 a | 0.045 |
| Clostridia; Clostridiales; | 2.198 a | 3.258 b | 3.094 b | 0.047 |
|
| ||||
| Actinobacteria; Coriobacteriales; | 1.705 a | 2.556 b | 4.348 b | <0.001 |
| Actinobacteria; Bifidobacteriales; | 0.506 b | 0.177 a | 0.241 a | <0.001 |
| Actinobacteria; Bifidobacteriales; | 14.403 b | 16.259 b | 4.466 a | 0.006 |
| Actinobacteria; Bifidobacteriales; | 19.854 b | 5.829 a | 7.224 a | 0.011 |
a,b values within a row with different letters differ (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Spearman correlations between OTU abundance and fermentation and metabolism profile. Red represents a positive correlation, while blue represents a negative correlation. “g_” means unclassified genus. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.
Ingredients and macronutrient composition of control and experimental diets.
|
|
|
|
|
| Corn | 39.11 | 39.11 | 39.11 |
| Dehydrated poultry meat | 19.80 | 19.80 | 19.80 |
| Corn gluten meal | 9.90 | 9.90 | 9.90 |
| Poultry Fat | 6.93 | 6.93 | 6.93 |
| Rice | 4.95 | 4.95 | 4.95 |
| Soy | 4.95 | 4.95 | 4.95 |
| Hydrolyzed dehydrated poultry meat | 4.95 | 4.95 | 4.95 |
| Premix | 2.48 | 2.48 | 2.48 |
| Fishmeal | 2.23 | 2.23 | 2.23 |
| Liquid aroma | 1.98 | 1.98 | 1.98 |
| Yeast | 1.24 | 1.24 | 1.24 |
| Aroma powder | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Cellulose | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.60 |
| XOS | 0.00 | 0.040 | 0.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Crude protein | 33.90 | 32.89 | 36.22 |
| Crude fat | 11.49 | 11.56 | 12.14 |
| Crude ash | 6.80 | 6.26 | 5.90 |
| Crude fiber | 1.57 | 1.42 | 1.47 |
| Total dietary fiber | 10.50 | 10.93 | 11.51 |
| Nitrogen free extract | 46.24 | 47.87 | 44.27 |