| Literature DB >> 33917156 |
Fareed Uddin Memon1,2, Yunqiao Yang1, Imdad Hussain Leghari2, Feifei Lv1, Ahmed M Soliman1,3, Weiyu Zhang1, Hongbin Si1.
Abstract
In this study, we performed transcriptome analysis in the cecum tissues of negative control untreated non-challenged (NC), positive control untreated challenged (PC), and Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) fed challenged chickens (BS + ET) in order to examine the underlying potential therapeutic mechanisms of Bacillus based probiotic feeding under an experimental Eimeria tenella (E. tenella) infection. Our results for clinical parameters showed that birds in probiotic diet decreased the bloody diarrhea scores, oocyst shedding, and lesion scores compared to positive control birds. RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) analysis revealed that in total, 2509 up-regulated and 2465 down-regulated differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were detected in the PC group versus NC group comparison. In the comparison of BS + ET group versus PC group, a total of 784 up-regulated and 493 down-regulated DEGs were found. Among them, several DEGs encoding proteins involved in immunity, gut barrier integrity, homeostasis, and metabolism were up-regulated by the treatment of probiotic. Functional analysis of DEGs also revealed that some gene ontology (GO) terms related with immunity, metabolism and cellular development were significantly affected by the exposure of probiotic. Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis showed that the DEGs in the cecum of B. subtilis-fed challenged group were mainly participated in the pathways related with immunity and gut barrier integrity, included mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway, toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling pathway, extracellular matrix (ECM)-receptor interaction, tight junction, and so on. Taken together, these results suggest that Bacillus based probiotic modulate the immunity, maintain gut homeostasis as well as barrier system and improve chicken metabolism during E. tenella infection.Entities:
Keywords: Bacillus subtilis; Eimeria tenella; chicken; immunity; metabolism; transcriptome analysis
Year: 2021 PMID: 33917156 PMCID: PMC8067821 DOI: 10.3390/genes12040536
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genes (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4425 Impact factor: 4.096
Effects of B. subtilis on bloody diarrhea scores, oocyst shedding, and lesion scores.
| Parameters | Groups | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| NC | PC | BS + ET | |
|
| |||
| Day 7 post-infection | 0.00 ± 0.00 c | 3.00 ± 0.00 a | 1.66 ± 0.33 b |
|
| |||
| Day 5 post-infection | 0.00 ± 0.00 c | 2.33 ± 0.33 a | 1.33 ± 0.33 b |
| Day 6 post-infection | 0.00 ± 0.00 c | 3.33 ± 0.33 a | 1.66 ± 0.33 b |
| Day 7 post-infection | 0.00 ± 0.00 c | 3.00 ± 0.57 a | 1.33 ± 0.33 b |
|
| |||
| Day 5 post-infection | 0.00 ± 0.00 c | 34.00 ± 2.51 a | 20.33 ± 1.20 b |
| Day 6 post-infection | 0.00 ± 0.00 c | 51.33 ± 4.05 a | 28.66 ± 2.18 b |
| Day 7 post-infection | 0.00 ± 0.00 c | 77.66 ± 2.90 a | 37.33 ± 3.17 b |
Superscript letters (a–c) show significant difference. Results are presented as mean ± standard error of mean (n = 3). NC = Negative control untreated non-challenged group; PC = positive control untreated challenged group; BS + ET = B. subtilis-fed challenged group.
Summary of RNA-sequencing results and quality data output.
| Sample | Raw Reads | Raw Bases (G) | Clean Reads | Clean Bases (G) | Q20 (%) | GC Content (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC-1 | 20,395,539 | 6.12 | 19,319,443 | 5.80 | 97.28 | 46.94 |
| NC-2 | 19,948,996 | 5.98 | 18,807,009 | 5.64 | 97.73 | 47.16 |
| NC-3 | 20,615,240 | 6.18 | 19,233,599 | 5.77 | 97.49 | 48.18 |
| PC-1 | 20,963,369 | 6.29 | 19,772,595 | 5.93 | 96.96 | 51.25 |
| PC-2 | 19,983,927 | 6.00 | 19,174,592 | 5.75 | 96.94 | 50.95 |
| PC-3 | 20,852,755 | 6.26 | 20,110,347 | 6.03 | 96.86 | 51.46 |
| BS + ET-1 | 20,851,951 | 6.26 | 20,048,311 | 6.01 | 96.79 | 51.06 |
| BS + ET-2 | 19,842,850 | 5.95 | 18,763,598 | 5.63 | 97 | 51.19 |
| BS + ET-3 | 20,570,711 | 6.17 | 19,463,192 | 5.84 | 96.92 | 50.16 |
| Sum | 184,025,338 | 55.51 | 174,692,686 | 52.4 |
Figure 1Results of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) affected by treatments. (A) The number of DEGs (up-regulated and down-regulated) in the PC group versus NC group comparison. (B) The number of DEGs (up-regulated and down-regulated) in the BS + ET group versus NC group comparison. (C) The number of DEGs (up-regulated and down-regulated) in the BS + ET group versus PC group comparison. (D) Results of DEGs related with metabolism, immunity, homeostasis, and gut barrier integrity. (E) Cluster analysis of DEGs between NC, PC, and BS + ET groups.
Figure 2Top 30 GO terms enriched of up-regulated DEGs in BS + ET group versus PC group.
Figure 3KEGG pathways significantly modulated in BS + ET group versus PC group comparison.
Figure 4Validation of RNA-seq by qRT-PCR.
Figure 5Significantly modulated KEGG pathways in BS + ET group versus PC group comparison. (A) Expression patterns of the DEGs of MAPK signaling pathway. (B) Expression patterns of the DEGs of toll-like receptor signaling pathway. (C) Expression patterns of the DEGs of NOD-like receptor signaling pathway. (D) Expression patterns of the DEGs of cytokine–cytokine receptor interaction. Highlighted genes with red color represent up-regulated expression patterns and highlighted genes with green color represent down-regulated expression patterns.
Figure 6Significantly modulated KEGG pathways in BS + ET group versus PC group comparison. (A) Expression patterns of the DEGs of ECM–receptor interaction. (B) Expression patterns of the DEGs of cell adhesion molecules. (C) Expression patterns of the DEGs of tight junction. Highlighted genes with red color represent up-regulated expression patterns and highlighted genes with green color represent down-regulated expression patterns.