| Literature DB >> 35633720 |
Yan Lin1,2, Ke Wang1,2, Lianqiang Che1,2, Zhengfeng Fang1,2, Shengyu Xu1,2, Bin Feng1,2, Yong Zhuo1,2, Jian Li1,2, Caimei Wu1,2, Junjie Zhang3, Haoyu Xiong1,2, Chenglong Yu1,2.
Abstract
Although fiber-rich diets have been positively associated with sperm quality, there have not been any studies that have examined the effects of dietary fiber and its metabolites on sperm quality in young or pre-pubescent animals. In this study, we aimed to explore the effect of dietary fiber supplementation on semen quality and the underlying mechanisms in a boar model. Sixty purebred Yorkshire weaning boars were randomly divided into the four groups (T1-T4). Groups T1, T2, and T3 boars were fed diets with different levels of fiber until reaching 160 days of age and were then fed the same diet, while group T4 boars were fed a basal diet supplemented with butyrate and probiotics. Compared with T1 boars, sperm motility and effective sperm number were significantly higher among T3 boars. Meanwhile, at 240 days of age, the acetic acid and total short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) contents in the sera of T3 and T4 boars were significantly higher than those in T1 boars. The abundance of microbiota in T2 and T3 boars was significantly higher than that in T1 boars (P < 0.01). Moreover, dietary fiber supplementation increased "beneficial gut microbes" such as UCG-005, Rumenococcus, Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group and Lactobacillus and decreased the relative abundance of "harmful microbes" such as Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1, Romboutsia and Turicibacter. Collectively, the findings of this study indicate that dietary fiber supplementation improves gut microbiota and promotes SCFA production, thereby enhancing spermatogenesis and semen quality. Moreover, the effects of dietary fiber are superior to those of derived metabolites.Entities:
Keywords: dietary fiber; growing boar; gut microbiota; semen quality; short-chain fatty acid
Year: 2022 PMID: 35633720 PMCID: PMC9130837 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.863315
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Calculated nutrient levels of diets.
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| DE (Mcal/kg) | 3.54 | 3.54 | 3.54 | 3.54 | 3.45 | 3.45 | 3.45 | 3.45 | 3.37 | 3.37 | 3.37 | 3.37 | 3.37 |
| CP (%) | 18.81 | 18.81 | 18.81 | 18.81 | 15.68 | 15.68 | 15.68 | 15.68 | 15.52 | 15.52 | 15.52 | 15.52 | 15.52 |
| CF (%) | 1.60 | 1.89 | 2.19 | 1.60 | 2.19 | 2.57 | 2.95 | 2.19 | 2.38 | 2.65 | 3.12 | 2.38 | 2.73 |
| Ca (%) | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.82 |
| AP (%) | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.33 |
| ADF (%) | 8.38 | 9.30 | 10.28 | 8.38 | 14.99 | 16.27 | 17.52 | 14.99 | 15.82 | 16.44 | 17.94 | 15.82 | 16.98 |
| NDF (%) | 2.80 | 2.98 | 3.19 | 2.80 | 5.83 | 6.13 | 6.42 | 5.83 | 6.01 | 6.16 | 6.50 | 6.01 | 6.36 |
| SDF (%) | 1.72 | 1.84 | 2.09 | 1.72 | 1.76 | 2.43 | 2.84 | 1.76 | 1.82 | 2.72 | 3.28 | 1.82 | 1.96 |
| IDF (%) | 8.25 | 9.63 | 10.88 | 8.25 | 10.92 | 12.75 | 14.84 | 10.92 | 11.57 | 14.17 | 17.11 | 11.57 | 12.85 |
| TDF (%) | 9.97 | 11.47 | 12.97 | 9.97 | 12.68 | 15.18 | 17.68 | 12.68 | 13.39 | 16.89 | 20.39 | 13.39 | 14.81 |
T1, basal diet; T2, T3, basal diet supplemented with different fiber level; T4, basal diet supplemented with probiotics and butyrate. SDF, soluble fiber; IDF, insoluble fiber; TDF, total dietary fiber.
Effect of dietary fiber and metabolites on diarrhea and growth performance of boars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| 0–14 d | 0.34 ± 0.07 | 0.25 ± 0.05 | 0.16 ± 0.04 | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 0.096 |
| 15–30 d | 0.30 ± 0.10 | 0.30 ± 0.08 | 0.20 ± 0.07 | 0.25 ± 0.09 | 0.818 |
| 0–30 d | 0.32 ± 0.07 | 0.27 ± 0.05 | 0.18 ± 0.05 | 0.22 ± 0.06 | 0.153 |
|
| |||||
| 0–130 d | 844.2 ± 21.2 | 839.6 ± 32 | 836.1 ± 30 | 860.3 ± 28.5 | 0.586 |
| 131–260 d | 687.8 ± 25.8 | 649.9 ± 35.7 | 688.1 ± 24.3 | 685.0 ± 17.1 | 0.394 |
|
| |||||
| 0–130 d | 1.75 ± 0.04 | 1.75 ± 0.12 | 1.71 ± 0.09 | 1.78 ± 0.02 | 0.322 |
| 131–260 d | 2.60 ± 0.04 | 2.58 ± 0.04 | 2.59 ± 0.06 | 2.60 ± 0.03 | 0.922 |
|
| |||||
| 0–130 d | 2.07 ± 0.05 | 2.09 ± 0.10 | 2.04 ± 0.08 | 2.10 ± 0.07 | 0.322 |
T1, basal diet; T2, T3, basal diet supplemented with different fiber level; T4, basal diet supple mented with probiotics and butyrate. Values are means and SEMs, n = 15 per group.
Figure 1Effect of dietary fiber and metabolites on boar testicle volume. T1, basal diet; T2, T3, basal diet supplemented with different dietary fiber level; T4, basal diet supplemented with probiotics and butyrate. Values are means and SEMs, n = 15 per group.
Effect of dietary fiber and metabolites on libido of boars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Libido score, s | 3.42 ± 0.33 | 3.04 ± 0.45 | 3.24 ± 0.35 | 2.33 ± 0.33 | 0.120 |
| Ejaculation reaction time, s | 116.54 ± 37.56 | 115.23 ± 28.19 | 120.15 ± 40.11 | 78.69 ± 18.67 | 0.832 |
| Duration of ejaculation, s | 343.76 ± 68.82 | 375.66 ± 35.87 | 340.56 ± 13.23 | 483.91 ± 72.43 | 0.209 |
T1, basal diet; T2, T3, basal diet supplemented with different fiber level; T4, basal diet supplemented with probiotics and butyrate. Values are means and SEMs, n = 6 per group.
Effect of dietary fiber and metabolites on semen quality of boars (1–4 weeks).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semen volume (mL) | 84.65 ± 6.96 | 93.90 ± 6.83 | 97.35 ± 7.22 | 96.47 ± 10.06 | 0.951 |
| Sperm density, ×108 spz/mL | 1.55 ± 0.11 | 1.53 ± 0.07 | 1.49 ± 0.12 | 1.47 ± 0.13 | 0.311 |
| Sperm motility, % | 87.38 ± 2.09 | 91.90 ± 1.27 | 94.46 ± 0.83 | 90.21 ± 2.53 | 0.028 |
| Total sperm count/ejaculation, ×108 spz | 131.20 ± 10.11 | 143.67 ± 12.26 | 145.05 ± 9.37 | 141.80 ± 11.39 | 0.402 |
| Effective sperm count/ejaculation, ×108 spz | 114.64 ± 6.16 | 132.03 ± 7.35 | 137.02 ± 8.24 | 127.92 ± 12.37 | 0.109 |
| Immobile ratio, % | 12.62 ± 2.09 | 8.10 ± 1.27 | 6.25 ± 1.06 | 9.79 ± 2.53 | 0.056 |
| Linear ratio, % | 33.16 ± 1.54a | 33.24 ± 0.93a | 30.69 ± 1.34a | 39.00 ± 2.34b | 0.005 |
| Oscillation ratio, % | 46.53 ± 1.23a | 46.59 ± 0.75a | 44.55 ± 1.07a | 51.20 ± 1.88b | 0.005 |
| Forward ratio, % | 70.57 ± 1.42ab | 71.01 ± 0.87ab | 68.33 ± 1.26a | 75.31 ± 1.83b | 0.009 |
T1, basal diet; T2, T3, basal diet supplemented with different fiber level; T4, basal diet supplemented with probiotics and butyrate. Values are means and SEMs, n = 6 per group. Data with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Effect of dietary fiber and metabolites on semen quality of boars (5–8 weeks).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semen volume (mL) | 113.70 ± 4.02 | 114.72 ± 5.68 | 125.60 ± 4.45 | 127.61 ± 6.73 | 0.174 |
| Sperm density, ×108 spz/mL | 1.98 ± 0.09 | 1.90 ± 0.08 | 1.86 ± 0.09 | 1.80 ± 0.15 | 0.264 |
| Sperm motility, % | 91.10 ± 1.70 | 94.16 ± 1.61 | 95.28 ± 0.74 | 95.95 ± 1.37 | 0.057 |
| Total sperm count/ejaculation, x108 spz | 225.39 ± 8.14 | 219.35 ± 9.75 | 233.61 ± 11.24 | 219.48 ± 7.48 | 0.162 |
| Effective sperm count/ejaculation, ×108 spz | 211.57 ± 6.73a | 199.07 ± 8.33a | 222.58 ± 10.05b | 220.59 ± 8.27ab | 0.148 |
| Immobile ratio, % | 5.84 ± 1.70 | 8.90 ± 1.61 | 4.72 ± 0.74 | 4.05 ± 1.37 | 0.059 |
| Linear ratio, % | 33.96 ± 0.99 | 32.81 ± 1.56 | 35.44 ± 1.37 | 36.00 ± 1.64 | 0.406 |
| Oscillation ratio, % | 47.17 ± 0.79 | 46.25 ± 1.25 | 48.35 ± 1.09 | 48.80 ± 1.31 | 0.406 |
| Forward ratio, % | 71.80 ± 0.89 | 70.16 ± 1.45 | 72.74 ± 1.13 | 73.20 ± 1.61 | 0.357 |
T1, basal diet; T2, T3, basal diet supplemented with different fiber level; T4, basal diet supplemented with probiotics and butyrate. Values are means and SEMs, n = 6 per group. Data with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Effect of dietary fiber and metabolites on semen quality of boars (1–8 weeks).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semen volume (mL) | 99.17 ± 8.86 | 104.31 ± 6.36 | 116.47 ± 7.47 | 110.04 ± 7.58 | 0.414 |
| Sperm density, ×108 spz/mL | 1.65 ± 0.09 | 1.67 ± 0.08 | 1.57 ± 0.09 | 1.64 ± 0.15 | 0.180 |
| Sperm motility, % | 90.22 ± 1.62a | 91.53 ± 0.64ab | 94.89 ± 1.37b | 92.84 ± 1.71ab | 0.026 |
| Total sperm count/ejaculation, ×108 spz | 163.63 ± 7.05 | 174.20 ± 9.16 | 182.00 ± 11.13 | 180.46 ± 9.38 | 0.142 |
| Effective sperm count/ejaculation, ×108 spz | 147.63 ± 6.78 | 159.44 ± 11.06 | 173.89 ± 9.35 | 167.54 ± 12.31 | 0.068 |
| Immobile ratio, % | 9.78 ± 0.52b | 8.47 ± 0.70b | 5.47 ± 0.64a | 7.16 ± 0.59ab | 0.049 |
| Linear ratio, % | 33.50 ± 0.97a | 33.04 ± 0.87a | 33.13 ± 1.02a | 37.62 ± 1.48b | 0.018 |
| Oscillation ratio, % | 46.80 ± 0.78a | 46.43 ± 0.70a | 46.50 ± 0.82a | 50.10 ± 1.18b | 0.018 |
| Forward ratio, % | 71.09 ± 0.90ab | 70.62 ± 0.81a | 70.59 ± 0.91a | 74.35 ± 1.23b | 0.037 |
T1, basal diet; T2, T3, basal diet supplemented with different fiber level; T4, basal diet supplemented with probiotics and butyrate. Values are means and SEMs, n = 6 per group. Data with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Effect of dietary fiber and metabolites on short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) concentrations of boars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Acetate, mg/g | 2.99 ± 0.14 | 3.37 ± 0.28 | 3.68 ± 0.39 | 4.02 ± 0.47 | 0.233 |
| Propionate, mg/g | 2.02 ± 0.12 | 2.46 ± 0.30 | 2.41 ± 0.27 | 2.36 ± 0.16 | 0.574 |
| Isobutyric acid | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 0.37 ± 0.06 | 0.35 ± 0.05 | 0.38 ± 0.04 | 0.336 |
| Butyrate, mg/g | 1.44 ± 0.11 | 1.82 ± 0.28 | 1.80 ± 0.29 | 1.86 ± 0.12 | 0.055 |
| Isovaleric acid, mg/g | 0.45 ± 0.02 | 0.71 ± 0.13 | 0.65 ± 0.11 | 0.73 ± 0.10 | 0.062 |
| Valeric acid, mg/g | 0.38 ± 0.02 | 0.68 ± 0.18 | 0.52 ± 0.1 | 0.51 ± 0.05 | 0.318 |
| Total SCFAs, mg/g | 7.54 ± 0.35 | 9.03 ± 1.14 | 9.41 ± 0.86 | 9.86 ± 0.88 | 0.075 |
|
| |||||
| Acetate, μmol/L | 446.1 ± 49.3a | 586.1 ± 22.0ab | 687.3 ± 47.5b | 660.8 ± 67.3b | 0.014 |
| Propionate, μmol/L | 92.2 ± 6.1 | 87.79 ± 5.1 | 124.3 ± 20.4 | 101.1 ± 12.4 | 0.219 |
| Butyrate, μmol/L | 61.3 ± 13.7a | 93.62 ± 10.7a | 216.7 ± 39.7b | 157.3 ± 27.9ab | 0.003 |
| Total SCFAs, μmol/L | 599.7 ± 64.9a | 767.6 ± 30.9ab | 1028.0 ± 102.8b | 919.1 ± 95.6b | 0.008 |
T1, basal diet; T2, T3, basal diet supplemented with different fiber level; T4, basal diet supplemented with probiotics and butyrate. Values are means and SEMs, n = 6 per group. Data with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Alpha-diversity analysis of gut microbial community structure in each group. (A) Shannon index. (B) Chao index. (C) Sobs index. (D) Ace index. Red represents the T1 group, blue represents the T2 group, green represents the T3 group and yellow represents the T4 group. *p < 0.05, and **p < 0.01.
Figure 3Effects of dietary fiber on fecal microbial composition. (A,E) The relative amounts of microbiota in feces at the phylum level. (B) The relative amounts of microbiota in feces at the order level. (C) The relative amounts of microbiota in feces at the family level. (D,F) The relative amounts of microbiota in feces at the genus level. Data were expressed as the mean ± SEM.
Figure 4The differently abundant taxa identified using linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) analysis. The LEfSe cladogram shows the most differentially abundant taxa among the groups. Taxa enriched in the T1 group are red, taxa enriched in the T2 group are blue, taxa enriched in the T3 group are green and taxa enriched in the T4 group are purple. The size of each dot is proportional to its effect size.
Figure 5Heat map of correlation analysis between sperm quality and intestinal microbiota at the phylum (A) and genus (B) level. Spearman's diagram showed that the ordinate was environmental factor information and the abscess was species information. The value corresponding to the middle heat map was the Spearman's correlation coefficient r, which was between −1 and 1. r < 0 is negative correlation and r > 0 is positive correlation. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001.