| Literature DB >> 35989688 |
Ken R Ito1, Tomonori Sato2, Hiro Goto1, Katsuyoshi Sato1, Jun Watanabe1, Masaki Yokoo1.
Abstract
Increasing food loss and waste (FLW) is a global problem, and efforts are being made to use waste food as potential livestock feed material. The amount of self-supplied feed is lower in Japan than in other countries, and the government recommends FLW use for animal feed. Sake (Japanese rice wine) is a traditional alcoholic beverage. During the sake manufacturing process, large amounts of squeezed solids or "lees" (sake lees) are generated. Sake lees are nutritious and functional, but are prone to spoilage. In this study, we investigated whether sake lees should be mixed with animal feed immediately or after drying. To assess the usefulness of sake lees as a poultry feed ingredient and determine the effect of sake lees on intestinal immunity, we performed a feeding trial with three treatments: a raw sake lees (RSL) diet, dried sake lees (DSL) diet, and control diet. Three-week-old broilers were fed these diets (n=8 per group) for two weeks. We then calculated feed efficiency and performed RT-qPCR to assess the effects of diet on intestinal immunity. The growth performance in the RSL diet group was equivalent to that in the control diet group. The DSL diet became difficult for broilers to eat, resulting in decreased growth performance. In the ileum of RSL-diet broilers, the mRNA expression levels of TGF-β1 and avian β-defensin (AvBD)12 were significantly increased compared to those of control diet broilers (p<0.05), and a significant correlation was observed between the two genes (p<0.05). Our results indicated that sake lees should not be dried and should be mixed immediately with feed, and this sake lees when fed to chicken activates the intestinal immunity. However, sake lees have a lower fat content than corn, and it is thus important to combine sake lees with high-energy feed. 2022, Japan Poultry Science Association.Entities:
Keywords: broiler; food loss and waste; intestinal immunity; sake lees
Year: 2022 PMID: 35989688 PMCID: PMC9346602 DOI: 10.2141/jpsa.0210087
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Poult Sci ISSN: 1346-7395 Impact factor: 1.768
Composition of the Experimental Diets
| g/kg | Control | RSL | DSL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corn | 420 | — | — |
| Soybean meal | 375 | 375 | 375 |
| RSL | — | 240 | — |
| DSL | — | — | 127 |
| Mineral mixture | 60 | 60 | 60 |
| Vitamin mixture | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Cellulose | 15 | 72 | 193 |
| Rapeseed oil | 128 | 246 | 243 |
|
| |||
| CP, % | 19.5 | 19.5 | 19.5 |
| ME, Mcal/kg | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Moisture, % | 11.4 | 19.5 | 8.0 |
Mineral mixture (/kg of diet): CaHPO4·2H2O 20.7 g, CaCO3 14.8, KH2PO4 10.0 g, KCl 3.0 g, NaCl 6.0 g, MgSO4 3.0 g, FeSO4·7H2O 500 mg, MnSO4·5H2O 350 mg, KI 2.6 mg, CuSO4·5H2O 40 mg, ZnO 62 mg, CoCl2·6H2O 1.7 mg, NaMoO4·2H2O 8.3 mg, Na2SeO3 400 µg.
Vitamin mixture (/kg of diet): thiamin hydrochloride 3 mg, riboflavin 6 mg, pyridoxine hydrochloride 4 mg, nicotinic acid 40 mg, calcium pantothenate 15 mg, folic acid 1.5 mg, biotin 200 µg, cyanocobalamine 20 µg, cholecalciferol 5 µg, menadione 500 µg, D-glucose 1.9 g, retinol acetate 1 mg, D,L-a-tocopherol acetate 10 mg.
KC Flock W-100G (Nippon Paper Industries Co., Tokyo).
RSL: raw sake lees. DSL: dried sake lees.
Primer sequences for RT-qPCR
| Target | NCBI | Primer sequence | Product |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| IFN- | NM_205149.1 | F: 5′-AAGTCAAAGCCGCACATCAAACA-3′ | 130 |
| R: 5′-GGATTCTCAAGTCGTTCATCGGG-3′ | |||
| IL-2 | NM_204153.1 | F: 5′-TCTGCAGTGTTACCTGGGAGAAG-3′ | 139 |
| R: 5′-TCCGGTGTGATTTAGACCCGTAA-3′ | |||
|
| |||
| IL-4 | NM_001007079.1 | F: 5′-GCTCTTATGCAAAGCCTCCACAAT-3′ | 130 |
| R: 5′-CGTGGGACATGGTGCCTTGAG-3′ | |||
| IL-13 | NM_001195791.1 | F: 5′-CCTGCACGGCATGACGAACT-3′ | 97 |
| R: 5′-GTACAGCGCCTGGGTGTAGT-3′ | |||
|
| |||
| IL-17A | NM_204460.1 | F: 5′-CCGATCCCTTATTCTCCTCTGTTCA-3′ | 84 |
| R: 5′-CTTCCCATGTGCAGAAATGCTGG-3′ | |||
| IL-22 | NM_001199614.1 | F: 5′-CTAGAATCACAGCAAAGCGCTG-3′ | 125 |
| R: 5′-AGCAACAACAGCAGAAGACAACC-3′ | |||
|
| |||
| IL-1 | NM_204524.1 | F: 5′-CCTCTGCCTGCAGAAGAAGCC-3′ | 141 |
| R: 5′-CTCCGCAGCAGTTTGGTCATGG-3′ | |||
| IL-6 | NM_204628.1 | F: 5′-CAGGACGAGATGTGCAAGAAGTT-3′ | 137 |
| R: 5′-GTCAGGCATTTCTCCTCGTCGAA-3′ | |||
| TNF- | MF801626.1 | F: 5′-GAAGGAACAAATTGGTGGTCCCC-3′ | 141 |
| R: 5′-GGACGTCTTTGGGGTACTCCTC-3′ | |||
|
| |||
| IL-10 | NM_001004414.2 | F: 5′-CGTTCGAGAAGATGGATGAGAACG-3′ | 97 |
| R: 5′-CTCCTCCTCATCAGCAGGTACTC-3′ | |||
| TGF- | NM_001318456.1 | F: 5′-GATGGACCCGATGAGTATTGGGC-3′ | 124 |
| R: 5′-GGGACACGTTGAACACGAAGAAG-3′ | |||
|
| |||
| AvBD10 | NM_001001609.2 | F: 5′-AAACTGCTGTGCCAAGATTCCG-3′ | 88 |
| R: 5′-CTCAAGGCAGTGGAAATGTTGCT-3′ | |||
| AvBD12 | NM_001001607.2 | F: 5′-TCCCTGCTCGCTCACGGAAG-3′ | 131 |
| R: 5′-CAGCAGAGAATGACGGGTTCAAA-3′ | |||
| DEFB4A | NM_204992.2 | F: 5′-TCATCTAATATCCGCAGCTCAGCA-3′ | 106 |
| R: 5′-GGCGAAGACAACCCTGGAGAA-3′ | |||
| Lyz | NM_205281.1 | F: 5′-TGGGGAAAGTCTTTGGACGATGT-3′ | 103 |
| R: 5′-TTTGCAACACACACCCAGTTTCC-3′ | |||
| Muc2 | JX284122.1 | F: 5′-TGCTCACACTTGGAAGTCAGCAGCC-3′ | 138 |
| R: 5′-TCCATGGAGTCTGCAGGAGCACTGG-3′ | |||
|
| |||
| Claudin1 | NM_001013611.2 | F: 5′-ATGAAGTGCATGGAGGATGACCA-3′ | 88 |
| R: 5′-GTGCTGACAGACCTGCAATGATG-3′ | |||
| Claudin5 | NM_204201.1 | F: 5′-GATCTTTGTGCCCTGGCTCCAGCAC-3′ | 132 |
| R: 5′-TGCTCAGCAAGAAGGCCACGAAGC-3′ | |||
| E-cad | NM_001039258.2 | F: 5′-TGAATAGGCAGCCCTCGTCCCCTTG-3′ | 130 |
| R: 5′-GGAGGGATGCGAGTGGTGGATCCAA-3′ | |||
| Occludin | NM_205128.1 | F: 5′-TGTGCTGAGATGGACAGCATCAA-3′ | 101 |
| R: 5′-TCCTCTGCCACATCCTGGTATTG-3′ | |||
| ZO-1 | XM_015278975.2 | F: 5′-TACCTGACTGTCTTGCAGATGGC-3′ | 91 |
| R: 5′-ATGGAGTTACCCACAGCTTCCTC-3′ | |||
|
| |||
| LITAF | NM_204267.1 | F: 5′-ACCCGTAGTGCTGTTCTATGACC-3′ | 140 |
| R: 5′-CTATGCACCCCAGCAGGAAGAG-3′ | |||
| PTP4A3 | XM_004940067.3 | F: 5′-CATCATCCTTCTCTTGTCCCACC-3′ | 148 |
| R: 5′-GCACCATACTTCTTCAGATCCTCC-3′ | |||
| TLR2A | NM_204278.1 | F: 5′-CAACGGTCATCTCAGCTACACCA-3′ | 134 |
| R: 5′-CCTGTCTCAGGGCTTGTTCTTCA-3′ | |||
| TLR4 | NM_001030693.1 | F: 5′-CCTGCTGAAATCCCAAACACCAC-3′ | 132 |
| R: 5′-TGTATGGATGTGGCACCTTGAAA-3′ | |||
|
| |||
| B2M | NM_001001750.3 | F: 5′-GCAGTACTCCGACATGTCCTTCA-3′ | 150 |
| R: 5′-AACTCGGGATCCCACTTGTAGAC-3′ | |||
| HPRT1 | NM_204848.1 | F: 5′-TGGGATATCGGCCAGACTTTGTT-3′ | 137 |
| R: 5′-TTTGTACTTCTGCTTCCCCGTCT-3′ |
Primers were designed using Primer-BLAST (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/tools/primer-blast). All primers were con firmed to be specific by agarose gel electrophoresis and a melting curve analysis. AvBD: avian β-defensin, B2M: β-2-micro globulin, DEFB4A: defensin β 4A, HPRT1: hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase 1, LITAF: liposaccharide-induced TNF factor, LPS: lipopolysaccharide, Lyz: lysozyme, Muc2: mucin 2, PTP4A3: protein tyrosine phosphatase 4A3, TGF-β1: transforming growth factor-beta1, TLR: Toll-like receptor, TNF-α: tumor necrosis factor-alpha, ZO-1: zonula occludens protein 1.
Nutrient and Amino Acid Composition of the Feed Ingredients
| RSL | DSL | Corn | Soybean meal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Moisture | 58.8 | 23.4 | 14.5 | 13.6 |
| CP | 12.9 | 25.0 | 7.6 | 43.6 |
| EE | 0.5 | 1.0 | 3.8 | 0.9 |
| CF | 2.6 | 4.7 | 1.7 | 13.5 |
| CA | 0.4 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 6.2 |
| NFE | 24.8 | 45.1 | 71.7 | 22.2 |
| GE (Mcal/kg) | 1.96 | 3.65 | 3.92 | 4.16 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Ala | 983 | 1540 | 410 | 1800 |
| Arg | 1019 | 1363 | 218 | 2831 |
| Asp | 1376 | 2183 | 375 | 4795 |
| Glu | 2173 | 3530 | 1012 | 7568 |
| | 708 | 1126 | 205 | 1738 |
| | 351 | 395 | 158 | 1035 |
| | 584 | 921 | 183 | 1699 |
| | 1214 | 1941 | 672 | 3172 |
| | 738 | 580 | 160 | 2560 |
| | 716 | 1161 | 264 | 2074 |
| Pro | 714 | 991 | 495 | 2070 |
| | 758 | 1074 | 188 | 2050 |
| | 652 | 864 | 236 | 1780 |
| Tyr | 763 | 1241 | 96 | 1120 |
| | 828 | 1324 | 260 | 1799 |
The data represent the means of triplicate measurements. Bold amino acids are essential in broiler chickens. CA, crude ash; CF, crude fiber; CP, crude protein; DSL, dried sake lees; EE, ethanol extract; GE, gross energy; NFE (nitrogen-free extract), 100—(CP+EE+ CF+CA), RSL: raw sake lees.
Effects of RSL and DSL Diets on the Growth Performance of Broiler Chickens
| Control diet | RSL diet | DSL diet | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Body weight gain, g | 510.5±34.6 | 535.2±22.0 | 273.6±23.3 |
| Feed intake, g | 787.7±24.5 | 802.2±27.5 | 590.5±10.7 |
| Feed efficiency, % | 64.3±2.9 | 66.9±2.6 | 46.0±3.4 |
| Body weight, g | 1561.8±43.9 | 1587.3±29.9 | 1327.5±15.1 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Body weight gain, g | 1101.5±59.6 | 1140.9±71.9 | 690.8±50.8 |
| Feed intake, g | 1836.6±47.0 | 1840.2±83.7 | 1448.8±42.9 |
| Feed efficiency, % | 59.8±2.2 | 61.6±1.8 | 47.3±2.4 |
| Final body weight, g | 2152.8±64.3 | 2192.9±76.7 | 1744.7±41.8 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Breast | 183.1±8.5 | 182.0±9.4 | 154.5±3.7 |
| Tender | 42.7±1.3 | 44.5±1.5 | 35.7±0.6 |
| Thigh | 180.3±8.9 | 173.9±9.3 | 136.7±4.8 |
| Heart | 12.6±0.7 | 13.0±0.5 | 9.7±0.4 |
| Liver | 47.0±2.0 | 44.2±5.9 | 34.2±1.2 |
| Gizzard | 20.1±1.0 | 16.7±1.1 | 16.0±0.6 |
Means with different superscript letters in the same row are significantly different (P<0.05).
Values are mean±SEM. n=8 per diet group.
Influence of Experiment Diet on the Serum Concentrations (mM) of Amino Acids
| Control diet group | RSL diet group | DSL diet group | Pooled SE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ala | 959.0 | 953.31 | 680.62 | 300.4 |
|
| 471.7 | 460.65 | 343.55 | 95.9 |
| Asn | 167.5 | 139.7 | 121.1 | 144.2 |
| Asp | 145.5 | 158.6 | 95.5 | 78.5 |
| Cys | 49.2 | 48.9 | 39.9 | 9.8 |
| Gln | 934.4 | 953.4 | 656.6 | 234.9 |
| Glu | 190.9 | 189.4 | 155.3 | 45.7 |
|
| 889.6 | 780.7 | 704.9 | 177.4 |
|
| 123.9 | 106.8 | 74.5 | 35.3 |
|
| 129.7 | 153.7 | 127.7 | 37.1 |
|
| 235.5 | 231.3 | 195.6 | 47.8 |
|
| 510.2 | 543.8 | 418.6 | 222.0 |
|
| 32.1 | 37.7 | 33.4 | 11.8 |
|
| 139.6 | 120.0 | 101.0 | 23.8 |
| Pro | 312.8 | 347.4 | 291.2 | 177.4 |
|
| 964.5 | 938.1 | 920.0 | 206.2 |
|
| 756.4 | 788.0 | 752.3 | 283.0 |
| Tyr | 241.4 | 197.4 | 163.2 | 88.3 |
|
| 53.8 | 56.8 | 49.2 | 13.2 |
|
| 249.1 | 306.6 | 262.9 | 71.3 |
Means with different superscript letters in the same row are significantly different (P<0.05). n=8 per diet group. Bold letters indicate essential amino acids in broiler chickens. RSL: raw sake lees. DSL: dried sake lees.
Influence of Sake-Lees on Intestinal Inflammatory- and Barrier-related Genes
| Jejunum | Ileum | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control diet | RSL diet | DSL diet | Control diet | RSL diet | DSL diet | |
|
| ||||||
| IFN- | 1.76±0.48 | 1.20±0.39 | 1.01±0.18 | 0.63±0.07 | 0.79±0.17 | 0.46±0.05 |
| IL-2 | 1.16±0.10 | 1.24±0.30 | 1.50±0.26 | 1.01±0.14 | 0.88±0.11 | 0.75±0.04 |
|
| ||||||
| IL-4 | 0.84±0.09 | 0.64±0.09 | 0.95±0.13 | 1.38±0.26 | 2.09±0.58 | 1.64±0.27 |
| IL-13 | 1.15±0.26 | 0.95±0.34 | 0.86±0.27 | 0.92±0.24 | 0.81±0.26 | 0.53±0.15 |
|
| ||||||
| IL-17A | 0.85±0.22* | 0.53±0.18 | 0.28±0.11* | 0.78±0.31 | 0.80±0.62 | 0.10±0.04 |
| IL-22 | 2.08±0.88 | 0.77±0.19 | 1.51±0.81* | 1.26±0.51 | 0.60±0.10* | 0.47±0.11 |
|
| ||||||
| TNF- | 1.34±0.22 | 1.57±0.31 | 0.57±0.06 | 0.71±0.17 | 0.76±0.13 | 0.57±0.08 |
| IL-1 | 1.13±0.25 | 1.13±0.15 | 0.47±0.05 | 0.66±0.16 | 0.87±0.13 | 0.59±0.06 |
| IL-6 | 1.89±0.35 | 1.53±0.32 | 0.62±0.11 | 0.79±0.09 | 0.79±0.24 | 0.44±0.09 |
|
| ||||||
| IL-10 | 0.85±0.10 | 1.30±0.23 | 0.49±0.11 | 0.65±0.07 | 0.89±0.25 | 0.54±0.09 |
| TGF- | 1.56±0.12 | 2.18±0.22 | 0.71±0.05 | 0.97±0.12 | 1.62±0.22 | 1.16±0.08 |
|
| ||||||
| Lyz | 1.11±0.17 | 1.87±0.37 | 0.44±0.14 | 0.89±0.22 | 1.39±0.34 | 0.54±0.18 |
| Muc2 | 1.15±0.16 | 0.27±0.07 | 0.40±0.13 | 1.17±0.13 | 0.39±0.06 | 0.25±0.08 |
| DEFB4A | 2.06±0.75 | 1.22±0.24 | 2.02±0.49 | 0.60±0.16 | 0.43±0.18 | 1.78±0.68 |
| AvBD10 | 1.22±0.19 | 0.77±0.23 | 0.73±0.11 | 1.37±0.23 | 0.85±0.12 | 0.66±0.10 |
| AvBD12 | 1.78±0.45 | 2.82±0.95 | 1.96±0.42 | 1.39±0.15 | 3.72±0.44 | 4.99±1.07 |
|
| ||||||
| E-cad | 1.25±0.21 | 0.58±0.06 | 0.63±0.12 | 1.20±0.06 | 0.55±0.07 | 0.53±0.06 |
| Claudin1 | 1.67±0.18 | 1.58±0.17 | 1.31±0.17 | 0.89±0.08 | 0.88±0.08 | 1.33±0.16 |
| Claudin5 | 1.45±0.10 | 1.47±0.11 | 1.26±0.08 | 0.93±0.11 | 1.14±0.14 | 1.41±0.15 |
| Occludin | 1.15±0.18 | 0.61±0.09 | 0.63±0.11 | 1.19±0.07 | 0.61±0.08 | 0.49±0.07 |
| ZO-1 | 1.42±0.06 | 1.07±0.07 | 1.17±0.05 | 1.07±0.05 | 0.95±0.03 | 0.96±0.05 |
|
| ||||||
| LITAF | 1.64±0.20 | 1.05±0.11 | 0.72±0.09 | 0.94±0.12 | 0.72±0.09 | 0.56±0.08 |
| TLR2A | 1.63±0.19 | 1.42±0.09 | 1.02±0.08 | 0.77±0.05 | 0.91±0.21 | 0.90±0.09 |
| TLR4 | 1.68±0.20 | 1.36±0.08 | 1.11±0.06 | 0.91±0.09 | 0.96±0.18 | 0.90±0.04 |
| PTP4A3 | 1.35±0.07 | 1.59±0.16 | 1.09±0.03 | 0.85±0.07 | 0.99±0.12 | 1.06±0.07 |
Means with different superscript letters in the same row are significantly different (P<0.05). n=8 per diet group. AvBD, avian β-defensin; B2M, β-2-microglobulin; DEFB4A, defensin β 4A; HPRT1, hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase 1; LITAF, lipo saccharide-induced TNF factor; LPS, lipopolysaccharide; Lyz, lysozyme; Muc2, mucin 2; PTP4A3, protein tyrosine phosphatase 4A3; TGF-β1, transforming growth factor-beta1; TLR, toll-like receptor; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor-alpha; ZO-1, zonula occludens protein 1.
Fig. 1.Heatmap of intestinal immunity and tight junction protein-related genes in the jejunum and ileum. The orange color density indicates the levels of fold change. The gray box at the lower right indicates the gene (AvBD12) with the highest gene expression in the sake lees feeding groups.
Fig. 2.Network analysis of intestinal immunity and tight junction protein-related genes in the jejunum, and ileum. Genes with a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient ≥0.5 and showing a positive correlation are connected using green lines. Genes showing a negative correlation are connected using red dashed lines. The thickness of the line represents the height of the correlation coefficient.
Fig. 3.Scatterplot and correlation of the gene expression levels of TGF- Control diet group: n=8, RSL diet group: n=7, DSL diet group: n=8.
Fig. 4.Correlation between TGF- n=8.