| Literature DB >> 36160848 |
Ifra Ghori1,2, Misbah Tubassam1, Tanveer Ahmad1, Amina Zuberi3, Muhammad Imran1.
Abstract
The current study was targeted to determine the effect of probiotics on the growth, physiology, and gut microbiology of Labeo rohita fingerlings. One hundred and twenty fishes were divided into four dietary groups, each in triplicate for a feeding trial of 90 days. These treatments included T0 (control, basal diet) used as the reference, and three probiotic-supplemented diets represented as Tbc (Bacillus cereus), Tgc (Geotrichum candidum), and Tmc (B. cereus and G. candidum). The probiotics were supplemented at a level of 1 × 109 CFU/g feed. Fishes nurtured on probiotic-added diet showed significantly high physiological improvement (p < 0.05) in terms of growth, feed utilization capacity, hematological profile, and digestive enzymes as compared to control. The fish were subjected to a challenge test after a 90-day feeding trial. The Tmc exhibited maximum fish growth when challenged by Staphylococcus aureus and showed fish survival when compared to control, in which fish mortality was examined. Fish gut microbial composition was modulated by probiotic treatments, especially in Tgc and Tmc as compared to control. The absence of opportunistic pathogens such as Staphylococcus saprophyticus and Sporobolomyces lactosus and detection of lower levels of Trichosporon and Cryptococcus in treated groups indicate the gut modulation driven by applied probiotics. The G. candidum QAUGC01 was retrieved in yeast metagenomics data, which might be due to the production of polyamines by them that facilitated adherence and consequent persistence. In conclusion, it can be suggested that the probiotic-supplemented diet could enhance fish growth and feed efficiency through community modulation and digestive enzymes, which could be a milestone in local aquaculture.Entities:
Keywords: Labeo rohita; feed utilization capacity; metagenomics; microbiome; physiology; probiotics
Year: 2022 PMID: 36160848 PMCID: PMC9507060 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2022.949559
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.755
Recipe 35 percent protein basal diet for Labeo rohita (vitamin premix contains vitamins, amino acids, and minerals premix kg-1).
| Ingredient | Amount (g/kg) |
|---|---|
| Soybean meal (46.2% CP) | 212 |
| Sunflower meal (40% CP) | 212 |
| White fish meal (55%CP) | 105 |
| Gluten 30% (30% CP) | 105 |
| Canola meal (21.3% CP) | 212 |
| Rice polish (13.2% CP) | 52 |
| Dicalcium phosphate | 10 |
| Carboxymethyl cellulose | 10 |
| Vitamin premix | 20 |
| Vegetable oil | 10 |
| Wheat bran | 52 |
| Proximate analysis of basal diet | |
| Protein | 35% |
| Lipids | 8% |
| Ash | 8.7% |
| Crude fiber | 6% |
Vitamin premix contains vitamins, amino acids, and minerals premix kg−1.
CP, crude protein, manganese USP, 30,000 mg, vitamin AB.P, 40,000,000 IU, vitamin D3B.P, 820,000 IU, vitamin K3B.P, 800 mg, L. lysine B.P, 10,500 mg, vitamin B2B.P, 2,500 mg, vitamin EB.P, 6,200 mg, vitamin B12B.P, 1,000 mg, vitamin B3B.P, 5,100 mg, vitamin B.P, 10,500 mg, choline chloride USP, 125,500 mg, 15,100 mg, iodine B.P, 300 mg, copper B.P, 1,000 mg, zinc USP, 17,555 mg, cobalt B.P, 50 mg, and DL-methionine B.P, 50,500 mg.
Impact of feeding probiotic microorganisms (109 CFU/gm diet) in single and mixed culture on growth performance of Labeo rohita.
| Parameter | Days | Control (Tc) |
|
| Mixed culture (Tmc) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Growth % | 45 | 47.31 ± 3.09c | 68.68 ± 1.16b | 70.29 ± 2.9b | 123.29 ± 2.79a |
| 90 | 85.27 ± 3.11c | 108.0 ± 2.47b | 83.62 ± 3.26c | 141.48 ± 1.80a | |
| SGR | 45 | 1.28 ± 0.07c | 1.74 ± 0.02bc | 1.74 ± 0.05ab | 2.67 ± 0.04a |
| 90 | 0.76 ± 0.11c | 0.97 ± 0.13b | 0.78 ± 0.02bc | 1.09 ± 0.10a | |
| FCR | 45 | 3.40 ± 0.04a | 2.37 ± 0.19b | 3.46 ± 0.40a | 2.28 ± 0.07b |
| 90 | 3.121 ± 0.12b | 2.33 ± 0.11b | 3.15 ± 0.25a | 2.21 ± 0.10b |
Note: T0/Tc (basal diet), T1/Tgc (QAUGC01), T4/Tbc (QAUBC01), and T7 (QAUGC01 + QAUBC01). These tabular data are represented as Mean ± SD (n = 18). The alphabets a, b, c above the values show the significance difference between treatments calculated by one way ANOVA (p < 0.05), followed by Tukey’s and Duncan’s analyses (a>b>c).
% weight gain = final body weight (wf) − initial body weight (wi)/initial body weight × 100.
Specific growth rate = ln of final body weight (ln wf) − ln of initial body weight (ln wi)/duration of experiment days × 100.
FCR = net consumed feed (g)/net weight gain.
FCE % = 1/FCR×100.
Impact of feeding probiotic microorganisms (109 CFU/gm diet) in single and mixed culture on intestinal enzyme activity and body dry mass chemical composition of Labeo rohita.
| Group | Control (Tc) |
|
| Mixed culture (Tmc) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Days | ||||
| Protein % | 45 | 65.5 ± 0.29b | 74.38 ± 0.05a | 66.5 ± 1.1b | 74.38 ± 0.23a |
| 90 | 70.00 ± 1c | 68.38 ± 0.46d | 83.10 ± 0.5a | 78.75 ± 0.80b | |
| Fats % | 45 | 9.00 ± 0.17b | 12.3 ± 0.12a | 12.30 ± 1.1a | 8.60 ± 0.29b |
| 90 | 18.3 ± 1.1d | 28.6 ± 1.1a | 28.60 ± 1.1b | 21.3 ± 0.9c | |
| Ash % | 45 | 14 ± 0.24a | 13.5 ± 0.12a | 12 ± 1.0a | 12 ± 0.33a |
| 90 | 16 ± 1.4a | 15.5 ± 1.5ab | 13.2 ± 1.4b | 14 ± 0.5ab | |
| Protease (specific activity U mg−1) | 45 | 0.186 ± 0b | 0.187 ± 0b | 0.185 ± 0b | 0.199 ± 0a |
| 90 | 0.16 ± 0c | 0.13 ± 0d | 0.177 ± 0b | 0.22 ± 0a | |
| Amylase (specific activity U mg−1) | 45 | 0.31 ± 0b | 0.22 ± 0c | 0.39 ± 0a | 0.22 ± 0c |
| 90 | 0.32 ± 0b | 0.25 ± 0c | 0.413 ± 0a | 0.24 ± 0d | |
| Cellulase (specific activity U mg−1) | 45 | 0.154 ± 0b | 0.098 ± 0c | 0.213 ± 0a | 0.120 ± 0bc |
| 90 | 0.163 ± 0bc | 0.139 ± 0.01d | 0.265 ± 0a | 0.152 ± 0.01c | |
Note: T0/Tc (basal diet), T1/Tgc (QAUGC01), T4/Tbc (QAUBC01), and T7 (QAUGC01 + QAUBC01). This tabular data are represented as Mean ± SD (n = 18). The alphabets a, b, c, d above the values show the significance difference between treatments calculated by one way ANOVA (p < 0.05), followed by Tukey’s and Duncan’s analyses (a>b>c>d).
Impact of feeding probiotic microorganisms (109 CFU/gm diet) in single and mixed culture form on hematological parameters of Labeo rohita.
| Parameter | Day | Control (Tc) |
|
| Mixed culture (Tmc) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RBCs (106μL−1) | 45 | 1.83 ± 0.01c | 2.21 ± 0.06b | 2.25 ± 0.14b | 2.43 ± 0.02a |
| 90 | 1.06 ± 0.01d | 1.96 ± 0.03c | 2.20 ± 0.15b | 2.75 ± 0.01a | |
| Hgb (g/dl) | 45 | 6.7 ± 0.58b | 7.7 ± 0.29b | 7.4 ± 0.8b | 9.7 ± 0.35a |
| 90 | 4.6 ± 0.6d | 7.9 ± 0.1c | 8.7 ± 0.1b | 11.5 ± 0.5a | |
| HCT (%) | 45 | 24.0 ± 0.46bc | 23.7 ± 0.23c | 31.5 ± 0.4a | 25.3 ± 0.58b |
| 90 | 13.26 ± 1.2d | 19.90 ± 1c | 27.4 ± 0.7b | 39.13 ± 1.2a | |
| MCH (pg) | 45 | 36.6 ± 0.58b | 37.5 ± 0.17b | 32.9 ± 0.45c | 39.7 ± 9.67a |
| 90 | 42.66 ± 1.8a | 41.50 ± 0.7a | 38.6 ± 0.8b | 41.23 ± 1.0a | |
| MCHC (g dl−1) | 45 | 27.9 ± 0.52c | 33.4 ± 0.17b | 23.5 ± 0.9d | 39.9 ± 0.29a |
| 90 | 34.20 ± 1.5b | 38.80 ± 0.9a | 31.1 ± 1.7c | 30.70 ± 1.5c | |
| MCV (10–15 L) | 45 | 131.1 ± 0.5b | 114.2 ± 0.6c | 139.6 ± 1.5a | 100.0 ± 0.3d |
| 90 | 123.3 ± 0.8b | 102.8 ± 1.1c | 125.4 ± 1.1b | 143.54 ± 1.1a | |
| Plt (103/µL) | 45 | 13.0 ± 1d | 19.0 ± 1c | 22.0 ± 1b | 54.0 ± 1a |
| 90 | 86.6 | 212 | 65.8 ± 1.6c | 60.3 ± 1.8d | |
| WBCs (103/µL) | 45 | 178.4 ± 0.58d | 184.2 ± 0.35c | 193.6 ± 1.1b | 223.8 ± 0.58a |
| 90 | 142.2 ± 2.1c | 240.0 ± 1.0b | 239 ± 1.9b | 253.6 ± 2.0a | |
| Lym (%) | 45 | 97.6 ± 0.1a | 97.7 ± 0.5a | 98.9 ± 1a | 97.9 ± 1a |
| 90 | 77.66 | 97.30 | 97.8 ± 1.6a | 95.10 ± 4.9a |
Note: T0/Tc (basal diet), T1/Tgc (QAUGC01), T4/Tbc (QAUBC01), and T7 (QAUGC01 + QAUBC01). This tabular data are represented as Mean ± SD (n = 18). The alphabets a, b, c, d above the values show the significance difference between treatments calculated by one way ANOVA (p < 0.05), followed by Tukey’s and Duncan’s analyses (a>b>c>d).
Cumulative table showing colony forming units per gram on culturing media.
| Treatment | Tryptic soy (TSA) | MacConkey (MC) | M17 | MRS | Oxytetracycline (OGA) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tc | 5.93E+07 | 1.64E+07 | 2.87E+08 | 4.64E+06 | 364E+05 |
| Tgc | 3.43E+07 | 2.25E+06 | 5.82E+07 | 9.92E+07 | 8.41E+07 |
| Tbc | 7.23E+07 | 2.14E+06 | 6.09E+07 | 4.45E+06 | 6.91E+07 |
| Tmc | 1.01E+08 | 5.05E+06 | 9.59E+07 | 1.68E+06 | 3.77E+06 |
*TC (basal diet), Tgc (G. candidum QAUGC01), Tbc (B. cereus QAUBC02), and T7 (G. candidum QAUGC01 co-culture with B. cereus QAUBC02).
Alpha diversity profile of control and probiotic-treated samples.
| Sample ID | Number of read | Number of OTUs | Shannon index | Simpson index | Observed species | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria | Fungi | Bacteria | Fungi | Bacteria | Fungi | Bacteria | Fungi | Bacteria | Fungi | |
| Tc | 67926 | 381936 | 158 | 169 | 0.70 | 0.57 | 0.23 | 0.78 | 158 | 169 |
| Tgc | 71409 | 14125 | 150 | 95 | 1.33 | 1.44 | 0.64 | 0.71 | 150 | 95 |
| Tbc | 68914 | 468409 | 177 | 160 | 0.67 | 0.20 | 0.24 | 0.05 | 177 | 160 |
| Tmc | 46598 | 17143 | 146 | 96 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 0.67 | 0.71 | 146 | 96 |
Number of analyzed reads, diversity richness (OTUs), diversity index (Shannon and Simpson) for 16S rDNA, and ITS sequencing libraries of probiotic-treated and control samples.
FIGURE 1(A) Relative abundance (%) gut bacterial diversity at the phylum level after probiotic feeding. Tc: treatment control, gc: G. candidum, Bc: Bacillus cereus, mc: mix culture. (B) Relative abundance (%) of gut bacterial diversity at the species level after probiotic feeding, and species with a percentage less than 0.1% were excluded.
FIGURE 2(A) Relative abundance (%) gut fungal diversity at the phylum level after probiotic feeding. (B) Relative abundance (%) of gut fungal diversity at the species level after probiotic feeding, and species with a percentage less than 0.1% were excluded.
FIGURE 3(A,B) Distribution of bacterial and fungal genera among treated and control groups. Double hierarchically clustered heatmap showing the bacterial and fungal distribution among the composition. The heatmap depicts the OTU counts of each bacterial and fungal genus (clustering on the Y-axis) within each sample (clustering on X-axis). Relative values for bacterial and fungal genera are depicted by the color intensity with the color key shown in the figure. (A) Bacterial community; (B) fungal community.
FIGURE 4Shared OTU analysis of the treated and control groups. Venn diagram showing the unique and shared OTUs (3% distance level) in the probiotic-treated and control groups. (A) Venn diagram represents the shared and unique bacterial community among groups. (B) Venn diagram represents the shared and unique fungal community among groups.
FIGURE 5Bi-plot between growth, physiochemistry, hematology, intestinal enzymes and gut microbiota of all treatments Labeo rohita by using Principal component analysis (PCA).