Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of direct-fed microbials on culturable gut microbiotas in broiler chickens: a meta-analysis of controlled trials

  • Received : 2017.12.29
  • Accepted : 2018.05.21
  • Published : 2018.11.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the overall effect of direct-fed microbial (DFM) or probiotic supplementation on the log concentrations of culturable gut microbiota in broiler chickens. Methods: Relevant studies were collected from PubMed, SCOPUS, Poultry Science Journal, and Google Scholar. The studies included controlled trials using DFM supplementation in broiler chickens and reporting log concentrations of the culturable gut microbiota. The overall effect of DFM supplementation was determined using standardized mean difference (SMD) with a random-effects model. Subgroups were analyzed to identify pre-specified characteristics possibly associated with the heterogeneity of the results. Risk of bias and publication bias were assessed. Results: Eighteen taxa of the culturable gut microbiota were identified from 42 studies. The overall effect of DFM supplementation on the log concentrations of all 18 taxa did not differ significantly from the controls (SMD = -0.06, 95% confidence interval [-0.16, 0.04], p = 0.228, $I^2=85%$, n = 699 comparisons), but the 18 taxa could be further classified into three categories by the direction of the effect size: taxa whose log concentrations did not differ significantly from the controls (category 1), taxa whose log concentrations increased significantly with DFM supplementation (category 2), and taxa whose log concentrations decreased significantly with DFM supplementation (category 3). Category 1 comprised nine taxa, including total bacterial counts. Category 2 comprised four taxa: Bacillus, Bifidobacterium, Clostridium butyricum, and Lactobacillus. Category 3 comprised five taxa: Clostridium perfringens, coliforms, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus, and Salmonella. Some characteristics identified by the subgroup analysis were associated with result heterogeneity. Most studies, however, were present with unclear risk of bias. Publication bias was also identified. Conclusion: DFM supplementation increased the concentrations of some beneficial bacteria (e.g. Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus) and decreased those of some detrimental bacteria (e.g. Clostridium perfringens and Salmonella) in the guts of broiler chickens.

Keywords

References

  1. Buntyn JO, Schmidt TB, Nisbet DJ, Callaway TR. The role of direct-fed microbials in conventional livestock production. Annu Rev Anim Biosci 2016;4:335-55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-022114-111123
  2. Stanley D, Hughes RJ, Moore RJ. Microbiota of the chicken gastrointestinal tract: influence on health, productivity and disease. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2014;98:4301-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-5646-2
  3. Hermans D, Pasmans F, Messens W, et al. Poultry as a host for the zoonotic pathogen Campylobacter jejuni. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2012;12:89-98. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2011.0676
  4. Lei X, Piao X, Ru Y, et al. Effect of Bacillus amyloliquefaciensbased direct-fed microbial on performance, nutrient utilization, intestinal morphology and cecal microflora in broiler chickens. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2015;28:239-46.
  5. Choi KY, Lee TK, Sul WJ. Metagenomic Analysis of chicken gut microbiota for improving metabolism and health of chickens - a review. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2015;28:1217-25. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0026
  6. Oakley BB, Lillehoj HS, Kogut MH, et al. The chicken gastrointestinal microbiome. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2014;360:100-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6968.12608
  7. de Vries RBM, Hooijmans CR, Langendam MW, et al. A protocol format for the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies. Evid Based Preclin Med 2015;2:1-9.
  8. Kerr AK, Farrar AM, Waddell LA, et al. A systematic reviewmeta-analysis and meta-regression on the effect of selected competitive exclusion products on Salmonella spp. prevalence and concentration in broiler chickens. Prev Vet Med 2013;111:112-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.04.005
  9. Blajman JE, Frizzo LS, Zbrun MV, et al. Probiotics and broiler growth performance: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br Poult Sci 2014;55:483-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2014.931930
  10. Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, et al. SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:43. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-43
  11. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
  12. Hooijmans CR, de Vries RB, Rovers MM, Gooszen HG, Ritskes- Hoitinga M. The effects of probiotic supplementation on experimental acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and metaanalysis. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e48811. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048811
  13. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-34. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
  14. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in metaanalysis. Biometrics 2000;56:455-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
  15. Butel MJ. Probiotics, gut microbiota and health. Med Mal Infect 2014;44:1-8.
  16. Surachon P, Sukon P, Chaveerach P, Waewdee P, Soikum C. Screening of lactic acid bacteria isolated from chicken ceca for in vitro growth inhibition of Salmonella enteritica serovar enteritidis. J Anim Vet Adv 2011;10:939-44. https://doi.org/10.3923/javaa.2011.939.944
  17. Valdes-Varela L, Alonso-Guervos M, Garcia-Suarez O, Gueimonde M, Ruas-Madiedo P. Screening of bifidobacteria and lactobacilli able to antagonize the cytotoxic effect of Clostridium difficile upon intestinal epithelial HT29 monolayer. Front Microbiol 2016;7:577.
  18. Alok A, Singh ID, Singh S, et al. Probiotics: A new era of biotherapy. Adv Biomed Res 2017;6:31. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.192625
  19. Lan R, Koo J, Kim I. Effects of Lactobacillus acidophilus supplementation on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, fecal microbial and noxious gas emission in weaning pigs. J Sci Food Agric 2017;97:1310-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7866
  20. Strompfova V, Kubasova I, Laukova A. Health benefits observed after probiotic Lactobacillus fermentum CCM 7421 application in dogs. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2017;101:6309-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-017-8425-z
  21. Jeong D, Kim DH, Kang IB, et al. Modulation of gut microbiota and increase in fecal water content in mice induced by administration of Lactobacillus kefiranofaciens DN1. Food Funct 2017;8:680-6. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6FO01559J
  22. Turroni F, Peano C, Pass DA, et al. Diversity of bifidobacteria within the infant gut microbiota. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e36957. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036957
  23. Tojo R, Suarez A, Clemente MG, et al. Intestinal microbiota in health and disease: role of bifidobacteria in gut homeostasis. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:15163-76. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i41.15163
  24. Sarkar A, Mandal S. Bifidobacteria-Insight into clinical outcomes and mechanisms of its probiotic action. Microbiol Res 2016;192:159-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2016.07.001
  25. Elshaghabee FMF, Rokana N, Gulhane RD, Sharma C, Panwar H. Bacillusas potential probiotics: status, concerns, and future perspectives. Front Microbiol 2017;8:1490. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01490
  26. Hemarajata P, Versalovic J. Effects of probiotics on gut microbiota: mechanisms of intestinal immunomodulation and neuromodulation. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2013;6:39-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756283X12459294
  27. Ducatelle R, Eeckhaut V, Haesebrouck F, Van Immerseel F. A review on prebiotics and probiotics for the control of dysbiosis: present status and future perspectives. Animal 2015;9:43-8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002584
  28. Antonissen G, Eeckhaut V, Van Driessche K, et al. Microbial shifts associated with necrotic enteritis. Avian Pathol 2016;45:308-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2016.1152625
  29. Pan D, Yu Z. Intestinal microbiome of poultry and its interaction with host and diet. Gut Microbes 2014;5:108-19. https://doi.org/10.4161/gmic.26945
  30. Cui Y, Wang Q, Liu S, et al. Age-related variations in intestinal microflora of free-range and caged hens. Front Microbiol 2017;8:1310. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01310
  31. Wang L, Lilburn M, Yu Z. Intestinal microbiota of broiler chickens as affected by litter management regimens. Front Microbiol 2016;7:593.
  32. Kers JG, Velkers FC, Fischer EAJ, et al. Host and environmental factors affecting the intestinal microbiota in chickens. Front Microbiol 2018;9:235. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00235
  33. Chang H-Y, Chen J-H, Chang J-H, et al. Multiple strains probiotics appear to be the most effective probiotics in the prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis and mortality: An updated meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2017;12:e0171579. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171579
  34. Chapman CMC, Gibson GR, Rowland I. Health benefits of probiotics: are mixtures more effective than single strains? Eur J Nutr 2011;50:1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-010-0166-z
  35. Nakphaichit M, Thanomwongwattana S, Phraephaisarn C, et al. The effect of including Lactobacillus reuteri KUB-AC5 during post-hatch feeding on the growth and ileum microbiota of broiler chickens. Poult Sci 2011;90:2753-65. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01637
  36. Clavijo V, Florez MJV. The gastrointestinal microbiome and its association with the control of pathogens in broiler chicken production: a review. Poult Sci 2018;97:1006-21. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex359
  37. Blajman JE, Frizzo LS, Zbrun MV, et al. Probiotics and broiler growth performance: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br Poult Sci 2014;55:483-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2014.931930
  38. Thornton A, Lee P. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:207-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00161-4

Cited by

  1. Effect of Bacillus subtilis DSM 32315 under Different Necrotic Enteritis Models in Broiler Chickens: A Meta-Analysis of Five Independent Research Trials vol.64, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1637/aviandiseases-d-19-00116
  2. Bacillus subtilis-Based Probiotic Improves Skeletal Health and Immunity in Broiler Chickens Exposed to Heat Stress vol.11, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061494