Cargando…

Performance of distinct microbial based solutions in a Campylobacter infection challenge model in poultry

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) are commonly used within poultry production to improve feed conversion, bird growth, and reduce morbidity and mortality from clinical and subclinical diseases. Due to the association between AGP usage and rising antimicrobial resistance, the industry ha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ty, Maxine, Taha-Abdelaziz, Khaled, Demey, Vanessa, Castex, Mathieu, Sharif, Shayan, Parkinson, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8722297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34980288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-021-00157-6
_version_ 1784625499306196992
author Ty, Maxine
Taha-Abdelaziz, Khaled
Demey, Vanessa
Castex, Mathieu
Sharif, Shayan
Parkinson, John
author_facet Ty, Maxine
Taha-Abdelaziz, Khaled
Demey, Vanessa
Castex, Mathieu
Sharif, Shayan
Parkinson, John
author_sort Ty, Maxine
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) are commonly used within poultry production to improve feed conversion, bird growth, and reduce morbidity and mortality from clinical and subclinical diseases. Due to the association between AGP usage and rising antimicrobial resistance, the industry has explored new strategies including the use of probiotics and other microbial-based interventions to promote the development of a healthy microbiome in birds and mitigate against infections associated with food safety and food security. While previous studies have largely focused on the ability of probiotics to protect against Clostridium perfringens and Salmonella enterica, much less is known concerning their impact on Campylobacter jejuni, a near commensal of the chicken gut microbiome that nevertheless is a major cause of food poisoning in humans. RESULTS: Here we compare the efficacy of four microbial interventions (two single strain probiotics, the bacterium—Pediococcus acidilactici, and the yeast—Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii; and two complex, competitive exclusion, consortia—Aviguard and CEL) to bacitracin, a commonly used AGP, to modulate chicken gut microbiota and subsequently impact C. jejuni infection in poultry. Cecal samples were harvested at 30- and 39-days post hatch to assess Campylobacter burden and examine their impact on the gut microbiota. While the different treatments did not significantly decrease C. jejuni burden relative to the untreated controls, both complex consortia resulted in significant decreases relative to treatment with bacitracin. Analysis of 16S rDNA profiles revealed a distinct microbial signature associated with each microbial intervention. For example, treatment with Aviguard and CEL increased the relative abundance of Bacteroidaceae and Rikenellaceae respectively. Furthermore, Aviguard promoted a less complex microbial community compared to other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Depending upon the individual needs of the producer, our results illustrate the potential of each microbial interventions to serve flock-specific requirements. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42523-021-00157-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8722297
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87222972022-01-06 Performance of distinct microbial based solutions in a Campylobacter infection challenge model in poultry Ty, Maxine Taha-Abdelaziz, Khaled Demey, Vanessa Castex, Mathieu Sharif, Shayan Parkinson, John Anim Microbiome Research Article BACKGROUND: Antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) are commonly used within poultry production to improve feed conversion, bird growth, and reduce morbidity and mortality from clinical and subclinical diseases. Due to the association between AGP usage and rising antimicrobial resistance, the industry has explored new strategies including the use of probiotics and other microbial-based interventions to promote the development of a healthy microbiome in birds and mitigate against infections associated with food safety and food security. While previous studies have largely focused on the ability of probiotics to protect against Clostridium perfringens and Salmonella enterica, much less is known concerning their impact on Campylobacter jejuni, a near commensal of the chicken gut microbiome that nevertheless is a major cause of food poisoning in humans. RESULTS: Here we compare the efficacy of four microbial interventions (two single strain probiotics, the bacterium—Pediococcus acidilactici, and the yeast—Saccharomyces cerevisiae boulardii; and two complex, competitive exclusion, consortia—Aviguard and CEL) to bacitracin, a commonly used AGP, to modulate chicken gut microbiota and subsequently impact C. jejuni infection in poultry. Cecal samples were harvested at 30- and 39-days post hatch to assess Campylobacter burden and examine their impact on the gut microbiota. While the different treatments did not significantly decrease C. jejuni burden relative to the untreated controls, both complex consortia resulted in significant decreases relative to treatment with bacitracin. Analysis of 16S rDNA profiles revealed a distinct microbial signature associated with each microbial intervention. For example, treatment with Aviguard and CEL increased the relative abundance of Bacteroidaceae and Rikenellaceae respectively. Furthermore, Aviguard promoted a less complex microbial community compared to other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Depending upon the individual needs of the producer, our results illustrate the potential of each microbial interventions to serve flock-specific requirements. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42523-021-00157-6. BioMed Central 2022-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8722297/ /pubmed/34980288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-021-00157-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research Article
Ty, Maxine
Taha-Abdelaziz, Khaled
Demey, Vanessa
Castex, Mathieu
Sharif, Shayan
Parkinson, John
Performance of distinct microbial based solutions in a Campylobacter infection challenge model in poultry
title Performance of distinct microbial based solutions in a Campylobacter infection challenge model in poultry
title_full Performance of distinct microbial based solutions in a Campylobacter infection challenge model in poultry
title_fullStr Performance of distinct microbial based solutions in a Campylobacter infection challenge model in poultry
title_full_unstemmed Performance of distinct microbial based solutions in a Campylobacter infection challenge model in poultry
title_short Performance of distinct microbial based solutions in a Campylobacter infection challenge model in poultry
title_sort performance of distinct microbial based solutions in a campylobacter infection challenge model in poultry
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8722297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34980288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-021-00157-6
work_keys_str_mv AT tymaxine performanceofdistinctmicrobialbasedsolutionsinacampylobacterinfectionchallengemodelinpoultry
AT tahaabdelazizkhaled performanceofdistinctmicrobialbasedsolutionsinacampylobacterinfectionchallengemodelinpoultry
AT demeyvanessa performanceofdistinctmicrobialbasedsolutionsinacampylobacterinfectionchallengemodelinpoultry
AT castexmathieu performanceofdistinctmicrobialbasedsolutionsinacampylobacterinfectionchallengemodelinpoultry
AT sharifshayan performanceofdistinctmicrobialbasedsolutionsinacampylobacterinfectionchallengemodelinpoultry
AT parkinsonjohn performanceofdistinctmicrobialbasedsolutionsinacampylobacterinfectionchallengemodelinpoultry