Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug 27:6:282.
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00282. eCollection 2019.

Evaluation of the Antimicrobial and Anti-inflammatory Properties of Bacillus-DFM (Norum™) in Broiler Chickens Infected With Salmonella Enteritidis

Affiliations

Evaluation of the Antimicrobial and Anti-inflammatory Properties of Bacillus-DFM (Norum™) in Broiler Chickens Infected With Salmonella Enteritidis

Bishnu Adhikari et al. Front Vet Sci. .

Abstract

Restrictions of in-feed antibiotics use in poultry has pushed research toward finding appropriate alternatives such as Direct-Fed Microbials (DFM). In this study, previously tested Bacillus isolates (B. subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens) were used to evaluate their therapeutic and prophylactic effects against Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (S. Enteritidis) in broiler chickens. For this purpose, initial antibacterial activity of Bacillus-DFM (104 spores/g or 106 spores/g) against S. Enteritidis colonization in crop, proventriculus and intestine was investigated using an in vitro digestive model. Furthermore, to evaluate therapeutic and prophylactic effects of Bacillus-DFM (104 spores/g) against S. Enteritidis colonization, altogether 60 (n = 30/group) and 30 (n = 15/group) 1-day-old broiler chickens were randomly allocated to either DFM or control group (without Bacillus-DFM), respectively. Chickens were orally gavaged with 104 cfu of S. Enteritidis per chicken at 1-day old, and cecal tonsils (CT) and crop were collected 3 and 10 days later during the therapeutic study, whereas they were orally gavaged with 107 cfu of S. Enteritidis per chicken at 6-day-old, and CT and crop were collected 24 h later from two independent trials during the prophylactic study. Serum superoxide dismutase (SOD), FITC-d and intestinal IgA levels were reported for both chicken studies, in addition cecal microbiota analysis was performed during the therapeutic study. DFM significantly reduced S. Enteritidis concentration in the intestine compartment, and in both proventriculus and intestine compartments as compared to the control when used at 104 spores/g and 106 spores/g, respectively (p < 0.05). DFM significantly reduced FITC-d and IgA as well as SOD and IgA levels (p < 0.05) compared to the control in therapeutic and prophylactic studies, respectively. Interestingly, in the therapeutic study, there were significant differences in bacterial community structure and predicted metabolic pathways between DFM and control. Likewise, phylum Actinobacteria and the genera Bifidobacterium, Roseburia, Proteus, and cc_115 were decreased, while the genus Streptococcus was enriched significantly in the DFM group as compared to the control (MetagenomeSeq, p < 0.05). Thus, the overall results suggest that the Bacillus-DFM can reduce S. Enteritidis colonization and improve the intestinal health in chickens through mechanism(s) that might involve the modulation of gut microbiota and their metabolic pathways.

Keywords: Bacillus; Salmonella Enteritidis; anti-inflammatory (activity); antimicrobial; broiler chickens.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Relative abundance of major phyla recovered in ceca of broiler chickens at day 10 from two different treatment groups (control and DFM). NA refers to those reads that could not be assigned to any phyla.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Relative abundance of major genera recovered in ceca of broiler chickens at day 10 from two different treatment groups (control and DFM). NA refers to those reads that could not be assigned to any genera. Genera having counts <100 are merged together in “Others”.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Alpha diversity of two different groups (control and DFM) as measured by Shannon Index. No significant difference was observed between them (T-test, p > 0.05). The diamond shape represents the mean value in each group.
Figure 4
Figure 4
PCoA plot showing difference in microbial community structure between control and DFM groups (ANOSIM; R = 0.35 and p < 0.01).
Figure 5
Figure 5
PCA plot comparing third level KEGG pathways between control and DFM groups. The third level KEGG pathways were predicted using PICRUSt followed by the generation of PCA plot using STAMP.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Extended error bar plot generated by STAMP showing differential abundant third level KEGG pathways between control and DFM group. Only significant features with p < 0.05 (Welch's t-test) were included in the plot.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Dibner JJ, Richards JD. Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture: history and mode of action. Poult Sci. (2005) 84:634–43. 10.1093/ps/84.4.634 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Huyghebaert G, Ducatelle R, Van Immerseel F. An update on alternatives to antimicrobial growth promoters for broilers. Vet J. (2011) 187:182–8. 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.03.003 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maron DF, Smith TJS, Nachman KE. Restrictions on antimicrobial use in food animal production: an international regulatory and economic survey. Global Health. (2013) 9:48. 10.1186/1744-8603-9-48 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mottet A, Tempio G. Global poultry production: current state and future outlook and challenges. Worlds Poult Sci J. (2017) 73:245–56. 10.1017/S0043933917000071 - DOI
    1. Hernandez-Patlan D, Solis-Cruz B, Adhikari B, Pontin KP, Latorre JD, Baxter MF, et al. . Evaluation of the antimicrobial and intestinal integrity properties of boric acid in broiler chickens infected with Salmonella Enteritidis: proof of concept. Res Vet Sci. (2019) 123:7–13. 10.1016/j.rvsc.2018.12.004 - DOI - PubMed