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
. 2022 Jan 28;12(2):201.
doi: 10.3390/life12020201.

Influence of Immune Parameters after Enterococcus faecium AL41 Administration and Salmonella Infection in Chickens

Viera Revajová  1 , Terézia Benková  1 , Viera Karaffová  1 , Martin Levkut  1 , Emília Selecká  1 , Emília Dvorožňáková  2 , Zuzana Ševčíková  1 , Róbert Herich  1 , Mikuláš Levkut  1   3
Affiliations

Influence of Immune Parameters after Enterococcus faecium AL41 Administration and Salmonella Infection in Chickens

Viera Revajová et al. Life (Basel). .

Abstract

Immune response of day-old chicks infected with Salmonella Enteritidis PT4 and preventive administration of Enterococcus faecium AL41 were studied using hematology and flow cytometry of immunocompetent cells in blood, cecum, bursa and spleen for 11 days, and included 220 animals divided into four groups (n = 55). E. faecium AL41 was administered for 7 days to EF and EFSE groups and on day 4 SE and EFSE groups were infected with Salmonella Enteritidis. Values of monocytes at 4 dpi significantly increased in EFSE and lymphocytes at 7 dpi in EF groups. Blood CD3, CD4, CD8 and IgM lymphocytes improved in EF and EFSE groups and IgA in EF group at 4 dpi. Phagocytic activity of probiotic groups was improved in both samples. Cecal IEL and LPL lymphocytes showed at 7 dpi stimulation of CD3, CD4 and CD8 subpopulations in probiotic groups, especially in EFSE group, IgA IEL and IgA with IgM LPL in EF groups. Bursa Fabricii at 7 dpi presented overstimulation of IgG subpopulation in SE group, spleen CD3 and CD8 in EF and EFSE groups. E. faecium AL41 revealed the protective effect and positive influence on the local and systemic immune response in Salmonella Enteritidis PT4 infected chickens.

Keywords: Enterococcus spp.; Salmonella spp.; beneficial microorganisms; chicken; immunity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a–d) Absolute number of white blood cell in G.L−1 (mean ± SD; ab p < 0.05) at 4 and 7 days post-infection (dpi). C (control), EF (E. faecium AL41), SE (S. Enteritidis PT4) and EFSE (combined group).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Granulocytic percentage of phagocytic activity (a) and index of phagocytic activity (b) 4 and 7 dpi (mean ± SD; ab p < 0.05). C (control), EF (E. faecium AL41), SE (S. Enteritidis PT4) and EFSE (combined group).
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a–e) Absolute number of lymphocyte subpopulations in the peripheral blood in G.L−1 (means ± SD). C (control), EF (E. faecium AL41), SE (S. Enteritidis PT4) and EFSE (combined group).
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a–e) Absolute number of lymphocyte subpopulations in the peripheral blood in G.L−1 (means ± SD). C (control), EF (E. faecium AL41), SE (S. Enteritidis PT4) and EFSE (combined group).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Relative percentage of cecal IEL (a) and LPL (b) at 7 dpi (mean ± SD, ab p < 0.05). C (control), EF (E. faecium AL41), SE (S. Enteritidis PT4) and EFSE (combined group).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Relative percentage of bursal (a) and splenic (b) lymphocyte subpopulations at 7 dpi (mean ± SD, ab p < 0.05, ac p < 0.01). C (control), EF (E. faecium AL41), SE (S. Enteritidis PT4) and EFSE (combined group).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gut A.M., Vasiljevic T., Yeager T., Donkor O.N. Salmonella infection—Prevention and treatment by antibiotics and probiotic yeasts: A review. Microbiology. 2018;164:1327–1344. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.000709. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Park Y.H., Hamidon F., Rajangna C.H., Soh K.P., Gan C.H.Y., Lim T.S., Abdullah W.N.W., Liong M.T. Application of probiotic for the production of safe and high-quality poultry meat. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2016;36:567–579. doi: 10.5851/kosfa.2016.36.5.567. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Trampel D.W., Holder T.G., Gast R. Integrated farm management to prevent Salmonella Enteritidis contamination of eggs. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2014;23:353–365. doi: 10.3382/japr.2014-00944. - DOI
    1. Fuller R. Probiotics in man and animals. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1989;66:365–378. - PubMed
    1. Patterson J.A., Burkholder K.M. Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production. Poult. Sci. 2003;82:627–631. doi: 10.1093/ps/82.4.627. - DOI - PubMed