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
. 2023 Jul 1;13(13):2172.
doi: 10.3390/ani13132172.

Effects of Bacillus licheniformis on the Growth Performance, Antioxidant Capacity, Ileal Morphology, Intestinal Short Chain Fatty Acids, and Colonic Microflora in Piglets Challenged with Lipopolysaccharide

Affiliations

Effects of Bacillus licheniformis on the Growth Performance, Antioxidant Capacity, Ileal Morphology, Intestinal Short Chain Fatty Acids, and Colonic Microflora in Piglets Challenged with Lipopolysaccharide

Guangtian Cao et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of Bacillus licheniformis (BL) on the growth performance, antioxidant capacity, ileal morphology, intestinal fecal short-chain fatty acids, and microflora of weaned piglets challenged with lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Piglets were assigned into three groups: basal diet (Con), a basal diet with added 109 CFU B. licheniformis/kg (BLl), and a basal diet with added 1010 CFU B. licheniformis/kg (BLh). On day 28, BLh piglets were intraperitoneally injected with LPS (CBL) and sterilized saline water (BL), Con piglets were injected with LPS (LPS) and sterilized saline water (Con), with the injections being administered for three consecutive days. The average daily gain significantly increased from day 1 to day 28 and the feed: gain ratio decreased with BL supplementation compared with the Con group. Supplementation with BLl and BLh reduced the diarrhea rate in piglets. Serum catalase activity increased and malondialdehyde concentration decreased in the CBL treatment group compared with the LPS treatment group. Both BL and CBL treatments increased the ileal villus length/crypt depth ratio compared with Con and LPS treatments. BL administration significantly increased colonic propionic and isobutyric acid concentrations compared with Con treatment. Both BL and CBL piglets had significantly increased fecal acetic, propionic, and butyric acid levels compared with LPS piglets. Analysis of the colonic microbial metagenome showed that Prevotella species were the predominant bacteria in piglets treated with BL and CBL. The CBL-treated piglets had higher scores for lysine biosynthesis, arginine biosynthesis, sulfur relay system, and histidine metabolism. BL-treated piglets had higher scores for glycosaminoglycan biosynthesis-keratan sulfate, oxidative phosphorylation, and pyruvate and carbon metabolism.

Keywords: Bacillus licheniformis; colonic microflora; growth performance; lipopolysaccharide challenging; piglets.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

We declare no financial or personal relationships with other people or organizations that might inappropriately influence our work, and we have no professional or personal interest in any product.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Effects of B. licheniformis on the growth performance of piglets. (A) ADG, (B) F:G, (C) Diarrhea index. Con, control; BLl, 109 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg; BLh, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg. a, b Means with different superscripts in the same row show significant differences (p < 0.05). Note: ADG, average daily gain; F:G, feed: gain. n = 6.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Effects of B. licheniformis on serum antioxidant capacity of piglets challenged with LPS. (A) CAT, (B) MDA, (C) GSH-Px, (D) SOD. Note: CAT, catalase; MDA, malondialdehyde; GSH-Px, glutathione peroxidase; SOD, superoxide dismutase. Con, control piglets injected with sterilized saline water. LPS, control piglets injected with LPS. BL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with sterilized saline water. CBL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with LPS. a, b, c Means with different superscripts in the same row show significant differences (p < 0.05). n = 6.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Effects of B. licheniformis on serum immunoglobulins of piglets challenged with LPS. (A) IgA, (B) IgG, (C) IgM. CON, control injected with STER; BL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg. Note: Con, control piglets injected with sterilized saline water; LPS, control piglets injected with LPS; BL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with sterilized saline water; CBL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with LPS. a, b Means with different superscripts in the same row show significant differences (p < 0.05). n = 6.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Effects of B. licheniformis on ileal morphology of piglets challenged with LPS. (AD) HE pictures of ilea of Con, LPS, BL, and CBL piglets; (EH) SEM pictures of ilea in Con, LPS, BL, and CBL; (I) ileal morphology changes in Con, LPS, BL, and CBL. Note: Con, control piglets injected with sterilized saline water; LPS, control piglets injected with LPS; BL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with sterilized saline water; CBL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with LPS. n = 6.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Effects of B. licheniformis on colonic SCFAs of piglets challenged with LPS. (A) acetic acid, (B) propionic acid, (C) butyric acid, (D) isobutyric acid, (E) valeric acid, (F) isovaleric acid. Note: Con, control piglets injected with sterilized saline water; LPS, control piglets injected with LPS; BL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with sterilized saline water; CBL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with LPS. a, b Means with different superscripts in the same row show significant differences (p < 0.05). n = 6.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Effects of B. licheniformis on fecal SCFAs of piglets challenged with LPS. (A) acetic acid, (B) propionic acid, (C) butyric acid, (D) isobutyric acid, (E) valeric acid, (F) isovaleric acid. Note: Con, control piglets injected with sterilized saline water; LPS, control piglets injected with LPS; BL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with sterilized saline water; CBL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with LPS. a, b Means with different superscripts in the same row show significant differences (p < 0.05). n = 6.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Effects of B. licheniformis on colonic microbial metagenome of piglets challenged with LPS. (A) flower plot, (B) anosim analysis, (C) heatmap coefficient matrix, (D) relative abundance of the top 15 genera, (E) relative abundance of the top 15 species. Note: Con, control piglets injected with sterilized saline water; LPS, control piglets injected with LPS; BL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with sterilized saline water; CBL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with LPS. n = 3.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Effects of B. licheniformis in colonic microbial microflora of piglets challenged with LPS based on genus level. (A) PCA plot, (B) PCoA plot, (C) heatmap of the top 30 genera, (D) LEFSe analysis, (E) Kruskal–Wallis analysis. Note: Con, control piglets injected with sterilized saline water; LPS, control piglets injected with LPS; BL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with sterilized saline water; CBL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with LPS. n = 3.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Effects of B. licheniformis on colonic microbial microflora of piglets challenged with LPS based on specie level. (A) PCA plot, (B) PCoA plot, (C) Anosim analysis, (D) Heatmap of the top 30 species, (E) Kruskal–Wallis analysis. Note: Con, control piglets injected with sterilized saline water; LPS, control piglets injected with LPS; BL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with sterilized saline water; CBL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with LPS. n = 3.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Effects of B. licheniformis on the abundance of colonic microbiota genes in piglets challenged with LPS based on the KEGG database. (A) PCA plot, (B) PCoA plot, (C) top 30 metabolic pathways, (D) heatmap of the top 10 metabolic pathways on level 2, (E) LEFSe analysis, (F) Kruskal–Wallis analysis. Note: Con, control piglets injected with sterilized saline water; LPS, control piglets injected with LPS; BL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with sterilized saline water; CBL, 1010 CFU Bacillus licheniformis/kg piglets injected with LPS. n = 3.

References

    1. Gresse R., Chaucheyras-Durand F., Fleury M.A., Van de Wiele T., Forano E., Blanquet-Diot S. Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis in Postweaning Piglets: Understanding the Keys to Health. Trends Microbiol. 2017;10:851–873. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2017.05.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cao G., Tao F., Hu Y., Li Z., Zhang Y., Deng B., Zhan X. Positive effects of a Clostridium butyricum-based compound probiotic on growth performance, immune responses, intestinal morphology, hypothalamic neurotransmitters, and colonic microbiota in weaned piglets. Food Funct. 2019;10:2926–2934. doi: 10.1039/C8FO02370K. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yin J., Wu M.M., Xiao H., Ren W.K., Duan J.L., Yang G., Li T.J., Yin Y.L. Development of an antioxidant system after early weaning in piglets. J. Anim. Sci. 2014;92:612–619. doi: 10.2527/jas.2013-6986. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pan X., Cai Y., Kong L., Xiao C., Zhu Q., Song Z. Probiotic Effects of Bacillus licheniformis DSM5749 on growth performance and intestinal microecological balance of laying hens. Front. Nutr. 2022;9:868093. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.868093. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hu S., Cao X., Wu Y., Mei X., Xu H., Wang Y., Zhang X., Gong L., Li W. Effects of Probiotic Bacillus as an Alternative of Antibiotics on Digestive Enzymes Activity and Intestinal Integrity of Piglets. Front. Microbiol. 2018;9:2427. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02427. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources