• 1. Farkhoy M, Modirsanei M, Ghavidel O, et al. Evaluation of protein concentration and limiting amino acids including lysine and met + cys in prestarter diet on performance of broilers. Vet Med Int 2012; 2012: 394189.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Longo FA, Menten JFM, Pedroso AA, et al. Diferentes fontes de proteína na dieta pré-inicial de frangos de corte. R Bras Zootec 2005; 34: 112122.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Longo FA, Menten JFM, Pedroso AA, et al. Performance and carcass composition of broilers fed different carbohydrate and protein sources in the prestarter phase. J Appl Poult Res 2007; 16: 171177.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Hofacre CL, Froyman R, Gautrias B, et al. Use of Aviguard and other intestinal bioproducts in experimental Clostridium perfringens-associated necrotizing enteritis in broiler chickens. Avian Dis 1998; 42: 579584.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Pedroso AA, Menten JFM, Lambais MR. The structure of bacterial community in the intestines of newly hatched chicks. J Appl Poult Res 2005; 14: 232237.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Edens FW, Parkhurst CR, Casas IA, et al. Principles of ex ovo competitive exclusion and in ovo administration of Lactobacillus reuteri. Poult Sci 1997; 76: 179196.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Hooper LV, Falk PG, Gordon JI. Analyzing the molecular foundations of commensalism in the mouse intestine. Curr Opin Microbiol 2000; 3: 7985.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Ferreira AJ, Ferreira CS, Knobl T, et al. Comparison of three commercial competitive-exclusion products for controlling Salmonella colonization of broilers in Brazil. J Food Prot 2003; 66: 490492.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Nakamura A, Ota Y, Mizukami A, et al. Evaluation of Aviguard, a commercial competitive exclusion product for efficacy and after-effect on the antibody response of chicks to Salmonella. Poult Sci 2002; 81: 16531660.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Methner U, Barrow PA, Martin G, et al. Comparative study of the protective effect against Salmonella colonisation in newly hatched SPF chickens using live, attenuated Salmonella vaccine strains, wild-type Salmonella strains or a competitive exclusion product. Int J Food Microbiol 1997; 35: 223230.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Maiorano G, Sobolewska A, Cianciullo D, et al. Influence of in ovo prebiotic and synbiotic administration on meat quality of broiler chickens. Poult Sci 2012; 91: 29632969.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Tomas J, Wrzosek L, Bouznad N, et al. Primocolonization is associated with colonic epithelial maturation during conventionalization. FASEB J 2013; 27: 645655.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Olszak T, An D, Zeissig S, et al. Microbial exposure during early life has persistent effects on natural killer T cell function. Science 2012; 336: 489493.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Buchon N, Broderick NA, Chakrabarti S, et al. Invasive and indigenous microbiota impact intestinal stem cell activity through multiple pathways in Drosophila. Genes Dev 2009; 23: 23332344.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Cherbuy C, Honvo-Houeto E, Bruneau A, et al. Microbiota matures colonic epithelium through a coordinated induction of cell cycle-related proteins in gnotobiotic rat. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2010; 299: G348G357.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. El Aidy S, van Baarlen P, Derrien M, et al. Temporal and spatial interplay of microbiota and intestinal mucosa drive establishment of immune homeostasis in conventionalized mice. Mucosal Immunol 2012; 5: 567579.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. McFall-Ngai MJ. Negotiations between animals and bacteria: the ‘diplomacy’ of the squid-vibrio symbiosis. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 2000; 126: 471480.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Kuechler SM, Gibbs G, Burckhardt D, et al. Diversity of bacterial endosymbionts and bacteria-host co-evolution in Gondwanan relict moss bugs (Hemiptera: Coleorrhyncha: Peloridiidae). Environ Microbiol 2013; 15: 20312042.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Hongoh Y, Deevong P, Inoue T, et al. Intra- and interspecific comparisons of bacterial diversity and community structure support coevolution of gut microbiota and termite host. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005; 71: 65906599.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Amann RI, Binder BJ, Olson RJ, et al. Combination of 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes with flow cytometry for analyzing mixed microbial populations. Appl Environ Microbiol 1990; 56: 19191925.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Wallner G, Amann R, Beisker W. Optimizing fluorescent in situ hybridization with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes for flow cytometric identification of microorganisms. Cytometry 1993; 14: 136143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Amit-Romach E, Sklan D, Uni Z. Microflora ecology of the chicken intestine using 16S ribosomal DNA primers. Poult Sci 2004; 83: 10931098.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Wang RF, Cao WW, Cerniglia CE. PCR detection and quantitation of predominant anaerobic bacteria in human and animal fecal samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996; 62: 12421247.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Denis M, Refregier-Petton J, Laisney MJ, et al. Campylobacter contamination in French chicken production from farm to consumers. Use of a PCR assay for detection and identification of Campylobacter jejuni and Camp. coli. J Appl Microbiol 2001; 91: 255267.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Lu J, Hofacre C, Smith F, et al. Effects of feed additives on the development on the ileal bacterial community of the broiler chicken. Animal 2008; 2: 669676.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26. Acosta-Martinez VSK, Dowd SE, Sun Y, et al. Tag-encoded pyrosequencing analysis of bacterial diversity in a single soil type as affected by management and land use. Soil Biol Biochem 2008; 40: 27622770.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. Frank JA, Reich CI, Sharma S, et al. Critical evaluation of two primers commonly used for amplification of bacterial 16S rRNA genes. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008; 74: 24612470.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. Hamady M, Walker JJ, Harris JK, et al. Error-correcting barcoded primers for pyrosequencing hundreds of samples in multiplex. Nat Methods 2008; 5: 235237.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Hill TC, Walsh KA, Harris JA, et al. Using ecological diversity measures with bacterial communities. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2003; 43: 111.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. SAS. Procedures guide: statistical procedures. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc, 2008.

  • 31. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, et al. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 2009; 75: 75377541.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32. Aziz RK, Bartels D, Best AA, et al. The RAST server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genomics 2008; 9: 75.

  • 33. Beach JR, Davis DE. Acute infection in chicks and chronic infection of the ovaries of hens caused by the fowl typhoid organisms. Hilgardia 1927; 2: 411423.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34. Beaudette FR. The possible transmission of fowl typhoid through the egg: preliminary report. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1925; 67: 741745.

  • 35. Beaudette FR. Fowl typhoid and bacillary white diarrhoea, in Proceedings. 11th Int Vet Cong 1930; 3: 705723.

  • 36. McFall-Ngai MJ. The development of cooperative associations between animals and bacteria: establishing détente among domains. Am Zool 1998; 38: 593608.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37. Ley RE, Lozupone CA, Hamady M, et al. Worlds within worlds: evolution of the vertebrate gut microbiota. Nat Rev Microbiol 2008; 6: 776788.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38. McFall-Ngai MJ, Heath-Heckman EA, Gillette AA, et al. The secret languages of coevolved symbioses: insights from the Euprymna scolopes-Vibrio fischeri symbiosis. Semin Immunol 2012; 24: 38.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39. Ashen JB, Goff LJ. Molecular and ecological evidence for species specificity and coevolution in a group of marine algal-bacterial symbioses. Appl Environ Microbiol 2000; 66: 30243030.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40. Layton A, McKay L, Williams D, et al. Development of Bacteroides 16S rRNA gene TaqMan-based real-time PCR assays for estimation of total, human, and bovine fecal pollution in water. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006; 72: 42144224.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41. Lumpkins BS, Batal AB, Lee MD. Evaluation of the bacterial community and intestinal development of different genetic lines of chickens. Poult Sci 2010; 89: 16141621.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42. Cox NA, Richardson LJ, Maurer JJ, et al. Evidence for horizontal and vertical transmission in Campylobacter passage from hen to her progeny. J Food Prot 2012; 75: 18961902.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43. Donoghue AM, Blore PJ, Cole K, et al. Detection of Campylobacter or Salmonella in turkey semen and the ability of poultry semen extenders to reduce their concentrations. Poult Sci 2004; 83: 17281733.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44. Doyle MP, Erickson MC. Reducing the carriage of foodborne pathogens in livestock and poultry. Poult Sci 2006; 85: 960973.

  • 45. Okamura M, Tachizaki H, Kubo T, et al. Comparative evaluation of a bivalent killed Salmonella vaccine to prevent egg contamination with Salmonella enterica serovars Enteritidis, Typhimurium, and Gallinarum biovar Pullorum, using 4 different challenge models. Vaccine 2007; 25: 48374844.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46. Ley RE, Peterson DA, Gordon JI. Ecological and evolutionary forces shaping microbial diversity in the human intestine. Cell 2006; 124: 837848.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47. Dillon RJ, Dillon VM. The gut bacteria of insects: nonpathogenic interactions. Annu Rev Entomol 2004; 49: 7192.

  • 48. Engel P, Moran NA. The gut microbiota of insects—diversity in structure and function. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2013; 37: 699735.

  • 49. Dethlefsen L, Eckburg PB, Bik EM, et al. Assembly of the human intestinal microbiota. Trends Ecol Evol 2006; 21: 517523.

  • 50. Dethlefsen L, McFall-Ngai M, Relman DA. An ecological and evolutionary perspective on human-microbe mutualism and disease. Nature 2007; 449: 811818.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51. Wilson DS. A theory of group selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1975; 72: 143146.

  • 52. Quinteiro-Filho WM, Gomes AV, Pinheiro ML, et al. Heat stress impairs performance and induces intestinal inflammation in broiler chickens infected with Salmonella Enteritidis. Avian Pathol 2012; 41: 421427.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53. Pedroso AA, Hurley-Bacon AL, Zedek AS, et al. Can probiotics improve the environmental microbiome and resistome of commercial poultry production? Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013; 10: 45344559.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54. Lu J, Idris U, Harmon B, et al. Diversity and succession of the intestinal bacterial community of the maturing broiler chicken. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003; 69: 68166824.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55. Jozefiak D, Rutkowski A, Kaczmarek S, et al. Effect of beta-glucanase and xylanase supplementation of barley- and rye-based diets on caecal microbiota of broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci 2010; 51: 546557.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 56. Yang CM, Cao GT, Ferket PR, et al. Effects of probiotic, Clostridium butyricum, on growth performance, immune function, and cecal microflora in broiler chickens. Poult Sci 2012; 91: 21212129.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 57. Collins MD, Lawson PA, Willems A, et al. The phylogeny of the genus Clostridium: proposal of five new genera and eleven new species combinations. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1994; 44: 812826.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 58. Wilson MJ, Hall V, Brazier J, et al. Evaluation of a phenotypic scheme for identification of the ‘butyrate-producing’ Peptostreptococcus species. J Med Microbiol 2000; 49: 747751.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 59. Kim YS, Tsao D, Siddiqui B, et al. Effects of sodium butyrate and dimethylsulfoxide on biochemical properties of human colon cancer cells. Cancer 1980; 45: 11851192.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 60. Hamer HM, Jonkers D, Venema K, et al. Review article: the role of butyrate on colonic function. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008; 27: 104119.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 61. Robbins KM, Suyemoto MM, Lyman RL, et al. An outbreak and source investigation of enterococcal spondylitis in broilers caused by Enterococcus cecorum. Avian Dis 2012; 56: 768773.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 62. Boerlin P, Nicholson V, Brash M, et al. Diversity of Enterococcus cecorum from chickens. Vet Microbiol 2012; 157: 405411.

  • 63. Hooper LV, Gordon JI. Commensal host-bacterial relationships in the gut. Science 2001; 292: 11151118.

  • 64. Collett SR. The “seed, feed and weed” approach to managing intestinal health in drug-free production systems. The Poultry Informed Professional 2012; May/June:19. Available at: vet.uga.edu/images/uploads/pdrc/PIPMay-June2012Final.pdf. Accessed Dec 1, 2015.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 65. Thomas F, Hehemann JH, Rebuffet E, et al. Environmental and gut bacteroidetes: the food connection. Front Microbiol 2011; 2: 93.

  • 66. Bäckhed F, Ley RE, Sonnenburg JL, et al. Host-bacterial mutualism in the human intestine. Science 2005; 307: 19151920.

  • 67. Abdallah Ismail N, Ragab SH, Abd Elbaky A, et al. Frequency of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes in gut microbiota in obese and normal weight Egyptian children and adults. Arch Med Sci 2011; 7: 501507.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 68. Payne AN, Chassard C, Zimmermann M, et al. The metabolic activity of gut microbiota in obese children is increased compared with normal-weight children and exhibits more exhaustive substrate utilization. Nutr Diabetes 2011; 1: e12

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 69. Bervoets L, Van Hoorenbeeck K, Kortleven I, et al. Differences in gut microbiota composition between obese and lean children: a cross-sectional study. Gut Pathog 2013; 5: 10.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 70. Hooper LV, Midtvedt T, Gordon JI. How host-microbial interactions shape the nutrient environment of the mammalian intestine. Annu Rev Nutr 2002; 22: 283307.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 71. Kakiyama G, Pandak WM, Gillevet PM, et al. Modulation of the fecal bile acid profile by gut microbiota in cirrhosis. J Hepatol 2013; 58: 949955.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Effect of in ovo administration of an adult-derived microbiota on establishment of the intestinal microbiome in chickens

View More View Less
  • 1 Poultry Diagnostic and Research Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.
  • | 2 Department of Poultry Science, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.
  • | 3 Poultry Diagnostic and Research Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine effects of in ovo administration of a probiotic on development of the intestinal microbiota of 2 genetic lineages (modern and heritage) of chickens.

SAMPLE 10 newly hatched chicks and 40 fertile eggs to determine intestinal microbiota at hatch, 900 fertile eggs to determine effects of probiotic on hatchability, and 1,560 chicks from treated or control eggs.

PROCEDURES A probiotic competitive-exclusion product derived from adult microbiota was administered in ovo to fertile eggs of both genetic lineages. Cecal contents and tissues were collected from embryos, newly hatched chicks, and chicks. A PCR assay was used to detect bacteria present within the cecum of newly hatched chicks. Fluorescence in situ hybridization and vitality staining were used to detect viable bacteria within intestines of embryos. The intestinal microbiota was assessed by use of 16S pyrosequencing.

RESULTS Microscopic evaluation of embryonic cecal contents and tissues subjected to differential staining techniques revealed viable bacteria in low numbers. Development of the intestinal microbiota of broiler chicks of both genetic lineages was enhanced by in ovo administration of adult microbiota. Although the treatment increased diversity and affected composition of the microbiota of chicks, most bacterial species present in the probiotic were transient colonizers. However, the treatment decreased the abundance of undesirable bacterial species within heritage lineage chicks.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE In ovo inoculation of a probiotic competitive-exclusion product derived from adult microbiota may be a viable method of managing development of the microbiota and reducing the prevalence of pathogenic bacteria in chickens.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine effects of in ovo administration of a probiotic on development of the intestinal microbiota of 2 genetic lineages (modern and heritage) of chickens.

SAMPLE 10 newly hatched chicks and 40 fertile eggs to determine intestinal microbiota at hatch, 900 fertile eggs to determine effects of probiotic on hatchability, and 1,560 chicks from treated or control eggs.

PROCEDURES A probiotic competitive-exclusion product derived from adult microbiota was administered in ovo to fertile eggs of both genetic lineages. Cecal contents and tissues were collected from embryos, newly hatched chicks, and chicks. A PCR assay was used to detect bacteria present within the cecum of newly hatched chicks. Fluorescence in situ hybridization and vitality staining were used to detect viable bacteria within intestines of embryos. The intestinal microbiota was assessed by use of 16S pyrosequencing.

RESULTS Microscopic evaluation of embryonic cecal contents and tissues subjected to differential staining techniques revealed viable bacteria in low numbers. Development of the intestinal microbiota of broiler chicks of both genetic lineages was enhanced by in ovo administration of adult microbiota. Although the treatment increased diversity and affected composition of the microbiota of chicks, most bacterial species present in the probiotic were transient colonizers. However, the treatment decreased the abundance of undesirable bacterial species within heritage lineage chicks.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE In ovo inoculation of a probiotic competitive-exclusion product derived from adult microbiota may be a viable method of managing development of the microbiota and reducing the prevalence of pathogenic bacteria in chickens.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Batal's present address is Sanderson Farms, 127 Flynt Rd, Laurel, MS 39443.

Address correspondence to Dr. Lee (mdlee@uga.edu).