Effect of a Radiant Energy–Treated Lysozyme Antimicrobial Blend on the Control of Clostridial Necrotic Enteritis in Broiler Chickens

Zhang, Guopeng; Mathis, Greg F.; Hofacre, Charles L.; Yaghmaee, Parastoo; Holley, Richard A.; Durance, T.D.

doi:10.1637/9370-041410-resnote.1

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…in the ileum of the birds. Zhang et al (2010) showed that a lysozyme-based antimicrobial blend, containing lysozyme and other natural antimicrobials, was effective in reducing negative health effects in broilers that suffered from necrotic enteritis, caused by a challenge with Eimeria maxima and C. perfringens. In the current study, lysozyme addition did not affect the jejunal and ileal microbiota composition of healthy broilers.…”

Section: Gut Microbiotamentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of nutritional interventions with quercetin, oat hulls, β-glucans, lysozyme and fish oil on performance and health status related parameters of broilers chickens

Torki

Schokker

Duijster-Lensing³

et al. 2018

British Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. An experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of technical feed ingredients between 14 and 28 d of age on performance and health status of broilers (d 14-35) fed diets with a high inclusion rate of rapeseed meal as a nutritional challenge. It was hypothesized that the feed ingredients would improve health status related parameters. 2. A total of 1008 one-day-old male Ross 308 chicks were distributed over 36 floor pens and allocated to one of six iso-caloric (AME 13 MJ/kg) growing diets (d 15-28): a control and five test diets supplemented with quercetin (400 mg/kg), oat hulls (50 g/kg), β-glucan (100 mg/kg), lysozyme (40 mg/kg) or fish oil ω-3 fatty acids (40 g/kg), with six replicate pens per treatment. 3. Dietary inclusion of oat hulls and lysozyme resulted in a reduction in broiler performance during the first week after providing the experimental diets. 4. No effect of interventions on the microbiota diversity in the jejunum and ileum was observed. Ileal microbiota composition of birds fed oat hulls differed from the other groups, as shown by a higher abundance of the genus Enterococcus, mainly at the expense of the genus Lactobacillus. 5. In the jejunum, villus height and crypt depth of lysozyme-fed birds at d 28 were decreased compared to the control group. Higher total surface area of villi occupied by goblet cells and total villi surface area in jejunum (d 21 and 28) were observed in chickens fed oat hulls compared to other groups. 6. Genes related to the growth-factor-activity pathway were more highly expressed in birds fed β-glucan compared to the control group, while the genes related to anion-transmembrane-transporter-activity pathway in the quercetin- and oat hull-fed birds were less expressed. The genes differently expressed between dietary interventions did not seem to be directly involved in immune related processes. 7. It was concluded that the tested nutritional interventions in the current experiment only marginally effected health status related parameters.

show abstract

Section: Gut Microbiotamentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of nutritional interventions with quercetin, oat hulls, β-glucans, lysozyme and fish oil on performance and health status related parameters of broilers chickens

Torki

Schokker

Duijster-Lensing³

et al. 2018

British Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A range of different alternatives to the conventional antimicrobial growth promoter approach are being investigated to reduce the numbers of these pathogens in the food chain and improve poultry health. In addition to vaccination (Lee et al 2011) or the use of natural antimicrobials (Timbermont et al 2010), there are a number of examples of using probiotic microbes (Gil de los Santos et al 2012; Kizerwetter-Swida and Binek 2009; La Ragione et al 2004) or lytic enzymes (Liu et al 2010; Zhang et al 2010) to control NE in poultry. Bacteriophages and their endolysins present a further opportunity to reduce C .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expression and delivery of an endolysin to combat Clostridium perfringens

Gervasi

Horn

Wegmann

et al. 2013

Appl Microbiol Biotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clostridium perfringens is a cause for increasing concern due to its responsibility for severe infections both in humans and animals, especially poultry. To find new control strategies to treat C. perfringens infection, we investigated the activity and delivery of a bacteriophage endolysin. We identified a new endolysin, designated CP25L, which shows similarity to an N-acetylmuramoyl-l-alanine amidase domain and is distinct from other C. perfringens endolysins whose activity has been demonstrated in vitro. The cp25l gene was cloned and expressed in Escherichia coli, and the gene product demonstrated lytic activity against all 25 C. perfringens strains tested. The probiotic strain Lactobacillus johnsonii FI9785 was engineered to deliver the endolysin to the gastrointestinal tract. The integration of the nisRK two-component regulatory system from the Lactococcus lactis nisin A biosynthesis operon into the chromosome of L. johnsonii allowed constitutive expression of the endolysin under the control of the nisA promoter (PnisA), while the use of a signal peptide (SLPmod) led to successful secretion of the active endolysin to the surrounding media. The high specificity and activity of the endolysin suggest that it may be developed as an effective tool to enhance the control of C. perfringens by L. johnsonii in the gastrointestinal tract.

show abstract

“…Prevention Manipulation of nutrients (Edwards, 1990) Manipulation of feed consumption (Edwards and Sorensen, 1987;Onbasilar et al, 2007) Manipulation of egg incubation temp. (Yalcin et al, 2007) Acites Prevention Feed restrictionfull rearing period (Arce et al 1992;Camacho-Fernandez et al, 2002;Rincon 2000) Feed restrictionearly weeks (Acar et al, 1995;Arce et al, 1992;Khajali et al, 2007) Clostridiosis Treatment Antibiotics (Tactacan et al, 2013;Zhang et al, 2010) Bacteriophage therapy (Miller et al, 2010) Other antimicrobials (Tactacan et al, 2013) Coccidiosis Prevention Vaccines (Lee et al, 2009;Li et al, 2005;Miguel et al, 2008;Shirley et al, 1995;Sou et al, 2006;Vermeulen et al, 2001;Williams et al, 1999;Williams and Gobbi, 2002) Probiotics (Abdelrahman et al, 2014) Herbal treatments (Miguel et al, 2008) Anticoccidials (Abdelrahman et al, 2014;Lee et al, 2009;Li et al, 2005;Miguel et al, 2008;Sou et al, 2006;Williams et al, 1999;Williams and Gobbi, 2002) Footpad dermatitis Prevention Manipulation of litter moisture (Cengiz et al, 2011;de Jong et al, 2014;Ekstrand et al, 1997;Martland, 1985;Mayne et al, 2007;Taira et al, 2013;Wang et al, 2010) Variation of litter materials …”

Section: Tibial Dischondroplasiamentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the financial impact of production diseases in poultry production systems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the academic literature widely asserts that production diseases have a significant financial impact on poultry production, these claims are rarely supported by empirical evidence. There is a risk, therefore, that the information needs of poultry producers regarding the costs associated with particular diseases are not being adequately met. A systematic literature review of poultry production diseases was undertaken, first, to scope the availability of studies that estimate the financial impacts of production diseases on poultry systems and, second, on the basis of these studies, estimates were generated of the magnitude of these impacts. Nine production diseases, selected by a panel of stakeholders as being economically important in the EU, were examined. The review found that the poultry disease literature has primarily an epidemiological focus, with very few publications providing estimates of the financial impacts of diseases. However, some publications have quantified the physical impacts of production diseases and control interventions, for example, using measures such as output volumes, mortality rates and bacterial counts. Using these data in standard financial models, partial financial analyses were possible for some poultry production diseases. Coccidiosis and clostridiosis were found to be the most common production diseases in broiler flocks, with salpingoperitonitis being the most common in layers. While the financial impact of untreated diseases varied, most uncontrolled diseases were estimated to make flocks loss-making. However, in all cases, interventions were available that signficantly reduced these losses. The review reinforces the concern that the available academic literature is not providing sufficient information for poultry producers to decide on financially optimal disease-prevention and treatment measures.

show abstract

Effect of a Radiant Energy–Treated Lysozyme Antimicrobial Blend on the Control of Clostridial Necrotic Enteritis in Broiler Chickens

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

Effect of nutritional interventions with quercetin, oat hulls, β-glucans, lysozyme and fish oil on performance and health status related parameters of broilers chickens

Effect of nutritional interventions with quercetin, oat hulls, β-glucans, lysozyme and fish oil on performance and health status related parameters of broilers chickens

Expression and delivery of an endolysin to combat Clostridium perfringens

A review of the financial impact of production diseases in poultry production systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About