Effect of preventive application of Enterococcus faecium EF55 on intestinal mucosa during salmonellosis in chickens

Abstract

In the present study the effect of preventive application of <I>Enterococcus faecium</I> EF 55 on the intestinal mucosa was evaluated in experimentally infected chickens with <I>Salmonella enterica</I> subsp. <I>Enteritidis</I>. A total of 120, one-day-old <I>Salmonella</I>-free chickens of Isa Brown hybrid were divided into 4 groups. The chickens in groups E and ES were perorally inoculated with <I>E. faecium</I> EF55 in a dose of 1 × 109 CFU/ml for 7 consecutive days. Placebo was applied to birds in control group C and group S during the first 7 days of life. At the age of 8 days chickens in groups ES and S were perorally infected with <I>S. enterica</I> subsp.<I> Enteritidis</I> phage type 4 in a dose of 1 × 108 CFU/ml. In birds treated with <I>E. faecium</I> EF 55 (group ES) a decreased number of <I>Salmonella</I> spp. positive individuals was recorded from 28.5% 2 days post infection (p.i.) to 10% 14 days p.i. when the difference between group ES and group with the application of <I>Salmonella</I> Enteritidis alone (group S) was significant (<I>P</I> < 0.01). On the contrary, in birds of group S the percentage of <I>Salmonella</I> spp. positive animals showed no constant changes. It increased from 12.5% 2 days p.i. to 37.5% 4 days p.i. The maximum of positive samples 83.3% was found 14 days p.i. The application of <I>E. faecium</I> EF55 reduced colonisation of caeca and minimized translocation of salmonellae into the liver and spleen. Two days p.i. the shortest villi in the jejunum were observed in group S – 1 266.2 µm, when compared to group E with the highest jejunal villi – 1 605 µm (<I>P</I> < 0.05). The growth of the villi was observed 14 days p.i. in all groups except group S. The early exposition of chickens to <I>E. faecium</I> EF55 led to more rapid development of intestinal villi when compared to the untreated control (P < 0.05). Reduced colonisation of the intestinal tract by salmonellae in birds treated with <I>E. faecium</I> EF 55 also preserved the microenvironment of the intestine from harmful effects of the pathogen.

Muscle characteristics in chicks challenged with Salmonella Enteritidis and the effect of preventive application of the probiotic Enterococcus faecium

“…Interestingly, the inflammatory process starts to be downregulated at 4 D after SE infection when anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-10, tumor necrosis factor-ß) and the number and function of regulatory T cells are upregulated (Shanmugasundaram et al, 2015; Kogut et al, 2016). Because of the resulting SE tolerance, the pathogens often persist in the host's intestinal tract (particularly in the caeca) without visible clinical signs (Herich et al, 2010). Carrier birds excrete the bacteria intermittently and constitute an important source of infection (Ducatelle et al, 2000; Kogut et al, 2016; Velasquez et al, 2018).…”

“…Carrier birds excrete the bacteria intermittently and constitute an important source of infection (Ducatelle et al, 2000; Kogut et al, 2016; Velasquez et al, 2018). Salmonellae also colonize the Peyer's patches, from which they can disseminate into the liver and spleen (Monack et al, 2000; Crhanova et al, 2011); these organs are the sites of intracellular proliferation and the spreading of the bacteria causing systemic diseases with the translocation and dissemination of toxins and bacteria to various internal organs (Vasquez-Torres et al, 1999; Levkut et al, 2009; Herich et al, 2010; Iheukwumere et al, 2017).…”

“…In addition, positive effects on poultry growth performance and on feed utilization efficiency have been reported for various probiotics (Al-Khalaifah, 2018) and shown to be associated with enhanced gut barrier function, the stimulation of posthatch intestinal development, and improved gut morphology (Awad et al, 2009; Flint and Garner, 2009; Biloni et al, 2013). The species Enterococcus faecium ( EF ) possesses probiotic properties and reduces the colonization and proliferation of enteric bacteria including SE (Audisio et al, 1999; Herich et al, 2010; Lauková et al, 2012; Téllez et al, 2015). EF strains are able to produce bacteriocins, which, in contrast to antibiotics, have a relative narrow killing spectrum and are toxic only to bacteria closely related to the producing strain (Riley and Wertz, 2002; Lauková et al, 2003; Lauková et al, 2012).…”

Effects of a probiotic in combination with prebiotics on intestinal lactobacilli and coliforms and activities of bacterial enzymes in 1,2-dimethylhydrazine exposed rats

“…The majority of the probiotics used today belong to the Lactobacillus group (Jenkins et al, 2005). New probiotic strains with antimicrobial effects can be isolated from plants and animals (Marciňáková et al, 2008;Herich et al, 2010).…”

The effect of new probiotic strain Lactobacillus plantarum on counts of coliforms, lactobacilli and bacterial enzyme activities in rats exposed to N,N-dimethylhydrazine (chemical carcinogen)

“…The majority of the probiotics used today belong to the Lactobacillus group (Jenkins et al 2005). New probiotic strains with antimicrobial effects can be isolated from plants and animals (Marciňáková et al 2008;Herich et al 2010). Some studies showed that a high fat diet increased the risk of colon cancer (Meyerhardt et al 2007).…”