Effects of Enterococcus faecium and Bacillus cereus var. toyoi on the morphology of the intestinal mucous membrane in piglets

Reiter, Katja; Eggebrecht, Susanne; Drewes, Barbara; Riess, Michael; Weyrauch, K.D.

doi:10.2478/s11756-006-0161-2

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple studies have confirmed the stimulating effects of probiotics on the intestinal environment (Barrow et al, 1977;Roth et al, 1992b; Depta et al, 1998;Mathew et al, 1998;Jadamus et al, 2001;Scharek et al, 2005Scharek et al, , 2007Reiter et al, 2006;Lodemann et al, 2008). By lowering the pH value in the small intestine and producing organic acids and antibacterial substances probiotic supplements inhibit pathogenic microorganisms, improve the intestinal microflora and stimulate immune function (Kumprecht et al, 1994;MantereAlhonen, 1995;Marinho, 2007).…”

Section: Probioticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While some authors have observed beneficial effects of several members of the genera Lactobacillus and Bacillus (Depta et al, 1998;Bomba et al, 1999Bomba et al, , 2002Kyriakis et al, 1999;Reiter et al, 2006;Scharek et al, 2007), others have failed to confirm any stimulating effect on the composition of the pig intestinal microflora (Spriet et al, 1987;De Cupere et al, 1992;Newbold et al, 1995). These contradictory results can be explained by the low doses of the used species of probiotic bacteria, their stability, interactions with other medications, and the health condition, age and genetic predisposition of animals (Kyriakis, 1999;Reiter et al, 2006).…”

Section: Probioticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters in prevention of diarrhoea in weaned piglets: a review

Vondruskova¹,

Slamova²,

Trčková³

et al. 2010

Vet. Med.

165

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The weaning time is a crucial period in the management of piglets. The risk of development of post-weaning diarrhoea (PWD) in piglets is high. PWD is the cause of serious economic losses in pig herds. Since 2006, the use of antibiotic growth promoters for prevention of diarrhoeal diseases in piglets has been banned. This measure also led to the investigation of alternative suitable feed supplements that would be reasonably efficient in protecting and sustaining animal health and performance. Various natural materials such as probiotics, prebiotics, organic acids, zinc and plant extracts have been tested as effective alternatives to antibiotics. Recently, owing to their high adsorption capacity, research efforts have been conducted on the application of natural clays and clay-based feed supplements. The purpose of this review is to summarize the effect of different alternative components as growth promoters on the health and performance of weaned and growing piglets.Keywords: infection; swine; antibiotics; intestinal microflora; performance; probiotics; prebiotics, organic acids; zinc; phytobiotics; aluminosilicate List of abbreviations CFU = colony-forming unit; ETEC = enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli; MMT = montmorillonite; PWD = post weaning diarrhoea; SCFA = short chain fatty acids; VFA = volatile fatty acids Review ArticleVeterinarni Medicina, 55, 2010 (5): 199-224 200 ruses (Moller et al., 1998;Song et al., 2006), transmissive gastroenteritis virus (Hampson et al., 1987; Alexa et al., 1995 Alexa et al., , 2001 Chae et al., 2000;Madec et al., 2000;Melin et al., 2004;Song et al., 2006;Thomsson et al., 2008) and others have been most frequently diagnosed.Early-weaned piglets are exposed to several stress factors, with nutrition, etiology and indoor environment of housing being particularly implicated (Madec et al., 2000;Laine et al., 2008). Noninfectious stress factors which are involved in the development of gastroenteric disorders are: -age of piglets when they are weaned from their dam (Svensmark et al., 1989;Skirrow et al., 1997), -sudden change of feed from sow milk that provides piglets with immunoglobulins (Bailey et al., 1992), -irregular feed intake (Bark et al., 1986;Spencer and Howell, 1989;Svensmark et al., 1989;Madec et al., 1998;Laine et al., 2008), -feed structure (Amezcua et al., 2002), -animal hygiene and housing conditions (Le Dividich, 1981;Le Dividich and Herpin, 1994;Madec et al., 1998), -inadequate feeder space per piglet in the pen (Amezcua et al., 2002). Numerous changes in the early-weaned piglet body can initiate PWD, such as morphological (Hampson, 1986) and functional alterations of the small intestine (Kidder and Manners, 1980; Hampson and Kidder, 1986), changes in intestinal colonization with predominance of E. coli (Melin et al., 1997;Katouli et al., 1999) and weakening of the immune system (Blecha et al., 1983;Wattrang et al., 1998). Ban of antibiotic growth promotersRegarding the fact that weaning greatly affects general health condition of piglets, it is nece...

show abstract

Section: Probioticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Probioticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters in prevention of diarrhoea in weaned piglets: a review

Vondruskova¹,

Slamova²,

Trčková³

et al. 2010

Vet. Med.

165

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The above authors also concluded that in comparison to diets containing other additives, the structure and efficiency of intestinal villi were restored at a much faster rate in pigs administered the probiotic. Reiter (2006) observed no effect of the supplementation of diets for sows and piglets with a probiotic (Enterococcus faecium SF 68 NIMB 10415) on the morphology of the small intestine in young pigs. Nutritional factors, such as short-chain organic acids derived from, e.g., oligosaccharides (Ruppin et al 1980 as cited in Sawosz et al 1997), may indirectly affect intestinal morphology, stimulating the proliferation of intestinal epithelial cells (Sakata et al 1995;Ichikawa et al 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Toyoi strains had a beneficial influence on the epithelial structure, crypt morphology, number of Ki-67 positive cells and total mucosal cell counts, including cells secreting acidic and neutral mucopolysaccharides. Reiter (2006) did not observe any changes in the small and large intestine as a result of the supplementation of diets fed to sows and piglets with Enterococcus faecium strains. Lodemann et al (2006) found that probiotics had a positive effect on animals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

The Effect of Probiotics on the Morphological Characteristics of the Small Intestinal Mucosa

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of antibiotics and selected probiotics on the morphological properties of the small intestinal mucosa in growing-finishing pigs. Two production experiments were conducted on 32 hybrid fatteners (16 pigs per experiment, of 8 gilts and young hogs each, at a 1:1 ratio) fed complete diets in a 2-phase system. The animals were clinically healthy and had been treated for parasites prior to fattening. In the first experiment, diets were supplemented with the antibiotic flavomycin (group C1) and the probiotic ToyoCerin (Bacillus toyoi strain) (group E1) at the amount of 0.1%, and in the second experiment with flavomycin (C2) and Bactocell (Pedicoccus acidilactici, MA18/5M strain) (E2) at the amount of 0.01%. A histological analysis of small intestinal epithelial sections was performed using bax, bcl-x, bcl-2 polyclonal antibodies and Ki-67 and PCNA monoclonal antibodies. Sections of the duodenum, jejunum and ileum were prepared post mortem. Haematoxylin and eosin H-E, histochemical (PAS-Alcian Blue) and immunohistochemical staining procedures were applied. The results of histological, histochemical and immunohistochemical examinations of the small intestinal mucosa indicated that feed additives and probiotics had a varied effect on the morphological characteristics and the proliferation capacity of crypt epithelium. Enterocyte proliferation in crypt epithelium decreased after the administration of probiotics. The absence of significant differences between groups (C1-E1; C2-E2) may suggest that probiotics have no adverse effect on mucosal epithelial cells. Nevertheless, given the importance of this topic and the development of the use of feed additives, follow up research in this area is needed. Feed additives, fatteners, small intestine, goblet cells, bax, bcl-x, bcl-2, PCNA, Ki-67Nutritional factors and bacterial populations colonizing the gastrointestinal tract modify the intestinal microstructure (Vitini et al. 2000) and induce functional changes in the intestinal mucosa (Babinska et al. 2005). Researchers vary in their opinions on the probiotic effect of bacteria on the intestinal epithelium. Baum et al. (2002) and Budiño et al. (2005) demonstrated that Saccharomyces boulardii and Bacillus cereus var. Toyoi strains had a beneficial influence on the epithelial structure, crypt morphology, number of Ki-67 positive cells and total mucosal cell counts, including cells secreting acidic and neutral mucopolysaccharides. Reiter (2006) did not observe any changes in the small and large intestine as a result of the supplementation of diets fed to sows and piglets with Enterococcus faecium strains. Lodemann et al. (2006) found that probiotics had a positive effect on animals. The findings of Pérez-Conesa et al. (2007) who studied rats administered probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics indicate that feed additives significantly modify the depth of crypts in the proximal and distal colonic segments, and improve calcium, magnesium and phosphorus absorption. Rekiel et...

show abstract

“…Control animals and piglets from probiotic treated sows and piglets receiving the two probiotics, respectively, starting with day 15, were subjected to this investigation at an age of 14, 28, 35 and 56 days (5 piglets per time-point and treatment). Tissue samples from duodenum, jejunum, ileum, caecum and colon were collected and examined for morphology and histochemistry (Scharek et al, 2005;Reiter et al, 2006). No significant effects of the probiotics were found on villi height, crypt depth, enlargement factor (according to Wiese et al, 2003) and number of goblet cells.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An interdisciplinary study on the mode of action of probiotics in pigs

Simon¹

2010

J. Anim. Feed Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An interdisciplinary research group granted by the German Research Foundation (FOR 438) tested various hypotheses and tired to develop a model for the mode of action of probiotics in pigs. The study included the fields of animal nutrition/digestion physiology, anatomy and histology of the intestinal mucosa, transport and secretory properties of the mucosa, microbiology of the intestinal tract, immune system (classes of intraepithelial lymphocytes, humoral responses), gene expression of the mucosa and finally the in vitro and in vivo resistance against infection with Salmonella.Five trials with ten sows per treatment each and their piglets and two probiotic strains were included in this study. The studied bacterial strains were Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 10415 and Bacillus cereus var. toyoi NCIMB 40112.Concluding from our studies and the published data of others, the effects of probiotics on performance are rarely significant. However, with one exception the incidence of post-weaning diarrhoea under the effect of both probiotics was significantly reduced in the trials of the research group. Furthermore, the identification frequency of various E. coli sero-pathovars relevant in post weaning diarrhoea was reduced in these animals. On the other hand, no significant modifications were found for the morphology and histology of the intestinal mucosa and also not on transport properties of this tissue. A further important finding was that the mode of action for probiotics is not unique but species or even strain specific. Most probably the studied probiotics act directly and/ or via modifications of the intestinal microbiota on the immune system (intraepithelial lymphocyte population).

show abstract

Effects of Enterococcus faecium and Bacillus cereus var. toyoi on the morphology of the intestinal mucous membrane in piglets

Cited by 18 publications

References 30 publications

Alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters in prevention of diarrhoea in weaned piglets: a review

Alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters in prevention of diarrhoea in weaned piglets: a review

The Effect of Probiotics on the Morphological Characteristics of the Small Intestinal Mucosa

An interdisciplinary study on the mode of action of probiotics in pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About