Growth response of Salmonella enterica Typhimurium in co-culture with ruminal bacterium Streptococcus bovis is influenced by time of inoculation and carbohydrate substrate

Herrera, Paul; O’Bryan, Corliss A.; Crandall, Philip G.; Ricke, Steven C.

doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2011.07.001

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Enteritidis inoculation was also reported earlier in chickens (92). Although some of the species of Streptococcus cause infection in poultry (93, 94) they are commensal organisms present in the GI tract of chickens and have been used as potential probiotics (95, 96) because of their ability to reduce pathogen colonization through competitive exclusion and reduction of the pH through lactic acid production (97). Thus, increase in Streptococcus by DFM in the present study may be playing a vital role in reducing the colonization and incidence of S .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Antimicrobial and Anti-inflammatory Properties of Bacillus-DFM (Norum™) in Broiler Chickens Infected With Salmonella Enteritidis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restrictions of in-feed antibiotics use in poultry has pushed research toward finding appropriate alternatives such as Direct-Fed Microbials (DFM). In this study, previously tested Bacillus isolates ( B . subtilis and B . amyloliquefaciens ) were used to evaluate their therapeutic and prophylactic effects against Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis ( S . Enteritidis) in broiler chickens. For this purpose, initial antibacterial activity of Bacillus -DFM (10 4 spores/g or 10 6 spores/g) against S . Enteritidis colonization in crop, proventriculus and intestine was investigated using an in vitro digestive model. Furthermore, to evaluate therapeutic and prophylactic effects of Bacillus -DFM (10 4 spores/g) against S . Enteritidis colonization, altogether 60 ( n = 30/group) and 30 ( n = 15/group) 1-day-old broiler chickens were randomly allocated to either DFM or control group (without Bacillus -DFM), respectively. Chickens were orally gavaged with 10 4 cfu of S . Enteritidis per chicken at 1-day old, and cecal tonsils (CT) and crop were collected 3 and 10 days later during the therapeutic study, whereas they were orally gavaged with 10 7 cfu of S . Enteritidis per chicken at 6-day-old, and CT and crop were collected 24 h later from two independent trials during the prophylactic study. Serum superoxide dismutase (SOD), FITC-d and intestinal IgA levels were reported for both chicken studies, in addition cecal microbiota analysis was performed during the therapeutic study. DFM significantly reduced S . Enteritidis concentration in the intestine compartment, and in both proventriculus and intestine compartments as compared to the control when used at 10 4 spores/g and 10 6 spores/g, respectively ( p < 0.05). DFM significantly reduced FITC-d and IgA as well as SOD and IgA levels ( p < 0.05) compared to the control in therapeutic and prophylactic studies, respectively. Interestingly, in the therapeutic study, there were significant differences in bacterial community structure and predicted metabolic pathways between DFM and control. Likewise, phylum Actinobacteria and the genera Bifidobacterium, Roseburia, Proteus , and cc_115 were decreased, while the genus Streptococcus was enriched significantly in the DFM group as compared to the control (MetagenomeSeq, p < 0.05). Thus, the overall results suggest that the ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Antimicrobial and Anti-inflammatory Properties of Bacillus-DFM (Norum™) in Broiler Chickens Infected With Salmonella Enteritidis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This sequence can be advantageous for competing against pathogens. Consequently, under in vitro incubation conditions in co-culture with Salmonella typhirmurium growth of S. bovis can behave as a probiotic and directly limit Salmonella growth as a function of carbon source and time of inoculation ( 144 ). However, when easily fermented carbohydrates are fed to ruminants, excessive S. bovis growth can occur in the rumen resulting in rapid lactic acid overproduction, subsequent lowering of the ruminal pH, and the eventual development of a harmful ruminal lactic acidosis condition in the animal ( 167 ).…”

Section: Key Players In the Gut Microbiotamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, when easily fermented carbohydrates are fed to ruminants, excessive S. bovis growth can occur in the rumen resulting in rapid lactic acid overproduction, subsequent lowering of the ruminal pH, and the eventual development of a harmful ruminal lactic acidosis condition in the animal ( 167 ). Therefore, even though S. bovis might be considered a gut commensal organism, and in some cases a probiotic candidate, it can also be associated with host clinical disease states, such as bacterial endocarditis and colon cancer in humans ( 144 ).…”

Section: Key Players In the Gut Microbiotamentioning

confidence: 99%

An Introduction to the Avian Gut Microbiota and the Effects of Yeast-Based Prebiotic-Type Compounds as Potential Feed Additives

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The poultry industry has been searching for a replacement for antibiotic growth promoters in poultry feed as public concerns over the use of antibiotics and the appearance of antibiotic resistance has become more intense. An ideal replacement would be feed amendments that could eliminate pathogens and disease while retaining economic value via improvements on body weight and feed conversion ratios. Establishing a healthy gut microbiota can have a positive impact on growth and development of both body weight and the immune system of poultry while reducing pathogen invasion and disease. The addition of prebiotics to poultry feed represents one such recognized way to establish a healthy gut microbiota. Prebiotics are feed additives, mainly in the form of specific types of carbohydrates that are indigestible to the host while serving as substrates to select beneficial bacteria and altering the gut microbiota. Beneficial bacteria in the ceca easily ferment commonly studied prebiotics, producing short-chain fatty acids, while pathogenic bacteria and the host are unable to digest their molecular bonds. Prebiotic-like substances are less commonly studied, but show promise in their effects on the prevention of pathogen colonization, improvements on the immune system, and host growth. Inclusion of yeast and yeast derivatives as probiotic and prebiotic-like substances, respectively, in animal feed has demonstrated positive associations with growth performance and modification of gut morphology. This review will aim to link together how such prebiotics and prebiotic-like substances function to influence the native and beneficial microorganisms that result in a diverse and well-developed gut microbiota.

show abstract

“…Synbiotics incorporate the properties of probiotic and prebiotic ingredients and provide a greater effect than that of the probiotics or prebiotics separately. One of approaches to assessing such synergism in vitro is the co-culturing of probiotic bacteria with selected pathogens in prebiotic contained media [35][36][37][38].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Database for Retrieval Information about Prebiotics and Their Activity

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of studies aimed at proving the prebiotic properties of certain substances or compositions has been actively increasing, which has led to a large accumulation of scientific information that is fragmented and not systematized. Moreover, a number of criteria have been applied in these studies. The lack of an accessible and convenient information space to compare the obtained results seems to hold back not only scientific development, but also practical development in this field. A database called the «On-line Database of Researches on Activity of Prebiotics» (ODRAP) is presented in this article, which contains information about both prebiotics and some probiotics, that were used in these researches. Currently, ODRAP collects 25 bacteria genera or their combinations, 59 bacteria species, 140 prebiotic substances, 61 prebiotic production companies, 2 methods of fermentation, and 271 analyzed articles from 2001 till 2019. To facilitate access to the database, a special Web-interface was created, which allows any user who opens the Web-page to obtain information about the features and activities of prebiotics, as well as to sort the data by species and genus of bacteria applied in tests, the chemical nature or source of prebiotics, and other parameters. The convenience of the Web-interface is that it allows access to the database, regardless of the user platform and from anywhere, via the Internet.

show abstract

Growth response of Salmonella enterica Typhimurium in co-culture with ruminal bacterium Streptococcus bovis is influenced by time of inoculation and carbohydrate substrate

Cited by 6 publications

References 23 publications

Evaluation of the Antimicrobial and Anti-inflammatory Properties of Bacillus-DFM (Norum™) in Broiler Chickens Infected With Salmonella Enteritidis

Evaluation of the Antimicrobial and Anti-inflammatory Properties of Bacillus-DFM (Norum™) in Broiler Chickens Infected With Salmonella Enteritidis

An Introduction to the Avian Gut Microbiota and the Effects of Yeast-Based Prebiotic-Type Compounds as Potential Feed Additives

Online Database for Retrieval Information about Prebiotics and Their Activity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About