<i>In vitro</i>and<i>In vivo</i>antimicrobial activity of propolis on the microbiota from gastrointestinal tract of chickens

Kačániová, Miroslava; Rovná, Katarí­na; Arpášová, Henrieta; Čuboň, Juraj; Hleba, Lukáš; Pochop, Jaroslav; Kunová, Simona; Haščí­k, Peter

doi:10.1080/10934529.2012.687248

Cited by 29 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Kačániová et al. () showed a lower number of Enterobacteriaceae genera in chickens fed with 800 ppm of EEP. Enterobacteriacea inhibition in human faecal samples by some active compounds of propolis, such as caffeic acid, has been shown (Lee et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…On the other hand, Kačániová et al. () did not show any changes of lactobacilli number in the gastrointestinal tract of chicken fed EEP. The controversial results regarding the effect of propolis on lactic acid bacteria may be correlated with differences in propolis composition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…In this context, propolis has been found to increase the presence of some beneficial bacteria (Mahmoud et al., ), such as the genus Lactobacillus spp . and Bifidobacterium, in faecal samples of chickens, while decreasing the incidence of pathogenic bacteria such as E. coli and Clostridium in the chicken gastrointestinal tract (Kačániová et al., ) and faecal samples (Abdel‐Mohsein et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of the studies on the effects of propolis have examined the effects of EEP on intestinal microbiota of chickens (Kačániová et al., ; Abdel‐Mohsein et al., ; Mahmoud et al., ). In order to extract the biologically active compounds from the solid portion of raw propolis and produce the ethanolic extract of propolis (EEP), raw propolis (RP) is processed using solvents (grain alcohol).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Caecal microbiota of chickens fed diets containing propolis

Eyng

Murakami

Pedroso³

et al. 2016

Animal Physiology Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of different levels of ethanolic extract of propolis (EEP) and raw propolis (RP) on broiler performance and on selected bacterial groups in caecal microbiota using fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) measured by fluorescent activated cell sorting. Two experiments were conducted with 120 male chicks from 1 to 21 days of age for each, raised in cages and distributed in a completely randomized experimental design; there were five replicates with four birds per experimental unit and six treatments for each experiment (trial 1 - EEP - 0, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 and 5000 ppm and trial 2 - RP - 0, 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 ppm). Fluorescent probes were used against the bacterial groups in caecal samples collected at 21 days of age. The data were subjected to one-way anova followed by Tukey's and regression analyses were used to assess the relationship between dietary levels of EEP or RP on performance and intestinal microbiota (p < 0.05). In the trial 1, results showed that the EEP did not cause any significant (p > 0.05) modification in the performance and caecal microbiota. In the trial 2, RP inclusion did not affect the performance but changed the bacterial composition (p < 0.05). Clostridiaceae, Gammaproteobacteria excluding Enterobacteriaceae and Lactobacillus spp. showed a quadratic response (p < 0.05), with the lowest value predicted to occur at 240 ppm, 221 ppm and 213 ppm of RP respectively. The proportion of Bacteroidaceae and Gammaproteobacteria did not differ (p > 0.05) among the experimental groups. The inclusion of ethanolic extract of propolis did not affect the performance and intestinal microbiota, whereas the supplementation of raw propolis modulates the caecal microbiota composition without any effects on chicken performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Caecal microbiota of chickens fed diets containing propolis

Eyng

Murakami

Pedroso³

et al. 2016

Animal Physiology Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Kačániová et al (2012) reported that feeding of propolis to chickens increased enterococcus and lactobacillus in excreta, propolis residue seems to have the potency to increase the growth of some kinds of bacteria. Boyanova et al (2006) reported that Bulgarian propolis was highly active against the anaerobic bacteria including Prevotellaceae.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Influence of Propolis Residue on the Bacterial Flora in the Cecum of Nanbu Kashiwa

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the growth promoter effect of antibiotics was found, many kinds of antibiotics have been used as feed additives for the improvement of growth performance. Since January 1, 2006, however, European Parliament prohibited the use of antibiotics as feed additives for promoting animal growth because of biosecurity threats arising from the increasing resistance of pathogens to antibiotics. Thereafter, various natural substrates having the growth promoter effect have been attempted to use as feed additives instead of antibiotics. Honeybees collect propolis from the cracks in the bark of trees, and it has the versatile pharmacological activities including antibacterial effect. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the influence of propolis residue, which was the residue after ethanol extraction, on the cecal bacterial flora in the meat-type chicken, Nanbu Kashiwa. Twenty-eight-d-old female Nanbu Kashiwa were given an ordinary diet for 90 days. During last 10 days, an experimental diet including 2% of propolis residue was provided. At the end of experimental period, ceca were removed and DNA was isolated from cecal content. The V3 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene was amplified by PCR using the 357F-GC and 518R primers. To indentify the bacterial diversity, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) was applied, and the optical intensity of DGGE bands was determined. The major bands were excised, and DNA was reamplified by PCR. The sequencing data were analyzed by the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) of DNA Data Bank of Japan. The bacteria identified by PCR-DGGE and BLAST were Lactobacillus aviaries, Lactobacillus, Olsenella, Coriobacterium, Paraprevotella, Prevotellaceae, Clostridiaceae and Bacteroidaceae. The DGGE band of which the optical intensity of the propolis residue group was lower than the control group was the family Prevotellaceae. The successful use of propolis residue to reduce the family Prevotellaceae showed the possibility to use propolis residue as alternative feed additives.

show abstract