Accès libre

Screening and Characterization of Probiotics Isolated from Traditional Fermented Products of Ethnic-Minorities in Northwest China and Evaluation Replacing Antibiotics Breeding Effect in Broiler

Ze Ye

Ze Ye

Key Laboratory of Microbial Resources Exploitation and Application of Gansu Province, Institute of Biology, Gansu Academy of SciencesLanzhou, China
Profil Orcid
Recherchez cet auteur sur
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Ye, Ze
, 
Bin Ji

Bin Ji

Key Laboratory of Microbial Resources Exploitation and Application of Gansu Province, Institute of Biology, Gansu Academy of SciencesLanzhou, China
Recherchez cet auteur sur
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Ji, Bin
, 
Yinan Peng

Yinan Peng

Key Laboratory of Microbial Resources Exploitation and Application of Gansu Province, Institute of Biology, Gansu Academy of SciencesLanzhou, China
Recherchez cet auteur sur
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Peng, Yinan
, 
Jie Song

Jie Song

Key Laboratory of Microbial Resources Exploitation and Application of Gansu Province, Institute of Biology, Gansu Academy of SciencesLanzhou, China
Recherchez cet auteur sur
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Song, Jie
, 
Tingwei Zhao

Tingwei Zhao

Key Laboratory of Microbial Resources Exploitation and Application of Gansu Province, Institute of Biology, Gansu Academy of SciencesLanzhou, China
Recherchez cet auteur sur
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Zhao, Tingwei
 et 
Zhiye Wang

Zhiye Wang

  • Key Laboratory of Microbial Resources Exploitation and Application of Gansu Province, Institute of Biology, Gansu Academy of SciencesLanzhou, China
  • School of Life Science, Lanzhou University of TechnologyLanzhou, China
Recherchez cet auteur sur
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Wang, Zhiye
  
25 août 2024
Screening and Characterization of Probiotics Isolated from Traditional Fermented Products of Ethnic-Minorities in Northwest China and Evaluation Replacing Antibiotics Breeding Effect in Broiler's Cover Image
À propos de cet article
Article précédent
Article suivant
Citez
Télécharger la couverture
Catégorie d'article: ORIGINAL PAPER
Publié en ligne: 25 août 2024
Pages: 275 - 295
Reçu: 26 févr. 2024
Accepté: 25 mai 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33073/pjm-2024-025
Mots clés
© 2024 Ze Ye et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1.

The antioxidant capacity of strains in vitro. A) Evaluation the scavenging ability of different probiotics on superoxide; B) evaluation the scavenging ability of different probiotics on DPPH; C) evaluation the scavenging capacity of different probiotics on hydroxyl radical; D) evaluation the scavenging capacity of different probiotics on total reduction. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Significance was marked as different letters above the bars (p < 0.05) between the groups.
The antioxidant capacity of strains in vitro. A) Evaluation the scavenging ability of different probiotics on superoxide; B) evaluation the scavenging ability of different probiotics on DPPH; C) evaluation the scavenging capacity of different probiotics on hydroxyl radical; D) evaluation the scavenging capacity of different probiotics on total reduction. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Significance was marked as different letters above the bars (p < 0.05) between the groups.

Fig. 2.

Analysis of antimicrobial ability of the probiotics. A) Evaluation of antagonistic ability of different probiotics against Escherichia coli; B) evaluation of antagonistic ability of different probiotics against Salmonella spp.; C) evaluation of antagonistic ability of different probiotics against Staphylococcus aureus; D) evaluation of antagonistic ability of different probiotics against Enterobacter sakazakii. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Significance was marked as different letters above the bars (p < 0.05) between the groups.
Analysis of antimicrobial ability of the probiotics. A) Evaluation of antagonistic ability of different probiotics against Escherichia coli; B) evaluation of antagonistic ability of different probiotics against Salmonella spp.; C) evaluation of antagonistic ability of different probiotics against Staphylococcus aureus; D) evaluation of antagonistic ability of different probiotics against Enterobacter sakazakii. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Significance was marked as different letters above the bars (p < 0.05) between the groups.

Fig. 3.

Serum immune indexes of broilers in serum. A) Levels of IgA in different groups; B) levels of IgG in different groups; C) levels of IgM in different groups; D) levels of TNF-α in different groups; E) levels of IL-2 in different groups; F) levels of IL-6 in different groups. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). * – p < 0.05, ** – p < 0.01, *** – p < 0.001, ns – non-significance
Serum immune indexes of broilers in serum. A) Levels of IgA in different groups; B) levels of IgG in different groups; C) levels of IgM in different groups; D) levels of TNF-α in different groups; E) levels of IL-2 in different groups; F) levels of IL-6 in different groups. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). * – p < 0.05, ** – p < 0.01, *** – p < 0.001, ns – non-significance

Fig. 4.

Oxidative stress indexes of broilers in serum. A) Levels of SOD in different groups; B) levels of CAT in different groups; C) levels of GSH-Px in different groups; D) levels of T-AOC in different groups; E) levels of MDA in different groups; F) levels of TC in different groups. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). * – p < 0.05, ** – p < 0.01, *** – p < 0.001, ns – non-significance
Oxidative stress indexes of broilers in serum. A) Levels of SOD in different groups; B) levels of CAT in different groups; C) levels of GSH-Px in different groups; D) levels of T-AOC in different groups; E) levels of MDA in different groups; F) levels of TC in different groups. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). * – p < 0.05, ** – p < 0.01, *** – p < 0.001, ns – non-significance

Fig. 5.

Histopathological sections and biochemical indexes of broilers liver. The liver tissue observed under the following conditions: the eyepiece × objective = 10 × 40, and the scale is 100 μm. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). * – p < 0.05, ns – non-significance
Histopathological sections and biochemical indexes of broilers liver. The liver tissue observed under the following conditions: the eyepiece × objective = 10 × 40, and the scale is 100 μm. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). * – p < 0.05, ns – non-significance

Fig. 6.

Histopathological sections and biochemical indexes of broilers kidney. The kidney tissue observed under the following conditions: the eyepiece × objective =10 × 40, and the scale is 100μm. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). * – p < 0.05, ns – non-significance
Histopathological sections and biochemical indexes of broilers kidney. The kidney tissue observed under the following conditions: the eyepiece × objective =10 × 40, and the scale is 100μm. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). * – p < 0.05, ns – non-significance

Fig. 7.

Histopathological sections and biochemical indexes of broilers of the intestinal tissue. The intestinal tissue observed under the following conditions: the eyepiece × objective = 10 × 10, and the scale is 100 μm.
Histopathological sections and biochemical indexes of broilers of the intestinal tissue. The intestinal tissue observed under the following conditions: the eyepiece × objective = 10 × 10, and the scale is 100 μm.

Fig. 8.

Effects of daily use of antibiotics and probiotics on gut microbiota of broilers. A) Shannon index in different groups; B) PCA of overall diversity. C) comparison of phylum relative abundance in different groups; D) comparison of family relative abundance in different groups. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). * – p < 0.05, ** – p < 0.01, *** – p < 0.001, **** – p < 0.0001
Effects of daily use of antibiotics and probiotics on gut microbiota of broilers. A) Shannon index in different groups; B) PCA of overall diversity. C) comparison of phylum relative abundance in different groups; D) comparison of family relative abundance in different groups. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). * – p < 0.05, ** – p < 0.01, *** – p < 0.001, **** – p < 0.0001

Fig. 9.

Family relative abundance in different groups. A) Lactobacillaceae relative abundance in different groups; B) Ruminococcaceae relative abundance in different groups; C) Desulfovibrionaceae relative abundance in different groups; D) Christensenellaceae relative abundance in different groups; E) Alistipes relative abundance in different groups. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). * – p < 0.05, ** – p < 0.01, *** – p < 0.001, **** – p < 0.0001
Family relative abundance in different groups. A) Lactobacillaceae relative abundance in different groups; B) Ruminococcaceae relative abundance in different groups; C) Desulfovibrionaceae relative abundance in different groups; D) Christensenellaceae relative abundance in different groups; E) Alistipes relative abundance in different groups. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). * – p < 0.05, ** – p < 0.01, *** – p < 0.001, **** – p < 0.0001

The susceptibility of candidate lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strains to different antibiotics_

Antibiotics Dose (μg/disc) Susceptibility
BM7-6 DM-10 DM6-2 DM7-6 DM9-7 YF9-4 YM7-6
Erythromycin 15 S R I S I R S
Amikacin 30 S N S N N R R
Ampicillin 10 I I I S S S I
Penicillin 10 S N S S N S N
Chloramphenicol 30 S S S S S I S
Ceftazidime 30 S R R I I S S
Tetracycline 30 S N I S N S R
Ciprofloxacin 5 S N N N N I S
Clindamycin 2 S R R I N S R
Azithromycin 10 S S S S S I S

The growth of probiotics in artificial gastric juice and intestinal juice_

Gastric juice Intestinal juice
0 h (CFU/ml) 3 h (CFU/ml) Survival rate (%) 7 h (CFU/ml) Survival rate (%) 11 h (CFU/ml) Survival rate (%)
BM7-6 3.0 ± 0.5 × 108 7.8 ± 0.8 × 107 26.11 9.6 ± 1.0 × 106 3.2 8.7 ± 0.7 × 106 2.9
DM-10 2.8 ± 0.4 × 108 1.8 ± 0.3 × 107 6.55 < 105 < 1 < 105 < 1
DM6-2 1.7 ± 0.2 × 109 1.4 ± 0.4 × 108 7.92 < 105 < 1 < 105 < 1
DM7-6 3.1 ± 0.4 × 109 2.5 ± 0.6 × 109 79.79 1.5 ± 0.3 × 109 48.39 1.9 ± 0.7 × 109 61.29
DM9-7 5.8 ± 0.9 × 109 3.7 ± 0.8 × 109 63.22 2.5 ± 0.6 × 109 43.10 2.6 ± 0.5 × 109 44.82
YF9-4 7.6 ± 1.0 × 109 5.4 ± 0.7 × 109 71.05 4.2 ± 0.5 × 109 55.26 4.2 ± 1.4 × 109 55.26
YM7-6 2.3 ± 0.5 × 108 8.7 ± 0.8 × 107 37.14 2.7 ± 0.3 × 107 11.74 2.3 ± 0.6 × 107 10.00
Langue:
Anglais
Périodicité:
4 fois par an
Sujets de la revue:
Sciences de la vie, Microbiologie et virologie
RSS Feed de la revue