Have a personal or library account? Click to login

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

Polish Journal of Microbiology
Volume 73 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)
By:
Open Access
|Aug 2024

Figures & Tables

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_

AntibioticsDose (μg/disc)Susceptibility
BM7-6DM-10DM6-2DM7-6DM9-7YF9-4YM7-6
Erythromycin15SRISIRS
Amikacin30SNSNNRR
Ampicillin10IIISSSI
Penicillin10SNSSNSN
Chloramphenicol30SSSSSIS
Ceftazidime30SRRIISS
Tetracycline30SNISNSR
Ciprofloxacin5SNNNNIS
Clindamycin2SRRINSR
Azithromycin10SSSSSIS

The growth of probiotics in artificial gastric juice and intestinal juice_

Gastric juiceIntestinal juice
0 h (CFU/ml)3 h (CFU/ml)Survival rate (%)7 h (CFU/ml)Survival rate (%)11 h (CFU/ml)Survival rate (%)
BM7-63.0 ± 0.5 × 1087.8 ± 0.8 × 10726.119.6 ± 1.0 × 1063.28.7 ± 0.7 × 1062.9
DM-102.8 ± 0.4 × 1081.8 ± 0.3 × 1076.55< 105< 1< 105< 1
DM6-21.7 ± 0.2 × 1091.4 ± 0.4 × 1087.92< 105< 1< 105< 1
DM7-63.1 ± 0.4 × 1092.5 ± 0.6 × 10979.791.5 ± 0.3 × 10948.391.9 ± 0.7 × 10961.29
DM9-75.8 ± 0.9 × 1093.7 ± 0.8 × 10963.222.5 ± 0.6 × 10943.102.6 ± 0.5 × 10944.82
YF9-47.6 ± 1.0 × 1095.4 ± 0.7 × 10971.054.2 ± 0.5 × 10955.264.2 ± 1.4 × 10955.26
YM7-62.3 ± 0.5 × 1088.7 ± 0.8 × 10737.142.7 ± 0.3 × 10711.742.3 ± 0.6 × 10710.00
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33073/pjm-2024-025 | Journal eISSN: 2544-4646 | Journal ISSN: 1733-1331
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 275 - 295
Submitted on: Feb 26, 2024
Accepted on: May 25, 2024
Published on: Aug 25, 2024
Published by: Polish Society of Microbiologists
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
antibiotics,
broiler breeding,
probiotics,
antioxidant,
gut microbiota
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Microbiology and virology

© 2024 Ze Ye, Bin Ji, Yinan Peng, Jie Song, Tingwei Zhao, Zhiye Wang, published by Polish Society of Microbiologists
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 73 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)Next article