Alireza MAJIDI-MOSLEH, Ali Asghar SADEGHI, Seyed Naser MOUSAVI, Mohammad CHAMANI, Abolfazl ZAREI

Kuluçkadan Çıkış Öncesi ve Sonrası Civcivlerde Probiyotik Suşlarının in ovo Inokulasyonunun Jejunal Goblet Hücre Sayısı ve Morfometrisi Üzerine Etkisi

Bu çalışmanın amacı tcivcivlerde değişik probiyotik suşlarının (Bacillus subtilis, Enterococcus faecium, ve Pediococcus acidilactici) in ovo inokulasyonunun jejenum goblet hücre sayısı ve morfometri üzerine etkilerini araştırmaktır. Probiyotikler beş tekrar olmak üzere dört farklı uygulama olarak (uygulamanın 17. günü) 480 yumurtanın amniyotik sıvısı içine inokule edildi. Inokulasyonun 21. günü ve 3 post-yumurtadan çıkma, jejenum goblet hücre sayıları kontrol grubu ile karşılaştırıldığında Bacillus subtilis inokule edilenlerde sırasıyla %30 ve %16 daha yüksekti. Enterococcus faecium ve Pediococcus acidilactici inokulasyonlarının goblet hücre sayıları üzerine etkisi gözlenmedi (P>0.05). Bacillus subtilis ve Pediococcus acidilactici inokulasyonlarının 8 ve 28. günlerde villus boyunu artırdığı, kript derinliği ile villus boyu: Kript derinliği oranını ise kontrol grubuyla karşılaştırdığında azalttığı (P>0.05) belirlendi. Sonuç olarak, farklı probiyotik suşlarının goblet hücre sayıları ve barsak morfometrisi üzerine etkileri gözlemlendi. Çalışmada denenen probiyotik suşlarından Bacillus subtilis'in erken yaşta goblet hücre sayısı ve jejenum morfometrisi üzerine daha fazla yararlı etkiler sunduğu belirlendi.

Influence of in ovo Inoculation of Probiotic Strains on the Jejunal Goblet Cell Counts and Morphometry in Peri- and Post-hatching Chicks

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effects of in ovo inoculation of different probiotic strains (Bacillus subtilis, Enterococcus faecium, and Pediococcus acidilactici) on jejunal goblet cells counts and morphometry in chicken. Probiotics were inoculated into the amniotic fluid of 480 eggs (day 17 of incubation), with four treatments and five replicates. At days 21 of incubation and 3 post-hatch, counts of goblet cells were 30% and 16% higher in the jejunum of group inoculated Bacillus subtilis as compared with the control group, respectively. Inoculation of Enterococcus faecium, and Pediococcus acidilactici had no effect (P>0.05) on goblet cells counts. Inoculation of Bacillus subtilis and Pediococcus acidilactici resulted in an increase of villus height, a decrease in crypt depth and a decrease in ratio of villus height to crypt depth compared with the control group (P>0.05), at days 8 and 28 of age. As a conclusion, various effects of different probiotic strains on goblet cells count and intestinal morphometry were observed. Among probiotic strains evaluated in this study, Bacillus subtilis has higher benefit effect on goblet cells counts in the early of life and morphometry of jejunum.

PDF

___

1. Sterzo E, Paiva J, Penha-Filho R, Berchieri-Junior A: Time required to protect the intestinal tract of chicks against Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis using competitive exclusion. Braz J Poult Sci, 7, 119-122, 2005. DOI: 10.1590/S1516-635X2005000200009
2. Cukrowska B, Lodinova-Zadnikova R, Enders C, Sonnenborn U, Schulze J, Tlaskalova-Hogenova H: Specific proliferative and antibody responses of premature infants to intestinal colonization with nonpathogenic probiotic E. coli strain Nissle 1917. Scand J Immunol, 55, 204- 209. 2002. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3083.2002.01005.x
3. Schneitz C, Nuotio L, Mead G, Nurmi E: Competitive exclusion in the young bird: Challenge models, administration and reciprocal protection. Int J Food Microbiol, 15, 241-244, 1992. DOI: 10.1016/0168-1605(92)90055-8
4. Hashemzadeh Z, Karimi-Torshizi MA, Rahimi S, Razban V, ZahraeiSalehi T: Prevention of Salmonella colonization in neonatal broiler chicks by using different routes of probiotic administration in hatchery evaluated by culture and PCR techniques. J Agric Sci Tech, 12, 425-432, 2010.
5. Hosseini-Mansoub N, Vahdatpour T, Arjomandi M, Vahdatpour S: Comparison of different methods of probiotic prescription against Salmonella infection in hatchery broiler chicken. Adv Environ Biol, 5, 1857- 1860, 20116. Yamawaki RA, Milbradt EL, Coppola MP, Rodrigues JCZ, Andreatti Filho RL, Padovani CR, Okamoto AS: Effect of immersion and enoculation in ovo of Lactobacillus spp. in embryonated chicken eggs in the prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis after hatch. Poult Sci, 92, 1560- 1563, 2013. DOI: 10.3382/ps.2012-02936
7. Clark JD, Gebhart GF, Gonder JC, Keeling ME, Kohn DF: Special Report: The 1996 Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. ILAR J, 38, 41-48, 1997.
8. Tako E, Ferket PR, Uni Z: Effects of in ovo feeding of carbohydrates and beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate on the development of chicken intestine. Poult Sci, 83, 2023-2028, 2004. DOI: 10.1093/ps/83.12.2023
9. Cobb Broiler Performance & Nutrient Supplement Guide: CobbVantress Inc., Siloam Springs, AR, USA, 2012. http://cobb-vantress.com/ academy/product-guides; Accessed: 2 July 2015.
10. Iji PA, Saki AA, Tivey DR: Intestinal development and body growth of broiler chicks on diets supplemented with non-starch polysaccharides. Anim Feed Sci Technol, 89, 175-188, 2001. DOI: 10.1016/s0377-8401(00)00223-6
11. Horn NL, Donkin SS, Applegate TJ, Adeola O: Intestinal mucin dynamics: Response of broiler chicks and White Pekin ducklings to dietary threonine. Poult Sci, 88, 1906-1914, 2009. DOI: 10.3382/ps.2009-00009
12. de Oliveira JE, van der Hoeven-Hangoor E, van de Linde IB, Montijn RC, van der Vossen JMBM: In ovo inoculation of chicken embryos with probiotic bacteria and its effect on posthatch Salmonella susceptibility. Poult Sci, 93, 818-829, 2014. DOI: 10.3382/ps.2013-03409
13. Sharma R, Schumacher U: Morphometric analysis of intestinal mucins under different dietary conditions and gut flora in rats. Dig Dis Sci, 40, 2532-2539, 1995. DOI: 10.1007/BF02220438
14. Rahimi S, Kathariou S, Grimes JL, Siletzky RM: Effect of direct-fed microbials on performance and Clostridium perfringens colonization of turkey poults. Poult Sci, 90, 2656-2662, 2011. DOI: 10.3382/ps.2011- 01342
15. Santin E, Maiorka A, Macari M, Grecco M, Sanchez J, Okada T, Myasaka A: Performance and intestinal mucosa development of broiler chickens fed diets containing Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell wall. J Appl Poult Res, 10, 236-244, 2001. DOI: 10.1093/japr/10.3.236
16. Sieo CC, Abdullah N, Tan W, Ho Y: Influence of beta-glucanaseproducing Lactobacillus strains on intestinal characteristics and feed passage rate of broiler chickens. Poult Sci, 84, 734-741, 2005. DOI: 10.1093/ ps/84.5.734
17. Chichlowski M, Croom WJ, Edens FW, MacBride BW, Qiu R, Chiang CC, Daniel LR, Havenstein GB, Koci MD: Microarchitecture and spatial relationship between bacteria and ileal, cecal and colonic epithelium in chicks fed a direct-fed microbial, PrimaLac, and salinomycin. Poult Sci, 86, 1121-1132, 2007. DOI: 10.1093/ps/86.6.1121
18. Samli HE, Senkoylu N, Koc F, Kanter M, Agma A: Effects of Enterococcus faecium and dried whey on broiler performance, gut histomorphology and microbiota. Arch Anim Nutr, 61, 42-49, 2007. DOI: 10.1080/17450390601106655