MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4408848482 · doi:10.58837/chula.the.2023.1067

Impact of probiotic supplementation in lactating sows on immune and oxidative stress biomarkers, short-chain fatty acids, piglet performance, and fecal microbiome

2023· dissertation· en· W4408848482 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chutikan Srisang

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueGut microbiota and health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFecesWeaningLactationBiologyAnimal scienceProbioticHaptoglobinMalondialdehydeMicrobiomeFatty acidImmunoglobulin AAntibodyPregnancyImmunoglobulin GImmunologyOxidative stressEndocrinologyMicrobiologyBacteria

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This clinical trial aimed to investigate the effects of probiotic supplementation in lactating sows on their serum immunoglobulin levels, milk yield, serum malondialdehyde (MDA), fecal short-chain fatty acid levels, piglet performance, and fecal microbiome. The research was conducted at a commercial swine breeding herd in central Thailand. The study included 109 Canadian Landrace × Yorkshire sows, with parity numbers ranging from 1 to 7. The sows were divided into two groups based on their parity numbers: control (n = 61) and treatment (n = 48). The control group sows received a conventional commercial lactation diet without any antibiotic supplementation, starting from 109.5 ± 1.6 days of gestation and continuing until weaning at 21 days of lactation. In contrast, the treatment group sows were fed a lactational diet supplemented with probiotics (Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens) mixed in the feed during the same period. Additionally, piglets from the treatment group were provided with the same probiotics as a top dressing starting on the third day after birth and continuing until weaning. Blood samples were taken from the sows at the time of farrowing (n = 49) and from the piglets on days 7 (n = 59) and 14 (n = 60) of age. The concentrations of immunoglobulin (Ig), including IgG, IgA, and IgM, were determined using ELISA. Sow serum MDA quantification was performed. Fecal samples from sows were collected at entry, farrowing, and weaning for microbiome analysis. Fecal samples from piglets were collected at 3, 7, and 21 days of age to monitor changes in short-chain fatty acid levels via GC-FID and to analyze the fecal microbiome. Bacterial DNA from fecal samples was extracted using the QIAamp Power Fecal Pro DNA Kit, and 16S rRNA sequencing targeting the V3-V4 regions was performed by Illumina Miseq. Microbiome bioinformatics analyses were conducted using QIIME2 version 2023.9. Sow reproductive characteristics and piglet performance data were compared between the control and treatment groups. The supplementation of probiotics in sow and piglet feed did not show a difference in sow reproductive characteristics and piglet performance (P > 0.05). The sow serum IgM in the treatment group was higher than in the control group (5.19 ± 0.32 vs. 4.10 ± 0.36 mg/mL, P = 0.031), while there were no significant differences found in other sow immunoglobulins (P > 0.05) and serum MDA levels (P > 0.05) between the groups. Conversely, piglet IgM levels on day 7 of life were lower in the treatment group compared to the control group (0.36 ± 0.07 vs. 0.68 ± 0.07 mg/mL, P = 0.002), while on day 14 of life, there was no difference between the groups (P > 0.05). The analysis of alpha diversity in the sow fecal microbiome, the control group shown significantly higher in richness than treatment groups on days 7 and 28 (P < 0.05). Pielou’s evenness index and Shannon index showed no significant differences between sows in the control and treatment groups at any time point (P > 0.05). In the piglets' fecal microbiome, the treatment group shown significantly higher in richness than control group on day 21 of life (P < 0.05). The Shannon diversity also showed significant higher in treatment group than the control group on day 21 (P < 0.05). Evenness index showed no significant differences between piglets in the control and treatment groups at any time point (P > 0.05). Dominant phyla in both sow and piglet in both control and treatment group at every time point were Firmicutes and Bacteroidota. The sow fecal bacterial genera were predominantly composed of Oscillospiraceae UCG-005, followed by Prevotella and Lactobacillus. The dominant bacterial genera in the piglet fecal microbiome were Bacteroides and Lactobacillus. In conclusion, the supplementation of B. subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens in the feed of sows and piglets influenced the response of IgM in both sows and piglets, albeit in different ways. The fecal short-chain fatty acids in piglets on day 7 showed a higher concentration in the treatment group than in the control group, while there was no difference at other time points. However, there were no observable effects on other aspects of sow reproductive health or piglet growth performance.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,003

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,305
Écart entre enseignants0,294 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetGut microbiota and health→Travaux en français237 207→