Using In Vitro Immunomodulatory Properties of Lactic Acid Bacteria for Selection of Probiotics against Salmonella Infection in Broiler Chicks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poultry is known to be a major reservoir of Salmonella. The use of lactic acid bacteria has become one of successful strategies to control Salmonella in poultry. The purpose of this study was to select lactic acid bacteria strains by their in vitro immunomodulatory properties for potential use as probiotics against Salmonella infection in broiler chicks. Among 101 isolated lactic acid bacteria strains, 13 strains effectively survived under acidic (pH 2.5) and bile salt (ranging from 0.1% to 1.0%) conditions, effectively inhibited growth of 6 pathogens, and adhered to Caco-2 cells. However, their in vitro immunomodulatory activities differed significantly. Finally, three strains with higher in vitro immunomodulatory properties (Lactobacillus plantarum PZ01, Lactobacillus salivarius JM32 and Pediococcus acidilactici JH231) and three strains with lower in vitro immunomodulatory activities (Enterococcus faecium JS11, Lactobacillus salivarius JK22 and Lactobacillus salivarius JM2A1) were compared for their inhibitory effects on Salmonella adhesion and invasion to Caco-2 cells in vitro and their antimicrobial effects in vivo. The former three strains inhibited Salmonella adhesion and invasion to Caco-2 cells in vitro, reduced the number of Salmonella in intestinal content, spleen and liver, reduced the levels of lipopolysaccharide-induced TNF-α factor (LITAF), IL-1β, IL-6 and IL-12 in serum and increased the level of IL-10 in serum during a challenge study in vivo more efficiently than the latter three strains. These results suggest that in vitro immunomodulatory activities could be used as additional parameters to select more effective probiotics as feed supplements for poultry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".