Effect of Dietary Fructooligosaccharide (FOS) Supplementation on Ileal Microbiota in Broiler Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dietary effect of fructooligosaccharide (FOS) supplementation as an alternative to antibiotics on ileal mucosa and digesta microbiota was investigated in broiler chickens (n = 180). The study included three dietary treatments from d1 to 21: 1) positive control (PC), a wheat-corn-soybean meal based diet containing antibiotics (virginiamycin and monensin); 2) negative control (NC), as wheat-corn-soybean meal based diet without antibiotics; and 3) NC + FOS, as NC diet supplemented 0.5% of FOS. Ileal mucosa and digesta were collected and subjected to 16S rRNA-based next generation sequencing. No significant difference on α-, ß-diversity and bacterial phyla was observed between ileal mucosa and digesta or between the three dietary treatments. Partial least square discriminant analysis and Venn analysis showed that different bacterial genera were associated with different ileal sites or diets. A distinct distance on ileal mucosa bacteria communities were observed between PC and NC + FOS dietary treatments. FOS supplementation increased the number of unique genera and resulted in a more diverse microbiota in the ileal mucosa when compared with PC and NC groups. Furthermore, microorganisms that have pathogenic properties such as Helicobacter and Desulfovibrio were found significantly reduced when compared between NC and NC + FOS groups in the ileal mucosa. Lachnospiraceae (f) was greater in the ileal mucosa than that in the digesta, particularly among the NC + FOS dietary group. Overall, supplementing FOS in broiler chicken diets may be able to modulate gut microbiota in favor of chicken health, which in turn, can be used as an alternative method to replace antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs). Future investigation on the mechanism of FOS and other prebiotic products as dietary supplements is warranted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".