Effects of dietary supplementation with lysozyme on the structure and function of the cecal microbiota in broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lysozyme is known to eliminate intestinal pathogens in poultry and improve their growth performance. However, whether it can replace antibiotic growth promoters without the associated risk of the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains is not known, and the effects of lysozyme supplementation on the composition, biodiversity, and function of the chicken gut microbiota remain unclear. Here, we used the 16S rRNA gene and ITS fragment Illumina sequencing combined with transcriptomic analysis to address this issue. A total of 400 1-d-old Di Gao chicks were allocated randomly to five groups, each consisting of four replicates (20 birds/group). The chicks were fed a starter (1-21 d) and a grower (22-42 d) diet supplemented with 0 (control), 40 (LYS40), 100 (LYS100), or 200 ppm (LYS200) lysozyme, or 400 ppm flavomycin as an antibiotic control for 6 weeks. Lysozyme administration did not contribute significantly (P > 0.05) to the growth of the broiler chickens. No significant (P > 0.05) differences in the diversity and composition of the bacterial and fungal communities in the cecal microbiota of chickens in the different diet groups were found. However, lysozyme supplementation led to a significant (P < 0.05) enrichment of genes involved in the synthesis/degradation of bacterial outer membranes and cell walls, cross-cell substrate transport, and carbohydrate metabolic processes, thus possibly promoting the cecal microbiota carbon and energy metabolism. Bacteroides contributed 31.9% of glycoside hydrolase genes (17,681-24,590), 26.1% of polysaccharide lyase genes (479-675), 20.7% of carbohydrate esterase genes (3,509-4,101), 8.8% of auxiliary activity genes (705-1,000), 16.2% of glycosyltransferase genes (5,301-6,844), and 13.9% of carbohydrate-binding module genes (8838-15,172) identified in the cecal samples. Thus, they were the main players in the breakdown of non-starch polysaccharides in the cecum, although Parabacteroides, Alistipes, Prevotella, Clostridium, Blastocystis, Barnesiella, Blautia, Faecalibacterium, Subdoligranulum, Megamonas, Eubacterium, Ruminococcus, Paenibacillus, Bifidobacterium, Akkermansia, and other bacteria also participated.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".