Chicken cecal microbial functional capacity and resistome differ by age and barn disinfection practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chemical disinfectants and water-wash methods are widely employed in sanitizing broiler chicken barns. Previous studies showed that chemical disinfectants affect environmental microbial composition and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). However, little is known regarding how barn disinfection treatments impact the chicken gut resistome and microbial functionality. The current study compared the effects of chemical disinfection and water-wash method on the gut microbiome and resistome of commercial broilers using a crossover experimental design after 2 production cycles at 7 barns. Shotgun metagenomic sequencing performed on cecal contents collected at day 7 and 30 also allowed evaluation of age-associated characteristics of microbiome. Age of the chickens had the largest effects on the resistome, with younger birds having increased relative abundance of total ARGs (P<0.05) and differences in resistance mechanism, however, functional and resistome differences were also identified by barn sanitation practice. At day 7, chickens in chemically-disinfected barns had decreased functional capacity related to amino acid synthesis compared to the water-wash group. Additionally, genes related to stringent response were enriched in chickens raised under chemically-disinfected condition (FDR-P<0.05), suggesting selection for stress resistance. Consistently, lower abundance of genetic pathways encoding amino acid biosynthesis associated with cecal Helicobacter pullorum was observed in the disinfection group at day 30 compared to the water-wash group, with the same pattern in short-chain fatty acid biosynthesis (FDR-P<0.05). Overall, while the use of disinfectants in barn sanitation slightly affected the relative abundance of some ARGs in the gut, age had a dominant effect on the microbial functionality and resistome. Importance This is the first study to evaluate the effect of sanitation practices on microbial functional capacity and resistome of chickens in a commercial setting. It is also amongst the biggest metagenomics studies on the gut microbiome of broiler chickens. It provides new insights into the changes in resistance profiles with age that agree with other studies examining maturation of the microbiome in other species. Finally, the current study provides valuable insights for informing industry sanitation practices and future studies on broiler gut microbiome and resistome.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".