MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402542087 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.179

515 Effects of <i>Bacillus licheniformis</i> HG76 on barrier function and inflammation in the intestinal epithelia cells and gut health of weaned piglets under enterotoxigenic <i>Escherichia coli</i> F4 infection

2024· article· en· W4402542087 on OpenAlexaff
Haoxiang Xu, Joshua Gong, Hai Yu, Chengbo Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnterotoxigenic Escherichia coliBacillus licheniformisMicrobiologyBarrier functionEscherichia coliInflammationBiologyImmunologyBacteriaEnterotoxinCell biologyBiochemistryBacillus subtilisGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) F4 secretes enterotoxins and invades the small intestine, which damages the gut barrier function and stimulates the immune reactions characterized by inflammation. In the current study, the effects of B. licheniformis HG76 on gut health were evaluated with ETEC F4-induced IPEC-J2 cells and weaned piglets. The B. licheniformis HG76 was isolated from cecal contents of Rhode Island Red laying hens raised without using antibiotics. The results from the in vitro study showed that the ETEC F4 infection significantly induced IPEC-J2 cell death, and this effect was significantly attenuated by B. licheniformis HG76 treatment (P < 0.05). The gene expressions of zona occludens (ZO1) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α were significantly increased during ETEC F4 infection with B. licheniformis HG76 treatment (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the ETEC F4 infection significantly increased the mRNA abundance of toll-like receptors (TLR2, TLR4, and TLR5) (P < 0.05), but the B. licheniformis HG76 treatment alleviated this increase. For the in vivo study, 28 weaned piglets susceptible to ETEC F4 at 28 d of age were individually allotted to four experimental groups: NNC: unchallenged control group; NC: challenged control group; PC: antibiotic group (80 mg·kg-1 of avilamycin); and HG76: Bacillus group (1.0 × 109 CFU kg-1 diet of B. licheniformis HG76). The in vivo results showed during the post-challenge phase, ETEC F4 infection decreased average daily gain (ADG) and increased the severity of diarrhea at 44 h post-inoculum (hpi), respectively, in the NC group compared with the NNC group (P < 0.05). In addition, the infection decreased the villus height (VH) in the duodenum of pigs from the NC, PC and HG76 groups compared with the NNC group. The VH of jejunum and ileum in the pigs from the HG76 group were higher than other groups (P < 0.05). There was an increase (P < 0.05) of crypt depth (CD) in the jejunum and ileum of pigs from the HG76 group compared with those from the NNC group. The pigs in the NNC group had the greatest duodenal VH:CD ratio, but the least ileal VH:CD ratio among all the treatment groups. The Vmax value of sucrase in the HG76 group was greater than the NNC group (P < 0.05). When compared with the NC group, the relative mRNA abundance of interleukin 6 (IL6) was increased in the PC group (P < 0.05). In summary, these results suggest that B. licheniformis HG76 can protect the intestinal cells from ETEC F4 infection by inhibiting inflammation and maintaining barrier integrity, and the supplementation of B. licheniformis HG76 can improve the gut development and increase the digestive enzyme activity of ETEC F4 challenged piglets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicGut microbiota and health→French-language works237,207→