medigraphic.com

2010, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Vet Mex 2010; 41 (1)

Enhancement of competitive exclusion by a defined probiotic on Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis colonization during rearing of Leghorn chicks

Juárez EMA, Molina HJA, González SL

Language: English/Spanish
References: 47
Page: 25-43
PDF size: 349.50 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Competitive exclusion degree from a defined (DP) and undefined probiotic (UDP) administered to one-day Leghorn chicks and challenged with 1 x 108 CFU of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis fagotype 13A (SE) was evaluated. Birds with DP at 20 day old showed 21.7% of SE positive isolates in liver-spleen (LS), less than 51.7% recorded from birds without any probiotic. In a second study, birds that received DP living together with a group inoculated with SE at third day old, showed 7.5% infection in LS at 13 day of age and 12.5% at 15 day. Whereas, SE inoculated group had 75% and 57.5% of SE isolates, respectively. A third group, living with the last two, without DP or SE showed 27.5% of SE in LS at 13 day, and only 10% at 15 day of age. DP group at 13 day of age, showed a decrease of 75% of SE colonization at cecal tonsils (CT), instead, SE inoculated group was 100% colonized; at 15 day of age, DP decreased 51.4% of SE colonization in CT, while control group showed a decrease of 42.5%, and 68.6% of SE in CT at 13 and 15 days, respectively. In a third study, a DP booster group was dosed three times, at 14 days of age, it had only 4.5% of SE isolates from LS. Birds without DP showed 34.6% of SE isolates, and the group inoculated with only one dose had 17.2% of SE positive birds. DP booster group showed 22.7% of SE in CT, the group with one dose had 62% of SE isolates; birds without DP decreased only 3.9% of SE colonization. DP showed greater margin of protection, decreased horizontal transmission of SE PT13A in LS and CT, and it has good transmission potential. DP booster treatment was better than only one dose. DP is a good alternative for SE prevention and eradication in commercial poultry.


REFERENCES

  1. MAHÉ A, BOUGEARD S, HUNEAU-SALAÜN A, LE BOUQUIN S, PETETIN I, ROUXEL S. Bayesian estimation of flock-level sensitivity of detection of Salmonella spp., Enteritidis and Typhimurium according to the sampling procedure in French laying-hen houses. Prev Vet Med 2008;84:11-26.

  2. GUARD-PETTER J. The chicken, the egg and Salmonella enteritidis. Environ Microbiol 2001;3:421-430.

  3. URQUIZA BO. Situación actual de la Salmonelosis Aviar. Memorias de las IX Jornadas Médico Avícolas;2003 febrero 19-21; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. México (DF): División de Educación Continua y Departamento de Producción Animal: Aves. Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia. 2003:112-119.

  4. SECRETARÍA DE AGRICULTURA Y RECURSOS HIDRÁULICOS. Norma Oficial Mexicana. NOM -005-ZOO-1993: Campaña nacional contra Salmonelosis Aviar. México (D.F.): SARH, 1994.

  5. RABSCH W, HARGIS BM, TSOLIS RM, KINGSLEY RA, HINZ KH, TSCHÄPE, BÄUMLER AJ. Competitive exclusion of Salmonella enteritidis by Salmonella gallinarum in poultry. Emerg Infect Dis 2000;6:443-448.

  6. HALD T, VOSE D, WEGENER HC, KOUPEEV T. A Bayesian approach to quantify the contribution of animal-food sources to human salmonellosis. Risk Anal 2004;24:255-269.

  7. GUTIÉRREZ-GOGCO L, MONTIEL-VÁZQUEZ E, AGUILERA-PÉREZ P, GONZÁLEZ-ANDRADE M. Serotipos de Salmonella identificados en los servicios de salud en México. Sal Púb Méx 2000;42:95.

  8. SECRETARÍA DE SALUD. DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE EPIDEMIOLOGÍA. Enfermedades Infecciosas y Parasitarias del Aparato Digestivo. Serie en Línea: 2008 semana 12. Consultado día 27 de octubre de 2009. México. Disponible en URL: hhtp://www.dgepi.salud.gob.mx/boletín/2008/sem21/pdf/cua4.pdf

  9. REVOLLEDO L, FERREIRA AJP, MEAD GC. Prospects in Salmonella control: Competitive exclusion, probiotics, and enhancement of avian intestinal immunity. J Appl Poult Res 2006;15:341-351.

  10. JOHANNSEN SA, GRIFFITH RW, WESLEY IV, SCANES CG. Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium colonization of the crop in the domestic turkey: Influence of probiotic and prebiotic treatment (Lactobacillus acidophilus and lactose). Avian Dis 2004;48:279-286.

  11. FULTON RM, NERSESSIAN BN, REED WM. Prevention of Salmonella enteritidis infection in commercial ducklings by oral chicken egg-derived antibody alone or in combination with probiotics. Poult Sci 2002;81:34-40.

  12. LAN PTN, BINH LT, BENNO Y. Impact of two probiotic Lactobacillus strains feeding on fecal lactobacilli and weight gains in chicken. J Gen Appl Microbiol 2003;49:29-36.

  13. KOENEN ME, KRAMER J, VAN DER HULST R, HERES L, JEURISSEN SHM, BOERSMA WJA. Immunomodulation by probiotic lactobacilli in layerand meat-type chickens. Br Poult Sci 2004; 45:355-366.

  14. AKBAR MR, HAGHIGHI HR, CHAMBERS JR, BRISBIN J, READ LR, SHARIF S. Expression of antimicrobial peptides in cecal tonsils of chickens treated with probiotics and infected with Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2008; 15:1689-1693.

  15. STERN NJ, COX NA, BAILEY JS, BERRANG ME, MUSGROVE MT. Comparison of mucosal competitive exclusion and competitive exclusion treatment to reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter spp colonization In broiler chickens. Poult Sci 2001; 80:156-160.

  16. EHRMANN MA, KURZAK P, BAUER J, VOGEL RF.Characterization of lactobacilli towards their use as probiotic adjuncts in poultry. J Appl Microbiol 2002;92:966-975.

  17. LA RAGIONE RM, NARBAD A, GASSON MJ, WOODWARD MJ. In vivo characterization of Lactobacillus johnsonii FI9785 for use as a defined competitive exclusion agent against bacterial pathogens in poultry. Lett in Appl Microbiol 2004; 38:197-205.

  18. GIL DE LOS SANTOS JR, STORCH OB, GIL-TURNES C. Bacillus cereus var. Toyoii and Saccharomyces boulardii increased feed efficiency in broilers infected with Salmonella enteritidis. Br Poult Sci 2005; 46:494-497.

  19. TSAI CC, HSIH HY, CHIU HH, LAI YY, LIUC JH, YU B et al. Antagonistic activity against Salmonella infection in vitro and in vivo for two Lactobacillus strains from swine and poultry. Inter J Food Microbiol 2005; 102:185-194.

  20. FRITTS CA, KERSEY JH, MOTL MA, KROGER EC, YAN E, SI J et al. Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (Calsporin) improves live performance and microbiological status of broiler chicken. J Appl Poult Res 2000; 9:149-155.

  21. REVOLLEDO L, FERREIRA CS, FERREIRA AJ. Prevention of Salmonella typhimurium colonization and organ invasion by combination treatment in broiler chicks. Poult Sci 2009;88:734-743.

  22. VAN COILLIE E, GORIS J, CLEENWERCK I, GRIJSPEERDT K, BOTTELDOORN N, VAN IMMERSEEL F. Identification of lactobacilli isolated from the cloaca and vagina of laying hens and characterization for potential use as probiotics to control Salmonella enteritidis. J Appl Microbiol 2007;102:1095-1106.

  23. LIN WH, YU B, JANG SH, TSEN HY. Different probiotic properties for Lactobacillus fermentum strains isolated from swine and poultry. Anaerobe 2007; 13:107-113.

  24. SNOEYENBOS GH, WEINACK OM, SMYSER FC. Protecting chicks and poults from Salmonellae by oral administration of “normal” gut microflora. Avian Dis 1977;22:273-287.

  25. BARNES EM, IMPERY CS, COOPER MD. Manipulation of the crop and intestinal flora of the newly hatched chick. Clin Nutr 1980;33:2426-2433.

  26. LAN PTN, SAKAMOTO M, BENNO Y. Effects of two probiotic Lactobacillus strains on jejunal and cecal microbiota of broiler chicken under acute heat stress condition as revealed by molecular analysis of 16S rRNA genes. Microbiol Immunol 2004;48:917-929.

  27. SELIM ASM. Molecular techniques for analyzing chicken microbiota. Biotechnology 2006;5:53-57.

  28. HAGHIGHI HR, GONG J, GYLES CL, HAYES MA, ZHOU H, SANEI B et al. Probiotics stimulate production of natural antibodies in chickens. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2006;13:975-980.

  29. NURMI EV, RANTALA M. New aspects of Salmonella infection in broiler production. Nature. 1973;241:210.

  30. PRIYANKARAGE N, SILVA SSP, GUNAWARDANA GA, PALLIYAGURU MWCD, WEERASINGHE WMPB, FERNANDO GKCN et al. Effect of different probiotics against a lethal dose of Salmonella challenge in broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci 2004; Suppl.1 45:S43-S45.

  31. AL-ZENKI SF, AL-NASSER AY, AL-SAFFAR AE, ABDULLAH FK, AL-BAHOUH ME, AL-HADDAD AS et al. Effects of using a chicken-origin competitive exclusion culture and probiotic cultures on reducing Salmonella in broilers. J Appl Poult Res 2009;18:23-29.

  32. REID G. The scientific basis for probiotic strains of Lactobacillus. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999;65:3763-66.

  33. PASCUAL M, HUGAS M, BADIOLA JI, MONFORT JM, GARRIGA M. Lactobacillus salivarius CTC2197 prevents Salmonella enteritidis colonization in chickens. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999;65:4981-4986.

  34. BARNES EM, MEAD GC, BARNUM DA, HARRY EG. The intestinal flora of the chicken in the period 2-6 weeks of age whith particular reference to the anaerobic bacteria. Poult Sci 1972;13:311-326.

  35. ZIPRIN RL, CORRIER DE, DELOACH JR. Control of established Salmonella typhimurium intestinal colonization with in vivo-passaged anaerobes. Avian Dis 1993;37:183-188.

  36. CORRIER DE, NISBET DJ, SCALAN CM, HOLLISTER A, DELOACH JR. Control of Salmonella typhimurium colonization in broiler chicks with a continuous fowl characterized mixed culture of cecal bacteria. Poult Sci 1995;74:916-924.

  37. DUCHET-SUCHAUX M, MOMPART F, BERTHELOT F, BEAUMONT C, LÉCHOPIER P, PARDON P. Differences in frequency, level, and duration of cecal carriage between four outbred chicken lines infected orally with Salmonella enteritidis. Avian Dis 1997;41:559-567.

  38. SCHNEITZ C, KIISKINEN T, TOIVONEN V, NÄSI M. Effect of Broilact® on the physicochemical conditions and nutrient digestibility in the gastrointestinal tract of broilers. Poult Sci 1998;77:426-432.

  39. NAKAMURA A, OTA Y, MIZUKAMI A, ITO T, NGWAI B, ADACHI Y. Evaluation of Aviguard, a commercial competitive exclusion product for efficacy and aftereffect on the antibody response of chicks to Salmonella. Poult Sci 2002; 81:1653-1660.

  40. NAVA MG. Efecto de un producto de exclusión competitiva comercial (Preempttm) sobre la mortalidad y transmisión horizontal de Salmonella gallinarum en pollo de engorda (tesis de licenciatura). México DF: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2000.

  41. ANDREWS EJ, BENNET BT, DERRELL CJ, HOUPT KA, PASCOE PJ, ROBINSON GW et al. 1993 Report of the American Veterinary Medicine Association panel oneuthanasia. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1993; 202:229-249.

  42. MONTGOMERY DC. Design and analysis of experiments. Belmont, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1991: 45-81.

  43. ORENCIA MB, VIZMANOS MFC, PADILLA MA. Efficacy of two preparations for controlling cecal colonization of Salmonella by competitive exclusion in broiler chicks. Philipp J Vet Med 2001; 38:75-78.

  44. SNOEYENBOS GH, WEINACK MO, SMYSER FC. Further studies on comparative exclusion for controlling Salmonellae in chicks. Avian Dis 1979; 23:904-914.

  45. SCHNEITZ C, HAKKINEN M. Comparison of two different types of competitive exclusion products. Lett Appl Microbiol 1998: 26:338-341.

  46. SNOEYENBOS GH, SOERJADI SA, WEINAK OM. Gastrointestinal colonization by Salmonella and phatogenic Escherichia coli in monoxenic and aloxenic chicks and poults. Avian Dis 1982; 26:266-275.

  47. TELLEZ G, PETRONE VM, ESCORCIA M, MORISHITA TY, COBB CW, VILLASEÑOR L. Evaluation of avianspecific probiotic and Salmonella enteritidis-, Salmonella typhimurium-, and Salmonella heidelberg-specific antibodies on cecal colonization and organ invasion of Salmonella enteritidis in Broilers. J Food Protect 2001;64:287-291. STARVRIC S. Microbial colonization control of chicken intestine using defined cultures. Food Tech 1987; 41:93-98




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com