Next Article in Journal
Characterization of Feeding, Sport Management, and Routine Care of the Chilean Corralero Horse during Rodeo Season
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Adding Various Silage Additives to Whole Corn Crops at Ensiling on Performance, Rumen Fermentation, and Serum Physiological Characteristics of Growing-Finishing Cattle
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 9
Issue 9
10.3390/ani9090696
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Isolation and Identification of Lactic Acid Bacteria Probiotic Culture Candidates for the Treatment of Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis in Neonatal Turkey Poults

by
Margarita A. Arreguin-Nava
1,
Daniel Hernández-Patlán
2,
Bruno Solis-Cruz
2,
Juan D. Latorre
3,
Xochitl Hernandez-Velasco
4,
Guillermo Tellez, Jr.
3,
Saeed El-Ashram
5,6,
Billy M. Hargis
3 and
Guillermo Tellez-Isaias
3,*
1
Eco-Bio LLC, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
2
Laboratorio 5: LEDEFAR, Unidad de Investigación Multidisciplinaria, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Cuautitlán Izcalli Estado de México 54714, Mexico
3
Department of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
4
Departamento de Medicina y Zootecnia de Aves, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, UNAM, Cd. de Mexico 04510, Mexico
5
School of Life Science and Engineering, Foshan University, Foshan 528231, Guangdong, China
6
Faculty of Science, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr el-Sheikh 33516, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2019, 9(9), 696; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090696
Submission received: 2 August 2019 / Revised: 28 August 2019 / Accepted: 16 September 2019 / Published: 17 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Poultry)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Salmonella spp. continues to be one of the most important foodborne bacterial pathogens. S. enterica serotype Enteritidis (SE) that emerged as an important human illness during the 1980s is currently one of the most common non-typhoidal Salmonella serotypes worldwide. Poultry and their products (eggs and meat) are considered as one of the most important source of SE infection in humans. Due to restrictions in the addition of antibiotics in the feed of animals intended for human consumption, alternatives to these antibiotics have been sought. Probiotics have shown to reduce infection in turkey poults. However, studies are lacking to show how these probiotics influence the intestinal microbiome as well as how this microbiome is related to a lower infection by Salmonella. In the present study the effect of a Lactobacillus spp.-based probiotic on SE colonization was evaluated in two separate experiments. In both trials, a significant reduction in the incidence and log10 cfu/g of SE were observed in poults treated with the probiotic when compared with control poults (p ≤ 0.05). Results showed that the application of this probiotic culture could reduce SE cecal colonization in day-of-hatch turkey poults, although further research is needed to elucidate the mechanism of this response.

Abstract

The effect of Lactobacillus spp.-based probiotic candidates on Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (SE) colonization was evaluated in two separate experiments. In each experiment, sixty-one day-of-hatch female turkey poults were obtained from a local hatchery. In both experiments, poults were challenged via oral gavage with 104 cfu/poult of SE and randomly allocated to one of two groups (n = 30 poults): (1) the positive control group and (2) the probiotic treated group. Heated brooder batteries were used for housing each group separately and poults were allowed ad libitum access to water and unmedicated turkey starter feed. 1 h following the SE challenge, poults were treated with 106 cfu/poult of probiotic culture via oral gavage or phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) to control groups. A total of 24 h post-treatment, poults were euthanized and the ceca and cecal tonsils from twenty poults were collected aseptically for SE recovery. In both trials, a significant reduction in the incidence and log10 cfu/g of SE were observed in poults treated with the probiotic when compared with control poults (p ≤ 0.05). The results of the present study suggest that the administration of this lactic acid-producing bacteria (LAB)-based probiotic 1 h after an SE challenge can be useful in reducing the cecal colonization of this pathogen in neonatal poults.

1. Introduction

A previous study reported nontyphoidal Salmonella spp., Clostridium perfringens, Campylobacter spp., and Escherichia coli as some of the most important foodborne bacterial pathogens in the U.S. [1]. Overall, health-related cost associated with the food borne illness from those pathogens was estimated to be around $51.0 and $77.7 billion based on a basic and enhanced model, respectively, as described earlier [1,2]. S. enterica serotype Enteritidis (SE) that emerged as an important human illness during the 1980s is currently one of the most common non-typhoidal Salmonella serotypes worldwide, especially in developed countries [3]. Poultry and their products (eggs and meat) are considered as one of the most important source of SE infection in humans. However, SE has also been isolated from non-poultry sources such as market hog carcasses, steer and heifer carcasses, cow and bull carcasses, and ground beef [4,5,6]. Due to the ban or restrictions on antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs), there are growing challenges for the poultry industry to cope with enteric pathogens such as Salmonella. This has created huge demands for finding alternatives to AGPs and, thus, several possible alternatives such as enzymes, organic acids, probiotics, prebiotics, etheric oils, and immunostimulants have been widely studied [7,8]. Hence, several studies have been conducted with the objective to reduce Salmonella spp. load in poultry and their products using various approaches such as antibodies, bacteriophages, probiotics, prebiotics, vaccines, and integrated farm management [9,10,11,12,13]. Although several approaches have already been studied, there is still a need to find better products that can work effectively with reproducible results. Over the last eighteen years, our laboratory has conducted extensive research to evaluate the antimicrobial capability of several lactic acid-producing bacteria (LAB) isolates from turkey origin, mainly against Salmonella spp. Some of these strains were selected to produce a commercial probiotic called FloraMax®-B11 (Pacific Vet Group, Fayetteville, AR, USA), which has been evaluated to prevent and treat Salmonella spp. infection and intestinal colonization in poultry [14,15,16,17]. Published commercial studies also showed that this probiotic culture reduced idiopathic diarrhea in commercial turkey [18] and increased performance and reduced costs of production [19,20,21,22]. In other studies, the administration of this probiotic 1 h after an SE challenge induced marked and rapid decreases between 12 and 24 h post-challenge [23]. Furthermore, the administration of FloraMax®-B11 after a 1 h post-Salmonella Heidelberg (SH) challenge practically eliminated the cecal colonization of SH [24]. These studies suggest some of the mechanisms that may be involved in the efficacy previously reported in laboratory and field conditions [25]. From the experience obtained during these years of research, in the present study, we evaluated the effect of a new set of strains of LAB, isolated from free-range Hy-Line Brown hens, as a potential candidate probiotic culture to reduce SE infection in neonatal turkey poults.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Salmonella Strain and Culture Conditions

The organism used in all experiments was a poultry isolate of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (SE). Culture conditions followed the methodolgy descibed previously [15,16,17].

2.2. Isolation and Selection of Probiotic Candidates

In the present study, ten 34-week-old free-range Hy-Line Brown hens were euthanized by CO2 inhalation. From each hen, briefly, cecal content was obtained, homogenized, serially diluted with 0.9% sterile saline solution, and plated on de Man Rogosa Sharpe (MRS) agar plates (MRS broth Catalog no. 288110, Becton Dickinson and Co., Sparks, MD, 21152, USA; Agar, Catalogue no. 211822, Becton Dickinson, Sparks, MD, 21152, USA). One single colony was obtained from each of the samples and then all isolates were identified by 16S rRNA sequence analyses (Microbial ID Inc., Newark, DE 19713, USA). Aliquots of 1 mL of each bacterial strain were maintained in 50% glycerol frozen stocks at −80 °C. Selected candidates were routinely cultured at 37 °C under microaerophilic conditions in MRS broth. Each isolate was passed three times, at every 8 h in MRS broth. Then bacteria were washed three times (Sorval RT7, Woburn, MA, USA), resuspended in sterile PBS and adjusted to an optical density (OD600) of 0.8–0.9 (Spectronic 20D+, Thermo Spectronic, Somerville, MA, USA). Each isolate was tested for Gram stain affinity, catalase, and oxidase production [26,27]. Aliquots of the combined culture containing ten selected LAB isolates were grown on MRS and used in the present study. This probiotic was diluted in sterile saline to 4 × 106 cfu/mL for oral gavage and confirmed by spread plating on MRS. The morphological characteristics and identification of LAB lactic acid bacteria probiotic candidates are summarized in Table 1.

2.3. Experimental Design

Two independent experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of the LAB probiotic candidate for treating Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis infection in turkey poults. In each experiment, sixty-one day-of-hatch female turkey poults were obtained from a local hatchery. Poults did not receive any vaccines, antibiotics, probiotics, or treatments at the hatchery. In both experiments, poults were challenged via oral gavage (0.25 mL) with 104 cfu/poult of SE and randomly allocated to one of two groups (n = 30 poults): (1) the positive control group and (2) the probiotic treated group. Heated brooder batteries were used for housing each group separately and poults were permitted ad libitum access to water and unmedicated turkey starter feed, formulated to meet National Research Council-recommended levels of critical nutrients [28]. 1 h after the SE challenge, birds were orally gavaged with (0.25 mL) 106 cfu/poult of LAB probiotic culture or (0.25 mL) PBS to control birds. A total of 24 h post-treatment, all poults were euthanized by CO2 inhalation. Twenty poults were socked in a bleach solution (3/4 cup of bleach to 1 gallon of cool water), and then the skin from the abdominal cavity was removed. With forceps and scissors flamed in an 80% ethanol solution, a 2 cm section was made and then the breast was removed. The ceca and cecal tonsils (CCT) were collected aseptically for SE recovery as described below. Poults used in all experiments were cared for using procedures approved by the University of Arkansas Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocol number 19021. Upon arrival, ten extra day-of-hatch poults were euthanized by CO2 asphyxiation. Ceca-cecal tonsils, liver, yolk sac, and spleen were aseptically cultured in a tetrathionate enrichment broth (Catalog no. 210420, Becton Dickinson, Sparks, MD, USA). Enriched samples were confirmed negative for Salmonella by streak plating the samples on Xylose Lysine Tergitol-4 (XLT-4, Catalog no. 223410, BD Difco™, Sparks, MD, USA) selective media.

2.4. Salmonella Recovery

The CCT collected in both experiments (n = 20 poults/group) were homogenized and diluted with saline (1:4 w/v). CCT homogenate samples were diluted by ten-fold serial dilutions and 100 µL were plated on brilliant green agar (BGA, Catalog no. 70134, Sigma St. Louis, MO, USA) plates containing 25 µg/mL novobiocin (NO, catalog no. N-1628, Sigma St. Louis, MO, USA) and 20 µg/mL of nalidixic acid (NA, catalog no. N-4382, Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA), incubated at 37 °C for 24 h, then enumerated for total Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis cfu. Following plating to enumerate total Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis, the CCT homogenate samples were enriched with tetrathionate enrichment broth, 1× final dilution, and further incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Enrichment samples were streaked onto XLT-4) selective media for confirmation of Salmonella presence. Plates that were negative on the enumeration method but were positive on enrichment were considered as 500 cfu/g as the limit of detection for SE viability.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Log10 cfu/g of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis in cecal contents were subjected to one-way analysis of variance as a completely randomized design, using the General Linear Models procedure of SAS [29]. Significant differences amongst the means were determined by Duncan's multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05. Enrichment data were expressed as positive/total poults (%), and the percent recovery of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis was compared using the chi-squared test of independence, testing all possible combinations to determine the significance (p ≤ 0.05) for these studies [30].

3. Results and Discussion

The poultry industry is the fastest growing animal industry and is expected to grow continuously as demand for meat and eggs is accelerating due to growing populations, increasing incomes, and urbanization [31]. However, salmonellosis remains one of the most comprehensive foodborne diseases that can be transmitted to humans through animal and plant products [32,33,34].
Probiotics have been evaluated as a promising alternative to AGP’s by several scientists. However, the mechanisms of action for improving performance and health remains poorly understood [35,36,37,38]. Several published studies indicate that probiotics can modulate pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines [39,40] and exert anti-oxidant properties [41,42,43,44], as well as enhance intestinal integrity [45], innate immunity [46,47,48], and humoral immunity [44,49,50]
Salmonella Enteritidis infection in chickens has been shown to increase of heterophils-to-lymphocyte ratio [51,52]. Recent studies published by our laboratory have also shown marked heterophilia and lymphopenia in chickens challenged with SE. However, these hematological changes were prevented in chickens that received FloraMax®-B11 1 h after an SE challenge, as well as a reduction in intestinal colonization by SE and reduction in intestinal permeability of Fluorescein isothiocyanate-dextran (FITC-d) [53]. Salmonella infections are associated with disruption of the tight junctions (TJ) and inflammation [54]. Hence, gut integrity is escential to maintain optimal health [55,56,57,58]. Furthermore, SE endotoxins activate aldose reductase and nuclear factor (NF-κB) inducing inflammation [59,60,61,62]. The increase in oxidative stress has been associated with an increase in gut permeability [63,64,65]. Interestingly, microarray analysis with FloraMax®-B11 in broiler chickens challenged with SE showed a significant reduction in intestinal gene expression associated with the NF-κB complex and AR [66]. Hence, our studies suggest that the probiotic preserved intestinal integrity, helping to maintain innate defense mechanisms of the gastrointestinal tract [67,68,69]. These results are in agreement with numerous studies demonstrating that probiotics prevent Salmonella translocation, suppressed the oxidant-induced intestinal permeability, and improve intestinal barrier function [44,70,71,72,73]. In the present study, we evaluated the effects of a LAB probiotic candidate. Table 2 shows the results of the evaluation of the LAB probiotic candidate on CCT colonization of SE in turkey poults at 24 h post challenge. In Experiment 1, the probiotic significantly reduced the incidence of ceca/cecal tonsil SE following treatment, from 80% in control poults to 35% in treated poults (p ≤ 0.05). Administration of the probiotic reduced SE recovered 24 h following treatment by 2.71 log10 cfu/g, as compared with control. A similar trend was observed in Experiment 2, where the probiotic reduced the incidence of SE from 75% in controls to 25% in treated poults; a 3.03 log10 SE reduction in treated poults when compared with the control group. This data suggests that administration of the probiotic 1 h post SE challenge significantly reduced the incidence of Salmonella recovery from CCT of neonatal poults as compared to untreated controls 24 h following treatment.
The results of the present study suggest that the administration of this LAB-based probiotic 1 h after an SE challenge can be useful in reducing the cecal colonization of this pathogen in neonatal poults, although further research is needed to elucidate the mechanism of this response. Because the 16sRNA identification revealed that several of the candidate strains are the same genus and species, further evaluation of the whole genome of the 10 candidate strains is currently under evaluation to elucidate if the strains are homologous.

4. Conclusions

In both trials, a significant reduction in the incidence and log10 cfu/g of SE were observed in poults treated with the probiotic when compared with control poults (p ≤ 0.05). Results showed that the application of this probiotic culture could reduce SE cecal colonization in day-of-hatch turkey poults, although further research is needed to elucidate the mechanism of this response.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.A.-N. and G.T.-I.; formal analysis, J.D.L. and G.T.-I.; investigation, M.A.A.-N. and G.T.J.; methodology, M.A.A.-N., G.T.-I., D.H.-P. and B.S.-C.; software, J.D.L. and G.T.J.; supervision, S.E.-A. and B.M.H.; validation, D.H.-P. and B.S.-C.; visualization, B.M.H.; writing—original draft, S.E.-A. and G.T.-I.; writing—review and editing, X.H.-V., B.M.H. and G.T.-I.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of Interest

M. Arreguin-Nava is employed by Eco-Bio LLC. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Scallan, E.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.V.; Widdowson, M.A.; Roy, S.L.; Jones, J.L.; Griffin, P.M. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States-major pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Scharff, R.L. Economic burden from health losses due to foodborne illness in the United States. J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Patrick, M.E.; Adcock, P.M.; Gomez, T.M.; Altekruse, S.F.; Holland, B.H.; Tauxe, R.V.; Swerdlow, D.L. Salmonella Enteritidis infections, United States, 1985-1999. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. White, P.L.; Naugle, A.L.; Jackson, C.R.; Fedorka-Cray, P.J.; Rose, B.E.; Pritchard, K.M.; Levine, P.; Saini, P.K.; Schroeder, C.M.; Dreyfuss, M.S.; et al. Salmonella Enteritidis in meat, poultry, and pasteurized egg products regulated by the US Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1998 through 2003. J. Food Prot. 2007, 70, 582–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gantois, I.; Ducatelle, R.; Pasmans, F.; Haesebrouck, F.; Gast, R.; Humphrey, T.J.; Van Immerseel, F. Mechanisms of egg contamination by Salmonella Enteritidis. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2009, 33, 718–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Antunes, P.; Mourão, J.; Campos, J.; Peixe, L. Salmonellosis: The role of poultry meat. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2016, 22, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Huyghebaert, G.; Ducatelle, R.; Van Immerseel, F. An update on alternatives to antimicrobial growth promoters for broilers. Vet. J. 2011, 187, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Hernandez-Patlan, D.; Solis-Cruz, B.; Adhikari, B.; Pontin, K.P.; Latorre, J.D.; Baxter, M.F.; Hernandez-Velasco, X.; Merino-Guzman, R.; Méndez-Albores, A.; Kwon, Y.M.; et al. Evaluation of the antimicrobial and intestinal integrity properties of boric acid in broiler chickens infected with Salmonella enteritidis: Proof of concept. Res. Vet. Sci. 2019, 123, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fulton, R.; Nersessian, B.; Reed, W. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fiorentin, L.; Vieira, N.D.; Barioni, W. Oral treatment with bacteriophages reduces the concentration of Salmonella Enteritidis PT4 in caecal contents of broilers. Avian Pathol. 2005, 34, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Donalson, L.M.; McReynolds, J.L.; Kim, W.K.; Chalova, V.I.; Woodward, C.L.; Kubena, L.F.; Nisbet, D.J.; Ricke, S.C. The influence of a fructooligosaccharide prebiotic combined with alfalfa molt diets on the gastrointestinal tract fermentation, Salmonella Enteritidis infection, and intestinal shedding in laying hens. Poult. Sci. 2008, 87, 1253–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Trampel, D.W.; Holder, T.G.; Gast, R.K. Integrated farm management to prevent Salmonella Enteritidis contamination of eggs. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2014, 23, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kilroy, S.; Raspoet, R.; Haesebrouck, F.; Ducatelle, R.; Van Immerseel, F. Prevention of egg contamination by Salmonella Enteritidis after oral vaccination of laying hens with Salmonella Enteritidis Δ tolC and Δ acrABacrEFmdtABC mutants. Vet. Res. 2016, 47, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Farnell, M.; Donoghue, A.; De Los Santos, F.S.; Blore, P.; Hargis, B.; Tellez, G. Upregulation of oxidative burst and degranulation in chicken heterophils stimulated with probiotic bacteria. Poult. Sci. 2006, 85, 1900–1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Higgins, J.; Higgins, S.; Vicente, J.; Wolfenden, A.; Tellez, G.; Hargis, B. Temporal effects of lactic acid bacteria probiotic culture on Salmonella in neonatal broilers. Poult. Sci. 2007, 86, 1662–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Biloni, A.; Quintana, C.; Menconi, A.; Kallapura, G.; Latorre, J.; Pixley, C.; Layton, S.; Dalmagro, M.; Hernandez-Velasco, X.; Wolfenden, A.; et al. Evaluation of effects of EarlyBird associated with FloraMax-B11 on Salmonella Enteritidis, intestinal morphology, and performance of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 2337–2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wolfenden, A.; Pixley, C.; Higgins, J.; Higgins, S.; Vicente, J.; Torres-Rodriguez, A.; Hargis, B.M.; Tellez, G. Evaluation of spray application of a Lactobacillus-based probiotic on Salmonella enteritidis colonization in broiler chickens. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2007, 6, 493–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Higgins, S.; Torres-Rodriguez, A.; Vicente, J.; Sartor, C.; Pixley, C.; Nava, G.; Tellez, G.; Barton, J.T.; Hargis, B.M. Evaluation of intervention strategies for idiopathic diarrhea in commercial turkey brooding houses. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2005, 14, 345–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Torres-Rodriguez, A.; Donoghue, A.; Donoghue, D.; Barton, J.; Tellez, G.; Hargis, B. Performance and condemnation rate analysis of commercial turkey flocks treated with a Lactobacillus spp. based probiotic. Poult. Sci. 2007, 86, 444–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Torres-Rodriguez, A.; Higgins, S.; Vicente, J.; Wolfenden, A.; Gaona-Ramirez, G.; Barton, J.; Tellez, G.; Donoghue, A.; Hargis, B. Effect of lactose as a prebiotic on turkey body weight under commercial conditions. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2007, 16, 635–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vicente, J.; Wolfenden, A.; Torres-Rodriguez, A.; Higgins, S.; Tellez, G.; Hargis, B. Effect of a Lactobacillus species-based probiotic and dietary lactose prebiotic on turkey poult performance with or without Salmonella enteritidis challenge. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2007, 16, 361–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vicente, J.L.; Torres-Rodriguez, A.; Higgins, S.E.; Pixley, C.; Tellez, G.; Donoghue, A.M.; Hargis, B.M. Effect of a selected Lactobacillus spp.-based probiotic on Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis-infected broiler chicks. Avian Dis. 2008, 52, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Higgins, J.; Higgins, S.; Wolfenden, A.; Henderson, S.; Torres-Rodriguez, A.; Vicente, J.; Hargis, B.; Tellez, G. Effect of lactic acid bacteria probiotic culture treatment timing on Salmonella Enteritidis in neonatal broilers. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 243–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Menconi, A.; Wolfenden, A.D.; Shivaramaiah, S.; Terraes, J.C.; Urbano, T.; Kuttel, J.; Kremer, C.; Hargis, B.M.; Tellez, G. Effect of lactic acid bacteria probiotic culture for the treatment of Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg in neonatal broiler chickens and turkey poults. Poult Sci. 2011, 90, 561–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Tellez, G.; Pixley, C.; Wolfenden, R.; Layton, S.; Hargis, B. Probiotics/direct fed microbials for Salmonella control in poultry. Food Res. Int. 2012, 45, 628–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lin, J.; Lee, I.S.; Frey, J.; Slonczewski, J.L.; Foster, J.W. Comparative analysis of extreme acid survival in Salmonella typhimurium, Shigella flexneri, and Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 1995, 177, 4097–4104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lányi, B. 1 Classical and rapid identification methods for medically important bacteria. Methods Microbiol. 1988, 19, 1–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, 9th rev. ed.; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1994; pp. 35–39. [Google Scholar]
  29. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/Share: 9.4 User’s Guide, 2nd ed.; SAS Documentation: Cary, NC, USA, 2002; pp. 44–50. [Google Scholar]
  30. Zar, J.H. Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd ed.; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1984; pp. 55–62. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mottet, A.; Tempio, G. Global poultry production: Current state and future outlook and challenges. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2017, 73, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Schleker, S.; Kshirsagar, M.; Klein-Seetharaman, J. Comparing human-Salmonella with plant-Salmonella protein-protein interaction predictions. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hernández-Reyes, C.; Schikora, A. Salmonella, a cross-kingdom pathogen infecting humans and plants. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2013, 343, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zheng, J.; Allard, S.; Reynolds, S.; Millner, P.; Arce, G.; Blodgett, R.J.; Brown, E.W. Colonization and internalization of Salmonella enterica in tomato plants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 2494–2502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Musso, G.; Gambino, R.; Cassader, M. Obesity, diabetes, and gut microbiota; the hygiene hypothesis expanded? Diabetes Care 2010, 33, 2277–2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Dominguez-Bello, M.G.; Blaser, M.J. Do you have a probiotic in your future? Microbes Infect. 2008, 10, 1072–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Isolauri, E.; Kirjavainen, P.; Salminen, S. Probiotics: A role in the treatment of intestinal infection and inflammation? Gut 2002, 50, iii54–iii59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Salminen, S.; Isolauri, E. Intestinal colonization, microbiota, and probiotics. J. Pediatr. 2006, 149, S115–S120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Borchers, A.T.; Selmi, C.; Meyers, F.J.; Keen, C.L.; Gershwin, M.E. Probiotics and immunity. J. Gastroenterol. 2009, 44, 26–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Lyte, M. Probiotics function mechanistically as delivery vehicles for neuroactive compounds: Microbial endocrinology in the design and use of probiotics. Bioessays 2011, 33, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tao, Y.; Drabik, K.A.; Waypa, T.S.; Musch, M.W.; Alverdy, J.C.; Schneewind, O.; Chang, E.B.; Petrof, E.O. Soluble factors from Lactobacillus GG activate MAPKs and induce cytoprotective heat shock proteins in intestinal epithelial cells. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2006, 290, C1018–C1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zareie, M.; Johnson-Henry, K.; Jury, J.; Yang, P.C.; Ngan, B.Y.; McKay, D.M.; Soderholm, J.D.; Perdue, M.H.; Sherman, P.M. Probiotics prevent bacterial translocation and improve intestinal barrier function in rats following chronic psychological stress. Gut 2006, 55, 1553–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Segawa, S.; Fujiya, M.; Konishi, H.; Ueno, N.; Kobayashi, N.; Shigyo, T.; Kohgo, Y. Probiotic-derived polyphosphate enhances the epithelial barrier function and maintains intestinal homeostasis through integrin-p38 MAPK pathway. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e23278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Howarth, G.S.; Wang, H. Role of endogenous microbiota, probiotics and their biological products in human health. Nutrients 2013, 5, 58–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Yu, Q.; Zhu, L.; Wang, Z.; Li, P.; Yang, Q. Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. lactis R4 prevents Salmonella typhimurium SL1344-induced damage to tight junctions and adherens junctions. J. Microbiol. 2012, 50, 613–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Alvarez-Olmos, M.I.; Oberhelman, R.A. Probiotic agents and infectious diseases: A modern perspective on a traditional therapy. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2001, 32, 1567–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Vanderpool, C.; Yan, F.; Polk, D.B. Mechanisms of probiotic action: Implications for therapeutic applications in inflammatory bowel diseases. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2008, 14, 1585–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Molinaro, F.; Paschetta, E.; Cassader, M.; Gambino, R.; Musso, G. Probiotics, prebiotics, energy balance, and obesity: Mechanistic insights and therapeutic implications. Gastroenterol. Clin. North. Am. 2012, 41, 843–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Arvola, T.; Laiho, K.; Torkkeli, S.; Mykkänen, H.; Salminen, S.; Maunula, L.; Isolauri, E. Prophylactic LactobacillusGG reduces antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children with respiratory infections: A randomized study. Pediatrics 1999, 104, e64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Haghighi, H.R.; Gong, J.; Gyles, C.L.; Hayes, M.A.; Zhou, H.; Sanei, B.; Chambers, J.R.; Sharif, S. Probiotics stimulate production of natural antibodies in chickens. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 2006, 13, 975–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Al-Murrani, W.; Al-Rawi, I.; Raof, N. Genetic resistance to Salmonella Typhimurium in two lines of chickens selected as resistant and sensitive on the basis of heterophil/lymphocyte ratio. Br. Poult. Sci. 2002, 43, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Shini, S.; Kaiser, P.; Shini, A.; Bryden, W.L. Differential alterations in ultrastructural morphology of chicken heterophils and lymphocytes induced by corticosterone and lipopolysaccharide. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2008, 122, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Prado-Rebolledo, O.F.; Delgado-Machuca, J.J.; Macedo-Barragan, R.J.; Garcia-Márquez, L.J.; Morales-Barrera, J.E.; Latorre, J.D.; Hernandez-Velasco, X.; Tellez, G. Evaluation of a selected lactic acid bacteria-based probiotic on Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis colonization and intestinal permeability in broiler chickens. Avian Pathol. 2017, 46, 90–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Köhler, H.; Sakaguchi, T.; Hurley, B.P.; Kase, B.J.; Reinecker, H.C.; McCormick, B.A. Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium regulates intercellular junction proteins and facilitates transepithelial neutrophil and bacterial passage. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2007, 293, G178–G187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Groschwitz, K.R.; Hogan, S.P. Intestinal barrier function: Molecular regulation and disease pathogenesis. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2009, 124, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Sharma, R.; Young, C.; Neu, J. Molecular modulation of intestinal epithelial barrier: Contribution of microbiota. Biomed. Res. Int. 2010, 2010, 305879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Jeon, M.K.; Klaus, C.; Kaemmerer, E.; Gassler, N. Intestinal barrier: Molecular pathways and modifiers. World, J. Gastrointest. Pathophysiol. 2013, 4, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Pastorelli, L.; De Salvo, C.; Mercado, J.R.; Vecchi, M.; Pizarro, T.T. Central role of the gut epithelial barrier in the pathogenesis of chronic intestinal inflammation: Lessons learned from animal models and human genetics. Front. Immunol. 2013, 4, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ramana, K.V.; Srivastava, S.K. Mediation of aldose reductase in lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammatory signals in mouse peritoneal macrophages. Cytokine 2006, 36, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Ramana, K.V.; Srivastava, S.K. Aldose reductase: A novel therapeutic target for inflammatory pathologies. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2010, 42, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Ozinsky, A.; Underhill, D.M.; Fontenot, J.D.; Hajjar, A.M.; Smith, K.D.; Wilson, C.B.; Schroeder, L.; Aderem, A. The repertoire for pattern recognition of pathogens by the innate immune system is defined by cooperation between toll-like receptors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2000, 97, 13766–13771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Overman, E.L.; Rivier, J.E.; Moeser, A.J. CRF induces intestinal epithelial barrier injury via the release of mast cell proteases and TNF-α. PloS One 2012, 7, e39935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Srivastava, S.K.; Yadav, U.C.; Reddy, A.B.; Saxena, A.; Tammali, R.; Shoeb, M.; Ansari, N.H.; Bhatnagar, A.; Petrash, M.J.; Srivastava, S.; et al. Aldose reductase inhibition suppresses oxidative stress-induced inflammatory disorders. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2011, 191, 330–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Yadav, U.C.; Kalariya, N.M.; Ramana, K.V. Emerging role of antioxidants in the protection of uveitis complications. Curr. Med. Chem. 2011, 18, 931–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Pastel, E.; Pointud, J.C.; Volat, F.; Martinez, A.; Lefrançois-Martinez, A.M. Aldo-Keto reductases 1B in endocrinology and metabolism. Front. Pharmacol. 2012, 3, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Higgins, S.; Wolfenden, A.; Tellez, G.; Hargis, B.; Porter, T. Transcriptional profiling of cecal gene expression in probiotic-and Salmonella-challenged neonatal chicks. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 901–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Sakamoto, K.; Hirose, H.; Onizuka, A.; Hayashi, M.; Futamura, N.; Kawamura, Y.; Ezaki, T. Quantitative study of changes in intestinal morphology and mucus gel on total parenteral nutrition in rats. J. Surg. Res. 2000, 94, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Johansson, M.E.; Gustafsson, J.K.; Sjöberg, K.E.; Petersson, J.; Holm, L.; Sjövall, H.; Hansson, G.C. Bacteria penetrate the inner mucus layer before inflammation in the dextran sulfate colitis model. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e12238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Kim, Y.S.; Ho, S.B. Intestinal goblet cells and mucins in health and disease: Recent insights and progress. Curr. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2010, 12, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Madsen, K.; Cornish, A.; Soper, P.; McKaigney, C.; Jijon, H.; Yachimec, C.; Doyle, J.; Jewell, L.; De Simone, C. Probiotic bacteria enhance murine and human intestinal epithelial barrier function. Gastroenterology 2001, 121, 580–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. Ewaschuk, J.; Endersby, R.; Thiel, D.; Diaz, H.; Backer, J.; Ma, M.; Churchill, T.; Madsen, K. Probiotic bacteria prevent hepatic damage and maintain colonic barrier function in a mouse model of sepsis. Hepatology 2007, 46, 841–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Mennigen, R.; Bruewer, M. Effect of probiotics on intestinal barrier function. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2009, 1165, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hsieh, C.Y.; Osaka, T.; Moriyama, E.; Date, Y.; Kikuchi, J.; Tsuneda, S. Strengthening of the intestinal epithelial tight junction by Bifidobacterium bifidum. Physiol. Rep. 2015, 3, e12327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Morphological characteristics and identification of lactic acid bacteria probiotic candidates 1
Table 1. Morphological characteristics and identification of lactic acid bacteria probiotic candidates 1
16s RNA Sequencing Microbial Identification.Isolated RegionGram StrainMorphologyCatalaseOxidase
Lactobacillus johnsoniiCeca+Rods−−
Weissella confusaCeca+Irregular rods−−
Lactobacillu salivariusCeca+Rods−−
Weissella confusaCeca+Irregular rods−−
Enterococcus faeciumCeca+Cocci (clusters)−−
Weissella confusaCeca+Irregular rods−−
Lactobacillus johnsoniiCeca+Rods−−
Lactobacillus johnsoniiCeca+Rods−−
Lactobacillus johnsoniiCeca+Rods−−
Lactobacillus salivariusCeca+Rods−−
1 Symbols: (+), positive; (−), negative.
Table
Table 2. Evaluation of the lactic acid bacteria probiotic candidate on ceca-cecal tonsils (CCT) colonization of Salmonella Enteritidis in turkey poults at 24 h post challenge.
Table 2. Evaluation of the lactic acid bacteria probiotic candidate on ceca-cecal tonsils (CCT) colonization of Salmonella Enteritidis in turkey poults at 24 h post challenge.
TreatmentsLog10 cfu/g CCT 1CCT incidence (%) 2
Experiment 1
Positive Salmonella Enteritidis control (PBS)6.16 ± 0.38 a16/20 (80%)
Salmonella Enteritidis with Probiotic culture3.45 ± 0.56 b7/20 (35%) *
Experiment 2
Positive Salmonella Enteritidis control (PBS)5.17 ± 0.24 a15/20 (75%)
Salmonella Enteritidis with Probiotic culture2.15 ± 0.90 b5/20 (25%) *
Turkey poults were orally gavaged with 104 cfu of Salmonella Enteritidis at 1 d old. 1 h later, they were orally gavaged with the probiotic candidate at 106 cfu. Samples were collected 24 h later. 1 Data expressed in Log10 cfu /g of tissue. Mean ± SE. a-b Values within treatment columns for each treatment with different superscripts differ significantly (p < 0.05). 2 Data expressed as positive poults to SE/total poults culture (%). * Indicates significantly different (p ≤ 0.05).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arreguin-Nava, M.A.; Hernández-Patlán, D.; Solis-Cruz, B.; Latorre, J.D.; Hernandez-Velasco, X.; Tellez, G., Jr.; El-Ashram, S.; Hargis, B.M.; Tellez-Isaias, G. Isolation and Identification of Lactic Acid Bacteria Probiotic Culture Candidates for the Treatment of Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis in Neonatal Turkey Poults. Animals 2019, 9, 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090696

AMA Style

Arreguin-Nava MA, Hernández-Patlán D, Solis-Cruz B, Latorre JD, Hernandez-Velasco X, Tellez G Jr., El-Ashram S, Hargis BM, Tellez-Isaias G. Isolation and Identification of Lactic Acid Bacteria Probiotic Culture Candidates for the Treatment of Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis in Neonatal Turkey Poults. Animals. 2019; 9(9):696. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090696

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arreguin-Nava, Margarita A., Daniel Hernández-Patlán, Bruno Solis-Cruz, Juan D. Latorre, Xochitl Hernandez-Velasco, Guillermo Tellez, Jr., Saeed El-Ashram, Billy M. Hargis, and Guillermo Tellez-Isaias. 2019. "Isolation and Identification of Lactic Acid Bacteria Probiotic Culture Candidates for the Treatment of Salmonella enterica Serovar Enteritidis in Neonatal Turkey Poults" Animals 9, no. 9: 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090696

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop