Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:19:19.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Faecal parameters as biomarkers of the equine hindgut microbial ecosystem under dietary change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2017

P. Grimm ,
C. Philippeau  and
V. Julliand
P. Grimm*
Affiliation:
UMR PAM A 02.102 Université Bourgogne-Franche-Comté/AgroSup Dijon, 26 Boulevard Docteur Petitjean, F-21079 Dijon, France
C. Philippeau
Affiliation:
AgroSup Dijon, 26 Boulevard Docteur Petitjean, F-21079 Dijon, France
V. Julliand
Affiliation:
UMR PAM A 02.102 Université Bourgogne-Franche-Comté/AgroSup Dijon, 26 Boulevard Docteur Petitjean, F-21079 Dijon, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Faeces could be used for evaluating the balance of the equine hindgut microbial ecosystem, which would offer a practical method for assessing gut health and how this relates to disease. However, previous studies concluded that faeces microbial ecosystem was not representative of the proximal hindgut (caecum and ventral colon). This study aimed to evaluate if variations of the faecal microbial ecosystem were similar to those observed in the proximal hindgut. Six horses, fistulated in the caecum and right ventral (RV) colon, were subjected to a gradual change of diet, from a 100% hay (high fibre) diet (2.2 DM kg/day per 100 kg BW) to a 57% hay+43% barley (high starch) diet (0.8 DM kg/day per 100 kg BW hay and 0.6 DM kg/day per 100 kg BW barley). The two diets were iso-energetic and fed over a 3-week trial period. Samples of digesta from the caecum, RV colon and faeces were collected two times on the 10th and 20th day of the trial, for each diet to assess the microbial ecosystem parameters by both classical culture technics and biochemical methods. The variations observed in the caecal and colonic bacterial composition (increase in total anaerobic, amylolytic and lactate-utilizing and decrease in cellulolytic bacteria concentrations) and microbial activity (changes in volatile fatty acids concentrations and increase in lactate concentrations) demonstrated that the hay+barley diet caused changes in the hindgut microbial ecosystem. Similar variations were observed in the faecal microbial ecosystem. Feeding the hay+barley diet resulted in higher concentrations of faecal lipopolysaccharides. The functional bacterial group concentrations (cellulolytics, amylolytics and lactate utilizers) were significantly correlated between caecum and faeces and between colon and faeces. From analyses of the metabolites produced from microbial activity, only valerate concentration in the caecum and the proportion of propionate were significantly correlated with the same parameters in the faeces. Results of the principal component analysis performed between all the caecal/faecal and colonic/faecal parameters revealed that the total anaerobic and cellulolytic bacteria concentrations, as well as valerate, l-lactate and lipopolysaccharide concentrations were strongly correlated with several microbial parameters in the caecum (P<0.027; r>|0.45|) and in the colon (P<0.013; r>|0.50|). This demonstrated that faecal samples and their bacterial analyses could be used to represent caecum and RV colon hindgut microbial ecosystem in terms of variations during a change from a high-fibre to a high-starch diet, and thus could be markers of particular interest to diagnostic proximal hindgut microbial disturbances.

Keywords

horsehindgutfaecesmicrobiotalipopolysaccharides
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 7 , July 2017 , pp. 1136 - 1145
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Argenzio, R, Southworth, M, Lowe, J and Stevens, C 1977. Interrelationship of Na, HCO3, and volatile fatty acid transport by equine large intestine. American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology 233, G469–G478.Google ScholarPubMed
Biddle, AS, Black, SJ and Blanchard, JL 2013. An in vitro model of the horse gut microbiome enables identification of lactate-utilizing bacteria that differentially respond to starch induction. PLoS One 8, e77599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackmore, TM, Dugdale, A, Argo, CM, Curtis, G, Pinloche, E, Harris, PA, Worgan, HJ, Girdwood, SE, Dougal, K and Newbold, CJ 2013. Strong stability and host specific bacterial community in faeces of ponies. PLoS One 8, e75079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bramley, E, Lean, I, Fulkerson, W, Stevenson, M, Rabiee, A and Costa, N 2008. The definition of acidosis in dairy herds predominantly fed on pasture and concentrates. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 308–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, K and Owens, N 1983. A simple and versatile micro-computer program for the determination of ‘most probable number’. Journal of Microbiological Methods 1, 133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, M, Silva, G, Ramos, R, Staempfli, H, Arroyo, L, Kim, P and Weese, J 2015. Characterization and comparison of the bacterial microbiota in different gastrointestinal tract compartments in horses. The Veterinary Journal 205, 74–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Da Veiga, L, Chaucheyras-Durand, F and Julliand, V 2005. Comparative study of colon and faeces microbial communities and activities in horses fed a high starch diet. Pferdeheilkunde 21, 45–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Fombelle, A, Varloud, M, Goachet, A-G, Jacotot, E, Philippeau, C, Drogoul, C and Julliand, V 2003. Characterisation of the microbial and biochemical profile of the different segments of the digestive tract in horses fed two distinct diets. Animal Science 77, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougal, K, de la Fuente, G, Harris, PA, Girdwood, SE, Pinloche, E and Newbold, CJ 2013. Identification of a core bacterial community within the large intestine of the horse. PLoS One 8, e77660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dougal, K, Harris, PA, Edwards, A, Pachebat, JA, Blackmore, TM, Worgan, HJ and Newbold, CJ 2012. A comparison of the microbiome and the metabolome of different regions of the equine hindgut. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 82, 642–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faubladier, C, Chaucheyras-Durand, F, da Veiga, L and Julliand, V 2013. Effect of transportation on fecal bacterial communities and fermentative activities in horses: impact of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077 supplementation. Journal of Animal Science 91, 1736–1744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimm, P, Pais de Barros, JP and Julliand, V (submitted). Impact of diet on bacterial lipopolysaccharides in equine feces and blood. Livestock Science.Google Scholar
Hastie, PM, Mitchell, K and Murray, J-AMD 2008. Semi-quantitative analysis of Ruminococcus flavefaciens, Fibrobacter succinogenes and Streptococcus bovis in the equine large intestine using real-time polymerase chain reaction. British Journal of Nutrition 100, 561–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hussein, HS, Vogedes, LA, Fernandez, GCJ and Frankeny, RL 2004. Effects of cereal grain supplementation on apparent digestibility of nutrients and concentrations of fermentation end-products in the feces and serum of horses consuming alfalfa cubes. Journal Animal of Science 82, 1986–1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
INRA 1990. Alimentation des chevaux. INRA editions, Versailles.Google Scholar
Jouany, JP 1982. Volatile fatty acid and alcohol determination in digestive contents, silage juices, bacterial cultures and anaerobic fermentor contents. Sciences des Aliments 2, 131–144.Google Scholar
Julliand, V, de Fombelle, A, Drogoul, C and Jacotot, E 2001. Feeding and microbial disorders in horses: 3-Effects of three hay:grain ratios on microbial profile and activities. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 21, 543–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julliand, V, De Fombelle, A and Varloud, M 2006. Starch digestion in horses: the impact of feed processing. Livestock Science 100, 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julliand, V and Goachet, A-G 2005. Fecal microflora as a marker of cecal or colonic microflora in horses? In 19th Equine science society symposium, Arizona, pp. 140–141.Google Scholar
Lê, S, Josse, J and Husson, F 2008. FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lean, I, Golder, H, Black, J, King, R and Rabiee, A 2013. In vivo indices for predicting acidosis risk of grains in cattle: comparison with in vitro methods. Journal of Animal Science 91, 2823–2835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medina, M, Girard, ID, Jacotot, E and Julliand, V 2002. Effect of a preparation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on microbial profiles and fermentation patterns in the large intestine of horses fed a high fiber or a high starch diet. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2600–2609.Google ScholarPubMed
Miyaji, M, Ueda, K, Kobayashi, Y, Hata, H and Kondo, S 2008. Fiber digestion in various segments of the hindgut of horses fed grass hay or silage. Animal Science Journal 79, 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreau, MM, Eades, SC, Reinemeyer, CR, Fugaro, MN and Onishi, JC 2014. Illumina sequencing of the V4 hypervariable region 16S rRNA gene reveals extensive changes in bacterial communities in the cecum following carbohydrate oral infusion and development of early-stage acute laminitis in the horse. Veterinary Microbiology 168, 436–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, J-AM, Longland, A, Moore-Colyer, M and Dunnett, C 2014. The effect of feeding a low-or high-starch diet on equine faecal parameters. Livestock Science 159, 67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NRC 2007. Nutrient requirements of horses: Sixth Revised Edition. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Pais de Barros, J-P, Gautier, T, Sali, W, Adrie, C, Choubley, H, Charron, E, Lalande, C, Le Guern, N, Deckert, V and Monchi, M 2015. Quantitative lipopolysaccharide analysis using HPLC/MS/MS and its combination with the limulus amebocyte lysate assay. Journal of Lipid Research 56, 1363–1369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadet-Bourgeteau, S and Julliand, V 2012. La diversité de l’écosystème microbien du tractus digestif équin. INRA Productions Animales 25, 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadet-Bourgeteau, S, Philippeau, C, Dequiedt, S and Julliand, V 2014. Comparison of the bacterial community structure within the equine hindgut and faeces using Automated Ribosomal Intergenic Spacer Analysis (ARISA). Animal 8, 1928–1934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadet-Bourgeteau, S, Philippeau, C, Goachet, AG, Faubladier, C, Villot, C and Julliand, V 2011. Temporal stability of bacterial community structure from equine feces. In Conference on GastroIntestinal Function, Chicago.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Chapoutot, P and Archimède, H 1994. La digestion des amidons par les ruminants et ses conséquences. INRA Productions Animales 7, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoster, A, Arroyo, LG, Staempfli, HR and Weese, JS 2013. Comparison of microbial populations in the small intestine, large intestine and feces of healthy horses using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism. BMC research notes 6, 91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shirazi-Beechey, S 2008. Molecular insights into dietary induced colic in the horse. Equine Veterinary Journal 40, 414–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, C, Flint, H and Bryant, M 1997. The rumen bacteria. In The rumen microbial ecosystem (ed. PN Hobson and CS Stewart), pp. 10–72. Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, M, Hoskin, SO, Rogers, CW and Grinberg, A 2013. Fecal pH and microbial populations in thoroughbred horses during transition from pasture to concentrate feeding. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 33, 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willing, B, Vörös, A, Roos, S, Jones, C, Jansson, A and Lindberg, J 2009. Changes in faecal bacteria associated with concentrate and forage‐only diets fed to horses in training. Equine Veterinary Journal 41, 908–914.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed