Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:29:41.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dietary addition of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG impairs the health of Escherichia coli F4-challenged piglets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2011

P. Trevisi ,
L. Casini ,
F. Coloretti ,
M. Mazzoni ,
G. Merialdi  and
P. Bosi
P. Trevisi
Affiliation:
DIPROVAL, University of Bologna, via Rosselli 107, 42100 Reggio Emilia, Italy
L. Casini
Affiliation:
DIPROVAL, University of Bologna, via Rosselli 107, 42100 Reggio Emilia, Italy
F. Coloretti
Affiliation:
DISA, University of Bologna, via Rosselli 107, 42100 Reggio Emilia, Italy
M. Mazzoni
Affiliation:
DIMORFIPA, University of Bologna, via Tolara di Sopra 50, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia (BO), Italy
G. Merialdi
Affiliation:
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale Bruno Umbertini, Section of Bologna, via Fiorini 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy
P. Bosi*
Affiliation:
DIPROVAL, University of Bologna, via Rosselli 107, 42100 Reggio Emilia, Italy
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) is a probiotic for humans and is normally not found in pigs; however, it has been shown to protect the human-derived intestinal Caco-2 cells against the damage induced by an important intestinal pathogen, enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli F4 (ETEC). An experiment was conducted to test whether the dietary addition of LGG improves the growth and health of weaned pigs when orally challenged by E. coli F4. Thirty-six pigs were weaned at 21 days and assigned to a standard weaning diet with or without 1010 CFU LGG (ATCC 53103) per day. The pigs, individually penned, were orally challenged with 1.5 ml of a 1010 CFU E. coli F4 suspension on day 7 and slaughtered on day 12 or 14. With the addition of LGG, the average daily gain and the average daily feed intake were reduced after the challenge with ETEC and for the entire trial (P < 0.05). The average faecal score tended to worsen from day 11 to the end of the trial and the concentration of ETEC in the faeces tended to increase (P = 0.07) with the LGG supplementation. The counts of lactic acid bacteria, enterobacteria and yeasts in the colonic digesta were not affected. The pH values in ileal, colonic and caecal digesta, and the small intestine size were also unchanged. Regardless of the site of measurement (duodenum, jejunum or ileum), a trend of decreased villus height was seen with LGG (P = 0.10). Crypt depth and villus to crypt ratio were unchanged by the diet. A gradual increase of total seric IgA was seen after 1 week and after the challenge, in the control (P < 0.05), but not in the treated group. After the challenge, the LGG reduced the total IgA in the blood serum (P < 0.05), v. the control. The total IgA in the saliva and in the jejunum secretion were not affected by the diet. The F4-specific IgA activity was not affected by the diet at all the samplings. Our result shows that, the administration of LGG do not prevent or reduce the detrimental effect of the E. coli F4 infection on the growth performance and health status of weaned piglet.

Keywords

weaningEscherichia coli F4pigsLactobacillus rhamnosus GGimmunity
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 9 , 05 August 2011 , pp. 1354 - 1360
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Alander, M, Satokari, R, Korpela, R, Saxelin, M, Vilpponen-Salmela, T, Mattila-Sandholm, T, von Wright, A 1999. Persistence of colonization of human colonic mucosa by a probiotic strain, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, after oral consumption. Applied Environmental Microbiology 65, 351–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosi, P, Casini, L, Finamore, A, Gremokolini, C, Merialdi, G, Trevisi, P, Nobili, F, Mengheri, E 2004a. Spray-dried plasma improves growth performance and reduces inflammatory status of weaned pigs challenged with enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli K88. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1764–1772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosi, P, Gremokolini, C, Trevisi, P, Mazzoni, M, Bonilauri, P, Sarli, G, Casini, L 2004b. Oral challenge with E. coli K88 as a tool to assess growth and health performance in feeding trials of weaned pigs. Conference at the 36th Journées Recherche Porcine, Paris, France, pp. 125–132.Google Scholar
Bosi, P, Sarli, G, Casini, L, De Filippi, S, Trevisi, P, Mazzoni, M, Merialdi, G 2007. The influence of fat protection of calcium formate on growth and intestinal defence in Escherichia coli K88-challenged weanling pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 139, 170–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casini, L, Kostantinov, SR, Coloretti, F, De Filippi, S, Mazzoni, M, Trevisi, P, Bosi, P 2007. Interference of the humoral immune response against resident and nonresident intestinal commensal strains in weaning pigs. Livestock Science 102, 226–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, PA, Newby, TJ, Stokes, CR, Patel, D, Bourne, FJ 1980. Antibody response of the lactating sow to oral immunization with Escherichia coli. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology 11, 419–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geenen, PL, Van der Meulen, J, Bouma, A, Engel, B, Heesterbeek, JA, De Jong, MC 2007. Classification of temporal profiles of F4+ E. coli shedding and faecal dry matter in experimental post-weaning diarrhoea of pigs. Epidemiology and Infection 135, 1001–1009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geier, MS, Butler, RN, Giffard, PM, Howarth, GS 2007. Lactobacillus fermentum BR11, a potential new probiotic, alleviates symptoms of colitis induced by dextran sulfate sodium (DSS) in rats. International Journal of Food Microbiology 114, 267–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaila, M, Isolauri, E, Saxelin, M, Arvilommi, H, Vesikari, T 1995. Viable versus inactivated lactobacillus strain GG in acute rotavirus diarrhea. Archives of Diseases in Childhood 72, 51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macpherson, AJ, Gatto, D, Sainsbury, E, Harriman, GR, Hengartner, H, Zinkernagel, RM 2000. A primitive T cell-independent mechanism of intestinal mucosal IgA responses to commensal bacteria. Science 288, 2222–2226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madec, F, Bridoux, N, Bounaix, S, Cariolet, R, Duval-Iflah, Y, Hampson, DJ, Jestin, A 2000. Experimental models of porcine post-weaning colibacillosis and their relationship to post-weaning diarrhoea and digestive disorders as encountered in the field. Veterinary Microbiology 72, 295–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Majamaa, H, Isolauri, E, Saxelin, M, Vesikari, T 1995. Lactic acid bacteria in the treatment of acute rotavirus gastroenteritis. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 20, 333–338.Google ScholarPubMed
Marco, ML, de Vries, MC, Wels, M, Molenaar, D, Mangell, P, Ahrne, S, de Vos, WM, Vaughan, EE, Kleerebezem, M 2010. Convergence in probiotic Lactobacillus gut-adaptive responses in humans and mice. The ISME Journal 4, 1481–1484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mäyrä-Mäkinen, A, Manninen, M, Gyllenberg, H 1983. The adherence of lactic acid bacteria to the columnar epithelial cells of pigs and calves. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 55, 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCracken, BA, Spurlock, ME, Roos, MA, Zuckermann, FA, Gaskins, HR 1999. Weaning anorexia may contribute to local inflammation in the piglet small intestine. Journal of Nutrition 129, 613–619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mileti, E, Matteoli, G, Iliev, ID, Rescigno, M 2009. Comparison of the immunomodulatory properties of three probiotic strains of Lactobacilli using complex culture systems: prediction for in vivo efficacy. PLoS ONE 4, e7056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moon, G, Myung, SJ, Jeong, JY, Yang, SK, Cho, YK, Lee, SM, Chang, HS, Byeon, JS, Lee, YJ, Lee, GH, Hong, WS, Kim, JH, Min, YI, Kim, JS 2004. Prophylactic effect of Lactobacillus GG in animal colitis and its effect on cytokine secretion and mucin gene expressions. The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology 43, 234–245.Google ScholarPubMed
Oh, PL, Benson, AK, Peterson, DA, Patil, PB, Moriyama, EN, Roos, S, Walter, J 2010. Diversification of the gut symbiont Lactobacillus reuteri as a result of host-driven evolution. The ISME Journal 4, 377–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pohjavuori, E, Viljanen, M, Korpela, R, Kuitunen, M, Tiittanen, M, Vaarala, O, Savilahti, E 2004. Lactobacillus GG effect in increasing IFN-gamma production in infants with cow's milk allergy. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 114, 131–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rinkinen, M, Westermarck, E, Salminen, S, Ouwehand, AC 2003. Absence of host specificity for in vitro adhesion of probiotic lactic acid bacteria to intestinal mucus. Veterinary Microbiology 97, 55–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roselli, M, Finamore, A, Britti, MS, Mengheri, E 2003. Protective effects and immunomodulation on intestinal cells by probiotics. Conference at the 2nd Annual Meeting Probiotics, Prebiotics, and New Foods, Rome, Italy, pp. 205–212.Google Scholar
Roselli, M, Finamore, A, Britti, MS, Mengheri, E 2006. Probiotic bacteria Bifidobacterium animalis MB5 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG protect intestinal Caco-2 cells from the inflammation-associated response induced by enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli K88. British Journal of Nutrition 95, 1177–1184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saarela, M, Mogensen, G, Fondén, R, Mättö, J, Mattila-Sandholm, T 2000. Probiotic bacteria: safety, functional and technological properties. Journal of Biotechnology 84, 197–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saavedra, GM 2007. Use of probiotics in pediatrics: rationale, mechanisms of action, and practical aspects. Nutrition in Clinical Practice 22, 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sollid, LM, Kvale, D, Brandtzaeg, P, Markussen, G, Thorsby, E 1987. Interferon-gamma enhances expression of secretory component, the epithelial receptor for polymeric immunoglobulins. Journal of Immunology 138, 4303–4306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spreeuwenberg, MAM, Verdonk, JMAJ, Gaskins, HR, Verstegen, MWA 2001. Small intestine epithelial barrier function is compromised in pigs with low feed intake at weaning. Journal of Nutrition 131, 1520–1527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trevisi, P, Melchior, D, Mazzoni, M, Casini, L, De Filippi, S, Minieri, L, Lalatta-Costerbosa, G, Bosi, P 2009. A tryptophan-enriched diet improves feed intake and growth performance of susceptible weanling pigs orally challenged with E. coli K88. Journal of Animal Science 87, 148–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Broeck, W, Cox, E, Goddeeris, BM 1999. Receptor dependent immune responses in pigs after oral immunization with F4 fimbriae. Infection and Immunity 67, 520–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vinderola, CG, Medici, M, Perdigón, G 2004. Relationship between interaction sites in the gut, hydrophobicity, mucosal immunomodulating capacities and cell wall protein profiles in indigenous and exogenous bacteria. Journal of Applied Microbiology 96, 230–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yan, F, Polk, DB 2006. Probiotics as functional food in the treatment of diarrhea. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care 9, 717–721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, L, Li, N, Caicedo, R, Neu, J 2005. Alive and dead Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG decrease tumor necrosis factor-alpha-induced interleukin-8 production in Caco-2 cells. Journal of Nutrition 135, 11752–11756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, L, Xu, YQ, Liu, HY, Lai, T, Ma, JL, Wang, JF, Zhu, YH 2010. Evaluation of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG using an Escherichia coli K88 model of piglet diarrhoea: effects on diarrhoea incidence, faecal microflora and immune responses. Veterinary Microbiology 141, 142–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed