Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:44:05.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of feed restriction and housing hygiene conditions on specific and inflammatory immune response, the cecal bacterial community and the survival of young rabbits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2016

S. Combes ,
K. Massip ,
O. Martin ,
H. Furbeyre ,
L. Cauquil ,
G. Pascal ,
O. Bouchez ,
N. Le Floc’h ,
O. Zemb  and
I. P. Oswald
...Show all authors
S. Combes*
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, ENVT, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France
K. Massip
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, ENVT, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France
O. Martin
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, ENVT, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France Toxalim, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, ENVT, 31027, Toulouse, France
H. Furbeyre
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, ENVT, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France Toxalim, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, ENVT, 31027, Toulouse, France
L. Cauquil
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, ENVT, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France
G. Pascal
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, ENVT, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France
O. Bouchez
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, ENVT, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France
N. Le Floc’h
Affiliation:
GeT-PlaGe, Genotoul, INRA, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France
O. Zemb
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, ENVT, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France
I. P. Oswald
Affiliation:
Toxalim, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, ENVT, 31027, Toulouse, France
T. Gidenne
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, ENVT, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Limiting the post-weaning intake of the young rabbit is known to improve its resistance to digestive disorders, whereas a degradation of its housing hygiene is assumed to have a negative impact on its health. This study aims at providing insights into the mechanism of digestive health preservation regarding both host (growth and immune response) and its symbiotic digestive microbiota. A 2×2 factorial design from weaning (day 28) to day 64 was set up: ad libitum intake or restricted intake at 70% of ad libitum, and high v. low hygiene of housing (n=105 per group). At day 36 and day 45, 15 animals/group were subcutaneously immunized with ovalbumin (OVA) to assess their specific immune response. Blood was sampled at 36, 45, 57 and 64 days of age to determine total and anti-OVA immunoglobulin type G (IgG) and haptoglobin levels. The cecal bacterial community was explored (18 per group) by 454 pyrosequencing of genes coding for the 16S ribosomal RNA, whereas cecal pH, NH3 and volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentrations were measured to characterize fermentative activity. A 30% reduction in feed intake reduced the growth by only 17% (P<0.001), and improved the feed conversion ratio by 15% (P<0.001), whereas the degradation of hygiene conditions slightly decreased the feed intake in ad libitum fed rabbits (−3.5%, P<0.02). As poor hygiene conditions did not affect weight gain, feed conversion was improved from day 42 (P<0.05). Restricted feeding led to a lower mortality between day 28 and day 40 (P=0.047), whereas degraded hygiene conditions decreased overall morbidity (7.8% v. 16.6%; P<0.01). Both a reduced intake and low hygiene conditions of housing affected microbiota composition and especially dominant genera belonging to the Ruminococcaceae family (P<0.01). Moreover, low hygiene was associated with a higher Ruminococcaceae/Lachnospiraceae ratio (3.7 v. 2.4; P<0.05). Cecal total VFA and pH were increased (+19%; P<0.001) and decreased (−0.1 pH unit; P<0.05), respectively, in feed-restricted rabbits. Neither specific anti-OVA IgG nor haptoglobin was affected by treatments. Total IgG concentrations were the highest in animals raised in poor hygiene conditions after 8 days of restriction, but decreased after 19 days of restriction in high hygiene conditions (−2.15%; P<0.05). In conclusion, the degradation of hygiene conditions failed to induce a systematic specific and inflammatory response in rabbit, but reduced morbidity instead. Our results suggest that the microbiota composition would be a helpful source of biomarkers of digestive health.

Keywords

rabbithousing hygienefeed restrictionspecific and inflammatory immune responsececal microbiota
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 5 , May 2017 , pp. 854 - 863
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Abecia, L, Fondevila, M, Balcells, J, Lobley, GE and McEwan, NR 2007. The effect of medicated diets and level of feeding on caecal microbiota of lactating rabbit does. Journal of Applied Microbiology 103, 787–793.Google Scholar
Accensi, F, Pinton, P, Callu, P, Bourges-Abella, N, Guelfi, JF, Grosjean, F and Oswald, IP 2006. Ingestion of low doses of deoxynivalenol does not affect hematological, biochemical or immune responses of piglets. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1935–1942.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersson, AF, Lindberg, M, Jakobsson, H, Bäckhed, F, Nyrén, P and Engstrand, L 2008. Comparative analysis of human gut microbiota by barcoded pyrosequencing. PLoS One 3, e2836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anonymous 2009. Arrêté du 30 novembre 2009 modifiant l’arrêté du 19 avril 1988 fixant les conditions d’attribution de l’autorisation d’expérimenter. Journal Officiel de la République Française n°0278 du 1 décembre 2009 page 20652 texte n° 17.Google Scholar
Bauerl, C, Collado, MC, Zuniga, M, Blas, E and Martinez, GP 2014. Changes in cecal microbiota and mucosal gene expression revealed new aspects of epizootic rabbit enteropathy. PLoS One 9, e105707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, D and Reinisch, W 2013. Intestinal microbiota: a source of novel biomarkers in inflammatory bowel diseases? Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology 27, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biddle, A, Stewart, L, Blanchard, J and Leschine, S 2013. Untangling the genetic basis of fibrolytic specialization by Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae in diverse gut communities. Diversity 5, 627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevance, A and Moulin, G 2014. Suivi des ventes de médicaments vétérinaires contenant des antibiotiques en France en 2013. (ed. Ministère de l’Agriculture de l’Alimentation de la Pêche et des Affaires Rurales), Anses – ANMV, Maisons-Alfort, France. Retrieved on 7 October 2016 from https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/ANMV-Ra-Antibiotiques2013.pdf Google Scholar
Combes, S, Gidenne, T, Cauquil, L, Bouchez, O and Fortun-Lamothe, L 2014. Coprophagous behavior of rabbit pups affects implantation of cecal microbiota and health status. Journal of Animal Science 92, 652–665.Google Scholar
Escudie, F, Auer, L, Cauquil, L, Vidal, K, Maman, S, Mariadassou, M, Hernandez-Raquet, G and Pascal, G 2015. FROGS: Find Rapidly OTU with Galaxy Solution. The JOBIM 2015 Conference, 6–9 July 2015, Clermont-Ferrand, France. Retrieved on 7 October 2016 from http://bioinfo.genotoul.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/FROGS_poster_Jobim_2015.pdf Google Scholar
Gidenne, T, Combes, S, Feugier, A, Jehl, N, Arveux, P, Boisot, P, Briens, C, Corrent, E, Fortune, H, Montessuy, S and Verdelhan, S 2009. Feed restriction strategy in the growing rabbit. 2. Impact on digestive health, growth and carcass characteristics. Animal 3, 509–515.Google Scholar
Gidenne, T, Combes, S and Fortun-Lamothe, L 2012. Feed intake limitation strategies for the growing rabbit: effect on feeding behaviour, welfare, performance, digestive physiology and health: a review. Animal 6, 1407–1419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanson, NB and Lanning, DK 2008. Microbial induction of B and T cell areas in rabbit appendix. Developmental & Comparative Immunology 32, 980–991.Google Scholar
Huybens, N, Houeix, J, Licois, D, Mainil, J and Marlier, D 2013. Pyrosequencing of epizootic rabbit enteropathy inocula and rabbit caecal samples. The Veterinary Journal 196, 109–110.Google Scholar
Knudsen, C, Combes, S, Briens, C, Coutelet, G, Duperray, J, Rebours, G, Salaun, JM, Travel, A, Weissman, D and Gidenne, T 2014. Increasing the digestible energy intake under a restriction strategy improves the feed conversion ratio of the growing rabbit without negatively impacting the health status. Livestock Science 169, 96–105.Google Scholar
Knudsen, C, Combes, S, Briens, C, Duperray, J, Rebours, G, Salaun, J-M, Travel, A, Weissman, D, Gidenne, T and Oswald, IP 2015. Quantitative feed restriction rather than caloric restriction modulates the immune response of growing rabbits. The Journal of Nutrition 145, 483–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knudsen, C, Combes, S, Mousavikhorshidi, H, Oswald, IP and Gidenne, T 2016. An LPS based method to stimulate the inflammatory response in growing rabbits. World Rabbit Science 24, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lê Cao, K-A, Boitard, S and Besse, P 2011. Sparse PLS discriminant analysis: biologically relevant feature selection and graphical displays for multiclass problems. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Floc’h, N, Jondreville, C, Matte, JJ and Seve, B 2006. Importance of sanitary environment for growth performance and plasma nutrient homeostasis during the post-weaning period in piglets. Archives of Animal Nutrition 60, 23–34.Google Scholar
Le Floc’h, N, Knudsen, C, Gidenne, T, Montagne, L, Merlot, E and Zemb, O 2014. Impact of feed restriction on health, digestion and faecal microbiota of growing pigs housed in good or poor hygiene conditions. Animal 8, 1632–1642.Google Scholar
Ley, RE, Hamady, M, Lozupone, C, Turnbaugh, PJ, Ramey, RR, Bircher, JS, Schlegel, ML, Tucker, TA, Schrenzel, MD, Knight, R and Gordon, JI 2008. Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. Science 320, 1647–1651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, Z, Lozupone, C, Hamady, M, Bushman, FD and Knight, R 2007. Short pyrosequencing reads suffice for accurate microbial community analysis. Nucleic Acids Research 35, e120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, L, Radler, M, Paolini, AG and Kent, S 2011. Calorie restriction attenuates LPS-induced sickness behavior and shifts hypothalamic signaling pathways to an anti-inflammatory bias. American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 301, R172–R184.Google Scholar
Madec, F, Bridoux, N, Bounaix, S and Jestin, A 1998. Measurement of digestive disorders in the piglet at weaning and related risk factors. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 35, 53–72.Google Scholar
Mage, RG, Lanning, D and Knight, KL 2006. B cell and antibody repertoire development in rabbits: the requirement of gut-associated lymphoid tissues. Developmental & Comparative Immunology 30, 137–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahé, F, Rognes, T, Quince, C, de Vargas, C and Dunthorn, M 2014. Swarm: robust and fast clustering method for amplicon-based studies. PeerJ 2, e593.Google Scholar
Martignon, M, Combes, S and Gidenne, T 2009. Rôle du mode de distribution de l’aliment dans une stratégie de rationnement: conséquence sur le profil d’ingestion, la croissance et la santé digestive du lapin. In 13èmes Journées de la Recherche Cunicole, 17–18 November 2009, Le Mans, France, pp. 39–42.Google Scholar
Martignon, MH, Combes, S and Gidenne, T 2010a. Digestive physiology and hindgut bacterial community of the young rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus): effects of age and short-term intake limitation. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology – Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 156, 156–162.Google Scholar
Martignon, MH, Reperant, E and Valat, C 2010b. Digestive response of young rabbits to an experimental reproduction of colibacillosis according to two feeding strategies. The Prato Conference on the Pathogenesis of Bacterial Diseases of Animals, 6–9 October 2010, Monash Prato Campus, Prato, Italy.Google Scholar
Matsuzaki, J, Kuwamura, M, Yamaji, R, Inui, H and Nakano, Y 2001. Inflammatory responses to lipopolysaccharide are suppressed in 40% energy-restricted mice. The Journal of Nutrition 131, 2139–2144.Google Scholar
Meissonnier, GM, Laffitte, J, Raymond, I, Benoit, E, Cossalter, AM, Pinton, P, Bertin, G, Oswald, IP and Galtier, P 2008. Subclinical doses of T-2 toxin impair acquired immune response and liver cytochrome P450 in pigs. Toxicology 247, 46–54.Google Scholar
Monteils, V, Cauquil, L, Combes, S, Godon, J-J and Gidenne, T 2008. Potential core species and satellite species in the bacterial community within the rabbit caecum. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 66, 620–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulder, I, Schmidt, B, Stokes, C, Lewis, M, Bailey, M, Aminov, R, Prosser, J, Gill, B, Pluske, J, Mayer, C-D, Musk, C and Kelly, D 2009. Environmentally-acquired bacteria influence microbial diversity and natural innate immune responses at gut surfaces. BMC Biology 7, 79.Google Scholar
Myer, PR, Wells, JE, Smith, TPL, Kuehn, LA and Freetly, HC 2015. Microbial community profiles of the colon from steers differing in feed efficiency. Springerplus 4, 1–13.Google Scholar
Pruesse, E, Quast, C, Knittel, K, Fuchs, BM, Ludwig, W, Peplies, J and Glöckner, FO 2007. SILVA: a comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB. Nucleic Acids Research 35, 7188–7196.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. In R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Stappenbeck, TS, Hooper, LV and Gordon, JI 2002. Developmental regulation of intestinal angiogenesis by indigenous microbes via Paneth cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 99, 15451–15455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Štěpánková, R, Kovaru, F and Kruml, J 1980. Lymphatic tissue of the intestinal tract of germfree and conventional rabbits. Folia Microbiologica 25, 491–495.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Combes supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Combes supplementary material(File)
File 93 KB
Supplementary material: File

Combes supplementary material

Table S1

Download Combes supplementary material(File)
File 14.4 KB