Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:11:45.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A review on prebiotics and probiotics for the control of dysbiosis: present status and future perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2014

R. Ducatelle ,
V. Eeckhaut ,
F. Haesebrouck  and
F. Van Immerseel
R. Ducatelle*
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, Bacteriology and Avian Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
V. Eeckhaut
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, Bacteriology and Avian Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
F. Haesebrouck
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, Bacteriology and Avian Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
F. Van Immerseel
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, Bacteriology and Avian Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Dysbiosis or dysbacteriosis is defined as a shift in the intestinal microbiota composition resulting in an imbalance between beneficial and harmful bacteria. Since the ban on the use of growth-promoting antibiotics in animal feed in the EU, dysbiosis has emerged as a major problem in intensive animal production. Prebiotics and probiotics are currently under investigation as possible alternatives to growth-promoting antibiotics, as their mode of action is thought to be based largely on a modulation of the composition and function of the intestinal microbiota. In this review, we analyse the currently available data from both animal and human nutrition that document the potential and limitations of prebiotics and probiotics for the control of dysbiosis. An impressive number of empirical feeding trials have been carried out in healthy animals, yielding sometimes contradictory results. More in-depth studies have revealed the complexity of the interactions taking place in the lower intestinal tract, thus illustrating that pre- and probiotics cannot be a simple replacement for growth-promoting antibiotics. Although there are indications that the strategic use of pre- and probiotics can provide major benefits, there is still a lack of basic knowledge on the delicate interactions between the microbiota, the host and the feed components, which hampers the widespread use of these valuable feed additives.

Keywords

dysbiosisdysbacteriosisprobioticprebioticmicrobiota
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 43 - 48
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Anonymous 2002. Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation. Guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food. Retrieved December 28, 2013 from ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/wgreport2.pdf Google Scholar
Arumugam, M, Raes, J, Pelletier, E, Le Paslier, D, Yamada, T, Mende, DR, Fernandes, GR, Tap, J, Bruls, T, Batto, J-M, Bertalan, M, Borruel, N, Casellas, F, Fernandez, L, Gautier, L, Hansen, T, Hattori, M, Hayashi, T, Kleerebezem, M, Kurokawa, K, Leclerc, M, Levenez, F, Manichanh, C, Nielsen, B, Nielsen, T, Pons, N, Poulain, J, Qin, J, Sicheritz-Ponten, T, Tims, S, Torrents, D, Ugarte, E, Zoetendal, EG, Wang, J, Guarner, F, Pedersen, O, de Vos, WM, Brunak, S, Doré, J, Consortium, MetaHIT, Weissenbach, J, Dusko Ehrlich, S and Bork, P 2011. Enterotypes of the human gut microbiome. Nature 473, 174–180.Google Scholar
Bäckhed, F, Ley, RE, Sonnenburg, JL, Peterson, DA and Gordon, JI 2005. Host-bacterium mutualism in the human intestine. Science 307, 1915–1920.Google Scholar
Bednarczyk, M, Urbanowski, M, Gulewicz, P, Kasperczyk, K, Maiorano, G and Szwaczkowski, T 2011. Field and in vitro study on prebiotic effect of raffinose family oligosaccharides in chickens. Bulletin of the Veterinary Institute in Pulawy 55, 465–469.Google Scholar
Biswas, A and Kobayashi, KS 2013. Regulation of intestinal microbiota by the NLR protein family. International Immunology 25, 207–214.Google Scholar
Bovera, F, Lestingi, A, Marono, S, Iannacone, F, Nizza, S, Mallardo, K, deMartino, L and Tateo, A 2012. Effect of dietary mannan-oligosaccharides on in vivo performance, nutrient digestibility and caecal content characteristics of growing rabbits. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 96, 130–136.Google Scholar
Broekaert, WF, Courtin, CM, Verbeke, K, Van De Wiele, T, Verstraete, W and Delcour, JA 2011. Prebiotic and other health-related effects of cereal-derived arabinoxylans, arabinoxylan-oligosaccharides, and xylooligosaccharides. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 51, 178–194.Google Scholar
Butel, MJ 2014. Probiotics, gut microbiota and health. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses 44, 1–8.Google Scholar
Chan, YK, Estaki, M and Gibson, DL 2013. Clinical consequences of diet-induced dysbiosis. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 63 (suppl. 2), 28–40.Google Scholar
Damen, B, Verspreet, J, Pollet, A, Broekaert, WF, Delcour, JA and Courtin, C 2011. Prebiotic effects and intestinal fermentation of cereal arabinoxylans and arabinoxylan oligosaccharides in rats depend strongly on their structural properties and joint presence. Molecular Nutrtion & Food Research 55, 1862–1874.Google Scholar
Devkota, S and Chang, EB 2013. Nutrition, microbiomes, and intestinal inflammation. Current Opinion in Gastroenterology 29, 603–607.Google Scholar
Di Bartolomeo, F, Startek, JB and Van den Ende, W 2013. Prebiotics to fight diseases: reality or fiction? Phytotherapy Research 27, 1457–1473.Google Scholar
Eckburg, PB, Bik, EM, Bernstein, CN, Purdom, E, Dethlefsen, L, Sargent, M, Gill, SR, Nelson, KE and Relman, DA 2005. Diversity of the human intestinal microbial flora. Science 308, 1635–1638.Google Scholar
Eeckhaut, V, Van Immerseel, F, Croubels, S, De Baere, S, Haesebrouck, F, Ducatelle, R, Louis, P and Vandamme, P 2011. Butyrate production in phylogenetically diverse Firmicutes isolated from the chicken cecum. Microbial Biotechnology 4, 503–512.Google Scholar
Eeckhaut, V, Van Immerseel, F, Dewulf, J, Pasmans, F, Haesebrouck, F, Ducatelle, R, Courtin, CM, Declour, JA and Broekaert, WF 2008. Arabinoxylooligosaccharides from wheat bran inhibit Salmonella colonization in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 87, 2329–2334.Google Scholar
Eeckhaut, V, Machiels, K, Perrier, C, Romero, C, Maes, S, Flahou, B, Steppe, M, Haesebrouck, F, Sas, B, Ducatelle, R, Vermeire, S and Van Immerseel, F 2013. Butyricicoccus pullicaecorum in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 62, 1745–1752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faber, TA, Dilger, RN, Hopkins, AC, Price, NP and Fahey, GC 2012. The effects of a galactoglucomannan oligosaccharide-arabinoxylan (GGMO-AX) complex in broiler chicks challenged with Eimeria acervulina . Poultry Science 91, 1089–1096.Google Scholar
Fuller, R 1989. Probiotics in man and animals. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 66, 365–378.Google Scholar
Geraylou, Z, Souffreau, C, Rurangwa, E, D’hondt, S, Callewaert, L, Courtin, CM, Delcour, JA, Buyse, J and Ollevier, F 2012. Effects of arabinoxylan-oligosaccharides (AXOS) on juvenile Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii) performance, immune response and gastrointestinal microbial community. Fish and Shellfish Immunology 33, 718–724.Google Scholar
Grmanova, M, Rada, V, Sirotek, K and Vlkova, E 2010. Naturally occurring prebiotic oligosaccharides in poultry feed mixtures. Folia Microbiologica 55, 326–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guarner, F and Malagelada, JR 2003. Gut flora in health and disease. Lancet 361, 512–519.Google Scholar
Guilloteau, P, Martin, L, Eeckhaut, V, Ducatelle, R, Zablielski, R and Van Immerseel, F 2010. From the gut to the peripheral tissues: the multiple effects of butyrate. Nutrition Research Reviews 23, 366–384.Google Scholar
Hajishengallis, G, Darveau, P and Curtis, MA 2012. The keystone-pathogen hypothesis. Nature Reviews – Microbiology 10, 717–725.Google Scholar
Han, W, Zhang, XL, Wang, DW, Li, LY, Liu, GL and Zhao, YX 2013. Effects of microencapsulated Enterococcus faecalis CG1.0007 on growth performance, antioxidation activity, and intestinal microbiota in broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Science 91, 4374–4382.Google Scholar
Heo, JM, Opapeju, FO, Pluske, JR, Kim, JC, Hampson, DJ and Nyachoti, CM 2012. Gastrointestinal health and function in weaned pigs: a review of feeding strategies to control post-weaning diarrhoea without using in-feed antimicrobial compounds. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 97, 207–237.Google Scholar
Hooper, LV and Macpherson, AJ 2010. Immune adaptations that maintain homeostasis with the intestinal microbiota. Nature Reviews Immunology 10, 159–169.Google Scholar
Hooper, LV, Littman, DR and Macpherson, AJ 2012. Interactions between the microbiota and the immune system. Science 336, 1268–1273.Google Scholar
Huyghebaert, G, Ducatelle, R and Van Immerseel, F 2011. An update on alternatives to antimicrobial growth promoters for broilers. The Veterinary Journal 187, 182–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jayaraman, S, Thangavel, G, Kurian, H, Mani, R, Mukkalil, R and Chirakkal, H 2013. Bacillus subtilis PB6 improves intestinal health of broiler chickens challenged with Clostridium perfringens-induced necrotic enteritis. Poultry Science 92, 370–374.Google Scholar
Jerzele, A, Szeker, K, Csizinszky, R, Gere, E, Jakab, C, Mallo, JJ and Galfi, P 2012. Efficacy of protected sodium butyrate, a protected blend of essential oils, their combination, and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens spore suspension against artificially induced necrotic enteritis in broilers. Poultry Science 91, 837–843.Google Scholar
Jiang, Z, Schatzmayr, G, Mohnl, M and Applegate, TJ 2010. Net effect of an acute phase response-partial alleviation with probiotic supplementation. Poultry Science 89, 28–33.Google Scholar
Khodambashi Emami, N, Samie, A, Rahmani, HR and Ruiz-Feria, CA 2012. The effect of peppermint essential oil and fructooligosaccharides, as alternatives to virginiamycin, on growth performance, digestibility, gut morphology and immune response of male broilers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 175, 57–64.Google Scholar
Kim, G-B, Seo, YM, Kim, CH and Paik, IK 2011. Effect of dietary prebiotic supplementation on the performance, intestinal microflora, and immune response of broilers. Poultry Science 90, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagano, Y, Itoh, K and Honda, K 2012. The induction of Treg cells by gut-indigenous Clostridium . Current Opinion in Immunology 24, 392–397.Google Scholar
Nagpal, R, Kumar, A, Kumar, M, Behare, PV, Jain, S and Yadav, H 2012. Probiotics, their health benefits and applications for developing healthier foods: a review. FEMS Microbiology Letters 334, 1–15.Google Scholar
Nakamura, YK and Omaye, ST 2012. Metabolic diseases and pro- and prebiotics: mechanistic insights. Nutrition and Metabolism 9, 60.Google Scholar
Niewold, T 2007. The nonantibiotic anti-inflammatory effect of antimicrobial growth promoters, the real mode of action? A hypothesis. Poultry Science 86, 605–609.Google Scholar
Nyangale, EP, Mottram, DS and Gibson, GR 2012. Gut microbial activity, implications for health and disease: the potential role of metabolite analysis. Journal of Proteome Research 11, 5573–5585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, JA and Burkholder, KM 2003. Application of prebiotics and probiotics in poultry production. Poultry Science 82, 627–631.Google Scholar
Power, SE, O’Toole, PW, Stanton, C, Ross, RP and Fitzgerald, GF 2014. Intestinal microbiota, diet and health. British Journal of Nutrition 11, 387–402.Google Scholar
Rahimi, S, Kathariou, S, Grimes, JL and Siletzky, RM 2011. Effect of direct-fed microbials on performance and Clostridium perfringens colonization of turkey poults. Poultry Science 90, 2656–2662.Google Scholar
Roberfroid, M, Gibson, GR, Hoyles, L, McCartney, AL, Rastall, R, Rowland, I, Wolvers, D, Watzl, B, Szajevska, H, Stahl, B, Guarner, F, Respondek, F, Whelan, K, Coxam, V, Davicco, MJ, Leotoing, L, Wittrant, Y, Delzenne, NM, Cani, PD, Neyrinck, AM and Meheust, A 2010. Prebiotic effects: metabolic and health benefits. British Journal of Nutrition 104, S1–S63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shivaramaiah, S, Pumford, NR, Morgan, MJ, Wolfenden, RE, Wolfenden, AD, Torres-Rodriguez, A, Hargis, BM and Tellez, G 2011. Evaluation of Bacillus species as potential candidates for direct-fed microbials in commercial poultry. Poultry Science 90, 1574–1580.Google Scholar
Stanley, D, Keyburn, A, Denman, S and Moore, RJ 2012. Changes in the caecal microflora of chickens following Clostridium perfringens challenge to induce necrotic enteritis. Veterinary Microbiology 159, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanley, D, Geier, MS, Denman, SE, Hazring, VR, Crowley, TM, Hughes, RJ and Moore, RJ 2013. Identification, of chicken intestinal microbiota correlated with the efficiency of energy extraction from feed. Veterinary Microbiology 164, 85–92.Google Scholar
Tan, Q, Xu, H, Xu, F, Aguilar, ZP, Yang, Y, Dong, S, Chen, T and Wei, H 2013. Survival, distribution, and translocation of Enterococcus faecalis and implications for pregnant mice. FEMS Microbiology Letters 349, 32–39.Google ScholarPubMed
Teirlynck, E, De Gussem, M, Marien, M, Vancraeynest, D, Haesebrouck, F, Ducatelle, R and Van Immerseel, F 2011. Intestinal morphometry in ‘dysbacteriosis’ in broilers. Avian Pathology 40, 139–144.Google Scholar
Teirlynck, E, Bjerrum, L, Eeckhaut, V, Huyghebaert, G, Pasmans, F, Haesebrouck, F, Dewulf, J, Ducatelle, R and Van Immerseel, F 2009a. The cereal type in feed influences gut wall morphology and intestinal immune cell infiltration in broiler chickens. British Journal of Nutrition 102, 1453–1461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teirlynck, E, Haesebrouck, F, Pasmans, F, Dewulf, J, Ducatelle, R and Van Immerseel, F 2009b. The cereal type in feed influences Salmonella enteritidis colonization in broilers. Poultry Science 88, 2108–2112.Google Scholar
Tellez, G, Pixley, C, Wolfenden, RE, Layton, SL and Hargis, B 2012. Probiotics/direct fed microbials for Salmonella control in poultry. Food Research International 45, 628–633.Google Scholar
Timbermont, L, Haesebrouck, F, Ducatelle, R and Van Immerseel, F 2011. Necrotic enteritis in broilers, an updated review on the pathogenesis. Avian Pathology 40, 341–347.Google Scholar
Timbermont, L, Lanckriet, A, Pasmans, F, Haesebrouck, F, Ducatelle, R and Van Immerseel, F 2009. Intra-species growth inhibition by Clostridium perfringens is a possible virulence trait in necrotic enteritis in broilers. Veterinary Microbiology 137, 388–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torok, VA, Hughes, RJ, Mikkelsen, LL, Perez-Maldonado, R, Balding, K, Macalpine, R, Percy, NJ and Ophel-Keller, K 2011. Identification and characterization of potential performance-related gut microbiotas in broiler chickens across various feeding trials. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 77, 5868–5878.Google Scholar
Whitman, WB, Coleman, DC and Wiebe, WJ 1998. Prokaryotes: the unseen majority. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95, 6578–6583.Google Scholar
Wideman, RF, Hamal, KR, Stark, JM, Blankenship, J, Lester, H, Mitchell, KN, Lorenzi, Gand and Pevzner, I 2012. A wire-flooring model for inducing lameness in broilers: evaluation of probiotics as a prophylactic treatment. Poultry Science 91, 870–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfenden, RE, Pumford, NR, Morgan, MJ, Shivaramaiah, S, Wolfenden, AD, Pixley, CM, Green, J, Tellez, G and Hargis, BM 2011. Evaluation of selected direct-fed microbial candidates on live performance and Salmonella reduction in commercial turkey brooding houses. Poultry Science 90, 2627–2631.Google Scholar
Zhao, PY, Jung, JH and Kim, IH 2012. Effect of mannan oligosaccharides and fructan on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profile, and diarrhea score in weanling pigs. Journal of Animal Science 90, 833–839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed