植物乳杆菌及其后生元对育成期母貂生长性能、免疫功能及肠道健康的影响

doi:10.11843/j.issn.0366-6964.2024.06.024

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

旨在研究植物乳杆菌及其后生元对育成期母貂生长性能、免疫功能及肠道健康的影响。试验采用2×2试验设计，选取40只12周龄的灰色母貂分成4组，每组10个重复。4组分别为对照组、0.1%植物乳杆菌(活菌数＞10⁶ CFU·mL^-1)添加组、0.3%植物乳杆菌后生元添加组、0.1%植物乳杆菌+0.3%植物乳杆菌后生元添加组。预试期1周，正试期8周。试验期间记录体重和采食量用于测定生长性能，试验结束时采集血液、空肠组织和内容物检测血清免疫、黏膜免疫和肠道菌群等指标，结果发现：1)植物乳杆菌显著增加了水貂4周和8周的体重(P＜0.05)，提高了0~4周和0~8周的平均日增重、平均日采食量(P＜0.05)，降低了血清IgG、黏膜TNF-α的含量(P＜0.05)，增加空肠黏膜sIgA含量(P＜0.05)。2)植物乳杆菌后生元显著增加血清IgG、空肠黏膜IFN-γ的含量(P＜0.05)，降低了IL-2、IL-12和TNF-α的含量(P＜0.05)。3)植物乳杆菌及其后生元对育成期母貂肠道菌群的Alpha多样性指数影响不显著(P＞0.05)。在属水平上，植物乳杆菌组的Sporosarcina、Aminobacter、Agathobacter的相对丰度显著低于未添加植物乳杆菌组(P＜0.05)，Fastidiosipila的相对丰度显著高于未添加植物乳杆菌组(P＜0.05);植物乳杆菌后生元组Kocuria、Plesiomonas、unclassified_f_Lachnospiraceae、Sanguibacter、Microbacterium、Glutamicibacter和Paracoccus的相对丰度显著低于未添加后生元组(P＜0.05)，Staphylococcus、Weissella、Brevibacterium、Dietzia、Brachybacterium、Carnobacterium、Aerococcus和Sphingomonas的相对丰度显著高于未添加后生元组(P＜0.05)。4)植物乳杆菌益生菌及后生元对育成期母貂血清中IgA、IgM含量和黏膜中IL-2、IL-10、IL-8、TNF-α含量影响互作效应显著(P＜0.05)。综上所述，饲粮中添加植物乳杆菌益生菌可提高母貂的生长性能。植物乳杆菌益生菌及后生元均能够改善水貂的免疫功能，提高肠道有益菌属的相对丰度。

关键词: 植物乳杆菌, 植物乳杆菌后生元, 水貂, 生长性能, 免疫功能, 肠道健康

Abstract:

This experiment was conducted to study the effects of Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus plantarum postbiotics on growth performance, immune status and intestinal health of growing female minks. A total of 40 gray female minks at 12 weeks of age were selected and divided into 4 groups with 10 replicates per group. The minks were fed basal diet, basal diet supplemented with 0.1% Lactobacillus plantarum (viable bacteria number > 10⁶ CFU·mL^-1), basal diet supplemented with 0.3% postbiotics of Lactobacillus plantarum, basal diet supplemented with 0.1% Lactobacillus plantarum and 0.3% postbiotics of Lactobacillus plantarum, respectively. The pre-experimental period lasted for 1 week, and the experimental period lasted for 8 weeks. During the experiment, bodyweight and feed intake were recorded to determine the growth performance. At the end of the experiment, blood, jejunum tissue, jejunal content were collected to determine the immune indexes and microflora. The results were showed as follows: 1) Compared to the minks in group without Lactobacillus plantarum, minks in Lactobacillus plantarum group had greater body weight at week 4 and week 8 (P < 0.05), average daily gain and average daily feed intake for the first 4 weeks and the entire 8 weeks (P < 0.05), sIgA content in jejunal mucosa (P < 0.05), and had less IgG content in serum and TNF-α content in jejunal mucosa (P < 0.05). 2) Minks supplemented with Lactobacillus plantarum postbiotics had greater IgG content in serum and IFN-γ content in jejunal mucosa (P < 0.05), and less IL-2, IL-12 and TNF-α content in jejunal mucosa (P < 0.05). 3) Neither Lactobacillus plantarum nor postbiotics had significant effects on Alpha diversity index of intestinal flora for growing female minks (P>0.05). Minks in Lactobacillus plantarum group had less proportion of Sporosarcina, Aminobacter and Agathobacter, and greater proportion of Fastidiosipila in rectal flora than minks in group without Lactobacillus plantarum (P < 0.05). Minks in the postbiotics groups had greater proportion of Staphylococcus, Weissella, Brevibacterium, Dietzia, Brachybacterium, Carnobacterium, Aerococcus and Sphingomonas, and less proportion of Kocuria, Plesiomonas, unclassified_f_Lachnospiraceae, Sanguibacter, Microbacterium, Glutamicibacter and Paracoccus in rectal flora than minks in group without postbiotics (P < 0.05). 4) Interactions between Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus plantarum postbiotics were significant for serum IgA and IgM contents, jejunum IL-2, IL-10, TNF-α, IL-8 levels (P < 0.05). In conclusion, dietary Lactobacillus plantarum supplementation could improve the growth performance of female minks, both Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus plantarum postbiotics improved the immune function of females and increase the relative abundance of beneficial bacteria.

Key words: Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus plantarum postbiotics, mink, growth performance, immune status, intestinal health

中图分类号:

S862.220.4

李亚霖, 甄士博, 曹林, 孙逢雪, 王利华. 植物乳杆菌及其后生元对育成期母貂生长性能、免疫功能及肠道健康的影响[J]. 畜牧兽医学报, 2024, 55(6): 2530-2539.

Yalin LI, Shibo ZHEN, Lin CAO, Fengxue SUN, Lihua WANG. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus plantarum Postbiotics on Growth Performance, Immune Status and Intestinal Health of Growing Female Minks[J]. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica, 2024, 55(6): 2530-2539.

图/表 9

表 1

表 2

表 3

表 4

表 5

图 1

图 2

图 3

图 4

参考文献 33

1	葛平萍, 葛向平, 宋晓飞, 等. 水貂病毒性肠炎的诊断与预防[J]. 特种经济动植物, 2021, 24 (5): 25- 26. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4713.2021.05.011
	GE P P , GE X P , SONG X F , et al. Diagnosis and prevention of mink viral enteritis[J]. Special Economic Animals and Plants, 2021, 24 (5): 25- 26. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-4713.2021.05.011
2	孔祥丽, 吴昕雨, 许晓曦. 植物乳杆菌代谢产物抑菌机制与应用研究进展[J]. 食品安全质量检测学报, 2021, 12 (8): 3131- 3140.
	KONG X L , WU X Y , XU X X . Research progress on metabolites and bacteriostasis mechanism of Lactobacillus plantarum[J]. Journal of Food Safety and Quality, 2021, 12 (8): 3131- 3140.
3	章文明, 汪海峰, 刘建新. 乳酸杆菌益生作用机制的研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2012, 24 (3): 389- 396. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2012.03.001
	ZHANG W M , WANG H F , LIU J X . Mechanism of action of probiotic function of lactobacilli[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2012, 24 (3): 389- 396. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2012.03.001
4	张宏福, 夏冰, 陈亮, 等. 灭活乳酸菌研究与应用前沿进展[J]. 饲料工业, 2021, 42 (15): 1- 8.
	ZHANG H F , XIA B , CHEN L , et al. Frontier advances on research and application of inactivated lactic bacteria[J]. Feed Industry, 2021, 42 (15): 1- 8.
5	黄金贵, 张勇, 李方方, 等. 植物乳杆菌后生元对肉鸡生长性能、屠宰性能及肠道健康的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34 (11): 7109- 7119.
	HUANG J G , ZHANG Y , LI F F , et al. Effects of Postbiotics Lactobacillus plantarum on growth performance, slaughter performance and intestinal health of broilers[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34 (11): 7109- 7119.
6	SALMINEN S , COLLADO M C , ENDO A , et al. Author Correction: the International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics[J]. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2022, 19 (8): 551.
7	CUEVAS-GONZÁLEZ P F , LICEAGA A M , AGUILAR-TOALÁ J E . Postbiotics and paraprobiotics: from concepts to applications[J]. Food Res Int, 2020, 136, 109502. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109502
8	LI B B , ZHANG K , LI C , et al. Characterization and comparison of microbiota in the gastrointestinal tracts of the goat (Capra hircus) during preweaning development[J]. Front Microbiol, 2019, 10, 2125. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02125
9	金瑶瑶, 徐彬, 王琳燚, 等. 酶解青蒿联合地衣芽孢杆菌对肉仔鸡生长性能和盲肠菌群的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2021, 33 (7): 3810- 3820. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2021.07.023
	JIN Y Y , XU B , WANG L Y , et al. Effects of enzymatically treated Artemisia annua combined with Bacillus licheniformis on growth performance and cecal microbiota of broilers[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2021, 33 (7): 3810- 3820. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2021.07.023
10	刘斯斯, 张金凤, 于松涛, 等. 植物乳杆菌对肉鸡生产性能、抗氧化功能及肠道结构发育的影响[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2022, (23): 104- 108.
	LIU S S , ZHANG J F , YU S T , et al. Effects of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum on production performance, antioxidant function and development of intestinal structure in broilers[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2022, (23): 104- 108.
11	吴飞, 刘虎, 马树良, 等. 无抗日粮中添加后生元对断奶仔猪生长性能及肠道菌群结构的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2021, 57 (S1): 253- 256.
	WU F , LIU H , MA S L , et al. Effects of adding postbiotics to a diet without antibiotics on growth performance and intestinal flora structure of weaned piglets[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2021, 57 (S1): 253- 256.
12	曹承旭, 郭晶晶, 乌日娜, 等. 植物乳杆菌的生理功能和组学研究进展[J]. 乳业科学与技术, 2018, 41 (1): 33- 39.
	CAO C X , GUO J J , WU R N , et al. Advances in understanding the physiological function and omics of Lactobacillus plantarum[J]. Journal of Dairy Science and Technology, 2018, 41 (1): 33- 39.
13	AJESH K , SREEJITH K . Peptide antibiotics: an alternative and effective antimicrobial strategy to circumvent fungal infections[J]. Peptides, 2009, 30 (5): 999- 1006. doi: 10.1016/j.peptides.2009.01.026
14	谢红兵. 复方中草药免疫增强剂对断奶仔猪免疫功能的影响[D]. 福州: 福建农林大学, 2004.
	XIE H B. Effect of compound Chinese herbal medicine feed additives on immune function of weaning piglets[D]. Fuzhou: Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, 2004. (in Chinese)
15	殷成港, 高歌, 商谭, 等. 饲粮中添加后生元对断奶仔猪生长性能、腹泻率、抗氧化能力及粪便微生物菌群的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2022, 34 (8): 4932- 4943. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2022.08.019
	YIN C G , GAO G , SHANG T , et al. Effects of dietary postbiotics on growth performance, diarrhea incidence, antioxidant capacity and fecal microbiome of weaned piglets[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2022, 34 (8): 4932- 4943. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2022.08.019
16	潘泰典, 张馨洁, 高启明, 等. 饲粮中添加植物乳杆菌在肉兔饲养中应用效果研究[J]. 饲料工业, 2024, 45 (2): 119- 124.
	PAN T D , ZHANG X J , GAO Q M , et al. Effect of the dietary supplementation of Lactobacillus plantarum on meat rabbits[J]. Feed Industry, 2024, 45 (2): 119- 124.
17	EHRENSTEIN M R , COOK H T , NEUBERGER M S . Deficiency in serum immunoglobulin (Ig)m predisposes to development of Igg autoantibodies[J]. J Exp Med, 2000, 191 (7): 1253- 1258. doi: 10.1084/jem.191.7.1253
18	蔡凯凯, 黄占旺, 叶德军, 等. 益生菌调节肠道菌群及免疫调节作用机理[J]. 中国饲料, 2011, (18): 34- 37. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3314.2011.18.012
	CAI K K , HUANG Z W , YE D J , et al. Regulation of intestinal flora of probiotics and its immune function[J]. China feed, 2011, (18): 34- 37. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3314.2011.18.012
19	温曌, 武笑天, 杨玉. 益生木质纤维素对鸡盲肠黏膜免疫屏障的影响[J]. 山西农业科学, 2021, 49 (5): 668- 674. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2481.2021.05.25
	WEN Z , WU X T , YANG Y . Effects of OptiCell on the cecum mucosal immune barrier of chicken[J]. Journal of Shanxi Agricultural Sciences, 2021, 49 (5): 668- 674. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2481.2021.05.25
20	MANTIS N J , ROL N , CORTHÉSY B . Secretory IgA's complex roles in immunity and mucosal homeostasis in the gut[J]. Mucosal Immunol, 2011, 4 (6): 603- 611. doi: 10.1038/mi.2011.41
21	SABAT R , GRVTZ G , WARSZAWSKA K , et al. Biology of interleukin-10[J]. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev, 2010, 21 (5): 331- 344. doi: 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2010.09.002
22	XU T Y , CHEN Y , YU L F , et al. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum on intestinal integrity and immune responses of egg-laying chickens infected with Clostridium perfringens under the free-range or the specific pathogen free environment[J]. BMC Vet Res, 2020, 16 (1): 47. doi: 10.1186/s12917-020-2264-3
23	DALLOUL R A , LILLEHOJ H S , TAMIM N M , et al. Induction of local protective immunity to Eimeria acervulina by a Lactobacillus-based probiotic[J]. Comp Immunol Microbiol Inf Dis, 2005, 28 (5-6): 351- 361. doi: 10.1016/j.cimid.2005.09.001
24	WU Z , PAN D D , GUO Y X , et al. Peptidoglycan diversity and anti-inflammatory capacity in Lactobacillus strains[J]. Carbohydr Polym, 2015, 128, 130- 137. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.04.026
25	DICKS L M T , DREYER L , SMITH C , et al. A review: the fate of bacteriocins in the human gastro-intestinal tract: do they cross the gut-blood barrier?[J]. Front Microbiol, 2018, 9, 2297. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02297
26	HEVIA A , MARTÍNEZ N , LADERO V , et al. An extracellular Serine/Threonine-rich protein from Lactobacillus plantarum NCIMB 8826 is a novel aggregation-promoting factor with affinity to mucin[J]. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2013, 79 (19): 2059- 2066.
27	万瑾怡, 袁建敏. 灭活植物乳杆菌对肉鸡生长性能和肠道健康的影响[J]. 中国畜牧杂志, 2023, 59 (10): 299- 308.
	WAN J Y , YUAN J M . Effects of inactivated Lactobacillus plantarum on growth performance and intestinal health of broilers[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Science, 2023, 59 (10): 299- 308.
28	AHMED S , SINGH S , SINGH V , et al. The weissella genus: clinically treatable bacteria with antimicrobial/probiotic effects on inflammation and cancer[J]. Microorganisms, 2022, 10 (12): 2427. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10122427
29	EVANGELISTA A G , DANIELSKI G M , CORRÊA J A F , et al. Carnobacterium as a bioprotective and potential probiotic culture to improve food quality, food safety, and human health-a scoping review.[J]. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 2023, 63 (24): 6946- 6959. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2022.2038079
30	DENG D , MU Z Z , LV X Y , et al. Pathogenicity of Plesiomonas shigelloides and Citrobacter freundii isolated from the endangered Chinese sturgeon (Acipenser sinensis)[J]. Microb Pathog, 2022, 173, 105818. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2022.105818
31	AGBODAZE D . Verocytotoxins (Shiga-like toxins) produced by Escherichia coli: a minireview of their classification, clinical presentations and management of a heterogeneous family of cytotoxins[J]. Comp Immunol Microbiol Inf Dis, 1999, 22 (4): 221- 230. doi: 10.1016/S0147-9571(99)00013-2
32	RINTTILÄ T , APAJALAHTI J . Intestinal microbiota and metabolites—Implications for broiler chicken health and performance[J]. J Appl Poultry Res, 2013, 22 (3): 647- 658. doi: 10.3382/japr.2013-00742
33	KORCZ E , KERÉNYI Z , VARGA L . Dietary fibers, prebiotics, and exopolysaccharides produced by lactic acid bacteria: potential health benefits with special regard to cholesterol-lowering effects[J]. Food Funct, 2018, 9 (6): 3057- 3068. doi: 10.1039/C8FO00118A

项目 Item	含量 Content
原料 Ingredient
海杂鱼 Sea fish	30.00
毛蛋 Unhatched fertilized egg	24.00
鸡架 Chicken ribs	10.00
鸡头 Chicken head	15.00
膨化玉米 Extruded corn	7.00
鸡肝 Chicken livers	5.00
麦麸 Wheat bran	3.00
猪血球蛋白粉 Porcine spary-dried blood cells	2.00
豆粕 Soybean meal	3.00
预混料 premix¹⁾	1.00
合计 Total	100.00
营养水平²⁾
干物质 DM	41.91
代谢能/(MJ·kg^-1)ME	16.59
粗脂肪 EE	21.55
粗蛋白质 CP	34.66
钙 Ca	1.10
总磷 TP	1.21

项目 Item	植物乳杆菌益生菌 LP		SEM	植物乳杆菌后生元 PLP		SEM	P值P-value
项目 Item	0	0.10%	SEM	0	0.30%	SEM	P_LP	P_PLP	P_LP*PLP
体重/g BW
初重 Initial BW	931.20	926.15	128.83	931.60	925.75	125.59	0.906	0.891	0.986
4周 wk 4	1 264.15	1 357.37	136.74	1 290.79	1 327.40	137.31	0.037	0.420	0.720
8周 wk 8	1 451.50	1 569.22	173.22	1 491.00	1 521.90	174.60	0.041	0.667	0.870
平均日增重/g ADG
0~4 周 0-4 wk	11.89	15.61	5.42	13.02	14.34	5.39	0.036	0.468	0.856
5~8 周 5-8 wk	6.69	7.50	3.59	7.22	6.95	3.58	0.470	0.761	0.481
0~8 周 0-8 wk	9.29	11.63	3.04	10.13	10.65	3.07	0.019	0.697	0.726
平均日采食量/g ADFI
0~4 周 0-4 wk	254.14	282.35	28.30	260.49	274.91	27.45	0.001	0.089	0.949
5~8 周 5-8 wk	233.74	238.51	31.02	230.56	240.90	30.91	0.705	0.323	0.671
0~8 周 0-8 wk	243.94	260.37	23.86	244.85	257.90	23.26	0.040	0.101	0.760
料重比 F/G
0~4 周 0-4 wk	21.83	18.98	5.37	20.24	20.55	5.46	0.117	0.859	0.735
5~8 周 5-8 wk	34.50	31.46	10.37	32.19	33.99	10.42	0.373	0.515	0.161
0~8 周 0-8 wk	25.20	22.97	4.05	23.94	24.22	4.12	0.094	0.760	0.385

组别 Group		IgA/(μg·mL^-1)	IgM/(μg·mL^-1)	IgG/(g·L^-1)
对照组 Control		321.31^b	1404.49^b	41.33
植物乳杆菌益生菌组 LP group		356.49^a	2367.69^a	45.02
植物乳杆菌后生元组 PLP group		341.66^ab	1902.82^ab	35.63
植物乳杆菌益生菌-后生元组 LP-PLP group		331.25^ab	1675.50^b	40.93
SEM		4.92	112.56	1.08
植物乳杆菌益生菌 LP	0	338.90	1886.09	43.17
	0.10%	336.46	1789.16	38.28
	SEM	24.31	515.85	4.79
植物乳杆菌后生元 PLP	0	331.48	1653.66	38.48
	0.30%	343.87	2021.60	42.97
	SEM	24.09	551.41	5.31
P值 P-value	P_LP	0.784	0.601	0.012
	P_PLP	0.174	0.057	0.020
	P_LP*PLP	0.017	0.004	0.657

组别 Group		sIgA/(ng·mL^-1)	IL-1β	IL-8	IL-2	IL-6	IL-12	IL-10	TNF-α	IFN-γ
对照组 Control		2 102.66	249.60	149.46^ab	359.23^a	34.95	26.41	109.35^ab	1 414.91^a	770.93
植物乳杆菌益生菌组 LP group		2 171.65	234.72	124.99^c	266.76^b	29.64	23.26	92.41^b	1 010.01^b	840.21
植物乳杆菌后生元组		2 371.51	249.00	132.83^bc	315.69^a	32.44	25.33	91.82^b	961.99^b	803.48
PLP group
植物乳杆菌益生菌-后生元组		2 296.97	256.18	155.71^a	343.21^a	36.61	22.86	113.13^a	1 084.51^b	851.34
LP-PLP group
SEM		44.22	5.45	4.13	10.30	1.40	0.70	3.64	48.27	13.30
植物乳杆菌益生菌 LP	0	2 137.15	242.16	137.23	313.00	32.29	24.84	100.88	1 212.46	805.57
	0.10%	2 334.24	252.59	144.27	329.45	34.52	24.10	102.47	1 023.25	827.41
	SEM	196.02	26.75	20.23	50.12	6.92	3.46	17.59	215.70	65.64
植物乳杆菌后生元	0	2 237.08	249.30	141.15	337.46	33.70	25.87	100.59	1 188.45	787.21
PLP	0.30%	2 234.31	245.45	140.35	304.98	33.12	23.06	102.77	1047.26	845.77
	SEM	216.62	26.71	20.23	50.48	6.86	3.41	17.89	236.49	65.16
P值 P-value	P_LP	0.027	0.361	0.321	0.303	0.429	0.589	0.809	0.010	0.388
	P_PLP	0.974	0.734	0.910	0.050	0.837	0.049	0.740	0.047	0.028
	P_LP*PLP	0.394	0.335	0.003	0.001	0.102	0.801	0.008	0.001	0.670

项目 Item	植物乳杆菌益生菌 LP		SEM	植物乳杆菌后生元 PLP		SEM	P值 P-value
项目 Item	0	0.10%	SEM	0	0.30%	SEM	P_LP	P_PLP	P_LP*PLP
Shannon 指数	1.52	1.62	0.93	1.73	1.41	0.89	0.834	0.480	0.974
Shannon index
Simpson 指数	0.46	0.38	0.26	0.33	0.50	0.28	0.627	0.262	0.639
Simpson index
Ace 指数 Ace index	213.69	171.60	96.80	149.43	233.64	95.21	0.378	0.069	0.979
Chao1 指数	176.07	158.30	85.30	130.08	205.45	82.61	0.719	0.071	0.489
Chao1 index