4.7 Article

Composition of microbiota in content and mucus from cecae of broiler chickens as measured by fluorescent in situ hybridization with group-specific, 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes

Journal

POULTRY SCIENCE
Volume 82, Issue 8, Pages 1242-1249

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/ps/82.8.1242

Keywords

broiler chicken; cecum; microbiota; in situ hybridization; 16S rRNA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Six group-specific 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes were used to investigate the composition of the miccrobiota of cecal content and mucus from broiler chickens. Together, the probes hybridized to as many as 94.7% of the bacteria detectable with the universal probe Bact338 in the content of the cecum of 2-d-old chicks. Fewer bacteria gave signals with these probes as the birds aged, and coverage was as low as 76% for the bacteria in cecal content of a 6-wk-old chicken. In the cecal content of 2-d-old chicks, approximately 56,34, and 3% of the bacteria detectable with the universal probe reacted with the probes Enter1432 (enterics), Lacto722 (Lactobacillus/Streptococcus/Enterococcus), and Bif164 (bifidobacteria), respectively. Probes Clept1240 (Clostridium leptum subgroup), Erec482 (Clostridium coccoides-Eubacterium rectale), and Bacto1080 (Bacteroides groups) did not produce signals. In cecal content from 1-wk-old chicks, all six probes gave signals, and in samples from 6-wk-old birds approximately 3, 9, 6, 32, 22, and 8% of the bacteria detectable with the universal probe hybridized with the probes Enter1432, Lacto722, Bif164, Clept1240, Erec482, and Bacto1080, respectively. At this age, the six probes detected the phylogenetic groups in similar proportions in the microbiota of cecal content and cecal mucus. The exception was the enterics probe because more bacteria from the mucus fraction than from cecal content gave signals with this probe (13.4 vs. 4.4%, P < 0.001).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available