4.7 Article

Wheat and barley differently affect porcine intestinal microbiota

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
Volume 96, Issue 6, Pages 2230-2239

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.7340

Keywords

barley; cereal; genotype; intestinal microbiota; pig; wheat

Funding

  1. Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV) based on a decision of the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany via the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) under the innovation support programme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Diet influences the porcine intestinal microbial ecosystem. Barrows were fitted with ileal T-cannulas to compare short-term effects of eight different wheat or barley genotypes and period-to-period effects on seven bacterial groups in ileal digesta and faeces by qPCR. RESULTS: Within genotypes of wheat and barley, there was no difference (P > 0.05) in contents of analysed NSP, yet cereal types differed (P < 0.001) except for soluble arabinoxylans. Genotypes showed no effect on bacterial gene copy numbers. In ileal digesta of barley-compared to wheat-fed pigs, log(10) copy numbers were lower (P< 0.05) for total eubacteria (9.6-9.8), Bacteroides-Prevotella-Porphyromonas (6.5-6.8), Clostridium cluster IV (6.7-6.9), and Roseburia spp. (6.6-7.2), while higher copy numbers were found for Lactobacillus spp. (9.4-8.8). Enterobacteriaceae (7.0-7.8) and Bifidobacterium spp. (7.0-7.7) were lower (P< 0.001) in faeces of barley compared to wheat-fed pigs. Ileal eubacteria, Clostridium cluster IV and Roseburia spp. linearly increased from period 1 to 8 for both cereals (P< 0.05). CONCLUSION: Wheat and barley differently influence microbial composition particularly in the small intestine, with barley increasing the Lactobacillus spp.: Enterobacteriaceae ratio, underlining its potential to beneficially manipulate the intestinal microbial ecosystem. (C) 2015 Society of Chemical Industry

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