4.3 Article

Oral treatment of chickens with Lactobacillus reuteri LM1 reduces Brachyspira pilosicoli-induced pathology

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 287-296

出版社

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.051862-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. British Egg Marketing Board Research and Education trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Avian intestinal spirochaetosis (AIS) results from the colonization of the caeca and colon of poultry by pathogenic Brachyspira, notably Brachyspira pilosicoli. Following the ban on the use of antibiotic growth promoters in the European Union in 2006, the number of cases of AIS has increased, which, alongside emerging antimicrobial resistance in Brachyspira, has driven renewed interest in alternative intervention strategies. Lactobacillus-based probiotics have been shown to protect against infection with common enteric pathogens in livestock. Our previous studies have shown that Lactobacillus reuteri LM1 antagonizes aspects of the pathobiology of Brachyspira in vitro. Here, we showed that L. reuteri LM1 mitigates the clinical symptoms of AIS in chickens experimentally challenged with B. pilosicoli. Two groups of 15 commercial laying hens were challenged experimentally by oral gavage with B. pilosicoli B2904 at 18 weeks of age; one group received unsupplemented drinking water and the other received L. reuteri LM1 in drinking water from 1 week prior to challenge with Brachyspira and thereafter for the duration of the study. This treatment regime was protective. Specifically, B. pilosicoli was detected by culture in fewer birds, bird weights were higher, faecal moisture contents were significantly lower (P<0.05) and egg production as assessed by egg weight and faecal staining score was improved (P<0.05). Also, at post-mortem examination, significantly fewer B. pilosicoli were recovered from treated birds (P<0.05), with only mild moderate histopathological changes observed. These data suggest that L. reuteri LM1 may be a useful tool in the control of AIS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据