4.5 Article

Probiotics in the intestinal tract of juvenile whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei: modulation of the bacterial community

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11274-012-1177-0

关键词

Whiteleg shrimp; Bacteria community; Probiotics; Bacillus mix

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, SEP-CONACYT [25981]
  2. Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas del Noroeste [AC0.4]
  3. CONACYT fellowship [48351]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular analysis of the 16S rDNA of the intestinal microbiota of whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei was examined to investigate the effect of a Bacillus mix (Bacillus endophyticus YC3-b, Bacillus endophyticus C2-2, Bacillus tequilensisYC5-2) and the commercial probiotic (Alibio(A (R))) on intestinal bacterial communities and resistance to Vibrio infection. PCR and single strain conformation polymorphism (SSCP) analyses were then performed on DNA extracted directly from guts. Injection of shrimp with V. parahaemolyticus at 2.5 x 10(5) CFU g(-1) per shrimp followed 168 h after inoculation with Bacillus mix or the Alibio probiotic or the positive control. Diversity analyses showed that the bacterial community resulting from the Bacillus mix had the highest diversity and evenness and the bacterial community of the control had the lowest diversity. The bacterial community treated with probiotics mainly consisted of alpha- and gamma-proteobacteria, fusobacteria, sphingobacteria, and flavobacteria, while the control mainly consisted of alpha-proteobacteria and flavobacteria. Differences were grouped using principal component analyses of PCR-SSCP of the microbiota, according to the time of inoculation. In Vibrio parahaemolyticus-infected shrimp, the Bacillus mix (similar to 33 %) induced a significant increase in survival compared to Alibio (similar to 21 %) and the control (similar to 9 %). We conclude that administration of the Bacillus mix induced modulation of the intestinal microbiota of L. vannamei and increased its resistance to V. parahaemolyticus.

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

4.5
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