4.5 Article

Effects of enzymatic hydrolysates from poultry by-products (EHPB) as an alternative source of fish meal on growth performance, hepatic proteome and gut microbiota of turbot (Scophthalmus maximus)

期刊

AQUACULTURE NUTRITION
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 1994-2006

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/anu.13141

关键词

biochemical indices; enzymatic hydrolysates from poultry by-products (EHPB); growth performance; hepatic proteome; intestinal microbiota; turbot

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province [C2019204360]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was carried out to investigate the effects of enzymatic hydrolysates from poultry by-products (EHPB) as protein source on turbot (Scophthalmus maximus). For an eight-week feeding trial, the control group was fed a normal feed (0 EHPB), and the experimental groups were given four experimental diets, containing 80, 168, 255 and 340 g/kg EHPB, respectively. Results showed that 80 g/kg EHPB had no effect on the growth performance, and obviously increased the serum complement C3, complement C4 and SOD levels; >= 168 g/kg EHPB significantly decreased the crude fat content and triglyceride level, and increased the BUN and MDA levels; >= 255 g/kg EHPB significantly decreased the weight gain, apparent digestibility (AD) of nutrients, complement C3, complement C4 and SOD levels. The hepatic proteome analysis indicated that EHPB increased 5'-AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) level and might affect fat accumulation by regulating relevant enzymes. 16S rRNA sequencing showed that EHPB influenced the microbial community structure (R = 0.13, ANOSIMp = .006) and significantly decreased the abundance ofVibrio, but 255 g/kg EHPB increased the abundances ofPhyllobacterium,SphingomonasandDelftia, indicating that the high level of EHPB may induce accumulation of harmful substances in the intestine. Consequently, excessive EHPB impeded the growth and health status of fish, and about 80 g/kg EHPB is suitable for turbot growth and suppression of potential pathogens.

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