4.4 Article

Cecal microbiome divergence of broiler chickens by sex and body weight

期刊

JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 12, 页码 939-945

出版社

MICROBIOLOGICAL SOCIETY KOREA
DOI: 10.1007/s12275-017-7202-0

关键词

body weight; broiler chicken; cecal bacterial community; metagenome function; sex; 16S rRNA sequencing

资金

  1. Chung-Ang University Graduate Research Scholarship
  2. CTC Bio Inc., Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The divergence of gut bacterial community on broiler chickens has been reported as potentially possible keys to enhancing nutrient absorption, immune systems, and increasing poultry health and performance. Thus, we compared cecal bacterial communities and functional predictions by sex and body weight regarding the association between cecal microbiota and chicken growth performance. In this study, a total of 12 male and 12 female 1-day-old broiler chickens were raised for 35 days in 2 separate cages. Chickens were divided into 3 subgroups depending on body weight (low, medium, and high) by each sex. We compared chicken cecal microbiota compositions and its predictive functions by sex and body weight difference. We found that bacterial 16S rRNA genes were classified as 3 major phyla (Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and Proteobacteria), accounting for > 98% of the total bacterial community. The profiling of different bacterial taxa and predictive metagenome functions derived from 16S rRNA genes were performed over chicken sex and bodyweight. Male chickens were related to the enrichment of Bacteroides while female chickens were to the enrichment of Clostridium and Shigella. Male chickens with high body weight were associated with the enrichment of Faecalibacterium and Shuttleworthia. Carbohydrate and lipid metabolisms were suggested as candidate functions for weight gain in the males. This suggests that the variation of cecal bacterial communities and their functions by sex and body weight may be associated with the differences in the growth potentials of broiler chickens.

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

4.4
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