4.4 Article

Effects of the antibiotic growth promoters flavomycin and florfenicol on the autochthonous intestinal microbiota of hybrid tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus ♀ x O. aureus ♂)

期刊

ARCHIVES OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 192, 期 12, 页码 985-994

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00203-010-0627-z

关键词

Hybrid tilapia; Dietary flavomycin; Florfenicol; RQ-PCR; DGGE; Intestinal bacteria

资金

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2007AA100601]
  2. Key Program of Transgenic Plant Breeding [2009ZX08003-020B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 16S rDNA PCR-DGGE and rpoB quantitative PCR (RQ-PCR) techniques were used to evaluate the effects of dietary flavomycin and florfenicol on the autochthonous intestinal microbiota of hybrid tilapia. The fish were fed four diets: control, dietary flavomycin, florfenicol and their combination. After 8 weeks of feeding, 6 fish from each cage were randomly chosen for the analysis. The total number of intestinal bacteria was determined by RQ-PCR. The results showed that dietary antibiotics significantly influenced the intestinal microbiota and dramatically reduced the intensity of total intestinal bacterial counts. The intensity of some phylotypes (EU563257, EU563262 and EU563255) were reduced to non-detectable levels by both dietary antibiotics, while supplementation of florfenicol to the diet also reduced the intensity of the phylotypes EU563242 and EU563262, uncultured Mycobacterium sp.-like, uncultured Cyanobacterium-like and uncultured Cyanobacterium (EU563246). Dietary flavomycin only reduced the OTU intensity of one phylotype, identified as a member of the phylum Fusobacteria. The antibiotic combination only reduced the phylotypes EU563242 and EU563262. Based on our results, we conclude that the reduced effect of florfenicol on intestinal microbiota was stronger than that of flavomycin, and when flavomycin and florfenicol were added in combination, the effect of florfenicol overshadowed that of flavomycin.

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