Dietary addition of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG impairs the health of Escherichia coli F4-challenged piglets.

1DIPROVAL, University of Bologna, via Rosselli 107, 42100 Reggio Emilia, Italy.
animal (Impact Factor: 1.65). 08/2011; 5(9):1354-60. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731111000462
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) is a probiotic for humans and is normally not found in pigs; however, it has been shown to protect the human-derived intestinal Caco-2 cells against the damage induced by an important intestinal pathogen, enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli F4 (ETEC). An experiment was conducted to test whether the dietary addition of LGG improves the growth and health of weaned pigs when orally challenged by E. coli F4. Thirty-six pigs were weaned at 21 days and assigned to a standard weaning diet with or without 1010 CFU LGG (ATCC 53103) per day. The pigs, individually penned, were orally challenged with 1.5 ml of a 1010 CFU E. coli F4 suspension on day 7 and slaughtered on day 12 or 14. With the addition of LGG, the average daily gain and the average daily feed intake were reduced after the challenge with ETEC and for the entire trial (P < 0.05). The average faecal score tended to worsen from day 11 to the end of the trial and the concentration of ETEC in the faeces tended to increase (P = 0.07) with the LGG supplementation. The counts of lactic acid bacteria, enterobacteria and yeasts in the colonic digesta were not affected. The pH values in ileal, colonic and caecal digesta, and the small intestine size were also unchanged. Regardless of the site of measurement (duodenum, jejunum or ileum), a trend of decreased villus height was seen with LGG (P = 0.10). Crypt depth and villus to crypt ratio were unchanged by the diet. A gradual increase of total seric IgA was seen after 1 week and after the challenge, in the control (P < 0.05), but not in the treated group. After the challenge, the LGG reduced the total IgA in the blood serum (P < 0.05), v. the control. The total IgA in the saliva and in the jejunum secretion were not affected by the diet. The F4-specific IgA activity was not affected by the diet at all the samplings. Our result shows that, the administration of LGG do not prevent or reduce the detrimental effect of the E. coli F4 infection on the growth performance and health status of weaned piglet.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For many years, microbial adjuncts have been used to supplement the diets of farm animals and humans. They have evolved since the 1990s to become known as probiotics, i.e. functional food with health benefits. After the discovery of a possible link between manipulation of gut microflora in mice and obesity, a focus on the use of these beneficial microbes that act on gut microflora in animal farming was undertaken and compared with the use of probiotics for food. Beneficial microbes added to feed are classified at a regulatory level as zootechnical additives, in the category of gut flora stabilizers for healthy animals and are regulated up to strain level in Europe. Intended effects are improvement of performance characteristics, which are strain dependent and growth enhancement is not a prerequisite. In fact, increase of body weight is not commonly reported and its frequency is around 25% of the published data examined here. However, when a Body Weight Gain (BWG) was found in the literature, it was generally moderate (lower than or close to 10%) and this over a reduced period of their short industrial life. When it was higher than 10%, it could be explained as an indirect consequence of the alleviation of the weight losses linked to stressful intensive rearing conditions or health deficiency. However, regulations on feed do not consider the health effects because animals are supposed to be healthy, so there is no requirement for reporting healthy effects in the standard European dossier. The regulations governing the addition of beneficial microorganisms to food are less stringent than for feed and no dossier is required if a species has a Qualified Presumption of Safety status. The microbial strain marketed is not submitted to any regulation and its properties (including BWG) do not need to be studied. Only claims for functional or healthy properties are regulated and again growth effect is not included. However, recent studies on probiotic effects showed that BWG could also be observed in humans, or not, according to species and strains. Determining the significance of farm animal results for extrapolation to humans, especially regarding body weight improvement, was not easy because they do not use the same microbial strains nor always the same species. Furthermore, the framework for the management of microbials added to feed or to food differ, especially with regard to goal, timescale and lifestyle. So no one can exclude the possibility that beneficial microorganisms having probiotic effects may have long-term effects in humans that cannot be seen to date in animals, where short-term use is the rule. A possible link to obesity cannot be excluded in relation to timescale, species and strain specificity. To conclude, beneficial microorganisms added in feed are key factors stringently regulated for short-term improvement of zootechnical performances in animals and their use does not entirely parallel that of human probiotics. So extrapolation of farm animal results to humans is biased and not sufficient to be conclusive regarding the existence or not of a link between probiotics and obesity. From a toxicological and nutritional point of view and considering recent findings on a link between antibiotic use in early life and excessive risk of becoming overweight, one suggestion is to study the at-risk population in Europe, pregnant women and their babies before and after birth and during early childhood, in an epidemiological long-term cohort survey.
    Clinical Microbiology and Infection 01/2013; · 4.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Probiotic could be a promising alternative to antibiotics for the prevention of enteric infections; however, further information on the dose effects is required. In this study, weanling piglets were orally administered low- or high-dose Lactobacillus rhamnosus ACTT 7469 (10(10) CFU/d or 10(12) CFU/d) for 1 week before F4 (K88)-positive Escherichia coli challenge. The compositions of faecal and gastrointestinal microbiota were recorded; gene expression in the intestines was assessed by real-time PCR; serum tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) concentrations and intestinal Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) were detected by ELISA and immunohistochemistry, respectively. Unexpectedly, high-dose administration increased the incidence of diarrhoea before F4(+)ETEC challenge, despite the fact that both doses ameliorated F4(+)ETEC-induced diarrhoea with increased Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium counts accompanied by reduced coliform shedding in faeces. Interestingly, L. rhamnosus administration reduced Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium counts in the colonic contents, and the high-dose piglets also had lower Lactobacillius and Bacteroides counts in the ileal contents. An increase in the concentration of serum TNF-α induced by F4(+)ETEC was observed, but the increase was delayed by L. rhamnosus. In piglets exposed to F4(+)ETEC, jejunal TLR4 expression increased at the mRNA and protein levels, while jejunal interleukin (IL)-8 and ileal porcine β-defensins 2 (pBD2) mRNA expression increased; however, these increases were attenuated by administration of L. rhamnosus. Notably, expression of jejunal TLR2, ileal TLR9, Nod-like receptor NOD1 and TNF-α mRNA was upregulated in the low-dose piglets after F4(+)ETEC challenge, but not in the high-dose piglets. These findings indicate that pretreatment with a low dose of L. rhamnosus might be more effective than a high dose at ameliorating diarrhoea. There is a risk that high-dose L. rhamnosus pretreatment may negate the preventative effects, thus decreasing the prophylactic benefits against potential enteric pathogens. Our data suggest a safe threshold for preventative use of probiotics in clinical practice.
    PLoS ONE 01/2012; 7(7):e40666. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Veterinary Microbiology 08/2012; · 3.13 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 19, 2014