Content uploaded by Maamer Jlali
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maamer Jlali on Jul 30, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1745
Effect of 2-hydroxy-4-methylselenobutanoic acid as a dietary
selenium supplement to improve the selenium concentration of table eggs1
M. Jlali,* M. Briens,*† F. Rouffi neau,* F. Mercerand,‡ P.-A. Geraert,* and Y. Mercier*2
*Adisseo France S.A.S., 10, Place du Général de Gaulle, 92160 Antony, France; †Institut de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire,
15, Rue René Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg, France; and ‡INRA, UR83, Recherches Avicoles, F-37380 Nouzilly, France
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare
the effects of a new organic Se [2-hydroxy-4-
methylselenobutanoic acid (HMSeBA)] with routinely
used mineral and organic Se sources (sodium selenite
and selenized yeast) on chosen performance criteria and
Se deposition in egg and muscle of laying hens. A total of
240 laying hens (40 wk of age) were randomly assigned
to 6 treatments for 56 d with 8 replicates of 5 hens per
replicate. The 6 treatments were as follows: control
group received basal diet without Se supplementation;
the second, fourth, and sixth experimental groups (SS-
0.2, SY-0.2, and HMSeBA-0.2, respectively) were
fed basal diet supplemented with Se at 0.2 mg/kg
from sodium selenite, selenized yeast, and HMSeBA,
respectively; and the third and fi fth experimental
groups (SY-0.1, and HMSeBA-0.1, respectively) were
fed basal diet supplemented with Se at 0.1 mg/kg
from selenized yeast and HMSeBA, respectively. No
difference was observed among dietary treatments on
feed intake, egg weight, and laying rate. All hens fed
the Se-supplemented diets exhibited greater total Se
contents in their eggs compared with control hens (P <
0.01). The egg Se concentrations were greater in hens
fed organic Se (HMSeBA-0.2, P < 0.01, and SY-0.2,
P < 0.01) than those fed the SS-0.2. In addition, hens
fed the diet with HMSeBA-0.2 accumulated more Se
in their eggs (+28.78%; P < 0.01) and muscles (+28%;
P < 0.01) than those fed the diet supplemented with
SY-0.2. These results showed the greater ability of
HMSeBA to increase Se deposition in eggs and breast
muscle of laying hens, which can subsequently lead to
greater supply of Se for humans.
Key words: egg, laying hens, muscle selenium deposition, 2-hydroxy-4-methylselenobutanoic acid
© 2013 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. J. Anim. Sci. 2013.91:1745–1752
doi:10.2527/jas2012-5825
INTRODUCTION
Selenium has been recognized as a nutritional
essential trace element that is important in many
biological processes in mammals and birds (Holben
and Smith, 1999; Surai, 2000). It has a crucial role
in embryonic and postnatal development (Surai,
2000; Fortier et al., 2012), immunity, reproduction,
antioxidant system (Choct et al., 2004; Juniper et al.,
2011), and muscle function (Ruan et al., 2012; Zhang
et al., 2012) and is known as a natural antioxidant
(Surai, 2002). In poultry as well as in other animal
species, Se can be added to diets through its mineral or
organic forms, which represent the crucial factor that
determines its metabolic fate (Suzuki, 2005).
Sodium selenite (SS) constitutes the traditional
source of supplemental Se in animal diets (Surai,
2006). Organic Se sources have been developed
through selenized yeast (SY) with Se in the form of
selenomethionine (Surai, 2006). Regardless of Se
source, the maximum amount of supplemental Se that
can be added to animal diets is limited to 0.3 mg/kg of
diet in the United States (FDA, 2004) whereas in the
European Union, the maximum content of total Se
allowed in animal diets is 0.5 mg/kg of diet (EFSA,
2012). Therefore, faced with the ability to add limited
quantities of Se added to animal diets, several researchers
have started to look for other alternative sources of Se
to substitute for the inorganic Se because of its low
1
The present study was supported by ADISSEO France S.A.S
(Antony, France). The authors thank the staff of the poultry breeding
facilities (INRA, UE 1295 Pôle d’Expérimentation Avicole de Tours,
Nouzilly, France) for their valuable technical assistance.
2Corresponding author: yves.mercier@adisseo.com.
Received September 6, 2012.
Accepted January 17, 2013.
Published December 2, 2014
Jlali et al.
1746
bioavailability (Payne and Southern, 2005; Petrovič et al.,
2006) and high toxicity (Spallholz, 1994; Kim and Mahan,
2001). Recently, several studies have been performed to
evaluate the effects of SY supplementation on livestock
species and poultry (Mateo et al., 2007; Čobanová et al.,
2011; Speight et al., 2012). Most of these studies have
reported that this organic Se source was a more effi cient
Se supplier than a mineral source such as sodium selenite.
Recently, a new organic Se source based on the 2-hydroxy-
4-methylselenobutanoic acid (HMSeBA), which can be
assimilated to hydroxyl-analog of selenomethionine, has
been developed and its high dietary effi cacy has been
demonstrated in broiler chickens (Briens et al., 2013).
In the present study, we examined the relative
bioavailability of HMSeBA compared with other Se
sources used in animal nutrition, selenized yeast and
sodium selenite, as measured by the Se concentration
of eggs. Moreover, the effects of various Se sources and
doses on chosen performance criteria and egg indices
were also determined in laying hens.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
All experiments were conducted according to
the European Union Guidelines of Animal Care
and legislation governing the ethical treatment of
animals, and investigators were certifi ed by the
French government to conduct animal experiments.
The authorization 37-175-1 was issued to Pôle
d’Expérimentation Avicole de Tours (Nouzilly, France)
by the French Ministry of Agriculture.
Birds and Experimental Design
A total of 240 laying hens (40 wk, ISA Brown;
Hubbard, Ploufragan, France) were used in this
experiment. Layers were randomly allocated to 1 of 6
treatments with 8 replicate cages with 5 birds per cage
(660 cm2/bird) equipped with a feed trough and nipple
drinkers. All birds were housed in a conventional poultry
house (INRA, UE1295 Pôle d’Expérimentation Avicole
de Tours, Nouzilly, France) for a period of 56 d. Six
treatments were as follows: control group received basal
diet without Se supplementation; the fi rst, third, and fi fth
experimental group (SS-0.2, SY-0.2, and HMSeBA-0.2,
respectively) were fed basal diet supplemented with
0.2 mg Se/kg of diet in the form of SS (Microgan
Se 1% BPM; DSM Nutritional Product AG, Basel,
Switzerland), SY (Sel-Plex2000; Alltech, Nicholasville,
KY), and HMSeBA (Selisseo; Adisseo, Antony, France),
respectively; and the second and fourth experimental
groups (SY-0.1 and HMSeBA-0.1, respectively) were
fed basal diet supplemented with 0.1 mg Se/kg of diet
(Table 1). All hens were given ad libitum access to
water and feed. The temperature was maintained at 22°C
and lighting program was fi xed to 16 h light/8 h dark
throughout the experimental period.
Laying Hen Performance Criteria
and Egg Indices Determination
Egg production was recorded daily for each pen
whereas egg weight was determined 3 times a week.
Average feed intake, laying rate, and feed effi ciency
(FE) were monitored weekly during the whole
experimental period. At the beginning and on d 2, 4, 6,
8, 14, 28, 54, 55, and 56, 48 eggs (8 eggs per treatment
and 1 egg per each replicate cage) were randomly
collected each day to evaluate the eggshell breaking
strength by using an Instron (Model 5543; Instron,
Table 1. Composition of basal diet fed to laying hens for
56 d (as-feed basis)
Item Basal diet
Ingredient, %
Corn 64.50
Soybean meal, 48% CP 23.10
Calcium carbonate 8.54
Dicalcium phosphate 1.64
Soybean oil 1.30
NaCl 0.38
DL-Met, 99% 0.12
L-Lys HCl, 78% 0.02
Vitamin–mineral premix,1 % 0.40
Calculated content
ME, MJ/kg 11.39
CP, % 16.0
Crude fat, % 4.0
Lys, % 0.83
Met, % 0.39
Total S-AA, % 0.66
Thr, % 0.61
Trp, % 0.18
Arg, % 1.04
Ca, % 3.75
K, % 0.69
Total P, % 0.61
Cl, % 0.27
Phytate P, % 0.21
Na, % 0.16
Determined content
ME, MJ/kg 11.39
CP, % 16.0
Crude fat, % 4.5
Ash, % 11.3
1Supplied per kilogram of diet: vitamin A, 12,000 IU; vitamin D3,
2,000 IU; vitamin E, 30 IU; menadione, 2.5 mg; thiamine, 2 mg; ribofl avin,
6 mg; pantothenic acid, 15 mg; vitamin B6, 3 mg; vitamin B12, 0.02 mg;
nicotinic acid, 30 mg; folic acid, 1 mg; biotin, 0.1 mg; Fe as ferrous iron,
80 mg; Cu as copper sulfate, 8 mg; Mn as manganese oxide, 60 mg; Zn as zinc
oxide, 40.4 mg; I as potassium iodide, 0.8 mg; and Co as cobalt oxide, 0.4 mg.
Organic selenium and selenium deposition 1747
Elancourt, France) fi tted with a 50 N load capture at
compression speed of 5 mm/min. Additionally, 16 eggs
obtained from SY-0.2 and HMSeBA-0.2 treatments
were randomly collected at the beginning of the d 8
and 14 of the experimental period for total Se analysis.
Forty-eight eggs (8 eggs per treatment and 1 egg per
each replicate cage) were randomly collected on d 54,
55, and 56 for total Se analysis. Moreover, at the end
of the experimental period, 8 hens from SY-0.2 and
HMSeBA-0.2 treatment were chosen at random (1 hen
per each replicate cage) and slaughtered after 7 h of
feed withdrawal. About 100 g of left pectoralis major
muscle was removed, immediately frozen in liquid N,
and stored at –20°C until analyzed.
Diet, Egg, and Muscle Se Analysis
Total Se concentrations in feed, egg, and muscle
samples were determined according to the method
previously described by Vacchina et al. (2010) with slight
modifi cations. Briefl y, approximately 1 g of feed sample
was mineralized in a mixture (2:1,vol/vol) of HNO3 (69
to 70%) and H2O2 (35%) at 85°C for 4 h within a closed
vessel heating block system (DigiPrep; SCP Science,
Courtaboeuf, France). For egg and muscle samples
(previously lyophilized and mixed before analysis), the
mass uptake was reduced to 250 mg and then digested
by a mixture (2:1, vol/vol) of HNO3 (69 to 70%) and
H2O2 (35%). The solution was further diluted with
water and total Se content was subsequently measured
by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
(Agilent 7500cx; Agilent, Tokyo, Japan). All values
were calculated on a DM basis.
Calculation of Se Transfer Effi ciency
and its Bioavailability in Egg
Feed intake, egg weight, and egg Se concentrations
were used to determine the Se egg output as well as
the Se transfer effi ciency for SY-0.2 and HMSeBA-0.2
treatments by using these equations:
1) Se egg output (μg) = egg Se concentration × DM
egg content weight, assuming that the DM egg
content is 24% of total egg weight, and
2) Se transfer effi ciency (%) = (Se egg output/Se
feed intake) × 100.
The bioavailability of Se from HMSeBA relative
to SY was calculated according to Finney (1971) by
using 5 point slope ratio design: Control, SY-0.1, SY-
0.2, HMSeBA-0.1, and HMSeBA-0.2. As suggested by
Littell et al. (1997) a nonlinear model was fi tted to the
data using the NLIN procedure (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary,
NC). The model was as follows:
Egg Se concentration = a + a0 × X0 + bS ×
(bTS × HMSeBA dose + SY dose),
in which egg Se concentration is the content of Se in
egg (in mg/kg of dry product), a is the intercept, a0 ×
X0 is a correction for the Control diet, HMSeBA dose
and SY dose are the Se amounts added to hen diets from
HMSeBA and SY, respectively, bS is the slope for the
effect of SY on the response, and bTS is the ratio between
bT (the slope for the effect of HMSeBA) and bS. This
allows an estimate of the relative biological value (i.e.,
the ratio between slopes bS and bT) and its confi dence
interval (CI) to be obtained directly.
Statistical Analysis
All data were analyzed using SAS. The accepted
type I error was 5%. The effects of treatment, period,
and their possible interactions were analyzed in relation
to feed intake, egg weight, egg mass, laying rate, FE,
and eggshell strength using repeated-measures 2-way
ANOVA (GLIMMIX procedure). The period was added
to the model as a repeated factor with the cage as the
subject. For Se variables, the treatment effect, which is
a combination of Se sources and levels, were analyzed
using GLM procedure. Comparisons of means for each
signifi cant effect were performed by Tukey’s test using
the least square mean statement. Data are presented as
means ± SEM or SD.
RESULTS
The Se content in each diet is summarized in Table 2.
The results showed that the expected Se levels were
confi rmed in control and experimental diets by Se analysis.
Laying Hen Performance Parameters and Egg Indices
The main effects of treatment (Se source and level)
on performance criteria are summarized in Table 3. Feed
intake, egg weight, egg mass, and laying rate were not
affected by dietary treatments. These criteria evaluating
the laying hen performance were not infl uenced
neither by the Se sources (inorganic vs. organic form)
or within the organic source (SY vs. HMSeBA) nor by
the Se supplementation levels (0.1 vs. 0.2 mg Se/kg).
Conversely and regardless of the dietary treatments, the
experimental period affected all performance criteria
studied especially egg mass and FE (P < 0.01) and
laying rate (P < 0.01). An interaction between dietary
Jlali et al.
1748
treatment and experimental period (P = 0.01) was
observed for FE because of statistically signifi cant effect
of dietary treatments (P < 0.01) during the fi rst week of
the experimental period. Indeed, both treatments with
the organic Se sources at 0.1 mg/kg of diet showed an
improvement of the FE compared with SS treatment at
0.2 mg/kg of diet. The other treatments had intermediate
FE but the HMSeBA-0.2 group tended to be lower (P =
0.08) than those hens supplemented with SS at the same
level of Se. No treatment effects (source and dose of Se)
were observed on the eggshell breaking strength (P =
0.10). In contrast, this measurement used to evaluate
shell quality was affected by the sample day (P < 0.01).
Moreover, the polynomial contrast analysis revealed that
period exert a linear effect on the feed intake, egg mass,
laying rate, FE, and eggshell breaking strength (P < 0.05).
Selenium Concentrations in Eggs and Muscles
No interaction was detected on the average total
Se content between dietary treatments and sampling
day during the last 3 d of experiment (Fig. 1). Total
Se concentrations measured in eggs from the hens
supplemented with Se were greater than those without
supplementation (P < 0.01). At the level of 0.2 mg Se/kg
of diet, Se was more effi ciently deposited in eggs from
hens supplemented with SY (P < 0.05) and HMSeBA
(P < 0.01) compared with those supplemented with SS.
Comparing only organic Se treatments, hens fed the
HMSeBA-0.2 diet exhibited greater (P < 0.01) egg Se
concentrations compared with those fed the SY-0.2 diet.
Selenium content was greater (P < 0.05) in eggs
from hens supplemented with HMSeBA than in those
from hens provided the equivalent amount of SY for all
days studied (Fig. 2A). The results of the kinetic study
showed that HMSeBA at the dose of 0.2 mg Se/kg of
diet have ability to increase the Se content of eggs more
effectively (P < 0.05) compared with the equivalent
amount of SY. In contrast, the use of SY had no effect
on the Se deposition in eggs as compared with basal
level of Se (Fig. 2A). The Se transfer effi ciency values
determined in relation to Se egg output and daily Se
intake showed that the Se transfer effi ciency was greater
(P < 0.01; Fig. 2B) in birds supplemented with Se as
HMSeBA at 0.2 mg/kg of diet (76.26%) than those
provided the same amount of SY (56%). Moreover,
breast muscle concentration of Se was greater (P < 0.01)
in hens fed HMSeBA-0.2 than those fed SY-0.2 (Fig. 3).
Bioavailability of Se in the Organic Se Sources
The results of estimating the bioavailability of Se
from HMSeBA and SY sources to improve the egg
Se concentration after 56 d of supplementation are
presented in Fig. 4. The slope ratio model indicated
that bioavailability of HMSeBA was 28.78% (95% CI:
116.99; 140.57%) more effi cient (P < 0.01) than SY.
DISCUSSION
Our results showed that, regardless of the Se source
or level or both, hen performance criteria were not
affected during the whole experimental period despite
Table 2. Selenium sources and levels supplemented in diets
Treatment1Se source Supplemental Se,
mg/kg
Total Se,2
mg/kg
Control Basal diet – 0.069 ± 0.001
SS-0.2 Basal diet +
sodium selenite
0.2 0.18 ± 0.00
SY-0.1 Basal diet +
Se-enriched yeast
0.1 0.13 ± 0.01
SY-0.2 Basal diet +
Se-enriched yeast
0.2 0.23 ± 0.01
HMSeBA-0.1 Basal diet + 2-hydroxy-
4-methylselenobutanoic
acid
0.1 0.13 ± 0.00
HMSeBA-0.2 Basal diet + 2-hydroxy-
4-methylselenobutanoic
acid
0.2 0.21 ± 0.00
1SS-0.2 = basal diet supplemented with 0.2 mg Se/kg from sodium selenite;
SY-0.1 = basal diet supplemented with 0.1 mg Se/kg from selenized yeast;
SY-0.2 = basal diet supplemented with 0.2 mg Se/kg from selenized yeast;
HMSeBA-0.1 = basal diet supplemented with 0.1 mg Se/kg from 2-hydroxy-
4-methylselenobutanoic acid; HMSeBA-0.2 = basal diet supplemented with
0.2 mg Se/kg from 2-hydroxy-4-methylselenobutanoic acid.
2Values are means of 2 replicates.
Table 3. Effects of Se sources and levels and feeding period on performance traits and egg indices in laying hens1
Item
Treatment
SEM P-value
Control SS-0.2 SY-0.1 SY-0.2 HMSeBA-0.1 HMSeBA-0.2
Feed intake, g/d 113.0 117.0 115.4 112.4 111.6 115.4 2.1 0.42
Egg weight, g 66.2 65.7 65.4 65.5 65.1 66.6 0.6 0.47
Egg mass, g/d 61.0 62.3 63.1 60.2 60.2 61.9 1.3 0.53
Laying rate, % 92.2 94.7 96.6 92.8 92.9 92.9 1.6 0.54
Feed effi ciency, g/g 0.54 0.53 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.01 0.93
Eggshell strength, N 38.0 36.3 35.9 35.4 34.9 35.1 0.8 0.10
1Control = basal diet; SS-0.2 = basal diet supplemented with 0.2 mg Se/kg from sodium selenite; SY-0.1 = basal diet supplemented with 0.1 mg Se/kg from
selenized yeast; SY-0.2 = basal diet supplemented with 0.2 mg Se/kg from selenized yeast; HMSeBA-0.1 = basal diet supplemented with 0.1 mg Se/kg from
2-hydroxy-4-methylselenobutanoic acid; HMSeBA-0.2 = basal diet supplemented with 0.2 mg Se/kg from 2-hydroxy-4-methylselenobutanoic acid.
Organic selenium and selenium deposition 1749
the treatment effect observed on FE during the fi rst
week of the experiment. This fi nding is consistent with
those of numerous other studies previously conducted
in laying hens (Bennett and Cheng, 2010; Scheideler et
al., 2010; Pan et al., 2011). Likewise, Payne et al. (2005)
have reported that the hen production was not affected by
Se provided by inorganic or organic sources at various
levels (0, 0.15, 0.30, 0.60, and 3.0 mg/kg) of dietary Se.
Similarly, several studies performed on broilers and pigs
have shown that dietary Se supply had no effect on the
main performance criteria such as BW, ADG, and ADFI
(Payne and Southern, 2005; Li et al., 2011). Conversely,
Arpášová et al. (2009) showed egg weight improvement
with addition of Se at 0.4 and 0.9 mg/kg of diet as
SY compared with control group or SS supplemented
group during a 9-mo study. Considering those, it could
be speculated that the Se supplementation levels and
the relative short duration of the present study was not
suffi cient to demonstrate the effects of dietary treatments
on laying hen performance.
Regardless of the Se sources, the inclusion of this
trace element into the diets did not adversely impact
the eggshell breaking strength. Similarly, Pavlović et
al. (2010) did not fi nd any effect of Se supplementation,
either organic or mineral form, on egg shell quality
traits, including breaking strength, index of shape, shell
deformation, and thickness. Nevertheless, Arpášová et
al. (2009) reported that dietary supplementation of SS
or SY can lead to negative effects on some shell quality
traits. Therefore, it is likely that low levels of Se used in
this study (0.1 or 0.2 mg/kg), compared with those used
in the Arpášová et al. (2009) study (0.4 or 0.9 mg/kg),
have no effect on the use of macrominerals for shell
formation, particularly Ca, well known as a crucial
mineral determinant of eggshell strength (Guinotte and
Nys, 1991). It seems that our supplemented Se doses
were not able to reveal the presumed effects on studied
egg indices. Mohiti-Asli et al. (2008) have demonstrated
that supplementation of diets of hens with Se can improve
the internal egg quality such as yolk and albumen weight
and quality and also decrease the susceptibility of egg
yolk to lipid peroxidation during storage but without any
effect on shell resistance.
The supplementation of the diet with Se led to an
increase of Se concentrations in whole egg in all Se-
treatment groups compared with the control group.
Indeed, the increase of Se in egg content through
dietary supplemental Se appeared to be very consistent
Figure 1. Effects of different Se sources and levels on egg Se
concentrations (mg/kg dry product) in laying hens during last 3 d of the
experimental period. Arpášová = basal diet, SS-0.2 = basal diet supplemented
with 0.2 mg Se/kg from sodium selenite, SY-0.1 = basal diet supplemented
with 0.1 mg Se/kg from selenized yeast, SY-0.2 = basal diet supplemented
with 0.2 mg Se/kg from selenized yeast, HMSeBA-0.1 = basal diet
supplemented with 0.1 mg Se/kg from 2-hydroxy-4-methylselenobutanoic
acid, and HMSeBA-0.2 = basal diet supplemented with 0.2 mg Se/kg from
2-hydroxy-4-methylselenobutanoic acid. Data are expressed as means ±
SD (n = 8 eggs per treatment/d). a−dMeans with different superscripts are
different (P < 0.05).
Figure 2. Variation of egg Se concentrations (A) and Se transfer
effi ciency (B) in laying hens fed diets supplemented with 0.2 mg Se/kg of diet
for 56 d. SY-0.2 = basal diet supplemented with 0.2 mg Se/kg from selenized
yeast and HMSeBA-0.2 = basal diet supplemented with 0.2 mg Se/kg from
2-hydroxy-4-methylselenobutanoic acid. Data are expressed as means ± SD
(n = 4 eggs per treatment at the beginning, 8th, and 14th day and n = 8 eggs
per treatment at the 56th day of the experiment). Means within the same day:
*P < 0.05 and ***P < 0.001.
Jlali et al.
1750
and was reported previously by several authors (Jiakui
and Xiaolong, 2004; Payne et al., 2005; Utterback et
al., 2005; Kralik et al., 2009; Scheideler et al., 2010;
Čobanová et al., 2011). Similarly to our results, some
studies showed that eggs from hens supplemented with
organic Se exhibited greater Se content than those from
hens treated with inorganic forms (Payne et al., 2005;
Utterback et al., 2005; Kralik et al., 2009; Bennett and
Cheng, 2010). Our results confi rmed the greater ability
of organic Se sources (SY and HMSeBA) to increase egg
Se content than SS at the same dietary dosage. This result
is probably due to differences in metabolic pathways
between inorganic and organic Se forms (Suzuki,
2005). Inorganic forms of Se can lead to production
of selenocysteine, which is incorporated specifi cally
into selenoproteins, and not to de novo synthesis of
selenomethionine whereas both organic Se source used
in our study can leads to production of selenomethionine
as well as selenocysteine (Briens et al., 2013). The cell
can nonspecifi cally incorporate selenomethionine into
the structural proteins when synthesized (Schrauzer,
2001, 2003; Navarro-Alarcon and Cabrera-Vique,
2008) and thus increase the Se deposit in all tissues
(Surai, 2002). Moreover, the absorption mode of both
Se forms appeared different, leading to lower apparent
Figure 3. Variation of breast muscle Se concentrations (mg/kg dry
product) in laying hens fed diets supplemented with 0.2 mg Se/kg of diet for
56 d. SY-0.2 = basal diet supplemented with 0.2 mg Se/kg from selenized
yeast and HMSeBA-0.2 = basal diet supplemented with 0.2 mg Se/kg from
2-hydroxy-4-methylselenobutanoic acid. Data are expressed as means ± SD
(n = 8 hens per treatment). ***P < 0.001.
Figure 4. Egg Se concentrations in hens receiving diets supplemented with different doses of selenized yeast (SY) and 2-hydroxy-4-methylselenobutanoic
acid (HMSeBA). The Se raw data used were obtained from the eggs on d54, 55 and 56 of the experimental period.
Organic selenium and selenium deposition 1751
digestibility of inorganic sources than organic sources
as reported in our previous study with broilers (Briens
et al., 2013) and reported by other authors (Choct et al.,
2004; Yoon et al., 2007).
It is well documented that the amount of Se in eggs
depends on source and level of Se added (Latshaw and
Biggert, 1981; Payne et al., 2005; Surai, 2006; Bennett
and Cheng, 2010). Similarly, in our study, the dietary
organic Se forms (SY and HMSeBA) supplemented at
0.1 and 0.2 mg/kg of diet increased egg Se deposition.
This result is in agreement with those previously reported
in other studies only for SY (Čobanová et al., 2011). We
also demonstrated that the addition of 0.1 mg Se/kg of
diet as SY or HMSeBA led to similar amounts of Se
deposed into the eggs to those induced by SS at 0.2 mg
of Se/kg of diet. This result is consistent with fi ndings
showing that organic forms of Se are more effi cient
to improve the egg Se content than its inorganic form
(Paton et al., 2002; Payne et al., 2005; Pan et al., 2007;
Čobanová et al., 2011).
Moreover, our results showed that the eggs
from hens fed HMSeBA-0.2 exhibited greater Se
concentrations than those fed SY-0.2, indicating a
better effi ciency of HMSeBA to deposit Se into egg
than SY. In addition, bioavailability of HMSeBA was
found to be 28.78% greater than SY. Interestingly, the
better bioavailability of HMSeBA compared with SY
appeared as early as the eighth day of supplementation.
After the fi rst week of experiment, the supplementation
of HMSeBA at 0.2 mg Se/kg of diet was suffi cient
to demonstrate 18% greater egg Se deposition as
compared with SY at same level of addition.
The total Se deposited in breast muscle also
confi rmed the greater availability of Se from HMSeBA
than SY. Indeed, when comparing the organic Se
sources (HMSeBA vs. SY), the muscles of hens fed
HMSeBA-0.2 showed 28.05% more Se deposited
than those fed SY-0.2 treatment. Similarly, Pan et al.
(2007) reported that SY led to greater egg and tissue
(e.g., spleen and muscle) Se concentration than SS in a
dose dependent manner. Similarly, Briens et al. (2013)
observed 39% greater relative bioavailability of Se from
HMSeBA for muscle Se deposition in broilers than those
from SY. Hence, it could be assumed that the relative
bioavailability of both organic Se sources is not different
between broilers and layers although a whole Se balance
study will be needed to confi rm that hypothesis. The
99% pure molecule of HMSeBA appeared as a probable
precursor of selenomethionine (Vacchina et al., 2010),
leading to a more effi cient incorporation into proteins
in egg and muscle, whereas SY contains only 54 or 74%
of total Se as selenomethionine (Rayman, 2004) with
upper limits because of the Se enrichment process of
yeast (Schrauzer, 2006). It seems that the chemical form
of Se in these different organic sources can strongly
determine the amount of Se uptake and its deposition
in egg and muscle of laying hens. Cantor et al. (1975)
have suggested that biological availability of dietary Se
seems to depend primarily on its chemical nature rather
than on its digestion or absorption characteristics in the
intestine. However, some complementary studies are
needed to delineate the complete metabolic pathway
of HMSeBA molecule and how it is incorporated into
several proteins in egg and muscle.
In conclusion, our study showed the greater ability
of HMSeBA to increase the Se concentration in egg and
breast muscle of laying hens than SY and SS given at
the equivalent doses. However, some additional studies
are needed to elucidate the absorption and metabolic
characteristics of this new Se source to validate the
hypothesized pathways contributing to the greater
effi cacy of HMSeBA to deposit Se in egg and tissues.
LITERATURE CITED
Arpášová, H., V. Petrovič, M. Mellen, M. Kačániová, K. Čobanová,
and L. Leng. 2009. The effects of supplementing sodium selenite
and selenized yeast to the diet for laying hens on the quality and
mineral content of eggs. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 18:90–100.
Bennett, D. C., and K. M. Cheng. 2010. Selenium enrichment of
table eggs. Poult. Sci. 89:2166–2172.
Briens, M., Y. Mercier, F. Rouffi neau, V. Vacchina, and P. A. Geraert.
2013. Comparative effi ciency of a new organic selenium source
vs. seleno-yeast and mineral selenium sources on muscle
selenium enrichment and selenium digestibility in broiler
chickens. Br. J. Nutr.
Cantor, A. H., M. L. Scott, and T. Noguchi. 1975. Biological availability
of selenium in feedstuffs and selenium compounds for prevention
of exudative diathesis in chicks. J. Nutr. 105:96–105.
Choct, M., A. J. Naylor, and N. Reinke. 2004. Selenium
supplementation affects broiler growth performance, meat yield
and feather coverage. Br. Poult. Sci. 45:677–683.
Čobanová, K., V. Petrovič, M. Mellen, H. Arpášova, L. Grešáková,
and Š. Faix. 2011. Effects of dietary form of selenium on its
distribution in eggs. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 144:736–746.
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2012. Scientifi c opinion
on safety and effi cacy of selenium in the form of organic
compounds produced by the selenium-enriched yeast
Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC R646 (Selmax 1000/2000) as
feed additive for all species. EFSA J. 10:2778.
Finney, D. J. 1971. Statistical method in biological assay. 2nd ed.
Charles Griffi n and Co. London, UK.
Fortier, M.-E., I. Aude, A. Giguère, J.-P. Laforest, J. F. Bilodeau, H.
Quesnel, and J. J. Matte. 2012. Effect of dietary organic and
inorganic selenium on antioxidant status, embryo development,
and reproductive performance in hyperovulatory fi rst-parity
gilts. J. Anim. Sci. 90:231–240.
Guinotte, F., and Y. Nys. 1991. Effects of particle size and origin of
calcium sources on eggshell quality and bone mineralization in
egg laying hens. Poult. Sci. 70:583–592.
Holben, D. H., and A. M. Smith. 1999. The diverse role of selenium
within selenoproteins: A review. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 99:836–843.
Jlali et al.
1752
Jiakui, L., and W. Xiaolong. 2004. Effect of dietary organic versus
inorganic selenium in laying hens on the productivity, selenium
distribution in egg and selenium content in blood, liver and
kidney. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 18:65–68.
Juniper, D. T., R. H. Phipps, and G. Bertin. 2011. Effect of dietary
supplementation with selenium-enriched yeast or sodium
selenite on selenium tissue distribution and meat quality in
commercial-line turkeys. Animal 5:1751–1760.
Kim, Y. Y., and D. C. Mahan. 2001. Comparative effects of high
dietary levels of organic and inorganic selenium on selenium
toxicity of growing-fi nishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 79:942–948.
Kralik, G., Z. Gajčević, P. Suchý, E. Straková, and D. Hanžek. 2009.
Effects of dietary selenium source and storage on internal
quality of eggs. Acta Vet. Brno. 78:219–222.
Latshaw, J. D., and M. D. Biggert. 1981. Incorporation of selenium
into egg proteins after feeding selenomethionine or sodium
selenite. Poult. Sci. 60:1309–1313.
Li, J.-G., J.-C. Zhou, H. Zhao, X.-G. Lei, X.-J. Xia, G. Gao, and K.-
N. Wang. 2011. Enhanced water-holding capacity of meat was
associated with increased Sepw1 gene expression in pigs fed
selenium-enriched yeast. Meat Sci. 87:95–100.
Littell, R. C., P. R. Henry, A. J. Lewis, and C. B. Ammerman. 1997.
Estimation of relative bioavailability of nutrients using SAS
procedures. J. Anim. Sci. 75:2672–2683.
Mateo, R. D., J. E. Spallhoz, R. Elder, I. Yoon, and S. W. Kim. 2007.
Effi cacy of dietary selenium sources on growth and carcass
characteristics of growing-fi nishing pigs fed diets containing
high endogenous selenium. J. Anim. Sci. 85:1177–1183.
Mohiti-Asli, M., F. Shariatmadari, H. Lotfollahian, and M. T. Mazuji.
2008. Effects of supplementing layer hen diets with selenium
and vitamin E on egg quality, lipid oxidation and fatty acid
composition during storage. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 88:475–483.
Navarro-Alarcon, M., and C. Cabrera-Vique. 2008. Selenium in food
and the human body: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 400:115–141.
Pan, C., K. Huang, Y. Zhao, S. Qin, F. Chen, and Q. Hu. 2007. Effect
of selenium source and level in hen’s diet on tissue selenium
deposition and egg selenium concentrations. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 55:1027–1032.
Pan, C., Y. Zhao, S. F. Liao, F. Chen, S. Qin, X. Wu, H. Zhou, and
K. Huang. 2011. Effect of selenium-enriched probiotics on
laying performance, egg quality, egg selenium content, and
egg glutathione peroxidase activity. J. Agric. Food Chem.
59:11424–11431.
Paton, N. D., A. H. Cantor, A. J. Pescatore, M. J. Ford, and C. A.
Smith. 2002. The effect of dietary selenium source and level on
the uptake of selenium by developing chick embryos. Poult. Sci.
81:1548–1554.
Pavlović, Z., I. Miletić, Ž. Jokić, Z. Pavlovski, Z. Škrbić, and S.
Šobajić. 2010. The effect of level and source of dietary selenium
supplementation on eggshell quality. Biol. Trace Elem. Res.
133:197–202.
Payne, R. L., T. K. Lavergne, and L. L. Southern. 2005. Effect of
inorganic versus organic selenium on hen production and egg
selenium concentration. Poult. Sci. 84:232–237.
Payne, R. L., and L. L. Southern. 2005. Comparison of inorganic and
organic selenium sources for broilers. Poult. Sci. 84:898–902.
Petrovič, V., K. Boldizarova, S. Faix, M. Mellen, H. Arpasova, and
L. Leng. 2006. Antioxidant and selenium status of laying hens
fed with diets supplemented with selenite or Se-yeast. J. Anim.
Feed Sci. 15:435–444.
Rayman, M. P. 2004. The use of high-selenium yeast to raise selenium
status: How does it measure up? Br. J. Nutr. 92:557–573.
Ruan, H., Z. Zhang, Q. Wu, H. Yao, J. Li, S. Li, and S. Xu. 2012.
Selenium regulates gene expression of selenoprotein W in chicken
skeletal muscle system. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 145:59–65.
Scheideler, S. E., P. Weber, and D. Monsalve. 2010. Supplemental
vitamin E and selenium effects on egg production, egg quality,
and egg deposition of α-tocopherol and selenium. J. Appl. Poult.
Res. 19:354–360.
Schrauzer, G. N. 2001. Nutritional selenium supplements: Product
types, quality, and safety. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 20:1–4.
Schrauzer, G. N. 2003. The nutritional signifi cance, metabolism and
toxicology of selenomethionine. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 47:73–112.
Schrauzer, G. N. 2006. Selenium yeast: Composition, quality,
analysis, and safety. Pure Appl. Chem. 78:105–109.
Spallholz, J. E. 1994. On the nature of selenium toxicity and
carcinostatic activity. Free Radical Biol. Med. 17:45–64.
Speight, S. M., M. J. Estienne, A. F. Harper, R. J. Crawford, J.
W. Knight, and B. D. Whitaker. 2012. Effects of dietary
supplementation with an organic source of selenium on
characteristics of semen quality and in vitro fertility in boars. J.
Anim. Sci. 90:761–770.
Surai, P. F. 2000. Effect of the selenium and vitamin E content of
the maternal diet on the antioxidant system of the yolk and the
developing chick. Br. Poult. Sci. 41:235–243.
Surai, P. F. 2002. Natural antioxidants in avian nutrition and
reproduction. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.
Surai, P. F. 2006. Selenium in nutrition and health. Nottingham Univ.
Press, Nottingham, UK.
Suzuki, K. T. 2005. Metabolomics of selenium: Se metabolites based
on speciation studies. J. Health Sci. 51:107–114.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2004. Code of federal
regulations. Title 21 CFR Part 537.920 (h). U.S. Gov. Print.
Offi ce, Washington, DC.
Utterback, P. L., C. M. Parsons, I. Yoon, and J. Butler. 2005. Effect
of supplementing selenium yeast in diets of laying hens on egg
selenium content. Poult. Sci. 84:1900–1901.
Vacchina, V., M. Moutet, J.-C. Yadan, F. de Baene, B. Kudla, and R.
Lobinski. 2010. Simultaneous speciation of selenomethionine
and 2-hydroxy-4-methylselenobutanoic acid by HPLC-ICP
MS in biological samples. J. Chromatogr. B. Analyt. Technol.
Biomed Life Sci. 878:1178–1180.
Yoon, I., T. M. Werner, and J. M. Butler. 2007. Effect of source and
concentration of selenium on growth performance and selenium
retention in broilers chickens. Poult. Sci. 86:727–730.
Zhang, J.-L., J.-L. Li, X.-D. Huang, S. Bo, W. Rihua, S. Li, and S.-W.
Xu. 2012. Dietary selenium regulation of transcript abundance
of selenoprotein N and selenoprotein W in chicken muscle
tissues. Biometals 25:297–307.
