Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:11:49.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of fermented liquid diet prepared with Lactobacillus plantarum LQ80 on the immune response in weaning pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

K. Mizumachi ,
R. Aoki ,
H. Ohmori ,
M. Saeki  and
T. Kawashima
K. Mizumachi*
Affiliation:
Functional Biomolecules Research Team, National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science, 2 Ikenodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0901, Japan
R. Aoki
Affiliation:
Functional Biomolecules Research Team, National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science, 2 Ikenodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0901, Japan
H. Ohmori
Affiliation:
Functional Feed Research Team, National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science, 2 Ikenodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0901, Japan
M. Saeki
Affiliation:
Functional Feed Research Team, National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science, 2 Ikenodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0901, Japan
T. Kawashima
Affiliation:
Functional Feed Research Team, National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science, 2 Ikenodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0901, Japan
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Probiotics such as lactic acid bacteria directly influence the host’s health and have beneficial effects such as decreasing the number of enteric pathogens, regulating intestinal immune responses and preventing diseases. Among domestic animals, probiotics have been expected to be an alternative to antibiotics added in the diet; and fermented liquid diet (FLD) containing probiotics has great potential as a diet for reducing the use of antibiotics. In this study, we evaluated the immunomodulatory effects of FLD, prepared using Lactobacillus plantarum LQ80 (LQ80), on the immune response of weaning pigs. Ten weaning piglets were divided into two groups and were fed the FLD (n = 5) or a non-fermented liquid diet (NFLD) (n = 5) for 28 days. At the end of the experiment, the total immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels in the sera of the FLD-fed piglets were significantly higher than those of the NFLD-fed piglets (P < 0.05). In contrast, the total immunoglobulin A (IgA) levels in the feces and saliva were not significantly affected by FLD feeding. However, the mean fecal IgA levels of FLD-fed piglets at day 28 were higher than those at 14 and 21 days (P < 0.05). Blood cells from the FLD-fed piglets showed a low level of interferon-γ secretion and mitogen-induced proliferation compared to that of the NFLD-fed piglets. Furthermore, the levels of interluekin-8 and tumor necrosis factor-α, which are proinflammatory cytokines, in the blood cells of the FLD-fed piglets were lower than those of the NFLD-fed piglets (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the FLD used in this study could alter the immune responses of weaning piglets by stimulation of the systemic or mucosal antibody response, without unnecessary inflammatory reactions. This indicates, that the FLD feed prepared with the use of LQ80 may be a candidate feed, with regard to enhancing immune responses and preventing diseases in weaning piglets.

Keywords

antibody responsecytokinefermented liquid dietpigletprobiotics
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 5 , May 2009 , pp. 670 - 676
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Canibe, N, Jensen, BB 2003. Fermented and nonfermented liquid feed to growing pigs: effect on aspects of gastrointestinal ecology and growth performance. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2019–2031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casey, PG, Gardiner, GE, Casey, G, Bradshaw, B, Lawlor, PG, Lynch, PB, Leonard, FC, Stanton, C, Ross, RP, Fitzgerald, GF, Hill, C 2007. A five-strain probiotic combination reduces pathogen shedding and alleviates disease signs in pigs challenged with Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 73, 1858–1863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corthesy, B, Gaskins, HR, Mercenier, A 2007. Cross-talk between probiotic bacteria and the host immune system. Journal of Nutrition 137, 781S–790S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demeckova, V, Kelly, D, Coutts, AG, Brooks, PH, Campbell, A 2002. The effect of fermented liquid feeding on the faecal microbiology and colostrum quality of farrowing sows. International Journal of Food Microbiology 79, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edfors-Lilja, I, Wattrang, E, Marklund, L, Moller, M, Andersson-Eklund, L, Andersson, L, Fossum, C 1998. Mapping quantitative trait loci for immune capacity in the pig. Journal of Immunology 161, 829–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everson, MP, McDuffie, DS, Lemak, DG, Koopman, WJ, McGhee, JR, Beagley, KW 1996. Dendritic cells from different tissues induce production of different T cell cytokine profiles. Journal of Leukococyte Biology 59, 494–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fagarasan, S, Honjo, T 2000. T-Independent immune response: new aspects of B cell biology. Science 290, 89–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardiner, GE, Casey, PG, Casey, G, Lynch, PB, Lawlor, PG, Hill, C, Fitzgerald, GF, Stanton, C, Ross, RP 2004. Relative ability of orally administered Lactobacillus murinus to predominate and persist in the porcine gastrointestinal tract. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 70, 1895–1906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isolauri, E, Sutas, Y, Kankaanpaa, P, Arvilommi, H, Salminen, S 2001. Probiotics: effects on immunity. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 73, 444S–450S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lalles, JP, Bosi, P, Smidt, H, Stokes, CR 2007. Nutritional management of gut health in pigs around weaning. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 66, 260–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeBlanc, JG, Matar, C, Valdez, JC, LeBlanc, J, Perdigon, G 2002. Immunomodulating effects of peptidic fractions issued from milk fermented with Lactobacillus helveticus. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2733–2742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macpherson, AJ, Gatto, D, Sainsbury, E, Harriman, GR, Hengartner, H, Zinkernagel, RM 2000. A primitive T cell-independent mechanism of intestinal mucosal IgA responses to commensal bacteria. Science 288, 2222–2226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mosmann, TR, Cherwinski, H, Bond, MW, Giedlin, MA, Coffman, RL 1986. Two types of murine helper T cell clone. I. Definition according to profiles of lymphokine activities and secreted proteins. Journal of Immunology 136, 2348–2357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pessi, T, Sutas, Y, Saxelin, M, Kallioinen, H, Isolauri, E 1999. Antiproliferative effects of homogenates derived from five strains of candidate probiotic bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65, 4725–4728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shu, Q, Qu, F, Gill, HS 2001. Probiotic treatment using Bifidobacterium lactis HN019 reduces weanling diarrhea associated with rotavirus and Escherichia coli infection in a piglet model. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 33, 171–177.Google Scholar
Stein, HH, Kil, DY 2006. Reduced use of antibiotic growth promoters in diets fed to weanling pigs: dietary tools, part 2. Animal Biotechnology 17, 217–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takahashi, S, Egawa, Y, Simojo, N, Tsukahara, T, Ushida, K 2007. Oral administration of Lactobacillus plantarum strain LQ80 to weaning piglets stimulates the growth of indigenous lactobacilli to modify the lactobacillal population. Journal of General and Applied Microbiology 53, 325–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taras, D, Vahjen, W, Macha, M, Simon, O 2006. Performance, diarrhea incidence, and occurrence of Escherichia coli virulence genes during long-term administration of a probiotic Enterococcus faecium strain to sows and piglets. Journal of Animal Science 84, 608–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vinderola, G, Matar, C, Palacios, J, Perdigon, G 2007. Mucosal immunomodulation by the non-bacterial fraction of milk fermented by Lactobacillus helveticus R389. International Journal of Food Microbiology 115, 180–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winkler, P, Ghadimi, D, Schrezenmeir, J, Kraehenbuhl, JP 2007. Molecular and cellular basis of microflora–host interactions. Journal of Nutrition 137, 756S–772S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed