Poult. Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Poult Sci 2007. 86:1662-1666
© 2007 Poultry Science Association
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Higgins, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Hargis, B. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Higgins, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Hargis, B. M.

IMMUNOLOGY, HEALTH, AND DISEASE

Temporal Effects of Lactic Acid Bacteria Probiotic Culture on Salmonella in Neonatal Broilers

J. P. Higgins, S. E. Higgins, J. L. Vicente, A. D. Wolfenden, G. Tellez and B. M. Hargis1

Department of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701

1 Corresponding author: bhargis{at}uark.edu


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
We evaluated the ability of a commercially available lactic acid bacteria-based probiotic culture (LAB) to reduce Salmonella Enteritidis or Salmonella Typhimurium in day-of-hatch broiler chicks. In these experiments, chicks were challenged with Salmonella Enteritidis or Salmonella Typhimurium and treated with LAB 1-h postchallenge. Following treatment, cecal tonsils and ceca were aseptically collected for Salmonella Enteritidis or Salmonella Typhimurium enrichment or Salmonella Enteritidis enumeration, respectively. In experiments 1 to 3, LAB significantly reduced the incidence of Salmonella Enteritidis (60 to 70% reduction) or Salmonella Typhimurium (89 to 95% reduction) recovered from the cecal tonsils of day-old broiler chicks 24 h following treatment as compared with controls (P < 0.05). Additionally, administration of LAB caused a >2.9 log10 reduction of total cecal Salmonella Enteritidis recovered 24 h following treatment as compared with controls (P < 0.05). In experiments 4 to 7, upon sample enrichment LAB significantly reduced the recovery of Salmonella Enteritidis from the cecal tonsils at 24 h, but not 6 or 12 h posttreatment (P < 0.05). However, in experiments 6 and 7, when total cecal Salmonella Enteritidis recovery was enumerated, a significant treatment-associated reduction was observed 12 h posttreatment, although in cecal tonsil samples there was no difference in Salmonella Enteritidis incidence at 12 h (P < 0.05). In these studies, LAB treatment significantly reduced recovery of Salmonella in day-of-hatch broilers.

Key Words: Salmonella • probiotic • lactic acid bacteria • poultry


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
In the United States, it is estimated that 1.4 million humans contract salmonellosis, and that the annual cost of this illness, including lost productivity, is $3 billion annually (WHO, 2006). In the year 2004, surveillance data indicated that the greatest number of foodborne illnesses was caused by Salmonella, comprising 42% of all laboratory diagnoses (FoodNet, 2005). Because poultry and poultry products often serve as the vehicle for human salmonellosis (Bean and Griffin, 1990; Persson and Jendteg, 1992), the poultry industry and governmental agencies are focused on eradicating Salmonella in live birds and at the processing plant (Hargis et al., 2001).

The use of probiotics in poultry has been investigated since Rantala and Nurmi (1973) observed that exposure of young chicks to bacteria from the gut of mature birds conferred protection from infection. Selected beneficial bacteria such as lactic acid bacteria (LAB) have been proposed as probiotics for the prevention of various enteric diseases and the improvement of overall health for many years (Tellez et al., 2006). Previous probiotic cultures have successfully reduced enteric salmonellosis in poultry. Specifically, Baba and others (1991) found that using a combination of Escherichia coli and Lactobacillus spp. was more effective at reducing Salmonella Typhimurium colonization in chicks than treating with an individual probiotic isolate. An anaerobic probiotic culture comprised of 29 bacterial strains representing 10 genera also reduced the amount of recoverable Salmonella Typhimurium from chicks (Corrier et al., 1995, 1998). Other anaerobic cecal-extracted probiotic cultures have also proved effective at reducing Salmonella (Impey et al., 1984) or Salmonella and Campylobacter (Blankenship et al., 1993; Stern et al., 2001). These findings clearly demonstrate the ability of probiotic cultures to reduce Salmonella incidence in poultry.

The commercially available probiotic utilized in the present studies, consisting of 11 LAB isolates, has been shown to improve BW of turkeys experiencing idiopathic diarrhea under commercial conditions (Higgins et al., 2005b) and to increase performance of production turkeys under commercial conditions (Torres-Rodriguez et al., 2007). We evaluated the ability of this product to reduce the amount of recoverable Salmonella from the ceca of broiler chicks.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Salmonella Amplification

A primary poultry isolate of Salmonella Enteritidis PT 13A or Salmonella Typhimurium, each resistant to novobiocin (NO, Catalog No. N-1628, Sigma, St. Louis, MO) and selected for resistance to nalidixic acid (NA, Catalog No. N-4382, Sigma), were used for these experiments. The amplification protocol has been described in detail (Higgins et al., 2005a). Briefly, Salmonella Enteritidis or Salmonella Typhimurium was incubated at 37°C for 24 h and passed every 8 h. Cells were then washed 3 times in sterile saline by centrifugation at 1,864 x g. Concentrations of Salmonella Enteritidis or Salmonella Typhimurium were retrospectively determined by spread plating on xylose lactose differential agar (XLD, Catalog No. 278820, Becton Dickinson, Sparks, MD) plates containing NO (25 µg/mL) and NA (20 µg/mL). Actual determined cfu for each experiment are reported in Table 1Go.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Challenge level of Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella Typhimurium, or treatment level of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) in colony-forming units per chick
 
Probiotic Culture (LAB)

Eleven LAB isolates, of poultry gastrointestinal origin, were previously selected and described (Higgins et al., 2005b). This commercial product (FM-B11, Catalog No. 41069, IVS-Wynco LLC, Springdale, AR) was diluted in reconstituted powdered skim milk to an expected concentration of 4 x 106 cfu/mL for oral gavage of chicks in these studies. Actual cfu administered per chick from each experiment are reported in Table 1Go as determined retrospectively from spread plating on Mann Rogosa sharp agar (Catalog No. R1148, Sigma).

Experimental Design

For all experiments, day-of-hatch male broiler chicks were obtained from a local hatchery. Chicks used in all experiments were cared for using procedures approved by the University of Arkansas Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Chicks were randomly assigned to treatment groups and then challenged by oral gavage (0.25 mL) with Salmonella Enteritidis or Salmonella Typhimurium at approximately 104 cfu/chick (Table 1Go) and placed into pens (n = 40 per pen). Heated brooder batteries were used for housing and chicks were allowed ad libitum access to unmedicated broiler starter ration and water for the duration of the experiment. One hour post Salmonella challenge, LAB was administered via oral gavage (0.25 mL) with vehicle administered to control groups. At selected times following LAB treatment (24-h experiments 1 to 3; 6, 12, and 24 h experiments 4 to 7), broilers were humanely killed by CO2 inhalation, and cecal tonsils and ceca were collected separately and aseptically (n = 25 per group in experiments 1 to 6; n = 20 per group in experiment 7). Cecal tonsils were enriched in 10 mL of tetrathionate broth overnight at 37°C. Following enrichment, each sample was streaked for isolation on XLD plates containing 25 µg/mL of NO and 20 µg/mL of NA. The plates were incubated at 37°C for 24 h and examined for the presence or absence of the antibiotic-resistant Salmonella Enteritidis or Salmonella Typhimurium. Ceca were homogenized within sterile sample bags (Catalog No. B00679WA, Nasco, Fort Atkinson, WI) using a rubber mallet. Sterile saline (3 mL) was added to each sample bag and hand stomached with the cecal contents. Dilutions were spread plated on XLD plates containing 25 µg/mL of NO and 20 µg/mL of NA. The plates were incubated at 37°C for 24 h, and cfu of Salmonella Enteritidis per cecal pair were determined.

Statistical Analysis

The incidence of Salmonella recovery within experiments was compared using the {chi}2 test of independence (Zar, 1984) to determine significant (P < 0.05) differences between control and treated groups. Ceca cfu data were converted to log10 cfu numbers, then compared using the GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, 2002) with significance reported at P < 0.05.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
In experiments 1 to 3, LAB significantly reduced the incidence of Salmonella Enteritidis (60 to 70% reduction) or Salmonella Typhimurium (89 to 95% reduction) recovered from the cecal tonsils of day-old broiler chickens 24 h following treatment as compared with controls using this model (Table 2Go; P < 0.05). Also in experiments 1 to 3, groups involving Salmonella Typhimurium challenge were only subjected to enrichment culture, so no Salmonella Typhimurium cfu data was reported. In the first 3 experiments, administration of LAB caused a >2.9 log10 reduction in Salmonella Enteritidis recovered 24 h following treatment as compared with controls (P < 0.05; Table 2Go). When Salmonella Enteritidis recovery was evaluated only from samples that were cecaltonsil-positive following enrichment, significant >1.5 log10 reductions of Salmonella Enteritidis recovery were observed from ceca of LAB-treated chicks (P < 0.05).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Effect of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) on Salmonella Typhimurium or Salmonella Enteritidis recovered from cecal tonsils or ceca of broiler chicks 24 h posttreatment
 
In experiments 4 to 7, LAB significantly reduced the recovery of Salmonella Enteritidis from the cecal tonsils at 24 h, but not 6 or 12 h posttreatment (P < 0.05; Table 3Go). However, in experiments 6 and 7, when total cecal Salmonella Enteritidis recovery was enumerated, a significant treatment-associated reduction in recovered cfu was observed 12 h posttreatment, although there was no difference in Salmonella Enteritidis incidence at 12 h (P < 0.05; Table 3Go). Similar to the results of experiments 1 to 3 (Table 2Go), LAB treatment was associated with significant reductions in numbers of Salmonella Enteritidis recovered from ceca even when samples that were cecaltonsil-positive following enrichment were considered (P < 0.05; Table 4Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Effect of lactic acid bacteria on Salmonella Enteritidis recovered from cecal tonsils or ceca of broiler chicks 6, 12, and 24 h posttreatment
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4. Effect of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) on number of Salmonella Enteritidis recovered from ceca of broiler chicks at 6, 12, and 24 h posttreatment
 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
The data from experiments 1 to 3 clearly demonstrate that administration of LAB 1-h post Salmonella Enteritidis or Salmonella Typhimurium challenge significantly reduced the incidence of Salmonella recovery from cecal tonsils of broiler chicks compared with untreated controls 24 h following treatment. Similarly, LAB treatment resulted in significant reductions in the concentrations of Salmonella Enteritidis within the ceca. Interestingly, significant reductions in numbers of Salmonella Enteritidis recovered from ceca derived from LAB-treated chicks were observed when only those samples paired with positive enrichment were considered. This suggests that probiotic-related reductions are not only related to reduced incidence of Salmonella-positive chicks, but infection levels within chicks that were still infected were also reduced.

In experiments 4 to 7 the incidence of Salmonella Enteritidis recovered from cecal tonsils of treated chicks was very similar to the untreated controls 6 and 12 h post-treatment. However, by 24 h a significant reduction associated with LAB treatment was observed. As observed at 24 h in experiments 1 to 3, significant treatment-associated reductions in numbers of Salmonella Enteritidis recovered from ceca were observed as early as 12 h posttreatment, whereas differences in incidence of recovery following enrichment were not observed until 24 h. These data suggest that the mechanism of pathogen reduction had been initiated within the first 12 h following treatment. The 2 most likely mechanisms by which this probiotic reduces the recovery of Salmonella involve bacterial interactions (competitive exclusion) or stimulation of a host innate immune response. Briefly, Mead (2000) proposed 4 methods by which competitive exclusion cultures are able to exclude enteric pathogens: competition for receptor sites, production of volatile fatty acids that are inhibitory of certain enteric pathogens, production of bactericins (antimicrobial peptides produced by 1 bacterium that inhibits another bacterium), or competition with pathogens and native flora for limiting nutrients. The LAB culture could reduce Salmonella recovery through a number of these inhibitory mechanisms. Additionally, because these lactic acid bacteria were isolated from mature poultry, their ability to survive in the gut of poultry is anticipated. Whereas bacterial interactions are the most accepted mechanism for this reduction of Salmonella, stimulation of an effective innate immune response could be more likely due to the rapidity of this response.

Stimulation of immune responses by probiotic cultures has been described in several animal models. Kim and coworkers (2006) demonstrated that parenteral administration of a probiotic Lactobacilli isolate increased expression of tumor necrosis factor-{alpha}, interleukin (IL)-12, IL-18, and interferon-{gamma} in the spleen of mice compared with vehicle-injected mice. Vinderola et al. (2004) also observed that oral administration of probiotics increased number of IgA-, tumore necrosis factor-{alpha}-, and IL-10-producing cells in the small intestine, whereas some reduced the number of IL-6 producing cells in the small and large intestine of mice following 5 d of treatment. Galdeano and Perdigon (2006) found that oral administration of Lactobacillus casei to mice did not significantly increase the number of CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, or IgA+ cells in the small intestine of mice within the first 5 d of treatment. However, there was a significant increase in the mannose binding CD-206 receptors in the small intestine 48 h following probiotic administration. The CD-206 receptor facilitates phagocytosis of mannosylated antigens and is expressed on antigen presenting cells such as dendritic cells and macrophages. This would indicate that the initial immune response is not T- or B-cell dependent, but rather dendritic cells or macrophages are responsible for the early innate immune response associated with probiotics. In poultry, Dalloul et al. (2003) described significantly higher levels of interferon-{gamma} and IL-2 in the intestine of probiotic-treated chickens 3 d following challenge with Eimeria acervulina. With all of these observations, it has still been difficult to determine the host responses that are most beneficial in the reduction of enteric pathogens. In the present studies, LAB treatment significantly reduced recovery of Salmonella. Further research will be conducted using this probiotic to determine the exact mechanism of pathogen reduction.

Received for publication December 16, 2006. Accepted for publication February 12, 2007.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Baba, E., S. Nagaishi, T. Fukata, and A. Arakawa. 1991. The role of intestinal microflora on the prevention of Salmonella colonization in gnotobiotic chickens. Poult. Sci. 70:1902–1907.[Web of Science][Medline]

Bean, N. H., and P. M. Griffin. 1990. Food-borne disease outbreaks in the United States, 1973– 1987: Pathogens and trends. J. Food Prot. 53:804. (Abstr.)[Web of Science]

Blankenship, L. C., J. S. Bailey, N. A. Cox, N. J. Stern, R. Brewer, and O. Williams. 1993. Two-step mucosal competitive exclusion flora treatment to diminish salmonellae in commercial broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 72:1667–1672.[Web of Science][Medline]

Corrier, D. E., D. J. Nisbet, J. A. Byrd, B. M. Hargis, N. K. Keith, M. Peterson, and J. R. Deloach. 1998. Dosage titration of a characterized competitive exclusion culture to inhibit Salmonella colonization in broiler chickens during growout. J. Food Prot. 61:796–801.[Web of Science][Medline]

Corrier, D., D. Nisbet, C. Scanlan, A. Hollister, and J. DeLoach. 1995. Control of Salmonella typhimurium in broiler chicks with a continuous-flow characterized mixed culture of cecal bacteria. Poult. Sci. 74:916–924.[Web of Science][Medline]

Dalloul, R., H. Lillehoj, T. Shellem, and J. Doerr. 2003. Enhanced mucosal immunity against Eimeria acervulina in broilers fed a Lactobacillus-based probiotic. Poult. Sci. 82:62–66.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

FoodNet. 2005. Preliminary FoodNet data on the incidence of infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food—10 sites, United States, 2004. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 54:352–356.[Medline]

Galdeano, C. M., and G. Perdigon. 2006. The probiotic bacterium Lactobacillus casei induces activation of the gut mucosal immune system through innate immunity. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 13:219–226.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hargis, B. M., D. J. Caldwell, and J. A. Byrd. 2001. Microbial pathogens of poultry: Live bird considerations. In Poultry Meat Processing. A. R. Sams, ed. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL.

Higgins, J., S. Higgins, K. Guenther, W. Huff, A. Donoghue, D. Donoghue, and B. Hargis. 2005a. Use of a specific bacteriophage treatment to reduce Salmonella in poultry products. Poult. Sci. 84:1141–1145.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Higgins, S., A. Torres-Rodriguez, J. Vicente, C. Sartor, C. Pixley, G. Nava, G. Tellez, J. Barton, and B. Hargis. 2005b. Evaluation of intervention strategies for idiopathic diarrhea in commercial turkey brooding houses. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14:345–348.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Impey, C., G. Mead, S. George, P. Wyeth, and N. Chettle. 1984. Attempt to control stunting in chickens by competitive exclusion. Vet. Rec. 115:36–37.[Web of Science][Medline]

Kim, Y., T. Ohta, T. Takahashi, A. Kushiro, K. Nomoto, T. Yokokura, N. Okada, and H. Danbara. 2006. Probiotic Lactobacillus casei activates innate immunity via NF-{kappa}B and p38 MAP kinase signaling pathways. Microbes Infect. 8:994–1005.[Web of Science][Medline]

Mead, G. C. 2000. Prospects for competitive exclusion treatment to control Salmonellas and other foodborne pathogens in poultry. Vet. J. 159:111–123.[Web of Science][Medline]

Persson, U., and S. I. Jendteg. 1992. The economic impact of poultry-borne salmonellosis: How much should be spent on prophylaxis? Int. J. Food Microbiol. 15:207.

Rantala, M., and E. Nurmi. 1973. Prevention of the growth of Salmonella in chicks by the flora of the alimentary tract of chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 14:627–630.[Web of Science][Medline]

SAS Institute Inc. 2002–2003. Version 9.1. SAS, Cary, NC.

Stern, N., N. Cox, J. Bailey, M. Berrang, and M. Musgrove. 2001. Comparison of mucosal competitive exclusion and competitive exclusion to reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter spp. colonization in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 80:156–160.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Tellez, G., S. E. Higgins, A. M. Donoghue, and B. M. Hargis. 2006. Digestive physiology and role of microorganisms. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 15:136–144.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Torres-Rodriguez, A., A. M. Donoghue, D. J. Donoghue, J. T. Barton, G. Tellez, and B. M. Hargis. 2007. Performance and condemnation rates analysis of commercial turkey flocks treated with a Lactobacillus spp-based probiotic. Poult. Sci. 86:444–446.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Vinderola, C. G., M. Medici, and G. Perdigon. 2004. Relationship between interaction sites in the gut, hydrophobicity, mucosal immunomodulation capacities and cell wall protein profiles in indigenous and exogenous bacteria. J. Appl. Microbiol. 96:230–243.[Medline]

WHO. 2006. Subject: Drug resistant Salmonella. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs139/en/ Accessed Nov. 2006.

Zar, J. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Poult. Sci.Home page
S. Vandeplas, R. D. Dauphin, C. Thiry, Y. Beckers, G. W. Welling, P. Thonart, and A. Thewis
Efficiency of a Lactobacillus plantarum-xylanase combination on growth performances, microflora populations, and nutrient digestibilities of broilers infected with Salmonella Typhimurium
Poult. Sci., August 1, 2009; 88(8): 1643 - 1654.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CVIHome page
M. R. Akbari, H. R. Haghighi, J. R. Chambers, J. Brisbin, L. R. Read, and S. Sharif
Expression of Antimicrobial Peptides in Cecal Tonsils of Chickens Treated with Probiotics and Infected with Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium
Clin. Vaccine Immunol., November 1, 2008; 15(11): 1689 - 1693.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Poult. Sci.Home page
J. L. Grimes, S. Rahimi, E. Oviedo, B. W. Sheldon, and F. B. O. Santos
Effects of a Direct-Fed Microbial (Primalac) on Turkey Poult Performance and Susceptibility to Oral Salmonella Challenge
Poult. Sci., July 1, 2008; 87(7): 1464 - 1470.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Poult. Sci.Home page
S. E. Higgins, G. F. Erf, J. P. Higgins, S. N. Henderson, A. D. Wolfenden, G. Gaona-Ramirez, and B. M. Hargis
Effect of Probiotic Treatment in Broiler Chicks on Intestinal Macrophage Numbers and Phagocytosis of Salmonella Enteritidis by Abdominal Exudate Cells
Poult. Sci., November 1, 2007; 86(11): 2315 - 2321.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Higgins, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Hargis, B. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Higgins, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Hargis, B. M.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS