2019
DOI: 10.1128/aem.02510-18
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differential Effects of Breed and Nursing on Early-Life Colonic Microbiota and Immune Status as Revealed in a Cross-Fostering Piglet Model

Abstract: Nursing mother and breed can differently regulate early-life microbiota succession in pigs. However, it remains unclear whether they affect gastrointestinal microbiota and immune status, which are critical for early-life gut health. Here, an interspecific cross-fostering piglet model was employed by fostering neonatal Yorkshire and Meishan piglets to the same or another breed of sows. Jejunal and colonic microbiotas and mucosal immune parameters were analyzed at postnatal days 14 (preweaning) and 49 (postweani… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
(48 reference statements)
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is a gap that deserves to be investigated, because they could have direct and undirect effects on the microbial ecology of meat products. In fact, several studies showed the relevant presence of species belonging to the genus Lactobacillus in both gut and reproductive tract microbiota of pigs [36][37][38] and demonstrated that breed affects colonic microbiota and immune status since postnatal period (14-49 days) [36,39]. A possible link between the gut microbiota and feed efficiency in pigs was demonstrated by Tan et al [38], who discovered that, in Landrace pigs, the high-feed conversion rate pigs had a greater abundance of Lactobacillus and Streptococcus than the low-feed conversion rate pigs, having an evident repercussion on pork meat quality [40].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is a gap that deserves to be investigated, because they could have direct and undirect effects on the microbial ecology of meat products. In fact, several studies showed the relevant presence of species belonging to the genus Lactobacillus in both gut and reproductive tract microbiota of pigs [36][37][38] and demonstrated that breed affects colonic microbiota and immune status since postnatal period (14-49 days) [36,39]. A possible link between the gut microbiota and feed efficiency in pigs was demonstrated by Tan et al [38], who discovered that, in Landrace pigs, the high-feed conversion rate pigs had a greater abundance of Lactobacillus and Streptococcus than the low-feed conversion rate pigs, having an evident repercussion on pork meat quality [40].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The age at which the piglets are susceptible to their surrounding microbial communities is still unknown, but the pre-weaning period seems to be the most well-adapted: (a) co-housed piglets suddenly develop very similar communities at around 2–3 weeks of age [ 14 ]; (b) feeding yeast to piglets before weaning impacts the average daily weight gain of the piglets, whereas feeding yeast after weaning does not [ 43 ]; (c) feeding a complex community to piglets between 10 and 18 days of age changed the microbial community in a way that increased robustness when the piglets are submitted to an early weaning at 21 days [ 40 ]; and (d) cross-fostering an obese typical Chinese piglet breed and a lean Western breed demonstrated the impact of the nursing mother on the piglets’ microbiota and interleukin 10 [ 44 ]. In other species, the microbial environment in early life is also more important than the microbial imprint at birth, as revealed by the cross-adoption of 1-day-old rabbits [ 13 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rarefaction curves, and rank abundance curves were drawn using software R (Version 2.15.3) [ 60 ]. For beta-diversity analysis, principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) [ 61 ], principal component analysis (PCA) [ 62 ], nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) [ 63 ], and unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) were performed using QIIME (Version 1.9.1) and R (Version 2.15.3) [ 64 , 65 ]. The bacterial differences between groups were assessed using LEfSe analysis (LDA score = 3.5).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%