Comparison of yeast-derived commercial feed additives on Salmonella Enteritidis survival and microbiota populations in rooster cecal in vitro incubations

PLoS One. 2023 Dec 14;18(12):e0295657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295657. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

Yeast-derived products have become more of an interest in the poultry industry as of late because of their use in modulating the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) microbiome to both improve production parameters and prevent infection. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of various yeast-derived products on Salmonella enterica inoculation in un in vitro rooster cecal incubations and associated effects on the cecal microbiome. Cecal contents were obtained from 53-wk old White Leghorn H & N Nick Chick roosters (n = 3) fed a wheat-based, commercial-type basal diet. Cecal contents were diluted 1:3000 in anaerobic dilution solution (ADS) in an anaerobic chamber, with 20 mL aliquoted to each serum bottle. There were three controls (n = 3): basal diet only, diluted cecal contents only, and basal diet and diluted cecal contents; and five treatments containing the basal diet and diluted cecal contents (n = 3): Citristim® (ADM), ImmunoWall® (ICC), Maxi-Gen Plus® (CBS Bio Platforms), Hilyses® (ICC), and Original XPC® (Diamond V). All treatments were applied at a rate of 2.5 kg/tonne or less. All groups were inoculated with a nalidixic acid-resistant strain of Salmonella Enteritidis at 10^7 CFU/mL and incubated at 37 deg C. Samples were collected at 0, 24, and 48 h for S. Enteritidis enumeration and 16S rDNA microbial sequencing. Salmonella data were log-transformed and analyzed in a two-way ANOVA with means separated using Tukey's HSD (P≤0.05). Genomic DNA was extracted, and resulting libraries were prepared and sequenced using an Illumina MiSeq. Sequencing data were analyzed in QIIME2 (2021.4) with diversity metrics (alpha and beta), and an analysis of the composition of microbiomes (ANCOM) was performed. Main effects were considered significant at P≤0.05, with pairwise differences considered significant at Q≤0.05. There was an interaction of treatment and time on the enumeration of Salmonella where treatments of Citristim, Immunowall, Hilyses, and XPC reduced Salmonella by 1 log CFU/mL compared to the controls. At 48 h, each yeast product treatment reduced Salmonella by 3 log CFU/mL compared to the controls. There was no main effect of treatment on the alpha diversity metrics, richness, or evenness (P > 0.05). Treatment affected the beta diversity, abundance, and phylogenetic differences, but there were no pairwise differences (P>0.05, Q>0.05). Using ANCOM at the genus level, the taxa Synergistes, Alloprevotella, Sutterella, and Megasphaera abundance were significantly different (W = 154,147,145,140, respectively). These results demonstrate the potential of these yeast-derived products to reduce foodborne pathogens, such as Salmonella Enteriditis, in vitro, without negatively disrupting the cecal microbiome.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Animal Feed* / analysis
  • Animals
  • Cecum* / microbiology
  • Chickens*
  • Diet
  • Gastrointestinal Microbiome*
  • Male
  • Microbiota
  • Phylogeny
  • Poultry Diseases* / prevention & control
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae
  • Salmonella Infections, Animal / prevention & control
  • Salmonella enteritidis*

Grants and funding

This research was supported by ICC Brazil (São Paulo, Brazil; https://www.iccbrazil.com/en/), CBS Bio Platforms (Calgary, AB, Canada; https://cbsbioplatforms.com/), ADM Animal Nutrition (Decatur, IL; https://www.admanimalnutrition.com/webcenter/portal/ADMAnimalNutrition/pages_anhome), Egg Farmers of Alberta (Calgary, AB, Canada; https://eggs.ab.ca/), Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency Ltd. (Edmonton, AB, Canada), Agriculture & Food Council (Edmonton, AB, Canada; https://www.agfoodcouncil.com/), and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Ottawa, ON, Canada; https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/index_eng.asp). None of the sponsors had a role outside of funding in this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.