FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / J Anim Sci / The influence of a probiotic/prebiotic supplement on microbi...
Journal of animal science2023; 101; skad034; doi: 10.1093/jas/skad034

The influence of a probiotic/prebiotic supplement on microbial and metabolic parameters of equine cecal fluid or fecal slurry in vitro.

Abstract: The microbes that reside within the equine hindgut create a complex and dynamic ecosystem. The equine hindgut microbiota is intimately associated with health and, as such, represents an area which can be beneficially modified. Synbiotics, supplements that combine probiotic micro-organisms with prebiotic ingredients, are a potential means of influencing the hindgut microbiota to promote health and prevent disease. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the influence of an equine probiotic/prebiotic supplement on characteristics of the microbiota and metabolite production in vitro. Equine cecal fluid and fecal material were collected from an abattoir in QC, CAN. Five hundred milliliters of cecal fluid was used to inoculate chemostat vessels maintained as batch fermenters (chemostat cecal, N = 11) with either 0 g (control) or 0.44 g of supplement added at 12 h intervals. One hundred milliliters of cecal fluid (anaerobic cecal, N = 15) or 5% fecal slurry (anaerobic fecal, N = 6) were maintained in an anaerobic chamber with either 0 g (control) or 0.356 g of supplement added at the time of vessel establishment. Samples were taken from vessels at vessel establishment (0), 24, or 48 h of incubation. Illumina sequencing of the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene and bioinformatics were performed for microbiome analysis. Metabolite data was obtained via NMR spectroscopy. All statistical analyses were run in SAS 9.4. There was no effect of treatment at 24 or 48h on alpha or beta diversity indices and limited taxonomic differences were noted. Acetate, propionate, and butyrate were higher in treated compared to untreated vessels in all methods. A consistent effect of supplementation on the metabolic profile with no discernable impact on the microbiota of these in vitro systems indicates inoculum microbe viability and a utilization of the provided fermentable substrate within the systems. Although no changes within the microbiome were apparent, the consistent changes in metabolites indicates a potential prebiotic effect of the added supplement and merits further exploration. This research investigated the impact of an equine prebiotic/probiotic supplement on the equine cecal microbiota by utilizing an in vitro fermentation system. By using two types of fermentation systems and inocula obtained using a fecal slurry and cecal contents, we evaluated how the addition of the supplement changed the microbial function over the 48 h experimental period. Although the supplement did drastically influence the production of volatile fatty acids produced by the microbes in all systems, the microbial composition did not change. Thus, indicating the supplement did not, in this in vitro context, provide probiotic or prebiotic potential. However, the systems remained viable and the microbes actively metabolized substrate for the duration of the experiment.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-01-31 PubMed ID: 36715114PubMed Central: PMC9994591DOI: 10.1093/jas/skad034Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research studies the effects of a supplement with both probiotics and prebiotics on the gut microbiome and the production of metabolites in horses. Findings indicate a lack of significant alterations in the microbiome composition, but an increased production of certain fatty acids, suggesting a potential prebiotic effect of the supplement.

Objective and Methodology

  • The aim of the study was to analyze the impact of a synbiotic supplement (a supplement that includes both prebiotic ingredients and probiotic organisms) on the gut microbiota and metabolite production in horses.
  • The researchers collected equine cecal fluid and fecal material, which were used to set up batch fermenters – a type of vessel simulating the conditions in the gut to ‘breed’ the bacterial communities found therein.
  • The supplement was added in different amounts at various time intervals to these vessels, and samples were taken at different points to observe the effects on the microbiota and the metabolites produced.
  • 16S rRNA gene sequencing, a common method for determining the composition of bacteria in a sample, and NMR spectroscopy, a method to identify metabolites, were the primary techniques used for analysis.

Results

  • The study found no significant changes to either alpha diversity (the variety of microbes within a single sample) or beta diversity (the variety between samples) at either 24 or 48 hours after starting treatment with the supplement.
  • The production of certain fatty acids, namely acetate, propionate, and butyrate, was higher in treated vessels as compared to untreated ones. These fatty acids are a key part of the energy metabolism in horses, suggesting that the supplement may have impacted functions of the gut microbiota.
  • These results suggest that while the supplement did not induce changes to the composition of the microbiota, it had discernable effects on the metabolic profile, making it potentially useful as a prebiotic supplement.

Conclusions

  • The study concludes that while the supplement’s immediate impact was not evident in changing the microbiota, it contributed to increased production of certain metabolites, suggesting its potential as a prebiotic supplement.
  • The researchers note that further studies are warranted to confirm the prebiotic benefits of this supplement in horses.
  • Overall, then, while the effects of the supplement on microbiota composition were less than anticipated, the study suggests a possible alternative approach to probiotic/prebiotic supplementation in horses, focusing on metabolite production rather than just microbiota alteration.

Cite This Article

APA
MacNicol JL, Renwick S, Ganobis CM, Allen-Vercoe E, Weese JS, Pearson W. (2023). The influence of a probiotic/prebiotic supplement on microbial and metabolic parameters of equine cecal fluid or fecal slurry in vitro. J Anim Sci, 101, skad034. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skad034

Publication

Journal of animal science
ISSN: 1525-3163
NlmUniqueID: 8003002
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 101
PII: skad034

Researcher Affiliations

MacNicol, Jennifer L
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada.
Renwick, Simone
  • Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, College of Biological Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada.
Ganobis, Caroline M
  • Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, College of Biological Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada.
Allen-Vercoe, Emma
  • Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, College of Biological Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada.
Weese, Jeffery S
  • Department of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada.
Pearson, Wendy
  • Department of Animal Biosciences, Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses
  • Prebiotics
  • RNA, Ribosomal, 16S
  • Health Promotion
  • Probiotics / pharmacology
  • Feces / chemistry
  • Synbiotics
  • Microbiota
  • Fermentation

Grant Funding

  • Selected BioProducts INC

References

This article includes 54 references
  1. Arroyo LG, Rossi L, Santos BP, Gomez DE, Surette MG, Costa MC. Luminal and Mucosal Microbiota of the Cecum and Large Colon of Healthy and Diarrheic Horses.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Aug 12;10(8).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10081403pmc: PMC7460328pubmed: 32806591google scholar: lookup
  2. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rte: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 57:289–300.
    doi: 10.1111/J.2517-6161.1995.TB02031.Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  3. Bindels LB, Delzenne NM, Cani PD, Walter J. Towards a more comprehensive concept for prebiotics.. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015 May;12(5):303-10.
    doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2015.47pubmed: 25824997google scholar: lookup
  4. Canani RB, Costanzo MD, Leone L, Pedata M, Meli R, Calignano A. Potential beneficial effects of butyrate in intestinal and extraintestinal diseases.. World J Gastroenterol 2011 Mar 28;17(12):1519-28.
    doi: 10.3748/WJG.V17.I12.1519pmc: PMC3070119pubmed: 21472114google scholar: lookup
  5. Collinet A, Grimm P, Julliand S, Julliand V. Multidimensional Approach for Investigating the Effects of an Antibiotic-Probiotic Combination on the Equine Hindgut Ecosystem and Microbial Fibrolysis.. Front Microbiol 2021;12:646294.
    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.646294pmc: PMC8027512pubmed: 33841371google scholar: lookup
  6. Costa MC, Arroyo LG, Allen-Vercoe E, Stämpfli HR, Kim PT, Sturgeon A, Weese JS. Comparison of the fecal microbiota of healthy horses and horses with colitis by high throughput sequencing of the V3-V5 region of the 16S rRNA gene.. PLoS One 2012;7(7):e41484.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041484pmc: PMC3409227pubmed: 22859989google scholar: lookup
  7. Costa MC, Silva G, Ramos RV, Staempfli HR, Arroyo LG, Kim P, Weese JS. Characterization and comparison of the bacterial microbiota in different gastrointestinal tract compartments in horses.. Vet J 2015 Jul;205(1):74-80.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.03.018pubmed: 25975855google scholar: lookup
  8. DeGruttola AK, Low D, Mizoguchi A, Mizoguchi E. Current Understanding of Dysbiosis in Disease in Human and Animal Models.. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2016 May;22(5):1137-50.
    doi: 10.1097/mib.0000000000000750pmc: PMC4838534pubmed: 27070911google scholar: lookup
  9. Ericsson AC, Johnson PJ, Lopes MA, Perry SC, Lanter HR. A Microbiological Map of the Healthy Equine Gastrointestinal Tract.. PLoS One 2016;11(11):e0166523.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166523pmc: PMC5112786pubmed: 27846295google scholar: lookup
  10. Frape D. Equine nutrition and feeding. UK:Blackwell Pub..
  11. Garber A, Hastie P, Murray JA. Factors Influencing Equine Gut Microbiota: Current Knowledge.. J Equine Vet Sci 2020 May;88:102943.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.102943pubmed: 32303307google scholar: lookup
  12. Garrett LA, Brown R, Poxton IR. A comparative study of the intestinal microbiota of healthy horses and those suffering from equine grass sickness.. Vet Microbiol 2002 Jun 5;87(1):81-8.
    doi: 10.1016/s0378-1135(02)00018-4pubmed: 12079749google scholar: lookup
  13. Gibson GR, Hutkins R, Sanders ME, Prescott SL, Reimer RA, Salminen SJ, Scott K, Stanton C, Swanson KS, Cani PD, Verbeke K, Reid G. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics.. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017 Aug;14(8):491-502.
    doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2017.75pubmed: 28611480google scholar: lookup
  14. Gibson GR, Roberfroid MB. Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: introducing the concept of prebiotics.. J Nutr 1995 Jun;125(6):1401-12.
    doi: 10.1093/jn/125.6.1401pubmed: 7782892google scholar: lookup
  15. Gotić J, Grden D, Babić N P, Mrljak V. The use of probiotics in horses with gastrointestinal disease. Am. J. Anim. Vet. Sci. .
    doi: 10.3844/ajavsp.2017.159.168google scholar: lookup
  16. Grimm P, Combes S, Pascal G, Cauquil L, Julliand V. Dietary composition and yeast/microalgae combination supplementation modulate the microbial ecosystem in the caecum, colon and faeces of horses.. Br J Nutr 2020 Feb 28;123(4):372-382.
    doi: 10.1017/S0007114519002824pubmed: 31690358google scholar: lookup
  17. Grimm P, Philippeau C, Julliand V. Faecal parameters as biomarkers of the equine hindgut microbial ecosystem under dietary change.. Animal 2017 Jul;11(7):1136-1145.
    doi: 10.1017/s1751731116002779pubmed: 28065211google scholar: lookup
  18. Hale VL, Tan CL, Knight R, Amato KR. Effect of preservation method on spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi) fecal microbiota over 8 weeks.. J Microbiol Methods 2015 Jun;113:16-26.
    doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2015.03.021pubmed: 25819008google scholar: lookup
  19. Hsu CK, Liao JW, Chung YC, Hsieh CP, Chan YC. Xylooligosaccharides and fructooligosaccharides affect the intestinal microbiota and precancerous colonic lesion development in rats.. J Nutr 2004 Jun;134(6):1523-8.
    doi: 10.1093/jn/134.6.1523pubmed: 15173423google scholar: lookup
  20. Ishizaka S, Matsuda A, Amagai Y, Oida K, Jang H, Ueda Y, Takai M, Tanaka A, Matsuda H. Oral administration of fermented probiotics improves the condition of feces in adult horses.. J Equine Sci 2014;25(4):65-72.
    doi: 10.1294/jes.25.65pmc: PMC4266753pubmed: 25558179google scholar: lookup
  21. Kelly G. Inulin-type prebiotics--a review: part 1.. Altern Med Rev 2008 Dec;13(4):315-29.
    pubmed: 19152479
  22. Lancefield RC, Hare R. THE SEROLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION OF PATHOGENIC AND NON-PATHOGENIC STRAINS OF HEMOLYTIC STREPTOCOCCI FROM PARTURIENT WOMEN.. J Exp Med 1935 Feb 28;61(3):335-49.
    doi: 10.1084/jem.61.3.335pmc: PMC2133228pubmed: 19870362google scholar: lookup
  23. Lorenz B, Ali N, Bocklitz T, Rösch P, Popp J. Discrimination between pathogenic and non-pathogenic E. coli strains by means of Raman microspectroscopy.. Anal Bioanal Chem 2020 Dec;412(30):8241-8247.
    doi: 10.1007/s00216-020-02957-2pmc: PMC7680742pubmed: 33033893google scholar: lookup
  24. MacNicol JL, Renwick S, Ganobis CM, Allen-Vercoe E, Weese JS, Pearson W. A Comparison of Methods to Maintain the Equine Cecal Microbial Environment In Vitro Utilizing Cecal and Fecal Material.. Animals (Basel) 2022 Aug 8;12(15).
    doi: 10.3390/ANI12152009pmc: PMC9367579pubmed: 35953998google scholar: lookup
  25. Makki K, Deehan EC, Walter J, Bäckhed F. The Impact of Dietary Fiber on Gut Microbiota in Host Health and Disease.. Cell Host Microbe 2018 Jun 13;23(6):705-715.
    doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2018.05.012pubmed: 29902436google scholar: lookup
  26. Milinovich GJ, Burrell PC, Pollitt CC, Klieve AV, Blackall LL, Ouwerkerk D, Woodland E, Trott DJ. Microbial ecology of the equine hindgut during oligofructose-induced laminitis.. ISME J 2008 Nov;2(11):1089-100.
    doi: 10.1038/ismej.2008.67pubmed: 18580970google scholar: lookup
  27. Milinovich GJ, Klieve AV, Pollitt CC, Trott DJ. Microbial events in the hindgut during carbohydrate-induced equine laminitis.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2010 Apr;26(1):79-94.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2010.01.007pubmed: 20381737google scholar: lookup
  28. Miyaji M, Ueda K, Nakatsuji H, Tomioka T, Kobayashi Y, Hata H, Kondo S. Mean retention time of digesta in the different segments of the equine hindgut. Anim. Sci. J. 79:89–96.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00502.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  29. Mohanty D, Misra S, Mohapatra S, Sahu P S. Prebiotics and synbiotics: recent concepts in nutrition. Food Biosci. 26:152–160.
    doi: 10.1016/J.FBIO.2018.10.008google scholar: lookup
  30. Okazaki M, Fujikawa S, Matsumoto N. Effect of xylooligosaccharide on the growth of bifidobacteria. Bifidobact. Microflora 9:77–86.
    doi: 10.12938/BIFIDUS1982.9.2_77google scholar: lookup
  31. Olveira G, González-Molero I. An update on probiotics, prebiotics and symbiotics in clinical nutrition.. Endocrinol Nutr 2016 Nov;63(9):482-494.
    doi: 10.1016/J.ENDOEN.2016.10.011pubmed: 27633133google scholar: lookup
  32. Pandey KR, Naik SR, Vakil BV. Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics- a review.. J Food Sci Technol 2015 Dec;52(12):7577-87.
    doi: 10.1007/s13197-015-1921-1pmc: PMC4648921pubmed: 26604335google scholar: lookup
  33. Quigley EMM. Prebiotics and Probiotics in Digestive Health.. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019 Jan;17(2):333-344.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.09.028pubmed: 30267869google scholar: lookup
  34. Roberfroid MB. Prebiotics and synbiotics: concepts and nutritional properties.. Br J Nutr 1998 Oct;80(4):S197-202.
    doi: 10.1017/s0007114500006024pubmed: 9924284google scholar: lookup
  35. Ross M W, Hanson R R. Large intestine. In: Equine surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders; p. 379–407.
  36. Saarela M, Mogensen G, Fondén R, Mättö J, Mattila-Sandholm T. Probiotic bacteria: safety, functional and technological properties.. J Biotechnol 2000 Dec 28;84(3):197-215.
    doi: 10.1016/s0168-1656(00)00375-8pubmed: 11164262google scholar: lookup
  37. Schoster A. Probiotic Use in Equine Gastrointestinal Disease.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2018 Apr;34(1):13-24.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2017.11.004pubmed: 29402478google scholar: lookup
  38. Schoster A, Guardabassi L, Staempfli HR, Abrahams M, Jalali M, Weese JS. The longitudinal effect of a multi-strain probiotic on the intestinal bacterial microbiota of neonatal foals.. Equine Vet J 2016 Nov;48(6):689-696.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12524pubmed: 26509834google scholar: lookup
  39. Schoster A, Weese JS, Guardabassi L. Probiotic use in horses - what is the evidence for their clinical efficacy?. J Vet Intern Med 2014 Nov-Dec;28(6):1640-52.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.12451pmc: PMC4895607pubmed: 25231539google scholar: lookup
  40. Schrezenmeir J, de Vrese M. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics--approaching a definition.. Am J Clin Nutr 2001 Feb;73(2 Suppl):361S-364S.
    doi: 10.1093/ajcn/73.2.361spubmed: 11157342google scholar: lookup
  41. Schroeder BO, Bäckhed F. Signals from the gut microbiota to distant organs in physiology and disease.. Nat Med 2016 Oct;22(10):1079-1089.
    doi: 10.1038/nm.4185pubmed: 27711063google scholar: lookup
  42. Sharma P, Tomar S K, Goswami P, Sangwan V, Singh R. Antibiotic resistance among commercially available probiotics. Food Res. Int. 57:176–195.
    doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2014.01.025google scholar: lookup
  43. Song SJ, Amir A, Metcalf JL, Amato KR, Xu ZZ, Humphrey G, Knight R. Preservation Methods Differ in Fecal Microbiome Stability, Affecting Suitability for Field Studies.. mSystems 2016 May-Jun;1(3).
    doi: 10.1128/msystems.00021-16pmc: PMC5069758pubmed: 27822526google scholar: lookup
  44. Swanson KS, de Vos WM, Martens EC, Gilbert JA, Menon RS, Soto-Vaca A, Hautvast J, Meyer PD, Borewicz K, Vaughan EE, Slavin JL. Effect of fructans, prebiotics and fibres on the human gut microbiome assessed by 16S rRNA-based approaches: a review.. Benef Microbes 2020 Mar 27;11(2):101-129.
    doi: 10.3920/BM2019.0082pubmed: 32073295google scholar: lookup
  45. Thursby E, Juge N. Introduction to the human gut microbiota.. Biochem J 2017 May 16;474(11):1823-1836.
    doi: 10.1042/bcj20160510pmc: PMC5433529pubmed: 28512250google scholar: lookup
  46. Tonzetich J, McBride BC. Characterization of volatile sulphur production by pathogenic and non-pathogenic strains of oral Bacteroides.. Arch Oral Biol 1981;26(12):963-9.
    doi: 10.1016/0003-9969(81)90104-7pubmed: 6122435google scholar: lookup
  47. Verspreet J, Damen B, Broekaert WF, Verbeke K, Delcour JA, Courtin CM. A Critical Look at Prebiotics Within the Dietary Fiber Concept.. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol 2016;7:167-90.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev-food-081315-032749pubmed: 26735801google scholar: lookup
  48. Vogtmann E, Chen J, Amir A, Shi J, Abnet CC, Nelson H, Knight R, Chia N, Sinha R. Comparison of Collection Methods for Fecal Samples in Microbiome Studies.. Am J Epidemiol 2017 Jan 15;185(2):115-123.
    doi: 10.1093/aje/kww177pmc: PMC5253972pubmed: 27986704google scholar: lookup
  49. Weese J S. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 22:357–360.
    doi: 10.1016/S0737-0806(02)70006-3google scholar: lookup
  50. Weese JS, Anderson ME, Lowe A, Monteith GJ. Preliminary investigation of the probiotic potential of Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG in horses: fecal recovery following oral administration and safety.. Can Vet J 2003 Apr;44(4):299-302.
    pmc: PMC372248pubmed: 12715981
  51. Weese JS, Holcombe SJ, Embertson RM, Kurtz KA, Roessner HA, Jalali M, Wismer SE. Changes in the faecal microbiota of mares precede the development of post partum colic.. Equine Vet J 2015 Nov;47(6):641-9.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12361pubmed: 25257320google scholar: lookup
  52. Yoo JY, Groer M, Dutra SVO, Sarkar A, McSkimming DI. Correction: Yoo, J.Y., et al. Gut Microbiota and Immune System Interactions. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1587.. Microorganisms 2020 Dec 21;8(12).
    doi: 10.3390/MICROORGANISMS8101587pmc: PMC7765795pubmed: 33371530google scholar: lookup
  53. Zemzmi J, Ródenas L, Blas E, Najar T, Pascual JJ. Characterisation and In Vitro Evaluation of Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) Seed Gum as a Potential Prebiotic in Growing Rabbit Nutrition.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jun 17;10(6).
    doi: 10.3390/ANI10061041pmc: PMC7341231pubmed: 32560296google scholar: lookup
  54. Zhao J, Zhang X, Liu H, Brown MA, Qiao S. Dietary Protein and Gut Microbiota Composition and Function.. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2019;20(2):145-154.
    doi: 10.2174/1389203719666180514145437pubmed: 29756574google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Lagounova M, MacNicol JL, Weese JS, Pearson W. The Effect of Dietary Synbiotics in Actively Racing Standardbred Horses Receiving Trimethoprim/Sulfadiazine.. Animals (Basel) 2023 Jul 18;13(14).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13142344pubmed: 37508120google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.