Effects of Housing Types on Cecal Microbiota of Two Different Strains of Laying Hens During the Late Production Phase.
Hy-Line
cecal microbiota
egg (production)
hen
housing environment
Journal
Frontiers in veterinary science
ISSN: 2297-1769
Titre abrégé: Front Vet Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101666658
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
15
01
2020
accepted:
12
05
2020
entrez:
14
7
2020
pubmed:
14
7
2020
medline:
14
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Due to animal welfare issues, European Union has banned the use of conventional cages (CC) and non-EU countries including the US are also under constant public pressure to restrict their use in egg production. Very limited information is available on the composition of the microbial community of hens raised in different housing environments. This study was conducted to determine the effects of CC and enriched colony cages (EC) on cecal microbiota of two commercial laying hen strains, Hy-Line W36 (W36) and Hy-Line Brown (HB) during the late production stage (53, 58, 67, and 72 weeks of age). Cecal microbiota was studied by analyzing 16S rRNA gene sequences with Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology (QIIME) 2 ver. 2018.8. Differentially abundant taxa were identified by Linear discriminant analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) analysis (
Identifiants
pubmed: 32656252
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00331
pmc: PMC7324799
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
331Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Adhikari, Jun, Kwon, Kiess and Adhikari.
Références
Environ Microbiol. 2016 May;18(5):1403-14
pubmed: 26271760
Poult Sci. 2009 Apr;88(4):698-707
pubmed: 19276411
Poult Sci. 2017 Oct 1;96(10):3654-3663
pubmed: 28938780
Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 Jan 4;44(D1):D471-80
pubmed: 26527732
Poult Sci. 2011 Jan;90(1):278-94
pubmed: 21177469
Br Poult Sci. 2002 Sep;43(4):489-500
pubmed: 12365505
Genome Biol. 2011 Jun 24;12(6):R60
pubmed: 21702898
Curr Microbiol. 2016 Mar;72(3):259-66
pubmed: 26613617
BMC Microbiol. 2016 Nov 4;16(1):259
pubmed: 27814685
Int J Food Microbiol. 2010 Jul 31;141 Suppl 1:S98-108
pubmed: 20452074
Trends Biotechnol. 2015 Sep;33(9):496-503
pubmed: 26210164
Poult Sci. 2015 Mar;94(3):485-501
pubmed: 25630672
Animals (Basel). 2018 Jul 11;8(7):
pubmed: 29997334
Nature. 2017 Nov 23;551(7681):457-463
pubmed: 29088705
Poult Sci. 2019 Sep 1;98(9):3365-3376
pubmed: 30916350
J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2016 Apr;100(2):243-50
pubmed: 26122928
Anim Nutr. 2018 Jun;4(2):151-159
pubmed: 30140754
Nat Methods. 2016 Jul;13(7):581-3
pubmed: 27214047
Poult Sci. 2017 May 1;96(5):1280-1289
pubmed: 27789747
Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2008;111:1-66
pubmed: 18461293
Bioinformatics. 2014 Nov 1;30(21):3123-4
pubmed: 25061070
Poult Sci. 2016 Jul 1;95(7):1564-1572
pubmed: 26994200
Poult Sci. 2006 Jul;85(7):1151-64
pubmed: 16830854
Poult Sci. 2009 Feb;88(2):256-64
pubmed: 19151338
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 Jul;72(7):5069-72
pubmed: 16820507
Poult Sci. 1994 Jul;73(7):921-38
pubmed: 7937480
Poult Sci. 2018 Jul 1;97(7):2543-2556
pubmed: 29897524
Poult Sci. 2008 Sep;87(9):1694-9
pubmed: 18753434
Front Microbiol. 2016 Jun 15;7:925
pubmed: 27379055
ISME J. 2011 Feb;5(2):169-72
pubmed: 20827291
Poult Sci. 2017 Jun 1;96(6):1748-1758
pubmed: 28339985
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Sep;31(9):814-21
pubmed: 23975157
J Appl Microbiol. 2008 May;104(5):1372-82
pubmed: 18201175
Vet Rec. 1994 Jun 11;134(24):614-9
pubmed: 7941260
Animal. 2019 Jan;13(1):33-41
pubmed: 29785889
Genes Nutr. 2011 Aug;6(3):285-306
pubmed: 21484167
Front Microbiol. 2018 Feb 16;9:235
pubmed: 29503637
J Bacteriol. 1967 Feb;93(2):574-6
pubmed: 6020562
Nat Biotechnol. 2019 Aug;37(8):852-857
pubmed: 31341288
Nutr Res Rev. 2010 Dec;23(2):366-84
pubmed: 20937167