How copper can impact pig growth: comparing the effect of copper sulfate and monovalent copper oxide on oxidative status, inflammation, gene abundance, and microbial modulation as potential mechanisms of action.
copper sulfate
gene abundance
microbiota
monovalent copper oxide
oxidative status
swine
Journal
Journal of animal science
ISSN: 1525-3163
Titre abrégé: J Anim Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003002
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Sep 2022
01 Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
25
02
2022
accepted:
17
06
2022
pubmed:
21
6
2022
medline:
23
9
2022
entrez:
20
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The beneficial effect of elevated concentrations of copper (Cu) on growth performance of pigs has been already demonstrated; however, their mechanism of action is not fully discovered. The objective of the present experiment was to investigate the effects of including Cu from copper sulfate (CuSO4) or monovalent copper oxide (Cu2O) in the diet of growing pigs on oxidative stress, inflammation, gene abundance, and microbial modulation. We used 120 pigs with initial body weight (BW) of 11.5 ± 0.98 kg in 2 blocks of 60 pigs, 3 dietary treatments, 5 pigs per pen, and 4 replicate pens per treatment within each block for a total of 8 pens per treatment. Dietary treatments included the negative control (NC) diet containing 20 mg Cu/kg and 2 diets in which 250 mg Cu/kg from CuSO4 or Cu2O was added to the NC. On day 28, serum samples were collected from one pig per pen and this pig was then euthanized to obtain liver samples for the analysis of oxidative stress markers (Cu/Zn superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, and malondialdehyde, MDA). Serum samples were analyzed for cytokines. Jejunum tissue and colon content were collected and used for transcriptomic analyses and microbial characterization, respectively. Results indicated that there were greater (P < 0.05) MDA levels in the liver of pigs fed the diet with 250 mg/kg CuSO4 than in pigs fed the other diets. The serum concentration of tumor necrosis factor-alpha was greater (P < 0.05) in pigs fed diets containing CuSO4 compared with pigs fed the NC diet or the diet with 250 mg Cu/kg from Cu2O. Pigs fed diets containing CuSO4 or Cu2O had a greater (P < 0.05) abundance of genes related to the intestinal barrier function and nutrient transport, but a lower (P < 0.05) abundance of pro-inflammatory genes compared with pigs fed the NC diet. Supplementing diets with CuSO4 or Cu2O also increased (P < 0.05) the abundance of Lachnospiraceae and Peptostreptococcaceae families and reduced (P < 0.05) the abundance of the Rikenellaceae family, Campylobacter, and Streptococcus genera in the colon of pigs. In conclusion, adding 250 mg/kg of Cu from CuSO4 or Cu2O regulates genes abundance in charge of the immune system and growth, and promotes changes in the intestinal microbiota; however, Cu2O induces less systemic oxidation and inflammation compared with CuSO4. Copper is a nonrenewable mineral resource that is essential for all biological organisms. After banning the antibiotics, copper has received considerable attention due to its antimicrobial properties that improve performance in animals when fed over the minimum requirement. The present study evaluated two sources of Cu (copper sulfate and monovalent copper oxide) compared with a nonsupplemented diet and the likely mechanism of action which leads to improved pig performance. Pigs fed high concentrations of copper sulfate showed increased liver oxidation and inflammatory indicators in the blood. Elevated concentrations of Cu improved intestinal epithelial barrier function, modulation of inflammatory responses, increased beneficial microbes, and reduced pathogens in the gut. Therefore, supplementation of high levels of Cu appears to be effective in promoting pig growth, but therapeutic doses of Cu sulfate increase the inflammatory response.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Copper is a nonrenewable mineral resource that is essential for all biological organisms. After banning the antibiotics, copper has received considerable attention due to its antimicrobial properties that improve performance in animals when fed over the minimum requirement. The present study evaluated two sources of Cu (copper sulfate and monovalent copper oxide) compared with a nonsupplemented diet and the likely mechanism of action which leads to improved pig performance. Pigs fed high concentrations of copper sulfate showed increased liver oxidation and inflammatory indicators in the blood. Elevated concentrations of Cu improved intestinal epithelial barrier function, modulation of inflammatory responses, increased beneficial microbes, and reduced pathogens in the gut. Therefore, supplementation of high levels of Cu appears to be effective in promoting pig growth, but therapeutic doses of Cu sulfate increase the inflammatory response.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35723874
pii: 6611813
doi: 10.1093/jas/skac224
pmc: PMC9486896
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Oxides
0
Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
0
Malondialdehyde
4Y8F71G49Q
Copper
789U1901C5
Glutathione Peroxidase
EC 1.11.1.9
Superoxide Dismutase
EC 1.15.1.1
Copper Sulfate
LRX7AJ16DT
cuprous oxide
T8BEA5064F
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.
Références
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan 7;41(1):e1
pubmed: 22933715
J Agric Food Chem. 2006 Mar 8;54(5):1792-6
pubmed: 16506835
Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 02;7:43412
pubmed: 28252026
Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Jun;73(6):1131S-1141S
pubmed: 11393191
Front Microbiol. 2016 Feb 19;7:187
pubmed: 26925052
Toxicology. 2011 Dec 18;290(2-3):208-17
pubmed: 22000994
Front Microbiol. 2019 Dec 17;10:2808
pubmed: 31921011
Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009 Apr;1788(4):864-71
pubmed: 18952050
J Anim Sci. 2011 Feb;89(2):414-25
pubmed: 20935138
J Microbiol. 2017 Sep;55(9):694-702
pubmed: 28865069
J Anim Sci. 2000 Apr;78(4):1010-6
pubmed: 10784192
Gastroenterology. 2011 Mar;140(3):913-23
pubmed: 20727355
Gastroenterology. 2008 Feb;134(2):523-34
pubmed: 18242218
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Apr;30(4):772-80
pubmed: 23329690
Regul Pept. 2008 Aug 7;149(1-3):70-8
pubmed: 18456350
Nat Methods. 2016 Jul;13(7):581-3
pubmed: 27214047
J Anim Sci. 2020 May 1;98(5):
pubmed: 32277238
Toxicology. 2003 Jul 15;189(1-2):147-63
pubmed: 12821289
Front Microbiol. 2017 Aug 15;8:1555
pubmed: 28861066
Nutr Res Rev. 2010 Jun;23(1):135-45
pubmed: 20482937
J Anim Sci. 2019 Dec 17;97(12):4904-4911
pubmed: 31680139
Biol Trace Elem Res. 2003 Winter;96(1-3):209-15
pubmed: 14716100
Poult Sci. 1998 Mar;77(3):416-25
pubmed: 9521454
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 26;9(2):e89977
pubmed: 24587162
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2021 Oct 15;223:112587
pubmed: 34352579
Eur J Immunol. 2021 May;51(5):1110-1125
pubmed: 33547649
Am J Pathol. 2005 Dec;167(6):1587-97
pubmed: 16314472
J Agric Food Chem. 2016 Mar 2;64(8):1841-9
pubmed: 26829127
J Nutr. 2006 Jul;136(7):1786-91
pubmed: 16772438
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2016 Nov;29(11):1608-1615
pubmed: 27456425
Front Biosci (Elite Ed). 2011 Jun 01;3(4):1192-200
pubmed: 21622125
Gastroenterology. 2005 Jan;128(1):175-91
pubmed: 15633135
Cancer Biomark. 2005;1(1):29-39
pubmed: 17192030
Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 14;8(1):4536
pubmed: 29540768
J Anim Sci. 2017 Dec;95(12):5447-5454
pubmed: 29293761
J Immunol. 2001 Apr 1;166(7):4634-43
pubmed: 11254722
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017 Jul 17;83(15):
pubmed: 28526795
Poult Sci. 2009 Mar;88(3):586-92
pubmed: 19211529
Poult Sci. 2005 Jun;84(6):888-93
pubmed: 15971525
Genome Biol. 2004;5(10):R80
pubmed: 15461798
J Nutr. 1999 Dec;129(12):2278-9
pubmed: 10573563
J Anim Sci. 2015 Jun;93(6):2948-55
pubmed: 26115281
Biol Trace Elem Res. 2012 Nov;149(2):184-9
pubmed: 22544767
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2004 Feb;286(2):G183-8
pubmed: 14715515
J Anim Sci. 2012 Sep;90(9):3112-9
pubmed: 22585802
J Anim Sci. 2021 Jun 1;99(6):
pubmed: 33880556
Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 May;63(5):797S-811S
pubmed: 8615367
PLoS One. 2010 Mar 10;5(3):e9490
pubmed: 20224823
Endocr Rev. 1995 Feb;16(1):3-34
pubmed: 7758431
ISME J. 2011 Feb;5(2):169-72
pubmed: 20827291
Animals (Basel). 2020 Dec 10;10(12):
pubmed: 33321976
Annu Rev Physiol. 1985;47:443-67
pubmed: 2986538
J Anim Sci. 1996 Aug;74(8):1888-96
pubmed: 8856443
J Anim Sci. 1989 Nov;67(11):2996-3002
pubmed: 2592283
Toxicol Sci. 2006 Aug;92(2):464-75
pubmed: 16672322
Front Immunol. 2019 Mar 07;10:385
pubmed: 30899262
J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2006;20(2):83-7
pubmed: 16785047
Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2009 Jan 01;14(7):2765-78
pubmed: 19273235
Gastroenterology. 1993 Sep;105(3):733-9
pubmed: 8359644
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2021 Oct;28(39):55140-55153
pubmed: 34128171
Poult Sci. 2004 Nov;83(11):1868-75
pubmed: 15554064
Nat Biotechnol. 2019 Aug;37(8):852-857
pubmed: 31341288
Poult Sci. 2021 Aug;100(8):101224
pubmed: 34157560
Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 May;67(5 Suppl):1054S-1060S
pubmed: 9587151