Peculiarities of the composition of the digestive microbiota in poultry with fodder contamination with glyphosate

Relevance. The gastrointestinal tract in poultry is vulnerable to different irritators from food and water to medicals. That is why the mortality due to diseases of the digestive system may be as much as 30%. It has been established that about 600–900 bacteria species inhabit the poultry gastrointestinal tract. Microflora of healthy organism is a complex and balanced symbiotic microecosystem with normal metabolic characteristics. In addition to normoflora poultry gastroinrestinal tract is populated by opportunistic pathogenic and pathogenic microflora, which may be hazardous to the host.
Methods. The issues regarded to establishing limits of different bacteria had been understudied until 2016. “Biotrof+” Ltd. was first to estimate threshold values for different groups of microorganisms under normal and pathological conditions.
Results. Experiments proved that one of factors that may affect the structure of poultry microbiome are pesticide residues in feed. The trial on broilers fed with glyphosate showed that the microflora structure was altered by the pesticide significantly: the amount of staphylococci increased 5 times, enterobacteria increased 1,5 times, the amount of beneficial bacteria decreased. Supplementing the glyphosate contaminated feed with probiotic “Probiocid-Ultra” promoted to significant decrease in the opportunistic pathogenic and pathogenic microflora. Compared to the negative control the broilers average live weight fed with probiotic “ProbiocidUltra” was 1,0% higher. That may be the demonstration of the fact that negative effect of pesticide residues on poultry health and productivity can be minimized by supplementing feed with probiotics.

1. Wang X. et al. Florfenicol causes excessive lipid peroxidation and apoptosis induced renal injury in broilers. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety. 2021; 207: 111282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv

2. Gao X. et al. Maduramicin triggers methuosis-like cell death in primary chicken myocardial cells. Toxicology Letters. 2020; 333: 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.07.025

3. Belote B.L. et al. Histological parameters to evaluate intestinal health on broilers challenged with Eimeria and Clostridium perfringens with or without enramycin as growth promoter. Poultry science. 2018; 97(7): 2287–2294. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey064

4. Laptev G.Yu. et al. Food-producing animals microbiome. St-Petersburg: Publishing House «Prospekt Nauki». 2020; 336. eLIBRARY ID: 44039854

5. Dohms J.E., Metz A. Stress — mechanisms of immunosuppression. Veterinary immunology and immunopathology. 1991; 30(1): 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-2427(91)90011-z

6. Klasing K.C. Nutrition and the immune system. British poultry science. 2007; 48 (5): 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071660701671336

7. Xu J., Shayna S., Smith G., Want. W., Li Y. Glyphosate contamination in grains and foods: An overview. Food Control. 2019; 106: 106710. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713519302919

8. Tiurina D.G. et al. Glyphosate in diets for poultry. Ptitsevodstvo. 2021; 3: 27–30. DOI 10.33845/0033-3239-2021-70-3-27-30 (In Russian).

9. Medvedev O. Glyphosate and its potential impact to human health. Compound feed (Kombikorma). 2017; 4: 61–63. eLIBRARY ID: 29108509 (In Russian).

10. Medvedev O. Glyphosate in soy again under suspicion. Compound feed (Kombikorma). 2019; 4: 30–31. eLIBRARY ID: 37205919 (In Russian).

11. Aitbali Y., Ba-M’hamed S., Elhidar N., Nafis A., Soraa N., Bennis M. Glyphosate based-herbicide exposure affects gut microbiota, anxiety and depression-like behaviors in mice. Neurotoxicology and teratology. 2018; 67: 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2018.04.002

12. Mesnage R. et al. Shotgun metagenomics and metabolomics reveal glyphosate alters the gut microbiome of Sprague-Dawley rats by inhibiting the shikimate pathway. BioRxiv. 2019; 11: 1101/870105. DOI: 10.1101/870105

13. Boei Jan J.W.A. et al. Xenobiotic metabolism in differentiated human bronchial epithelial cells. Archives of Toxicology. 2019; 91(5): 2093–2105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-016-1868-7

14. Park B.W. et al. A Study on Vitamin D and Cathelicidin Status in Patients with Rosacea: Serum Level and Tissue Expression. Annals of dermatology. 2018; 30(2): 136–142. https://doi.org/10.5021/ad.2018.30.2.136

15. Yamasaki K. et al. Increased serine protease activity and cathelicidin promotes skin inflammation in rosacea. Nature medicine. 2007; 13(8): 975–980. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1616

16. Yildyrym E. et al. Norms of the content of microorganisms in the gastrointestinal tract of animals and poultry. Compound feed (Kombikorma). 2019; 10: 70–74. eLIBRARY ID: 41045962 (In Russian).

17. European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes. European Treaty Series (ETS № 123 — Protection of vertebrate animals). Strasburg, 18.03.1986.

18. Egorov I.A. et al. The routine of scientific and farm-scale experiments on poultry feeding. Sergiev Posad: The whole Sergiev Posad. 2013; 51. eLIBRARY ID: 21548916 (In Russian).

19. Laptev G.Yu. et al. Database registration certificate № 2013621281 «Investigation of the bacterial community of the intestines of laying hens of the parent flock in the conditions of production experiments at poultry farms using the molecular genetic method». Federal Service for Intellectual Property of the Russian Federation. Applicant and copyright holder LLC «BIOTROF». № 2013621070, declared 14.08.2013, published 20.12.2013, 1. (In Russian).

20. Laptev G.Yu. et al. Database registration certificate № 2013621282 « Learning the effect of therapeutic premixes on the bacterial community of various parts of the intestine of broilers using a molecular genetic method based on T-RFLP analysis. Federal Service for Intellectual Property of the Russian Federation. Applicant and holder LLC «BIOTROF». № 2013621065, declared 14.08.2013, published 20.12.2013, 1. (In Russian).

21. Forte C. et al. Effects of dietary Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bacillus subtilis on laying performance, egg quality, blood biochemistry and immune response of organic laying hens. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2016; 100(5): 977–987. DOI: 10.1111/jpn.12408

22. Borda-Molina D., Seifert J., Camarinha-Silva A. Current perspectives of the chicken gastrointestinal tract and its microbiome. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. 2018; 16: 131–139. DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2018.03.002

23. Kohl K.D. Diversity and function of the avian gut microbiota. J. Comp Physiol B. 2012; 182(5): 591–602. DOI: 10.1007/s00360-012-0645-z

24. Li Z., Wang W., Liu D., Guo Y. Effects of Lactobacillus acidophilus on gut microbiota composition in broilers challenged with Clostridium perfringens. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12(11): 0188634. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188634

25. Qu A. et al. Comparative metagenomics reveals host specific metavirulomes and horizontal gene transfer elements in the chicken cecum mi-crobiome. PLoS ONE. 2008; 3(8): e2945. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002945

26. Józefiak D., Rutkowski A., Martin S.A. Carbohydrate fermentation in the avian ceca: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2004; 113(1–4): 1–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2003.09.007

27. Laptev G. et al. Infection reservoirs in poultry farms. Compound feed (Kombikorma). 2020; 6: 61–65. eLIBRARY ID: 42915735 (In Russian).

28. Krska R., Malachova A., Berthiller F., Egmond H.P.V. Determination of T-2 and HT-2 toxins in food and feed: аn update. World Mycotoxin Journal. 2014; 7(2): 131–142.

29. Kononenko G.P., Burkin A.A., Zotova E.V. Mycotoxilogocal monitoring. Report 3. Feedstuffs from raw grain processing. Veterinary science today (Veterinariya segodnya). 2020; 3(34): 213–219. DOI: 10.29326/2304-196X-2020-3-34-213-219 (In Russian).

30. Okolelova T.M., Engashev S.V. Scientific basis of feeding and keeping poultry. Moscow: RIOR Publishing Center. 2021; 439. DOI 10.29039/02037-1 (In Russian).

31. Laptev G.Yu. et al. Why glyphosate is hazardous? Ptitsevodstvo. 2022; 7–8: 37–42. DOI 10.33845/0033-3239-2022-71-7-8-37-42 (In Russian).

32. Shehata A. A., Schrödl W., Aldin A. A., Hafez H. M., Krüger M. The effect of glyphosate on potential pathogens and beneficial members of poultry microbiota in vitro. Current microbiology. 2013; 66(4): 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-012-0277-2

33. Tiurina D.G., Ilina L.A., Selivanov D.G., Bolshakov V.N., Yildyrym E.А. Microbiome editing in poultry and profitability, or comprehensibly on incomprehensible. Ptitsevodstvo. 2019; 11–12: 43–48. DOI 10.33845/0033-3239-2019-68-11-12-43-48 (In Russian).

34. Yildyrym E.A. et al. Сhicken microbiome: modern concepts. Ptitsevodstvo. 2019; 1: 43–49. DOI 10.33845/0033-3239-2019-68-1-43-49 (In Russian).

35. Yildyrym E.A. et al. The modern probiotic for chicken health. Effective animal husbandry (Effektivnoye zhivotnovodstvo). 2019; 4(152): 66–67. eLIBRARY ID: 39323605 (In Russian).

36. You M.J., Shin G.W., Lee C.S. Clostridium tertium bacteremia in a patient with glyphosate ingestion. American journal of case reports. 2015; 16: 4–7. https://doi.org/10.12659/AJCR.891287