|
|
|
| Research Status and Application Prospect of Native Bacteria Resources in Breeding Industry |
| OU Bing-Ming1,2,*, LI Qing-Qing1,2, LIN Xue1, LI Ju-Qin1, XIAO Bi-Yang1, ZHONG Pei-Qiao1, ZHANG Min-Yu3 |
1 School of Life Sciences, Zhaoqing University, Zhaoqing 526061, China;
2 School of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China;
3 School of Physical Education & Sports Science, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Native bacteria are resident in the animal body (mainly refers to the gut), which are non-pathogenic to the host animal, and even beneficial to the host animal, and play an important role in the health and physiological regulation of the host animal. In recent years, in the livestock or aquaculture industry, the exploration and application of animal native bacteria resources has gradually emerged, and there are great prospects. It has good application prospects in promoting the growth of livestock and poultry, improving feed conversion efficiency, preventing and treating intestinal pathogens, as well as in developing oral vaccines or biological agents for livestock and poultry. This article provided a comprehensive overview of the natural advantages of using native bacteria in the animal husbandry, including their direct use and the development of vaccines or biological agents specifically for livestock and aquaculture. The current research status, both domestically and internationally, on the application of native bacteria in the animal husbandry and the development of related ancillary products were summarized. Additionally, the current challenges, key areas, and future development directions for the application of native bacterial resources in animal husbandry were analyzed to promote their use, reduce dependence on antibiotics, and support the sustainable development of the animal husbandry.
|
|
Received: 07 April 2024
|
|
|
|
Corresponding Authors:
*obm2018@zqu.edu.cn
|
|
|
|
[1] Banerjee G, Nandi A, Ray A K.2017. Assessment of hemolytic activity, enzyme production and bacteriocin characterization of Bacillus subtilis LR1 isolated from the gastrointestinal tract of fish[J]. Archives of Microbiology, 199(1): 115-124.
[2] Bao C, Zhang W, Wang J, et al.2022. The effects of dietary Bacillus amyloliquefaciens TL106 supplementation, as an alternative to antibiotics, on growth performance, intestinal immunity, epithelial barrier integrity, and intestinal microbiota in broilers[J]. Animals, 12(22): 3085.
[3] Blajman J E, Gaziano C, Zbrun M V, et al.2015. In vitro and in vivo screening of native lactic acid bacteria toward their selection as a probiotic in broiler chickens[J]. Research in Veterinary Science, 101: 50-56.
[4] Blajman J E, Oliveroa C A, Fusarib M L, et al.2017. Impact of lyophilized Lactobacillus salivarius DSPV 001P administration on growth performance, microbial translocation, and gastrointestinal microbiota of broilers reared under low ambient temperature[J]. Research in Veterinary Science, 114: 388-394.
[5] Brophy J A, Triassi A J, Adams B L, et al.2018. Engineered integrative and conjugative elements for efficient and inducible DNA transfer to undomesticated bacteria[J]. Nature Microbiology, 3(9): 1043-1053.
[6] Claesen J, Fischbach M A.2015. Synthetic microbes as drug delivery systems[J]. ACS Synthetic Biology, 4(4): 358-364.
[7] Dowarah R, Verma A K, Agarwal N, et al.2018. Selection and characterization of probiotic lactic acid bacteria and its impact on growth, nutrient digestibility, health and antioxidant status in weaned piglets[J]. PLOS ONE, 13(3): e0192978.
[8] Du H, Yao W, Kulyar M F, et al.2022. Effects of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens TL106 isolated from Tibetan pigs on probiotic potential and intestinal microbes in weaned piglets[J]. Microbiology Spectrum, 10(1): e01205-01221.
[9] Frizzo L S, Bertozzi E, Soto L P, et al.2010. Studies on translocation, acute oral toxicity and intestinal colonization of potentially probiotic lactic acid bacteria administered during calf rearing[J]. Livestock Ence, 128(1-3): 28-35.
[10] Frizzo L S, Soto L P, Zbrun M V, et al.2011. Effect of lactic acid bacteria and lactose on growth performance and intestinal microbial balance of artificially reared calves[J]. Livestock Science, 140(1-3): 246-252.
[11] Graham B D.2022. An in vivo pilot study on probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria isolated from the gastrointestinal tract of Creole hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) native to Montería, Córdoba, Colombia in Broiler chickens[J]. Poultry, 1(3): 157-168.
[12] He Y, Liu X, Dong Y, et al.2021. Enterococcus faecium PNC01 isolated from the intestinal mucosa of chicken as an alternative for antibiotics to reduce feed conversion rate in broiler chickens[J]. Microbial Cell Factories, 20: 1-14.
[13] Hou X, Jiang X, Jiang Y, et al.2018. Oral immunization against PEDV with recombinant Lactobacillus casei expressing dendritic cell-targeting peptide fusing COE protein of PEDV in piglets[J]. Viruses, 10(3): 106.
[14] Huang S, Jiang S, Huo D, et al.2021. Candidate probiotic Lactiplantibacillus plantarum HNU082 rapidly and convergently evolves within human, mice, and zebrafish gut but differentially influences the resident microbiome[J]. Microbiome, 9(1): 1-17.
[15] Isabella V M, Ha B N, Castillo M J, et al.2018. Development of a synthetic live bacterial therapeutic for the human metabolic disease phenylketonuria[J]. Nature Biotechnology, 36(9): 857-864.
[16] Jha R, Das R, Oak S, et al.2020. Probiotics (direct-fed microbials) in poultry nutrition and their effects on nutrient utilization, growth and laying performance, and gut health: A systematic review[J]. Animals, 10(10): 1863.
[17] Jiang Z, Su W, Yang M, et al.2022. Screening of bacteria inhibiting Clostridium perfringens and assessment of their beneficial effects in vitro and in vivo with whole genome sequencing analysis[J]. Microorganisms, 10(10): 2056.
[18] Jin W B, Li T T, Huo D, et al.2022. Genetic manipulation of gut microbes enables single-gene interrogation in a complex microbiome[J]. Cell, 185(3): 547-562.
[19] Kongnum K, Hongpattarakere T.2012. Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum isolated from digestive tract of wild shrimp on growth and survival of white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) challenged with Vibrio harveyi[J]. Fish Shellfish Immunol, 32(1): 170-177.
[20] Kotula J W, Kerns S J, Shaket L A, et al.2014. Programmable bacteria detect and record an environmental signal in the mammalian gut[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111(13): 4838-4843.
[21] Lasaro M, Liu Z, Bishar R, et al.2014. Escherichia coli isolate for studying colonization of the mouse intestine and its application to two-component signaling knockouts[J]. Journal of Bacteriology, 196(9): 1723-1732.
[22] Li S S, Zhu A, Benes V, et al.2016. Durable coexistence of donor and recipient strains after fecal microbiota transplantation[J]. Science, 352(6285): 586-589.
[23] Ou B, Jiang B, Jin D, et al.2020. Engineered recombinant Escherichia coli probiotic strains integrated with F4 and F18 fimbriae cluster genes in the chromosome and their assessment of immunogenic efficacy in vivo[J]. ACS Synthetic Biology, 9(2): 412-426.
[24] Pan N, Liu Y, Zhang H, et al.2023. Oral vaccination with engineered probiotic Limosilactobacillus reuteri has protective effects against localized and systemic Staphylococcus aureus infection[J]. Microbiology Spectrum, 11(2): e03673-03622.
[25] Pedrolli D B, Ribeiro N V, Squizato P N, et al.2019. Engineering microbial living therapeutics: The synthetic biology toolbox[J]. Trends in Biotechnology, 37(1): 100-115.
[26] Riglar D T, Giessen T W, Baym M, et al.2017. Engineered bacteria can function in the mammalian gut long-term as live diagnostics of inflammation[J]. Nature Biotechnology, 35(7): 653-658.
[27] Ronda C, Chen S P, Cabral V, et al.2019. Metagenomic engineering of the mammalian gut microbiome in situ[J]. Nature Methods, 16(2): 167-170.
[28] Rubin B E, Diamond S, Cress B F, et al.2022. Species and site specific genome editing in complex bacterial communities[J]. Nature Microbiology, 7(1): 34-47.
[29] Russell B J, Brown S D, Siguenza N, et al.2022. Intestinal transgene delivery with native E. coli chassis allows persistent physiological changes[J]. Cell, 185(17): 3263-3277.
[30] Shang Z, Liu S, Duan Y, et al.2022. Complete genome sequencing and investigation on the fiber-degrading potential of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain TL106 from the tibetan pig[J]. BMC Microbiology, 22(1): 186.
[31] Shokryazdan P, Faseleh Jahromi M, Liang J B, et al.2017. Probiotics: From isolation to application[J]. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 36(8): 666-676.
[32] Song L, Qiao X, Zhao D, et al.2019. Effects of Lactococcus lactis MG1363 producing fusion proteins of bovine lactoferricin-lactoferrampin on growth, intestinal morphology and immune function in weaned piglet[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 127(3): 856-866.
[33] Sonnenborn U, Schulze J.2009. The non-pathogenic Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917-features of a versatile probiotic[J]. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, 21(3-4): 122-158.
[34] Tang L, Li Y.2009. Oral immunization of mice with recombinant Lactococcus lactis expressing porcine transmissible gastroenteritis virus spike glycoprotein[J]. Virus Genes, 39: 238-245.
[35] Vineetha P G, Tomar S, Saxena V K, et al.2017. Effect of laboratory‐isolated Lactobacillus plantarum LGFCP 4 from gastrointestinal tract of guinea fowl on growth performance, carcass traits, intestinal histomorphometry and gastrointestinal microflora population in broiler chicken[J]. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 101(5): e362-e370.
[36] Walker R, Owen R.1990. Intestinal barriers to bacteria and their toxins[J]. Annual Review of Medicine, 41(1): 393-400.
[37] Wang W, Ma H, Zhu Y, et al.2021. Screening of lactic acid bacteria with inhibitory activity against ETEC K88 as feed additive and the effects on sows and piglets[J]. Animals, 11(6): 1719.
[38] Yang J, Zhan K, Zhang M, 2020. Effects of the use of a combination of two Bacillus species on performance, egg quality, small intestinal mucosal morphology, and cecal microbiota profile in aging laying hens[J]. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, 12: 204-213.
[39] Zhang Y, Yang L, Zhang J, et al.2022. Oral or intranasal immunization with recombinant Lactobacillus plantarum displaying head domain of Swine influenza A virus hemagglutinin protects mice from H1N1 virus[J]. Microbial Cell Factories, 21(1): 185. |
|
|
|
