Comparison of the Effects of Three Different Types of Probiotics on the Sucrase Activities of the Small Intestine Mucosa of Broiler Chicks
An experiment was conducted to study the effects of different types of probiotic on Sucrase enzyme activity of the small intestine mucosa in male broilers. The experimental design was arranged as randomized completely blocks in 4 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatment. 180 male broilers of Ross 308 commercial hybrid were designated into 4 groups. Three replicates of 15 birds were assigned to each treatment. Control treatments (diet contained no probiotic) were fed according to the NRC as base diet and three treatment groups were fed from the same diet plus three different types of probiotics. Birds were slaughtered after 21 and 42 days and different segments of small intestine (at 1,10,30,50,70 and 90% of total length the small intestine) were taken from each replicates (N=2) Sucrase enzyme activities were measured and recorded. Obtained data were analyzed by Spss (P<0.05). In three treatment groups, probiotic had no significant effect on sucrase activity in different ages and segments of small intestine (P<0.05). These data suggested that probiotics administration had no significant effect on treatments comparing to the control group.
[1] Duke, G.E. 1996. Avian Digestion. In: Dukes" physiology of domestic
animals. 11th., edited by M.J. Swenson., and W.O. Reece. Cornell Univ.
Press, Ithaca, N Y pp, 428-35.
[2] Cut-tie W.B. (1988). Structure and function of domestic animals. 1st
ed., pp: 265-267, Butler worth publishers. MA.
[3] Anderson DB ,McCracken VJ ,Amino RJ(1999)Gut microbiology and
growth promoting antibiotics in swine.pig news and
information:20:115N-122N
[4] Dibber JJ ,Richards JD,(2005).Antibiotic growth promoters in
agriculture History and mode action.poultry.sci.84.634-643.
[5] Fuller, R. 1986. Probiotics in man and animals. Journal of Applied
Bacterial, 66: 365-378.
[6] Hansen-s, C. 2002.Guidelines for the Evaluation of Probiotics in Food:
Joint FAO/WHO Working Group meeting, London Ontario, Canada, 30
April-1 May.
[7] NRC,1998. Nutrient requirement of broiler,: National of academy press.
Washington D.C.
[8] Ghiasi G.J., R. Beheshti, H. Karamouz, H. Ebrahimnazhad, K.
Hatefinazhad, and N. Maheri-Sis, 2010. Effect of Different Levels of
Perlite on Sucrase Mucosal Enzymes Activity in Small Intestinal of
Broiler Chicks. Global veterinarian, 4 (2):103-107.
[9] Hedemann M., S.B.B. Jensen, and H.D. Poulsen, 2006. Influence of
dietary zinc and copper on digestive enzyme activity and intestinal
morphology in weaned pigs. Journal of Animal Science,84: 3310-3320.
[10] Dahlqvist , A., 1964. Method of assay of intestinal disaccaridases.
Anal. Biochem., 7: 18-25.
[11] Hill, H.Z., 1971. Enzyme kinetics in mammalian cells. 3. Regulation of
activities of galactokinase, galactose-1 -phosphate uridyl transferase and
tiridine diphosphogalactose-4-epimerase in human erythrocytes. Journal
Cell. Physiology., 78: 419-30.
[12] Teshfam, M. 1984. Comparison of the effects of the high-acid milk
replacer with conventional skim milk replacer. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Bristol, UK.
[13] Benajiba, A. and S. Maroux, 1980. Purification and characterization.
European Journal of Biochemistry, 107: 381-388.
[14] SPSS Institute, 2002. SPSS state software: Changes and enhancement
through release11.5.0, SPSS institute. LEAD technologies. Inc, All right
reserved.
[15] Hooper ,L; et al.2001, Molecular analysis of commensal host-microbial
interaction ships in the intestine . science , 291:881-8840
[16] Ducluzeau, R. 1993. Development, equilibrium and role of microbial
flora in the newborn. Ann. Pediatric. 40:13-22.
[17] Timmerman H.M,Veldman A,Van den Elsen E,(2006). Mortality and
Growth Performance of Broilers Given Drinking Water Supplemented
with Chicken-Specific Probiotics. Poultry Science , 85(8):1383-1388.
[18] Angel, C.R. 1991.Long segmented filamentous organism observed in
poults experimentally infected with stunting syn.
[19] Duke, G.E.1986. Alimentary canal: anatomy. Regulation of feeding, and
motility. In: Avian physiology. 4th ed., edited by P.D. Sturkie Springer-
Verlag N Y .pp. 269-88.
[20] Hampson, D.J.1986. Alterations in piglet small intestinal structure at
weaning. Research Veterinary. Science, 40: 32-40.
[21] Sklan, D., 2001. Development of the digestivetract of poultry. Worlds
Poult. Science Journal. 57:415-428.
[22] Award W. A., Ghareeb K and Böhm J.(2009). Effect of addition of a
probiotic micro-organism to broiler diet on intestinal mucosal
architecture and electrophysiological parameters. Journal of Animal
Physiology and Animal Nutrition ; 91 : 175-180.
[23] Semenza G. (1986). Anchoring and biosynthesis of stalked brush broder
membrane protein: glyconsidases and peptidases of enterocytes and of
renal tubuli. Ann.Rev.Cell Biol., 2:255-313.
[24] Nunez M. C., Bueno J. D., Ayudarte M. V., Almendros A., Rios A.,
Suarez M. D., and Gol A. (1996). Dietary restriction induces
biochemical and morphometric changes in the small intestine of nursing
piglets. J. Nutr., 126:933-944.
[25] Jones A., Oren M., Diver-Haber A., Kaplan B., and Passwell J. (1987).
Effect of components of breast milk on mucosal enzyme activity of the
newborn small intestine. Pediatr. Res., 21:126-130.
[26] Burrin D.G., Dudley M.A., Reeds P.J., Shulman R.J., Perkinson. S., and
Rosenberger. J. (1994). Feeding colostrums rapidly alters enzymatic
activity and relative isoform abundance of jejuna lactase in neonatal
pigs. J. Nutr. , 124:2350-2357.
[27] Traber P.G., Gumucio D.L., and Wang W. (1991). Isolation of intestinal
epithelial cells for the study of different gene expression along the cryptvillus
axis. American Journal of physiology, 260, 895-903 (quoted by
UniZ. Et al., 1998, Poultry Science, 77, No 1, 75-82).
[28] Bueno A.R., Cappet T.G.,Sunvold G.D., and Clemens E.T. (2000).
Feline colonic morphology and mucosal tissue as influenced via the
source of dietry fiber. , Nutrition Resarch, 26:5.533-542.
[29] Bowen R. (Last updated on April 25,2006). Small Intestine: Brush
Border Enzymes, Colorado state university
[30] Buts, J.P., P. Bernasconi, M.P. Van, P. Craynest, and M.R Maldague De,
1986. Response of human and rat small intestinal mucosa to oral
administration of Saccharomyces boulardii. Pediatric. Research, 20: 192-
196.
[31] John, H.U., R. Ullrich, T. Schneider, R.M. Liehr, H.L. Schieferdecker,
H. Holst, and M. Zeitz, 1996. Immunological and trophical effects of
Saccharomyces boulardii on the small intestine in healthy human
volunteers. Digestion, 57: 95-104.
[1] Duke, G.E. 1996. Avian Digestion. In: Dukes" physiology of domestic
animals. 11th., edited by M.J. Swenson., and W.O. Reece. Cornell Univ.
Press, Ithaca, N Y pp, 428-35.
[2] Cut-tie W.B. (1988). Structure and function of domestic animals. 1st
ed., pp: 265-267, Butler worth publishers. MA.
[3] Anderson DB ,McCracken VJ ,Amino RJ(1999)Gut microbiology and
growth promoting antibiotics in swine.pig news and
information:20:115N-122N
[4] Dibber JJ ,Richards JD,(2005).Antibiotic growth promoters in
agriculture History and mode action.poultry.sci.84.634-643.
[5] Fuller, R. 1986. Probiotics in man and animals. Journal of Applied
Bacterial, 66: 365-378.
[6] Hansen-s, C. 2002.Guidelines for the Evaluation of Probiotics in Food:
Joint FAO/WHO Working Group meeting, London Ontario, Canada, 30
April-1 May.
[7] NRC,1998. Nutrient requirement of broiler,: National of academy press.
Washington D.C.
[8] Ghiasi G.J., R. Beheshti, H. Karamouz, H. Ebrahimnazhad, K.
Hatefinazhad, and N. Maheri-Sis, 2010. Effect of Different Levels of
Perlite on Sucrase Mucosal Enzymes Activity in Small Intestinal of
Broiler Chicks. Global veterinarian, 4 (2):103-107.
[9] Hedemann M., S.B.B. Jensen, and H.D. Poulsen, 2006. Influence of
dietary zinc and copper on digestive enzyme activity and intestinal
morphology in weaned pigs. Journal of Animal Science,84: 3310-3320.
[10] Dahlqvist , A., 1964. Method of assay of intestinal disaccaridases.
Anal. Biochem., 7: 18-25.
[11] Hill, H.Z., 1971. Enzyme kinetics in mammalian cells. 3. Regulation of
activities of galactokinase, galactose-1 -phosphate uridyl transferase and
tiridine diphosphogalactose-4-epimerase in human erythrocytes. Journal
Cell. Physiology., 78: 419-30.
[12] Teshfam, M. 1984. Comparison of the effects of the high-acid milk
replacer with conventional skim milk replacer. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Bristol, UK.
[13] Benajiba, A. and S. Maroux, 1980. Purification and characterization.
European Journal of Biochemistry, 107: 381-388.
[14] SPSS Institute, 2002. SPSS state software: Changes and enhancement
through release11.5.0, SPSS institute. LEAD technologies. Inc, All right
reserved.
[15] Hooper ,L; et al.2001, Molecular analysis of commensal host-microbial
interaction ships in the intestine . science , 291:881-8840
[16] Ducluzeau, R. 1993. Development, equilibrium and role of microbial
flora in the newborn. Ann. Pediatric. 40:13-22.
[17] Timmerman H.M,Veldman A,Van den Elsen E,(2006). Mortality and
Growth Performance of Broilers Given Drinking Water Supplemented
with Chicken-Specific Probiotics. Poultry Science , 85(8):1383-1388.
[18] Angel, C.R. 1991.Long segmented filamentous organism observed in
poults experimentally infected with stunting syn.
[19] Duke, G.E.1986. Alimentary canal: anatomy. Regulation of feeding, and
motility. In: Avian physiology. 4th ed., edited by P.D. Sturkie Springer-
Verlag N Y .pp. 269-88.
[20] Hampson, D.J.1986. Alterations in piglet small intestinal structure at
weaning. Research Veterinary. Science, 40: 32-40.
[21] Sklan, D., 2001. Development of the digestivetract of poultry. Worlds
Poult. Science Journal. 57:415-428.
[22] Award W. A., Ghareeb K and Böhm J.(2009). Effect of addition of a
probiotic micro-organism to broiler diet on intestinal mucosal
architecture and electrophysiological parameters. Journal of Animal
Physiology and Animal Nutrition ; 91 : 175-180.
[23] Semenza G. (1986). Anchoring and biosynthesis of stalked brush broder
membrane protein: glyconsidases and peptidases of enterocytes and of
renal tubuli. Ann.Rev.Cell Biol., 2:255-313.
[24] Nunez M. C., Bueno J. D., Ayudarte M. V., Almendros A., Rios A.,
Suarez M. D., and Gol A. (1996). Dietary restriction induces
biochemical and morphometric changes in the small intestine of nursing
piglets. J. Nutr., 126:933-944.
[25] Jones A., Oren M., Diver-Haber A., Kaplan B., and Passwell J. (1987).
Effect of components of breast milk on mucosal enzyme activity of the
newborn small intestine. Pediatr. Res., 21:126-130.
[26] Burrin D.G., Dudley M.A., Reeds P.J., Shulman R.J., Perkinson. S., and
Rosenberger. J. (1994). Feeding colostrums rapidly alters enzymatic
activity and relative isoform abundance of jejuna lactase in neonatal
pigs. J. Nutr. , 124:2350-2357.
[27] Traber P.G., Gumucio D.L., and Wang W. (1991). Isolation of intestinal
epithelial cells for the study of different gene expression along the cryptvillus
axis. American Journal of physiology, 260, 895-903 (quoted by
UniZ. Et al., 1998, Poultry Science, 77, No 1, 75-82).
[28] Bueno A.R., Cappet T.G.,Sunvold G.D., and Clemens E.T. (2000).
Feline colonic morphology and mucosal tissue as influenced via the
source of dietry fiber. , Nutrition Resarch, 26:5.533-542.
[29] Bowen R. (Last updated on April 25,2006). Small Intestine: Brush
Border Enzymes, Colorado state university
[30] Buts, J.P., P. Bernasconi, M.P. Van, P. Craynest, and M.R Maldague De,
1986. Response of human and rat small intestinal mucosa to oral
administration of Saccharomyces boulardii. Pediatric. Research, 20: 192-
196.
[31] John, H.U., R. Ullrich, T. Schneider, R.M. Liehr, H.L. Schieferdecker,
H. Holst, and M. Zeitz, 1996. Immunological and trophical effects of
Saccharomyces boulardii on the small intestine in healthy human
volunteers. Digestion, 57: 95-104.
@article{"International Journal of Biological, Life and Agricultural Sciences:59734", author = "Fazlollah Moosavinasab and Zhila Motamedi", title = "Comparison of the Effects of Three Different Types of Probiotics on the Sucrase Activities of the Small Intestine Mucosa of Broiler Chicks", abstract = "An experiment was conducted to study the effects of different types of probiotic on Sucrase enzyme activity of the small intestine mucosa in male broilers. The experimental design was arranged as randomized completely blocks in 4 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatment. 180 male broilers of Ross 308 commercial hybrid were designated into 4 groups. Three replicates of 15 birds were assigned to each treatment. Control treatments (diet contained no probiotic) were fed according to the NRC as base diet and three treatment groups were fed from the same diet plus three different types of probiotics. Birds were slaughtered after 21 and 42 days and different segments of small intestine (at 1,10,30,50,70 and 90% of total length the small intestine) were taken from each replicates (N=2) Sucrase enzyme activities were measured and recorded. Obtained data were analyzed by Spss (P", keywords = "Broiler, Chicks, Probiotics, Small Intestine, Sucrase", volume = "6", number = "7", pages = "518-4", }
