Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36788638›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2023

Timing and delivery route effects of cecal microbiome transplants on Salmonella Typhimurium infections in chickens: potential for in-hatchery delivery of microbial interventions.

Sian Pottenger, Amyleigh Watts, Amy Wedley, Sue Jopson, Alistair C Darby, Paul Wigley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal microbiome, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Avian PathogenicAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation ReducesAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sian PottengerDepartment of Infection Biology and Microbiomes, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. sian.pottenger@liverpool.ac.uk.
Amyleigh WattsDepartment of Infection Biology and Microbiomes, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Amy WedleyDepartment of Infection Biology and Microbiomes, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Sue JopsonDepartment of Infection Biology and Microbiomes, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Alistair C DarbyCentre for Genomic Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Paul WigleyDepartment of Infection Biology and Microbiomes, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/R008914/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExposure to microbes early in life has long-lasting effects on microbial community structure and function of the microbiome. However, in commercial poultry settings chicks are reared as a single-age cohort with no exposure to adult birds which can have profound effects on microbiota development and subsequent pathogen challenge. Microbiota manipulation is a proven and promising strategy to help reduce pathogen load and transmission within broiler flocks. However, administration of microbiota transplant products in a hatchery setting may prove challenging. Effective administration strategies are dependent on key factors, such as; the age of chicks receiving interventions and mode of delivery. This study aimed to assess these two aspects to provide supporting evidence towards microbiome manipulation strategies for use in commercial hatcheries.

resultsManipulation of the microbiota between 4 and 72 h of hatch markedly reduced faecal shedding and colonisation with the foodborne pathogen Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (ST4/74). Administration of transplant material via spray or gel drop delivery systems had minimal effect on the protection conferred with fewer birds in transplant groups shown to shed ST4/74 in the faeces compared to PBS-gavaged control birds. Analysis of the microbiome following transplantation demonstrated that all transplant groups had higher diversity and species richness than non-transplant groups during the first week of life and the early stages of infection with ST47/4.The relative abundance of the bacterium Faecalibacterium prausnitzii was significantly higher in CMT groups compared to PBS controls. The presence of F. prausnitzii was also shown to increase in PBS-challenged birds compared to unchallenged birds potentially indicating a role of this bacterium in limiting Salmonella infections.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that administration of microbiome transplants, using methods that would align with hatchery practices, effectively reduced colonisation and shedding of Salmonella in chickens. Age of chicks at microbiome administration had limited effect on the diversity and composition of the microbiome and conferred protection against Salmonella infections. Traditional hatchery delivery systems, such as spray or gel-drop, are sufficient to transfer donor material, alter the microbiome and confer protection against Salmonella. This study helps highlight the opportunity for use of microbiome modification methods within the hatchery.

Indexed as

Administration routeBroilerCecal microbiota transplantChick ageHatcheriesMicrobiome manipulationPathogen controlSalmonella infection

Identifiers

PMID36788638
PMCPMC9926694
OpenAlexW4320729512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.