Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research note
  • Open Access

Effects of bacitracin methylene disalicylate and diet change on gastrointestinal integrity and endotoxin permeability in the duodenum of broiler chicken

BMC Research Notes201710:470

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2781-8

  • Received: 9 May 2017
  • Accepted: 31 August 2017
  • Published:

Abstract

Objective

To determine the effect of bacitracin methylene disalicylate (BMD) and feed changes on gastrointestinal integrity, endotoxin permeability, and morphometric parameters in the duodenum of broilers.

Results

Birds were raised on a starter diet without growth promoting antibiotics for 31 days then switched to a grower diet. Four of the pens including 50 g/ton of BMD while 4 pens remained antibiotic free. Eight birds per treatment were sampled prior to the feed change and at 3 and 7 days following the feed change. Gastrointestinal integrity and endotoxin permeability in the duodenum were determined using a modified Ussing Chamber and an adjacent section fixed in 10% formalin for morphometric analysis. Data were analyzed using Proc Glimmix of SAS with the model fitting BMD treatment, time, and the interaction of BMD treatment and time as fixed effects. Intestinal integrity increased at d 3 and 7 compared to prior to the feed change and addition of BMD (P > 0.001) and villus height was decreased with BMD supplementation (P = 0.049). All other tested effects similar (P > 0.1). In conclusion, the practice of changing feed had a greater effect on intestinal health than addition of BMD. However, the factors driving these differences 42 are unclear.

Keywords

  • Duodenum
  • Bacitracin methylene disalicylate
  • Grower diet
  • Starter diet

Introduction

Antibiotics have been used in agricultural diets to improve animal performance for several decades [1]. However, concern over antibiotic resistant pathogens has increased the need to identify safe non-antibiotic alternatives [1]. While alternative products have been identified that promote similar growth performance, these products, as a whole, are often not consistent [25]. Despite several decades of use, the mode of action for increase growth performance from the use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics is not fully understood. It has been established that the effects of increased performance are limited to modulation of the microfloral communities and/or the interaction of the microfloral communities with the host with animals raised under sterile conditions do not having elevated performance when given oral antibiotics [6, 7], and the removal from hygienic environments can improve the efficacy of sub-therapeutic antibiotics.

Sub-therapeutic antibiotics are known to alter gastrointestinal morphology, weight, length, and integrity [6, 811]. However, supplementation starts at hatch and it is unclear the effects of supplementation later in life. Development of the gastrointestinal tract and microbial comminutes within the gastrointestinal tract are generally stabilized at approximately 3 weeks of age [1214]. Therefore, we wanted to determine if the use of a commonly used broad-spectrum antibiotic, bacitracin methylene disalicylate (BMD) in birds raised without antibiotics would alter gastrointestinal integrity, endotoxin permeability, or morphometric analysis in a stable gastrointestinal tract.

Main text

Methods

Animals

On day of hatch, broilers were vent sexed and 22 males were randomly placed in each of 8 1.22 m by 1.22 m floor pens at the Arkansas Division of Agriculture Applied Broiler Research Unit (Savoy, Arkansas). Broilers were checked twice daily for unhealthy birds and sufficient feed in tube feeders. For the first 8 days, broilers were raised under continuous lighting and then switched to a schedule of 16 h of light: 8 h of dark until processing. Broilers were allowed free access to feed and water throughout the study. Broilers were maintained on an antibiotic free diet for 31 days at which point 4 of the floor pens received a diet containing 50 g/ton of bacitracin methylene disalicylate (BMD). Diet formulas are provided in Table 1.
Table 1

Components of the starter diet and grower diet with and without bacitracin methylene disalicylate

Ingredients (%)

Starterb

Growerc

Without BMD

Without BMD

With BMD

Corn

63.07

66.43

66.43

Soybean meal

25.75

26.80

26.80

Fat

2.85

1.13

1.13

Calcium carbonate

1.03

0.33

0.33

Deflourinated phosphate

0

1.36

1.36

Dicalcium phosphate

1.10

0

0

Sodium chloride

0.40

0.37

0.37

DL methionine (99.5%)

0.28

0.22

0.22

Trace minerals

0.10

0.10

0.10

Choline chloride (60%)

0.22

0.00

0.00

Vitamin premix

0.20

0.50

0.50

ProPacka

5.00

0.00

0.00

Pro-Plusa + Thr and Lys

0.00

2.76

2.76

BMD

0.00

0.00

0.0055

aProtein concentrates from H.J. Baker

bThe starter basal diet was fed from day of hatch through 30d post hatch

cThe grower basal diet was fed beginning on day 31 after baseline (day 0) birds were samples

Tissue collection

Prior to the addition of BMD (0 days) and on days 3/4 and 7/8 of BMD inclusion in the diet, individual body weights were collected on 8 (2 randomly chosen birds per pen) birds per treatment. The sample size was selected based on a power analysis and the number of Ussing chambers available. Sampling was split across 2 days with equal numbers of birds from each treatment sampled on each day. Birds were euthanized using cervical dislocation, and a 5 cm section of the descending duodenum was collected, flushed with Krebs-Heinchlet buffer, [11.1 mM dextrose, 1.2 mM Magnesium sulfate, 1.2 mM Potassium phosphate monobasic, 4.7 mM Potassium chloride, 118 mM Sodium chloride, 1 mM Calcium chloride dehydrate, 25 mM Sodium Bicarbonate; pH 7.4], stored in ice cold Krebs-Heinchlet buffer under atmospheric aeration, and transported back to the laboratory to undergo integrity and permeability assays using an easy mount Ussing chamber. A small adjacent section was collected and stored in formalin until histological analysis.

Gastrointestinal integrity and endotoxin permeability

Gastrointestinal integrity as measured by transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) and endotoxin permeability using previously published methods [10]. Briefly, the serosal layer of the duodenum was removed, the intestine was opened and mounted on an 0.3 cm2 easy mount Ussing chamber (Physiological Instruments, San Diego, CA). The apical and basolateral sides of the tissue were immersed in Krebs-Heinchlet buffer and samples were kept at 39 °C and under continuously aeration with 5% carbon dioxide. Basal resistance was recorded for 10–15 min using the Acquire and Analyze software.

Immediately following collection of basal TEER, buffer was removed and 20 µg/ml of fluorescein isothiocyanate labelled lipopolysaccharide (FITC-LPS) from Escherichia coli 0111:B4 (Sigma Aldrich, F3665, St. Louis, MO) was applied to the apical side. Basolateral FITC-LPS concentrations were determined every 15 min, using a Synergy HTX fluorescence spectrophotometer (BioTek US, Winooski, VT) with an excitation and emission wavelengths of 485 and 528 nm, respectively. An apparent permeability co-efficient (Papp) was calculated for each tissue as follows:
$${\text{Papp}} = {\text{dQ}}/ ({\text{dt}} \times {\text{A}} \times {\text{C}}_{0} ).$$

where dQ/dt is the transport rate (µg/s) and corresponds to the slope of the regression line, C0 is the initial concentration in the mucosal side of the chamber (mg/ml) and A is the area of the membrane (0.3 cm2) [10, 15].

Histology

Formalin fixed duodenal samples underwent paraffin embedding, sectioning and staining with hematoxylin and eosin at the University of Arkansas microscopy laboratory [16]. Five images per slide of were captured using a Zeiss Imager M2 microscope (Carl zeiss microscopy, LLC., Thornwood, NY) with attached CCD camera (Hamamatsu, Orca ER, Bridgewater, NJ) and Image-Pro Plus software (Media cybernetics, Inc., Rockville, MD). Villus height, crypt depth and muscularis thickness (n = 5 per bird) were measuring using Image J software [17, 18].

Statistical analysis

All data were analyzed using mixed models through the Proc Glimmix package of the SAS software [19] with BMD treatment, day of treatment, and the interaction of BMD treatment and day of treatment fit as fixed effects. For models accounting for weight, the Proc Glimmix package of the SAS software [19] with BMD treatment, day of treatment, and the interaction of BMD treatment and day of treatment fit as fixed effects, and individual body weight was included as a covariate. Residuals were tested for normality and were found to be normally distributed. Least square means were determined using the LSMeans statement of SAS. If the main treatment effect was significant (P < 0.05), pairwise comparisons were estimated using the pdiff statement in SAS followed by Tukey post hoc adjustment to account for multiple tests in the model [19].

Results

Growth performance

As expected in growing male broiler chickens, body weight linearly increased over time (P < 0.001). Body weight increased from day 0 to day 3 (P < 0.001) and then again from day 3 to day 7 (P < 0.001; Table 2). Neither BMD supplementation (P = 0.233) nor the interaction between day and BMD supplementation (P = 0.583) altered body weight.
Table 2

Changes in body weight, gastrointestinal integrity, and endotoxin permeability over time

 

Unit

N

LSMean

SEM

P value

Body weight

<0.001

 Day 0a,b

Kg

8

1.59x

0.04

 

 Day 3

Kg

16

2.10y

0.04

 Day 7

Kg

16

2.53z

0.04

Gastrointestinal integrity

<0.001

 Day 0

Ω/cm2

8

396.3z

14.3

 

 Day 3

Ω/cm2

14c

537.5y

14.1

 Day 7

Ω/cm2

14c

519.4y

13.6

Endotoxin permeability

0.903

 Day 0

µg/ml/min/cm2

8

3395

2016

 

 Day 3

µg/ml/min/cm2

16

5066

1886

 Day 7

µg/ml/min/cm2

16

5808

1615

a Day 0 (31 days post hatch) samples were taken as baseline samples prior to the switch in feed to a grower diet on day 0 that either contained 50 g/ton of bacitracin methylene disalicylate (BMD) or no BMD. Day 3 samples were taken 3 and 4 days following the feed change and occurred at 34 and 35 days post hatch, respectively. Day 7 samples were taken 7 and 8 days following the feed change and occurred at 38 and 39 days post hatch, respectively

b Data were similar for BMD dietary treatment and the interaction of day and BMD treatment; therefore, data shown are for differences in day regardless of dietary treatment

c Due to malfunctions with the chambers data was only collected on 7 broilers per treatment with a total of 14 measurements collected for each time point

xyz changes in superscript within row indicate differences between pairwise comparisons after Tukey’s post hoc adjustment (P < 0.05)

Gastrointestinal measurements

Gastrointestinal integrity of the duodenum as measured by transelectrical epithelial resistance (TEER) was different over the course of the study (P < 0.001) with TEER increasing at day 3 and day 7 compared to day 0 (P < 0.001; P < 0.001, respectively; Table 2). Gastrointestinal integrity was not altered by supplementation with BMD (P = 0.938) or the interaction between day and BMD supplementation (P = 0.876). Endotoxin permeability was not different with day (P = 0.903), BMD supplementation (P = 0.340), or the interaction between day and BMD supplementation (P = 0.457).

Morphometric analysis was conducted on adjacent segments of the duodenum used for gastrointestinal integrity and endotoxin permeability assays. Villus height decreased in birds supplemented BMD (P = 0.050), but was not different between day (P = 0.163), or the interaction between day and BMD supplementation (P = 0.128; Table 3). Crypt depth, villus height to crypt depth ratio, and muscularis depth were not different across day, BMD supplementation, and the interaction between day and BMD supplementation (P > 0.05). Total thickness (villus height + crypt depth + muscularis depth) increased at day 7 compared to day 3 (2719.88 ± 70.185 and 2431.58 ± 70.185, respectively; P = 0.007), but was similar between BMD supplementation (P = 0.130) and the interaction between dietary BMD supplementation and day (P = 0.311). All P values are included in Additional file 1: Table S1.
Table 3

Changes in duodenal morphometric parameters following short term exposure to bacitracin methylene disalicylate

 

Unit

N

LSMean

SEM

P value

Villus height

0.049

 BMDa

µm

16

2018.6x

49.5

 

 ABF

µm

16

2162.8y

49.5

Crypt depth

0.746

 BMD

µm

16

384.8

15.3

 

 ABF

µm

16

391.9

15.3

Ratio

0.339

 BMD

µm/µm

16

5.6

0.2

 

 ABF

µm/µm

16

6.0

0.2

Muscularis thickness

0.348

 BMD

µm

16

193.6

8.7

 

 ABF

µm

16

205.3

8.7

Total thickness

0.130

 BMD

µm

16

2498.4

70.2

 

 ABF

µm

16

2653.1

70.2

BMD broilers that received feed with 50 g/ton of bacitracin methylene disalicylate beginning at 31 days post hatch, ABF treatment group where broilers received no bacitracin methylene disalicylate; Ratio, villus height to crypt depth ratio; Total thickness, villus height + crypt depth + muscularis depth

aData were similar for day and the interaction of day and BMD treatment; therefore, data shown are for differences in BMD dietary treatment where data from day 3 and 7 are combined

xyzchanges in superscript within row indicate differences between pairwise comparisons after Tukey’s post hoc adjustment (P < 0.05)

Given body weight was significantly different over the course of the study, and can influence gastrointestinal measurements, we chose to run additional analysis to determine if differences in body weight contribute to the overall changes in TEER, endotoxin permeability, or morphometric analysis. When body weight is included as a covariate, endotoxin permeability was different across day (P = 0.006), increasing at day 7 compared to day 0 (P = 0.019). Neither treatment with BMD (P = 0.338), nor interaction of BMD supplementation and day (P = 0.440) were significant. Addition of body weight to the statistical model, did not alter results observed previously for TEER, but did removed differences in BMD treatment or day effects observed for morphometric analysis. See Additional file 1: Table S2 for P values.

Discussion

With the use of antibiotics being phased out of animal agriculture, alternatives need to be identified to allow for healthy, efficient animal agriculture. Many alternative have been identified, such as prebiotics and probiotics, however; success rates vary greatly. Therefore, identifying the underlying modes of action for sub-therapeutic antibiotics will be important for the development of alternatives. This study was conducted to understand the effects of sub-therapeutic antibiotics on a stable gastrointestinal tract/microbial community during a mild and routine stressor in poultry production. From our study, only villus height was altered by the use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics, and neither gastrointestinal integrity nor endotoxin permeability are consistently effected by sub-therapeutic antibiotics, but differences were observed when the feed was changed from the starter to grower diet.

Decreased villus height along with increased crypt depth is generally indicative poor intestinal function and has associated with exposure to toxin [20]. In our study, we observed a decrease in villus height with the addition of sub-therapeutic antibiotics, but no change in crypt depth or the ration of villus height to crypt depth. This is consistent with results observed by Miles et al. [9]. This slight decrease in villus height initially with supplementation with sub-therapeutic antibiotics may be due to evolving microbial communities during the initial exposure to sub-therapeutic antibiotics. Growth promoting antibiotics have been shown to decrease Gram positive bacteria in poultry [21]. As a result, the proportion of gram negative bacteria increase and allow for increased exposure to lipopolysaccharide, a component of the gram-negative cell wall which can be used to mimic endotoxic stress [21]. However, in our study, we did not observe differences in other measures of enteric health (e.g. TEER, endotoxin permeability), and the effect of BMD treatment on villus height was lost when body weight was added into the statistical model. Therefore, the change we observed in villus height may reflect differences in individual growth rates of the birds given the small sample size.

Duodenal integrity (TEER) and endotoxin permeability were not consistently altered with BMD supplementation and confirm limited changes to the host in response to the addition of sub-therapeutic antibiotics added to the diet late in production. This is the first study to explore the effects of integrity or endotoxin permeability poultry to our knowledge. In swine, whole gastrointestinal permeability decreased with the use of antibiotics based on urinary lactulose to mannitol ratios [22]. While we did not measure whole gastrointestinal permeability, we expected some changes in duodenal integrity or endotoxin permeability. However, the section of the gastrointestinal tract that we focused is not known for high nutrient rates of absorption [23] and may reflect differences in looking at the whole gastrointestinal tract versus a single location and differences between species.

A change was noticed in TEER and endotoxin permeability when individual body weight was included in the statistical model with the change from starter to grower diet. Major differences between these diets included a reduction in DL methionine, fat and calcium carbonate, a complete removal of choline chloride, and an increase in vitamins. While several of these nutrients have been associated with changes in intestinal integrity and permeability in poultry [24], humans [25], swine [26], and rodents [27, 28]. Increasing fat inclusion rates has been a primarily linked to decreased intestinal integrity and increased permeability in mice [27, 28] and poultry [24]. While fat inclusion rates were not as high as in previous studies, gastrointestinal integrity increased and endotoxin permeability decreased with the decreased fat content suggesting this could be a contributing factor to gastrointestinal health in poultry.

Limitations

While this study identified potential underlying mechanisms that alter poultry gastrointestinal health, the lack of performance data, and age matched samples on the different production diets (grower versus starter; and antibiotic free from hatch to BMD from hatch) limits interpretations and thus warrants additional studies to fully understand mechanisms that contribute to gastrointestinal health in poultry.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

DAK, HL, CS, and KDC contributed to the design of the project. DAK, MF, DA handled daily care, and conducted farm and laboratory experiments for this project. DAK analyzed the data. DAK and CS interpreted the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Consent for publication

Consent for publication is not applicable to this manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All animal work was approved through the University of Arkansas Institute of Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC#15067).

Funding

Funding for this project was through the Arkansas division of agriculture. The Arkansas division of agriculture did not contribute other than financially to this project.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, 1260 W. Maple, POSC O-215, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
(2)
Hy-line International, Des Moines, IA 50309, USA

References

  1. Dibner JJ, Richards JD. Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture: history and mode of action. Poult Sci. 2005;84:634–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Sarangi NR, Babu LK, Kumar A, Pradhan CR, Pati PK, Mishra JP. Effect of dietary supplementation of prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic on growth performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. Vet World. 2016;9:313–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Balamuralikrishnan B, Lee SI, Kim IH. Dietary inclusion of different multi-strain complex probiotics; effects on performance in broilers. Br Poult Sci. 2017;58:83–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng YF, Chen YP, Li XH, Yang WL, Wen C, Kang YR, Wang AQ, Zhou YM. Effects of synbiotic supplementation on growth performance, carcass characteristics, meat quality and muscular antioxidant capacity and mineral contents in broilers. J Sci Food Agric. 2017;97(11):3699–705. doi:10.1002/jsfa.8230.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Majidi-Mosleh A, Sadeghi AA, Mousavi SN, Chamani M, Zarei A. Ileal MUC2 gene expression and microbial population, but not growth performance and immune response, are influenced by in ovo injection of probiotics in broiler chickens. Br Poult Sci. 2017;58(1):40–5. doi:10.1080/00071668.2016.1237766.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Coates ME, Fuller R, Harrison GF, Lev M, Suffolk SF. A comparison of the growth of chicks in the Gustafsson germ- free apparatus and in a conventional environment, with and without dietary supplements of penicillin. Br J Nutr. 1963;17:141–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Forbes M, Park J. Growth of germ-free and conventional chicks: effect of diet, dietary penicillin and bacterial environment. J Nutr. 1959;67:69–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Roura E, Homedes J, Klasing KC. Prevention of immunologic stress contributes to the growth-permitting ability of dietary antibiotics in chicks. J Nutr. 1992;122:2383–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Miles RD, Butcher GD, Henry PR, Littell RC. Effect of antibiotic growth promoters on broiler performance, intestinal growth parameters, and quantitative morphology. Poult Sci. 2006;85:476–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Murugesan GR, Gabler NK, Persia ME. Effects of direct-fed microbial supplementation on broiler performance, intestinal nutrient transport and integrity under experimental conditions with increased microbial challenge. Br Poult Sci. 2014;55:89–97.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Coates ME, Davies MK, Kon SK. The effect of antibiotics on the intestine of the chick. Br J Nutr. 1955;9:110–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Neumann AP, Suen G. Differences in major bacterial populations in the intestines of mature broilers after feeding virginiamycin or bacitracin methylene disalicylate. J Appl Microbiol. 2015;119:1515–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ranjitkar S, Lawley B, Tannock G, Engberg RM. Bacterial succession in the broiler gastrointestinal tract. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82:2399–410.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Pan D, Yu Z. Intestinal microbiome of poultry and its interaction with host and diet. Gut Microbes. 2014;5:108–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tomita M, Ohkubo R, Hayashi M. Lipopolysaccharide transport system across colonic epithelial cells in normal and infective rat. Drug Metab Pharmacokin. 2004;19:33–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Brown DC, Maxwell CV, Erf GF, Davis ME, Singh S, Johnson ZB. The influence of different management systems and ag on intestinal morphology, immune cell numbers and mucin production from goblet cells in post-weaning pigs. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2006;15:187–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, Preibisch S, Rueden C, Saalfeld S, Schmid B, Tinevez J-Y, White DJ, Hartenstein V, Eliceiri K, Tomancak P, Cardona A. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9:676–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Schnieder CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH image to Image J: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9:671–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. SAS Institute Inc.: SAS OnlineDoc 9.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 2011.Google Scholar
  20. Yason CV, Summers BA, Schat KA. Pathogenesis of rotavirus infection in various age groups of chickens and turkeys: pathology. Am J Vet Res. 1987;48:927–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lu J, Hofacre C, Smith F, Lee MD. Effects of feed additives on the development on the ileal bacterial community of the broiler chicken. Animal. 2008;2:669–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Huang C, Song P, Fan P, Hou C, Thacker P, Ma X. Dietary sodium butyrate decreases postweaning diarrhea by modulating intestinal permeability and changing the bacterial communities in weaned piglets. J Nutr. 2015;145:2774–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Scanes CG: 2015 Sturkie’s Avian Physiology. Academic Press. 6th edition. ISBN 978-0-12-407160-5.Google Scholar
  24. Kuttappan VA, Vicuña EA, Latorre JD, Wolfenden AD, Téllez GI, Hargis BM, Bielke LR. Evaluation of gastrointestinal leakage in multiple enteric inflammation models in chickens. Front Vet Sci. 2015;2:66. doi:10.3389/fvets.2015.00066.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Assa A, Vong L, Pinnell LJ, Rautava J, Avitzur N, Johnson-Henry KC, Sherman PM. Vitamin D deficiency predisposes to adherent-invasive escherichia coli-induced barrier dysfunction and experimental colonic injury. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21:297–306.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mani V, Hollis JH, Gabler NK. Dietary oil composition differentially modulates intestinal endotoxin transport and postprandial endotoxemia. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2013;10:6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Müller VM, Zietek T, Rohm F, Fiamoncini J, Lagkouvardos I, Haller D, Clavel T, Daniel H. Gut barrier impairment by high-fat diet in mice depends on housing conditions. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2016;60:897–908.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kirpich IA, Feng W, Wang Y, Liu Y, Barker DF, Barve SS, McClain CJ. The type of dietary fat modulates intestinal tight junction integrity, gut permeability, and hepatic toll-like receptor expression in a mouse model of alcoholic liver disease. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2012;36:835–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement