4.5 Article

Do dietary betaine and the antibiotic florfenicol influence the intestinal autochthonous bacterial community in hybrid tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus a™Euro x O. aureus a™,)?

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11274-011-0871-7

关键词

Betaine; Florfenicol; DGGE (denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis); Diversity; Intestinal autochthonous bacterial community

资金

  1. National High Technology R & D Program of China [2007AA100605]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30972265]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The attractant betaine and the antibiotic growth promoter florfenicol are commonly used together in Chinese fresh water aquaculture, but there is no information about the effect of these two feed additive on the intestinal autochthonous bacterial community in hybrid tilapia (Oreochromis nilotica a (TM) Euro x O. aureas a (TM),). Hybrid tilapia (240 fish in total; 20 fish per net cage; three cages per group) were divided into four dietary groups: control group, no betaine or florfenical addition (CK); betaine group, 0.1% betaine added (B); florfenicol group, 0.002% florfenicol added (F); and combination group, 0.1% betaine and 0.002% florfenicol added together (BF). After 8 weeks of feeding, six fish from each cage were chosen randomly, the guts were sampled and pooled, and their intestinal autochthonous bacterial communities were analyzed by 16S rDNA-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Enumeration of total gut autochthonous bacteria was analyzed by quantitative PCR with rpoB as the endogenous control. The results showed that the fish intestinal bacteria of group B were more diverse than that of CK, and that of F and BF groups was reduced in the total numbers and limited to certain bacterial species or genera (P < 0.05). This study revealed that betaine can promote some intestinal autochthonous bacteria, and florfenicol play a depressor role. When combined together, florfenicol may overshadow the effect of betaine on the predominant intestinal bacteria of tilapia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据