Skip to main content
PMC home page
Veterinary World logoLink to Veterinary World
. 2023 Apr 21;16(4):834–843. doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2023.834-843

Influence of dietary supplementation with new Lactobacillus strains on hematology, serum biochemistry, nutritional status, digestibility, enzyme activities, and immunity in dogs

Kamonporn Panja 1,2, Sathita Areerat 1, Pipatpong Chundang 3, Pornsucha Palaseweenun 3, Nattaphong Akrimajirachoote 3, Jaruwan Sitdhipol 4, Punnathorn Thaveethaptaikul 4, Pennapa Chonpathompikunlert 4,5, Kanidta Niwasabutra 4, Pongsathon Phapugrangkul 4, Attawit Kovitvadhi 3,✉
PMCID: PMC10206979  PMID: 37235154

Abstract

Background and Aim:

The use of antibiotics is associated with many side effects, with the development of bacterial resistance being particularly important. It has been found that dogs and their owners host similar resistant bacteria. This contributes to increased concurrent bacterial resistance and a possible trend of increased bacterial resistance in humans. Thus, using probiotics in dogs is an alternative option for preventing and reducing the transmission of bacterial resistance from dogs to humans. Probiotics are characterized by their potential to endure low pH levels and high concentrations of bile acids in the gastrointestinal tract. Lactobacilli are more acid-tolerant and resistant to bile acid, so they are ideal probiotics to be added to the canine diet. According to the previous studies, the benefits of Lactobacillus are a stable nutritional status and greater digestibility, along with improved fecal scores and reduced ammonia in dogs. However, no studies have been conducted with Lactobacillus plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676), Lactobacillus acidophilus Im10 (TISTR 2734), Lactobacillus rhamnosus L12-2 (TISTR 2716), Lactobacillus paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688), and Lactobacillus fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720), or their use in combination. Hence, the aim of this study was to examine the possible effects of the aforementioned Lactobacillus on hematological indices, nutritional status, digestibility, enzyme activities, and immunity in dogs. From the results, a new and safe strain of Lactobacillus may emerge for use as a probiotic in the future.

Materials and Methods:

In this study, 35 dogs were allocated equally into seven groups: Group 1 received a basal diet (control), while Groups 2–7 received the same diet further supplemented with L. plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676), L. acidophilus Im10 (TISTR 2734), L. rhamnosus L12-2 (TISTR 2716), L. paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688), L. fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720), or a mixture of probiotics (L. plantarum, L. acidophilus, L. rhamnosus, L. paracasei, and L. fermentum), respectively. All probiotics were administered at a dose of 109 colony-forming unit/dog for 28 days. Nutritional status, hematology, serum biochemistry, digestibility, enzyme activities, and immunity parameters were assessed.

Results:

There were no differences among the groups in body weight, feed intake, body condition score, fecal score, and fecal dry matter on the different sampling days. The hematology and serum biochemical analyses showed a difference only in creatinine activity (p < 0.001), with higher values in group L. fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720) and lower values in group L. paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688) than in controls. However, all measurements were within the normal laboratory reference ranges. Fecal characteristics (fecal ammonia and fecal pH), fecal digestive enzyme activities, serum immunoglobulin (IgG), and fecal IgA did not differ significantly among the groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion:

Lactobacillus plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676), L. acidophilus Im10 (TISTR 2734), L. rhamnosus L12-2 (TISTR 2716), L. paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688), and L. fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720), along with their mixture are safe and non-pathogenic additives for use as new probiotic strains of Lactobacillus in dogs. Although the new Lactobacillus strains had no effect on hematology, serum biochemistry, nutritional status, digestive enzyme activities, immunity, body weight, feed intake, or body condition scores in dogs, further studies should investigate the intestinal microbiota and the development of clinical treatments.

Keywords: digestibility, Lactobacillus, nutritional status, probiotics

Introduction

Antibiotic use has many side effects, such as adverse changes in the intestinal microbiota [1], the presence of drug residues in the diet, immunopathological effects, and carcinogenicity [2]. In particular, the development of resistant bacteria causes drug-resistance problems, making infection challenging to control [3]. Studies have shown that dogs and their owners host similar resistant bacteria. This results in increased concurrent bacterial resistance and might lead to the expansion of bacterial resistance in humans. Against this background, probiotics are an alternative option to prevent and cure infections [4] by replacing antibiotic use in dogs. Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms used as supplements in the diet. They confer advantages to the host by controlling the intestinal microbiota and improving health [5, 6]. Moreover, they improve mucosal health through several mechanisms, for example, the replacement of intestinal pathogens [7], the creation of antimicrobial substances [8], the activation of immune responses [9], and the enhancement of various metabolites [10]. In addition, they produce lactic acid and synthesize enzymes, vitamins, and short-chain fatty acids [11–13]. These effects tend to lower lactose intolerance, modulate the immune system, and reduce the production of putrefactive compounds, such as ammonia, which affects fecal odor and colon carcinogenesis [5].

Among probiotic strains used in humans and animals, those commonly applied belong to the lactic acid bacteria (LAB) [14]. The majority of species that are found in the mammalian gastrointestinal tract (especially proximal small intestine) and form powerful attachments to the epithelium belong to the genus Lactobacillus [15]. Lactobacillus spp. are Gram-positive bacteria that are used in a wide range of marketed probiotics as well as industrial food and bioprocessing technology [16]. In vitro studies with Lactobacillus strains found that they suppressed the growth of pathogenic bacteria, such as Escherichia coli and Clostridium difficile, which have multi-drug-resistant properties encoded in their genomes [17]. Drug-resistance is induced via the occurrence of biofilm. Lactobacilli exert anti-biofilm-forming activities against Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterococcus faecalis [18]. Lactobacillus rhamnosus and Lactobacillus casei possess excellent antimicrobial activity by synthesizing organic acids and diminishing pH. These antimicrobial properties are important for slowing down the growth, proliferation, and colonization of pathogenic bacteria [19, 20]. Lactobacillus inhibits the adhesion of E. coli to epithelial cells and reduces their expression of the proinflammatory cytokine IL-8 on activation by E. coli [21]. Thus, this strain reduces drug resistance and inhibits pathogenic bacterial growth or attachment to epithelial cells. In a previous study, Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/CSL was administered to healthy dogs for 35 days at a concentration of 5 × 109 colony-forming unit (CFU)/g. It improved fecal moisture, fecal score, and fecal hardness and also controlled weight [22]. Lactobacillus plantarum strain DSM13241 (>109 CFU/g) improved red blood cell (RBC) count, hematocrit, and immunoglobulin (Ig)G in a 4-week trial [23]. Lactobacillus plantarum K10 exerted anti-obesity effects in mice when administered for a duration of 12 weeks [24]. Moreover, L. acidophilus (3.0 × 108 CFU/mL) administration for 28 days reduced fecal ammonia without changing serum total cholesterol, white blood cell (WBC) count, red blood cell (RBC) count, or the blood lymphocyte percentage in healthy beagles [25] and raised digestibility in weaning pigs [26]. Lactobacillus fermentum AD1 (109 CFU/g diet) can lead to the colonization of the canine gastrointestinal tract by Lactobacillus, leading to improvement of the fecal count of lactobacilli and an elevated serum level of total protein in healthy dogs [27]. Lactobacillus plantarum strain RW1 was also reported to reduce the release of proinflammatory cytokines from Salmonella spp. [28]. Lactobacillus rhamnosus MP01 and MP02 increased fecal Lactobacillus counts in dogs and provided protection against gastrointestinal infection [29]. Lactobacillus johnsonii CPN23 at a dose of 2–3 × 108 CFU/day improved fiber digestibility and decreased ammonia production in adult female Labrador dogs in a 9-week experiment [30]. Another study of L. johnsonii CPN23 dietary supplementation (108 CFU/mL; 0.1 mL/kg body weight) found that it reduced plasma glucose and cholesterol levels but increased total protein and the high-density lipoproteins/Low-density lipoprotein ratio in dogs [31]. Meanwhile, Lactobacillus murinus LbP2 (5 × 109 CFU/day; 2 weeks) was reported to upregulate fecal IgA in healthy dogs. Many mixtures of probiotics have been used with powerful effects. A mixture of probiotics (L. johnsonii NCC2767, L. acidophilus NCC2628, and L. acidophilus NCC2766) applied at a concentration of 1010 CFU/strain/day in dogs decreased the expression of interleukin-10 (anti-inflammatory cytokine) and increased that of interferon-gamma (proinflammatory cytokine) [32]. Moreover, it was reported that a probiotic mixture (Bifidobacterium animalis, L. plantarum, and L. casei, used at a concentration of 2 × 109 CFU/g for a duration of 60 days) increased IgG and secretory IgA in healthy dogs [33]. This may affect direct immunity (IgA) and indirect immunity (IgG). In dogs with food-responsive diarrhea, L. acidophilus (NCC2628, NCC2766) mixed with L. johnsonii (NCC2767) at a dose of 1010 CFU/g for 4 weeks decreased the Enterobacteriaceae count but increased the number of Lactobacillus spp. Furthermore, it improved the fecal score and Canine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Activity Index [32]. Elsewhere, milk fermentation product of L. fermentum VET 9A, L. plantarum VET 14A, and L. rhamnosus VET 16A was tested in acute diarrhea at 2 × 109 CFU/mL. They improved the fecal score and feed intake in dogs [34]. Furthermore, mixed probiotics of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus at a dose of 3 × 1010 CFU/capsule following the manufacturer’s recommendations were used in canine acute diarrhea for 10 days and normalized the stool consistency [35]. Inflammatory bowel disease in dogs was also treated with a mixed strain product, which contained Lactobacillus (L. acidophilus, Lactobacillus delbrueckii, L. plantarum, and L. casei), Bifidobacterium, and Streptococcus salivarius, at a dose of 112–225 × 109 CFU/10 kg/day for 60 days. The study found improvements in clinical and histological scores and an increase in T-cell regulatory markers (FoxP3 and TGF-β) [36]. Enzymes such as proteases, amylases, and cellulases are produced by LAB [37]. Lactobacillus is a group of gram-positive bacteria belonging to LAB [38]. Lactobacillus plantarum added to the diet enhanced dietary digestibility (protein, starch, and fat) and improved nutritional performance in common carp [39]. For these reasons, Lactobacillus may increase enzyme activity (amylase, protease, and cellulase) and is proposed to augment digestibility. Therefore, Lactobacillus spp. acts as an immunomodulator, improves fecal score and fecal moisture, reduces pH and ammonia, and increases digestibility. The optimal characteristics of probiotics are their potential to endure low pH levels in the stomach and high concentrations of bile acids in the intestinal tract [40, 41]. Lactobacillus spp. are more acid-tolerant and resistant to bile acid [42], making them appropriate probiotics for supplementation of the canine diet.

Interestingly, L. plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676), L. acidophilus Im10 (TISTR 2734), L. rhamnosus L12-2 (TISTR 2716), Lactobacillus paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688), and L. fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720) are new local probiotic strains that have never been studied in dogs for their efficiency and safety. Thus, our study aimed to examine the effects of supplementation with these probiotics on hematology, serum biochemistry, digestibility, enzyme activities, and immunity in dogs.

Materials and Methods

Ethical approval

The ethics committee of Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand (ACKU64-VET-046), approved all procedures used in this study.

Study period and location

The study was conducted from 13 July 2021 to 9 August 2021. The study was conducted at Canine experimental unit (Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Nakhon Nayok, Thailand).

Probiotics

Lactobacillus plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676), L. acidophilus Im10 (TISTR 2734), L. rhamnosus L12-2 (TISTR 2716), L. paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688), and L. fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720) were obtained from the Biodiversity Research Centre, Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research, Pathumthani, Thailand. These probiotics are non-pathogenic in humans and animals. They tolerate gastric juice at pH 2.5 and bile acid at pH 8 for 180 min in the gastrointestinal tract. Furthermore, they inhibit S. aureus, Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella Typhimurium, and E. coli. They had already passed the in vitro test for antioxidant properties and immunomodulation by activating TGFb-α and IL-2 and inhibiting TNF-α and IL-6. The probiotics were cultured in De Man-Rogosa-Sharpe agar under facultative anaerobic conditions at 37°C. All probiotics were lyophilized to a powder. Then, they were mixed with maltodextrin to reach the final desired concentration and stored in vacuum bags at 4°C before use. All probiotic strains showed an adhesion level in the Caco-2 cell line of more than 70%. These are important characteristics of candidate probiotics [43]. Their results from antibiotic susceptibility tests showed resistance to aminoglycosides, quinolones, and vancomycin groups. From this pattern, these strains cannot pass on resistance to other microorganisms [44, 45]. However, these probiotics were susceptible to amoxicillin, ampicillin, erythromycin, penicillin, chloramphenicol, clindamycin, tetracycline, and imipenem. Therefore, these isolated probiotics were safe to be used in feed because they do not have any genes conferring resistance to these antibiotic groups [46].

Animals

Thirty-five healthy, adult, mixed-breed dogs (17 males and 18 females), 2–4 years old, with an average body weight of 17.7 ± 0.76 kg and body condition score of 3.47 ± 0.28 (nine-point body condition score) [47], were randomly selected from an experimental farm. They had previously been vaccinated and dewormed and had passed a physical examination by a veterinarian. The dogs had not received antibiotics or any other medications for at least 3 months before and during the experiment. The animals were housed in 2.0 × 2.0 × 3.0 m individual cages located in the canine experimental unit (Nakhon Nayok, Thailand).

Experimental design, diet, and feeding

The 35 dogs were randomly and equally allocated to seven experimental groups as follows: Group 1, fed a basal diet with top dressing by only maltodextrin as a placebo (Control); Group 2, fed a basal diet with top dressing by L. plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676); Group 3, fed a basal diet with top dressing by L. acidophilus Im10 (TISTR 2734); Group 4, fed a basal diet with top dressing by L. rhamnosus L12-2 (TISTR 2716); Group 5, fed a diet with top dressing by L. paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688); Group 6, fed a basal diet with top dressing by L. fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720); and Group 7, fed a basal diet with top dressing by a mixture of the abovementioned probiotics with an equal amount of each. The basal diet consisted of commercially extruded pellets (Ole Dog Beef flavor®; Greatest Pet Care Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand) containing crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, and crude ash at 19.56%, 10.83%, 6.69%, and 6.28% fresh matter, respectively. The daily energy requirement was calculated as 1.6 × 70 × body weight0.75 [48]. Water was provided ad libitum. Food and supplements were offered once daily at 15:00. The top dressing of probiotics (or placebo) was provided to dogs once a day and contained a probiotic dose of 1 × 109 CFU. For digestibility traits, the adaptation phase was from days 0 to 22, and the collection phase was 5 days after the adaptation phase. The experiment was conducted for 28 days.

Sample collection and analysis

Body weight and feed intake measurements, determination of nine-point body condition score [47], physical examination, and blood collection were performed on days 0, 14, and 28. Blood was collected from the cephalic vein into an ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid tube for hematological analysis, whereas another aliquot of blood was kept in a serum tube for the evaluation of blood chemistry blood urea nitrogen; creatinine; alanine aminotransferase; total protein; albumin; and IgG. Hematology and blood chemistry were analyzed at Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Kasetsart University Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. The serum concentration of IgG was evaluated using the Canine IgG ELISA Kit (Cat# ab157701; Abcam, Cambridge, MA, USA). Optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm with a microplate reader and the IgG concentration was calculated in accordance with the manufacturer’s protocols.

Fecal samples were collected on days 0, 14, and 28 for analysis of the fecal score [49, 50] and dry matter, whereas fecal pH, ammonia, and digestive enzyme activities (amylase, protease, and cellulase) were evaluated on the same days. For the evaluation of digestive enzyme activities, 1 g of fecal sample was diluted in 10 mL of ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.0) and homogenized using a hand-held glass homogenizer. The homogenate was centrifuged at 18,000× g for 20 min at 4°C. The supernatants were divided into microcentrifuge tubes and stored at −20°C for analysis [51]. The supernatant was used for three enzyme assays: amylase activity (EC 3.2.1.1, substrate starch; Univar, Thermo Fisher, USA), cellulase activity [52, 53] (EC 3.2.1.4, carboxymethyl cellulose substrate; Univar), and protease activity using casein as the substrate [54]. The reaction products of amylase and cellulase were stained with 1% dinitrosalicylic acid and measured in a spectrophotometer at 540 nm with maltose and glucose as standards. Another product of protease activity was stained with 0.5 mM Folin-Ciolcalteu reagent. The absorbance of the mixture was determined at 610 nm with L-tyrosine as a standard.

Dry matter and the apparent nutrient digestibility of organic matter, crude protein, and ether extract were evaluated during days 23–28 of the experimental period. Feed intake and fecal output were also measured during this period. In addition, dry matter, organic matter, crude protein, and ether extract were analyzed in food and feces by following Association of Official Analytical Chemists protocols [55]. The results were transformed to calculate the dry matter and apparent nutrient digestibility.

Feces were collected on days 0 and 14 for the analysis of IgA. One g of feces was homogenized with 10 mL of extraction buffer (0.5% Tween; Sigma-Aldrich, Poole, UK; and 0.05% sodium azide in 0.01 M PBS, pH 7.4) in a vortex mixer. The sample suspensions were centrifuged at 1500 g for 15 min at 5°C. The supernatant (2 mL) was transferred to a clean test tube containing 20 μL of protease inhibitor cocktail (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) [56, 57]. All samples were centrifuged and mixed at 10,000× g for 10 min. Then, the sample supernatants were transferred to sterile test tubes and stored at −20°C until IgA concentrations were measured. The concentration of IgA was evaluated using the Canine IgA ELISA Kit (Cat# ab157699; Abcam). Optical density was measured at 450 nm with a microplate reader and the IgA concentration was calculated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

Statistical analysis

Ordinal data, body condition scores, and fecal scores were evaluated by the Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunnett’s test as post hoc analysis. A factorial experiment with a completely randomized design was used in this study. The hematology, blood chemistry, fecal pH, fecal ammonia, digestive enzyme activities, serum IgG, and fecal IgA were evaluated among the studied groups by two-way mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Duncan’s multiple range test as a post hoc analysis. The date of collection served as a random factor, whereas the treatment group was considered as a fixed factor.

One-way ANOVA with Duncan’s multiple range test as a post hoc analysis, in which the fixed factor was the studied groups, was used to identify differences in body weight, feed intake, fecal moisture, and apparent digestibility. The data were evaluated by the Shapiro–Wilk test and Levene’s test to confirm the normal distribution and homogeneity of variances, respectively. p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. All statistical analyses were performed using R-statistic with the Rcmdr package in RStudio Desktop 2021.09.2+382 (R-Statistic, Vienna, Austria).

Results

Body weight, feed intake, body condition score, fecal score, and fecal moisture

No clinical signs were presented during the experiments based on physical examinations on days 0, 14, and 28. There were no differences among the groups in body weight, feed intake, body condition score, fecal score, and fecal moisture over the entire experimental period (Table-1).

Table-1.

Effects of probiotic addition in dog food on the body weight, feed intake, nine-scale body condition score, fecal score, and fecal moisture.

Parameters Groups1 SEM2 p-value
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Body weight (kg)
 Day 0 16.2 16.9 16.1 19.4 16.1 18.6 20.8 0.756 0.52
 Day 14 15.3 16.7 16.6 18.5 15.3 18.0 19.8 0.721 0.62
 Day 28 15.2 16.4 17.2 19.3 15.3 17.5 20.4 0.765 0.51
Feed intake (g/d)
 Day 0 312 318 304 351 312 325 378 11.42 0.63
 Day 14 292 308 294 339 294 307 340 9.817 0.74
 Day 28 266 305 293 323 270 296 317 8.964 0.57
Nine scale body condition score
 Day 0 4.20 3.50 4.20 4.40 3.90 4.00 5.00 0.198 0.20
 Day 14 4.30 4.00 4.40 4.50 4.00 4.40 5.10 0.198 0.65
 Day 28 4.50 4.40 4.60 4.50 4.20 4.40 5.00 0.196 0.98
Fecal score
 Day 0 2.40 3.00 2.80 3.40 2.00 3.80 4.20 0.282 0.42
 Day 14 2.20 2.75 2.50 3.20 2.40 2.80 3.40 0.151 0.18
 Day 28 2.20 2.80 2.40 2.80 2.40 2.40 3.00 0.094 0.20
Fecal moisture (%)
 Day 0 62.2 67.0 64.4 66.0 67.5 66.6 68.2 0.778 0.42
 Day 14 70.7 69.1 70.2 74.3 70.7 71.1 73.3 0.555 0.15
 Day 28 70.8 66.8 67.6 70.0 68.7 66.8 72.9 0.647 0.08
Open in a new tab
1

Group 1=Control group (none of probiotic supplementation), Group 2=Lactobacillus plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676), Group 3=Lactobacillus acidophilus Im10 (TISTR 2734), Group 4=Lactobacillus rhamnosus L12-2 (TISTR 2716), Group 5=Lactobacillus paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688), Group 6=Lactobacillus fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720) and Group 7=Mixed of probiotics.

2

Standard error of the mean

Hematology and serum biochemistry

The hematology and serum biochemical analyses for each group are summarized in Table-2. A difference in creatinine was found between the L. paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688) and L. fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720) groups (p < 0.001). The creatinine activity of L. paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688) was lower than that of the control, whereas that of L. fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720) was greater than that of the control. However, all groups were within the normal laboratory range for healthy dogs. The other parameters did not show any significant differences among the groups (p > 0.05).

Table-2.

Effects of probiotic addition in dog food on the hematological and serum biochemical parameters.

Parameters1 Groups2,3 SEM p-value Reference range4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 16.3 15.5 16.4 14.8 14.8 16.2 16.5 0.213 0.08 13.1–20.5
Hematocrit (%) 48.6 46.0 49.7 45.0 44.9 48.3 50.1 0.607 0.06 37.3–61.7
Red blood cell (106/uL) 7.72 9.49 7.73 11.1 9.49 7.79 7.96 0.715 0.82 5.65–8.87
MCV (fL) 62.4 62.0 64.4 63.1 63.9 62.0 62.9 0.286 0.06 61.6–73.5
MCHC (g/dL) 33.7 55.4 33.2 33.0 32.9 33.5 33.0 3.163 0.43 32.0–37.9
MCH (pg) 21.0 20.9 21.4 20.8 21.0 20.8 20.7 0.101 0.17 21.2–25.9
White blood cell (103/uL) 14.9 11.5 12.7 13.9 13.1 12.7 13.0 0.299 0.30 5.05–16.8
Neutrophils (103/uL) 9.46 7.14 8.35 8.95 7.68 8.78 8.87 0.228 0.08 2.95–11.6
Lymphocytes (103/uL) 3.56 2.75 2.73 2.61 2.99 2.23 2.39 0.121 0.15 1.05–5.10
Monocytes (103/uL) 0.65 0.53 0.53 0.60 0.68 0.51 0.54 0.024 0.06 0.16–1.12
Eosinophils (103/uL) 1.21 1.04 1.00 1.35 1.06 1.18 1.21 0.007 0.43 0.06–1.30
Basophils (103/uL) 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.003 0.45 0.00–0.10
Platelets (103/uL) 137 144 163 208 145 203 163 8.944 0.06 148–484
RDW (fL) 34.1 32.3 34.4 34.0 31.8 33.1 34.2 0.350 0.22 9.10–19.4
Blood urea nitrogen (mg%) 11.7 12.5 12.8 12.1 12.7 12.1 11.1 0.252 0.33 10.0–26.0
Creatinine (mg%) 1.10bc 1.21cd 1.16bcd 1.03ab 0.95a 1.25d 1.05ab 0.018 <0.001 0.50–1.30
ALT (IU/L) 44.1 30.4 33.9 25.1 30.7 31.3 34.6 2.784 0.68 6.00–70.0
Total protein (g%) 6.29 6.40 6.15 6.41 6.34 6.13 8.15 0.269 0.55 5.30–7.80
Albumin (g%) 3.00 2.82 3.00 2.65 2.68 2.91 3.09 0.046 0.06 2.30–3.20
Open in a new tab
1

MCV=Mean corpuscular volume, MCHC=Mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, MCH=Mean corpuscular hemoglobin, RDW=Red cell distribution width, MPV=Mean platelet volume, ALT=Alanine aminotransferase.

2

Different superscript letters in the same row represented the statistically significant differences (p<0.05).

3

Group 1=Control group (none of probiotic supplementation), Group 2=plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676), Group 3=Lactobacillus acidophilus Im10 (TISTR 2734), Group 4=Lactobacillus rhamnosus L12-2 (TISTR 2716), Group 5=Lactobacillus paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688), Group 6=Lactobacillus fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720) and Group 7=Mixed of probiotics.

4

Reference intervals were derived from the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory Kasetsart University Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand

Fecal ammonia, pH, digestive enzymes, and digestibility

Fecal ammonia and pH did not differ among the groups (p > 0.05). Fecal digestive enzyme activities of amylase, protease, and cellulase also did not show any significant differences among the groups (p > 0.05). The results for the apparent digestibility of dry matter and nutrients were also not different among the groups. However, dogs supplemented with L. plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676) appeared to present higher organic matter, crude protein, and ether extract digestibility than the other groups. Nevertheless, no statistically significant differences were found (p > 0.05). All of these data are presented in Table-3.

Table-3.

Effects of probiotic addition in dog food on fecal ammonia, fecal pH, fecal digestive enzymes and apparent digestibility on dry matter and nutrients.

Parameters Groups1 SEM2 p-value
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fecal ammonia (%) 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.005 0.78
Fecal pH 6.19 6.13 6.04 5.89 6.17 6.02 6.28 0.051 0.30
Fecal digestive enzyme activity
 Amylase (U) 0.77 0.93 0.95 0.78 1.00 0.81 0.86 0.107 0.37
 Protease (U) 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.16 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.028 0.09
 Cellulase (U×10-2) 2.27 2.26 2.62 2.62 2.29 2.70 2.06 0.002 0.19
Apparent Digestibility (%)
 Dry matter 75.4 80.7 73.9 72.6 73.2 74.9 72.8 0.911 0.22
 Organic matter 77.8 82.6 76.6 75.2 75.9 77.3 75.4 0.838 0.23
 Crude protein 71.8 77.4 69.2 68.4 68.5 70.2 69.4 1.070 0.28
 Ether extract 88.2 92.5 89.6 88.0 89.2 89.2 88.2 0.509 0.22
Open in a new tab

1Group 1=Control group (none of probiotic supplementation), Group 2=Lactobacillus plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676), Group 3=Lactobacillus acidophilus Im10 (TISTR 2734), Group 4=Lactobacillus rhamnosus L12-2 (TISTR 2716), Group 5=Lactobacillus paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688), Group 6=Lactobacillus fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720) and Group 7=Mixed of probiotics

2

Standard error of mean

Serum IgG and fecal IgA

Immunity in dogs was evaluated by assaying serum IgG and fecal IgA (Table-4). Serum IgG and IgA did not differ significantly among the groups (p > 0.05). However, serum IgG and fecal IgA in dogs supplemented with L. paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688) increased from days 0 to 14 of the experimental period when compared with the control.

Table-4.

Effects of probiotic addition in dog food on serum IgG and fecal IgA on days 0 and 14.

Parameters Groups1 SEM p-value
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Group Time Group*time
Serum IgG (mg/mL)
 Day 0 59.9 63.7 46.0 72.6 60.2 54.4 64.0 4.428 0.78 0.68 0.66
 Day 14 56.8 66.1 55.8 57.0 80.9 60.8 59.1 3.523
Fecal IgA (mg/mL)
 Day 0 193 219 193 286 405 383 347 40.21 0.40 0.43 0.99
 Day14 266 248 175 324 536 391 367 44.58
Open in a new tab
1

Group 1=Control group (none of probiotic supplementation), Group 2=Lactobacillus plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676), Group 3=Lactobacillus acidophilus Im10 (TISTR 2734), Group 4=Lactobacillus rhamnosus L12-2 (TISTR 2716), Group 5=Lactobacillus paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688), Group 6=Lactobacillus fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720) and Group 7=Mixed of probiotics, Ig=Immunoglobulin

Discussion

Safety is a crucial characteristic of each probiotic strain applied in animal studies [58]. In a previous study, Lactobacillus strains were safe for a rat model. [59]. In this study, we did not find abnormal clinical signs until the end of the experiment. The hematology and serum biochemistry results of the L. paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688) and L. fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720) groups revealed a difference for creatinine (p < 0.001), but their values were within the normal reference range. This confirmed the safety and non-pathogenicity of the new strain of Lactobacillus spp. in dogs at a dose of 109 CFU per day for 28 days. The results are in close agreement with the previous research on the safety of the probiotic Lactobacillus salivarius CECT 5713 and other strains of Lactobacillus in mice [60, 61]. Furthermore, the use of Lactobacillus fermentum NCIMB 41636, L. plantarum NCIMB 41638, L. rhamnosus NCIMB 41640, and Lactobacillus reuteri was not associated with any dangerous clinical signs in dogs [62, 63].

In our study, no significant changes were observed in body weight, feed intake, body condition score, fecal score, and fecal moisture between the studied groups. This is in agreement with the previous studies concerning the effects of L. acidophilus D2/CSL (CECT 4529) on nutritional and health status (body weight, feed intake, and body condition score) in dogs [22, 64] and cats [65]. Lactobacillus plantarum (3.0 × 108 CFU/mL) administered for 28 days did not change serum total cholesterol, WBC count, RBC count, or the blood lymphocyte percentage in healthy beagles [25]. Some authors have shown a positive effect of Lactobacillus strains in unhealthy dogs related to the prevention and treatment of acute gastroenteritis [66], inflammatory bowel diseases [36], and diarrhea [67]. A previous study reported an anti-obesity effect of Lactobacillus gasseri (LG2055) through the prevention of body weight gain, fat accumulation, and proinflammatory gene expression in the adipose tissue of obese mice [68]. Furthermore, the connection of obesity with serotonin hormone and the gut microflora in dogs was examined since this describes how obesity is related to neuron signaling in the brain [69]. The previous research supported the idea that intestinal microbiota may be associated with the control of fat accumulation in dogs [69, 70]. From the data provided in the literature, we propose that the addition of probiotics may preferentially maintain the equilibrium of the microbiota and control weight in dogs. However, further studies should investigate this in the intestinal microbiota.

Lactobacillus plantarum D2/CSL provided in healthy dogs for 35 days at a concentration of 5 × 109 CFU/g improved fecal moisture, fecal score, and fecal hardness [22], and L. acidophilus strain DSM13241 (>109 CFU/g) enhanced RBC count, hematocrit, and IgG for 4 weeks [23]. Although there were no differences among the groups in fecal scores and fecal moisture, fecal moisture on day 28 of L. plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676) and L. fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720) tended to be reduced (p = 0.08). Fecal ammonia and pH did not differ significantly among the groups. These data are in agreement with a report by Swanson et al. [13], who used L. acidophilus in dogs at a dose of 109 CFU. Nevertheless, L. acidophilus (3.0 × 108 CFU/mL; 10 mL/dog) administered for 28 days reduced fecal ammonia in healthy beagle dogs [25]. Kumar et al. [30] reported that L. johnsonii CPN23 at a dose of 2–3 × 108 CFU/day decreased ammonia production in adult female Labrador dogs for 9 weeks. These results differed from ours because the dose and duration used in the previous Lactobacillus studies were greater than those used in the present study. Fecal digestive enzyme activity and digestibility were not significantly affected by LAB. However, L. plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676) appeared to present higher numerical values for organic, crude protein, and ether extract digestibility. In dogs, L. johnsonii CPN23 at a dose of 2–3 × 108 CFU/day did not improve digestibility apart from that of fiber [30]. The results were similar to previous studies, in which L. plantarum (1.2 × 109 CFU) in chickens and L. plantarum BG0001 in weaning pigs did not promote digestibility [71, 72]. There was a tendency for a significant upward trend in proteinase activity (p = 0.09) in the L. plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676) group, supporting the higher digestibility of this taxon. Immunoglobulin A contains numerous classes of antibodies involved in mucosal secretion. It confers many benefits, such as infection prevention and protection against allergens and is important for evaluating mucosal immune status [73]. Another marker used as an indicator of immune status is serum IgG. It reduces bacterial translocation, intestinal damage, and systemic infection by binding to bacteria in the intestinal lumen [74]. Immune function in dogs was assessed through serum IgG and fecal IgA, which were not found to differ among the groups. Although other studies increased fecal IgA [75], IFN-α, and serum IgG content [33], in a study with Lactobacillus kefiri [76] and L. acidophilus, fecal IgA level was not changed [77]. Serum IgG and fecal IgA in dogs supplemented with L. paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688) increased from days 0 to 14 of the experimental period when compared with those in control. In contrast, the mixture of probiotics had no significant effect over time.

Conclusion

Although supplementation with new Lactobacillus strains L. plantarum CM20-8 (TISTR 2676); L. acidophilus Im10 (TISTR 2734); L. rhamnosus L12-2 (TISTR 2716); L. paracasei KT-5 (TISTR 2688); L. fermentum CM14-8 (TISTR 2720); and mixed probiotics] did not change nutritional status, enzyme activities, and immunity in dogs, they were found to be safe and non-pathogenic in dogs. No changes in body weight, feed intake, or body condition score were found. However, further studies should investigate the intestinal microbiota and the development of associated clinical treatments.

Authors’ Contributions

KP: Conceptualization, prepared materials, conducted the study, analysis, interpretation, drafted and revised the manuscript. SA, PiC, PPa, NA, PT, PC, KN and PPh: Conceptualization, prepared materials, conducted the study, analysis, interpretation and revised the manuscript, JS and AK: Conceptualization, project administration, conducted the study, data interpretation and revised the manuscript. All authors have read, reviewed, and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research, Pathum Thani, Thailand (Grant no. TISTR2565). The authors are thankful to Miss Penpicha Kongsup and Miss Nichaphon Pliantiangtam for animal husbandry.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Veterinary World remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliation.

References

  • 1.Patangia D.V, Ryan C.A, Dempsey E, Ross R.P, Stanton C. Impact of antibiotics on the human microbiome and consequences for host health. Microbiologyopen. 2022;11(1):e1260. doi: 10.1002/mbo3.1260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bacanlı M, Başaran N. Importance of antibiotic residues in animal food. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2019;125(3):462–466. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2019.01.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wayne A, McCarthy R, Lindenmayer J. Therapeutic antibiotic use patterns in dogs:Observations from a veterinary teaching hospital. J. Small Anim. Pract. 2011;52(6):310–318. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5827.2011.01072.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wan M.L.Y, Forsythe S.J, El-Nezami H. Probiotics interaction with foodborne pathogens:A potential alternative to antibiotics and future challenges. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019;59(20):3320–3333. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2018.1490885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Félix A.P, Netto M.V.T, Murakami F.Y, de Brito C.B.M, de Oliveira S.G, Maiorka A. Digestibility and fecal characteristics of dogs fed with Bacillus subtilis in diet. Cienc. Rural. 2010;40(10):2169–2173. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Schmitz S, Suchodolski J. Understanding the canine intestinal microbiota and its modification by pro-, pre-and synbiotics-what is the evidence? Vet. Med. Sci. 2016;2(2):71–94. doi: 10.1002/vms3.17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lee Y.K, Puong K.Y, Ouwehand A.C, Salminen S. Displacement of bacterial pathogens from mucus and Caco-2 cell surface by Lactobacilli. J. Med. Microbiol. 2003;52(10):925–930. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.05009-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Jones S.E, Versalovic J. Probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri biofilms produce antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory factors. BMC Microbiol. 2009;9(1):35. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-9-35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pagnini C, Saeed R, Bamias G, Arseneau K.O, Pizarro T.T, Cominelli F. Probiotics promote gut health through stimulation of epithelial innate immunity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2010;107(1):454–459. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910307107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Soo I, Madsen K.L, Tejpar Q, Sydora B.C, Sherbaniuk R, Cinque B, Di Marzio L, Cifone M.G, Desimone C, Fedorak R.N. VSL#3 probiotic upregulates intestinal mucosal alkaline sphingomyelinase and reduces inflammation. Can. J. Gastroenterol. 2008;22(3):237–242. doi: 10.1155/2008/520383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Salminen S, von Wright A, Morelli L, Marteau P, Brassart D, de Vos W.M, Fondén R, Saxelin M, Collins K, Mogensen G. Demonstration of safety of probiotics--a review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1998;44(1–2):93–106. doi: 10.1016/s0168-1605(98)00128-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ghadban G.S. Probiotics in broiler production-a review. Arch. Geflügelkunde. 2002;66(2):49–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Swanson K.S, Grieshop C.M, Flickinger E.A, Bauer L.L, Chow J, Wolf B.W, Garleb K.A, Fahey G.C., Jr Fructooligosaccharides and Lactobacillus acidophilus modify gut microbial populations, total tract nutrient digestibilities and fecal protein catabolite concentrations in healthy adult dogs. J. Nutr. 2002;132(12):3721–3731. doi: 10.1093/jn/132.12.3721. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Saxelin M, Tynkkynen S, Mattila-Sandholm T, de Vos W.M. Probiotic and other functional microbes:From markets to mechanisms. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2005;16(2):204–211. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2005.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kainulainen V, Tang Y, Spillmann T, Kilpinen S, Reunanen J, Saris P.E.J, Satokari R. The canine isolate Lactobacillus acidophilus LAB20 adheres to intestinal epithelium and attenuates LPS-induced IL-8 secretion of enterocytes in vitro. BMC Microbiol. 2015;15(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s12866-014-0337-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Brownlie E.J.E, Chaharlangi D, Wong E.O.Y, Kim D, Navarre W.W. Acids produced by Lactobacilli inhibit the growth of commensal Lachnospiraceae and S24-7 bacteria. Gut Microbes. 2022;14(1):2046452. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2022.2046452. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bazireh H, Shariati P, Jamalkandi S.A, Ahmadi A, Boroumand M.A. Isolation of novel probiotic Lactobacillus and Enterococcus strains from human salivary and fecal sources. Front. Microbiol. 2020;11:597946. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.597946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jung S, Park O.J, Kim A.R, Ahn K.B, Lee D, Kum K.K, Yun C.H, Han S.H. Lipoteichoic acids of Lactobacilli inhibit Enterococcus faecalis biofilm formation and disrupt the preformed biofilm. J. Microbiol. 2019;57(4):310–315. doi: 10.1007/s12275-019-8538-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zielińska D, Łepecka A, Ołdak A, Długosz E, Kołożyn-Krajewska D. Growth and adhesion inhibition of pathogenic bacteria by live and heat-killed food-origin Lactobacillus strains or their supernatants. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2021;368(5):fnab024. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnab024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Stoyanova L.G, Ustyugova E.A, Netrusov A.I. Antibacterial metabolites of lactic acid bacteria:Their diversity and properties. Prikl. Biokhim. Mikrobiol. 2012;48(3):259–253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tuo Y, Song X, Song Y, Liu W, Tang Y, Gao Y, Jiang S, Qian F, Mu G. Screening probiotics from Lactobacillus strains according to their abilities to inhibit pathogen adhesion and induction of proinflammatory cytokine IL-8. J. Dairy Sci. 2018;101(6):4822–4829. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bruni N, Martello E, Fusi E, Meineri G, Giardini A. Study of faecal parameters and body condition in dogs with a diet supplemented with Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/CSL (CECT 4529) Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2020;19(1):704–711. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Baillon M.L.A, Marshall-Jones Z.V, Butterwick R.F. Effects of probiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus strain DSM13241 in healthy adult dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2004;65(3):338–343. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.2004.65.338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kim S, Huang E, Park S, Holzapfel W, Lim S.D. Physiological characteristics and anti-obesity effect of Lactobacillus plantarum K10. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2018;38(3):554–569. doi: 10.5851/kosfa.2018.38.3.554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sun H.Y, Kim I.H. Effect of Lactobacillus acidophilus based probiotic product supplementation on the blood profile, fecal noxious gas emission, and fecal shedding of lactic acid bacteria and coliform bacteria in healthy adult Beagle dogs. Korean J. Agric. Sci. 2020;47(3):437–443. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lan R, Koo J, Kim I. Effects of Lactobacillus acidophilus supplementation on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, fecal microbial and noxious gas emission in weaning pigs. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017;97(4):1310–1315. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.7866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Strompfová V, Marciňáková M, Simonová M, Bogovič-Matijašić B, Lauková A. Application of potential probiotic Lactobacillus fermentum AD1 strain in healthy dogs. Anaerobe. 2006;12(2):75–79. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2005.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Raheem A, Wang M, Zhang J, Liang L, Liang R, Yin Y, Zhu Y, Yang W, Wang L, Lv X. The probiotic potential of Lactobacillus plantarum strain RW1 isolated from canine faeces. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2022;132(3):2306–2322. doi: 10.1111/jam.15341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Fernández L, Martínez R, Pérez M, Arroyo R, Rodríguez J.M. Characterization of Lactobacillus rhamnosus MP01 and Lactobacillus plantarum MP02 and assessment of their potential for the prevention of gastrointestinal infections in an experimental canine model. Front. Microbiol. 2019;10:1117. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kumar S, Pattanaik A.K, Sharma S, Gupta R, Jadhav S.E, Dutta N. Comparative assessment of canine-origin Lactobacillus johnsonii CPN23 and dairy-origin Lactobacillus acidophillus NCDC 15 for nutrient digestibility, faecal fermentative metabolites and selected gut health indices in dogs. J. Nutr. Sci. 2017;6:e38. doi: 10.1017/jns.2017.35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kumar S, Pattanaik A.K, Sharma S, Jadhav S.E. Species-specific probiotic Lactobacillus johnsonii CPN23 supplementation modulates blood biochemical profile and erythrocytic antioxidant indices in labrador dogs. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 2016;86(8):918–924. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sauter S.N, Benyacoub J, Allenspach K, Gaschen F, Ontsouka E, Reuteler G, Cavadini C, Knorr R, Blum J.W. Effects of probiotic bacteria in dogs with food-responsive diarrhoea treated with an elimination diet. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2006;90(7–8):269–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2005.00595.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Xu H, Huang W, Hou Q, Kwok L.Y, Laga W, Wang Y, Ma H, Sun Z, Zhang H. Oral Administration of compound probiotics improved canine feed intake, weight gain, immunity and intestinal microbiota. Front. Immunol. 2019;10:666. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gómez-Gallego C, Junnila J, Männikkö S, Hämeenoja P, Valtonen E, Salminen S, Beasley S. A canine-specific probiotic product in treating acute or intermittent diarrhea in dogs:A double-blind placebo-controlled efficacy study. Vet. Microbiol. 2016;197:122–128. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Shmalberg J, Montalbano C, Morelli G, Buckley G.J. A randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial of a probiotic or metronidazole for acute canine diarrhea. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019;6:163. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rossi G, Pengo G, Caldin M, Piccionello A.P, Steiner J.M, Cohen N.D, Jergens A.E, Suchodolski J.S. Comparison of microbiological, histological, and immunomodulatory parameters in response to treatment with either combination therapy with prednisone and metronidazole or probiotic VSL#3 strains in dogs with idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e94699. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Padmavathi T, Bhargavi R, Priyanka P.R, Niranjan N.R, Pavitra P.V. Screening of potential probiotic lactic acid bacteria and production of amylase and its partial purification. J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. 2018;16(2):357–362. doi: 10.1016/j.jgeb.2018.03.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Morales B, Spadetto L, Calvo M.A, Yeste M, Arosemena L, Rigau T, del Alamo M.M.R. Evaluation of the probiotic in vitro potential of lactic acid-producing bacteria from canine vagina:Possible role in vaginal health. Animals (Basel) 2022;12(6):796. doi: 10.3390/ani12060796. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Valiallahi J, Pourabasali M, Janalizadeh E, Bucio A. Use of Lactobacillus for improved growth and enhanced biochemical, hematological, and digestive enzyme activity in common carp at Mazandaran, Iran. N. Am. J. Aquac. 2018;80(2):206–215. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Collins J.K, Thornton G, Sullivan G.O. Selection of probiotic strains for human applications. Int. Dairy J. 1998;8(5–6):487–490. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sivamaruthi B.S, Kesika P, Chaiyasut C. Influence of probiotic supplementation on health status of the dogs:A review. Appl. Sci. 2021;11(23):11384. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Shewale R.N, Sawale P.D, Khedkar C.D, Singh A. Selection criteria for probiotics:A review. Int. J. Probiotics Prebiotics. 2014;9(1):17–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lievin-Le Moal V, Amsellem R, Servin A.L, Coconnier M.H. Lactobacillus acidophilus (Strain LB) from the resident adult human gastrointestinal microflora exerts activity against brush border damage promoted by a diarrhoeagenic Escherichia coli in human enterocyte-like cells. Gut. 2002;50(6):803–811. doi: 10.1136/gut.50.6.803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ammor M.S, Florez A.B, Álvarez-Martín P, Margolles A, Mayo B. Analysis of tetracycline resistance tet(W) genes and their flanking sequences in intestinal Bifidobacterium species. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2008;62(4):688–693. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkn280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gueimonde M, Sánchez B, De Los Reyes-Gavilán C, Margolles A. Antibiotic resistance in probiotic bacteria. Front. Microbiol. 2013;4:202. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Abriouel H, Knapp A.G, Benomar N. Antibiotic resistance profile of microbes from traditional fermented foods. In:Fermented Foods in Health and Disease Prevention. Elsevier, Netherlands. 2017:675–704. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Freeman L, Becvarova I, Cave N, MacKay C, Nguyen P, Rama B, Takashima G, Tiffin R, van Beukelen P, Yathiraj S. Wsava nutritional assessment guidelines. J. Feline Med. Surg. 2011;13(7):516–525. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Cline M.G, Burns K.M, Coe J.B, Downing R, Durzi T, Murphy M, Parker V. 2021 AAHA nutrition and weight management guidelines for dogs and cats. J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 2021;57(4):153–178. doi: 10.5326/JAAHA-MS-7232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Blake M.R, Raker J.M, Whelan K. Validity and reliability of the Bristol Stool Form Scale in healthy adults and patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2016;44(7):693–703. doi: 10.1111/apt.13746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Greco D.S. Diagnosis and Dietary Management of of Gastrointestinal Disease. Purina Veterinary Diets. 2011. Available from: https://www.purinaveterinarydiets.com/clinic-support/clinicresources/for-your-clinic/diagnose-gi-problems-with-thequick-guide-reference-tool . Retrieved on 02-08-2015.
  • 51.Wang Y, Gu Q. Effect of probiotic on growth performance and digestive enzyme activity of Arbor Acres broilers. Res. Vet. Sci. 2010;89(2):163–167. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2010.03.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Vatanparast M, Hosseininaveh V, Ghadamyari M, Sajjadian S.M. Plant cell wall degrading enzymes, pectinase and cellulase, in the digestive system of the red palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Coleoptera:Curculionidae) Plant Prot. Sci. 2014;50(4):190–198. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Chandang P, Thongprajukaew K, Chotimanothum B, Kovitvadhi A, Kovitvadhi U, Pakkong P. The effects on in vitro digestibility from different developmental stages of silkworm larvae, Bombyx mori (Lepidoptera:Bombycidae) and position of mulberry leaves, Morus alba (Rosales:Moraceae) J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2017;20(4):1134–1139. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Anson M.L. The estimation of pepsin, trypsin, papain, and cathepsin with hemoglobin. J. Gen. Physiol. 1938;22(1):79–89. doi: 10.1085/jgp.22.1.79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Latimer G.W. Association of Official Analytical Chemists International (AOAC) Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. AOAC International, Maryland. 2019 [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Zaine L, Ferreira C, de OS Gomes M, Monti M, Tortola L, Vasconcellos R.S, Carciofi A.C. Faecal IgA concentration is influenced by age in dogs. Br. J. Nutr. 2011;106(suppl 1):S183–S186. doi: 10.1017/S0007114511000559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Peters I.R, Calvert E.L, Hall E.J, Day M.J. Measurement of immunoglobulin concentrations in the feces of healthy dogs. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 2004;11(5):841–848. doi: 10.1128/CDLI.11.5.841-848.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Donohue D.C, Salminen S. Safety of probiotic bacteria. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 1996;5(1):25–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Shokryazdan P, Jahromi M.F, Liang J.B, Kalavathy R, Sieo C.C, Ho Y.W. Safety assessment of two new Lactobacillus strains as probiotic for human using a rat model. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0159851. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Lara-Villoslada F, Sierra S, Díaz-Ropero M.P, Olivares M, Xaus J. Safety assessment of the human milk-isolated probiotic Lactobacillus salivarius CECT5713. J. Dairy Sci. 2007;90(8):3583–3589. doi: 10.3168/jds.2006-685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Meleh H.U, Choo S, Desa M.N.M, Chew S.Y, Rangasamy P, Hassan H, Than L.T.L. Isolation and safety characterisation of lactobacilli strains with antimicrobial properties as potential probiotics for human use. LWT. 2020;131:109796. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed. Safety and efficacy of a preparation of Lactobacillus fermentum NCIMB 41636, Lactobacillus plantarum NCIMB 41638 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus NCIMB 41640 as a technological feed additive for dogs. EFSA J. 2016;14(1):4340. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.EFSA Panel on Additives. Bampidis V, Azimonti G, de Lourdes Bastos M, Christensen H, Dusemund B, Durjava M.F, Kouba M, López-Alonso M, Puente S.L. Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) for all animal species (Lanxess Deutschland GMBH) EFSA J. 2022;20(5):e07286. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Marelli S.P, Fusi E, Giardini A, Martino P.A, Polli M, Bruni N, Rizzi R. Effects of probiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/CSL (CECT 4529) on the nutritional and health status of boxer dogs. Vet. Rec. 2020;187(4):e28. doi: 10.1136/vr.105434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Fusi E, Rizzi R, Polli M, Cannas S, Giardini A, Bruni N, Marelli S.P. Effects of Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/CSL (CECT 4529) supplementation on healthy cat performance. Vet. Rec. 2019;6(1):e000368. doi: 10.1136/vetreco-2019-000368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Herstad H.K, Nesheim B.B, L'Abée-Lund T.L, Larsen S, Skancke E. Effects of a probiotic intervention in acute canine gastroenteritis-a controlled clinical trial. J. Small Anim. Pract. 2010;51(1):34–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5827.2009.00853.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Rose L, Rose J, Gosling S, Holmes M. Efficacy of a probiotic-prebiotic supplement on incidence of diarrhea in a dog shelter:A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2017;31(2):377–382. doi: 10.1111/jvim.14666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Miyoshi M, Ogawa A, Higurashi S, Kadooka Y. Anti-obesity effect of Lactobacillus gasseri Sbt2055 accompanied by inhibition of proinflammatory gene expression in the visceral adipose tissue in diet-induced obese mice. Eur. J. Nutr. 2014;53(2):599–606. doi: 10.1007/s00394-013-0568-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Park H.J, Lee S.E, Kim H.B, Isaacson R.E, Seo K.W, Song K.H. Association of obesity with serum leptin, adiponectin, and serotonin and gut microflora in beagle dogs. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2015;29(1):43–50. doi: 10.1111/jvim.12455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Handl S, German A.J, Holden S.L, Dowd S.E, Steiner J.M, Heilmann R.M, Grant R.W, Swanson K.S, Suchodolski J.S. Faecal microbiota in lean and obese dogs. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2013;84(2):332–343. doi: 10.1111/1574-6941.12067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Sampath V, Koo K.H, Lim C.B, Kim I.H. Supplemental effect of Lactobacillus plantarum on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, gas emission, excreta microbiota, and meat quality in broilers. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2021;23(4):2–3. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Wang H, Kim I.H. Evaluation of dietary probiotic (Lactobacillus plantarum BG0001) supplementation on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, blood profile, fecal gas emission, and fecal microbiota in weaning pigs. Animals (Basel) 2021;11(8):2232. doi: 10.3390/ani11082232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Nishiyama Y, Sugimoto M, Ikeda S, Kume S. Supplemental b-carotene increases IgA-secreting cells in mammary gland and IgA transfer from milk to neonatal mice. Br. J. Nutr. 2011;105(1):24–30. doi: 10.1017/S0007114510003089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Zeng M.Y, Cisalpino D, Varadarajan S, Hellman J, Warren H.S, Cascalho M, Inohara N, Núñez G. Gut microbiota-induced immunoglobulin G controls systemic infection by symbiotic bacteria and pathogens. Immunity. 2016;44(3):647–658. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.02.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Delucchi L, Fraga M, Perelmuter K, Cella C.D, Zunino P. Effect of native Lactobacillus murinus LbP2 administration on total fecal IgA in healthy dogs. Can. J. Vet. Res. 2014;78(2):153–155. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Gaspardo A, Zannoni A, Turroni S, Barone M, Sabetti M.C, Zanoni R.C, Forni M, Brigidi P, Pietra M. Influence of Lactobacillus kefiri on intestinal microbiota and fecal IgA content of healthy dogs. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020;7:146. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Panasevich M.R, Daristotle L, Quesnell R, Reinhart G.A, Frantz N.Z. Altered fecal microbiota, IgA, and fermentative end-products in adult dogs fed prebiotics and a nonviable Lactobacillus acidophilus. J. Anim. Sci. 2021;99(12):skab347. doi: 10.1093/jas/skab347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Veterinary World are provided here courtesy of Veterinary World

RESOURCES