Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2023 May 31;13:8784. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-36008-4

Dietary Ulva lactuca and CAZyme supplementation improve serum biochemical profile and hepatic composition of weaned piglets

David M Ribeiro 1,#, Paula A Lopes 2,3,#, Rui M A Pinto 4,5, José M Pestana 2,3, Mónica M Costa 2,3, Cristina M Alfaia 2,3, Miguel P Mourato 1, André M de Almeida 1, João P B Freire 1, José A M Prates 2,3,✉
PMCID: PMC10232413  PMID: 37258799

Abstract

Ulva lactuca is a seaweed with antinutritional cell wall for monogastrics. Carbohydrate-Active enZymes (CAZymes) supplementation can potentially cause its disruption. This study evaluates four diets: Ctrl—control diet; UL—control + 7% U. lactuca (wild caught, powdered form); ULR—UL + 0.005% Rovabio® Excel AP; ULU—UL + 0.01% ulvan lyase on piglets’ haematologic and serologic profiles, hepatic lipids and minerals. White blood cells and lymphocytes reached the highest values in piglets fed UL compared to control, and to control and ULR; respectively (P < 0.05). IgG levels were boosted by seaweed incorporation compared to control (P = 0.015). The glycaemic homeostasis was assured by the seaweed inclusion. Dietary seaweed decreased serum lipids (P < 0.001), with the exception of ULU, due to HDL-cholesterol increase (P < 0.001). Cortisol was decreased in ULR and ULU (P < 0.001). No systemic inflammation was observed (P > 0.05). While hepatic n-3 PUFA increased in piglets fed with seaweed diets due to increment of beneficial 22:5n-3 and 22:6n-3 fatty acids (P < 0.05), the opposite occurred for n-6 PUFA, PUFA/SFA and n-6/n-3 ratios (P < 0.05). Hepatic pigments were unchanged (P > 0.05). ULR reduced α-tocopherol levels (P = 0.036) and increased serum potassium levels (P < 0.001) compared to control. Seaweed contributed to overcome piglets’ weaning stress, with some benefits of including CAZyme supplementation.

Subject terms: Zoology, Animal physiology

Introduction

The environmental impact of livestock production has become an important and controversial global issue1, whose effects are expected to worsen as both world population and animal product demand increase. High quality and locally produced feedstuffs can be alternatives to conventional ones, such as maize or soybean meal that are imported for instance into Europe from the Americas with high economic and environmental costs. Seaweeds are among such alternatives. They are interesting, albeit heterogeneous, organisms providing an abundant source of biomass2. However, they have a recalcitrant cell wall with a complex cross-linked matrix of insoluble polysaccharides that reduce the digestive availability of intracellular nutrients during monogastrics’ digestion, thus limiting dietary incorporation levels for highly productive animals3. The supplementation with Carbohydrate-Active enZymes (CAZymes) stands out as a possible approach to increase the digestive utilization of such feedstuffs at higher inclusion levels in the feed4. Seaweeds are capable of improving quality traits and nutritional value of meat as well as animal health2, as previously described for Laminaria digitata5 and similar to some microalgae6,7.

The green seaweed Ulva lactuca is considered a good source of nutrients2. Like other edible green seaweeds, U. lactuca's protein concentration, although very variable and depending on culture and environmental conditions, can represent up to 32% of the algae's dry mass8. This makes it a putative, partial alternative to conventional protein sources, such as soybean meal. Moreover, it contains a high amount of carbohydrates, such as ulvan with several bioactive properties (i.e., antibacterial, immunostimulant, antioxidant and antihyperlipidemic)9. This macroalga is also rich in vitamin B12, which plays a strong role in maintaining nervous system homeostasis or blood formation. Regarding other micronutrients, it is high in sodium, potassium, magnesium, iodine, manganese, and nickel and contains vitamin A, vitamin B1, vitamin C, calcium, phosphorous, and numerous other trace elements10,11. The recalcitrant cell wall of this seaweed makes it a challenge to allow monogastric animals to digest it, blocking endogenous enzymes access to its intracellular nutrients. Therefore, our research team has recently published promising in vitro results with ulvan lyase from PL25 family12. In fact, the reported twofold increase of 18:1c9 in the alga biomass when combined with ulvan lyase treatment in vitro warrants further research, due to the benefits of this fatty acid to hinder cardiovascular disease13. Furthermore, this supplementation can allow using this seaweed in the diets of animals with immature digestive systems, particularly the weaned piglet.

Weaning is a key period in which piglets face significant challenges that will determine their subsequent health and growth. In fact, once they are removed from the sow, they are transitioned from mostly liquid to mostly solid, plant-based feeding programs, in addition of being mixed with other litters in a new environment14. This is normally accompanied by anorexia and enteric inflammation15,16, often culminating in post-weaning diarrhoea. Therefore, these young animals require high-quality and digestible feedstuffs. In addition, with the recent European Union restrictions in using zinc oxide to deal with post-weaning stress17, bioactive feed ingredients are an increasingly important variable in dealing with this issue. Considering this, U. lactuca has the potential to provide energy and nutrients, while promoting piglet’s immune status and health.

Our research team has previously reported the effects of dietary microalgae with or without CAZyme supplementation on blood metabolites and hepatic lipids of weaned piglets18,19 and growing-finishing pigs20. For Chlorella vulgaris, the most important finding was the hepatic deposition of n-3 PUFA, in particular eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and the subsequent beneficial reduction of n-6/n-3 ratio20. In turn, dietary Arthrospira platensis increased systemic lipids, namely total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol in weaned piglets, while boosting the antioxidant potential19. In view of these findings, we hypothesized that similar or additional beneficial effects could be obtained with the seaweed U. lactuca. Therefore, the main goal of this study was to determine the effects of U. lactuca at 7% of dietary incorporation, combined or not with CAZyme supplementation, on haematologic and serologic profiles, and hepatic lipid and mineral compositions of recently weaned piglets, thus ascertaining the impact of this seaweed on piglet’s nutrition and health.

Results

Zootechnical performance

The diets used in this study did not influence zootechnical performance of piglets (P > 0.05), including faecal consistency (Supplementary material 1). The average final weight of all piglets was 14.9 kg.

Haematologic and serologic profiles

The effect of dietary U. lactuca, with or without CAZyme supplementation, on blood cells and serum biochemical metabolites from piglets is shown in Table 1. White blood cells count (P = 0.004) was higher in piglets fed U. lactuca diet mostly due to lymphocyte (P = 0.010) increase, reaching 53%. The opposite occurred for the granulocytes percentage (P = 0.009), which reached a minimum of 41.7%. Monocytes, red blood cells and thrombocytes were not affected (P > 0.05) by the diets.

Table 1.

Effect of diets on haematologic and serologic profiles of piglets.

Ctrl UL ULR ULU SEM P value
Haematology
 White blood cells (× 109/L) 15.3a 19.4b 18.0ab 17.6ab 0.440 0.004
 Granulocytes (%) 48.0a 41.7b 48.4a 44.2ab 0.898 0.009
 Lymphocytes (%) 48.2a 53.3b 48.0a 52.8ab 0.802 0.010
 Monocytes (%) 2.60 3.50 2.80 2.67 0.227 0.480
 Red blood cells (× 1012/L) 6.26 6.80 6.92 6.60 0.103 0.137
 Haemoglobin (g/dL) 11.8 12.4 11.7 12.0 0.159 0.416
 Thrombocytes (× 109/L) 406 447 387 412 19.3 0.765
Serum metabolites
 Glucose (mg/dL) 123 117 123 120 1.60 0.502
 Insulin (µU/mL)  < 0.4  < 0.4  < 0.4  < 0.4 – –
 HOMA-IR3 (mmol/L × µU/mL) 0.121 0.124 0.121 0.119 0.001 0.618
 Urea (mg/dL) 6.70a 8.40a 7.20a 11.2b 0.439  < 0.001
 Creatinine (mg/dL) 0.703ab 0.634a 0.707ab 0.739b 0.014 0.049
 Cholesterol (mg/dL) 66.0a 62.0a 54.0b 72.9c 1.33  < 0.001
 LDL-cholesterol (mg/dL) 37.1a 33.5a 24.5b 34.4a 0.932  < 0.001
 HDL-cholesterol (mg/dL) 27.8a 26.6a 25.9a 33.0b 0.535  < 0.001
 VLDL-cholesterol1 (mg/dL) 6.88a 6.04b 5.82b 7.00a 0.133  < 0.001
 Total lipids2 (mg/dL) 316a 304b 287c 331d 2.90  < 0.001
 TAG (mg/dL) 34.4a 30.2b 29.1b 35.0a 0.665  < 0.001
 Albumin (g/dL) 3.16 3.13 2.95 2.98 0.048 0.324
 Total protein (g/dL) 4.47a 4.55a 4.12b 4.13b 0.043  < 0.001
Hepatic markers
 ALT (U/L) 30.6 26.8 33.6 29.8 1.17 0.237
 AST (U/L) 36.9ab 35.4a 43.8b 34.5a 1.06 0.004
 GGT (U/L) 21.3ac 31.2b 17.8a 27.6c 1.27  < 0.001
 ALP (U/L) 335a 202b 245bc 274c 10.4  < 0.001
Immunoglobulins
 IgA (mg/dL)  < 4.0  < 4.0  < 4.0  < 4.0 – –
 IgG (mg/dL) 91.9a 132b 101ab 111ab 4.78 0.015
 IgM (mg/dL) 26.6ab 25.0a 30.4b 29.5ab 0.695 0.015
Hormones and inflammation markers
 Cortisol (µg/dL) 2.27a 1.95a 1.01b 0.924b 0.142  < 0.001
 IGF-1 (µg/L) 191a 152bc 133c 171ab 5.21  < 0.001
 IL-10 (pg/mL) 14.7a 21.2b 24.4b 29.4c 1.03  < 0.001
 C-reactive protein (mg/dL)  < 0.03  < 0.03  < 0.03  < 0.03 – –
 IL-6 (pg/mL)  < 1.5  < 1.5  < 1.5  < 1.5 – –
 ApoA1 (mg/dL)  < 3.0  < 3.0  < 3.0  < 3.0 – –
Electrolytes
 Na+ (mEq/L) 144 143 144 142 0.328 0.460
 K+ (mEq/L) 6.50a 6.78a 7.46b 6.60a 0.094  < 0.001
 Cl− (mEq/L) 98.7a 101ab 102b 98.9a 0 0.017
Redox markers
 TAC (µM) 113 97.1 100 102 2.18 0.053
 GPx (U/L) 490 567 526 612 25.5 0.378
Open in a new tab

aVLDL-cholesterol = 1/5 (TAG).

bTotal lipids = (total cholesterol) × 1.12 + (TAG) × 1.33 + 1.48.

cHOMA-IR, insulin resistance index = [fasting serum glucose] × [fasting serum insulin]/22.5.

Ctrl—control diet; UL—control + 7% Ulva lactuca; ULR—UL + 0.005% Rovabio® Excel AP; ULU—UL + 0.01% ulvan lyase; TAG—triacylglycerols; HDL—high-density lipoprotein; LDL—low density lipoprotein; VLDL—very low density lipoprotein; ALT—alanine aminotransferase; ALP—alkaline phosphatase; AST- aspartate aminotransferase; GGT—gamma-glutamyltransferase; IGF-1—insulin growth factor 1; IL-10—interleukin 10; IL-6—interleukin 6; IgA—immunoglobulin A; IgG—immunoglobulin G; IgM—immunoglobulin M; ApoA1—apolipoprotein A1. SEM—standard error of the mean. Values with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05.

No change was detected for glucose, or insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) (P > 0.05). Urea (P < 0.001) and creatinine (P = 0.049) were significantly increased in ULU (11.2 and 0.739 mg/dL, respectively) piglets compared respectively to all treatments and with UL. The same pattern of variation was found for cholesterol (P < 0.001), HDL-cholesterol (P < 0.001), VLDL-cholesterol (P < 0.001), total lipids (P < 0.001) and triacylglycerols (P < 0.001), in which piglets fed the combination of U. lactuca with the recombinant lyase had the highest values, whereas piglets fed the combination of U. lactuca with commercial Rovabio® showed the lowest values. Still regarding lipemia, LDL-cholesterol (P < 0.001) was reduced by at least 26.9% with the combination of U. lactuca and commercial Rovabio® by comparison to the other groups. Total protein was decreased by both feed enzymes relative to the other dietary groups (P < 0.001). Concerning hepatic markers, the highest values of alkaline phosphatase (ALP, P < 0.001) were seen in the control group (335 U/L) by comparison to the remaining diets. In turn, aspartate aminotransferase (AST, P = 0.004) had the highest levels in piglets fed the combination of U. lactuca with commercial Rovabio® (43.8 U/L), while gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT, P < 0.001) had the lowest levels in this same group (17.8 U/L). Regarding immunoglobulins, IgA was found below the minimum detection levels (< 4.0 mg/dL), IgM was lowest in U. lactuca without enzymes (25.0 mg/dL, P = 0.015), and IgG (P = 0.015) was decreased in the control group (91.9 mg/dL) by comparison to the U. lactuca dietary group (132 mg/dL). Cortisol (P < 0.001) was diminished by feed enzymes in relation to the other dietary treatments. U. Lactuca diets reduced IGF-1 (P < 0.001) concentrations by comparison to the control (191 µg/L). The interleukin-10 was higher in piglets fed U. lactuca combined with the recombinant ulvan lyase (29.4 pg/mL), intermediate in U. lactuca alone or combined with commercial Rovabio® and lower in the control (P < 0.001). C-reactive protein (< 0.03 mg/dL), IL-6 (< 1.5 pg/mL) and ApoA1 (< 3.0 mg/dL) were found below the minimum detection levels. In terms of electrolytes, potassium (P < 0.001) and chloride (P = 0.017) were higher in piglets fed U. lactuca combined with commercial Rovabio®. Concerning redox status, piglets fed on the control diet tended to have higher concentrations of total antioxidant capacity (P = 0.053) when compared to piglets fed U. lactuca. In turn, glutathione peroxidase activity in piglets’ serum did not change between dietary treatments (P = 0.378).

Hepatic total lipids, cholesterol and fatty acid profile

Cholesterol content and fatty acid profile in the liver are presented in Table 2. Contents of total lipid and total cholesterol were unchanged across dietary treatments (P > 0.05). Saturated fatty acids were highest in piglets fed the combination of U. lactuca with the recombinant lyase (63.8 g/100 g FA) when compared to the control (58.2 g/100 g FA), much at the expenses of 16:0 (P < 0.001) and 18:0 (P = 0.001) fatty acids. The reverse occurred for 15:0 (P < 0.001) and 17:0 (P < 0.001) fatty acids whilst 22:0 was higher in piglets fed the combination of U. lactuca with Rovabio® (0.065 g/100 g FA), intermediate in the control (0.056 g/100 g FA), and U. lactuca combined with the recombinant ulvan lyase (0.059 g/100 g FA), and lower in piglets fed U. lactuca alone (0.034 g/100 g FA, P = 0.039). The sum of cis MUFA did not vary with diets (P > 0.05), although 17:1c9 content (P < 0.001) decreased in U. lactuca fed piglets, while 18:1c11 increased (P = 0.004). In turn, n-3 PUFA (P < 0.001) increased in piglets fed U. lactuca diets by up to 1.53-fold, the opposite occurred for n-6 PUFA (P = 0.012), total PUFA (P = 0.020), PUFA/SFA (P = 0.021) and n-6/n-3 (P < 0.001) ratio, which were mostly due to 18:2n-6 (P = 0.011), 20:2n-6 (P = 0.003) and 20:4n-6 (P = 0.021) variations. Finally, 22:5n-3 and 22:6n-3 fatty acids were increased by U. lactuca incorporation (0.330 and 0.662 g/100 g FA, respectively) compared to control (0.147 and 0.496 g/100 g FA, respectively).

Table 2.

Effect of diets on the hepatic fatty acid profile of piglets.

Ctrl UL ULR ULU SEM P-value
Total lipids (g/100 g) 1.52 1.65 1.60 1.59 0.065 0.605
Total cholesterol (mg/100 g) 2.30 2.24 2.14 2.22 0.062 0.309
Fatty acid composition (g/100 g fatty acids)
 12:0 0.104 0.083 0.103 0.108 0.010 0.270
 14:0 0.527 0.390 0.525 0.468 0.044 0.107
 15:0 1.34a 0.570b 0.610b 0.603b 0.077  < 0.001
 16:0 19.5a 22.0ab 23.7b 23.7b 0.680  < 0.001
 16:1c7 0.345 0.331 0.371 0.364 0.023 0.615
 16:1c9 0.951 0.999 1.15 0.953 0.083 0.319
 17:0 8.13a 4.31b 3.70b 3.83b 0.394  < .001
 17:1c9 1.67a 0.838b 0.742b 0.692b 0.128  < .001
 18:0 28.5a 33.9b 34.3b 34.9b 1.18 0.001
 18:1c9 13.9 14.7 14.8 14.6 0.476 0.555
 18:1c11 2.06a 2.33ab 2.52b 2.43b 0.086 0.004
 18:2n-6 11.2a 9.57ab 8.10b 8.40b 0.683 0.011
 18:3n-6 0.086 0.079 0.076 0.068 0.008 0.432
 18:2t9t12 0.108 0.101 0.091 0.099 0.011 0.747
 18:3n-3 0.025 0.043 0.037 0.032 0.007 0.332
 18:4n-3 0.041 0.057 0.050 0.050 0.012 0.841
 20:0 0.118 0.099 0.119 0.110 0.010 0.488
 20:1c11 0.197 0.168 0.180 0.167 0.010 0.115
 20:2n-6 0.502a 0.326b 0.337b 0.307b 0.038 0.003
 20:3n-6 0.369 0.295 0.255 0.221 0.046 0.141
 20:4n-6 5.72a 4.83ab 3.70ab 3.50b 0.540 0.021
 20:5n-3 0.126 0.189 0.205 0.190 0.024 0.108
 22:0 0.056ab 0.034a 0.065b 0.059ab 0.008 0.039
 22:1n-9 0.131 0.123 0.153 0.159 0.014 0.201
 22:5n-3 0.147a 0.330b 0.249bc 0.195ac 0.026 0.000
 22:6n-3 0.496a 0.662b 0.683b 0.693b 0.028  < .001
 Other 3.69a 2.75b 3.19ab 3.05ab 0.189 0.010
Fatty acid partial sums
 SFA 58.2a 61.3ab 63.1ab 63.8b 1.31 0.021
 cis MUFA 19.3 19.4 19.9 19.4 0.570 0.872
 PUFA 18.8a 16.5ab 13.8b 13.8b 1.27 0.020
 n-3 PUFA 0.837a 1.28b 1.22b 1.16b 0.036  < .001
 n-6 PUFA 17.9a 15.1ab 12.5b 12.5b 1.26 0.012
Fatty acid ratios
 PUFA:SFA 0.335a 0.274ab 0.222b 0.217b 0.029 0.021
 n-6:n-3 21.5a 11.9b 10.2b 10.8b 1.29  < .001
Open in a new tab

Ctrl—control diet; UL—control + 7% Ulva lactuca; ULR—UL + 0.005% Rovabio® Excel AP; ULU—UL + 0.01% ulvan lyase; SEM—standard error of the mean. Values with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05.

Hepatic α-tocopherol and pigments

Contrarily to α-tocopherol, no differences were found for hepatic pigments (Table 3). α-Tocopherol was increased in the control group by 1.4-fold relative to piglets fed on U. lactuca combined with the commercial Rovabio® (P = 0.036).

Table 3.

Effect of diets on hepatic α-tocopherol and pigments of piglets.

Ctrl UL ULR ULU SEM P-value
α-Tocopherol (µg/100 g liver) 180b 141a,b 127a 141a,b 0.127 0.036
Pigments (µg/100 g liver)
 Chlorophyll-a 15.6 14.7 20.9 17.3 8.46 0.945
 Chlorophyll-b 34.1 26.2 33.0 30.2 11.0 0.962
 Total carotenoids 86.4 96.5 102 96.4 8.20 0.552
Open in a new tab

Ctrl—control diet; UL—control + 7% Ulva lactuca; ULR—UL + 0.005% Rovabio® Excel AP; ULU—UL + 0.01% ulvan lyase. SEM—standard error of the mean. Values with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05.

Hepatic mineral profile

Micro- and macromineral profiles are presented in Table 4. No major variations were observed for mineral contents in the liver, except for calcium and sulphur. Calcium was increased in piglets fed the combination of U. lactuca with ulvan lyase (20.8 mg/100 g liver) relative to piglets fed U. lactuca alone (18.0 mg/100 g liver) P = 0.023). In turn, sulphur content was lower in piglets fed the control diet (162 mg/100 g liver) when compared to piglets fed U. lactuca, alone (184 mg/100 g liver) or combined with the commercial Rovabio® (176 mg/100 g liver, P = 0.001).

Table 4.

Effect of diets on the hepatic mineral profile (mg/100 g of liver) of piglets.

Ctrl UL ULR ULU SEM P-value
Macrominerals (mg/100 g of liver)
 Calcium (Ca) 18.3ab 18.0a 18.6ab 20.8b 0.688 0.023
 Potassium (K) 334 342 341 343 4.31 0.491
 Magnesium (Mg) 20.0 19.7 20.0 21.2 0.500 0.151
 Sodium (Na) 78.9 75.9 73.5 76.1 1.76 0.214
 Phosphorous (P) 346 363 341 330 9.05 0.097
 Sulphur (S) 162a 184b 176b 175ab 3.44 0.001
 Partial sum 959 1003 969 966 13.8 0.128
Microminerals (mg/100 g of liver)
 Copper (Cu) 2.62 2.47 1.88 1.70 0.297 0.098
 Iron (Fe) 7.06 7.98 7.82 8.54 0.803 0.633
 Manganese (Mn) 0.296 0.302 0.270 0.274 0.017 0.441
 Zinc (Zn) 6.13 7.36 6.77 6.39 0.609 0.516
 Partial sum 16.1 18.1 16.7 16.9 1.15 0.663
Total minerals 976 1021 986 983 14.1 0.117
Open in a new tab

Ctrl—control diet; UL—control + 7% Ulva lactuca; ULR—UL + 0.005% Rovabio® Excel AP; ULU—UL + 0.01% ulvan lyase. SEM—standard error of the mean. Values with different superscripts are significantly different at P < 0.05.

Principal component analysis (PCA)

Two principal component analyses, carried out with serum and liver metabolites, are depicted in Fig. 1 (panels A and B, respectively). The plot loadings are presented in supplementary material 2. Regarding serum, there was no clear clustering of any of the experimental groups. Nevertheless, there was a high heterogeneity of UL when compared to the other groups, particularly due to variables such as IgG and creatinine. The PCA carried out for liver metabolites revealed an overlap of all groups, but the controls tended to cluster separately, despite the high heterogeneity. Indeed, fatty acid variables such as 17:0, 15:0 and total n-6 PUFA explain such separation, which is in line with our previously mentioned statistical analysis, in which they were the highest in the control group.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Principal component analysis (PCA) of serum profile (A) and liver (B) from piglets fed Ctrl—control diet; UL—control + 7% Ulva lactuca; ULR—UL + 0.005% Rovabio® Excel AP; ULU—UL + 0.01% ulvan lyase.

Discussion

To our knowledge, the use of U. lactuca seaweed as a feed ingredient, with 7% of dietary incorporation in weaned piglet’s diets has not been previously reported. Indeed, some studies have used Ulva sp. extracts to improve the immune status of weaner21 and weaned22 piglets but did not use the whole biomass. We initially hypothesized that feeding the seaweed at ingredient level (> 3%) without enzymatic supplementation might lead to antinutritional effects, causing lower availability (and consequent accumulation) of micronutrients, such as fatty acids. The objective of this study was to use it as a partial protein source for weaned piglets, taking advantage of its several bioactive properties in the process. The enzymatic supplementation aimed at maximizing its potential as a nutritional source. We therefore measured the piglet’s response in both blood and liver metabolites, thus focusing on systemic and central metabolism.

A moderate effect of experimental diets on blood cells was observed. Even if red blood cells and thrombocytes did not vary across dietary groups, lymphocytes increased as a consequence of dietary seaweed. On the contrary, the granulocytes count was reduced, and monocytes were kept unchanged in the experimental groups when compared to controls. A blood cell modulation of dietary seaweed has been previously reported by Shimazu et al.23 when applying 1% of dietary wakame (Undaria pinnatifida) which increased natural killer cells in pig’s blood. Our results seem to indicate that the seaweed promotes a positive modulation of the adaptative immune response, given that it increases lymphocytes by comparison to controls. However, the differences between the enzyme-supplemented groups were not significant, which suggested that the positive effect could be reversed. The reason for these variations is unclear.

Lipemia was influenced by dietary treatments. Interestingly, a consistent pattern of reduction was observed for total cholesterol, VLDL-cholesterol, total lipids and triacylglycerols levels when U. lactuca was fed to piglets, alone or combined with the commercial Rovabio®, but not with the recombinant ulvan lyase, by comparison to the control diet. In addition, LDL-cholesterol decreased across all U. lactuca diets. Even if total cholesterol marginally surpassed the reference values (36–54 mg/dL) for pigs24, such hypocholesterolaemic effect is known to reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and human mortality25. In some clinical studies, U. lactuca has been established as a source of antioxidants capable of decreasing serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triacylglycerols levels11, all of which are significant risk factors for coronary diseases. The reversion of this effect by the recombinant enzyme could originate the degradation of the U. lactuca cell wall, making the lipid fraction more available for digestion. This would explain, for example, the increased circulating triacylglycerol levels in the ulvan lyase group. In addition, no such increase was recorded in the Rovabio® supplemented group, putatively demonstrating the inability of the commercial enzyme mix to efficiently degrade the recalcitrant seaweed polysaccharides.

No changes were detected either for glucose or for insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR), suggesting the maintenance of glycaemic homeostasis. This happened despite reduced insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) levels by U. lactuca inclusion, with control and ulvan lyase groups being similar. Insulin-like growth factor has the ability to decrease blood glucose levels, which does not agree with our data. Insulin is a well-known stimulator of lipogenesis26 that increases fatty acid synthesis in the liver with formation and storage of triacylglycerols27. The reason why glucose levels were maintained might be putatively related to nutrient unavailability of seaweed.

Concerning hepatic function markers, different effects were promoted by feed enzymes. While the recombinant ulvan lyase decreased AST, the commercial Rovabio® and U. lactuca alone decreased GGT and ALP, respectively, compared to the other diets. Despite the variations observed for aminotransferase activities, it is worth noticing that the levels found are still within the reference figures for pigs, which are 31–58 U/L for ALT, 32–84 U/L for AST, 10–52 U/L for GGT and 118–395 U/L for ALP, respectively24. Therefore, these differences do not seem to have biological significance.

As long described, algae inclusion in feeds has immune-modulatory properties. This is what is expected to occur. For instance, their anti-inflammatory activity has been associated with a minor secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines28,29. This fact is corroborated by the absence of effects on IL-6, and also by enhanced levels of IL-10, across U. lactuca diets. IL-10 is a pleiotropic cytokine known for its potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects30 that maintain normal tissue homeostasis31, while IL-6 is a multifunctional cytokine that plays a central role in host defense due to its wide range of immune and hematopoietic activities and its potent ability to induce the acute phase response32. Polysaccharides in U. lactuca have also been demonstrated to have significant analgesic and anti-inflammatory characteristics and may well be related with such differences. These are particularly relevant for the weaned piglet, given that they endure severe enteral inflammation associated with increased exposure to pathogens and undernutrition16,33.

Accordingly, we found that U. lactuca by itself increased IgG immunoglobulins, which are known to be the first line of defence of the organism against infections34 alongside with IgM. This might have contributed for increased serum protein content. IgG and IgM antibodies act in a coordinated way in short- and long-run protection against infections35. Upon infection, the IgM level will rise for a short period of time and then will begin to drop as the IgG levels increase, protecting the organism in the long-run35. In accordance, white blood cells, as a whole and lymphocytes, in particular were also increased in piglets fed U. lactuca-based diets. Bussy et al.21 reported that a sulphated polysaccharide extract from U. armoricana in sow diets increased serum IgG of nursing sows and their piglets. The partial degradation of the cell wall by targeting ulvan might explain why the effects of enzyme supplementation of our study reversed IgG increases in the non-supplemented diets. Indeed, since ulvan is a major cell wall polysaccharide and has immunomodulating properties36, its degradation will theoretically prevent its effects. Altogether, these changes suggest an improved immune response during the critical post-weaning period of piglets promoted by the seaweed, which is at least attenuated by the enzymatic supplementation.

Some n-3 fatty acids, which are highly present in marine algae, have immunomodulatory properties37,38. Moreover, antioxidants, β-carotene and vitamin B12 are also available in seaweeds, and can also modulate the immune system, even in different animal models39. In this study, IL-6, C-reactive protein and ApoA1 were found below detection limits. IL-6, a pro-inflammatory cytokine, is inhibited by long-chain n-3 PUFA, through the signalling of NFkB transcription factor25. ApoA1 is a protein involved in lipid metabolism, which is upregulated by n-3 PUFA signalling of PPARα in the liver25. The de novo lipogenesis that is putatively occurring in the liver because of dietary seaweed (discussed below) might provide fatty acids, such as DHA to signal these pathways. The absence of changes in these biomarkers might indicate that feeding U. lactuca does not trigger these inflammatory pathways. This is additionally supported by the fact that the acute phase C-reactive protein was unaffected by dietary treatments. All things considered, these variations reflect a boost on cellular and humoral immune response stimulated by U. lactuca that contribute to guarantee piglets’ survival at the critical post-weaning period.

Cortisol is a steroid hormone that regulates a wide range of fundamental processes, including metabolism and immune response. It also has a very important role in stress response40,41. Stress is a phenomenon with multifactorial causes, which produces an organic response that generates adverse effects in pigs’ health and welfare, and general productive performance. Herein, both exogenous feed enzymes displayed a beneficial effect in piglets by promoting a reduction of this stress hormone42. This could be related with decreased metabolic stress caused by higher nutrients availability, but more data is necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

Renal failure disorders are usually associated with common electrolytes, such as sodium and potassium43. Serum potassium was increased in piglets fed U. lactuca combined with commercial Rovabio®, whereas the reverse was found with the recombinant ulvan lyase. Additionally, the kidney plays a fundamental role in keeping chloride balance in the organism. Renal chloride transport is coupled with sodium transport44, in accordance with the values observed for both parameters in this study. Although statistically significant, the variations found for potassium in serum are believed to be devoid of clinical physiological relevance, as the mean values obtained are very similar among dietary treatments together with a minimal standard error.

The tendency for reduced antioxidant capacity in piglets fed U. lactuca combined with commercial Rovabio® compared to controls was supported partially by a reduction in hepatic α-tocopherol, the most potent fat-soluble antioxidant available in nature45. No further variations in pigments with antioxidant function, like chlorophylls and carotenoids, were found in the liver, suggesting that they might be metabolized in another, hitherto unknown, fashion.

The hepatic fatty acid profile was significantly improved by the experimental diets. The most striking evidence is that U. lactuca based diets significantly increased n-3 PUFA in the liver, which explains the decreased n-6/n-3 ratio found in this tissue mostly due to 18:2n-6 (LA), 20:2n-6, and 20:4n-6 (AA) variations. Under the same rationale, 22:5n-3 (DPA) and 22:6n-3 (DHA) fatty acids were increased by the seaweed inclusion. Major n-3 PUFA, such as 18:3n-3 (ALA) and 18:4n-3, were present in high levels in U. lactuca diets, with the latter fatty acid not being detected in the control. Therefore, dietary availability is most likely the major driver for such changes. Overall, the aforementioned variations contribute to improved nutritional composition of this edible tissue, in addition to its health promoting properties for the weaned piglet. Indeed, n-3 PUFA accumulation could contribute to a downregulation of PUFA oxidation pathways and improved hepatic oxidative status46, counterbalancing the lower hepatic α-tocopherol levels found in seaweed diets. Similarly to what has been reported by Coelho et al.20 using 5% of dietary Chlorella vulgaris in growing-finishing pigs, increased hepatic n-3 PUFA contents could be at least partially explained due to increased intake of the major precursor of PUFA elongation and desaturation, the 18:3n-3 (ALA) fatty acid. This is additionally supported by the fact that we did not detect these long-chain PUFA in the diets but found them in the liver. Nevertheless, lowering the n-6/n-3 ratio ultimately improves animal health and nutritional quality of this edible tissue. Indeed, lowering it has been associated with reduced hepatic inflammation and increased fatty acid oxidation in the liver, contributing for reduced hepatic lipid accumulation47. It also contributes for an increased intake of n-3 PUFA by the consumer with known cardiovascular-health promoting effects48. Unexpectedly, 18:1c9 monounsaturated fatty acid was similar across dietary groups when a twofold increase was observed with the recombinant ulvan lyase in vitro12. The reasons for such a lack of differences are not clear.

In general, seaweeds have high mineral content, depending on several factors including species, environmental conditions and harvest season2,3,49. In this study, minor variations promoted by U. lactuca seaweed were found for mineral content in the liver. Indeed, microminerals, in particular copper, iron, manganese and zinc, presented no changes across dietary treatments. Copper and manganese are particularly important cofactors for antioxidant enzymes, such as superoxide dismutase50,51 which contributes to overall antioxidant capacity. The lack of differences in these microminerals could be associated with similar antioxidant enzyme activity in the four groups. Indeed, the only variations observed were for a few macrominerals, namely calcium and sulphur. Calcium levels were higher in piglets fed U. lactuca combined with the recombinant ulvan lyase by comparison with piglets fed on U. lactuca alone, possibly reflecting increased intracellular calcium availability. In turn, sulphur was increased by U. lactuca diets reflecting its composition in seaweed diets.

Finally, our PCAs performed with serum and liver metabolites demonstrate that there is no clear clustering of the experimental groups. However, U. lactuca alone and control tended to be separated from the other groups in serum and liver, respectively, despite being more heterogeneous. Overall, this could demonstrate that feeding piglets with this high level of dietary U. lactuca has no major detrimental effect in systemic and central metabolism of piglets, regardless of feed enzymes supplementation.

Conclusions

Herein, we reported for the first time the effect of 7% of dietary U. lactuca in combination with feed enzymes in the haematological profile, serum biochemical metabolites, and hepatic lipid compounds, pigments, and mineral composition in recently weaned piglets. U. lactuca inclusion promoted a boost of the immune system, through the increase of lymphocytes and IgG immunoglobulins. This fact is corroborated by the non-variation of IL-6, and by the enhanced levels of IL-10, a pleiotropic cytokine known for its potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects in the three U. lactuca fed groups. In addition, a hypolipidemic effect affecting total cholesterol, VLDL-cholesterol, total lipids and triacylglycerols was observed for U. lactuca dietary inclusion, alone or in combination with commercial Rovabio®, but not for the seaweed combined with the recombinant ulvan lyase. In addition, U. lactuca decreased the hepatic n-6/n-3 ratio, which is a consequence of high deposition of beneficial n-3 fatty acids (as the case of DPA and DHA). Hepatic pigments remained unchanged across dietary groups, but α-tocopherol was slightly reduced by U. lactuca reaching statistical significance when combined with Rovabio®.

Taken together, our findings indicate that U. lactuca at high incorporation levels is safe for weaned piglets, as no kidney or liver toxicity was recorded, and promotes a strong activation of their immune system, mediated by the increase of lymphocytes and IgG immunoglobulins. Also, U. lactuca does not affect glycaemic homeostasis and induces a hypolipidemic effect, involving both cholesterol and triacylglycerol compounds. In addition, both exogenous enzymes seem to display a beneficial effect on piglets’ stress by promoting a reduction in cortisol concentrations. Further research using the swine model is needed to clarify the mechanisms associated with the immunostimulatory, anti-inflammatory and hypolipidemic effects promoted by U. lactuca, combined or not with feed enzymes. Moreover, studying possible negative impacts of heavy metals accumulated by the seaweed on animal metabolism would be important to fully ascertain its feed safety. An integrated proteomics and metabolomics approach could putatively be of high relevance for the elucidation of such mechanisms.

Materials and methods

Experimental animal trial

The Animal Experimentation Ethics Commission of the Higher Institute of Agronomy of the University of Lisbon (Portugal) and the Portuguese National Veterinary Authority (Process Number 0421/000/000/2020) approved the experimental protocol. All methods were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations, including the European Union legislation (2010/63/EU Directive) and ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (https://arriveguidelines.org/arrive-guidelines). The U. lactuca was bought from Aleor (Brittany, France), in a powder form (< 250 µm). It was low-temperature dried, milled and micronized before packaging. The experimental animal trial was carried out at the Animal Production Section of the Higher Institute of Agronomy, University of Lisbon, Portugal. Forty male piglets (Large White × Duroc), weaned at 28 days old and from different litters, were randomly allocated into four mash dietary treatments (n = 10): a control diet, UL (7% Ulva lactuca, replacing control), ULR (UL + 0.005% Rovabio® Excel AP of Adisseo (Antony, France)) and ULU (UL + 0.01% ulvan lyase). No salt was added to seaweed diets. Control and U. lactuca diets had 18.0% and 18.3% crude protein on a dry matter (DM) basis and 5.6% and 5.5% of crude fat on a DM basis, respectively. The seaweed powder had 28.2% and 2.9% of crude protein and crude fat on a DM basis, respectively. The main ingredients of feeding treatments, fatty acid composition, pigments and minerals are presented in Table 5. Each piglet was individually housed in metabolic cages with free access to water. After 5 days of adaptation period to minimize stress and stabilize all metabolic conditions, the experimental animal trial began and lasted two weeks. During the trial, piglets were fed on a pair-feeding basis (50 g/kg of live weight) each day and were weighed at the beginning and end of each week. Faecal consistency was scored daily (0-normal faeces, 1-soft faeces, 2-diarrhoea, 3-severe diarrhoea). By the end of the experiment, all piglets were slaughtered according to standard commercial practices. Blood was collected into Sarstedt Z serum tubes (ref.: 32,329, Sarstedt, Nümbrecht, Germany) followed by centrifugation at 1500 g for 10 min at room temperature to separate serum which was frozen at − 80 °C, until further analyses. Hepatic samples were harvested from within the tissue, minced and frozen at − 80 °C.

Table 5.

Main ingredients and composition of diets in fatty acids, pigments and minerals.

U. lactuca Ctrl UL ULR ULU
Ingredients (g/kg)
 Wheat – 437 407 406.95 406.9
 Maize – 150 140 140 140
 Soybean meal 44 – 250 233.1 233.1 233.1
 Sweet whey powder – 100 93.4 93.4 93.4
 Sunflower oil – 30 28.5 28.5 28.5
 Ulva lactuca – 0 70 70 70
 L-Lysine – 5 4.7 4.7 4.7
 DL-Methionine – 1 0.9 0.9 0.9
 L-Threonine – 1 0.9 0.9 0.9
 Calcium carbonate – 5 4.7 4.7 4.7
 Dicalcium phosphate – 13 12.1 12.1 12.1
 Sodium chloride – 3 0 0 0
 Vitamin-mineral premixa – 5 4.7 4.7 4.7
 Rovabio® Excel AP – 0 0 0.05 0
 Ulvan lyase – 0 0 0 0.1
Chemical composition (% of DM)b
 Crude protein 28.2 18.0 18.3 18.7 18.6
 Ether extract 2.9 5.6 5.5 5.7 5.3
Amino acid content (g/kg)c
 Lysine 7.8 14.0 13.9 13.9 13.9
 Methionine + Cysteine 5.8 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.9
 Tryptophan 1.0 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1
 Threonine 2.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
 Metabolizable energy (cal/g)c – 3305 – – –
Fatty acid profile (% of total fatty acids)
 14:0 0.608 0.384 0.434 0.387 0.409
 16:0 33.6 10.8 12.0 11.5 11.5
 16:1c9 4.17 0.163 0.270 0.273 0.289
 17:0 0.580 0.088 0.077 0.081 0.076
 17:1c9 0.958 0.049 0.052 0.052 0.047
 18:0 1.26 3.62 3.52 3.50 3.52
 18:1c9 14.9 26.0 25.0 25.8 25.4
 18:2n-6 6.14 55.2 52.7 52.8 53.1
 18:3n-3 17.3 1.32 1.91 1.72 1.72
 18:4n-3 12.8 0.000 0.619 0.599 0.578
 20:0 0.344 0.320 0.336 0.329 0.323
 22:0 1.54 0.638 0.637 0.645 0.627
Diterpene profile (µg/g)
 α-Tocopherol 79.3 52.4 46.8 47.3 51.0
 β-Tocopherol n.d 1.01 0.992 0.839 0.849
 γ-Tocopherol + β-tocotrienol n.d 2.39 2.38 1.93 1.94
 δ-Tocopherol n.d 0.522 0.508 0.457 0.487
 γ-Tocotrienol n.d 1.63 1.68 1.34 1.42
Pigments (µg/g)
 β-Carotene 170 0.441 14.5 16.7 15.2
 Chlorophyll-a 2311 3.86 239 238 247
 Chlorophyll-b 1666 5.80 166 167 170
 Total Carotenoids 510 1.91 43 43 45
Macrominerals (mg/kg)
 Calcium 6202 14,661 14,966 15,017 14,011
 Potassium 38,822 10,967 14,206 13,946 14,431
 Magnesium 25,889 1456 4186 3980 4018
 Sodium 52,133 4082 7486 7212 7618
 Phosphorous 2786 8722 8876 9340 8638
 Sulphur 49,265 2998 8906 8323 8720
Microminerals (mg/kg)
 Copper 3.73 256 240 258 227
 Iron 537 265 258 294 253
 Manganese 39.0 142 129 145 145
 Zinc 8.96 257 261 256 281
 Iodine 45.1 1.45 5.88 7.12 5.66
 Bromine 694 11.7 77.3 86.3 81.8
Open in a new tab

Ctrl—control diet; UL—control + 7% Ulva lactuca; ULR—UL + 0.005% Rovabio® Excel AP; ULU—UL + 0.01% ulvan lyase.

aVitamin and trace mineral supplied per kilogram of diet—Vit. A: 25 000 IU; Vit. D3: 2000 IU; Vit. E: 20 IU; Vit C: 200 mg; Vit. B1: 1.5 mg; Vit. B2: 5 mg; Vit. B3: 30 mg, Vit. B5: 15 mg; Vit. B6: 2.5 mg; Vit. B9: 0.5 mg; Vit. B12: 0.03 mg; Vit. K3: 1 mg; Vit. H2: 80 mg; choline (chloride): 300 mg; I: 1 mg as potassium iodate; Mn: 50 mg as manganese (oxide); Fe: 120 mg as ferrous carbonate; Zn: 140 mg as zinc (oxide); Cu: 160 mg as copper sulphate; Se: 0.3 mg as sodium selenite; Co: 0.5 mg as cobalt carbonate.

bDetermined as previously reported by Ribeiro et al.5.

cCalculated from reference values: Ulva lactuca52, remaining feedstuffs53.

Blood biochemical parameters determination

Biochemical metabolites: triacylglycerols (TAG), total cholesterol, urea, total protein, albumin, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, glucose, insulin, hepatic markers, and creatinine concentrations were determined in serum using a Modular Hitachi Analytical System (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) and diagnostic kits (Roche Diagnostics, Meylan, France) following manufacturer’s instructions. VLDL-cholesterol and total lipids were determined using Covaci et al.54 and Friedewald et al.55 formulas. IgA, IgG and IgM were assessed by immunoturbidimetry. Total antioxidant capacity was determined by Quanti-Chrom Antioxidant Assay Kit (DTAC-100, Bioassay Systems, Hayward, CA, USA) and glutathione peroxidase activity (GPx) by EnzyChrom Glutathione Peroxidase Assay Kit (EGPx-100, Bioassay Systems). One unit of GPx is the amount of GPx that produces 1 μmol of glutathione disulphide (GSSG) per minute at pH = 7.6 and room temperature. White blood cells, red blood cells and thrombocytes counts were achieved through Sysmex XN-10 analysers (Sysmex Corporation, Kobe, Japan), as reported before20. Insulin growth factor-1 (IGF1), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and cortisol were determined by an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay kit (Roche Diagnostics, Meylan, France), as described56. Apolipoprotein A1 (ApoA1) and C-reactive protein were quantified by immunoturbidimetry (Roche Diagnostics, Meylan, France). IL-10 was determined with a DIASource (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) immunoassay kit. The main electrolytes (Na+, K+ and Cl-) were determined by indirect potentiometry.

Hepatic lipids determination

Freeze-dried hepatic samples were used for total lipid extraction, using the Folch et al.57 procedure with methanol and dichloromethane (1:2 v/v)58. Fatty acids were transesterified with NaOH in anhydrous methanol (0.5 M) followed by a solution of acetylchloride-methanol (1.25 M Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Mo, USA) at 50 ºC, for 30 and 10 min, respectively63. Fatty acid methyl esters were determined by gas-chromatography (Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, CA, USA) with a flame-ionization detector and a Supelcowax10 capillary column (30 m × 0.20 mm i.d., 0.20 μm film thickness; Supelco Inc., Bellefonte, PA, USA)59. The nonadecanoic acid (19:0) was the internal standard, converting peak areas into weight percentages. The identification of fatty acids was done according to their retention times and expressed as g/100 g of total fatty acids.

Hepatic pigments determinatio n

Chlorophylls a and b, and total carotenoids were determined using the Tolpeznikaite et al.60 protocol with minor modifications. In total, 2.5 g of fresh liver was weighted and 5 mL of 100% acetone added. Then, samples were homogenised with a T25 UltraTurrax homogenizer (IKA, Königswinter, Germany) and then centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 5 min at 4 ºC. The supernatant was separated and immediately analysed. These compounds were measured using UV–Vis spectrophotometry (ThermoScientific—Genesys 150, Waltham, MA, USA). The pigments content was determined using equations described by Dere et al.61.

Hepatic minerals determination

Hepatic minerals were determined as described by Ribeiro et al.62. Briefly, 300 mg of freeze-dried liver was weighed into a digestion tube. HCl and HNO3 solutions were added to each tube, followed by an overnight incubation. Before digestion, H2O2 was added to each tube followed by 1 h of gradual increase to 95 ºC, and another hour at constant 95 °C. Afterwards, the subsequent solution was filtered and processed with inductively coupled plasma—optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES).

Statistical analysis

Data treatment was performed with Statistical Analysis Software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) and analysed with the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure, using the piglet as the experimental unit. The effect of litter was also tested, but since it had no significant effect, it was removed from the model. Statistically significant differences were compared with the Tukey test of the PDIFF option. All data were presented as means with their standard errors (SEM). Statistical tests were significant at a probability level of 5%. Serum and hepatic metabolites were further processed for Principal Components Analysis with the RStudio software (version 2022.02.0 + 443), using the FactoMineR and factoextra packages, fviz_pca_ind function.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1. (14.1KB, docx)
Supplementary Table 2. (19KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

This research was financial supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Lisbon, Portugal) through PTDC/CAL-ZOO/30238/2017 grant, with an associated post-doc grant to M.M.C., and a PhD fellowship to D.M.R. (SFRH/BD/143992/2019), a Post-Doc fellowship to J.M.P. (SFRH/BPD/116816/2016) and a researcher contract to P.A.L. (DL57/2016/CP1438/CT0007) and CIISA (UIDB/00276/2020), AL4AnimalS (LA/P/0059/2020) and LEAF (UIDB/04129/2020) grants.

Author contributions

J.P.B.F. and J.A.M.P. designed the experiment. D.M.R., A.M.A. and J.P.B.F. conducted the animal experiment. D.M.R., R.M.A.P., P.A.L., J.M.P., C.M.A., M.M.C. and M.P.M. performed the laboratory work. D.M.R. and P.A.L wrote the first version of the manuscript. J.A.M.P. was accountable for project administration and funding acquisition. All authors agreed with the final version of the manuscript.

Data availability

All data is contained in the article.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

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

These authors contributed equally: David M. Ribeiro and Paula A. Lopes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-023-36008-4.

References

  • 1.Rotz, A. Environmental sustainability of livestock production. Meat Muscle Biol.4(2), 1–18 (2020).
  • 2.Costa M, Cardoso C, Afonso C, Bandarra NM, Prates JAM. Current knowledge and future perspectives of the use of seaweeds for livestock production and meat quality: A systematic review. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. (Berl) 2021;105:1075–1102. doi: 10.1111/jpn.13509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ribeiro DM, et al. Quality traits and nutritional value of pork and poultry meat from animals fed with seaweeds. Foods. 2021;10:2961. doi: 10.3390/foods10122961. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cardoso V, et al. Exogenous enzymes improve the nutritive value of cereal-based diets for monogastric animals through different mechanisms. In: Duarte AF, Costa LL, et al., editors. Advances in Animal Health, Medicine and Production. Springer; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ribeiro D, et al. Influence of feeding weaned piglets with Laminaria digitata on the quality and nutritional value of meat. Foods. 2022;11:1024. doi: 10.3390/foods11071024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Valente LMP, et al. Microalgae as feed ingredients for livestock production and aquaculture. In: Galanakis CM, et al., editors. Microalgae – Cultivation, Recovery of Compounds and Applications. Academic Press Inc; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Martins CF, et al. Using microalgae as a sustainable feed resource to enhance quality and nutritional value of pork and poultry meat. Foods. 2021;10:1–12. doi: 10.3390/foods10122933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Malo AR. Prospection of Bioactivities, Bioaccessibility, and Biochemical Characterization of Green Seaweeds Grown in Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture Environments. University of Algarve; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rioux L, Turgeon SL. Chapter 7 - Seaweed carbohydrates. In: Tiwari BK, Troy DJ, editors. Seaweed Sustainability Food and Non-Food Applications. Elsevier Inc.; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Abudabos AM, et al. Nutritional value of green seaweed (Ulva lactuca) for broiler chickens. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2013;12:177–181. doi: 10.4081/ijas.2013.e28. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Rasyid A. Evaluation of nutritional composition of the dried seaweed. Trop. Life Sci. Res. 2017;28:119–125. doi: 10.21315/tlsr2017.28.2.9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Costa MM, et al. Recalcitrant cell wall of Ulva lactuca seaweed is degraded by a single ulvan lyase from family 25 of polysaccharide lyases. Anim. Nutr. 2022;9:184. doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2022.01.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Givens I. Animal nutrition and lipids in animal products and their contribution to human intake and health. Nutrients. 2009;1:71–82. doi: 10.3390/nu1010071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Heo JM, et al. Gastrointestinal health and function in weaned pigs: A review of feeding strategies to control post-weaning diarrhoea without using in-feed antimicrobial compounds. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2013;97:207–237. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2012.01284.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lallès JP, Bosi P, Smidt H, Stokes CR. Nutritional management of gut health in pigs around weaning. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2007;66:260–268. doi: 10.1017/S0029665107005484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Pluske JR, Turpin DL, Kim JC. Gastrointestinal tract (gut) health in the young pig. Anim. Nutr. 2018;4:187–196. doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2017.12.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lopez-Galvez G, et al. Alternatives to antibiotics and trace elements (copper and zinc) to improve gut health and zootechnical parameters in piglets: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2021;271:114727. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114727. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Martins CF, et al. Impact of dietary Chlorella vulgaris and feed enzymes on health status, immune response and liver metabolites in weaned piglets. Sci. Rep. 2022;12:1–14. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-21238-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.dos Santos Madeira MSM, et al. Dietary Arthrospira platensis improves systemic antioxidant potential and changes plasma lipids without affecting related hepatic metabolic pathways in post-weaned piglets. BMC Vet. Res. 2021;17:1–15. doi: 10.1186/s12917-021-02869-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Coelho D, et al. Impact of Chlorella vulgaris as feed ingredient and carbohydrases on the health status and hepatic lipid metabolism of finishing pigs. Res. Vet. Sci. 2022;144:44–53. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2022.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bussy F, et al. Immunomodulating effect of a seaweed extract from Ulva armoricana in pig: Specific IgG and total IgA in colostrum, milk, and blood. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2019;7:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.vas.2019.100051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Feng Y, et al. Ulva prolifera extract alleviates intestinal oxidative stress via Nrf2 signaling in weaned piglets challenged with hydrogen peroxide. Front. Immunol. 2020;11:599735. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.599735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shimazu T, et al. Addition of Wakame seaweed (Undaria pinnatifida) stalk to animal feed enhances immune response and improves intestinal microflora in pigs. Anim. Sci. J. 2019;90:1248–1260. doi: 10.1111/asj.13274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Jackson P, Cockcroft P. Laboratory reference values: Biochemistry. In: Jackson P, Cockcroft P, editors. Clinical Examination of Farm Animals. Blackwell Science; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Calder PC. Mechanisms of action of (n-3) fatty acids. J. Nutr. 2012;142:59S2. doi: 10.3945/jn.111.155259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Osborne TF. Sterol regulatory element-binding proteins (SREBPS): Key regulators of nutritional homeostasis and insulin action. J. Biol. Chem. 2000;275:32379–32382. doi: 10.1074/jbc.R000017200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wilcox G. Insulin and insulin resistance. Clin. Biochem. Rev. 2005;26:19–39. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Furbeyre H, van Milgen J, Mener T, Gloaguen M, Labussiere E. Effects of oral supplementation with Spirulina and Chlorella on growth and digestive health in piglets around weaning. Animal. 2018;12:2264–2273. doi: 10.1017/S1751731118000125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Barbalace MC, et al. Anti-inflammatory activities of marine algae in neurodegenerative diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019;20:3061. doi: 10.3390/ijms20123061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Islam H, Chamberlain TC, Mui AL, Little JP. Elevated interleukin-10 levels in COVID-19: Potentiation of pro-inflammatory responses or impaired anti-inflammatory action? Front. Immunol. 2021;12:10–14. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.677008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Iyer SS, Cheng G. Role of interleukin 10 transcriptional regulation in inflammation and autoimmune disease. Crit. Rev. Immunol. 2012;32:23–63. doi: 10.1615/CritRevImmunol.v32.i1.30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Xing Z, et al. IL-6 is an antiinflammatory cytokine required for controlling local or systemic acute inflammatory responses. J. Clin. Invest. 1998;101:311–320. doi: 10.1172/JCI1368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pluske JR, Hampson DJ, Williams IH. Factors influencing the structure and function of the small intestine in the weaned pig: A review. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1997;51:215–236. doi: 10.1016/S0301-6226(97)00057-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Reyneveld GI, Savelkoul HFJ, Parmentier HK. Current understanding of natural antibodies and exploring the possibilities of modulation using veterinary models. A Review. Front. Immunol. 2020;11:1–19. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.02139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Stiehm ER, Fudenberg HH. Serum levels of immune globulins in health and disease: A survey. Pediatrics. 1966;37:715–727. doi: 10.1542/peds.37.5.715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lopez-Santamarina A, et al. Potential use of marine seaweeds as prebiotics: A review. Molecules. 2020;25:1–26. doi: 10.3390/molecules25041004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sugiharto, S. & Lauridsen, C. Dietary Chlorella supplementation effect on immune responses and growth performances of broiler chickens exposed to post hatch holding time. Livest. Res. Rural Dev.28(7), 1–6 (2016).
  • 38.Barkia I, Saari N, Manning SR. Microalgae for high-value products towards human health and nutrition. Mar. Drugs. 2019;17:1–29. doi: 10.3390/md17050304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Abdelnour SA, et al. Impacts of enriching growing rabbit diets with Chlorella vulgaris microalgae on growth, blood variables, carcass traits, immunological and antioxidant indices. Animals. 2019;9:788. doi: 10.3390/ani9100788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Martínez-Miró S, et al. Causes, consequences and biomarkers of stress in swine: An update. BMC Vet. Res. 2016;12:1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12917-016-0791-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rusu RO, Ailincai LI, Malancus RN. Stress induced by pre-slaughter farm conditions in pigs. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. e Zootec. 2021;73:1357–1360. doi: 10.1590/1678-4162-12361. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Toscano MJ, Lay DC, Craig BA, Pajor EA. Assessing the adaptation of swine to fifty-seven hours of feed deprivation in terms of behavioral and physiological responses. J. Anim. Sci. 2007;85:441–451. doi: 10.2527/jas.2006-316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Molla MD, et al. Assessment of serum electrolytes and kidney function test for screening of chronic kidney disease among Ethiopian Public Health Institute staff members, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Nephrol. 2020;21:1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-02166-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Nagami GT. Brief review Hyperchloremia – Why and how. Nefrologia. 2016;6:347–353. doi: 10.1016/j.nefro.2016.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Tucker JM, Townsend DM. Alpha-tocopherol: Roles in prevention and therapy of human disease. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2005;59:380–387. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2005.06.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Tao L, Sun T, Magnuson AD, Qamar TR, Lei XG. Defatted microalgae-mediated enrichment of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in chicken muscle is not affected by dietary selenium, vitamin E, or corn oil. J. Nutr. 2018;148:1547–1555. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxy164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Valenzuela R, Videla LA. The importance of the long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid n-6/n-3 ratio in development of non-alcoholic fatty liver associated with obesity. Food Funct. 2011;2:644. doi: 10.1039/c1fo10133a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Alfaia CMM, et al. Current feeding strategies to improve pork intramuscular fat content and its nutritional quality. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2019;89:53–94. doi: 10.1016/bs.afnr.2019.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Michalak I, Chojnacka K, Korniewicz D. New feed supplement from macroalgae as the dietary source of microelements for pigs. OPEN Chem. 2015;13:1341–1352. doi: 10.1515/chem-2015-0149. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ribeiro DM, Mourato MP, Almeida AM. Assessing mineral status in edible tissues of domestic and game animals: A review with a special emphasis in tropical regions. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019;51:1019–1032. doi: 10.1007/s11250-019-01848-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Espinosa CD, Stein HH. Digestibility and metabolism of copper in diets for pigs and influence of dietary copper on growth performance, intestinal health, and overall immune status: A review. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2021;12:1–12. doi: 10.1186/s40104-020-00533-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Laramore SE, Wills PS, Hanisak MD. Seasonal variation in the nutritional profile of Ulva lactuca produced in a land-based IMTA system. Aquac. Int. 2022;30:3067–3079. doi: 10.1007/s10499-022-00950-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sauvant D, Perez JM, Tran G. Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials. Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Covaci A, Voorspoels S, Thomsen C, van Bavel B, Neels H. Evaluation of total lipids using enzymatic methods for the normalization of persistent organic pollutant levels in serum. Sci. Total Environ. 2006;366:361–366. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin. Chem. 1972;18:499–502. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/18.6.499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Prates JAM, et al. Influence of dietary supplementation with an amino acid mixture on inflammatory markers, immune status and serum proteome in lps-challenged weaned piglets. Animals. 2021;11:1143. doi: 10.3390/ani11041143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Folch J, Lees M, Sloane Stanley GH. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipides from animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 1957;226:497–509. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)64849-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Carlson LA. Extraction of lipids from human whole serum and lipoproteins and from rat liver tissue with methylene chloride-methanol: A comparison with extraction with chloroform-methanol. Clin. Chim. Acta. 1985;149:89–93. doi: 10.1016/0009-8981(85)90277-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Alves SP, Bessa RJB. Comparison of two gas–liquid chromatograph columns for the analysis of fatty acids in ruminant meat. J. Chromatogr. A. 2009;1216:5130–5139. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2009.04.079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Tolpeznikaite E, et al. Characterization of macro-and microalgae extracts bioactive compounds and micro-and macroelements transition from algae to extract. Foods. 2021;10:1–22. doi: 10.3390/foods10092226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Dere Ş, Güneş T, Sivaci R. Spectrophotometric determination of chlorophyll - A, B and total caretenoid contents of some algae species using different solvents. Turk. J. Botany. 1998;22:13–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Ribeiro DM, et al. Mineral profiling of muscle and hepatic tissues of Australian Merino, Damara and Dorper lambs: Effect of weight loss. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. (Berl) 2020;104:823–830. doi: 10.1111/jpn.13339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Raes K, de Smet S, Demeyer D. Effect of double-muscling in Belgian Blue young bulls on the intramuscular fatty acid composition with emphasis on conjugated linoleic acid and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Anim. Sci. 2001;73:253–260. doi: 10.1017/S1357729800058227. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Table 1. (14.1KB, docx)
Supplementary Table 2. (19KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

All data is contained in the article.

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES