Table 4.
Relative abundance of bacterial families in the ileal mucosa of broiler chickens as affected by dietary treatments and age (%).
| Family | Ileal Mucosa | FDR p-Values | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dietary Treatment | Age of Birds | Mean (Dietary Treatment) | |||||||
| d 7 | d 14 | d 21 | d 40 | Dietary Treatment | Day | Int. | |||
| Clostridiaceae_1 | C | 83.77 | 82.22 | 70.38 | 4.26 | 60.16 | 0.590 | 0.022 | |
| Br | 72.28 | 78.10 | 51.62 | 4.29 | 51.57 | ||||
| Sy | 42.28 | 72.84 | 84.99 | 12.22 | 53.08 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 66.11 a | 77.72 a | 69.00 a | 6.92 b | 0.001 | ||||
| Peptostreptococcaceae | C | 1.06 | 2.43 | 1.93 | 17.75 | 5.79 | 0.730 | 0.590 | |
| Br | 11.09 | 4.26 | 10.64 | 10.90 | 9.22 | ||||
| Sy | 12.38 | 1.62 | 1.98 | 18.14 | 8.53 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 8.18 ab | 2.77 b | 4.85 ab | 15.60 a | 0.091 | ||||
| Lactobacillaceae | C | 6.48 | 4.00 | 11.91 AB | 41.35 | 15.94 | 0.590 | 0.025 | |
| Br | 6.00 | 5.93 | 22.64 A | 64.41 | 24.74 | ||||
| Sy | 16.25 | 9.96 | 3.90 B | 47.03 | 19.28 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 9.58 b | 6.63 b | 12.82 b | 50.93 a | 0.001 | ||||
| Enterococcaceae | C | 6.47 | 0.05 | 0.45 | 3.38 | 2.59 | 0.750 | 0.950 | |
| Br | 3.86 | 0.06 | 1.51 | 1.13 | 1.64 | ||||
| Sy | 11.95 | 0.79 | 0.25 | 3.62 | 4.15 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 7.42 | 0.30 | 0.74 | 2.71 | 0.250 | ||||
| Lachnospiraceae | C | 0.22 | 1.92 | 1.76 | 0.56 | 1.11 | 0.680 | 0.680 | |
| Br | 1.27 | 1.99 | 3.21 | 1.39 | 1.97 | ||||
| Sy | 3.41 | 1.94 | 1.74 | 0.32 | 1.86 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 1.63 | 1.95 | 2.24 | 0.76 | 0.490 | ||||
| Burkholderiaceae | C | 0.45 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.01 | 0.18 | 0.590 | 0.110 | |
| Br | 1.18 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.34 | ||||
| Sy | 2.67 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.70 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 1.43 a | 0.06 b | 0.13 b | 0.01 b | 0.002 | ||||
| Ruminococcaceae | C | 0.19 | 2.82 | 2.12 | 0.60 | 1.44 | 0.990 | 0.600 | |
| Br | 0.83 | 1.52 | 2.32 | 1.54 | 1.55 | ||||
| Sy | 2.59 | 2.36 | 1.17 | 0.16 | 1.57 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 1.20 | 2.24 | 1.87 | 0.77 | 0.440 | ||||
| Pseudomonadaceae | C | 0.06 | 1.98 | 3.46 | 0.16 | 1.41 | 0.980 | 0.170 | |
| Br | 0.25 | 3.32 | 1.60 | 0.10 | 1.32 | ||||
| Sy | 0.69 | 3.11 | 1.32 | 0.09 | 1.30 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 0.33 b | 2.80 a | 2.12 a | 0.12 b | 0.001 | ||||
| Streptococcaceae | C | 0.17 | 0.50 | 1.01 | 14.73 | 4.10 | 0.590 | 0.048 | |
| Br | 0.20 | 0.85 | 1.39 | 6.76 | 2.30 | ||||
| Sy | 0.19 | 2.02 | 0.51 | 5.40 | 2.03 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 0.19 b | 1.12 b | 0.97 b | 8.96 a | 0.001 | ||||
| Erysipelotrichaceae | C | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.84 | 10.91 | 2.97 | 0.670 | 0.810 | |
| Br | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.19 | 6.06 | 1.58 | ||||
| Sy | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.24 | 9.31 | 2.45 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 0.06 b | 0.09 b | 0.43 b | 8.76 a | 0.001 | ||||
| Bacillaceae | C | 0.26 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.590 | 0.077 | |
| Br | 0.67 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.24 | ||||
| Sy | 1.66 | 0.25 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.50 | ||||
| Mean (Age) | 0.86 a | 0.17 b | 0.14 c | 0.02 d | 0.003 | ||||
Bacterial family differences between groups were assessed using two-way ANOVA test, with Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) correction. FDR-corrected p-values below 0.05 were considered significant. Dietary treatment effects at each sampling days were also compared with one-way ANOVA. The significance of Tukey’s HSD multiple group comparison’s post hoc tests was indicated at p ˂ 0.05. a, b, c, d: values within the mean (Day) rows with different lowercase letters were significantly different (p < 0.05). A, B: values within the mean (d 7) column with different capital letter superscripts were significantly different (p < 0.05). The table shows only those families for which the group average of relative abundance was higher than 1%. “Int.” means the FDR p-values of interaction between the two main factors, age, and dietary treatment.