Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder on growth performance, antioxidant activity and gut health of broiler chickens

Srinivas Gurram; Chinni Preetam V; Vijaya Lakshmi K; Raju M V L N; Venkateswarlu M; Swathi Bora

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270231

. 2022 Jun 27;17(6):e0270231. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270231

Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder on growth performance, antioxidant activity and gut health of broiler chickens

Srinivas Gurram ^1,^*, Chinni Preetam V ^2,^#, Vijaya Lakshmi K ^3,^#, Raju M V L N ^4,^#, Venkateswarlu M ^5,^#, Swathi Bora ^6,^#

Editor: Kumar Venkitanarayanan⁷

PMCID: PMC9236266 PMID: 35759473

Abstract

Gut health plays an important role on production and performance of broilers. This trial was undertaken with an aim to evaluate the synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder on the performance and gut health of broiler chicken. For this purpose, a total of 240 day-old broiler chicks were randomly allotted to six dietary treatments with 8 replicates of 5 birds in each. Treatment groups included T₁ as control i.e., basal diet (BD) without any growth promoter and T₂—BD + antibiotic (BMD 0.05%). In the remaining experimental diets, T₃—probiotic (@ 0.01%) + chicory root powder (@ 1.0%), T₄—probiotic (@ 0.01%) + coriander seed powder (@ 1.5%), T₅—chicory root powder (@ 1.0%) + coriander seed powder (@ 1.5%) and T₆—probiotic (@ 0.01%) + chicory root powder (@ 1.0%) + coriander seed powder (@ 1.5%). The results indicated that supplementation of probiotic + chicory (T₃), probiotic + coriander (T₄), chicory + coriander (T₅) and probiotic + chicory + coriander (T₆) in combination resulted in significantly (P<0.05) higher weight gain and better FCR compared to control and antibiotic groups at 42 d of age. Supplementation of different dietary groups did not show any significant (P>0.05) effect on feed intake of broilers. Supplementation of all the test diets (T₃ to T₆) significantly (P<0.05) increased the glutathione peroxidase (GSHPx), glutathione reductase (GSHRx) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) enzyme activity when compared to control and antibiotic groups at 42 d of age. Supplementation of all the test diets (T₃ to T₆) significantly (P<0.05) lowered the pH in the gut, increased Lactobacillus counts, and reduced E. coli and Salmonella counts in the ileum compared to control and antibiotic groups. Supplementation of all the test diets (T₃ to T₆) significantly (P<0.05) increased the villus height (VH), crypt depth (CD), VH:CD ratio and villus width (VW) in the duodenum and only VH and CD in the ileum compared to control and antibiotic groups. Significantly (P<0.05) higher jejunal VH and VW and increased the goblet cell number in duodenum, jejunum and ileum was recorded in all test diets (T₃ to T₆) compared to control and antibiotic groups. Therefore, combinations of probiotic (0.01%), chicory root powder (1.0%) and coriander seed powder (1.5%) can be used as feed additive for improving performance and gut health of broiler chicken.

Introduction

Antibiotics are being used as growth promoters in the poultry diets all over the world. However, in recent years, there has been rising demand to reduce or abolish the use of antibiotics as growth promoters due to the detrimental human health issue of antibiotic resistance [1]. Consumers’ awareness of poultry products that do not contain antibiotic residues has increased, encouraging the use of suitable alternatives to antimicrobial compounds [2]. Among the feed additives, probiotics, prebiotics, organic acids, enzymes and medicinal plants have drawn more attention due to their prophylactic and growth promoting effects. Thus, the use of probiotics, medicinal plants, herbs and spices in poultry diets has become more popular worldwide as an alternative to antibiotics to minimize the disease incidence and achieving better performance in chicken [2].

Probiotics are single or mixed cultures of live microorganisms which beneficially affect the host by improving the balance of intestinal flora [3]. Probiotics maintain the beneficial intestinal microflora by competitive exclusion and antagonism, lowering the gut pH through acid fermentation, limiting the damage caused by pathogenic bacteria [4], improving epithelial cell integrity (villi height and width), producing bacteriocins, stimulating the gut associated immune system and increasing the production of short-chain fatty acids. Recently, herbal feed additive products like chicory root powder are gaining attention as they indirectly promote antimicrobial action by reducing the harmful bacteria in the gut. Dried chicory root powder is a good source of inulin type fructans and oligofructose chains known for having prebiotic action without any toxicity [5]. Inulin-type fructans are indigestible carbohydrates, recognized as dietary fibers that improve intestinal health and bird’s performance through their prebiotic properties [6]. The fermentation activity of inulin inhibits the growth of harmful strains, selectively stimulates the growth of beneficial bacteria by decreasing the intestinal pH through increasing the absorption of short chain fatty acids and thus promotes the growth of broiler chickens [7, 8]. Similarly, probiotic + prebiotic supplementation decreased intestinal pH and viscosity in broilers [9]. Addition of probiotics (Lactobacillus acidophilus and lactose fermenting enterobacteria) and prebiotic combinations in broilers significantly (P<0.05) increased the villus height and crypt depth of the duodenum, ileum and jejunum [10].

Coriander (Coriandrum sativum) is regarded as both herb and spice, and has been used in medicine for thousands of years. Coriander seeds possess antioxidant, diuretic, anti-diabetic, hypocholesterolemic, antimicrobial, anthelmintic and anti-mutagenic qualities [11, 12]. Coriander seed powder contains 0.5–1.0% essential oil (carvone, geraniol, limonene, borneol, camphor, elemol and linalool) having antimicrobial properties against food borne pathogen such as Salmonella species [13]. In addition, it has appetizing and stimulatory effects in the digestion process by increasing production of digestive enzymes and juices, which stimulates digestion and peristaltic motion, thus improves feed efficiency [14, 15]. Coriander seed powder as an alternative to antibiotic growth promoter has been recommended for feeding in broilers by several authors [16–18]. In view of the above, this experiment was designed to evaluate the synergistic effect of probiotic (0.01%), chicory root powder (1.0%) and coriander seed powder (1.5%) on the performance, antioxidant status and gut health of broiler chicken.

Materials and methods

To conduct the study, two hundred and forty (240) day old commercial (Vencobb 400) broiler chicks were procured, individually weighed and wing banded. The birds were distributed randomly into 6 dietary treatments, each with 8 replicates having 5 chicks in each replicate. The chicks were reared in battery brooders under standard managemental conditions. The experimental period was from day old to 42 d of age. The birds were fed with maize and soybean meal-based diets containing 2958, 3074 and 3163 kcal ME and 22.76, 21.58 and 19.68 percent crude protein, respectively during prestarter (0-14d), starter (15-28d) and finisher (28-42d) phases (Table 1). All the treatment concentrations in the feed were weight/weight basis. Treatment groups (Table 2) included T₁ as control i.e., basal diet (BD) without any growth promoter and T₂—BD + antibiotic (Bacitracin Methylene Disalicylate at 0.05%–manufacturer Zoetis). In the remaining experimental diets, T₃—probiotic (@ 0.01%) + chicory root powder (@ 1.0%), T₄—probiotic (@ 0.01%) + coriander seed powder (@ 1.5%), T₅—chicory root powder (@ 1.0%) + coriander seed powder (@ 1.5%) and T₆—probiotic (@ 0.01%) + chicory root powder (@ 1.0%) + coriander seed powder (@ 1.5%). The probiotic contains 10⁹ CFU/g of lyophilized and microencapsulated Bacillus coagulans, saccharomyces boulardii, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus delbrueckii, Lactobacillus plantarum, Streptococcus thermophilus, Bacillus subtilis, Enterococcus faecium, Bifidobacterium bifidum. The chemical composition of chicory root powder and coriander seed powder was given in Table 3. The dose levels (Probiotic at 0.01%, chicory at 1.0% and coriander at 1.5% levels) were selected based on previous trail results conducted.

Table 1. Ingredient composition of basal diets (in kgs) fed to the commercial broilers from 0-42days.

Ingredient	Pre-starter (0-14d)	Starter (15-28d)	Finisher (29-42d)
Maize	55.9	56.4	60.0
Oil	2.10	4.0	5.0
Soyabean meal (CP 46%)	37.1	34.8	30.1
Stone grit	1.58	1.83	1.88
Dicalcium phosphate	1.85	1.90	1.96
Salt (NaCl)	0.45	0.49	0.49
DL-Methionine	0.22	0.18	0.16
L-Lysine HCl (99%)	0.17	0.15	0.13
Trace Mineral Mixture^*	0.10	0.10	0.10
Vitamin AB2D3K^**	0.020	0.020	0.020
Vitamin B-Complex^***	0.025	0.025	0.025
Choline chloride (50%)	0.15	0.15	0.15
Toxin binder	0.10	0.10	-
Total	100	100	100
Nutrient composition (calculated values)
ME (kcal/kg)	2964	3075	3167
Crude protein (%)	22.90	21.65	19.65
Lysine (%)	1.28	1.21	1.10
Methionine (%)	0.53	0.49	0.47
Calcium (%)	0.95	1.04	1.06
Available phosphorous (%)	0.45	0.45	0.45

Open in a new tab

*Trace mineral provided per kg diet (Avimin): Manganese 80mg, Zinc 70g, Iron 40g, Copper 8mg, Iodine 1gm and Selenium 0.25g.

**Vitamin AB2D3K each gram contains (Nicomix): Vitamin A 82500IU, Vitamin D3 12000IU, Vitamin B2 50mg, Vitamin K 10mg

*** Vitamin B-Complex each gram contains (Nicomix); Vitamin B1 4mg, Vitamin B6 8mg, Vitamin B12 40mcg, Niacin 60mg, Calcium Pantothenate 40mg, Vitamin E 40mg.

Table 2. Experimental diets.

Trt	Experimental Diets
T₁	Basal diet (BD) without additive
T₂	BD + Antibiotic (BMD @ 0.05%)
T₃	BD + Probiotic (@ 0.01%) + Chicory root powder (@ 1.0%)
T₄	BD + Probiotic (@ 0.01%) + Coriander seed powder (@ 1.5%)
T₅	BD + Chicory root powder (@ 1.0%) + Coriander seed powder (@ 1.5%)
T₆	BD + Probiotic (@ 0.01%) + Chicory root powder (@ 1.0%) + Coriander seed powder (@ 1.5%)

Open in a new tab

Table 3. Chemical composition of Chicory root powder.

Composition (%)	Chicory root powder	Coriander seed powder
Moisture	3.16	3.23
Crude protein	14.55	14.91
Fat	1.76	0.96
Ash	3.98	8.88
Crude fiber	30.01	34.21
Total carbohydrates	48.76	50.12
Inulin	46.89	-

Open in a new tab

Brooder temperature was maintained at 34 ± 1°C up to 7 days of age and then gradually reduced to 26 ± 1°C by 21 days of age after which chicks were maintained uniformly at room temperature. Feed and water were offered ad libitum throughout the experimental period. Weekly body weight, Feed intake and feed conversion ratios were calculated as feed intake per unit bodyweight gain at weekly intervals. The mortality rate was recorded throughout the experiment. The metabolic trial was conducted with one bird from each replicate to determine the retention efficiency of Dry Matter (DM), Crude Protein (CP) and energy as per the procedures described by AOAC (1997) [19]. The antioxidant enzymes such as glutathione Peroxidase (GSHPx), glutathione Reductase (GSHRx) and superoxide Dismutase (SOD) were estimated by following the methods of Paglia and Valentine (1967) [20], Carlberg and Mannervik (1985) [21] and Madesh and Balsubramanian (1998) [22] respectively.

Before slaughter, the birds were fasted overnight with free access to water and sacrificed by cervical dislocation and allowed for complete bleeding for 5 to 7 minutes. One bird from each replicate was sacrificed on 42^nd day of age from each treatment group. Gut (proventriculus, gizzard, duodenum and ileum) pH was recorded immediately after collection of gastro-intestinal contents from respective part of gut. Approximately 1.0 g of sample content was suspended in 5ml distilled water, mixed vigorously with glass rod and pH was determined using digital pH meter. The electrode was rinsed with distilled water and recalibrated in between the readings [23].

Gut ecology

Eight birds from each dietary treatment were slaughtered on 42^nd day and intestines were dissected at Meckel’s diverticulum. Approximately 5g of ileal digesta was collected aseptically into sterile sampling tubes and immediately transferred on ice to the laboratory for microbiological examination for E. coli, Salmonella spp and Lactobacilli spp counts. Eosin methylene blue agar (EMB) was used for E. coli growth, Salmonella-Shigella agar (SS Agar) used for Salmonella spp. and MRS agar (De Man, Rogosa and Sharpe agar) used for Lactobacilli spp growth.

Then, 9 sterile test tubes with lids containing 9mL of phosphate buffer solution (PBS, pH-7.4) as diluent were prepared. Approximately 1g of the intestinal contents taken by sterile swab and homogenized for 3 min, aseptically mixed, added to the tubes, and diluted up to 10⁹. Later, 1ml of the contents of each test tube was transferred to one of three selective agar media on petri plates, respectively [24]. Aerobic bacterial plates (E. coli, Salmonella spp) were placed in an incubator at 37°C for 24 hours. Anaerobic (Lactobacilli spp) medium plates were placed in an anaerobic jar with an anaerobic gas pack system at 37°C for 24 hours. Finally, the intestinal bacterial colony populations formed in each plate was counted by colony counter and the number of colonies was expressed as log10 value.

Histomorphometry

On 42^nd day during slaughter, 2 cm long segment of duodenum, jejunum and ileum of eight birds from each treatment were collected and then washed with physiological saline solution and fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin solution. These samples were processed for histomorphological examination in terms of measurement of parameters like villous height (VH), cryptal depth (CD), villus width and villous height:crypt depth ratio. Histological technique involves processes like fixation of tissue, dehydration, clearing, embedding, cutting and staining. Fixation in 10% formalin with approximately 10–20 times the volume of the specimen was done. Tissues were dehydrated by using increasing strength of alcohol like 50%, 70%, 90% and 100%. Clearing was done by replacing alcohol by xylene for 0.5–1 hour. Impregnation of tissue with wax was done at melting point temperature of paraffin wax and the volume of wax was about 25–30 times the volume of tissues for a total duration of 4 hours. Impregnated tissues were placed in a mould with their labels and then fresh melted wax was poured in it and allowed to settle and solidify. These paraffin embedded tissues were sectioned at 5μm thickness and stained routinely with Hematoxylin-Eosin stain (H&E).

Histological sections were examined under 2X of light microscopy with micrometry and photographic attachment. The images were analyzed using image analyzing software (OLYMPUS cellSens Standard, version 1.13). A total of 20 intact well oriented crypt-villous units per bird were selected randomly, measured and the mean length was calculated for each sample. Villous height was measured from the tip of the villi to the base between individual villi, and crypt depth measurements were taken from the valley between individual villi to the basal membrane.

Record of temperature was maintained on daily basis where the highest daily average temperature recorded is 39.15°C and the lowest temperature is 20.8°C during the experimental period. The average relative humidity is 68.65 during the experimental period. The experiment was conducted during February and march- 2020.

Data analyzed for mean, standard errors and analysis of variance as per method of [25] and comparison of means were done [26] using software of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 20.0 version and significance was considered at P<0.05.

Ethical approval

All authors hereby declare that all biological trials have been examined and approved by the ethics committee of PV Narsimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, India (Institutional Animal Ethics Committee number: IV/2019-02/IAEC/CVSC, Hyderabad, India) and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards. No consent was raised by animal ethics committee while obtaining permission.

Results and discussion

Body weight gain

The results clearly indicated that supplementation of all test diets (T₃ to T₆) exhibited significantly (P<0.05) higher body weight gain compared to control (T₁) and antibiotic (T₂) groups at 42 days of age. The highest cumulative body weight gain (2185g) was recorded in probiotic + chicory (T₃) combination group followed by probiotic + coriander (T₄), chicory + coriander (T₅) and probiotic + chicory + coriander (T₆) groups. However, the lowest weight gain was recorded in control (T₁) and antibiotic (T₂) groups (Table 4). These results are in line with the findings of Taherpour et al. (2009) [27], who reported supplementation of probiotic and prebiotic combination improved the final body weight of broilers at 42 d of age. Similarly, supplementation of probiotic + prebiotic and probiotic + enzyme combination increased the body weight of broilers compared to control at 42 d of age [9]. Barad et al. (2017) [17] observed higher body weight gain in coriander seeds supplemented group when compared to control, turmeric powder and black pepper groups. Contrary to above results, Hofacre et al. (2003) [28] and Al-Khalaifa et al. (2019) [29] did not find positive effect on body weight in broilers fed with prebiotic + probiotic combination at 28 d of age.

Table 4. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on body weight gain (g), feed intake and feed conversion ratio of broiler chicken.

Trt	Diets	Body weight gain	Feed intake	Feed conversion ratio
T ₁	Control	1975^d	3533	1.79^c
T ₂	Antibiotic	2016^c	3566	1.69^bc
T ₃	Probiotic + Chicory	2185^a	3553	1.63^a
T ₄	Probiotic + Coriander	2149^b	3564	1.66^ab
T ₅	Chicory + Coriander	2144^b	3561	1.66^ab
T ₆	Probiotic + Chicory + Coriander	2140^b	3545	1.65^ab
SEM		10.627	15.869	0.0082
N		8	8	8
p-value		0.001	0.113	0.001

Open in a new tab

Value bearing different superscripts within a column are significantly (P<0.05) different.

The highest mean weight gain was recorded in probiotic + chicory (T₃) combination group which was significantly (P<0.05) higher among all the treatments. Similarly, Sanja et al. (2015) [30] reported addition of synbiotics (Enterococcus faecim + fructooligosaccharides) improved the body weight of broilers. Supplementation of probiotics and inulin combinations significantly (P <0.05) improved body weight gain in broilers [31]. The complimentary effect of probiotic and chicory powder on cumulative body weight gain as observed in the present study might be due to the suppression of undesirable microorganisms that lead to improved health status [32], increased nutrient digestibility, greater nutrient retention and improved gut health [33]. Similarly, increased body weight gains upon feeding diets containing probiotic + prebiotic combination [34–36] and probiotic + herb combination [37] in broiler chicken. Significant reduction in the counts of E. coli and Salmonella and reduction in gut pH by the supplementation of probiotic + chicory, probiotic + coriander, chicory + coriander and probiotic + chicory + coriander combinations in the present study is also in support with the authors. Contrary to above results, supplementation of probiotic + prebiotic combination did effect on body weight gain in broilers [10, 38, 39]

Feed Intake (FI)

The ANOVA revealed that there were no significant (P>0.05) differences in feed intake among different dietary treatments during overall experimental period (Table 4). The feed intake values at 42 d of age ranged between 3533 g to 3566 g. Similarly, supplementation of probiotic + prebiotic combination did not have significant (P>0.05) on FI of broilers [29]. In agreement with the results of this study, a series of earlier studies demonstrated that addition of probiotics + prebiotics [9, 36], chicory root powder [40, 41] and coriander seed powder [42] to the diet did not result in significant (P>0.05) effect on feed intake of broilers. On the contrary, probiotics + prebiotics [30], probiotic + herb combination [37], chicory root powder [30, 43] and coriander seed powder [17, 18] to the diets resulted in significant (P<0.05) effect on feed intake of broilers. These variations may be due to environmental factors and levels of the additives used in the experiment.

Feed conversion ratio (feed intake/ body weight gain)

Supplementation of probiotic + chicory (T₃), probiotic + coriander (T₄), chicory + coriander (T₅) and probiotic + chicory + coriander (T₆) combination groups significantly (P<0.05) improved the efficiency of feed utilization compared to control and antibiotic. However, broilers fed with the probiotic + chicory (T₃) combination group was more efficient at converting feed to body mass during entire experimental period (Table 4). To stimulate the growth of beneficial bacteria in the gut using a probiotic + chicory (T₃) combination was more effective than the other combinations in this study. This might be due to symbiotic relation between chicory inulin and probiotic. Chicory root powder inulin serves as a source of nutrient for the probiotic bacterial cultures for early establishing in the gut. Similar results were reported by Szakacs et al. (2015) [44] and Sanja et al. (2015) [30] who stated that probiotic + prebiotic combination improved feed efficiency in broilers. Ashayerizadeh et al. (2009) [45] reported that addition of antibiotic, probiotic + prebiotic combination improved FCR compared to control. Improved feed efficiency with probiotic 0.4% + prebiotic 0.2% was also reported by Utami and Wahyono (2019) [36]. In agreement with the results of probiotic + coriander combination in this experiment, Hedayati and Manafi (2018) [37] reported that probiotic and herbal compound supplementation significantly (P<0.05) improved feed conversion ratio compared to control and antibiotic in broilers. However, in contrary to our findings, Kirkpinar et al. (2018) [9] and Al-Khalaifa et al. (2019) [29] did not find positive effect of probiotic and prebiotic combination on FCR of broilers.

Improvement in feed conversion efficiency in treatment groups might be attributed to enhanced digestive enzymes activity and an encouraged growth of the beneficial micro-flora in the GIT induced by dietary supplementation of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder combination [46, 47]. Mode of action of above feed additives differs from one another, but in general they are all considered as antimicrobial agents. Improvement in feed efficiency might be obtained by several factors like alteration in intestinal pH, suppression of growth of intestinal pathogens, enhancement of growth of non-pathogenic bacteria and improvement of intestinal function (increased villi height, crypt depth and integrity) and nutrient digestibility.

Nutrient utilization

Supplementation of all the test diets (T₃ to T₆) significantly (P<0.05) improved the energy retention, protein utilisation and dry matter digestibility compared to antibiotic, control groups (Table 5). The increased nutrient utilization in treatment groups might be due to probiotic bacteria, prebiotic properties of inulin and essential oils in coriander seed powder. Inulin-type fructan is a soluble fermentable fiber that is not digested by host digestive enzymes and serves as a substrate for beneficial like bifidobacteriae and lactobacilli in the lower part of the intestinal tract, the caeca and colon must be considered the sites of their effects on reabsorption of nutrients [48]. The mechanism by which inulin-type fructans may stimulate absorption is not well-known. The hypothesis more accepted is that the fermentation of inulin type fructans in the large intestine results in the production of short-chain fatty acids and lowers the gut pH. A lower intestinal pH facilitates absorption of nutrients [49, 50]. Similarly, Yang et al. (2008) [51] reported that supplementation of mannanoligosaccharides improved the energy and protein utilization in broilers. Justina et al. (2018) [52] indicated that supplementation of β-mannanase in broilers improved the dry matter digestibility and nutrient utilization. The enhanced dry matter digestibility and nutrient utilization may be attributed to the essential oils in coriander seed powder, which not only act as antibacterial and antioxidant, but also as stimulant of digestive enzymes in the intestinal mucosa, which might have improved the utilization of nutrients [15]. Similar results were also reported by Barad et al. (2017) [17] and Reddy et al. (2019) [53].

Table 5. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on nutrient utilization of broiler chicken.

Trt	Diets	Energy %	Protein %	Dry matter %
T ₁	Control	70.52^c	80.11^c	72.65^c
T ₂	Antibiotic	72.25^b	82.06^b	74.18^b
T ₃	Probiotic + Chicory	75.77^a	84.94^a	76.89^a
T ₄	Probiotic + Coriander	75.52^a	84.16^a	76.80^a
T ₅	Chicory + Coriander	75.21^a	84.11^a	76.02^a
T ₆	Probiotic + Chicory + Coriander	75.68^a	84.01^a	76.92^a
SEM		0.510	0.611	0.402
N		8	8	8
p-value		0.001	0.002	0.002

Open in a new tab

Value bearing different superscripts within a column are significantly (P<0.05) different

Antioxidant enzyme activity

The glutathione peroxidase (Units/ml) enzyme activity was significantly (P<0.05) higher with all the test diets (T₃ to T₆) compared to control (T₁) and antibiotic (T₂), the highest enzyme activity being recorded in probiotic + chicory combination (T₃) and probiotic + coriander combination (T₄) groups. The other groups showed intermediate glutathione peroxidase enzyme activity. However, Supplementation of all test diet (T₃ to T₆) significantly (P<0.05) increased the glutathione reductase and superoxide dismutase enzyme activity compared to control and antibiotic (Table 6). Increased concentration of antioxidant enzymes in our study, is an indicator of better free radical scavenging of test diets. The steady state of antioxidant enzymes activity in all test groups may reflect a significant improvement in health and oxidative status of the birds. In agreement with the results, Tagang et al. (2013) [54] and Shen et al. (2014) [55] recorded increased (P<0.05) activity of serum catalase and glutathione peroxidase enzymes with probiotics in broilers. Similar results were also reported by Dong et al. (2019) [56] and Tengfei et al. (2019) [57] with probiotic supplementation in broilers.

Table 6. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on antioxidant enzyme activity of broiler chicken at 42 d of age.

Trt	Diets	Glutathione peroxidase (Units/ml)	Glutathione reductase (Units/ml)	Superoxide dismutase (Units/mg protein)
T ₁	Control	243^d	1636^b	6.62^b
T ₂	Antibiotic	314^c	1664^b	7.01^ab
T ₃	Probiotic + Chicory	397^a	1782^a	7.37^a
T ₄	Probiotic + Coriander	393^a	1792^a	7.25^a
T ₅	Chicory + Coriander	363^b	1814^a	7.24^a
T ₆	Probiotic + Chicory + Coriander	365^b	1835^a	7.39^a
SEM		8.042	15.67	0.069
N		8	8	8
P-value		0.001	0.001	0.005

Open in a new tab

Value bearing different superscripts within a column are significantly (P<0.05) different

In agreement with the positive results of chicory root powder on antioxidant activity, Sanja et al. (2015) [30] reported that addition of synbiotics (Enterococcus faecim + fructooligosaccharides) significantly (P<0.05) increased serum glutathione peroxidase, peroxidase, glutathione reductase and catalase enzyme activities compared to the control group. Similarly, Wang et al. (2018) [58] observed increased total antioxidant capacity in prebiotics than control and antibiotic (Aureomycin) in broilers. Decreased lipid peroxidation levels and increased activity of the superoxide dismutase and catalase enzymes in broilers fed with inulin was reported by Andreia et al. (2020) [59].

The increase in activity of these antioxidant enzymes with supplementation of probiotics and chicory root powder might be due to better control of intestinal pathogens in the gut. Aerobic bacteria (Bacillus spp) use oxygen in the intestine to provide an anaerobic environment for the colonization of anaerobic bacteria, such as Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria. Therefore, these lactic acid-producing bacteria produce a more acidic environment, which impairs the growth of opportunistic pathogens [60]. Lactobacillus acidophilus increased the hydroxyl radical and hydrogen peroxide scavenging ability. Lactic acid bacteria could produce certain factors to capture reactive oxygen species (ROS) and prohibit the cytotoxic activity of ROS [61]. Significant reduction in the gut pH, E. coli and Salmonella count and increased in Lactobacilli count in all test diets also supported by the authors. Contrary to these findings, probiotics [54, 55], chicory powder [30] did not have any positive effect on antioxidant enzyme activity in broilers.

Chitra and Leelamma (1999) [11] demonstrated that coriander had a better antioxidative effect by increasing the activity of glutathione peroxidase, glutathione reductase and superoxide dismutase enzyme compared to control. Coriander is an egregious source of phyto-chemicals and functional compounds namely polyphenols, flavonoids and ascorbic acid which ultimately constitute for its high antioxidant activity. Darughe et al. (2012) [62] demonstrated that essential oil of coriander contains camphor, cyclohexanol acetate, limonene, α-pinene and inhibited the rate of primary and secondary oxidation products formation and their effects were almost equal to BHA. The improvement in the antioxidant enzyme activity observed with the addition of coriander seed powder could be attributed to the presence of essential oils and their main components, linalool, trepene and terpenoid [63].

Gut pH

Supplementation of all test diets (T₃ to T₆) significantly (P<0.05) lowered the pH in duodenum, jejunum, ileum and caecum (except proventriculus) compared to control and antibiotic groups (Table 7). Probiotic bacteria produce short chain acids like lactic, acetic and other organic acids, which are responsible for reduction in the intestinal pH [64]. Aerobic bacteria (Bacillus spp) use oxygen in the intestine to provide an anaerobic environment for the colonization of anaerobic bacteria, such as Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria. Therefore, these lactic acid-producing bacteria produce a more acidic environment, which impairs the growth of opportunistic pathogens [60]. Significant increase in the counts of Lactobacilli in test diets also support the above results. Al-Khalaifa et al. (2019) [29] reported that supplementation of probiotics and prebiotics driven the gut pH value towards acidity, but it failed to reach significance, as it was only a numerical difference. Whereas, Denli et al. (2003) [65] reported that inclusion of probiotic at 0.1% and antibiotic at 0.15% in broiler diets did not have any effect on the intestinal pH.

Table 7. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on gut pH of broiler chicken at 42 d of age.

Trt	Diets	Proventriculus	Duodenum	Jejunum	Ileum	Caecum
T1	Control	3.54	6.11^c	6.43^d	6.66^c	7.39^c
T2	Antibiotic	3.56	6.01^b	6.30^c	6.45^b	7.18^b
T3	Probiotic + Chicory	3.51	5.89^a	6.06^a	6.23^a	6.94^a
T4	Probiotic + Coriander	3.48	5.88^a	6.15^ab	6.30^a	6.95^a
T5	Chicory + Coriander	3.54	5.94^ab	6.20^b	6.31^a	6.99^a
T6	Probiotic + Chicory + Coriander	3.54	5.94^ab	6.18^b	6.25^a	7.03^a
SEM		0.0098	0.0155	0.0208	0.0270	0.0301
N		8	8	8	8	8
p-value		0.157	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001

Open in a new tab

Value bearing different superscripts within a column are significantly (P<0.05) different

Gut ecology

Supplementation of all the test diets (T₃ to T₆) including antibiotic group significantly (P<0.05) decreased the E. coli counts compared to control (Table 8). The lowest E. coli counts were recorded in antibiotic group (T₂), probiotic + chicory (T₃) and probiotic + chicory + coriander (T₆) groups followed by probiotic + coriander (T₄) and chicory + coriander (T₅) groups. Supplementation of antibiotic (T₂) significantly (P<0.05) decreased the ileal Salmonella counts compared to control and other test diets. The Salmonella count in probiotic + chicory + coriander (T₆), probiotic + coriander (T₄) groups and probiotic + chicory (T₃) showed intermediate values, but they had significantly (P<0.05) lower Salmonella counts than the control (T₁) and chicory + coriander (T₅) groups. In agreement with the above results, Karwan et al. (2016) [31] observed that addition of postbiotics and inulin combinations significantly (P<0.05) reduced the Enterobacteriaceae count compared to control. Similarly, Biswas et al. (2018) [8] reported that supplementation of antibiotics (BMD) and prebiotics (MOS and FOS) reduced the total anaerobes and coliforms counts in ileum of broilers. Supplementation of antibiotic, probiotic and herbal compound significantly (P<0.05) reduced the E. coli, Salmonella and coliforms counts compared to control in broilers was reported by Hedayati and Manafi (2018) [37]. Probiotic bacteria produce short chain acids which decreases the intestinal pH and encourages the growth of Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria [64]. Therefore, these lactic acid-producing bacteria produce a more acidic environment, which impairs the growth of opportunistic pathogens [60]. Significant increase in Lactobacilli count in all test diets was also support the above results. On contrary, Wang et al. (2018) [58] did not find any significant (P>0.05) difference in total anaerobic bacterial count in broilers with probiotic and antibiotic supplementation.

Table 8. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on gut microbiota (log₁₀ of cfu/g count) in ileum sample of broiler chicken.

Trt	Diets	Escherichia coli (log₁₀ cfu/g) ^*	Salmonellea spp. (log₁₀ cfu/g) ^**	Lactobacillus spp. (log₁₀ cfu/g) ^*
T ₁	Control	8.29^d	4.23^d	7.89^c
T ₂	Antibiotic	7.15^a	3.23^a	6.93^d
T ₃	Probiotic + Chicory	7.18^a	3.92^c	8.08^a
T ₄	Probiotic + Coriander	7.33^b	3.90^c	7.86^c
T ₅	Chicory + Coriander	7.42^c	4.16^d	7.88^c
T ₆	Probiotic + Chicory + Coriander	7.19^a	3.81^b	7.94^b
SEM		0.059	0.049	0.055
N		8	8	8
P-value		0.001	0.001	0.001

Open in a new tab

Values bearing different superscripts within a column are significantly (P<0.05) different

* Calculated as per log₁₀ colony forming units/gram of sample (10⁶).

** Calculated as per log₁₀ colony forming units/gram of sample (10³).

In agreement with the lowered E. coli and Salmonella counts in probiotic + coriander (T₄), chicory + coriander (T₅) groups, Ghazanfari et al. (2015) [66] reported that supplementation of antibiotic and coriander oil lowered the caecal E. coli counts than control in broilers. Similarly, Taha et al. (2019) [18] observed that coriander seed powder decreased the total bacterial, E. coli and C. perfringens counts in the ileum of broilers. The decreased pathogenic bacterial load in the ileum might be due to essential oils in coriander have which hydrophobic properties [67] that affect cell wall lipids of the bacteria by disturbing bacterial structures and rendering them more permeable, thus results in lower number of harmful bacteria.

The Lactobacilli counts were significantly (P<0.05) increased with the supplementation of probiotic + chicory (T₃) followed by probiotic + chicory + coriander (T₆) when compared to other treatment groups. Birds supplemented with antibiotic in the diet showed significantly (P<0.05) lower Lactobacilli counts. However, no significant (P>0.05) difference was recorded among control (T₁), probiotic + coriander (T₄) and chicory + coriander (T₅) groups. Similarly, Dong et al. (2019) [56] reported that supplementation of microencapsulated probiotics significantly (P<0.05) increased the Lactobacilli counts in caecum of broilers. Similarly, Biswas et al. (2018) reported that supplementation of antibiotics (BMD) and prebiotics (MOS and FOS) increased the Lactobacilli counts in ileum of broilers. Increased faecal lactic acid bacteria in postbiotics and inulin combination groups was also reported by Karwan et al. (2016) [31] in broilers. Wang et al. (2018) [58] observed that microencapsulated probiotics and prebiotics (MEP) significantly (P<0.05) increased the Lactobacilli counts than control and antibiotic in broilers. In contrary, supplementation of probiotic did not have significant (P<0.05) effect in cecal Lactobacilli counts of broilers [29].

The increased Lactobacilli count in probiotic + chicory (T₃) combination group might be due to probiotic bacteria such as Lactobacillus spp. or Bifidobacterium spp. use inulin for fermentation more efficiently than other groups of bacteria and produces short chain fatty acids on inulin to create an acidic environment which suppresses the growth of acid intolerant bacteria like Salmonellae and E. coli and enhanced the growth of acid tolerant bacteria like Lactobacilli and Bifidobacterium [68].

Gut histomorphometry

Supplementation of all the test diets (T₃ to T₆) significantly (P<0.05) increased the villus height (VH), crypt depth (CD), VH:CD ratio and villus width (VW) in the duodenum and only VH and CD in the ileum compared to control and antibiotic groups. Significantly (P<0.05) higher jejunal VH and VW was recorded in all test diets compared to control and antibiotic groups. Increased villus height and villus width enhances the absorptive capacity of the small intestine by reducing the digesta passage rate and therefore, optimize broiler performance. However, supplementation of different dietary groups did not show any significant (P>0.05) effect on jejunal CD and VH:CD ratio and ileal villus width at 42 d of age (Tables 9–11 and Figs 1–12).

Table 9. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on histomorphometry of duodenum of broiler chicken.

Trt	Diets	Villus height (μm)	Crypt depth (μm)	Villus height: Crypt depth Ratio	Villus width (μm)
T ₁	Control	1025.84^c	240.58^c	4.29^c	134.11^c
T ₂	Antibiotic	1174.89^b	260.43^c	4.55^b	156.05^bc
T ₃	Probiotic + Chicory	1598.52^a	315.58^b	5.15^a	213.64^a
T ₄	Probiotic + Coriander	1261.81^b	308.45^b	4.10^d	171.78^b
T ₅	Chicory + Coriander	1623.28^a	319.91^ab	5.07^a	168.11^b
T ₆	Probiotic + Chicory + Coriander	1651.62^a	343.38^a	4.87^ab	199.69^a
SEM		43.420	6.825	0.087	5.764
N		8	8	8	8
P-value		0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001

Open in a new tab

Values bearing different superscripts within a column are significantly (P<0.05) different

Table 11. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on histomorphometry of ileum of broiler chicken.

Trt	Diets	Villus height (μm)	Crypt depth (μm)	Villus height: Crypt depth Ratio	Villus width (μm)
T ₁	Control	562.15^d	172.87^b	3.28^c	131.15
T ₂	Antibiotic	668.51^c	158.67^b	4.17^b	129.05
T ₃	Probiotic + Chicory	758.38^b	160.25^b	4.63^b	136.76
T ₄	Probiotic + Coriander	1019.99^a	199.06^a	5.22^a	145.61
T ₅	Chicory + Coriander	752.38^b	166.24^b	4.47^b	131.87
T ₆	Probiotic + Chicory + Coriander	742.35^b	193.22^a	3.83^c	134.18
SEM		25.265	4.294	0.116	2.246
N		8	8	8	8
P-value		0.001	0.001	0.001	0.336

Open in a new tab

Values bearing different superscripts within a column are significantly (P<0.05) different

Table 10. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and corianderpowder on histomorphometry of jejunum of broiler chicken.

Trt	Diets	Villus height (μm)	Crypt depth (μm)	Villus height: Crypt depth Ratio	Villus width (μm)
T ₁	Control	949.13^c	171.25	5.68	153.23^b
T ₂	Antibiotic	1010.44^b	168.96	5.99	164.00^b
T ₃	Probiotic + Chicory	1082.86^a	165.90	6.69	210.44^a
T ₄	Probiotic + Coriander	1013.05^b	171.70	5.93	197.99^a
T ₅	Chicory + Coriander	1044.34^ab	167.88	6.26	204.35^a
T ₆	Probiotic + Chicory + Coriander	1061.79^ab	175.81	6.09	207.68^a
SEM		10.135	1.672	0.106	4.257
N		8	8	8	8
P-value		0.001	0.638	0.107	0.001

Open in a new tab

Values bearing different superscripts within a column are significantly (P<0.05) different

In agreement with the above results, Karwan et al. (2016) [31, 69] reported that addition of probiotics and inulin combinations increased the villus height and crypt depth of the duodenum, ileum and jejunum compared to control. Similarly, supplementation of probiotic + organic acid combination significantly (P<0.05) increased the duodenal VH, CD and VH:CD in broilers [70]. The positive effect of probiotics and chicory root powder on the intestinal morphology mainly arose from its ability to create a favourable intestinal environment which had a better effect on intestinal morphology [71]. Probiotics and chicory root powder increase to production of short chain fatty acids and reduce intestinal pH. Hence, beneficial effects on intestinal tissue health and morphology are achieved. In contrary, Fernandes et al. (2014) [10] reported that supplementation of probiotic + prebiotic combination did not have any significant (P>0.05) effect on intestinal integrity of broiler.

Probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder may reduce the growth of many pathogenic and non-pathogenic intestinal bacteria thereby resulting in reduction in intestinal colonization and infectious process which ultimately decrease the inflammatory process of intestinal mucosa resulting in improved villus height and villus width which in turn increases secretory function, digestion, and absorption of nutrients [8]. It is hypothesised that the increase in beneficial microbial activity resulting from dietary probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder supplementation may influence gut morphology and consequently affect gut maturation.

Conclusion

Supplementation of probiotic + chicory, probiotic + coriander, chicory + coriander and probiotic + chicory + coriander combinations produced greater weight gain, improved FCR, and higher antioxidant activity compared to control and antibiotic at 42 d of age. The combination of probiotic (0.01%) with chicory root powder (1.0%) was more effective than combinations of other additives in terms of body weight gain and FCR. Supplementation of different combinations of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder significantly lowered the gut pH, E. coli and Salmonella counts and increased the Lactobacilli counts. In addition, this treatment improved the gut morphometry parameters such as VH, CD and VW in the in the intestines. Thus, supplementation of probiotic at 0.01%, chicory root powder at 1.0%, and coriander seed powder at 1.5% combinations could be used in the diet as a potential growth promoter in broiler chickens. However, follow up large-scale studies under field conditions are necessary before recommending the compounds in the broiler diet.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(49KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

The presented manuscript is a part of the first Author’s PhD dissertation. The authors are thankful to Department of Poultry Science, College of Veterinary science, PV Narsimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University, R’nagar, Hyderabad, India.

Data Availability

All data are fully available without restriction.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Dibner JJ, Richards JD. Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture: History and mode of action. Poultry Science 2015; 84 (4): 634–643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Huyghebaert G, Ducatelle R, Van IF. An update on alternatives to antimicrobial growth promoters for broilers. Veterinary Journal 2011; 187(2): 182–188. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Fuller R. Probiotics in man and animals. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 1989; 66: 365–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Jin LZ, Ho YW, Abdullah N, Jalaludin S. Digestive and bacterial enzyme activities in broilers fed diets supplemented with Lactobacillus Cultures. Poultry Science 2000; 79: 886–891. doi: 10.1093/ps/79.6.886 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Barbara MS, Nebojsa I, Alexander P, Ilya R. Toxicological evaluation of a chicory root extract. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2007; 45:1131–1139. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2006.12.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Saeed M, Abd EME, Alagawany M, Arain MA, Arif M, Mirza MA, et al. Chicory (Cichorium intybus) Herb: Chemical composition, pharmacology, nutritional and healthical applications. International Journal of Pharmacology 2017; 13 (4):351–360. [Google Scholar]
7.Rebole ALT, Ortiz ML, Rodriguez C, Alzueta J, Trevino, Velasco S. Effects of inulin and enzyme complex, individually or in combination, on growth performance, intestinal microflora, cecal fermentation characteristics and jejunal histomorphology in broiler chickens fed wheat and barley-based diet. Poultry Science 2010; 89(2): 276–286. doi: 10.3382/ps.2009-00336 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Biswas A, Messam R, Kumawat M, Namit M, Mandal AB, Mir NA. Effects of prebiotics on intestinal histo-morphometry and gut microflora status of broiler chickens. Indian Journal of Animal Research 2018; 8:1–5. [Google Scholar]
9.Kirkpinar F, Açıkgöz Z, Mert S, Işık Ö. Effects of dietary probiotic, prebiotic and enzyme mixture supplementation on performance, carcass, organ, ileal pH and viscosity of broilers. Journal of Animal Production 2018; 59 (2):1–9. [Google Scholar]
10.Fernandes BCS, Martins MRFB, Mendes AA, Milbradt EL, Sanfelice C, Martins BB, et al. Intestinal integrity and performance of broiler chickens fed a probiotic, a prebiotic, or an organic acid. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2014; 16 (4): 417–424. ( 10.1590/1516-635x1604417-424). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
11.Chithra V, Leelamma S. Hypolipidemic effect of coriander seeds (Coriandrum sativum): mechanism of action. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 1997; 51:167–172. (doi: 10.1023/a:1007975430328). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Pathak NL, Kasture SB, Bhatt NM, Rathod JD. Phytopharmacological properties of Coriandrum sativum as a potential medicinal tree: an overview. Journal of Applied Pharmacological Sciences 2011; 1(4): 20–25. [Google Scholar]
13.Silva F, Ferreira S, Queiroz JA, Fernanda CD. Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) essential oil: its antibacterial activity and mode of action evaluated by flow cytometry. Journal of Medical Microbiology 2011; 60:1479–1486. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.034157-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Langhout P. New additives for broiler chickens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 2000; 16(3): 22–27. [Google Scholar]
15.Rajeshwari U, Andallu B. Medicinal benefits of coriander (Coriandrum sativum). Spatula 2011; 1: 51–58. [Google Scholar]
16.Naeemasa M, Qotbi AAA, Seidavi A, Norri D, Brown D, Ginindza M. Effects of coriander (Coriandrum sativum L) seed powder and extract on performance of broiler chickens. South African Journal of Animal Science 2015; 45 (4): 125–131. [Google Scholar]
17.Barad NA, Savsani HH, Patil SS, Gadariya MR, Murthy KS, Fefar DT. Effect of supplementing the diet with coriander seeds, turmeric powder and black pepper on the feed intake, growth performance and carcass quality of broilers. Indian Veterinary Journal 2017; 94(11): 43–45. [Google Scholar]
18.Taha AE, Saber SH, Ramadan SS, Ahmed AE, Mohamed EA, Hussein E, et al. Effects of supplementing broiler diets with coriander seed powder on growth performance, blood haematology, ileum microflora and economic efficiency. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 2019; 6:1–10. (doi: 10.1111/jpn.13165). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.AOAC. Official methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington D.C. USA. 2005.
20.Paglia DE, Valentine WN. Studies on the quantitative and qualitative characterization of erythrocyte glutathione peroxidase. The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 1967; 70 (1): 158–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Carlberg I, Mannervik B. Glutathione reductase. Methods in enzymology 1985; 113: 484–490. doi: 10.1016/s0076-6879(85)13062-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Madesh M, Balasubramanian KA. Microtiter plate assay for superoxide dismutase using MTT reduction by superoxide. Indian Journal of Biochemistry and Biophysics 1998; 35 (3)184–188. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Corrier DE, Hinton A Jr, Ziprin RL, Beier RC, DeLoach JR. 1990. Effect of dietary lactose on cecal pH, bacteriostatic volatile fatty acids, and Salmonella typhimurium colonization of broiler chicks. Avian Diseases 1990; 617–625. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Gunal M, Yayli G, Karahan N, Sulak O. The effect of antibiotic growth promoter, probiotic or organic acid supplementation on performance, intestinal microflora and tissue of broilers. International Journal of Poultry Science 2006; 5 (2): 149–155. [Google Scholar]
25.Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical methods 8th edn. The Iowa State University Press. Ames. Iowa, U.S.A. 1989. [Google Scholar]
26.Duncan DB. Multiple range and F tests. Biometrics 1955; 11: 1–42. [Google Scholar]
27.Taherpour K, Moravej H, Shivazad M, Adibmoradi M, Yakhchali B. Effects of dietary probiotic, prebiotic and butyric acid glycerides on performance and serum composition in broiler chickens. African Journal of Biotechnology 2009; 8 (10): 2329–2334. [Google Scholar]
28.Hofacre CL, Beacorn T, Collet S, Mathis G. Using competitive exclusion, mannan-oligosaccharide and other intestinal products to control necrotic enteritis. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2003; 12: 60–64. [Google Scholar]
29.Al-Khalaifa H, Al-Nasser A, Al-Surayee T, Al-Kandari S, Al-Enzi N, Al-Sharrah T, et al. Effect of dietary probiotics and prebiotics on the performance of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 2019; 98(10):4465–4479. ( 10.3382/ps/pez282) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Sanja JP, Ljiljana MK, Nikola MP, Jovanka DL, Olivera MD, Bojana MK, et al. Effect of synbiotic on growth and antioxidant status of blood in broiler chicken. Food and Feed Research 2015; 42 (2): 163–169. (doi: 10.5937/FFR1502163P). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Kareem KY, Loh TC, Foo HL, Akit H, Samsudin AA. Effects of dietary postbiotic and inulin on growth performance, IGF1 and GHR mRNA expression, faecal microbiota and volatile fatty acids in broilers. Bio Medical Central Veterinary Research 2016; 12(1):1–10. (DOI: 10.1186/s12917-016-0790-9). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Anjum MI, Khan AG, Azim A, Afzal M. Effect of dietary supplementation of multi-strain probiotic on broiler growth performance. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 2005; 25 (1): 25–29. [Google Scholar]
33.Jeong JS, Kim IH. Effect of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 spores as a probiotic feed supplement on growth performance, noxious gas emission, and intestinal microflora in broilers. Poultry Science 2014; 93:1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Bozkurt M, Küçükyılmaz K, Çatlı AU, Çınar M. The effect of single or combined dietary supplementation of prebiotics, organic acid and probiotics on performance and slaughter characteristics of broilers. South African Journal of Animal Science 2009; 39 (3): 197–205. [Google Scholar]
35.Kumar L, Singh PK, Chandramoni, Kumar M. Effect of dietary supplementation of combination of probiotics on the growth performance and immune response of broiler chickens. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology 2013; 13: 15–25. [Google Scholar]
36.Utami MMD, Wahyono ND. Supplementation of probiotic and prebiotic on the performance of broilers. Earth and Environmental Science 2019; 207:1–6. (doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/207/1/012024). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
37.Hedayati M, Manafi M. Evaluation of an herbal compound, a commercial probiotic, and an antibiotic growth promoter on the performance, intestinal bacterial population, antibody titers, and morphology of the jejunum and ileum of broilers. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2018; 20 (2): 305–316. [Google Scholar]
38.Sahin T, Kaya I, Unal Yucel, Elmali Dilek Aksu. Dietary supplementation of probiotics and prebiotic combination (combiotics) on performance, carcass quality and blood parameters in growing quails. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 2008; 7 (11): 1370–1373. [Google Scholar]
39.Yousfi Z, Kazemi FM, Rezaei M, Ansari PZ. Effect of chicory extract and probiotic on performance, caracas characteristics, blood parameters, intestinal microflora and immune response of broiler chickens. Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research 2017; 2 (9): 185–195. [Google Scholar]
40.Nabizadeh A. The effect of inulin on broiler chicken intestinal microflora, gut morphology, and performance. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 21(4):725–734. [Google Scholar]
41.Izadi H, Javad A, Golian A, Raji MR. Effects of chicory root powder on growth performance and histomorphometry of jejunum in broiler chicks. Veterinary Research Forum 2013; 4 (3): 169–174. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Rashid MM, Ahammad MU, Ali MS, Rana MS, Ali MY, Sakib N. Effect of different levels of Dhania seed (Coriandrum sativum) on the performance of broiler. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science 2014; 43 (1): 38–44. [Google Scholar]
43.Praveen T, Munegowda T, Indresh HC, Jayanaik. Effect of supplementation of various levels of inulin on growth performance, carcass characteristics and survivability in raja II broilers. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 2017; 6 (9):1470–1475. (Doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2017.609.179). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
44.Szakacs RA, Sorona M, Laura S, Rekha S, Andrian M. The impact of pre and probiotic on growing performance and haematological parameters in ross 708 broiler chickens. Bulletin UASVM Veterinary Medicine 2015; 72 (2): 330–335. [Google Scholar]
45.Ashayerizadeh A, Dabiri N, Ashayerizadeh O, Mirzadeh KH, Roshanfekr H, Mamooee M. Effect of dietary antibiotic, probiotic and prebiotic as a growth promoter, on growth performance, carcass charecteristics and haematological indices of broiler chickens. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 2009; 12(1): 52–57. doi: 10.3923/pjbs.2009.52.57 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Yeo J, Kim K. Effect of feeding diets containing an antibiotic, a probiotic, or yucca extract on growth and intestinal urease activity in broiler chicks. Poultry Science 1997; 76(2): 381–385. doi: 10.1093/ps/76.2.381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Ozduven M L, Samli H E, Koc A A O F, Akyurek H, Senkoylu N. Effects of mannanoligosaccharide and organic acid mixture on performance, blood parameters and intestinal microbiota of broiler chicks. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2009; 8: 595–602. [Google Scholar]
48.Roberfroid MB. Prebiotics and synbiotics: concepts and nutritional properties. British Journal of Nutrition 1998; 80 (4): 197–202. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Levrat MA, RéMéSy C, Demigné C. High propionic acid fermentation and mineral accumulation in the cecum of rats adapted to different levels of inulin. Journal of Nutrition 1991; 121: 1730–1737. doi: 10.1093/jn/121.11.1730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Lopez HW, Coudray C, Levrat-Verney M, Feilletcoudray C, Demigné C, RéMéSy C. Fructooligosaccharides enhance mineral apparent absorption and counteract the deleterious effects of phytic acid on mineral homeostasis in rats. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 2000; 11: 500–508. doi: 10.1016/s0955-2863(00)00109-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Yang Y, Iji P, Kocher A, Thomson E, Mikkelsen L, Choct M. Effects of mannanoligosaccharide in broiler chicken diets on growth performance, energy utilisation, nutrient digestibility and intestinal microflora. British Poultry Science, 2008; 49: 186–194. doi: 10.1080/00071660801998613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Caldas Justina V., Vignale Karen, Boonsinchai Nirun, Wang Jinrong, Putsakum Monticha, England Judith A., et al. , The effect of β-mannanase on nutrient utilization and blood parameters in chicks fed diets containing soybean meal and guar gum. Poultry Science 2018; 97 (8): 2807–2817. 10.3382/ps/pey099 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Reddy NBC, Srinivas KD, Raja KK, Kumari NRK. Effect of dietary incorporation of coriander seed meal on production performance of Japanese quail. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition 2019; 36(2):198–201. [Google Scholar]
54.Tagang A, Mohammed K, Moshood R, Tavershima D, Felix G, Victor S, et al. Effect of yeast probiotic on growth, antioxidant enzyme activities and malondialdehyde concentration of broiler chickens. Antioxidants 2013; 2: 326–339. (doi: 10.3390/antiox2040326). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Shen X, Yi D, Ni X, Zeng D, Jing B, Lei M, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum on production performance, immune characteristics, antioxidant status, and intestinal microflora of bursin-immunized broilers. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 2014; 60: 193–202. doi: 10.1139/cjm-2013-0680 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Dong ZL, Wang YW, Song D, Wang WW, Liu KB, Wang L. et al. Effects of microencapsulated probiotics and plant extract on antioxidant ability, immune status and caecal microflora in Escherichia coli K88-challenged broiler chickens. Food and Agricultural Immunology 2019; 30 (1):1123–1134. (doi: 10.1080/09540105.2019.1664419). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
57.He T, Long S, Mahfuz S, Wu D, Wang X, Wei X, et al. Effects of probiotics as antibiotics substitutes on growth performance, serum biochemical parameters, intestinal morphology, and barrier function of broilers. Animals 2019; 9(11): 985. (doi: 10.3390/ani9110985). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Wang Y, Dong Z, Song D, Zhou Hang, Weiwei W, Haijiang M, et al. Effects of microencapsulated probiotics and prebiotics on growth performance, antioxidative abilities, immune functions, and caecal microflora in broiler chickens. Food and Agricultural Immunology 2018; 29(1); 859–869. [Google Scholar]
59.Guaragni A, Boiago MM, Bottari NB, Morsch VM, Lopes TF, da Silva AS. Feed supplementation with inulin on broiler performance and meat quality challenged with Clostridium perfringens: Infection and prebiotic impacts. Microbial Pathogenesis 2020;13; 103889. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2019.103889 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Sako T, Matsumoto K, Tanaka R. Recent progress on research and applications of non-digestible galacto-oligosaccharides. International Dairy Journal 1999; 9 (1): 69–80. [Google Scholar]
61.Lin MY, Yen CL. Antioxidative ability of lactic acid bacteria. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1999; 47: 1460–1466. (doi: 10.1021/jf981149l). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Darughe F, Barzegar M and Sahari MA. Antioxidant and antifungal activity of Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) essential oil in cake. International Food Research Journal 2012; 19 (3):1253–1260. [Google Scholar]
63.Zlatanov M, Ivanov SA. Studies on sterol composition of the seed oil representatives of the family Apiaceae. Fett Wissenschaft Technologie 1995; 97: 381–383. [Google Scholar]
64.Huang MK, Choi YJ, Houde R, Lee JW, Lee B, et al. Effects of Lactobacilli and an acidophilic fungus on the production performance and immune responses in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 2004; 83 (5): 788–795. doi: 10.1093/ps/83.5.788 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65.Denli M, Okan F, Celik K. Effect of dietary probiotic, organic acid and antibiotic supplementation to diets on broiler performance and carcass yield. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 2003; 2 (2): 89–91. (doi: 10.3923/pjn.2003.89.91). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
66.Ghazanfari S, Mohammadi Z, Moradi AM. Effects of coriander essential oil on the performance, blood characteristics, intestinal microbiota and histological of broilers. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2015; 17 (4): 419–426. ( 10.1590/1516-635x1704419-426). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
67.Brul S, Coote P. Preservative agents in foods: Mode of action and microbial resistance mechanisms. International Journal of Food Microbiology 1999; 50: 1–17. ( 10.1016/S0168-1605(99)00072-0) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68.Yusrizal Chen TC. Effect of adding chicory fructans in feed on faecal and intestinal microflora and excretory volatile ammonia. International Journal of Poultry Science 2003; 2 (3): 188–194. [Google Scholar]
69.Osfar S, Eko W, Halim N, Fatmaoctavia S, Riany GS. Effect of prebiotic and immunowall® as feed additive in enzyme activity, intestinal characteristic, and broiler performance. International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture 2019; 3 (4): 292–298. [Google Scholar]
70.Rodjan P, Soisuwan K, Thongprajukaew K, Theapparat Y, Khongthong S, Jeenkeawpieam J, et al. Effect of organic acids or probiotics alone or in combination on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, enzyme activities, intestinal morphology and gut microflora in broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 2017; 102(2); 931–940. doi: 10.1111/jpn.12858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71.Xu ZR, Hu CH, Xia MS, Zhan XA, Wang MD. Effects of dietary fructo oligosaccharides on digestive enzyme activities, intestinal microflora and morphology of male broilers. Poultry Science 2003; 82(6):1030–1036. doi: 10.1093/ps/82.6.1030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270231.r001

Decision Letter 0

Kumar Venkitanarayanan

7 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-40040Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder on growth performance, antioxidant activity and gut health of broiler chickenPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gurram,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 21 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kumar Venkitanarayanan, DVM, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00071660902806962?journalCode=cbps20

- https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0260923

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, please provide methods of sacrifice in the Methods section of your manuscript.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

6. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Summary: Interesting work. Please carefully review my comments and prepare a point-by-point response for the same. Revise the manuscript where appropriate. Thanks.

TITLE: Replace chicken with chickens.

Abstract:

Line 32: typo, please correct. Remove the extra “to”

Line 33: Please represent probiotic supplementation as percentage similar to chicory powder.

Line 37: IF you are representing antibiotic addition as gm/ton, please represent probiotic the same way. To avoid this confusion, I recommend representing your supplementations as percentage for all treatments.

Line 37: Please double check the abbreviation of gram. I believe it is “g”.

Introduction:

LINE 83: Remove the addition sign and replace with and.

Material and methods:

Line 108-113: Please include a table to describe the treatments clearly.

Line 116: Are the total bacterial load 32 billion CFU/100 g or each probiotic was at this concentration? Is this a commercial product or designed by the authors? How did the authors check the viability of each bacteria in the probiotic cocktail?

Line 120-122: Why are the authors presenting results in this section? I would recommend to move all the results presentation in the result section.

Line 118: Please represent probiotic levels as percentage too.

Line 130: “Feed intake”, please change to lower case F.

Line 134: Please include more details on how enzyme activity was determined. Describe how samples were stored, processed, followed by what type of assay was used.

Line 138: Please explain clearly how the 240 birds were sampled. It appears that only 1 bird/replicate that is 5 birds/treatment were processed for pH, intestinal contents etc. What about the other birds in the replicates? Why could the authors not process all birds for all samples to increase statistical power.

Question: How many trials/studies were conducted with 240 birds (6 dietary treatments, 8 replicates)?

Question: Where have the authors described the methodology for nutrient utilization? The results for nutrient utilization have been described in table 4 but I could not find the methodology portion for this section.

Question: How did the authors selectively enrich for Salmonella from the samples? What enrichment procedure was employed to facilitate recovery of Salmonella? Did the authors conduct a Salmonella load test at the start of the trials before the treatments began?

Results and Discussion:

Question: Why did the author not run groups for probiotic, chicory and coriander alone in the trials. Without these treatments, it is difficult to discern which component (probiotic, chicory, coriander) is effective in modulating body weight gains, FCR etc.

Table 7: Please share how the statistical analysis for comparing log CFU counts was conducted. I am interested to review log CFU/g values along with SE for each treatment. Some of the values for Lactobacillus (T5 7.88 vs T6 7.94), Salmonella (T4 7.33 vs T5 7.42) are very close to be statistically different from each other.

Reviewer #2: The authors investigated the effect of incorporating a combination of probiotics, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder on broiler growth performance, gut health and antioxidant activity. This study is relevant to the poultry industry for utilizing alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters.

However, my review for the manuscript was done partially because I felt that the experimental design and the number of birds used for the respective time points lacked clarity. It was hard to make an assessment on the data sets provided in the study. In addition, description provided for the statistical analysis and the inferences derived seemed incomplete. I would be happy to provide my further review and comments on the manuscript after the authors have provided a clarity on the experimental design and the N value for respective end points used in the study.

I have provided some of my comments for the manuscript below.

Abstract

Line 32-33 – please rephrase sentence as appropriate indicating the aim/background of the study. The details of the experimental design can be incorporated in the second sentence.

Introduction

Line76-77 – the connotation for antimicrobial properties of chicory root powder cannot be directly attributed but rather should be indicated as an indirect effect. Kindly rephrase the sentence appropriately. Or rather, if the authors had planned to indicate the antimicrobial activity other potential constituents, that may also be explained here.

Line 84 – the information regarding postbiotics may be removed from here. The authors can alternately provide additional references that cite the effect of probiotics + inulin combinations on poultry gut health. Specifically, the authors may cite the strains of probiotics that have been used by other researchers in a concise manner.

Line 90-92 – It would be better if the compounds listed in brackets are briefly expanded and described in terms of their chemical and functional properties/antimicrobial activities.

Materials and Methods

Line 116 – Does this mean the concentration of each bacterial strain or is this the total lactic acid bacterial counts in general?

Line 116 and Table 1 – Isn’t this analysis termed Proximate Analysis?

Line 118-121 – The way in which the treatment groups used for selecting the ideal formulation was not clear. What were the treatment groups involved in the broiler trials to determine the ideal composition of the mix that was eventually used for the final study?

Line 132 – clearly specify the N value for the metabolic trial.

Line 155-170 – how were the Salmonella colonies confirmed just by observed the colony morphology from the SS agar. What if the colonies observed in the plates were from Proteus?

Line 171 – was a blinded histopathological evaluation and analysis performed for the respective tissue samples?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jun 27;17(6):e0270231. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270231.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

15 Mar 2022

Response to Reviewers

Editorial comments:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Reply: Followed the journal style

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

Reply: One of the publications was published by me, so there might be a chance of matching words as the methodology followed was the same. Duplicate reference in the reference section was identified and removed.

Reply: Corrected the manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar.

4. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, please provide methods of sacrifice in the Methods section of your manuscript.

Reply: Included in materials and methods

Reply: Raw data was included

Reply: Raw data was provided. Kindly update Data Availability statement.

Reviewer #1:

1. TITLE: Replace chicken with chickens.

Reply by author: Modified as chickens

2. Line 32: typo, please correct. Remove the extra “to”

Reply:Corrected

3. Line 33: Please represent probiotic supplementation as percentage similar to chicory powder.

Reply: Modified as per reviewer suggestion

4. Line 37: IF you are representing antibiotic addition as gm/ton, please represent probiotic the same way. To avoid this confusion, I recommend representing your supplementations as percentage for all treatments.

Reply:Expressed all additives in percentage

5. Line 37: Please double check the abbreviation of gram. I believe it is “g”.

Reply: Modified as ‘g’

Introduction:

LINE 83: Remove the addition sign and replace with and.

Reply: Removed typographical error

Material and methods:

Line 108-113: Please include a table to describe the treatments clearly.

-Included

Reply: The probiotic used is a multistrain probiotic trail product produced by Intron Biologicals, Hyderabad and it contains a total of 109 CFU/g of lyophilized and microencapsulated Bacillus coagulans, Saccharomyces boulardii, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus delbrueckii, Lactobacillus plantarum, Streptococcus thermophilus, Bacillus subtilis, Enterococcus faecium and Bifidobacterium bifidum. The viability was checked at the production itself.

Line 120-122: Why are the authors presenting results in this section? I would recommend to move all the results presentation in the result section.

Reply: Those lines were modified according to the materials and methods section. Removed lines 117 to 123.

Line 118: Please represent probiotic levels as percentage too.

Reply: Modified

Line 130: “Feed intake”, please change to lower case F.

Reply: Corrected

Line 134: Please include more details on how enzyme activity was determined. Describe how samples were stored, processed, followed by what type of assay was used.

Reply: *Complete procedure of antoxidant enzyme activity has given below.

*ANTIOXIDANT RESPONSES

The antioxidant enzymes such as glutathione Peroxidase (GSHPx), glutathione Reductase (GSHRx) and superoxide Dismutase (SOD) were estimated by following the methods of Paglia and Valentine (1967), Carlberg and Mannervik (1985) and Madesh and Balsubramanian (1998) respectively.

3.8.1 Glutathione Peroxidase (GSHPx) Enzyme Activity in Serum

GSHPx activity was determined by the method proposed by Paglia and Valentine (1967) with slight modifications. Microtiter plates (96 well) were used to measure Glutathione peroxidase activity. To the 12.5 μl of serum, 250 μl of 0.1mM PBS (pH 7.4), 12.5 μl of H2O2 and 12.5 μl of reduced glutathione were added to wells and incubated at room temperature for 5 minutes, following which 12.5 μl of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) solution was added and optical density was measured at 340 nm against the blank using ELISA reader - μQuant (BioTek instruments) for 5 minutes at 60 seconds interval and expressed as units/mg protein.

Glutathione Reductase (GSHRx) Enzyme Activity in Serum

GSHRx activity was determined according to method described by Carlberg and Mannervik (1985) with slight modifications. Microtiter plates (96 well) were used to measure Glutathione reductase activity. To the 12.5 μl of serum, 250 μl of 0.1mM PBS (pH 7.4), 12.5 μl of oxidized glutathione, 12.5 μl of FAD and12.5 μl of 80 mM EDTA were added and incubated at room temperature for 15 minutes. Optical density was measured at 340 nm against the blank by using ELISA reader - μQuant (BioTek instruments) for 5 times at 60 seconds interval after addition of 12.5 μl of NADPH solution at last and expressed as units/mg protein.

Superoxide Dismutase (SOD) Enzyme Assay in Serum

Microtiter plates (96 well) were used for assay of SOD activity. To the 100 μl of test sample, 6 μl of 1.25 mM 3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-Diphenyltetrazolium Bromide (MTT) was added in duplicate for each sample. 15 μl of 100 μM pyrogallol and 29 μl of 25 mM PBS were added to make the volume to 150 μl. Pyrogollol was freshly prepared and added after the addition of all other reagents and incubated for 10 minutes at room temperature and the reaction was terminated with addition of 150 μl of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), which arrests the reaction and dissolves the MTT formazan crystals formed. Plates were shaken well and optical density recorded at 570 nm using ELISA reader - μQuant (Madesh & Balsubramanian, 1998).

Reply: One bird from each replicate means 8 birds for each treatment and total 48 samples were taken. According to the recommendations of IAEC, the number of birds to be sacrificed was limited as n=8 is enough for statistical analysis.

Question: How many trials/studies were conducted with 240 birds (6 dietary treatments, 8 replicates)?

Ans: Only one trial was conducted with 240 birds.

Ans: We did not mentioned complete procedure of metabolic trial in methodology, however, we followed the standard procedure recommended by AOAC (1997). The metabolic trial was conducted with one bird from each replicate to determine the retention efficiency of Dry Matter (DM), Crude Protein (CP) and energy as per the procedures described by AOAC (1997).

Ans: Eight birds from each dietary treatment were slaughtered on 42nd day and intestines were dissected at Meckel’s diverticulum. Approximately 5g of ileal digesta was collected aseptically into sterile sampling tubes and immediately transferred on ice to the laboratory for microbiological examination for E. coli, Salmonella spp and Lactobacilli spp counts. Salmonella-Shigella agar (SS Agar) for Salmonella spp. was used.

Then, 9 sterile test tubes with lids containing 9mL of phosphate buffer solution (PBS, pH-7.4) as diluent were prepared. Approximately 1g of the intestinal contents taken by sterile swab and homogenized for 3 minutes, aseptically mixed, added to the tubes, and diluted up to 109. Later, 1ml of the contents of each test tube was transferred to one of three selective agar media on petri plates, respectively (Gunal et al., 2006). Aerobic bacterial plates ( Salmonella spp.) were placed in an incubator at 37oC for 24 hours. Finally, the intestinal bacterial colony populations formed in each plate was counted by colony counter and the number of colonies was expressed as log10 value.

We did not conduct salmonella load test at the start of experiment as it was not required for our experiment.

Results and Discussion:

Ans: Sir, we have conducted three separate experiments (other than this) with probiotic @ 10 g, 15 g, and 20 gm per 100kg, coriander @ 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.5% & chicory root powder @ 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.5%. The results of above experiments clearly indicated that each group from probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander treatments had shown desirable performance at particular dosages. Probiotic at 10g/100 kg, chicory at 1.0 % and coriander at 1.5 % levels significantly (P<0.05) increased the overall performance of broilers when compared to control, antibiotic and other levels of respective treatments.

The above experimental results/data was already been published in Plosone and Indian journal of animal sciences.

I am sharing the link of above article for your reference.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260923

Ans: mentioned below

**E. coli counts (Calculated as per log10 colony forming units/gram of sample (106).

Treatment Replicates colonies cfu/ml (106 dilution0 log 10 value

T1 1 192 192000000 8.28

1 201 201000000 8.30

1 195 195000000 8.29

1 189 189000000 8.28

1 199 199000000 8.30

1 188 188000000 8.27

1 195 195000000 8.29

1 200 200000000 8.30

T2 2 12 12000000 7.08

2 14 14000000 7.15

2 12 12000000 7.08

2 15 15000000 7.18

2 14 14000000 7.15

2 15 15000000 7.18

2 16 16000000 7.20

T3 3 18 18000000 7.26

3 16 16000000 7.20

3 15 15000000 7.18

3 12 12000000 7.08

3 14 14000000 7.15

3 15 15000000 7.18

3 16 16000000 7.20

T4 4 16 16000000 7.20

4 19 19000000 7.28

4 18 18000000 7.26

4 25 25000000 7.40

4 22 22000000 7.34

4 23 23000000 7.36

4 24 24000000 7.38

4 25 25000000 7.40

T5 5 18 18000000 7.26

5 32 32000000 7.51

5 28 28000000 7.45

5 29 29000000 7.46

5 26 26000000 7.41

5 28 28000000 7.45

5 27 27000000 7.43

5 25 25000000 7.40

T6 6 16 16000000 7.20

6 14 14000000 7.15

6 15 15000000 7.18

6 16 16000000 7.20

6 18 18000000 7.26

6 13 13000000 7.11

6 17 17000000 7.23

6 16 16000000 7.20

Reviewer #2:

- Abstract

Line 32-33 – please rephrase sentence as appropriate indicating the aim/background of the study. The details of the experimental design can be incorporated in the second sentence.

Reply: Included as per recommendations.

Introduction

Reply: Modified according to the recommendations

Reply: Incorporated accordingly.

Line 90-92 – It would be better if the compounds listed in brackets are briefly expanded and described in terms of their chemical and functional properties/antimicrobial activities.

Reply: Sir, They were already proven compounds as indicated by reference, no need to discuss in detail.

Line 116 – Does this mean the concentration of each bacterial strain or is this the total lactic acid bacterial counts in general?

Reply: Total bacterial count (Bacillus coagulans, saccharomyces boulardii, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus delbrueckii, Lactobacillus plantarum, Streptococcus thermophilus, Bacillus subtilis, Enterococcus faecium, Bifidobacterium bifidum).

Line 116 and Table 1 – Isn’t this analysis termed Proximate Analysis?

Reply: Yes sir, proximate analysis.

Reply: Sir, we have conducted three separate experiments (other than this) with probiotic @ 10 g, 15 g, and 20 gm per 100kg, coriander @ 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.5% & chicory root powder @ 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.5%. The results of above experiments clearly indicated that each group from probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander treatments had shown desirable performance at particular dosages. Probiotic at 10g/100 kg, chicory at 1.0 % and coriander at 1.5 % levels significantly (P<0.05) increased the overall performance of broilers when compared to control, antibiotic and other levels of respective treatments.

The above experimental results/data was already been published in Plosone and Indian journal of animal sciences.

I am sharing the links of above articles for your reference.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260923

Line 132 – clearly specify the N value for the metabolic trial.

Reply: N value was already mentioned in table no 4.

The metabolic trial was conducted with one bird from each replicate means 8 birds treatment and total 48 samples were used for estimation of Dry Matter (DM), Crude Protein (CP) and energy.

Line 155-170 – how were the Salmonella colonies confirmed just by observed the colony morphology from the SS agar. What if the colonies observed in the plates were from Proteus?

Reply: Translucent colonies with black centers which are typical to Salmonella on SS agar were counted by using colony counter and the number of colonies was expressed as log10 value.

The complete procedure was explained below.

Eight birds from each dietary treatment were slaughtered on 42nd day and intestines were dissected at Meckel’s diverticulum. Approximately 5g of ileal digesta was collected aseptically into sterile sampling tubes and immediately transferred on ice to the laboratory for microbiological examination for E. coli, Salmonella spp and Lactobacilli spp counts. Eosin methylene blue agar (EMB) for E. coli growth, Salmonella-Shigella agar (SS Agar) for Salmonella spp. and MRS agar (De Man, Rogosa and Sharpe agar) for Lactobacilli spp growth was used.

Then, 9 sterile test tubes with lids containing 9mL of phosphate buffer solution (PBS, pH-7.4) as diluent were prepared. Approximately 1g of the intestinal contents taken by sterile swab and homogenized for 3 minutes, aseptically mixed, added to the tubes, and diluted up to 109. Later, 1ml of the contents of each test tube was transferred to one of three selective agar media on petri plates, respectively (Gunal et al., 2006). Aerobic bacterial plates (E. coli, Salmonella spp.) were placed in an incubator at 37oC for 24 hours. Anaerobic (Lactobacilli spp.) medium plates were placed in an anaerobic jar with an anaerobic gas pack system at 37oC for 24 hours. Finally, the intestinal bacterial colony populations formed in each plate was counted by colony counter and the number of colonies was expressed as log10 value.

Line 171 – was a blinded histopathological evaluation and analysis performed for the respective tissue samples?

Reply: Yes sir, the HP slides were analyzed blindly, except the control group, so as to have a reference point. We have taken 8 histopathological sections per treatment each from each bird.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(35.5KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270231.r003

Decision Letter 1

Kumar Venkitanarayanan

28 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-40040R1Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder on growth performance, antioxidant activity and gut health of broiler chickenPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gurram,

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kumar Venkitanarayanan, DVM, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The following changes need to be done.

Lines 48-51 : Revise the sentence. Significantly appears twice in the sentence.

Lines 75-77: Recently, herbal feed additives products like chicory root powder are gaining attention as they indirectly promote antimicrobial 77 action by reducing the harmful bacteria in the gut. Replace “feed additives” with “feed additive”.

Confirm on the manuscript that all the treatment concentrations in the feed were weight/weight basis. If not, please indicate.

Lines 125-127: The dose levels (Probiotic at 10g/100 kg, chicory at 1.0 % and coriander at 1.5 % levels ) were selected based on my previous trail results. Delete “my”.

Line 368: Significant increase in the counts of Lactobacilli in test diets was also support the above results. Delete “was”.

Lines 503-511: Suggest revising the following text as below.

Supplementation of probiotic + chicory, probiotic + coriander, chicory + coriander and probiotic + chicory + coriander combinations produced greater weight gain, improved FCR, and higher antioxidant activity compared to control and antibiotic at 42 d of age. The combination of probiotic (0.01%) with chicory root powder (1.0%) was more effective than combinations of other additives in terms of body weight gain and FCR. Supplementation of different combinations of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder significantly lowered the gut pH, E. coli and Salmonella counts and increased the Lactobacilli counts. In addition, this treatment improved the gut morphometry parameters such as VH, CD and VW in the in the intestines. Thus, supplementation of probiotic at 0.01%, chicory root powder at 1.0 %, and coriander seed powder at 1.5 % combinations could be used in the diet as a potential growth promoter in broiler chickens. However, follow up large-scale studies under field conditions are necessary before recommending the compounds in the broiler diet.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

PLoS One. 2022 Jun 27;17(6):e0270231. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270231.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

2 May 2022

Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder on growth performance, antioxidant activity and gut health of broiler chicken

1. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Response: Table 1 has been included in text and please provide reference link to Table 1.

2. Please amend the title either on the online submission form or in your manuscript so that they are identical.

Response: corrected

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Response: No consent was raised by animal ethics committee while obtaining permission. Moreover, the consent was not required for conducting experiments in Broilers. The same has been included in ethics statement.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(17.1KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270231.r005

Decision Letter 2

Kumar Venkitanarayanan

7 Jun 2022

Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder on growth performance, antioxidant activity and gut health of broiler chickens

PONE-D-21-40040R2

Dear Dr. Gurram,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kumar Venkitanarayanan, DVM, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270231.r006

Acceptance letter

Kumar Venkitanarayanan

16 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-40040R2

Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder on growth performance, antioxidant activity and gut health of broiler chickens

Dear Dr. Gurram:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kumar Venkitanarayanan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(49KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(35.5KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(17.1KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All data are fully available without restriction.

[pone.0270231.ref001] 1.Dibner JJ, Richards JD. Antibiotic growth promoters in agriculture: History and mode of action. Poultry Science 2015; 84 (4): 634–643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref002] 2.Huyghebaert G, Ducatelle R, Van IF. An update on alternatives to antimicrobial growth promoters for broilers. Veterinary Journal 2011; 187(2): 182–188. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref003] 3.Fuller R. Probiotics in man and animals. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 1989; 66: 365–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref004] 4.Jin LZ, Ho YW, Abdullah N, Jalaludin S. Digestive and bacterial enzyme activities in broilers fed diets supplemented with Lactobacillus Cultures. Poultry Science 2000; 79: 886–891. doi: 10.1093/ps/79.6.886 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref005] 5.Barbara MS, Nebojsa I, Alexander P, Ilya R. Toxicological evaluation of a chicory root extract. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2007; 45:1131–1139. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2006.12.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref006] 6.Saeed M, Abd EME, Alagawany M, Arain MA, Arif M, Mirza MA, et al. Chicory (Cichorium intybus) Herb: Chemical composition, pharmacology, nutritional and healthical applications. International Journal of Pharmacology 2017; 13 (4):351–360. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref007] 7.Rebole ALT, Ortiz ML, Rodriguez C, Alzueta J, Trevino, Velasco S. Effects of inulin and enzyme complex, individually or in combination, on growth performance, intestinal microflora, cecal fermentation characteristics and jejunal histomorphology in broiler chickens fed wheat and barley-based diet. Poultry Science 2010; 89(2): 276–286. doi: 10.3382/ps.2009-00336 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref008] 8.Biswas A, Messam R, Kumawat M, Namit M, Mandal AB, Mir NA. Effects of prebiotics on intestinal histo-morphometry and gut microflora status of broiler chickens. Indian Journal of Animal Research 2018; 8:1–5. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref009] 9.Kirkpinar F, Açıkgöz Z, Mert S, Işık Ö. Effects of dietary probiotic, prebiotic and enzyme mixture supplementation on performance, carcass, organ, ileal pH and viscosity of broilers. Journal of Animal Production 2018; 59 (2):1–9. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref010] 10.Fernandes BCS, Martins MRFB, Mendes AA, Milbradt EL, Sanfelice C, Martins BB, et al. Intestinal integrity and performance of broiler chickens fed a probiotic, a prebiotic, or an organic acid. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2014; 16 (4): 417–424. ( 10.1590/1516-635x1604417-424). [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref011] 11.Chithra V, Leelamma S. Hypolipidemic effect of coriander seeds (Coriandrum sativum): mechanism of action. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 1997; 51:167–172. (doi: 10.1023/a:1007975430328). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref012] 12.Pathak NL, Kasture SB, Bhatt NM, Rathod JD. Phytopharmacological properties of Coriandrum sativum as a potential medicinal tree: an overview. Journal of Applied Pharmacological Sciences 2011; 1(4): 20–25. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref013] 13.Silva F, Ferreira S, Queiroz JA, Fernanda CD. Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) essential oil: its antibacterial activity and mode of action evaluated by flow cytometry. Journal of Medical Microbiology 2011; 60:1479–1486. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.034157-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref014] 14.Langhout P. New additives for broiler chickens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 2000; 16(3): 22–27. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref015] 15.Rajeshwari U, Andallu B. Medicinal benefits of coriander (Coriandrum sativum). Spatula 2011; 1: 51–58. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref016] 16.Naeemasa M, Qotbi AAA, Seidavi A, Norri D, Brown D, Ginindza M. Effects of coriander (Coriandrum sativum L) seed powder and extract on performance of broiler chickens. South African Journal of Animal Science 2015; 45 (4): 125–131. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref017] 17.Barad NA, Savsani HH, Patil SS, Gadariya MR, Murthy KS, Fefar DT. Effect of supplementing the diet with coriander seeds, turmeric powder and black pepper on the feed intake, growth performance and carcass quality of broilers. Indian Veterinary Journal 2017; 94(11): 43–45. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref018] 18.Taha AE, Saber SH, Ramadan SS, Ahmed AE, Mohamed EA, Hussein E, et al. Effects of supplementing broiler diets with coriander seed powder on growth performance, blood haematology, ileum microflora and economic efficiency. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 2019; 6:1–10. (doi: 10.1111/jpn.13165). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref019] 19.AOAC. Official methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington D.C. USA. 2005.

[pone.0270231.ref020] 20.Paglia DE, Valentine WN. Studies on the quantitative and qualitative characterization of erythrocyte glutathione peroxidase. The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 1967; 70 (1): 158–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref021] 21.Carlberg I, Mannervik B. Glutathione reductase. Methods in enzymology 1985; 113: 484–490. doi: 10.1016/s0076-6879(85)13062-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref022] 22.Madesh M, Balasubramanian KA. Microtiter plate assay for superoxide dismutase using MTT reduction by superoxide. Indian Journal of Biochemistry and Biophysics 1998; 35 (3)184–188. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref023] 23.Corrier DE, Hinton A Jr, Ziprin RL, Beier RC, DeLoach JR. 1990. Effect of dietary lactose on cecal pH, bacteriostatic volatile fatty acids, and Salmonella typhimurium colonization of broiler chicks. Avian Diseases 1990; 617–625. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref024] 24.Gunal M, Yayli G, Karahan N, Sulak O. The effect of antibiotic growth promoter, probiotic or organic acid supplementation on performance, intestinal microflora and tissue of broilers. International Journal of Poultry Science 2006; 5 (2): 149–155. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref025] 25.Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical methods 8th edn. The Iowa State University Press. Ames. Iowa, U.S.A. 1989. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref026] 26.Duncan DB. Multiple range and F tests. Biometrics 1955; 11: 1–42. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref027] 27.Taherpour K, Moravej H, Shivazad M, Adibmoradi M, Yakhchali B. Effects of dietary probiotic, prebiotic and butyric acid glycerides on performance and serum composition in broiler chickens. African Journal of Biotechnology 2009; 8 (10): 2329–2334. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref028] 28.Hofacre CL, Beacorn T, Collet S, Mathis G. Using competitive exclusion, mannan-oligosaccharide and other intestinal products to control necrotic enteritis. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2003; 12: 60–64. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref029] 29.Al-Khalaifa H, Al-Nasser A, Al-Surayee T, Al-Kandari S, Al-Enzi N, Al-Sharrah T, et al. Effect of dietary probiotics and prebiotics on the performance of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 2019; 98(10):4465–4479. ( 10.3382/ps/pez282) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref030] 30.Sanja JP, Ljiljana MK, Nikola MP, Jovanka DL, Olivera MD, Bojana MK, et al. Effect of synbiotic on growth and antioxidant status of blood in broiler chicken. Food and Feed Research 2015; 42 (2): 163–169. (doi: 10.5937/FFR1502163P). [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref031] 31.Kareem KY, Loh TC, Foo HL, Akit H, Samsudin AA. Effects of dietary postbiotic and inulin on growth performance, IGF1 and GHR mRNA expression, faecal microbiota and volatile fatty acids in broilers. Bio Medical Central Veterinary Research 2016; 12(1):1–10. (DOI: 10.1186/s12917-016-0790-9). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref032] 32.Anjum MI, Khan AG, Azim A, Afzal M. Effect of dietary supplementation of multi-strain probiotic on broiler growth performance. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 2005; 25 (1): 25–29. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref033] 33.Jeong JS, Kim IH. Effect of Bacillus subtilis C-3102 spores as a probiotic feed supplement on growth performance, noxious gas emission, and intestinal microflora in broilers. Poultry Science 2014; 93:1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref034] 34.Bozkurt M, Küçükyılmaz K, Çatlı AU, Çınar M. The effect of single or combined dietary supplementation of prebiotics, organic acid and probiotics on performance and slaughter characteristics of broilers. South African Journal of Animal Science 2009; 39 (3): 197–205. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref035] 35.Kumar L, Singh PK, Chandramoni, Kumar M. Effect of dietary supplementation of combination of probiotics on the growth performance and immune response of broiler chickens. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology 2013; 13: 15–25. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref036] 36.Utami MMD, Wahyono ND. Supplementation of probiotic and prebiotic on the performance of broilers. Earth and Environmental Science 2019; 207:1–6. (doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/207/1/012024). [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref037] 37.Hedayati M, Manafi M. Evaluation of an herbal compound, a commercial probiotic, and an antibiotic growth promoter on the performance, intestinal bacterial population, antibody titers, and morphology of the jejunum and ileum of broilers. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2018; 20 (2): 305–316. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref038] 38.Sahin T, Kaya I, Unal Yucel, Elmali Dilek Aksu. Dietary supplementation of probiotics and prebiotic combination (combiotics) on performance, carcass quality and blood parameters in growing quails. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 2008; 7 (11): 1370–1373. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref039] 39.Yousfi Z, Kazemi FM, Rezaei M, Ansari PZ. Effect of chicory extract and probiotic on performance, caracas characteristics, blood parameters, intestinal microflora and immune response of broiler chickens. Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research 2017; 2 (9): 185–195. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref040] 40.Nabizadeh A. The effect of inulin on broiler chicken intestinal microflora, gut morphology, and performance. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 21(4):725–734. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref041] 41.Izadi H, Javad A, Golian A, Raji MR. Effects of chicory root powder on growth performance and histomorphometry of jejunum in broiler chicks. Veterinary Research Forum 2013; 4 (3): 169–174. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref042] 42.Rashid MM, Ahammad MU, Ali MS, Rana MS, Ali MY, Sakib N. Effect of different levels of Dhania seed (Coriandrum sativum) on the performance of broiler. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science 2014; 43 (1): 38–44. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref043] 43.Praveen T, Munegowda T, Indresh HC, Jayanaik. Effect of supplementation of various levels of inulin on growth performance, carcass characteristics and survivability in raja II broilers. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 2017; 6 (9):1470–1475. (Doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2017.609.179). [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref044] 44.Szakacs RA, Sorona M, Laura S, Rekha S, Andrian M. The impact of pre and probiotic on growing performance and haematological parameters in ross 708 broiler chickens. Bulletin UASVM Veterinary Medicine 2015; 72 (2): 330–335. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref045] 45.Ashayerizadeh A, Dabiri N, Ashayerizadeh O, Mirzadeh KH, Roshanfekr H, Mamooee M. Effect of dietary antibiotic, probiotic and prebiotic as a growth promoter, on growth performance, carcass charecteristics and haematological indices of broiler chickens. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 2009; 12(1): 52–57. doi: 10.3923/pjbs.2009.52.57 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref046] 46.Yeo J, Kim K. Effect of feeding diets containing an antibiotic, a probiotic, or yucca extract on growth and intestinal urease activity in broiler chicks. Poultry Science 1997; 76(2): 381–385. doi: 10.1093/ps/76.2.381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref047] 47.Ozduven M L, Samli H E, Koc A A O F, Akyurek H, Senkoylu N. Effects of mannanoligosaccharide and organic acid mixture on performance, blood parameters and intestinal microbiota of broiler chicks. Italian Journal of Animal Science 2009; 8: 595–602. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref048] 48.Roberfroid MB. Prebiotics and synbiotics: concepts and nutritional properties. British Journal of Nutrition 1998; 80 (4): 197–202. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref049] 49.Levrat MA, RéMéSy C, Demigné C. High propionic acid fermentation and mineral accumulation in the cecum of rats adapted to different levels of inulin. Journal of Nutrition 1991; 121: 1730–1737. doi: 10.1093/jn/121.11.1730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref050] 50.Lopez HW, Coudray C, Levrat-Verney M, Feilletcoudray C, Demigné C, RéMéSy C. Fructooligosaccharides enhance mineral apparent absorption and counteract the deleterious effects of phytic acid on mineral homeostasis in rats. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 2000; 11: 500–508. doi: 10.1016/s0955-2863(00)00109-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref051] 51.Yang Y, Iji P, Kocher A, Thomson E, Mikkelsen L, Choct M. Effects of mannanoligosaccharide in broiler chicken diets on growth performance, energy utilisation, nutrient digestibility and intestinal microflora. British Poultry Science, 2008; 49: 186–194. doi: 10.1080/00071660801998613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref052] 52.Caldas Justina V., Vignale Karen, Boonsinchai Nirun, Wang Jinrong, Putsakum Monticha, England Judith A., et al. , The effect of β-mannanase on nutrient utilization and blood parameters in chicks fed diets containing soybean meal and guar gum. Poultry Science 2018; 97 (8): 2807–2817. 10.3382/ps/pey099 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref053] 53.Reddy NBC, Srinivas KD, Raja KK, Kumari NRK. Effect of dietary incorporation of coriander seed meal on production performance of Japanese quail. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition 2019; 36(2):198–201. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref054] 54.Tagang A, Mohammed K, Moshood R, Tavershima D, Felix G, Victor S, et al. Effect of yeast probiotic on growth, antioxidant enzyme activities and malondialdehyde concentration of broiler chickens. Antioxidants 2013; 2: 326–339. (doi: 10.3390/antiox2040326). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref055] 55.Shen X, Yi D, Ni X, Zeng D, Jing B, Lei M, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum on production performance, immune characteristics, antioxidant status, and intestinal microflora of bursin-immunized broilers. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 2014; 60: 193–202. doi: 10.1139/cjm-2013-0680 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref056] 56.Dong ZL, Wang YW, Song D, Wang WW, Liu KB, Wang L. et al. Effects of microencapsulated probiotics and plant extract on antioxidant ability, immune status and caecal microflora in Escherichia coli K88-challenged broiler chickens. Food and Agricultural Immunology 2019; 30 (1):1123–1134. (doi: 10.1080/09540105.2019.1664419). [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref057] 57.He T, Long S, Mahfuz S, Wu D, Wang X, Wei X, et al. Effects of probiotics as antibiotics substitutes on growth performance, serum biochemical parameters, intestinal morphology, and barrier function of broilers. Animals 2019; 9(11): 985. (doi: 10.3390/ani9110985). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref058] 58.Wang Y, Dong Z, Song D, Zhou Hang, Weiwei W, Haijiang M, et al. Effects of microencapsulated probiotics and prebiotics on growth performance, antioxidative abilities, immune functions, and caecal microflora in broiler chickens. Food and Agricultural Immunology 2018; 29(1); 859–869. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref059] 59.Guaragni A, Boiago MM, Bottari NB, Morsch VM, Lopes TF, da Silva AS. Feed supplementation with inulin on broiler performance and meat quality challenged with Clostridium perfringens: Infection and prebiotic impacts. Microbial Pathogenesis 2020;13; 103889. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2019.103889 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref060] 60.Sako T, Matsumoto K, Tanaka R. Recent progress on research and applications of non-digestible galacto-oligosaccharides. International Dairy Journal 1999; 9 (1): 69–80. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref061] 61.Lin MY, Yen CL. Antioxidative ability of lactic acid bacteria. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1999; 47: 1460–1466. (doi: 10.1021/jf981149l). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref062] 62.Darughe F, Barzegar M and Sahari MA. Antioxidant and antifungal activity of Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) essential oil in cake. International Food Research Journal 2012; 19 (3):1253–1260. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref063] 63.Zlatanov M, Ivanov SA. Studies on sterol composition of the seed oil representatives of the family Apiaceae. Fett Wissenschaft Technologie 1995; 97: 381–383. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref064] 64.Huang MK, Choi YJ, Houde R, Lee JW, Lee B, et al. Effects of Lactobacilli and an acidophilic fungus on the production performance and immune responses in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 2004; 83 (5): 788–795. doi: 10.1093/ps/83.5.788 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref065] 65.Denli M, Okan F, Celik K. Effect of dietary probiotic, organic acid and antibiotic supplementation to diets on broiler performance and carcass yield. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 2003; 2 (2): 89–91. (doi: 10.3923/pjn.2003.89.91). [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref066] 66.Ghazanfari S, Mohammadi Z, Moradi AM. Effects of coriander essential oil on the performance, blood characteristics, intestinal microbiota and histological of broilers. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2015; 17 (4): 419–426. ( 10.1590/1516-635x1704419-426). [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref067] 67.Brul S, Coote P. Preservative agents in foods: Mode of action and microbial resistance mechanisms. International Journal of Food Microbiology 1999; 50: 1–17. ( 10.1016/S0168-1605(99)00072-0) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref068] 68.Yusrizal Chen TC. Effect of adding chicory fructans in feed on faecal and intestinal microflora and excretory volatile ammonia. International Journal of Poultry Science 2003; 2 (3): 188–194. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref069] 69.Osfar S, Eko W, Halim N, Fatmaoctavia S, Riany GS. Effect of prebiotic and immunowall® as feed additive in enzyme activity, intestinal characteristic, and broiler performance. International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture 2019; 3 (4): 292–298. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref070] 70.Rodjan P, Soisuwan K, Thongprajukaew K, Theapparat Y, Khongthong S, Jeenkeawpieam J, et al. Effect of organic acids or probiotics alone or in combination on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, enzyme activities, intestinal morphology and gut microflora in broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 2017; 102(2); 931–940. doi: 10.1111/jpn.12858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0270231.ref071] 71.Xu ZR, Hu CH, Xia MS, Zhan XA, Wang MD. Effects of dietary fructo oligosaccharides on digestive enzyme activities, intestinal microflora and morphology of male broilers. Poultry Science 2003; 82(6):1030–1036. doi: 10.1093/ps/82.6.1030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander seed powder on growth performance, antioxidant activity and gut health of broiler chickens

Srinivas Gurram

Chinni Preetam V

Vijaya Lakshmi K

Raju M V L N

Venkateswarlu M

Swathi Bora

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Table 1. Ingredient composition of basal diets (in kgs) fed to the commercial broilers from 0-42days.

Table 2. Experimental diets.

Table 3. Chemical composition of Chicory root powder.

Gut ecology

Histomorphometry

Ethical approval

Results and discussion

Body weight gain

Table 4. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on body weight gain (g), feed intake and feed conversion ratio of broiler chicken.

Feed Intake (FI)

Feed conversion ratio (feed intake/ body weight gain)

Nutrient utilization

Table 5. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on nutrient utilization of broiler chicken.

Antioxidant enzyme activity

Table 6. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on antioxidant enzyme activity of broiler chicken at 42 d of age.

Gut pH

Table 7. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on gut pH of broiler chicken at 42 d of age.

Gut ecology

Table 8. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on gut microbiota (log10 of cfu/g count) in ileum sample of broiler chicken.

Gut histomorphometry

Table 9. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on histomorphometry of duodenum of broiler chicken.

Table 11. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on histomorphometry of ileum of broiler chicken.

Fig 1. Photomicrograph of the cross section of Jejunum from control group (T1).

Fig 12. Photomicrograph of the cross section of ileum from probiotic + chicory + coriander group (T6), H&E, 2x.

Fig 2. Photomicrograph of the cross section of Jejunum from antibiotic group (T2).

Fig 3. Photomicrograph of the cross section of Jejunum from probiotic + chicory group (T3), H&E, 2x.

Fig 4. Photomicrograph of the cross section of Jejunum from probiotic + coriander group (T4), H&E, 2x.

Fig 5. Photomicrograph of the cross section of Jejunum from chicory + coriander group (T5), H&E, 2x.

Fig 6. Photomicrograph of the cross section of Jejunum from probiotic + chicory + coriander group (T6), H&E, 2x.

Fig 7. Photomicrograph of the cross section of ileum from control group (T1).

Fig 8. Photomicrograph of the cross section of ileum from antibiotic group (T2).

Fig 9. Photomicrograph of the cross section of ileum from probiotic + chicory group (T3), H&E, 2x.

Fig 10. Photomicrograph of the cross section of ileum from probiotic + coriander group (T4), H&E, 2x.

Fig 11. Photomicrograph of the cross section of ileum from chicory + coriander group (T5), H&E, 2x.

Table 10. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and corianderpowder on histomorphometry of jejunum of broiler chicken.

Conclusion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Kumar Venkitanarayanan

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Kumar Venkitanarayanan

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Kumar Venkitanarayanan

Roles

Acceptance letter

Kumar Venkitanarayanan

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases

Table 8. Synergistic effect of probiotic, chicory root powder and coriander powder on gut microbiota (log₁₀ of cfu/g count) in ileum sample of broiler chicken.