關于乳酸菌的英文文獻及翻譯

1、2.4. Chemical and microbial analyses Analysis of DM and CP concentration in the experimental diets, excreta and probiotic products was done according to AOAC (1990 methods (930.05 and 976.05, respectively. The GE was measured by using the bomb calorimeter (model 1261, Parr Instrument Co., Moline, IL

2、, and chromium concentration was determined with an automated spectrophotometer (Jasco V-650, Jasco Corp., Tokyo, Japan according to the procedure of Fenton and Fenton (1979. The microbiological assay of faecal samples (d 14 and 28 and intestinal digesta (d 28 was conducted by culturing in different

3、 media for the determination of total anaerobic bacteria (Tryptic soy agar, Bifidobacterium spp. (MRS agar, Lactobacillus spp. (MRS agar+0.02% NaN3+0.05% L-cystine hydrochloride monohydrate, Clostridium spp. (TSC agar and coliforms (violet red bile agar. The microbiological assay of probiotic produc

4、ts was also carried out by culturing technique. The L. acidophilus was enumerated using MRS agar+0.02% NaN3+0.05% L-cystine hydrochloride monohydrate, B. Subtilis by using plate count agar, S. cerevisiae and A. oryzae by potato dextrose agar. The anaerobic conditions during the assay of anaerobic we

5、re created by using gas pack anaerobic system (BBL, No. 260678; Difco, Detroit, MI. The tryptic soy agar (No. 236950, MRS agar (No. 288130, violet red bile agar (No. 216695, plate count agar (No. 247940, and potato dextrose agar (No. 213400 used were purchased from Difco Laboratories (Detroit,MI, an

6、d TSC agar (CM0589 was purchased from Oxoid (Hampshire, UK. The pH of probiotic products was determined by pH meter (Basic pH Meter PB-11, Sartorius, Germany.2.5. Small intestine morphology Three cross-sections for each intestinal sample were prepared after staining with azure A and eosin using stan

7、dard paraffin embedding procedures. A total of 10 intact, welloriented crypt-villus units were selected in triplicate for each intestinal cross-section as described previously (Jin et al., 2008. Villus height was measured from the tip of the villi to the villus crypt junction, and crypt depth was de

8、fined as the depth of the invagination between adjacent villi. All morphological measurements (villus height and crypt depth were made in 10-m increments by using an image proce ssing and analysis system (Optimus software version 6.5, Media Cybergenetics, North Reading, MA.2.6. Statistical analysesA

9、ll the data obtained in the current study were analyzed in accordance with a rand omized complete block design using the GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., C ary, NC. In Exp. 1, one-way analysis of variance test was used and when signific ant differences (Pb0.05 were determined among treatment me

10、ans, they were separ ated by using Duncan's multiple range tests. In Exp. 2, the data were analyzed as a 2×2 factorial arrangement of treatments in randomized complete block design. T he main effects of probiotic products (LF or SF, antibiotic (colistin or lincomycin, a nd their interaction

11、 were determined by the Mixed procedures of SAS. However, as the interaction (probiotic x antibiotic was not statistically significant (Pb0.05, it wa s removed from the final model. The pen was the experimental unit for all analysis in both experiments. The bacterial concentrations were transformed

12、(log before st atistical analysis.3.1. Experiment 1Dietary treatments had no effect on the performance of pigs during phase I (Table 3. However, during phase II and the overall experimental period, improved (Pb0.05 ADG, ADFI and G:F were observed in pigs fed PC, LF and SF dietswhen compared with pig

13、s fed NC diet. Moreover, pigs fed PC and SF diets had hi gher (Pb0.05 ADG and better G:F than pigs fed LF diet during phase II and the o verall experimentalperiod. The dietary treatments had no influence on the ATTDof DM and GE; however, pigs fed PC and SF diets had greater ATTD of CP whe n compared

14、 with pigs fed NC and LF diets (Table 4.Dietary treatments had no effect on the faecal total anaerobes and Bifidobacterium spp. population at d 14 and 28, and Lactobacillus spp. at d 14 (Table 5. However, pigs fed PC (d 14 and 28 and SF (d 28 diets had less (Pb0.05 faecal Clostridium spp. and colifo

15、rms than pigs fed NC diet.Moreover, pigs fed SF diet had greater (Pb0.05 faecal Lactobacillus spp. populatio n (d 28 than pigs fed NC, PC and LF diets.3.2. Experiment 2During phase I, pigs fed SF diet consumed more feed than pigs fed LF diet, wher eas the ADG and ADFI were similar between pigs fed L

16、F and SF diets (Table 6. During phase II and the overall experimental period, pigs fed SF diet showed better ADG (Pb0.01, ADFI (Pb0.01 and G:F (Pb0.05 thanpigs fed LF diet. Howev er, different antibiotics had no effect on the performance of pigs. Pigs fed SF diet had greater ATTD of DM and CP during

17、 phases I and II (Pb0.01 and 0.001, respe ctively when compared with pigs fed LF diet (Table 7.However, different antibiotics had no effect on the ATTD of DM, CP and GE.Pigs fed SF diet had greater (Pb0.05 Lactobacillus spp. And less Clostridium spp. (Pb0.01 and coliform (Pb0.05 population in the il

18、eum than pigs fed LF diet (Table 8. Additionally,higher (Pb0.05 caecal Bifidobacterium spp. Population was observed in pigs fed SF diet. Antibiotics had no effect on the ileal microbial population; however, pigs fed colistin diet had less number of Bifidobacterium spp. (Pb0.05 and coliforms (Pb0.01

19、in the cecum, whereas, feeding of lincomycin diet resulted in reduced (Pb0.05 caecal Clostridium spp.population.The different probiotic products and antibiotics had no influence on the morphology of different segments of the small intestine, except for the greater (Pb0.05 villus height:crypt depth a

20、t the jejunum and ileum noticed in pigs fed lincomycin diet (Table 9.4.DiscussionPrevious studies on probiotics lack information on the method of production used, however, the preparation of probiotics by LF method is fairly common (Patel et al., 2004. The probiotic products used in the present stud

21、y differedfrom the previous reports in that harvested probiotic microbes were added directly to the diets. In this study, the microbial biomass grown on the CB was directly sprayed onthe carrier (corn and soybean meal to obtain LF probiotic product. In case of the SF probiotic product, corn and soyb

22、ean meal was used as a substrate during fermentation and as a carrier of probiotic microbes. We have reported previously that multi-microbe probiotic product prepared by SF method was better than the probiotic product prepared by submerged liquid fermentation in improving performance, nutrient reten

23、tion and reducing harmful intestinal bacteria in broilers (Shim et al., 2010. In the current study, LF and SF method was used and cornsoybean meal was used as a substrate forthe growth of potential probiotic microbes under optimum conditions.2.4 化學和微生物分析第14和28天排泄物樣本和第28天的腸道消化物的微生物分析,將樣品在不同培養(yǎng)基中培養(yǎng),測定總

24、厭氧菌(胰酶解物大豆瓊脂,雙歧桿菌(MRS培養(yǎng)基,乳桿菌種(MRS 培養(yǎng)基+0.02% NaN3+0.05%L胱氨酸鹽酸鹽水化合物,梭菌屬某些種(TSC培養(yǎng)基和大腸桿菌群(紫色紅膽汁瓊脂。通過培養(yǎng)技術對"益生菌"產(chǎn)品進行了微生物分析。嗜酸乳桿菌用MRS培養(yǎng)基+0.02% NaN3+0.05%L胱氨酸鹽酸鹽水化合物培養(yǎng),枯草芽孢桿菌通過瓊脂培養(yǎng)基平板計數(shù),酵母菌和米曲霉菌通過土豆葡萄糖培養(yǎng)基計數(shù)。通過使用厭氧袋厭氧系統(tǒng)創(chuàng)造厭氧條件,(BBL, No. 260678; Difco, Detroit, MI。大豆胰酶解物的瓊脂(No.236950, MRS瓊脂培養(yǎng)基(No. 28

25、8130,結晶紫中性紅膽鹽瓊脂(No.216695,平板計數(shù)瓊脂(No. 247940,和馬鈴薯葡萄糖培養(yǎng)基(No. 213400的使用是從Difco實驗室(Detroit,MI購買的,和TSC培養(yǎng)基是從Oxoid (Hampshire, UK購買的。益生菌產(chǎn)品的pH值由pH計(Basic pH Meter PB-11, Sartorius,Germany.測定。2.5 小腸形態(tài)學每個腸道樣本取三橫截面,使用標準的石蠟包埋程序與天青A和曙紅染色。共有10個完好無損,良好的導向隱窩絨毛單位被選定為每個腸道截面,每個樣品一式三份的(Jin et al.2008。從絨毛尖端絨毛到隱窩交界處測量絨毛高

26、度,這個被定義為相鄰絨毛內陷深度和隱窩深度。所有形態(tài)測量(絨毛高度和隱窩深度通過使用一個圖像處理的分析系統(tǒng)(擎天柱軟件版本6.5,網(wǎng)絡媒體遺傳學,北讀,MA,增量為10-m。2.6 統(tǒng)計分析在一個完全隨機區(qū)組設計中對所有在當前的研究中獲得的數(shù)據(jù)進行分析。在實驗一中,采用單向方差分析測試,不同處理之間顯著性差異水平定為(P<0.05,用鄧肯多重比較方法檢驗。在實驗二中,對作為的2×2因子安排的完全隨機區(qū)組設計的處理數(shù)據(jù)進行分析。益生菌產(chǎn)品的主要成效(LF或SF,抗生素(粘菌素或潔霉素,和他們的相互作用由SAS 的混合程序計算。然而,當相互作用(益生菌x抗生素沒有統(tǒng)計學意義時(P&

27、lt;0.05,它就要從最終的模型中剔除。在這兩個實驗中所有分析中都以畜舍為實驗單位。在統(tǒng)計分析中細菌數(shù)轉化為log計數(shù)。3 結果3.1 實驗1豬在第一階段的飲食處理對性能沒有影響(表3。然而,在第二階段和整個試驗期間,當與飼喂NC飲食的豬相比時,飼喂PC,LF和SF飲食的豬其ADG,ADFI和G:F顯著提高(P<0.05。而且,飼喂PC和SF飲食的豬有更高的平均日增重,在第二階段和整個試驗期間更好的G:F比飼喂SF飲食的豬有更高的平均日增重。在干物質和總能的總體表觀消化率上不同的飲食處理沒有影響,然而,與飼喂NC和LF的豬相比,飼喂PC和SF的豬有更多的粗蛋白總體表觀消化率(表4。不同的飲食處理對糞便中的第14天和28天的厭氧菌和雙歧桿菌屬和第14天的乳酸菌屬沒有影響(表5。