J Vet Sci.  2012 Sep;13(3):261-270. 10.4142/jvs.2012.13.3.261.

Pathogen translocation and histopathological lesions in an experimental model of Salmonella Dublin infection in calves receiving lactic acid bacteria and lactose supplements

• Frizzo LS
• Zbrun MV
• Soto LP
• Bertozzi E
• Sequeira G
• Marti LE
• Signorini
• Armesto RR
• Rosmini MR

• KMID: 1389765
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4142/jvs.2012.13.3.261

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the capacity of a lactic acid bacteria (LAB) inoculum to protect calves with or without lactose supplements against Salmonella Dublin infection by evaluating histopathological lesions and pathogen translocation. Fifteen calves were divided into three groups [control group (C-G), a group inoculated with LAB (LAB-G), and a group inoculated with LAB and given lactose supplements (L-LAB-G)] with five, six, and four animals, respectively. The inoculum, composed of Lactobacillus (L.) casei DSPV 318T, L. salivarius DSPV 315T, and Pediococcus acidilactici DSPV 006T, was administered with milk replacer. The LAB-G and L-LAB-G received a daily dose of 109 CFU/kg body weight of each strain throughout the experiment. Lactose was provided to the L-LAB-G in doses of 100 g/day. Salmonella Dublin (2 x 1010 CFU) was orally administered to all animals on day 11 of the experiment. The microscopic lesion index values in target organs were 83%, 70%, and 64.3% (p < 0.05) for the C-G, LAB-G, and L-LAB-G, respectively. Administration of the probiotic inoculum was not fully effective against infection caused by Salmonella. Although probiotic treatment was unable to delay the arrival of pathogen to target organs, it was evident that the inoculum altered the response of animals against pathogen infection.

Keyword

calves; Lactobacillus; lactose; probiotic; Salmonella Dublin challenge

MeSH Terms

Administration, Oral
Animals
Animals, Newborn
Cattle
Cattle Diseases/*drug therapy/microbiology/pathology
Dietary Supplements/*analysis
Feces/microbiology
Lactobacillus/metabolism
Lactose/*metabolism
Male
Pediococcus/metabolism
Probiotics/*therapeutic use
Salmonella Infections, Animal/*drug therapy/microbiology/pathology
Salmonella enterica/*drug effects/growth & development
Tissue Distribution

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Microscopic lesions in the liver and spleen of calves from the three experimental groups: non-supplemented control (C-G), supplemented with LAB inoculum (LAB-G) at a daily dose of 109 CFU/kg body weight (BW), and supplemented with LAB inoculum at a daily dose of 109 CFU/kg BW and 100 g lactose (L-LAB-G) after infection with Salmonella Dublin DSPV 595T. (A) Liver NAL 8 h post-infection. (B) Parenchymatous degeneration with few inflammatory infiltrates without PN 80 h post-infection (liver). (C) Spleen NAL 8 h post-infection. (D) Acute hemorrhagic splenitis without PN 80 h post-infection (spleen). H&E stain, ×100.

• 

  Fig. 2 Microscopic lesions in the ileum of calves from the three experimental groups: non-supplemented (C-G), supplemented with LAB inoculum at a daily dose of 109 CFU/kg BW (LAB-G), and supplemented with LAB inoculum at a daily dose of 109 CFU/kg BW and 100 g lactose (L-LAB-G) after infection with Salmonella Dublin DSPV 595T. (A) The ileum NAL 8 h post-infection. (B) The ileum with necrotizing enteritis without PN 80 h post-infection. (C) Ileal mucosa NAL 8 h post-infection. (D) Ileal mucosa with coagulative necrosis around the glandular body and mononuclear infiltrates without PN 80 h post-infection. H&E stain, ×40 (A and B), ×100 (C and D).

• 

  Fig. 3 Microscopic lesions in the ileocecal valve (IV) of calves from the three experimental groups: non-supplemented (C-G), supplemented with LAB inoculum at a daily dose of 109 CFU/kg BW (LAB-G), and supplemented with LAB inoculum at a daily dose of 109 CFU/kg BW and 100 g lactose (L-LAB-G) after infection with Salmonella Dublin DSPV 595T. (A) IV NAL 8 h post-infection. (B) IV with necrotizing enteritis without PN 80 h post-infection. (C) IV NAL 8 h post-infection. (D) IV with necrotizing enteritis and PN development 80 h post-infection. H&E stain, ×40.

Reference

1. Barker IK, Van Dreumel AA. Jubb KVF, Kennedy PC, Palmer N, editors. The alimentary system. Pathology of Domestic Animals. 1985. 3rd ed. Olando: Academic Press;160–166.

2. Deignan T, Alwan A, Kelly J, McNair J, Warren T, O'Farrelly C. Serum haptoglobin: an objective indicator of experimentally-induced Salmonella infection in calves. Res Vet Sci. 2000. 69:153–158.

3. Demecková V, Kelly D, Coutts AG, Brooks PH, Campbell A. The effect of fermented liquid feeding on the faecal microbiology and colostrum quality of farrowing sows. Int J Food Microbiol. 2002. 79:85–97.

4. Federation of Animal Science Societies. Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching. 1999. 1st ed. Savoy: Federation of Animal Science Societies;80–84.

5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization. Expert Consultation Report on Evaluation of Health and Nutritional Properties of Probiotics in Food Including Powder Milk with Live Lactic Acid Bacteria. 2001. Córdoba: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization;4–6.

6. Forbes D, Oakley GA, Mackenzie JA. Experimental Salmonella dublin infection in calves. Vet Rec. 1977. 101:220–224.

7. Frizzo LS, Bertozzi E, Soto LP, Sequeira GJ, Rodríguez Armesto R, Rosmini MR. Studies on translocation, Acute Oral toxicity and intestinal colonization of potentially probiotic lactic acid bacteria administered during calf rearing. Livest Sci. 2010. 128:28–35.

8. Frizzo LS, Peralta C, Zbrun V, Bertozzi E, Soto LP, Marti E, Dalla Santina R, Sequeira GJ, Rosmini MR. Respuesta de ratones inoculados con bacterias lácticas de origen bovino a un desafío con Salmonella dublin. FAVE Secc Cienc Vet. 2005. 4:41–53.

9. Frizzo LS, Soto LP, Bertozzi E, Sequeira G, Marti LE, Rosmini MR. Evaluación in vitro de las capacidades probióticas microbianas orientadas al diseño de inóculos probióticos multiespecie para ser utilizados en la crianza de terneros. FAVE Secc Cienc Vet. 2006. 5:69–81.

10. Frizzo LS, Soto LP, Zbrun MV, Bertozzi E, Sequeira G, Rodríguez Armesto R, Rosmini MR. Lactic acid bacteria to improve growth performance in young calves fed milk replacer and spray-dried whey powder. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2010. 157:159–167.

11. Frizzo LS, Soto LP, Zbrun MV, Signorini ML, Bertozzi E, Sequeira G, Rodríguez Armesto R, Rosmini MR. Effect of lactic acid bacteria and lactose on growth performance and intestinal microbial balance of artificially reared calves. Livest Sci. 2011. 140:246–252.

12. Gelberg HB. McGavin MD, Carlton WW, Zachary JF, editors. Alimentary system. Thomson's Special Veterinary Pathology. 2001. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby;1–79.

13. Lee DJ, Drongowski RA, Coran AG, Harmon CM. Evaluation of probiotic treatment in a neonatal animal model. Pediatr Surg Int. 2000. 16:237–242.

14. Maia OB, Duarte R, Silva AM, Cara DC, Nicoli JR. Evaluation of the components of a commercial probiotic in gnotobiotic mice experimentally challenged with Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica ser. Typhimurium. Vet Microbiol. 2001. 79:183–189.

15. Masalski N, Belchev D, Dimitrov A, Kaloianov I, Kolev V. Experimental Salmonella dublin infection in calves. Vet Med Nauki. 1987. 24:3–10.

16. Moura LN, Neumann E, Vieira LQ, Nicoli JR. Protection by Lactobacillus acidophilus UFV-H2B20 against experimental oral infection with Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica ser. Typhimurium in gnotobiotic and conventional mice. Braz J Microbiol. 2001. 32:66–69.

17. Nazer AH, Osborne AD. Experimental Salmonella dublin infection in calves. Br Vet J. 1977. 133:388–398.

18. Rodríguez Armesto R, Peralta C, Ochoteco M, Zimmermann R, Marini R, Otero JL. Salmonelosis septicémica en terneros lactantes: nueva presentación para una vieja enfermedad. Primera parte. Revista therios. 1996. 25:251–260.

19. Rosmini MR, Sequeira GJ, Guerrero-Legarreta I, Martí LE, Dalla-Santina R, Frizzo L, Bonazza JC. Produccion de probioticos para animales de abasto: importancia del uso de la microbiota intestinal indigena. Rev Mex Ing Quim. 2004. 3:181–191.

20. Schneider R, Rosmini M, Ehrmann M, Vogel R. Identificación de bacterias lácticas componentes de la microbiota típica de los terneros criados en condiciones artificiales. FAVE Secc Cienc Vet. 2004. 3:7–15.

21. Segall T, Lindberg AA. Experimental oral Salmonella dublin infection in calves. A bacteriological and pathological study. Zentralbl Veterinarmed B. 1991. 38:169–185.

22. Smith HW, Jones JET. Observations on experimental oral infection with Salmonella dublin in calves and Salmonella choleraesuis in pigs. J Pathol Bacteriol. 1967. 93:141–156.

23. Steinbach G, Koch H, Meyer H, Klaus C. Influence of prior infection on the dynamics of bacterial counts in calves experimentally infected with Salmonella dublin. Vet Microbiol. 1996. 48:199–206.

24. Tizard IR, editor. Veterinary Immunology: an Introduction. 1996. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders;154–155.

25. Von Lichtenberg F. Cotran RS, Kumar V, Robbins SL, editors. Enfermedades infecciosas. Patología Estructural y Funcional. 1990. 4th ed. Madrid: McGraw Hill-Interamericana;317–462.

26. Woods AE, Ellis RC, editors. Laboratory Histopathology: A Complete Reference. 1994. Vol. 1. New York: Churchill Livingstone;4.1, 2. 4.6, 6.