综述

亚急性瘤胃酸中毒对奶牛胃肠道健康影响的研究进展

  • 董春晓 , 1 ,
  • 戴东文 1 ,
  • 徐晓锋 1 ,
  • 李胜利 , 1, 2, *
展开
  • 1 宁夏大学动物科技学院,银川 750021
  • 2 中国农业大学动物科学技术学院,动物营养学国家重点实验室, 北京市生鲜乳质量安全工程技术研究中心,北京 100193
*李胜利,教授,博士生导师,E-mail:

董春晓(1993—),女,河南临颍人,博士研究生,从事反刍动物营养与饲料研究。E-mail:

Office editor: 武海龙

收稿日期: 2023-02-23

  网络出版日期: 2023-08-10

基金资助

财政部和农业农村部-国家现代农业产业技术体系资助(CARS36)

中国工程院咨询研究项目(2021NXZD1)

Research Progress on Effects of Subacute Ruminal Acidosis on Gastrointestinal Health of Dairy Cows

  • DONG Chunxiao , 1 ,
  • DAI Dongwen 1 ,
  • XU Xiaofeng 1 ,
  • LI Shengli , 1, 2, *
Expand
  • 1 College of Animal Science and Technology, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, China
  • 2 Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Control, State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
*professor, E-mail:

Received date: 2023-02-23

  Online published: 2023-08-10

摘要

现代集约化养殖中为满足高产奶牛产奶的需求,通常饲喂大量高精料饲粮。然而,这些高精料饲粮的快速发酵会降低瘤胃pH,诱发亚急性瘤胃酸中毒(SARA)和肠道炎症,并会对胃肠道中微生物的分类组成和种群功能产生负面影响,进而对奶牛的生产、健康和福利产生负面影响。本文主要从SARA对奶牛胃肠道内环境和上皮细胞的影响进行介绍,详细阐述了SARA状态下奶牛瘤胃和后肠发酵模式、胃肠道微生物区系和上皮细胞屏障功能的变化,旨在为更好指导奶牛饲养提供理论依据。

本文引用格式

董春晓 , 戴东文 , 徐晓锋 , 李胜利 . 亚急性瘤胃酸中毒对奶牛胃肠道健康影响的研究进展[J]. 动物营养学报, 2023 , 35(8) : 4767 -4776 . DOI: 10.12418/CJAN2023.443

Abstract

In modern intensive farming, highly concentrated diets are often used to achieve the requirement for milk production in high-yield dairy cows. However, the rapid fermentation of these highly concentrated diets can lead to a decrease in rumen pH, resulting in subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) and intestinal inflammation. This negatively affects the composition and function of microorganisms in the gastrointestinal tract, and ultimately negatively affects production, health and welfare in dairy cows. The main focus of this paper is to assess the impact of SARA on the environment and epithelium in the gastrointestinal tract of dairy cows, including the rumen and hindgut fermentation patterns, the composition of gastrointestinal microflora and epithelium barrier functions of dairy cows under SARA. This paper aims to establish a theoretical foundation for enhancing dairy feeding strategies.

近些年来,乳业面临着一个巨大挑战,即如何制定满足高产奶牛瘤胃健康需求的饲粮方案。现代集约化养殖中,为了提高产奶量,通常在奶牛的泌乳初期和高峰期饲喂高精料饲粮,这类饲粮的快速发酵使得瘤胃中积累大量挥发性脂肪酸(volatile fatty acids,VFA),致使瘤胃pH降低至5.6以下,诱发奶牛亚急性瘤胃酸中毒(subacute ruminal acidosis,SARA)[1]。以瘤胃pH低为主要特征的SARA是一种公认的高产奶牛消化紊乱疾病,发生SARA的奶牛通常不会表现出明显的临床症状,但是常伴发不同器官和组织的炎症[2]。长期处于SARA状态的奶牛会引发采食量下降、饲料消化率降低、产奶量减少、乳脂率降低、肝脓肿和跛行[3-4],并且出现胃肠道损伤[5-6],严重影响奶牛健康和奶牛场经济效益。高产奶牛SARA患病率高,导致肠道健康失调[6]。以前的研究通常围绕瘤胃功能开展,SARA会降低瘤胃功能[7-9],导致大量易发酵碳水化合物逸出瘤胃和小肠,进入大肠发酵,这可能会降低后肠道pH,并增加后肠道酸中毒、菌群紊乱以及动物腹泻的风险[10-11]。由此可见,奶牛肠道健康不只涉及维持瘤胃的正常功能,它还涵盖了整个后肠道的食糜、微生物区系和黏膜的健康稳态[12]。因此,本文通过综述SARA对奶牛胃肠道健康影响,更深入地了解微生物区系和胃肠道屏障功能的变化,为制定可以有效影响胃肠道功能的管理方案提供理论依据。

1 SARA的定义

由于发生SARA的奶牛临床症状不明显且有延迟性,导致奶牛场对其诊断较为困难。综合尝试多种诊断技术,研究者认为瘤胃pH变化是最直接和最准确的诊断指标[13]。实际应用中,我们通常将瘤胃pH低于5.6超过3 h/d,或者pH低于5.8超过5.4 h/d作为SARA的阈值[6]。瘤胃内的低pH环境会抑制微生物的活性,并降低纤维性饲料的消化率,还会引起奶牛反刍、唾液分泌减少,出现厌食行为。作为上消化道,瘤胃内环境稳态失衡也会进一步影响后肠道黏膜和食糜微生物,严重时可导致动物发生肠漏,危害后肠道健康。

2 SARA对瘤胃发酵的影响

饲喂高精料饲粮增加了奶牛食糜淀粉含量,使得瘤胃可发酵碳水化合物比例上升,改变了瘤胃微生物区系和发酵模式,导致VFA和乳酸等有机酸的积累,进一步降低pH[14]。有研究指出,SARA的易感性关键取决于瘤胃短链脂肪酸(short-chain fatty acids,SCFA)的浓度[15],这在许多研究中得到证实,瘤胃中VFA的过量蓄积进一步导致pH显著降低。Mao等[16]通过使用精料比例为70%的饲粮诱导奶牛发生SARA,观察到瘤胃中总挥发性脂肪酸(TVFA)浓度显著增加(111.23 mmol/L vs. 124.85 mmol/L),丙酸和丁酸的比例也显著提高,乙酸的比例没有发生显著变化。Khafipour等[17]利用小麦/大麦颗粒诱导奶牛发生SARA,同样发现瘤胃TVFA浓度显著增加(98.5 mmol/L vs. 107.3 mmol/L),丙酸和丁酸的比例显著增加,但乙酸的比例显著降低。另有一些报道也证实了高精料饲粮可以显著提高瘤胃丙酸和丁酸的比例,但是对乙酸比例的影响并不一致(表1)。然而,由于以往鉴定条件的限制,我们并不清楚高精料饲粮改变瘤胃VFA形成过程的相关信息。最近的一项研究发现,在淀粉-丙酮酸-VFA的生化过程中,高精料饲粮增加了编码丙酮酸激酶、丙酮酸合酶及乳酸脱氢酶的基因表达,这可能是丙酸和丁酸产量增加的原因[18]
表1 亚急性瘤胃酸中毒对瘤胃VFA组成的影响

Table 1 Effects of SARA on ruminal VFA composition

模型
Models
总挥发性脂肪酸
TVFA
乙酸
Acetate
丙酸
Propionate
丁酸
Butyrate
乙酸/丙酸
Acetate/propionate
参考文献
Reference
奶牛Cows = = Zhang等[19]
奶牛Cows = Mu等[20]
奶牛Cows Ramos等[21]
奶牛Cows Khalouei等[22]
奶牛Cows = Pan等[23]
奶牛Cows = Pourazad等[8]

↑表示升高,↓表示减少,=表示不受影响。

↑ indicates increase, ↓ indicates decrease, and = indicates no effect.

此外,在SARA期间,大量淀粉从瘤胃和小肠中逸出进入大肠发酵,增加后肠酸中毒的风险。目前,尚没有明确的后肠酸中毒的粪便pH阈值。但此前有研究报道,Bissell等[24]通过真胃灌注磨碎的玉米,观察到奶牛粪便pH从6.9降低到4.9~5.1,基于这一结果,其认为成功诱导后肠酸中毒。然而,Li等[25]利用磨碎的小麦/大麦颗粒诱导SARA,观察到奶牛粪便pH仅从6.65降低到6.45,但粪便TVFA浓度从66.5 mmol/L增加到97.6 mmol/L。Neubauer等[26]同样发现,基于高精料饲粮(精粗比为60∶40)的SARA仅使奶牛粪便pH从7.78降低到7.39,而粪便TVFA浓度从55.7 mmol/L增加到86.0 mmol/L。综上所述,与瘤胃相比,在基于高精料饲粮的SARA期间,粪便pH的降低和粪便SCFA的积累程度较低,高精料饲粮虽然诱使后肠发酵增加,但并不会导致粪便pH剧烈下降进而诱发后肠酸中毒。

3 SARA对胃肠道微生物区系的影响

3.1 瘤胃微生物区系

奶牛瘤胃中的微生物主要包括细菌(1010~1011个/mL)、古细菌(108~109个/mL)、原虫(105~106个/mL)和真菌(103~104个/mL),这些微生物在饲料的消化过程中发挥着重要作用。因此,富含纤维的营养物质和稳定的微生物区系对反刍动物的健康至关重要。在正常生理状态下,瘤胃微生物区系保持相对稳定,但受到一定的刺激后会表现出扰动。研究表明,瘤胃微生物的菌落状态和奶牛的很多疾病密切相关,比如蹄叶炎、乳房炎、消化不良和SARA等[27-28],以上情况发生时瘤胃菌群也存在剧烈变化。通过对SARA发生时瘤胃微生物区系变化的研究发现,细菌和原虫对瘤胃pH的变化更为敏感[29]
瘤胃中包含200多种细菌,分为29个菌属,大多为厌氧菌和兼性厌氧菌。研究者通过对不同个体间瘤胃菌群的组成和相似性分析发现,奶牛核心菌群与其他哺乳动物类似,主要包括厚壁菌门(瘤胃球菌属和丁酸弧菌属)和拟杆菌门(普雷沃氏菌属)[30-32],这些细菌的种类和数量受饲粮组成、饲养管理及动物生理状态等的影响[33-34]。据报道,高精料饲粮诱导奶牛发生SARA会降低瘤胃细菌的丰富度和多样性[16,28]。目前已经对与SARA相关的瘤胃菌群变化做了许多调查(表2)。早期的一项研究发现,SARA降低了奶牛瘤胃中拟杆菌门的丰度,但增加了厚壁菌门的丰度[17]。与之相同,Mao等[35]、Hua等[36]和Nagata等[37]研究指出,饲喂高精料饲粮导致瘤胃内拟杆菌门的丰度减少而厚壁菌门的丰度增加,使得厚壁菌门/拟杆菌门比值升高。然而,研究者通过了解微生物基因组对碳水化合物的消化能力发现,与厚壁菌门或其他任何菌门成员相比,拟杆菌门成员的基因组中具有更高平均数量的糖苷水解酶(glycoside hydrolases,GHs)和多糖裂解酶(polysaccharide lyases,PLs)基因,以及编码含有信号肽的GHsPLs基因[38],而奶牛主要依赖这些酶来有效降解纤维,因此,食糜中厚壁菌门/拟杆菌门比值升高对奶牛是不利的。少数研究发现,随着动物适应高精料饲粮,瘤胃内厚壁菌门/拟杆菌门比值显著降低[39]。而不同试验中厚壁菌门和拟杆菌门的丰度差异,可能是由于细菌对饲粮的适应性、动物的易感性或饲粮淀粉水平等存在差别。
表2 亚急性瘤胃酸中毒相关瘤胃细菌的变化

Table 2 Changes in ruminal bacteria associated with SARA

模型
Models
SARA诱导模式
SARA induction mode
瘤胃菌群变化
Rumen bacteria change
参考文献
Reference
奶牛Cows 对照饲粮+15%小麦粉 与对照组相比,SARA模型组奶牛
瘤胃中厚壁菌门、放线菌门、琥珀酸弧菌科
UCG-001、普雷沃氏菌属和Pseudoscardovia的
丰度显著增加,而瘤胃球菌属的丰度显著降低
Wu等[40]
奶牛Cows 高精料饲粮(精粗比60∶40) 高精料饲粮诱导SARA显著降低了瘤胃纤维杆菌属、
琥珀酸弧菌科UCG-002、普雷沃氏菌科UCG-003和
密螺旋体属的丰度,显著提高了瘤胃琥珀酸弧
菌科UCG-001和普氏菌属_7的丰度
Mu等[41]
奶牛Cows 高精料饲粮(精粗比80∶20) SARA诱导期间瘤胃拟杆菌门的丰度降低,
厚壁菌门的丰度增加;而普雷沃氏菌属的丰度
在第1个SARA诱导期显著提高,随着持续饲喂
高精料饲粮又降低到最初丰度
Ramos等[21]
奶牛Cows 高精料饲粮(精粗比70∶30) SARA诱导期间显著增加了瘤胃真细菌、
梭状芽孢杆菌属、瘤胃球菌属、乳杆菌属和
双歧杆菌属的丰度,降低了瘤胃普雷沃氏菌属、
拟杆菌属和产琥珀酸丝状杆菌的丰度
Zhang等[18]
公牛Bulls 高精料饲粮(精粗比81∶19) SARA诱导期间显著提高了瘤胃厚壁菌门和
瘤胃球菌属的丰度,显著降低了瘤胃拟杆
菌门和普雷沃氏菌属的丰度
Nagata等[37]
奶牛Cows 用50%大麦和50%小麦
将饲粮淀粉水平从19.6%
提高到31.8%
SARA组瘤胃液厚壁菌门和放线菌门的丰度
显著提高,蓝细菌门和疣微菌门的丰度显著降
低;种水平上,瘤胃液普雷沃氏菌、埃氏巨型球
菌和反刍月形单胞菌的数量显著增加,牛链
球菌的数量显著减少
Plaizier等[42]
奶牛Cows 用50%大麦和50%小麦将饲
粮淀粉水平从14.5%提高到
33.7%,在对照饲粮中添加
37%的苜蓿颗粒替代苜蓿干草
高精料饲粮诱导SARA模式显著降低了
瘤胃厚壁菌门和软壁菌门的丰度,增加了埃氏
巨型球菌的数量;2种诱导模式都显著
减少了牛链球菌的数量
Plaizier等[28]
饲粮精料水平的增加直接降低了食糜中纤维杆菌属和瘤胃球菌属的相对优势[43]。然而,奶牛发生SARA时瘤胃球菌属的丰度得以升高[16,44]。尽管瘤胃球菌属通常被认定为纤维降解菌,不能起到发酵淀粉的作用,但是它的重要成员白色瘤胃球菌可以利用淀粉降解的中间产物——己糖和戊糖[45],这支持了瘤胃球菌属在高精料饲粮消化中的作用。普雷沃氏菌属是瘤胃中最重要的细菌,它的成员具有多种代谢潜力,包括对淀粉、纤维素、半纤维素和糖的降解活性[31,45]。在各种相关研究中,高精料饲粮诱导SARA对普雷沃氏菌属的丰度变化或增加、减少或没有影响[21,35,41],这表明普雷沃氏菌可能比想象的更加复杂,它的多种活性导致了对瘤胃底物变化的适应性反应,而这些变化并没有表现出特定的模式。另有研究表明,在奶牛瘤胃中发现的与SARA相关的最常见细菌是利用淀粉的细菌,如乳酸杆菌和牛链球菌[12,44,46],这些产乳酸的革兰氏阳性菌可维持瘤胃酸性环境。Brede等[47]使用瘤胃模拟技术体外诱导SARA发现,瘤胃固体食糜和液体食糜中细菌的丰富度和多样性显著下降,纤维杆菌属和瘤胃球菌属的丰度降低,而乳杆菌科和韦荣氏菌科的丰度增加。
以上结果表明,高精料饲粮诱导SARA影响了瘤胃食糜微生物组成,这可能会导致微生物区系失调,从而降低菌群功能。但是,值得注意的是,以上研究都是基于16S rRNA测序,这项技术不能将微生物分类精确到菌种水平,因此无法评估SARA如何影响微生物功能。已有一些研究应用实时荧光定量PCR技术检测SARA对目标菌种的影响。如Fernando等[39]研究发现,当饲粮精粗比以20∶80、40∶60、60∶40和80∶20阶段性递增时,高精料饲粮模型减少了瘤胃中纤维分解菌(溶纤维丁酸弧菌和产琥珀酸丝状杆菌)的数量,但显著增加关键淀粉分解菌(埃氏巨型球菌、反刍月形单胞菌和布氏普雷沃氏菌)的数量。Plaizier等[42]用大麦和小麦颗粒诱导奶牛SARA发现,普雷沃氏菌、埃氏巨型球菌和反刍月形单胞菌的数量显著增加,牛链球菌的数量显著减少。另外,Tun等[48]研究发现,SARA显著增加了瘤胃中乳酸杆菌、埃氏巨型球菌、阿尔伯普雷沃氏菌和白色瘤胃球菌的数量,显著减少了产琥珀酸丝状杆菌和布氏密螺旋体的数量。而Zhang等[18]通过宏基因组测序分析发现,高精料饲粮改变了瘤胃微生物的组成和功能,增加了与淀粉降解有关的碳水化合物活性酶的丰度。这些研究一致认为SARA通常增加糖、淀粉和乳酸利用菌的数量,降低纤维素和半纤维素分解菌的数量。
综上所述,高精料饲粮诱导SARA会影响瘤胃微生物的分类组成,甚至降低细菌功能。但是在不同研究中,由于试验动物、饲粮营养水平及采样方法等的差异,SARA对瘤胃微生物的影响差异较大,暂时无法得出一般性结论。因此,未来可以通过Meta分析总结有关饲喂高精料饲粮时瘤胃微生物区系变化的研究,以给出SARA期间受到影响的关键细菌的结论性答案。此外,目前的研究主要基于瘤胃微生物区系和SARA之间的关联,而很少关注微生物和宿主生产性能之间的因果关系。多组学结合的研究方法可以更全面地揭示瘤胃内环境对奶牛健康和生产性能的影响。最近的一项研究估算了不同组学对牛奶蛋白产量变化的贡献,结果表明,瘤胃微生物组成、微生物功能、瘤胃代谢物和血清代谢物对牛奶蛋白产量变化的贡献分别为17.81%、21.56%、29.76%和26.78%[49]。因此,未来的研究可以采取类似的方法,将SARA期间瘤胃微生物组成和功能的变化与宿主生产指标的变化联系起来,以确定奶牛瘤胃微生物区系和SARA症状之间的因果关系。

3.2 肠道微生物区系

肠道微生物在宿主营养代谢和吸收、维持肠道屏障功能、免疫调节、抵抗病原体等方面发挥着特殊作用[50]。高精料饲粮诱导奶牛发生SARA时,大量未消化的饲料从瘤胃和小肠逸出并进入大肠,刺激大肠中微生物发酵,进而增加肠道食糜和粪便的酸度,因此预期后肠道微生物组成可能在SARA期间发生改变[51]。已有研究报道,基于大麦颗粒的SARA显著降低了粪便菌群的丰富度和多样性;该研究还发现,在鉴定出的89个菌属中有25个菌属受到SARA影响,其中链球菌属、梭菌属和双歧杆菌属的丰度显著增加,而拟杆菌属和未分类的纤维杆菌属的丰度显著降低[41]。Petri等[52]研究发现,高精料饲粮(精粗比60∶40)诱导SARA使得奶牛粪便菌群操作分类单元(OTU)数量降低了25%,并显著降低了菌群丰富度和多样性;此外,鉴定出SARA期间最具优势的菌门是厚壁菌门和变形菌门,其中前者的丰度显著降低,而后者的丰度显著升高,琥珀酸弧菌属的丰度也显著升高。此外,Yang等[53]通过研究奶牛群SARA易感性发现,易感奶牛粪便中链球菌属和瘤胃球菌属的丰度显著高于不易感组,但2组间菌群多样性及主要菌门的丰度没有差异。而通过高精料饲粮或苜蓿颗粒诱导奶牛发生SARA时,均不影响盲肠食糜菌群的丰富度和多样性,只有高精料饲粮诱导模式降低了粪便中的相应指标;该研究中,厚壁菌门和拟杆菌门等优势菌门的丰度不受SARA影响,高精料饲粮诱导模式只显著影响盲肠食糜中的1个菌属,但是在种水平上,2种诱导模式都显著增加了盲肠和粪便中几种淀粉、果胶、木聚糖、乳酸、琥珀酸和糖利用菌的丰度,可见相关细菌的发酵底物在大肠中有所增加[28]。饲粮中添加大量精料也会影响胃肠道中致病性细菌的数量。以往的研究发现,瘤胃和后肠道中致病性大肠杆菌和产气荚膜杆菌数量与高精料饲粮有关[28,54],而且当饲喂高精料饲粮没有诱发严重的瘤胃和后肠道酸中毒时,这些致病菌的增加非常有限[17],表明大肠杆菌和产气荚膜杆菌可能是导致严重酸中毒发作的重要因素。
除了与食糜相关的微生物,高精料饲粮还会影响肠黏膜黏附细菌。已有研究报道,高精料饲粮显著降低了结肠黏膜黏附细菌多样性,且显著减少了芽孢杆菌属、肠球菌属和乳球菌属的丰度[55]。Plaizier等[6]研究发现,用大麦和小麦颗粒诱导奶牛SARA,显著降低了结肠和盲肠黏膜黏附细菌的丰富度和多样性,此外,盲肠中的5个菌门和结肠中的7个菌门的丰度也受到影响,结肠黏膜中厚壁菌门的丰度显著增加,而拟杆菌门的丰度显著降低;在整个大肠中,SARA降低了变形菌门和蓝藻菌门的丰度,并增加放线菌门的丰度。Lai等[56]通过研究高精料饲粮(精粗比60∶40)对小肠黏膜黏附细菌的影响发现,十二指肠、空肠和回肠黏膜黏附细菌的丰富度和多样性均不受高精料饲粮影响,只有空肠黏膜黏附细菌的OTU数显著增加;在属水平上,高精料饲粮显著提高了十二指肠黏膜上未分类的琥珀酸弧菌科和毛螺菌科的丰度,显著提高了空肠黏膜上韦荣氏球菌属和新月形单胞菌属的丰度,显著降低了空肠和回肠黏膜上聚乙酸菌属的丰度。该研究还指出肠道微生物存在区域差异,从十二指肠到回肠,厚壁菌门的丰度逐渐增加,而变形菌门的丰度逐渐降低。前面也有研究报道,瘤胃、盲肠和结肠微生物的丰富度和多样性高于小肠,这可能与胃肠道各部位的功能异质性有关。
目前,针对SARA对后肠道黏膜黏附细菌的研究有限,尚且不能总结这些细菌的作用和它们对肠道生态平衡及功能的影响。总体而言,评估饲粮对奶牛生产和健康的影响时,需要监测瘤胃和大肠中的微生物区系对饲粮转变的适应性反应。

4 SARA对胃肠道上皮细胞的影响

在正常生理状态下,瘤胃上皮组织具有许多功能,包括营养吸收、新陈代谢、pH调节以及免疫和屏障功能。然而,SARA和急性瘤胃酸中毒会损害瘤胃上皮细胞黏附,降低其屏障功能,甚至引发炎症[57-58]。瘤胃上皮屏障功能主要是通过完整的上皮细胞和细胞间的紧密连接(tight junction,TJ)来实现的。通过体内和体外研究发现,在SARA期间,TJ蛋白[封闭蛋白-1(Claudin-1)、封闭蛋白-4(Claudin-4)、闭合蛋白(Occludin)和闭锁小带蛋白-1(ZO-1)]的表达和分布发生显著变化,且编码这些蛋白的mRNA的表达也显著下调[15,59-60],这可能是瘤胃屏障功能降低的部分机制。然而,另有研究发现,尽管SARA期间Toll样受体4(TLR4)的表达显著增加,提供了刺激免疫反应的证据,但是瘤胃上皮Claudin-1和Occludin的mRNA表达量并未发生改变[51]。最近的一项研究发现,通过体外法模拟奶山羊SARA模型时,增加脂多糖(lipopolysaccharides,LPS)浓度会显著降低瘤胃上皮Claudin-1和Claudin-7的mRNA表达量[61]。另有体内法研究指出,高精料饲粮(精粗比60∶40)诱导奶牛SARA可显著提高瘤胃液中LPS浓度,LPS可以刺激胃肠道黏膜免疫系统,促进瘤胃上皮核因子-κB(nuclear factor-kappa B,NF-κB)的活化及促炎性细胞因子白细胞介素-6(interleukin-6,IL-6)和肿瘤坏死因子-α(tumor necrosis factor-α,TNF-α)蛋白的表达,从而引发瘤胃上皮炎症反应,严重时造成组织损伤并破坏上皮屏障功能[62]。由此可见,瘤胃上皮屏障功能的下降不是由单一因素决定的,低pH以及高浓度的SCFA和LPS的组合可能是导致瘤胃屏障受损的致病因素。
与瘤胃上皮复杂的多层结构不同,肠上皮只具有单层结构,这种更简单的结构使得肠上皮比瘤胃更容易受到食糜中不利条件的影响[25]。虽然后肠上皮屏障在维持反刍动物营养吸收和免疫中起到重要作用,但有关饲喂高精料饲粮引发SARA后对后肠道上皮屏障功能影响的研究有限。Wang等[63]通过Ussing chamber系统检测SARA对奶山羊肠道屏障功能的影响,结果发现,SARA显著增加结肠上皮组织的短路电流、组织导电性(Gt)和异硫氰酸荧光素-葡聚糖4的流速,并降低了跨膜电位差,表明SARA奶山羊结肠上皮具有更高的通透性,但是,量化结肠上皮TJ蛋白的基因表达结果显示,SARA奶山羊结肠上皮Claudin-1和Occludin的mRNA表达量显著提高。Pederzolli等[51]用同样的研究方法发现,SARA不影响荷斯坦牛肠道上皮细胞的Gt,但是显著提高了空肠上皮OccludinZO-1的mRNA表达量。而Lai等[56]研究发现,高精料饲粮(精粗比60∶40)诱导奶牛SARA显著降低了空肠上皮细胞OccludinZO-1的mRNA表达量,显著降低了回肠上皮细胞Claudin-1、Claudin-4及ZO-1的mRNA表达量,表明高精料饲粮破坏了小肠上皮细胞的TJ,增加了空肠和回肠上皮的通透性。以上结果存在差异的原因与试验动物、SARA诱导方式、肠道上皮的受损程度和恢复力以及饲粮结构等多种因素有关。

5 小结

SARA是高产奶牛泌乳早期和中期常发的一种代谢紊乱疾病,会严重影响动物生产和健康。在实际生产中,饲喂奶牛高精料饲粮会导致瘤胃pH急剧下降,改变瘤胃发酵模式,增加TVFA的浓度,提高丙酸和丁酸的比例,并显著影响瘤胃微生物多样性和分类组成。充分了解胃肠道微生物与宿主动物的相互作用,能够帮助我们利用微生物的功能来提高动物的生产力和健康。笔者综合近10年的研究结果发现,微生物在SARA发病中起着重要作用,奶牛经受SARA时瘤胃纤维分解菌的数量减少,而耐酸菌如链球菌和乳酸杆菌的丰度增加,整个后肠道的微生物组成也受到SARA的影响。有限的研究表明,肠道食糜和上皮相关微生物的丰富度和多样性降低,这可能意味着微生态的失调,但具体还需通过评估SARA对这些微生物功能的影响来证明。值得注意的是,SARA的症状不是单一由低pH所致,肠腔中游离的LPS也会引发瘤胃炎症,破坏瘤胃上皮屏障,此外,黏膜黏附细菌也可能具有潜在的致病性,进而影响上皮细胞的功能。由此可见,奶牛SARA流行的原因与饮食和微生物动态密切相关,了解饲粮和微生物之间的协调活动,将会帮助我们更好制定预防策略。
[1]
HERDT T H. Ruminant adaptation to negative energy balance:influences on the etiology of ketosis and fatty liver[J]. Veterinary Clinics of North America:Food Animal Practice, 2000, 16(2):215-230.

DOI

[2]
COLMAN E, WAEGEMAN W, DE BAETS B, et al. Prediction of subacute ruminal acidosis based on milk fatty acids:a comparison of linear discriminant and support vector machine approaches for model development[J]. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2015, 111:179-185.

DOI

[3]
KRAUSE K M, OETZEL G R. Understanding and preventing subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy herds:a review[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2006, 126(3/4):215-236.

DOI

[4]
PLAIZIER J C, KRAUSE D O, GOZHO G N, et al. Subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows:the physiological causes,incidence and consequences[J]. The Veterinary Journal, 2008, 176(1):21-31.

DOI

[5]
LI S, YOON I, SCOTT M, et al. Impact of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product and subacute ruminal acidosis on production,inflammation,and fermentation in the rumen and hindgut of dairy cows[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2016, 211:50-60.

DOI

[6]
PLAIZIER J C, DANSCHER A M, AZEVEDO P A, et al. A grain-based SARA challenge affects the composition of epimural and mucosa-associated bacterial communities throughout the digestive tract of dairy cows[J]. Animals, 2021, 11(6):1658.

DOI

[7]
张涛, 牟英玉, 亓王盼, 等. 亚急性瘤胃酸中毒耐受性不同的奶牛血浆和乳中脂肪酸及代谢物组成分析[J]. 草业学报, 2021, 30(7):101-110.

DOI

ZHANG T, MU Y Y, QI W P, et al. Analysis of plasma and milk fatty acid and metabolite composition in lactating dairy cows with differing tolerance to subacute ruminal acidosis[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2021, 30(7):101-110. (in Chinese)

DOI

[8]
POURAZAD P, KHIAOSA-ARD R, QUMAR M, et al. Transient feeding of a concentrate-rich diet increases the severity of subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cattle[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2016, 94(2):726-738.

DOI PMID

[9]
ZHAO C X, LIU G W, LI X B, et al. Inflammatory mechanism of rumenitis in dairy cows with subacute ruminal acidosis[J]. BMC Veterinary Research, 2018, 14(1):135.

DOI PMID

[10]
MAO S Y, ZHANG R Y, WANG D S, et al. The diversity of the fecal bacterial community and its relationship with the concentration of volatile fatty acids in the feces during subacute rumen acidosis in dairy cows[J]. BMC Veterinary Research, 2012, 8:237.

DOI PMID

[11]
GRESSLEY T F, HALL M B, ARMENTANO L E. Ruminant nutrition symposium:productivity,digestion,and health responses to hindgut acidosis in ruminants[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2011, 89(4):1120-1130.

DOI

[12]
STEELE M A, PENNER G B, CHAUCHEYRAS-DURAND F, et al. Development and physiology of the rumen and the lower gut:targets for improving gut health[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2016, 99(6):4955-4966.

DOI

[13]
ENEMARK J M D. The monitoring,prevention and treatment of sub-acute ruminal acidosis (SARA):a review[J]. Veterinary Journal, 2008, 176(1):32-43.

DOI

[14]
HOOK S E, STEELE M A, NORTHWOOD K S, et al. Impact of subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) adaptation and recovery on the density and diversity of bacteria in the rumen of dairy cows[J]. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 2011, 78(2):275-284.

DOI PMID

[15]
MEISSNER S, HAGEN F, DEINER C, et al. Key role of short-chain fatty acids in epithelial barrier failure during ruminal acidosis[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2017, 100(8):6662-6675.

DOI PMID

[16]
MAO S Y, ZHANG R Y, WANG D S, et al. Impact of subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) adaptation on rumen microbiota in dairy cattle using pyrosequencing[J]. Anaerobe, 2013, 24:12-19.

DOI PMID

[17]
KHAFIPOUR E, LI S C, PLAIZIER J C, et al. Rumen microbiome composition determined using two nutritional models of subacute ruminal acidosis[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2009, 75(22):7115-7124.

DOI PMID

[18]
ZHANG R Y, LIU J H, JIANG L S, et al. Effect of high-concentrate diets on microbial composition,function,and the VFAs formation process in the rumen of dairy cows[J]. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 2020, 269:114619.

DOI

[19]
ZHANG T, MU Y Y, ZHANG R Y, et al. Responsive changes of rumen microbiome and metabolome in dairy cows with different susceptibility to subacute ruminal acidosis[J]. Animal Nutrition, 2022, 8:331-340.

DOI PMID

[20]
MU Y Y, QI W P, ZHANG T, et al. Gene function adjustment for carbohydrate metabolism and enrichment of rumen microbiota with antibiotic resistance genes during subacute rumen acidosis induced by a high-grain diet in lactating dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2021, 104(2):2087-2105.

DOI PMID

[21]
RAMOS S C, JEONG C D, MAMUAD L L, et al. Diet transition from high-forage to high-concentrate alters rumen bacterial community composition,epithelial transcriptomes and ruminal fermentation parameters in dairy cows[J]. Animals, 2021, 11(3):838.

DOI

[22]
KHALOUEI H, SERANATNE V, FEHR K, et al. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products and subacute ruminal acidosis on feed intake,fermentation,and nutrient digestibilities in lactating dairy cows[J]. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 2020, 101(1):143-157.

DOI

[23]
PAN X H, YANG L, XUE F G, et al. Relationship between thiamine and subacute ruminal acidosis induced by a high-grain diet in dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2016, 99(11):8790-8801.

DOI PMID

[24]
BISSELL H A, HALL M B. Cattle differ in ability to adapt to small intestinal digestion of starch[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2010, 93:845.

[25]
LI S, KHAFIPOUR E, KRAUSE D O, et al. Effects of subacute ruminal acidosis challenges on fermentation and endotoxins in the rumen and hindgut of dairy cows[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2012, 95(1):294-303.

DOI PMID

[26]
NEUBAUER V, PETRI R M, HUMER E, et al. Starch-rich diet induced rumen acidosis and hindgut dysbiosis in dairy cows of different lactations[J]. Animals, 2020, 10(10):1727.

DOI

[27]
WANG Y, NAN X M, ZHAO Y G, et al. Rumen microbiome structure and metabolites activity in dairy cows with clinical and subclinical mastitis[J]. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 2021, 12(1):36.

DOI PMID

[28]
PLAIZIER J C, LI S, TUN H M, et al. Nutritional models of experimentally-induced subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) differ in their impact on rumen and hindgut bacterial communities in dairy cows[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017, 7:2128.

[29]
NAGARAJA T G, TITGEMEYER E C. Ruminal acidosis in beef cattle:the current microbiological and nutritional outlook[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2007, 90(Suppl.1):E17-E38.

DOI

[30]
JAMI E, MIZRAHI I. Composition and similarity of bovine rumen microbiota across individual animals[J]. PLoS One, 2012, 7(3):e33306.

DOI

[31]
PETRI R M, SCHWAIGER T, PENNER G B, et al. Characterization of the core rumen microbiome in cattle during transition from forage to concentrate as well as during and after an acidotic challenge[J]. PLoS One, 2013, 8(12):e83424.

DOI

[32]
HUANG S, JI S K, YAN H, et al. The day-to-day stability of the ruminal and fecal microbiota in lactating dairy cows[J]. MicrobiologyOpen, 2020, 9(5):e990.

[33]
KHAFIPOUR E, LI S, TUN H M, et al. Effects of grain feeding on microbiota in the digestive tract of cattle[J]. Animal Frontiers, 2016, 6(2):13-19.

DOI

[34]
MCCANN J C, WICKERSHAM T A, LOOR J J. High-throughput methods redefine the rumen microbiome and its relationship with nutrition and metabolism[J]. Bioinformatics and Biology Insights, 2014, 8:109-125.

DOI PMID

[35]
MAO S Y, HUO W J, ZHU W Y. Microbiome-metabolome analysis reveals unhealthy alterations in the composition and metabolism of ruminal microbiota with increasing dietary grain in a goat model[J]. Environmental Microbiology, 2016, 18(2):525-541.

DOI

[36]
HUA C F, TIAN J, TIAN P, et al. Feeding a high concentration diet induces unhealthy alterations in the composition and metabolism of ruminal microbiota and host response in a goat model[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2017, 8:138.

DOI PMID

[37]
NAGATA R, KIM Y H, OHKUBO A, et al. Effects of repeated subacute ruminal acidosis challenges on the adaptation of the rumen bacterial community in Holstein bulls[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 101(5):4424-4436.

DOI PMID

[38]
EL KAOUTARI A, ARMOUGOM F, GORDON J I, et al. The abundance and variety of carbohydrate-active enzymes in the human gut microbiota[J]. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2013, 11(7):497-504.

DOI PMID

[39]
FERNANDO S C, PURVIS H T 2ND, NAJAR F Z, et al. Rumen microbial population dynamics during adaptation to a high-grain diet[J]. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2010, 76(22):7482-7490.

DOI PMID

[40]
WU Z B, GUO Y Q, ZHANG J H, et al. High-dose vitamin E supplementation can alleviate the negative effect of subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows[J]. Animals, 2023, 13(3):486.

DOI

[41]
MU Y Y, QI W P, ZHANG T, et al. Multi-omics analysis revealed coordinated responses of rumen microbiome and epithelium to high-grain-induced subacute rumen acidosis in lactating dairy cows[J]. mSystems, 2022, 7(1):e0149021.

DOI

[42]
PLAIZIER J C, LI S C, DANSCHER A M, et al. Changes in microbiota in rumen digesta and feces due to a grain-based subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) challenge[J]. Microbial Ecology, 2017, 74(2):485-495.

DOI PMID

[43]
MICKDAM E, KHIAOSA-ARD R, METZLER-ZEBELI B U, et al. Rumen microbial abundance and fermentation profile during severe subacute ruminal acidosis and its modulation by plant derived alkaloids in vitro[J]. Anaerobe, 2016, 39:4-13.

DOI

[44]
MCCANN J C, LUAN S Y, CARDOSO F C, et al. Induction of subacute ruminal acidosis affects the ruminal microbiome and epithelium[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2016, 7:701.

DOI PMID

[45]
NTAIKOU I, GAVALA H N, KORNAROS M, et al. Hydrogen production from sugars and sweet sorghum biomass using Ruminococcus albus[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2008, 33(4):1153-1163.

DOI

[46]
WANG H R, PAN X H, WANG C, et al. Effects of different dietary concentrate to forage ratio and thiamine supplementation on the rumen fermentation and ruminal bacterial community in dairy cows[J]. Animal Production Science, 2015, 55(2):189-193.

DOI

[47]
BREDE M, ORTON T, PINIOR B, et al. PacBio and Illumina MiSeq amplicon sequencing confirm full recovery of the bacterial community after subacute ruminal acidosis challenge in the RUSITEC system[J]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2020, 11:1813.

DOI PMID

[48]
TUN H M, LI S C, YOON I, et al. Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation products (SCFP) stabilize the ruminal microbiota of lactating dairy cows during periods of a depressed rumen pH[J]. BMC Veterinary Research, 2020, 16(1):237.

DOI

[49]
XUE M Y, SUN H Z, WU X H, et al. Multi-omics reveals that the rumen microbiome and its metabolome together with the host metabolome contribute to individualized dairy cow performance[J]. Microbiome, 2020, 8(1):64.

DOI

[50]
SONG P X, ZHANG R J, WANG X X, et al. Dietary grape-seed procyanidins decreased postweaning diarrhea by modulating intestinal permeability and suppressing oxidative stress in rats[J]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2011, 59(11):6227-6232.

DOI PMID

[51]
PEDERZOLLI R L A, VAN KESSEL A G, CAMPBELL J, et al. Effect of ruminal acidosis and short-term low feed intake on indicators of gastrointestinal barrier function in Holstein steers[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2018, 96(1):108-125.

DOI PMID

[52]
PETRI R M, ADITYA S, HUMER E, et al. Effect of an intramammary lipopolysaccharide challenge on the hindgut microbial composition and fermentation of dairy cattle experiencing intermittent subacute ruminal acidosis[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2021, 104(5):5417-5431.

DOI PMID

[53]
YANG H, HEIRBAUT S, JING X P, et al. Susceptibility of dairy cows to subacute ruminal acidosis is reflected in both prepartum and postpartum bacteria as well as odd- and branched-chain fatty acids in feces[J]. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 2022, 13(1):87.

DOI PMID

[54]
KHAFIPOUR E, PLAIZIER J C, AIKMAN P C, et al. Population structure of rumen Escherichia coli associated with subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) in dairy cattle[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2011, 94(1):351-360.

DOI

[55]
YE H M, LIU J H, FENG P F, et al. Grain-rich diets altered the colonic fermentation and mucosa-associated bacterial communities and induced mucosal injuries in goats[J]. Scientific Reports, 2016, 6:20329.

DOI PMID

[56]
LAI Z, LIN L, ZHANG J, et al. Effects of high-grain diet feeding on mucosa-associated bacterial community and gene expression of tight junction proteins and inflammatory cytokines in the small intestine of dairy cattle[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2022, 105(8):6601-6615.

DOI PMID

[57]
STEELE M A, CROOM J, KAHLER M, et al. Bovine rumen epithelium undergoes rapid structural adaptations during grain-induced subacute ruminal acidosis[J]. American Journal of Physiology:Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 2011, 300(6):R1515-R1523.

DOI

[58]
MINUTI A, AHMED S, TREVISI E, et al. Experimental acute rumen acidosis in sheep:consequences on clinical,rumen,and gastrointestinal permeability conditions and blood chemistry[J]. Journal of Animal Science, 2014, 92(9):3966-3977.

DOI

[59]
ZHANG K, MENG M J, GAO L P, et al. Rumen-derived lipopolysaccharide induced ruminal epithelium barrier damage in goats fed a high-concentrate diet[J]. Microbial Pathogenesis, 2019, 131:81-86.

DOI PMID

[60]
MA Y, ZHANG Y, ZHANG H, et al. Thiamine alleviates high-concentrate-diet-induced oxidative stress,apoptosis,and protects the rumen epithelial barrier function in goats[J]. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2021, 8:663698.

DOI

[61]
孙燕勇, 高民, 徐明, 等. 体外法研究pH与脂多糖或组胺的交互作用对奶山羊瘤胃上皮细胞紧密连接蛋白mRNA表达量的影响[J]. 动物营养学报, 2018, 30(5):1816-1826.

SUN Y Y, GAO M, XU M, et al. Interaction effects of pH and lipopolysaccharide or histamine on mRNA expression levels of tight junction proteins of rumen epithelium of dairy goats in vitro[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2018, 30(5):1816-1826. (in Chinese)

[62]
代宏宇. 脂多糖对反刍动物瘤胃上皮与乳腺上皮细胞的炎性损伤与调控研究[D].博士学位论文. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2019:48-51.

DAI H Y. Effect of lipopolysaccharide on the inflammatory response in rumen epithelium and mammary epithtelial cells of ruminants and its regulation[D]. Ph.D.Thesis. Nanjing: Nanjing Agricultural University, 2019:48-51. (in Chinese)

[63]
WANG M Y, LI Y, GAO M, et al. Effects of subacute ruminal acidosis on colon epithelial morphological structure,permeability,and expression of key tight junction proteins in dairy goats[J]. Journal of Dairy Science, 2021, 104(4):4260-4270.

DOI

文章导航

/