CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 263Insect Utilization and EffectsAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyGut microbiota and health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Insect-based diet, a promising nutritional source, modulates gut microbiota composition and SCFAs production in laying hens.

Open access
Borrelli, Luca, Coretti, Lorena, Dipineto, Ludovico, Bovera, Fulvia, Menna, Francesca, Chiariotti, Lorenzo, Nizza, Antonio, Lembo, Francesca, Fioretti, Alessandro·2017·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-16560-6PMC PMC5701250
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Insects could be potential nutritional sources both for humans and animals. Among these, Hermetia illucens, with good amount of chitin and proteins, represents a suitable diet replacement for laying hens. Little is known about insect diet effects on the microbial ecology of the gastrointestinal tract and bacterial metabolites production. In this study we investigated the effect of H. illucens larvae meal administration on cecal microbiota and short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) production in laying hens. 16S rDNA sequencing showed strong differences between cecal microbiota of soybean (SD) and insect diet (ID) groups both in type and relative abundance (unweighted and weighted beta diversity) of microbial species. In particular, Bacteroides plebeius, Elusimicrobium minutum, Alkaliphilus transvaalensis, Christensenella minuta, Vallitalea guaymasensis and Flavonifractor plautii represented the principal contributors of changes in gut microbiota composition of ID group (FDR p-values < 0.05). Of these, F. plautii, C. minuta and A. transvaalensis have the potential to degrade the chitin’s insect meal and correlated with the observed high levels of gut SCFAs produced in ID group. These microorganisms may thus connect the chitin degradation with high SCFAs production. Our results suggest H. illucens as a potential prebiotic by well feeding gut microbiota.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-017-16560-6

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Cecal microbiota structure after insect-based diet administration. (A) Diversity within SD and ID microbial communities measured by number of observed species and Shannon index. Data are mean ± SEM. Significant differences are indicated by *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 (two-sided Student’s two-sample t-test). (B, C) PCoA plots based, respectively, on unweighted and weighted UniFrac distances of SD and ID gut microbial communities (5,234 sequences/sample).
Figure 1 Cecal microbiota structure after insect-based diet administration. (A) Diversity within SD and ID microbial communities measured by number of observed species and Shannon index. Data are mean ± SEM. Significant differences are indicated by *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 (two-sided Student’s two-sample t-test). (B, C) PCoA plots based, respectively, on unweighted and weighted UniFrac distances of SD and ID gut microbial communities (5,234 sequences/sample).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 (A) Phylogenetic composition at phylum level of SD and ID microbial communities. (B,C) Relative abundances (%) of bacterial phyla and genera, respectively, found to be significantly different between SD and ID groups (p < 0.05; mean ± SEM). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 after FDR correction.
Figure 2 (A) Phylogenetic composition at phylum level of SD and ID microbial communities. (B,C) Relative abundances (%) of bacterial phyla and genera, respectively, found to be significantly different between SD and ID groups (p < 0.05; mean ± SEM). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 after FDR correction.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Stacked bar chart showing the count of metagenomic contributors for beta-N-acetylhexosaminidase (K01207) and N-acetylglucosamine-6-phosphate deacetylase (K01443) in SD and ID samples.
Figure 3 Stacked bar chart showing the count of metagenomic contributors for beta-N-acetylhexosaminidase (K01207) and N-acetylglucosamine-6-phosphate deacetylase (K01443) in SD and ID samples.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 SCFAs in cecal samples of ID and SD groups. (A) Stacked bar chart shows mean values of cecal SCFAs in SD and ID groups. (B) Heatmap shows the Pearson’s correlation between SCFAs concentration (y-axis) and key genera at species level identified by SPINGO (bottom, x-axis). Blue and red colors designate, respectively, the positive and negative correlations. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Figure 4 SCFAs in cecal samples of ID and SD groups. (A) Stacked bar chart shows mean values of cecal SCFAs in SD and ID groups. (B) Heatmap shows the Pearson’s correlation between SCFAs concentration (y-axis) and key genera at species level identified by SPINGO (bottom, x-axis). Blue and red colors designate, respectively, the positive and negative correlations. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 60 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–263 of 263

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Borrelli, L., Coretti, L., Dipineto, L., Bovera, F., Menna, F., Chiariotti, L., Nizza, A., Lembo, F., & Fioretti, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Naples Federico II (IT)
  • Institute for Experimental Endocrinology and Oncology (IT)
Corresponding author
Borrelli, Luca
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-11-24
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
16269-16269
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-017-16560-6
PMC
PMC5701250
OpenAlex
W2768218657
Cited by
263
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 7
FWCI
17.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Università degli Studi di Firenze
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect Utilization and Effects
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
Hermetia illucens, insect meal, laying hens, gut microbiota, short-chain fatty acids, cecal microbiota, chitin degradation, prebiotics, soybean diet, Flavonifractor plautii, Christensenella minuta, Bacteroides plebeius, poultry nutrition
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Animals, Animal Feed, Chickens, Diet, Fatty Acids, Volatile, Female, Insecta

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review