Dietary Mannanoligosaccharide Supplementation Improves Growth Performance, Intestinal Integrity, Serum Immunity, and Antioxidant Capacity of Partridge Shank Chickens

Abstract

Herein, we assessed the impact of dietary addition of konjac mannanoligosaccharide (MOS) on the growth, intestinal morphology, serum immune status, and oxidative status in Partridge Shank chickens. For the experiment, one-day-old chicks (n=192) were randomized into six replicates (n=8/replicate) and fed four different diets: a basal diet containing 0 (Control group), 0.5, 1, or 1.5 g MOS per kg of diet (g/kg) for 50 d. Relative to the control, the group fed 0.5 g/kg MOS decreased feed consumption from 22^nd to 50^th d and 1^st to 50^th d (P<0.05). By adding MOS, the height of the intestinal villus and the villus height to crypt depth ratio were increased (P<0.05); 1.5 g/kg MOS was the best dosage for these parameters. Jejunal and ileal goblet cell density increased following MOS supplementation at 21 d (P<0.01) and 50 d in the jejunum (P<0.05), respectively. Moreover, adding MOS to the diet increased the contents of IgA and IgM at 21 d (P<0.05) and total antioxidant capacity (P<0.05) at 50 d in the serum but decreased malondialdehyde content (P<0.01) at 21 d in the group fed 0.5 and 1.5 g/kg MOS. The findings suggested that MOS supplementation could affect feed consumption, intestinal health, serous immunity, and antioxidant capacity of Partridge Shank chickens.

Introduction

Mannanoligosaccharide (MOS) can be utilized in many fields including modern poultry production as a kind of functional oligosaccharide and feed additive and is effective for antibody production (Toloei et al., 2010). MOS can be obtained from different sources. Extensive reports suggest that mannanase can hydrolyze the polysaccharides containing mannan to yield MOS; fungi, bacteria, and plants can be used to obtain mannanase (Dhawan and Kaur, 2007; Moreira and Filho, 2008; Monia et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2013; Ariandi et al., 2015; Li et al., 2018; Shaymaa et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020).

Adding MOS to the diet can improve the immunity and intestinal health of animals. It could help bolster body weight gain and enhance feed conversion (Parks et al., 2001). Commercial mannanoligosaccharides from yeast cell walls promote the specific proliferation of beneficial bacteria and inhibit pathogenic bacteria. Phanwipa et al., 2015 reported that commercial MOS from yeast cell walls could promote beneficial bacterial growth such as that of Lactobacillus. Moreover, it could also prevent pathogenic bacteria. Zhang et al. (2005) added yeast cell wall inclusion, a commonly utilized product, to the diet and found a reduction in the concentration of malondialdehyde (MDA). MDA is a lipid peroxidation end product in chickens; it can be found in raw and boiled muscles. Our recent study showed that MOS had an effect on Partridge Shank chicken immune functionality and oxidative status in the intestines (Zhou et al., 2019).

Over the last few years, MOS use has increased in broilers. However, the supply of MOS is currently not sufficient for meeting its demand. Amorphophallus konjac K. Koch is a perennial herb. It grows in mountainous and hilly areas in subtropical regions, primarily in southeastern Asia (Zhang et al., 2005). The roots and tubers of Amorphophallus konjac contain a kind of functional polysaccharide called Konjac glucomannan (KG) (Liu et al., 2015) and is a precursor to MOS. Konjac powder can be depolymerized by β-mannanase to get MOS with high antioxidant activity (Liu et al., 2015).

Thus, high-quality MOS can be produced from KG by optimizing enzymatic hydrolysis. However, barely anything is known regarding the effects of MOS on broilers including the locally important Partridge Shank chicken breed. We hypothesized that enzymatic MOS may present high bioactivity under in vivo conditions. Therefore, we characterized the impact of enzymatic MOS from KG on Partridge Shank chicken growth performance, intestinal integrity, serum immunity, and oxidative status.

Materials and Methods

Mannanoligosaccharide

Enzymatic hydrolysis was used to prepare MOS. KG prepared from Amorphophallus konjac powder was used as the raw material in the laboratory; the powder was purchased from a local marketin Yunnan Province, China. Aspergillus niger-derived β-mannanase was selected as the main enzyme. The conditions for hydrolysis were: time of hydrolysis=2h, pH=5.0, and environmental temperature of experiment=50°C. After hydrolysis, the free-flowing enzymatic hydrolysate was subjected to inactivation by adding it in a beaker with boiling water for 10 minutes. Impurities were eliminated via ultrafiltration and MOS was separated. Lastly, spray drying (BUCHI, Flawil, Switzerland) was used to obtain solid MOS. MOS content reached more than 96% of the final sample.

Husbandry, Diets, and Experimental Design

The Nanjing Agricultural University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved these animal studies.

From a commercial hatchery, 192 one-day-old broiler chickens (Partridge Shank chickens) of similar weight were procured. The chicks were then randomized into four dietary treatment groups. Each group consisted of six replicates (one cage per replicate; n=8 chicks per cage). The treatments included the supplementation of 0, 0.5, 1, and 1.5 g/kg MOS to the basal diet. The study lasted for 50 d. Basal diet composition was determined per the recommendation of the Nutrient Requirements of Poultry (NRC, 1994) and are detailed in Table 1. Birds were raised from 1 to 50 days and had free access to mash feed and water in three-level cages in a temperature-controlled facility. In the first three days, the room temperature was adjusted to 32–34°C; it was decreased by 2–3°C each week. Finally, the temperature was adjusted t o 26°C. Natural light exposure was allowed during the day; the light intensity was set to ∼ 101x during the night. At 21 d and 50 d of age, chickens were maintained under fasting conditions for 12 h and their body weights (BW) were recorded. The body weight gain was calculated by recording the feed intake of the replicate (cage). All the birds were weighed including the dead.

Table 1. Basal diet composition (g/kg, as fed basis unless otherwise stated)

Items	1–21 days	22–50 days
Ingredients
Corn	576.1	622.7
Soybean meal	310	230
Corn gluten meal	32.9	60
Soybean oil	31.1	40
Limestone	12	14
Dicalcium phosphate	20	16
L-Lysine·HCl	3.4	3.5
DL-Methionine	1.5	0.8
Sodium chloride	3	3
Premix1	10	10
Calculated nutrient levels2
Apparentmet abolizable
energy (MJ/kg)	12.56	13.19
Crude protein	211	196
Calcium	10.00	9.50
Available phosphorus	4.60	3.90
Lysine	12.00	10.50
Methionine	5.00	4.20
Methionine + cysteine	8.50	7.60
Analyzed composition3
Crude protein	208	192
Ash	57.2	56.5

¹  On a per kg basis, this diet provided: vitamin A (transretinyl acetate), 10,000 IU; vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol), 3,300 IU; Fe (from ferrous sulphate), 80 mg; thiamin, 2.2 mg; Cu (from copper sulphate), 8.0 mg; Mn (from manganese sulphate), 110 mg; Zn (from zinc oxide), 60 mg; vitamin E (all-rac-α-tocopherol), 30 IU; I (from calcium iodate), 1.1 mg; riboflavin, 8 mg; nicotinamide, 40 mg; choline chloride, 600 mg; Se (from sodium selenite), 0.3 mg; menadione, 1.3 mg; calcium pantothenate, 10 mg; pyridoxine·HCl, 4 mg; biotin, 0.04 mg; folic acid, 1 mg; vitamin B₁₂ (cobalamin), 0.013 mg

²  Based upon feed composition and nutrition in China (2012)

³  Determined through triplicate sample analyses

Sample Collection

On days 21 and 50, all the birds were weighed after 12 h of food deprivation. In each pen, there were several chickens. When their weight reached the mean weight, one bird was picked for weighing. Later, blood samples (each of about 5 mL) were withdrawn from the wing vein. The samples were then centrifuged at 4,450×g for 15 min at 4°C to obtain the serum. After blood collection, the animals were euthanized by cervical dislocation and then necropsied. Gastrointestinal tracts were rapidly removed. The jejunum and ileum were then removed from the mesentery and were stored in a cold steel tray. Mid-jejunum and mid-ileum samples of ∼2 cm size were collected and flushed carefully and gently with cold PBS (pH 7.4). For further histological research, the samples were stored in 10% freshly chilled formalin solution.

Histological Measurement

The samples from the intestine were dehydrated and impurities were removed. Finally, paraffin was used to embed these samples. Samples of 5 µm thickness were then cut and deparaffinized using xylene. Further, the samples were rehydrated and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. A light microscope (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) was used to view the villus and crypts from ten well-oriented villi of every sample. The height of villi and cryptdept h were measured by a computer-assisted morphometric system. The samples were re-stained using Alcian Blue and periodic acid-Schiff stain to calculate the goblet cell number (Luna, 1968; Horn et al., 2009). Specifically, the samples were deparaffinized, hydrated, and stained with the Alcian Blue solution for 30 min (1 g Alcian Blue, 3 mL/L acetic acid, 97 mL dH₂O, pH 2.5). Next, the samples were rinsed with tap water for 10 min followed by a 15-min oxidation step in the presence of periodic acid. They were rinsed for 5 min with lukewarm tap water and subsequently stained with periodic acid-Schiff stain for 30 min. The mucin-containing cells were counted using a light microscope. These cells were selected from five villi of every segment and were averaged. The goblet cell density was calculated by dividing the average goblet count by the average villus length; the resultant values were reported as goblet cells per 100 µm of villus length. The chemicals used for staining were bought from Sigma-Aldrich (MO, USA).

Serum Immune and Antioxidant Parameter Measurements

To analyze total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) and the levels of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and MDA, commercial kits (Nanjing Jiancheng Bioengineering Institute, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China) were used based on provided directions. The hydroxylamine approach was utilized for measuring T-SOD activity (Oyanagui, 1984). The concentration of MDA was measured by the barbiturate thiosulfate assay (Placer, 1966). T-AOC was measured by the ferric-reducing approach (Benzie and Strain, 1996), which indicates the strength of antioxidant capacity. Chicken-specific ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) kits (Nanjing Jiancheng Bioengineering Institute) were used to calculate the immunoglobulin M (IgM), IgG, and IgA levels in the serum samples. Total protein levels in individual samples were used for normalization between samples.

Statistical Analysis

SPSS v. 19.0 (SPSS Inc., IL, USA) was used to analyze the data. One-way ANOVA was chosen to identify statistical differences. The pen (cage) was used as the experimental unit. Tukey's multiple range tests were used to detect the differences among treatments. P<0.05 served as the significance threshold. Data were the means alongside their pooled standard errors.

Results

Growth Performance

Relative to controls, adding MOS to the basal diets of chickens showed similar body weight (BW) per bird over the 50-d study (P>0.05) (Table 2). However, the addition of 0.5 g/kg MOS decreased feed consumption from 22 to 50 d and 1 t o 50 d versus control (P<0.05).

Table 2. Partridge Shank chicken growth performance after being fed diets with or without MOS supplementation¹

Items	MOS (g/kg diet)				SEM2	P-value
	0	0.5	1	1.5
Body Weight (g)
21 d	400	386	391	395	0.03	0.285
50 d	1674	1646	1656	1653	0.01	0.852
Feed consumption (g)
1 to 21 d	568	544	561	541	0.01	0.170
22 to 50 d	2551b	2399a	2590b	2522b	0.02	0.016
1 to 50 d	3117b	2942a	3150b	3063ab	0.03	0.014

^a–b  Means within a row with different superscripts are different at P<0.05

¹  MOS, mannanoligosaccharide

²  SEM, Standard error of means (n=6)

Histological Findings

Supplementation with 1 and 1.5 g/kg MOS bolstered the villus height in jejunum and ileum (P<0.05) at 21 d versus the control (Table 3). Additionally, ileal crypt depth (P< 0.05) was bolstered by adding 1 g/kg MOS to the diet. At 50 d, compared with the control, MOS supplementation elevated villus height in the jejunum in the group supplemented with 1.5 g/kg MOS; elevated villus height was observed in the ileum in the group supplemented with 1 and 1.5 g/kg (P<0.05). The villus heightt o cryptdept h ratios in both jejunum (P<0.05) and ileum (P<0.05) were also higher after 1.5 g/kg MOS supplementation. However, the crypt depth was decreased in the jejunum with 1 and 1.5 g/kg MOS supplementation (P<0.05). Ileal and jejunal goblet cell density was increased in 21 d by MOS addition (P<0.05). Simultaneously, cell density in the jejunum was increased after adding 1 and 1.5 g/kg MOS (P<0.05) at 50 d compared to the control. However, ileal goblet cell density was unaffected by the addition of MOS (P>0.05) at 50 d.

Table 3. Intestinal mucosal morphology and goblet cell number in Partridge Shank chickens fed diets containing varying levels of MOS¹

Items	MOS (g/kg diet)				SEM2	P-value
	0	0.5	1	1.5
21 d
Jejunum
Villus height (µm)	1099.00a	1107.51a	1334.01b	1602.05c	78.84	<0.001
Crypt depth (µm)	298.30	302.62	301.02	315.69	3.25	0.250
Villus height:crypt depth (µm: µm)	3.65a	3.66a	4.44ab	5.01b	0.24	0.083
Ileum
Villus height (µm)	827.01a	828.11a	868.50b	902.2c	13.94	<0.001
Crypt depth (µm)	285.44ab	281.93a	296.67c	292.40bc	2.30	0.019
Villus height:crypt depth (µm: µm)	2.83a	2.94ab	2.93ab	3.08b	0.03	0.150
50 d
Jejunum
Villus height (µm)	1663.007a	1668.02a	1669.41a	1707.81b	6.91	0.003
Crypt depth (µm)	290.32b	288.55b	278.92a	271.07a	3.03	0.008
Villus height:crypt depth (µm: µm)	5.73a	5.78ab	5.99b	6.29c	0.09	0.005
Ileum
Villus height (µm)	1078.01a	1081.11a	1095.00b	1106.14b	4.26	<0.001
Crypt depth (µm)	235.44ab	236.93b	233.67ab	228.40a	1.44	0.133
Villus height:crypt depth (µm: µm)	4.58a	4.57a	4.68a	4.84b	0.04	0.024
Goblet cell number (n per 100 µm of villus)
21 d
Jejunum	9.49	9.80	9.96	10.50	0.14	<0.001
Ileum	9.66a	9.89a	10.59b	11.26c	0.24	<0.001
50 d
Jejunum	11.23a	11.27a	11.34b	11.36b	0.02	0.021
Ileum	11.36a	11.34a	11.38a	11.47b	0.02	0.126

^a–c  Means within a row with different superscripts are different at P<0.05

¹  MOS, mannanoligosaccharide

²  SEM, Standard error of means (n=6)

Immunoglobulins in Serum

On day 21, relative to the controls, the contents of serum IgA and IgM significantly increased by adding MOS to the diet irrespective of the dosage (P%0.05) (Table 4). However, the contents of IgG at 21 d and that of IgA, IgG, and IgM at 50 d did not change with the inclusion of MOS (P>0.05).

Table 4. Immunoglobulin levels in the serum of Partridge Shank chickens given diets containing varying levels of MOS¹ (µg/mg protein)

Items2	MOS (g/kg diet)				SEM3	P-value
	0	0.5	1	1.5
21 d
IgA	1.48a	1.85b	1.92b	1.98b	0.07	0.029
IgG	2.11	2.02	2.17	2.01	0.09	0.937
IgM	1.46a	1.96b	1.77b	1.88b	0.06	0.004
50 d
IgA	1.36ab	1.41ab	1.10a	1.75b	0.09	0.085
IgG	1.72	1.61	1.33	1.92	0.11	0.265
IgM	1.40	1.47	1.40	1.80	0.08	0.092

^a–b  Means within a row with different superscripts are different at P<0.05.

¹  MOS, mannanoligosaccharide

²  IgG, immunoglobulin G; IgM, immunoglobulin M; IgA, immunoglobulin A

³  SEM, standard error of means (n=6)

Oxidative Status of Serum

Chickens consuming a diet supplement ed with 0.5 and 1.5 g/kg MOS exhibited decreased MDA contents in the serum (P<0.01) compared to the control (Table 5). Moreover, the T-AOC of the serum was elevated at 50 d by MOS inclusion (P<0.05). However, the T-SOD activity of the serum was comparable across the treatments (P>0.05) at both 21 and 50 d.

Table 5. Antioxidant status in the serum of Partridge Shank chickens fed diets containing varying levels of MOS¹

Items2	MOS (g/kg diet)				SEM3	P-value
	0	0.5	1	1.5
21 d
SOD (U/mL)	255.17	269.76	260.12	254.12	9.93	0.616
MDA (nmol/mL)	4.28b	2.22a	3.66b	2.34a	0.21	<0.001
T-AOC (U/mL)	0.64	0.64	0.67	0.84	0.05	0.195
50 d
SOD (U/mL)	327.80	322.56	324.10	339.35	9.96	0.942
MDA (nmol/mL)	4.47	4.12	4.03	4.86	0.20	0.190
T-AOC (U/mL)	0.54a	0.92b	0.99b	0.73ab	0.06	0.020

^a–b  Means within a row with different superscripts are different at P<0.05.

¹  MOS, mannanoligosaccharide

²  MDA, malondialdehyde; T-SOD, total superoxide dismutase; T-AOC, Total antioxidant capacity

³  SEM, standard error means (n=6)

Discussion

Table 2 shows that the addition of MOS to the diet did not impact BW. However, less feed consumption was observed by adding 0.5 g/kg MOS. Compared with other studies on broilers, the growth performance in this study had a slightly different trend. Nursoy et al. (2004) and Yalçin et al. (2008) found that supplemented yeast-derived MOS failed to impact the feed intake in laying hens. Yang et al. (2008) fed 1 or 2 g/kg of MOS for 1–5 weeks but observed no differences in the weight gain, intake of feed, or feed conversion efficiency compared to the control. Additionally, our recent study showed that MOS had no impact on feed intake and feed conversion ratio. However, in the current study, feed consumption was affected by MOS; the reason may stem from the source of MOS. Indeed, the MOS used here may enhance the secretion of digestive enzymes of chickens and thereby improve the digestion of feed.

It is very important to maintain the microarchitecture of the intestine because it can affect the growth performance of the chicken (Cheng et al., 2019). As a prebiotic, MOS can promote the development of villus and improve intestinal function and health (Spring et al., 2000; Baurhoo et al., 2007). In the current study, the addition of MOS increased the intestinal villus height; similar results were observed with the crypt depth and villus height to crypt depth ratio. These results proved that MOS impacted the chicken intestinal morphology. Similarly, Cheng et al. (2019) found that adding MOS increased the villus height and villus height to crypt depth ratio in the small intestine. In fish, Lu et al. (2020) found that MOS supplementation protected the intestinal histological morphology. Goblet cells secrete cysteine-rich products such as mucin 2 (MUC2) and trefoil factor 2 (TFF2). These cells also secrete the resistin-like molecule β that can maintain the integrity of intestinal mucosa (McGuckin et al., 2009). Herein, the MOS addition enhanced the intestinal goblet cell density. This was consistent with an increase in the expression of MUC2 mRNA that serves as a physical barrier between the lumen and the epithelium and offers sites for the binding of Ig molecules such as sIgA (Lamont, 1992; Linden et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2017). Our results were partially consistent with the findings of Park et al. (2019) on white Pekin ducks and of Jahanian et al. (2016) on broilers. However, other studies have shown that MOS does not alter intestinal goblet cell numbers For example, Lourenco et al. (2015) found that MOS did not affect the number of goblet cell numbers in broilers. This discrepancy may be linked to the dietary composition, MOS dosage, and physiological status.

Three immunoglobulins participate in immune system function in chickens – IgM, IgG, and IgA (Ulmer-Franco et al., 2012). It has been reported previously that dietary MOS can regulate antibody and Ig secretion. Our recent study showed that IgM and IgG in the intestine were increased by adding MOS in Partridge Shank chickens (Zhou et al., 2019). In pigs, dietary MOS increased the serum concentrations of IgA and IgG (Duan et al., 2016). We found that MOS supplementation increased the concentrations of IgA and IgM in the serum. This finding is in line with that of Attia et al. (2017) who reported that MOS supplementation elevated IgA and IgM contents in the broilers. In the present study, the concentrations of immunoglobulins were increased. This suggests that the synthesis of immunoglobulins could be stimulated by adding MOS; this is hypothesized because MOS has been proposed to provide alternative binding sites for pathogenic bacteria (Mosan and Paul, 1995). Increased Ig synthesis may additionally account for improved gut morphology. Overall, the results showed that our MOS preparations could improve the function of broiler immune systems.

Cells produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) during normal metabolic activities. However, when the ROS levels extend beyond the handling capacity of antioxidants, DNA damage may occur with proteins and endogenous lipids (Yu, 1994). Excessive ROS generation is closely linked to cancer, inflammation, autoimmunity, cardiovascular disease, and endocrine diseases (Dong et al., 2020). SOD is considered a primary antioxidant enzyme and functions as an oxygen-free radical scavenger (McCord, 1979). As the main end-product, MDA is caused by ROS and the content of MDA is usually used as a marker of lipid peroxidation (Ayala et al., 2014). T-AOC is a biomarker of antioxidant potential and redox synergistic interactions. Herein, dietary MOS bolstered the oxidative status of chickens by reducing MDA accumulation and increasing T-AOC activity in the serum. Our recent study also showed that MOS decreases the MDA content in the intestine (Zhou et al., 2019). Similarly, Bozkurt et al. (2012) found that adding MOS to the laying hens could increase the SOD activity of the liver and decrease the MDA concentration in eggs and liver. These findings were also in line with the finding of Cheng et al. (2018) that MDA content in the breast muscle of broilers could be decreased by adding MOS to the diet under heat stress. Several studies have shown that MOS improves the growth performance because it helps the gastrointestinal tract mature and get more nutrients (Zdunczyk et al., 2005; Solis de los Santos et al., 2007; Safari et al., 2014). Some small molecules are adsorbed and utilized by the intestine; these molecules may have a positive effect on the synthesis of antioxidant molecules.

In conclusion, our enzymatic MOS can affect feed consumption and improve the intestinal health, immune function, and antioxidant capacity of the serum in Partridge Shank chickens.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Extension Project of Forestry and Grassland Scientific and Technological Achievements. This work was completed at the College of Animal Science and Technology of Nanjing Agricultural University (Nanjing, China). The technical assistance of graduate students in this study is gratefully acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

•  Ariandi,  Yopi,  Anja  Meryandini. Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Copra Meal by Mannanasefrom Streptomyces sp. BF3.1 for The Production of Mannooligosaccharides. HAYATI Journal of Biosciences, 22: 79-86. 2015.
•  Attia  YA,  H  Al-Khalaifah,  MS  Ibrahim,  AE A  Al-Hamid,  MA  Al-Harthi, and  A  El-Naggar. Blood hematological and biochemical constituents, antioxidant enzymes, immunity and lymphoid organs of broiler chicks supplemented with propolis, bee pollen and mannan oligosaccharides continuously or intermittently. Poultry Science, 96: 4182-4192. 2017.
•  Ayala  A,  Muñoz  MF and  Argüelles  S. Lipid peroxidation: production, metabolism, and signaling mechanisms of malondialdehyde and 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2014: 1-31. 2014.
•  Baurhoo  B,  L  Phillip, and  CA  Ruiz-Feria. Effects of purified lignin and mannan oligosaccharides on intestinal integrity and microbial populations in the ceca and litter of broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 86: 1070-1078. 2007.
•  Benzie  F and  Strain  JJ. The Ferric Reducing Ability of Plasma (FRAP) as a Measure of “Antioxidant Power”: The FRAP Assay. Analytical Biochemistry, 239: 70-76. 1996.
•  Bozkurt  M,  Tokuşoğlu  Ö,  Küçükyilmaz  K,  Akşit  H,  Çabuk  M,  UğurÇatli  A,  Seyrek  K and  Çinar  M. Effects of dietary mannan oligosaccharide and herbal essential oil blend supplementation on performanceand oxidative stability of eggs and liver in laying hens. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 11: 223-229. 2012.
•  Chen  JF,  Liu  DS,  Shi  B,  Wang  H,  Cheng  YQ and  Zhang  WJ. Optimization of hydrolysis conditions for the production of glucomanno-oligosaccharides from konjac using β-mannanase by response surface methodology. Carbohydrate Polymers, 93: 81-88. 2013.
•  Chen  YP,  Cheng  YF,  Li  XH,  Yang  WL,  Wen  C,  Zhuang  S and  Zhou  YM. Effects of threonine supplementation on the growth performance, immunity, oxidative status, intestinal integrity, and barrier function of broilers at the early age. Poultry Science, 96: 405-413. 2017.
•  Cheng  YF,  Chen  YP,  Chen  R,  Su  Y,  Zhang  RQ,  He  QF,  Wang  K,  Wen  C and  Zhou  YM. Dietary mannan oligosaccharide ameliorates cyclic heat stress-induced damages on intestinal oxidative status and barrier integrity of broilers. Poultry Science, 98: 4767-4776. 2019.
•  Cheng  YF,  Du  MF,  Xu  Q,  Chen  YP,  Wen  C and  Zhou  YM. Dietary mannan oligosaccharide improves growth performance, muscle oxidative status, and meat quality in broilers under cyclic heat stress. Journal of Thermal Biology, 75: 106-111. 2018.
•  Dhawan  S and  Kaur  J. Microbial mannanases: an overview of production and applications. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 27: 197-216. 2007.
•  Dong  HL,  Zheng  LM,  Yu  PJ,  Jiang  Q,  Wu  Y,  Huang  CX and  Yin  BS. Characterization and application of lignin-carbohydrate complexes from lignocellulosic materials as antioxidants for scavenging in vitro and in vivo reactive oxygen species. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 8: 256-266. 2020.
•  Duan  XD,  Chen  DW,  Zheng  P,  Tian  G,  Wang  JP,  Mao  XB,  Yu  J,  He  J,  Li  B,  Huang  ZQ,  Ao  ZG and  Yu  B. Effects of dietary mannan oligosaccharide supplementation on performance and immune response of sows and their offspring. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 218: 17-25. 2016.
•  Horn  NL,  SS  Donkin,  TJ  Applegate and  O  Adeola Intestinal mucin dynamics: Response of broiler chicks and White Pekin ducklings to dietary threonine. Poultry Science, 88: 1906-1914. 2009.
•  Jahanian  E,  Mahdavi  AH,  Asgary  S and  Jahanian  R. Effectof dietary supplementation of mannanoligosaccharides on growth performance, ileal microbial counts, and jejunal morphology inbroiler chicks exposed to aflatoxins. Livestock Science, 190: 123-130. 2016.
•  Lamont  JT. Mucus: the front line of intestinal mucosal defense. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 664: 190-201. 1992.
•  Li  YX,  Yi  P,  Liu  J,  Yan  QJ and  Jiang  ZQ. High-level expression of an engineered β-mannanase (mRmMan5A) in Pichia pastoris for manno-oligosaccharide production using steam explosion pretreated palm kernel cake. Bioresource Technology, 256: 30-37. 2018.
•  Li  YX,  Liu  HJ,  Shi  YQ,  Yan  QJ,  You  X and  Jiang  ZQ. Preparation, characterization, and prebiotic activity of manno-oligosaccharides produced from cassia gum by a glycoside hydrolase family 134 β-mannanase. Food Chemistry, 309: 125709. 2019.
•  Linden  SK,  P  Sutton,  NG  Karlsson,  V  Korolik and  MA  McGuckin. Mucins in the mucosal barrier to infection. Mucosal Immunology, 1: 183-197. 2008.
•  Liu  JH,  Xu  QH,  Zhang  JJ,  Zhou  XX,  Lyu  F,  Zhao  PC and  Ding  YT. Preparation, composition analysis and antioxidant activities of konjacoligo-glucomannan. Carbohydrate Polymers, 130: 398-404. 2015.
•  Lourenco  M,  L  Kuritza,  R  Hayashi,  L  Miglino,  J  Durau,  L  Pickler and  E  Santin Effect of a mannanoligosaccharide-supplemented diet on intestinal mucosa T lymphocyte populations in chickens challenged with Salmonella Enteritidis. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 24: 15-22. 2015.
•  Lu  ZY,  Feng  L,  Jiang  WD,  Wu  P,  Liu  Y,  Kuang  SY,  Tang  L, and  Zhou  XQ. Mannanoligosaccharides improved growth performance and antioxidantcapacity in the intestine of on-growing grass carp (Ctenopharyngodonidella). Aquaculture Reports, 17: 100313. 2020.
•  Luna  LG. Manual of histologic staining methods of the armed forces institute of pathology. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 1968.
•  Mccord  JM. Superoxide: superoxide dismutase and oxygen toxicity. Reviews of Biochemistry and Toxicology, 1: 109-124. 1979.
•  McGuckin  MA,  R  Eri,  LA  Simms,  TH  Florin and  G  Radford-Smith Intestinal barrier dysfunction in inflammatory bowel diseases. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, 15: 100-113. 2009.
•  Monia  B,  Fatma  C,  Fatma  B,  Ilyes  D,  Raoudha  EG and  Semia  EC. Production of manno-oligosaccharides from locust bean gum using immobilized Penicillium occitanismannanase. Journal of Molecular Catalysis B: Enzymatic, 73: 111-115. 2011.
•  Moreira  LR and  Filho  EX. An overview of mannan structure and mannan-degrading enzyme systems. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79: 165-178. 2008.
•  Mosan  PF and  Paul  F. Oligosaccharide feed additives. In: Biotechnology in Animal Feeds and Feeding ( Wallence  RJ and  Chessen  A eds.): Chapter 11. pp. 233-245. Wiley-Blackwell Press. Hoboken. 1995.
• NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th ed. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 1994.
•  Nursoy  H,  O  Kaplan,  MN  Oguz and  O  Yılmaz Effects of varying levels of live yeast culture on yield and some parametersin laying hen diets. Indian Veterinary Journal, 81: 59-62. 2004.
•  Oyanagui  Y. Reevaluation of assay methods and establishment of kit for superoxide dismutase activity. Analytical Biochemistry, 142: 290-296. 1984.
•  Park  JW,  Jung  SW and  John  BC. Effects of a Commercial Beta-Mannanase Producton Growth Performance, Intestinal Histomorphology, Bone and Body Composition, and Amino Acid Digestibility in White Pekin Ducks. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 28: 63-71. 2019.
•  Parks  CW,  JL  Grimes,  PR  Ferketand  AS  Fairchild The effect of mannan oligosaccharides, bambermycins, and virginiamycin on performance of large white male market turkeys. Poultry Science, 80: 718-723. 2001.
•  Phanwipa  Pangsri,  Yotthachai  Piwpankaew,  Arunee  Ingkakul, Sunee Nitisinprasert and Suttipun Keawsompong. Characterization of mannanase from Bacillus circulans NT 6.7 and its application in mannooligosaccharides preparation as prebiotic. Springer Plus, 4: 771. 2015.
•  Placer  ZA,  LL  Cushman and  BC  Johnson Estimation of production of lipid peroxidation (malonyldialdehyde) in biochemical systems. Analytical Biochemistry, 16: 359-364. 1966.
•  Safari  O,  Shahsavani  D,  Paolucci  M and  Atash  MMS. Single or combined effects of fructo- and mannanoligosaccharide supplements on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, immune responses andstress resistance of juvenile narrow clawed crayfish, Astacus Leptodactylus Eschscholtz, 1823. Aquaculture, 432: 192-203. 2014.
•  Shaymaa  AI,  Amira  AH and  Mohamed  AE. Economic production of thermo-active endo β-mannanase for the removal of food stain and production of antioxidant manno-oligosaccharides. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology, 22: 101387. 2019.
•  Solis de los Santos  F,  Donoghue  AM,  Farnell  MB,  Huff  GR,  Huff  WE and  Donoghue  DJ. Gastrointestinal maturation is accelerated in turkey poults supplemented with a mannan-oligosaccharideyeast extract (Alphamune). Poultry Science, 86: 921-930. 2007.
•  Spring  P,  Wenk  C,  Dawson  KA and  Newman  KE. The effects of dietary mannanoligosaccharides on cecalparameters and the concentrations of enteric bacteria in the ceca of Salmonella-challenged broiler chicks. Poultry Science, 79: 205-211. 2000.
•  Toloei  T,  Ghahri  H and  Talebi  A. Efficacy of mannanoligosaccharides and humate on immune response to Avian Influenza (H9) disease vaccination in broiler chickens. Veterinary Research Communications, 34: 709-717. 2010.
•  Yalçin  S,  B  Özsoy,  H  Erol and  S  Yalçin. Yeast culture supplementation to laying hen diets containing soybeanmeal or sunflower seed meal and its effect on performance, egg quality traits, and blood chemistry. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 17: 229-236. 2008.
•  Yang  Y,  P  Lji,  A  Kocher,  E  Thomson,  L  Mikkelsen and  M  Choct. Effects of mannanoligosaccharide in broiler chicken diets on growth performance, energy utilisation, nutrient digestibility and intestinal microflora. British Poultry Science, 49: 186-194. 2008.
•  Ulmer-Franco  AM,  Cherian  G,  Quezada  N,  Fasenko  GM and  Mc-Mullen  LM. Hatching egg and newly hatched chick yolk sac total IgY content at 3 broiler breeder flock ages. Poultry Science, 91: 758-764. 2012.
•  Yu  BP. Cellular defenses againstdamage from reactive oxygen species. Physiological Reviews, 74: 139-162. 1994.
•  Zdunczyk  Z,  Juskiewicz  J,  Jankowski  J,  Biedrzycka  E and  Koncicki  A. Metabolic response of the gastrointestinal tract of turkeys to diets with different levels of mannan-oligosaccharide. Poultry Science, 84: 903-909. 2005.
•  Zhang  AW,  Lee,  BD,  Lee  SK,  Lee  KW,  An  GH,  Song  KB and  Lee  CH. Effects of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) cell components on growth performance, meat quality, and ileal mucosa development of broiler chicks. Poultry Science, 84: 1015-1021. 2005.
•  Zhang  Y,  Xie  B and  Gan  X. Advance in the applications of konjac glucomannan and its derivatives. Carbohydrate Polymers, 60: 27-31. 2005.
•  Zhou  MY,  Tao  YH,  Lai  CH,  Huang  CX,  Zhou  YM and  Yong  Q. Effects of Mannanoligosaccharide Supplementation on the Growth Performance, Immunity, and Oxidative Status of Partridge Shank Chickens. Animals, 9: 817. 2019.