
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0306014
PONE-D-24-23404
Research Article
Biology and Life Sciences
Organisms
Eukaryota
Animals
Vertebrates
Amniotes
Mammals
Swine
Biology and Life Sciences
Zoology
Animals
Vertebrates
Amniotes
Mammals
Swine
Biology and Life Sciences
Organisms
Bacteria
Gut Bacteria
Biology and Life Sciences
Physiology
Physiological Parameters
Body Weight
Weight Gain
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Probiotics
Biology and Life Sciences
Nutrition
Diet
Medicine and Health Sciences
Nutrition
Diet
Biology and Life Sciences
Physiology
Physiological Parameters
Body Weight
Biology and Life Sciences
Organisms
Bacteria
Bacillus
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Medical Microbiology
Microbial Pathogens
Bacterial Pathogens
Bacillus
Medicine and Health Sciences
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Pathogens
Microbial Pathogens
Bacterial Pathogens
Bacillus
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Medical Microbiology
Microbiome
Biology and Life Sciences
Genetics
Genomics
Microbial Genomics
Microbiome
Biology and Life Sciences
Microbiology
Microbial Genomics
Microbiome
Differential growth enhancement followed by notable microbiota modulation in growing-finishing pigs by Bacillus subtilis strains ps4060, ps4100, and a 50:50 strain mixture
Effects of Bacillus supplementation on productivity and fecal microbial diversity
Song Jun Ho Data curation Formal analysis Investigation 1
Park Sung-Su Data curation Formal analysis Software Visualization 2
Kim In Ho Conceptualization Data curation Methodology Project administration Resources Supervision Validation 1 *
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8310-7441
Cho Yangrae Conceptualization Data curation Funding acquisition Project administration Supervision Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 2 *
1 Department of Animal Resource & Science, Dankook University, Cheonan, Republic of Korea
2 Proxenrem, Osong Saengmyeong1-ro, Osong-eup, Chungju-si, Republic of Korea
Tomaszewska Ewa Editor
University of Life Sciences in Lublin, POLAND
Competing Interests: YC owns over 70% stocks of a startup company, ProxEnrem INC. This manuscript could facilitate the process of registering the strains described in the manuscript as animal diet supplement in the Republic of Korea. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

* E-mail: yangchorae@gmail.com (YC); inhokim@dankook.ac.kr (IHK)
9 9 2024
2024
19 9 e030601412 6 2024
20 7 2024
© 2024 Song et al
2024
Song et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

A 50:50 blend of two Bacillus subtilis strains positively impacted the productivity of finishing pigs. Given this observed effect, we hypothesized that each strain has distinct effects on weight gain and their influence on gut microbiota. In a 16-week test, 160 pigs were divided into four groups: basal diet, B. subtilis ps4100, B. subtilis ps4060, and 50:50 mixture supplemented. Subsequently, we compared body weight and fecal microbiota. Among the supplements, ps4100, ps4060, and the 50:50 mix yielded respective average daily weight gains (ADG) of 3.6%, 4.6%, and 3.9% by the 6th week. The weight difference was maintained through the 16th week. At the 11th week, the difference in α-diversity among the fecal microbiota was marginal, and 17 of 229 genera showed differential abundance between the control and either of the treatment groups. A total of 12 of the 17 genera, including Lactobacillus, showed differential abundance between the ps4100 and ps4060-fed groups, and only Eubacterium consistently decreased in abundance in both the ps4100 and ps4060 groups. In comparison, microbial diversity was significantly different at the 16th week (p < 0.05), with 96 out of 229 genera exhibiting differential abundance. A total of 42 of the 96 genera exhibited similar patterns in both the ps4100 and ps4060 groups compared to the control group. Additionally, 236 of 687 microbial enzymes with differential abundance deduced from 16S rRNA reads showed similar differential abundance in both groups compared to the control group. We concluded that the overall microbial balance, rather than the dominance or significant decrease of a few specific genera, likely caused the enhanced ADG until the 11th week. Substantial changes in microbiota manifested at the 16th week did not cause dramatically increased ADG but were a consequence of weight gain and could positively affect animal physiology and health afterward.

Platform Technology Development Program RS-2022-TI023566, S3309275 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8310-7441
Cho Yangrae http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013129 Ministry of SMEs and Startups S3374815 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8310-7441
Cho Yangrae Functional Food Program RS-2023-00282826 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8310-7441
Cho Yangrae This work was partly supported by the Platform Technology Development Program (RS-2022-TI023566, S3309275), the Functional Food Program (RS-2023-00282826), and the Technology Development (R&D) Support Program (S3374815), and of the Ministry of SMEs and Startups (MSS, Korea) to YC. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. No additional external funding was received for this study. Data AvailabilityThe fecal microbiota sequencing data generated during the current study are available in the NCBI SAR repository (deposit number SUB14130364, BioProject accession number PRJNA1061231). All raw data such as raw body weight and feed amounts, will be available upon request to either of the corresponding authors, YC or IHK, or the Dankook Smart Animal Bioresearch Center (http://www.dankook.ac.kr/web/ins403, email: 12131722@dankook.ac.kr).
Data Availability

The fecal microbiota sequencing data generated during the current study are available in the NCBI SAR repository (deposit number SUB14130364, BioProject accession number PRJNA1061231). All raw data such as raw body weight and feed amounts, will be available upon request to either of the corresponding authors, YC or IHK, or the Dankook Smart Animal Bioresearch Center (http://www.dankook.ac.kr/web/ins403, email: 12131722@dankook.ac.kr).
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Researchers in the field of animal science are actively seeking microbes that can enhance productivity in economically important animals. These probiotics offer various benefits when introduced into animal diets, including promoting health to alleviate challenges such as postweaning diarrhea [1,2], boosting weight gain in finishing pigs [3], and serving as alternatives to antibiotics for promoting animal growth [1,4–7]. Additionally, they contribute to reducing environmental pollution while enhancing productivity [8].

Commonly used probiotics in animal feed include members of the genera Lactobacillus, Saccharomyces, and Bacillus, with spore-forming Bacillus demonstrating advantages in terms of stability during production, logistics, and efficacy [6,9,10]. Among the probiotics used, the spore forming bacterial strains are advantageous because spores can withstand low pH in the stomach and can endure bile salts and various digestive enzymes secreted in the gastrointestinal tract [10,11]. Spore forming strains, such as those of B. subtilis, B. licheniformis, B. coagulans, or their mixtures have shown beneficial effects associated with the modulation of the gut microbiome [12].

The gut microbiome is not only associated with enhancing animal productivity and weight gain but also with combating metabolic diseases linked to overweight and obesity [13–15]. Adequate probiotic consumption fosters gut health by promoting a balanced and diverse gut microbiome [16], aiming to prevent unhealthy weight gain. Specific probiotic feeding strategies have demonstrated success in improving productivity, potentially by increasing beneficial bacteria [8]. However, the relevance of changes in the microbiota to the weight gain of finishing pigs is unclear and has yet to be further investigated. Moreover, the cause-and-effect relationship between enhanced weight gain and the modulation of microbiota in finishing pigs has not been determined, and the health effects of weight gain in the context of unhealthy obesity are also not well understood. Ongoing research continues to explore the potential of probiotics in enhancing gut microbial diversity and their impact on overall health.

In a previous study, two B. subtilis strains were shown to enhance the productivity of finishing pigs without compromising carcass quality when fed a 50:50 mixture for 10 weeks [17]. Here, we individually fed these strains to investigate whether each strain acts differently in terms of productivity, meat quality, and interactions between the two strains in enhanced productivity. We hypothesized that (1) each B. subtilis strain (ps4100 and ps4060) would have distinct effects on the productivity and gut microbiota of finishing pigs, and (2) the enhanced productivity observed would be associated with specific modulations in the gut microbiota, including changes in microbial diversity and the relative abundance of pathogenic and beneficial bacteria. We tested whether enhanced productivity is associated with modulation of the fecal microbiota and the differential abundance of metabolic pathways predicted from the microbial community.

Materials and methods

IACUC approvals

The study was reported in accordance with ARRIVE guidelines (https://arriveguidelines.org" https://arriveguidelines.org) to the Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) at Dankook University, located in Cheonan, ROK. We used piglets produced internally in a sow room, which is capable of housing 30 piglets during farrowing, located at the university research pig farm in Jeonui, Chungnam. The committee has approved the protocols for animal experiments and management under approval number DK-1-2216. The Republic of Korea adheres to international standards and guidelines, which encompass the International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals and the OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice. These regulations govern animal care and use through oversight by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Two strains of the probiotic B. subtilis

The Bacillus subtilis strains ps4100 and ps4060 were obtained from the digestive tract of Korean rhinoceros beetle (Protaetia brevitarsis seulensis), which were sourced in the Republic of Korea. The genome sequences of these strains have been recorded in GenBank under the accession numbers CP081458 for ps4060 and CP076445 for ps4100. The screening procedure and their limited antibiotic resistance were detailed in a previous study [18]. The spore cells of the Bacillus subtilis ps4100 and ps4060 strains were separately produced following the methodology described in a prior study [17]. Subsequently, the spore suspension of each strain was absorbed into silica and air-dried at 80°C, resulting in the final test materials (ELT Science, Osong, Korea). These end products were fed either individually or blended in a 50:50 mixture.

Experimental design, animals, and housing

For our 16-week experiment, we utilized 160 growing pigs ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) with an average body weight (BW) of 24.77 ± 2.73 kg and an age of approximately nine weeks. The pigs were allocated to four experimental groups based on their initial body weight using a stratified random block design. Each treatment consisted of 10 replication pens, each containing four pigs, two barrows and two gilts. Thus, a total of 20 barrows and 20 gilts were allotted to each treatment. The experimental groups were differentiated according to the following specific probiotic strains: (1) the control group (CON), which was fed the basal diet (S1 Table) with no supplements; (2) treatment group 1 (TRT1), which was fed the basal diet supplemented with ps4100; (3) treatment group 2 (TRT2), which was fed the basal diet supplemented with ps4060; and (4) treatment group 3 (TRT3), which was fed the basal diet supplemented with equal amounts of ps4100 and ps4060. The supplements were mixed with the basal diet to reach a probiotic concentration of 1 × 109 cfu per kg of the basal diet. The basal diet was formulated to meet the nutrient requirements for low-protein diets specified in the 2012 edition of the National Research Council (S1 Table). All pigs were housed in an environmentally controlled room with a plastic floor and had ad libitum access to food and clean water throughout the experimental period.

Growth performance

To investigate the effect of probiotics on the growth of grower-finisher pigs, body weight was measured individually at the beginning of the experiment (week 0) and at the end of weeks 6, 11, and 16. The feed consumption per pen was determined by subtracting the remaining feed from the initial amount when the body weight was measured at the end of weeks 6, 11, and 16. The average daily gain (ADG) of body weight, average daily feed intake (ADFI), and gain-to-feed ratio (G:F) were estimated as the averages from four pigs co-housed and group-fed together. They calculated using the following formulas: [(final BW–initial BW)/total number of days], [(initial amount of diet–remaining amount of diet)/total number of days], and [ADG/ADFI]. The cumulative body weight change was calculated as [[(final BWE−initial BWE)—(final BWC−initial BWC)]/(final BWC−initial BWC)]. BWE and BWC respectively represent the body weight of the experimental and control groups.

Digestibility, carcass grade, and meat quality

We measured digestibility, carcass grade, and meat quality as described in a previous publication [17]. Detailed protocols are described in S1 Appendix.

Metagenomic sequencing of the fecal microbiome

Eighteen fecal samples were collected at the end of week 6, while 24 fecal samples were collected at the end of week 16. There were 6 individuals in the CON, TRT1, and TRT2 groups in both cases, and the TRT3 group was added at the latter week. A 100 mg portion was taken from each fecal sample to extract genomic DNA using the DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit from Qiagen (Qiagen, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Subsequently, the quantity and quality of the DNA were assessed using a Nanodrop from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, MA, USA) and a Bioanalyzer from Agilent (Santa Clara, CA, USA). DNA from the V3-4 region was amplified using a primer set (Illumina, San Diego, 16S Metagenomic Sequencing library Preparation kit, 16S V3-V4 forward primer, TCGTCGGCAGCGTCAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAGCCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG; 16S V3-V4 reverse primer, GTCTCGTGGGCTCGGAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAGGACTACHVGGGTATCTAATCC), and ~450 nucleotides were sequenced by DNA-Link (Seoul, ROK). The resulting product was purified and used as template DNA for subsequent amplification with a unique set of index primers for each template DNA following Illumina’s protocol (San Diego, CA). This generated 42 indexed libraries, which were multiplexed and sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq platform, producing paired-end sequence reads. To perform quality trimming and sequence demultiplexing, we used in-house Perl scripts. Furthermore, noise, replicates, and chimeras were removed. Amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) were generated using Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology (QIIME2, version 2023. 09) [19,20]. Q2-DADA2 was included in the QIIME2. The reads in the ASVs were assigned to operating taxonomic units (OTUs) using the classifier Silva (SSU138) and the 16S rRNA gene database [21,22], provided that they showed more than 99% sequencing identity.

Fecal microbial community analyses

Alpha- and beta-diversity analyses were subsequently conducted on a rarefied ASV table utilizing the normalized sequence count of 45,703 ASVs. Richness and diversity indices, including observed ASVs, Chao1 estimates, Simpson’s index, Shannon’s index, evenness, and Faith’s phylogenetic diversity, were calculated based on the rarefied ASV table. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) was performed on variance distance matrices to investigate the dissimilarity of the overall microbiota between the control group and three Bacillus-fed groups. The differential abundance of OTUs was analyzed by Gneiss [23] and ANCOM [24], which were incorporated in QIIME 2, along with ANOVA in the R package using normalized sequence counts [25] (Core R Team, 2021). The differential abundance of the gut microbiota was visualized using the pheatmap package in R (version 4.1.2). Functional predictions of enzymes and metabolic pathways, based on the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database, were performed using Phylogenetic Investigation of Communities by Reconstruction of Unobserved States (PiCRUST2) [26]. The KO results were subjected to KEGG pathway enrichment analysis using a custom Python script.

Statistical analysis

We employed analysis of variance (ANOVA) incorporated in the R package (version 4.1.2) to analyze differences in OTUs, KOs, and metabolic pathways among the control group and the three treatment groups. A probability level of p < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. We compared differences between all possible pairs using Tukey’s multiple-comparison tests with Bonferroni correction. The Kruskal‒Wallis test for alpha diversity and PERMANOVA for beta diversity were conducted in QIIME 2. PERMANOVA is a nonparametric multivariate statistical permutation test used to compare groups of objects, ensuring that the centroids and dispersion of the groups are equivalent for all groups. We utilized the Bray‒Curtis distance and UniFrac distance methods.

Results

Impact on body weight increases and meat quality in pigs

In a 16-week experiment, supplementing grower-finisher pigs with B. subtilis—ps4100, ps4060, or a 50:50 mixture—significantly boosted weight gain compared to the basal diet (p < 0.05). Strain ps4060 led to the greatest increase (3.4%), followed by the mixture (2.8%) and ps4100 (2.1%) (Table 1). Any strain alone was sufficient for enhancing productivity in average daily gain (ADG) during the first six weeks up to the eleventh week (p < 0.01). While the 50:50 mixture initially trailed ps4060 but barely exceeded ps4100, it outperformed the average of both strains and had the highest ADG in the last five weeks (Table 1). The peak ADG occurred in the first 6 weeks, tapering off over time. The mixture’s total weight gain matched the average weight gain of ps4100 and ps4060 by the end of the 16th week (Table 1). The supplementation also resulted in an enhancement of one of the meat quality indices, especially meat color (S1 Appendix).

10.1371/journal.pone.0306014.t001 Table 1 The effect of dietary supplementation with Bacillus subtilis on the growth of growing-finishing pigs.

Items	CON	TRT1	TRT2	TRT3	SEM	p—value	
Body weight, kg	
 Initial	24.8	24.8	24.8	24.8	0.22	1.000	
 Week 6	53.7	54.8 (3.6%*)	55.0 (4.5%*)	54.8 (3.8%*)	0.24	0.220	
 Week 11	81.7a	83.4ab (2.9%*)	84.2b (4.3%*)	83.5ab (3.2%*)	0.31	0.037	
 Week 16	113.7a	115.6ab (2.1%*)	116.7b (3.4%*)	116.2b (2.8%*)	0.36	0.015	
Initial—Week 6						
 ADG, g	689a	714b (3.6%)	721b (4.6%)	716b (3.9%)	4	0.011	
 ADFI, g	1654	1681	1685	1681	8	0.499	
 G:F	0.417	0.424	0.428	0.426	0.002	0.152	
Week 6—Week 11						
 ADG, g	800a	818ab (2.3%)	833b (4.1%)	821b (2.6%)	4	0.011	
 ADFI, g	2129	2132	2181	2152	12	0.429	
 G:F	0.376	0.384	0.382	0.382	0.002	0.756	
Week 11—Finish						
 ADG, g	913	920 (0.8%)	930 (1.9%)	933 (2.2%)	4	0.244	
 ADFI, g	2929	2900	2932	2903	22	0.935	
 G:F	0.361	0.368	0.368	0.369	0.001	0.1298	
Abbreviations: CON, basal diet; TRT1, basal diet + ps4100; TRT2, basal diet + ps4060; TRT3, basal diet + 50:50 mixture of ps4100 and ps4060; SEM, standard error of means. The distinct superscripts denote significant differences (p < 0.05) among the means within the same row. An asterisk (*) indicates cumulative changes in body weight.

Modulation of fecal microbiota diversity

After being fed probiotics for 11 weeks, an average of 75,584 reads of bacterial 16S rRNA were generated from 18 fecal samples, representing approximately 150-day-old finisher stage. Similarly, after 16 weeks of probiotic feeding, an average of 84,954 reads were generated from 24 fecal samples, representing approximately 180-day-old finisher stage. Rarefaction curves indicated that the sequencing depth was sufficient to reasonably reflect the diversity of the microbiota (S1 Fig). The numbers of observed OTUs (± standard deviation) were 522.1 (± 48.4) and 504.0 (± 101.7) for the 11th and 16th-week samples, respectively. The OTU numbers in this study were similar to those reported in a 180-day longitudinal study spanning from the suckling to finisher stages [27].

Small differences at the 11th week: After 11 weeks of probiotic feeding, the microbiota showed no significant differences among the three groups in any of the indices except for the Shannon index (Fig 1A). Differences in the Shannon index were apparent between the ps4100 and ps4060 groups but not between the ps4100 and control groups. Principal coordinate analysis based on the Bray‒Curtis distance matrix indicated differences among the three groups by the 11th week (Fig 1B, p = 0.03). The group fed ps4100 was tightly clustered and separated from the control and ps4060 groups, which were dispersed (Fig 1B left). It appeared that ps4100 supplementation resulted in more alteration of the gut microbiota than ps4060.

10.1371/journal.pone.0306014.g001 Fig 1 Diversity of intestinal microbiota in the feces of finishing pigs fed a diet supplemented with or without B.

subtilis probiotic strains. Microbiota in the gut of 150-day-old finishing pigs after 11-week feeding trial and 180-day-old finishing pigs after 16-week feeding trial. A. Alpha-diversity indices. The numbers are p-values calculated by the Kruskal‒Wallis test. B. Beta diversity was calculated by principal coordinate analysis. Abbreviations: P.V.: percent variation, K-W: Kruscal-Wallis.

Large differences at the 16th week compared to the small differences at the11th week: For the control group, the OTUs remained similar between the 11th and 16th weeks (Fig 1A). The ps4100 group exhibited a significant increase in the number of observed features, which increased from 520.8 (±39.5) in the 11th week to 600.8 (±48.7) in the 16th week (p < 0.01). Conversely, the number of bacteria in the ps4060 group decreased from 509.7 (±35.8) to 415.2 (±122.1), although the intra-variation of bacterial numbers in each pig fed with ps4060 was high. There were more observed OTUs in the ps4100 group than in the ps4060 and the 50:50 mixture groups at the 16th week (p < 0.01; Fig 1A). Model-based estimates (ACE and Chao1), sum of phylogenetic branch length (Faith), and phylogenetic diversity (Simpson and Shannon) were also greater in the ps4100 group than in the ps4060 and 50:50 mixture groups (p < 0.01). Supplementation with ps4100 led to an increase in the number of OTUs, while supplementation with ps4060 or the 50:50 mixture resulted in a decrease in the number of bacteria that evenly spread across the bacterial domain. Bray‒Curtis PERMANOVA also revealed a clear separation of the ps4100 group from the other groups (Fig 1B center and right).

Comparison of taxa at the phylum level

The most dominant phylum, Firmicutes, comprised approximately 75% of the microbiota at both the 11th and 16th weeks, among a total of 30 detected phyla. The second most dominant phylum was Bacteroidota, accounting for 19% and 17% of the bacteria at the 11th and 16th weeks, respectively (Table 2 and S2 Fig). These two phyla collectively constituted more than 90% of the total gut microbiota in finishing pigs. The ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroides tended to increase in the experimental groups at the 16th week compared to the 11th week, but the difference was not statistically significant (Table 2). Campylobacterota and WPS.2 were minor phyla but exhibited a decrease (p < 0.05) and an increase (p < 0.01), respectively, in the ps4060-fed group at the 11th week. At the 16th week, differential abundance of OTUs was evident across eight phyla, including Proteobacteria, Spirochaetota, and Euryarchaeota (Table 2).

10.1371/journal.pone.0306014.t002 Table 2 Comparison of OTU abundance among groups at the phylum level.

	11th week	16th week	
	Control	ps4100	ps4060	p-val	Control	ps4100	ps4060	50:50 mix	P-val	
Firmicutes	35279±2242	33829±1932	29968±13007	0.48	33463±2319	34495±1605	34132±2941	33641±1284	0.83	
Bacterodota	8716±1540	10130±1613	7667±3589	0.25	8294±1022	8058±1389	6815±1212	7078±638	0.08	
Ratio F/B	4.0±1.0	3.3±0.7	3.9±0.7		4.0±1.0	4.3±1.0	5.0±1.4	4.8±0.5	0.50	
Proteobacteria#	285±114	237±150	119±97	0.09	1622±810a	295±104b	3618±2462 a	3033 ±1444 a	0.004	
Spirochaetota#	438±669	327±481	117±84	0.51	1,436±495 a	1,566±319 a	345±91 b	771±254c	4.9.E-06	
Actinobacteriota	283±124	420±110	388±313	0.49	153±126a	348±258 ab	229±40ab	348±128 b	2.0.E-03	
Planctomycetota#	45±50	64±50	32±29	0.47	33±20 a	206±73 b	9 ±16a	15±9 a	3.7.E-08	
Verrucomicrobiota#	18±27	9±7	1±2	0.22	26 ±15a	84±13 b	11 ±8a	68±36ab	1.1.E-05	
Fibrobacterota#	19±16	13±7	15±9	0.64	22±21ab	43 ±27ab	9 ±6a	42±23 b	0.03	
Synergistota	2±4	1±1	0±0	0.23	4±5a	22±9 b	0.4±1 a	5±7 a	1.4.E-05	
WPS-2*	0.3±0.6 a	0.0±0.0 a	16±14.2 b	0.006	1 ±1a	12±17 a	13 ±10a	70±38 b	6.2.E-05	
Campilobacterota*	42± 28a	32 ±24a	3 ±4b	0.02	199±114	145±83	72±48	177±109	0.12	
Superscripts indicate significant differences in OTU abundance within each row (p < 0.05). An asterisk (*) and a hash (#) indicate phyla that showed differential abundance according to ANCOM at the 11th and 16th weeks, respectively.

Comparison of taxa at the genus level

Initially, we used the Gneiss method to determine the general importance of the differential abundance of all genera among the experimental groups. One particular node indicated that the Bacillus-fed groups were different from the control group at the 11th week and that the control and ps4100 groups were different from the ps4060 or 50:50 mixture-fed groups at the 16th week (Fig 2A, green box). ANCOM identified one taxon at the 11th week, while five taxa at the 16th week (Fig 2B and 2C, red-marked taxa). Moreover, ANOVA revealed seventeen (6.9%) and ninety-six (41.9%) bacterial taxa with differential abundances among the 229 (133±13) genera at the 11th and 16th weeks, respectively (Fig 2B and 2C, Tables 3 and S2).

10.1371/journal.pone.0306014.g002 Fig 2 Differential abundance of bacteria.

A. Graphical representation of the differential abundance of all bacterial genera analyzed by the Gneiss method. The green box with an asterisk (*) indicates a node showing a difference between the control and Bacillus-fed groups at the 11th week. B. Differential abundance of bacteria among groups at week 11, as determined by ANOVA. The letters in the colored squares indicate significant differences in OTU abundance within each row (p < 0.05). C. Differential abundance of bacteria among the experimental groups at week 16, as determined by ANOVA with Bonferroni correction. Those selected by ANCOM are marked in red. Two asterisks (**) and a hash (#) indicate the genera associated with health consequences.

10.1371/journal.pone.0306014.t003 Table 3 Genus-level differential abundance of bacteria among the experimental groups at the 11th week.

index	ANCOM	Control	TRT1	TRT2	
g_Eubacterium_siraeum		164b	71a	68a	
o_Bacteroidales		42a	59a	128b	
g_Megasphaera		985a	1325ab	2629b	
g_Acidaminococcus		43b	153a	96ab	
g_Streptococcus		27b	110a	36b	
g_Prevotella		3839b	5997a	4551ab	
f_Atopobiaceae		33ab	48a	30b	
g_Prevotellaceae_UCG.003		103b	206a	91b	
g_Intestinibacter		354a	399a	215b	
g_Colidextribacter		106a	132a	61b	
g_Terrisporobacter		2047ab	2941a	1375b	
g_Peptococcus		112ab	158a	70b	
g_Romboutsia		716ab	1052a	421b	
g_WPS.2	y	0a	0a	17b	
g_Clostridium_sensu_stricto_6		92a	30a	280b	
c_Bacilli_._._.		3229b	310a	2167ab	
g_Lactobacillus		5778ab	1050a	7357b	
A total of 96 taxa were selected by ANOVA (p < 0.008). Distinct superscripts denote significant differences among the means within the same row as determined by Tukey’s tests.

At the 11th week, Lactobacillus, recognized as a health-promoting bacteria [28], was the most abundant genus in the control group (5,778±5,246, 12.7%). However, it was less in the ps4100 group (1,050±910, 2.3%) but more abundant in the ps4060 group (7,357±4,325, 16.2%) than the control group, resulting in a significant difference between the ps4100 and ps4060 groups (Fig 2B, p < 0.05). The other 11 of the 16 genera, including WPS.2, exhibited clearly different patterns of abundance between ps4100 and ps4060, while only Eubacterium_siraeum was decreased in both the ps4100 and ps4060 groups (Table 3). It was difficult to specify the causative microbes for the increased ADG.

By the 16th week, Lactobacillus remained the most abundant genus (5,876 out of 45,455, 12.9%) in the control group and in the Bacillus-fed groups, with no significant difference. The abundance of Bifidobacterium, which is renowned for its health-promoting properties by strengthening the mucosal barrier [29], increased in the ps4060 group and the 50:50 mixture group at the 16th week (p < 0.0001) but not at the 11th week. Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1, an opportunistic pathogen [30], was the second most abundant genus (4,620, 10.7%) in the control group at the 11th week and became the most abundant genus (5,877, 13.4%) by the 16th week. This genus exhibited an approximately 2-fold lower relative abundances in the ps4060-fed group compared to the control group. The Bacteroides, which is associated with sugar fermentation, obesity, and a possible marker of poor health [31], was also less abundant in the ps4060 and 50:50 mixture groups than the control group. Many genera, such as Succinivibrio, Terrisporobacter, Treponema, Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group, Bacteroidales_RF16_group, Megasphaera, Selenomonas, UCG-005, NK4A214_group, Agathobacter, and Prevotellaceae_NK3B31_group were abundant in the control group but not in the treatment groups. In contrast, less abundant genera, such as Syntrophococcus, Tuzzerella, Erysipelotrichaceae_UCG-009, and Pseudoramibacter, appeared to be more abundant in the experimental groups. A total of 96 out of 229 genera showed differential abundance among all groups. Of these, 42 genera exhibited similar patterns of abundance, while 54 genera showed different patterns of abundance between ps4100 and ps4060. The list of taxa displaying differential abundance among groups is available along with the corresponding read counts (S2 Table).

The detection of the genera Bacillus, Salmonella, E. coli, and Shigella occurred at a low level, with an average of fewer than one read in all groups; thus, the differential abundance remained indistinguishable both at 11th and 16th weeks.

Modulation of biochemical pathways

We performed Phylogenetic Investigation of Communities by Reconstruction of Unobserved States (PiCRUST) analysis to predict the functional relevance of the gut microbial community in relation to the enhanced weight gain based on the 16S rRNA gene sequences. The analysis identified a total of 22 Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways and 413 KEGG orthology (KO) enzymes that differed among the three groups at the 11th week (Fig 3). Only ten of the 413 enzymes increased, while two decreased in both the ps4100 and ps4060 groups (Fig 3A). The biosynthetic pathways for tyrosine, phenylalanine, arginine, bacterial LPS, and thiamine diphosphate were slightly increased but the glucose and xylose degradation pathways decreased in both the ps4100 and ps4060 groups (Fig 3B). In comparison, out of 686 enzymes of differential abundance, 189 were increased and 47 decreased in both the ps4100 and ps4060 groups (Fig 3C). Among the 145 KEGG pathways showing differential abundance at the 16th week, five pathways showed over two-fold decreases in both the ps4100 and ps4060 groups compared to the control group. They included lipopolysaccharide (LPS) synthesis (PWY.7332), L-glutamate degradation (PWY.5088), and nucleotide degradation pathways (PWY.7198, PWY.7210, PWY.5705) (Table 4).

10.1371/journal.pone.0306014.g003 Fig 3 PiCRUST prediction of the functional potential of a microbial community based on 16S rRNA gene sequencing data.

A. A total of 413 enzymes showing changes in expression at 11th week in the Bacillus-fed groups compared to the control group were categorized into KEGG pathways. B. Differential abundance of KEGG pathways shown by log2 ratios that were significantly changed in the Bacillus-fed groups at the 11th week. C. A total of 686 enzymes showing changes in expression at the 16th week in the Bacillus-fed groups compared to the control group were categorized into KEGG pathways. D. Differential abundance of KEGG pathways shown by log2 ratios that were significantly changed in the Bacillus-fed groups at the 16th week.

10.1371/journal.pone.0306014.t004 Table 4 Differential abundance of selected KEGG pathways at the 16th week.

	11th week	16th week	
X.OTU.ID	Con	ps4100	ps4060	p-val	Con	ps4100	ps4060	50:50	p-val	
PWY.5088	452	333	845	2.E-01	3,107	910	1,048	1,154	3.E-04	
PWY.7332	4,314	4,359	3,761	7.E-01	15,483	10,281	3,003	3,507	1.E-04	
PWY.7198	3,152	3,897	3,842	7.E-01	2,290	1,024	838	588	8.E-05	
PWY.7210	4,275	5,158	5,121	7.E-01	3,208	1,449	1,182	832	8.E-05	
PWY.5705	466	525	516	9.E-01	539	245	221	190	3.E-03	
PWY.5088, L-glutamate degradation VIII (to propanoate); PWY.7332, superpathway of UDP-N-acetylglucosamine-derived O-antigen building blocks biosynthesis; PWY.7198, pyrimidine deoxyribonucleotides de novo biosynthesis IV, PWY.7210, pyrimidine deoxyribonucleotides biosynthesis from CTP; PWY.5705, allantoin degradation to glyoxylate III.

Discussion

In the present study, Bacillus subtilis strains exhibited varying degrees of productivity enhancement in finishing pigs. The B. subtilis strain ps4060 demonstrated the highest efficacy, resulting in a 3.4% increase in productivity, followed by the 50:50 mixture (2.8%) and ps4100 (2.1%). The genus Bacillus was detected at low levels in all groups, possibly because the proportion of bacteria in the gut was relatively low. The feeding regimen of 1 x 109 cfu/kg of feed constituted a relatively small proportion of the bacteria compared to the 1 x 1014 cfu bacteria within the gastrointestinal tract [32]. Although it is challenging to conclusively attribute the observed weight gain to the direct effect of the Bacillus strain, supplementation with strains ps4100 and ps4060 improved ADG. The 50:50 mixture of the two strains also improved the ADG and showed an average effect.

The study found a peak effect on weight and ADG at sixth week across all experimental groups, followed by a less increase at the 11th week the sixth week, with the gained weight maintained until the end of the 16th week. These results reinforce those of a previous 10-week feeding study, which demonstrated that Bacillus supplementation in a 50:50 mixture enhances pig productivity in principle [17]. This study further demonstrated the positive impact of this supplementation over approximately 10 weeks in growing pigs, as well as in finishing pigs, in a controlled laboratory setting. The effects were observed sooner and at a greater level in the growing pigs compared to the finishing pigs.

To understand the reasons underlying the enhanced ADG, we analyzed microbiota data to investigate whether probiotics reduce harmful bacteria [1,2] and increase beneficial bacteria [33]. No difference was apparent in the number of putative pathogenic bacteria, such as Shigella, E. coli, or Salmonella, between the control group and any of the Bacillus-fed groups in this study. This observation contrasts with other studies that demonstrated the positive impact of probiotics on harmful or beneficial bacteria. Those studies mostly focused on weaners or post-weaners [1,2,34], a crucial period during which the gut microbiota is established [27]. During this period of growth, the withdrawal of in-feed antimicrobial agents could increase mortality [35]. The negligible effect on the number of harmful bacteria in this study is probably because the intestinal microbiota in grower-finishers is more stable compared to the expanding microbiota during the weaner stage, which begins at the semisterile stage after birth [27]. Alternatively, the sequence reads may not have been deep enough to discern the differential abundance of low-frequency pathogens detected by PCR in other studies [1,2].

Next, we compared microbial diversity between experimental and control groups. If specific bacterial taxa were crucial for ADG improvement, they might have either increased or decreased in abundance in both the ps4100 and ps4060 groups compared to the control group. Thus, we searched for taxa exhibiting such trends. However, only Eubacterium showed consistent trends in the groups supplemented with either ps4100 or ps4060 at the 11th week. Instead, taxa that increased in the ps4100 group were decreased or unchanged in the ps4060 group, or vice versa, compared to the control group. For example, the abundance of the beneficial bacterium Lactobacillus decreased in the ps4100 group and increased in the ps4060 group, suggesting that its abundance is not necessary for the enhanced productivity. In summary, the difference in microbial diversity was small at the 11th week, when the Bacillus-fed groups had passed the peak of increased ADG compared to the control group (p < 0.01). The association between any taxon and ADG increase was weak based on the differential abundance of individual microbial taxa. It implied that many microbial taxa with or without showing differential abundance contributed as a community to the enhanced ADG. Alternatively, low frequency microbiota played important roles but failed in detection due to the insufficient sequencing depth, as described in the previous paragraph.

In contrast to the 11th week, there was a significant difference in the microbiota at week 16. The fecal microbiota changed more in the later stages after ADG enhancement than in the early stages before it. This finding suggests that microbial diversity or species richness within the microbial community at week 16 was not the major cause of weight gain but rather a result of it. These changes might affect host physiology and play important roles in the gastrointestinal tract [36–38]. The low-level presence of the pathway PWY.7332 for the LPS synthesis in the ps4100, ps4060, and 50:50 mixture groups compared to the control group might be associated with the reduction of plasma LPS that our group previously reported [17]. The level of the LPS synthesis pathway, however, was unlikely to be the cause of ADG enhancement before 11 weeks of supplementation but might be important for protecting the liver and reducing systemic inflammation [39,40]. Thus, these changes contribute to animal health despite the weight gain. Similarly, the relative reduction of the L-glutamate degradation VIII pathway might be associated with decreased emission of ammonia and CO2 in the feces of the supplemented groups [17].

This study’s results provide insight into a controversial issue of the efficacy of Bacillus supplementation for finishing pigs. Several studies on finishing pigs reported positive effects [8], while others indicated negative effects of the same probiotics [41]. The latter study reported the positive effects of early-stage treatment on body weight gain and the feed conversion ratio. As the feeding duration increased from the weaning stage to the finishing stage, the effects became more negative during the finisher stage. In the present study, the positive effect was significant during the 6 weeks of the grower stage and the following five weeks of the first half of the finishing stage but was marginal during the last five weeks of the finisher stage. In this study, probiotic supplementation experiment lasted for 16 weeks, which was started 6 weeks prior to the start of the finishing stage. Extended supplementation of probiotics showed similar trend of the decreased effect in other studies at the later stage [3,41]. In summary, Bacillus feeding enhanced body weight gain during the grower–finisher stage. Similarly, body weight enhancement was obvious during the finisher stage when supplementation was initiated at the end of the grower stage [17]. It is appropriate to interpret that the positive effects waned as the feeding period increased, as observed in the present study, rather than because the probiotics had negative effects on finishing pigs.

Supporting information

S1 Fig Rarefaction curves.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig Fecal microbiota structure based on 16S rRNA gene analysis.

(DOCX)

S1 Table Composition of the experimental finishing pig diets (as-fed basis).

(DOCX)

S2 Table Genus-level differential abundance of bacteria among the experimental groups at week 16.

(DOCX)

S1 Appendix Digestibility, carcass grade and meat quality.

(DOCX)

S2 Appendix Raw data for Tables 1–4.

(DOCX)

We thank Bongsek Kang and Sook-Jung Jeong for their assistance in maintaining and preparing Bacillus strains.

10.1371/journal.pone.0306014.r001
Decision Letter 0
Tomaszewska Ewa Academic Editor
© 2024 Ewa Tomaszewska
2024
Ewa Tomaszewska
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
11 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-23404Differential growth enhancement followed by notable microbiota modulation in growing-finishing pigs by Bacillus subtilis strains ps4060, ps4100, and a 50:50 strain mixturePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cho,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 25 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ewa Tomaszewska, DVM Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“This work was partly supported by the Platform Technology Development Program (RS-2022-TI023566, S3309275) and Technology Development (R&D) Support Program (S3374815) of the Ministry of SMEs and Startups (MSS, Korea) to YC.”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work was partly supported by the Platform Technology Development Program (RS-2022-TI023566, S3309275) and Technology Development (R&D) Support Program (S3374815) of the Ministry of SMEs and Startups (MSS, Korea) to YC.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This work was partly supported by the Platform Technology Development Program (RS-2022-TI023566, S3309275) and Technology Development (R&D) Support Program (S3374815) of the Ministry of SMEs and Startups (MSS, Korea) to YC.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

“YC owns over 70% stocks of a startup company, ProxEnrem INC. This manuscript could facilitate the process of registering the strains described in the manuscript as animal diet supplement in the Repulic Korea.”

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

6.Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

there is a lack of a clear hypothesis.

with best regards

Ewa Tomaszewska

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors reported the differential growth enhancement followed by notable microbiota modulation in growing-finishing pigs by Bacillus subtilis strains ps4060, ps4100, and a 50:50 strain mixture.

The manuscript was relatively well prepared, and the methods and results were clearly presented.

It could be published in its current format, however, this reviewer suggests that the authors correct typos and errors throughout the manuscript.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0306014.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
15 Jul 2024

1. PLOS One style: The style was checked and corrected accordingly following the instructions.

2. Funding Statement: This work was partly supported by the Platform Technology Development Program (RS-2022-TI023566, S3309275) and Technology Development (R&D) Support Program (S3374815) of the Ministry of SMEs and Startups (MSS, Korea) to YC. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

3. Acknowledgement: We removed the funding statement from the acknowledgement section.

4. Competing Interests: YC owns over 70% stocks of a startup company, ProxEnrem INC. This manuscript could facilitate the process of registering the strains described in the manuscript as animal diet supplement in the Republic of Korea. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

5. The Dankook Smart Animal Bioresearch Center (http://www.dankook.ac.kr/web/ins403, email: 12131722@dankook.ac.kr) is a non-author contact point for raw data. All data, such as body weight and feed amounts, will be available upon request to either of the corresponding authors, YC or IHK, or the non-author institute, Dankook Smart Animal Bioresearch Center, as indicated in the manuscript.

6. References were meticulously checked.

7. Lack of clear hypothesis: To explicitly describe testing hypothesis, we revised the last section of the last paragraph in the introduction section. “We hypothesized that (1) each B. subtilis strain (ps4100 and ps4060) would have distinct effects on the productivity and gut microbiota of finishing pigs, and (2) the enhanced productivity observed would be associated with specific modulations in the gut microbiota, including changes in microbial diversity and the relative abundance of pathogenic and beneficial bacteria. We tested whether enhanced productivity is associated with modulation of the fecal microbiota and the differential abundance of metabolic pathways predicted from the microbial community.”

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_Revision.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0306014.r003
Decision Letter 1
Tomaszewska Ewa Academic Editor
© 2024 Ewa Tomaszewska
2024
Ewa Tomaszewska
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
22 Jul 2024

Differential growth enhancement followed by notable microbiota modulation in growing-finishing pigs by Bacillus subtilis strains ps4060, ps4100, and a 50:50 strain mixture

PONE-D-24-23404R1

Dear Dr. Yangrae Cho,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ewa Tomaszewska, DVM Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have appropriately addressed my previous concerns.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

10.1371/journal.pone.0306014.r004
Acceptance letter
Tomaszewska Ewa Academic Editor
© 2024 Ewa Tomaszewska
2024
Ewa Tomaszewska
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
30 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-23404R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cho,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Ewa Tomaszewska

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Hu Y , Dun Y , Li S , Zhao S , Peng N , Liang Y . Effects of Bacillus subtilis KN-42 on growth performance, diarrhea and faecal bacterial flora of weaned piglets. Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences. 2014;27 (8 ):1131–40. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13737 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4109869.25083107
2 Kyriakis SC , Tsiloyiannis VK , Vlemmas J , Sarris K , Tsinas AC , Alexopoulos C , et al . The effect of probiotic LSP 122 on the control of post-weaning diarrhoea syndrome of piglets. Research in veterinary science. 1999;67 (3 ):223–8. doi: 10.1053/rvsc.1999.0308 .10607501
3 Alexopoulos C , Georgoulakis IE , Tzivara A , Kyriakis CS , Govaris A , Kyriakis SC . Field evaluation of the effect of a probiotic-containing Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtilis spores on the health status, performance, and carcass quality of grower and finisher pigs. Journal of veterinary medicine A, Physiology, pathology, clinical medicine. 2004;51 (6 ):306–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0442.2004.00637.x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7159354.15485567
4 Nguyen DH , Nyachoti CM , Kim IH . Evaluation of effect of probiotics mixture supplementation on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, faecal bacterial enumeration, and noxious gas emission in weaning pigs. Italian J of Animal Science. 2019;18 (1 ):466–73.
5 Shin D , Chang SY , Bogere P , Won K , Choi JY , Choi YJ , et al . Beneficial roles of probiotics on the modulation of gut microbiota and immune response in pigs. PloS one. 2019;14 (8 ):e0220843. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220843 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6713323.31461453
6 Popov IV , Algburi A , Prazdnova EV , Mazanko MS , Elisashvili V , Bren AB , et al . A Review of the effects and production of spore-forming probiotics for poultry. Animals. 2021;11 (7 ):1–55. doi: 10.3390/ani11071941 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8300232.34209794
7 Zamojska D , Nowak A , Nowak I , Macierzynska-Piotrowska E . Probiotics and postbiotics as substitutes of antibiotics in farm animals: A Review. Animals: an open access journal from MDPI. 2021;11 (12 ). doi: 10.3390/ani11123431 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8697875.34944208
8 Lan R , Kim IH . Effects of Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus subtilis complex on growth performance and faecal noxious gas emissions in growing-finishing pigs. Journal of the science of food and agriculture. 2019;99 (4 ):1554–60. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.9333 .30144078
9 Setlow P. Spores of Bacillus subtilis: their resistance to and killing by radiation, heat and chemicals. Journal of applied microbiology. 2006;101 :514–25.16907802
10 Wilcks A , Hansen BM , Hendriksen NB , Licht TR . Fate and effect of ingested Bacillus cereus spores and vegetative cells in the intestinal tract of human-flora-associated rats. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2006;46 (1 ):70–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2005.00007.x .16420599
11 Spinosa MR , Braccini T , Ricca E , De Felice M , Morelli L , Pozzi G , et al . On the fate of ingested Bacillus spores. Res Microbiol. 2000;151 (5 ):361–8. doi: 10.1016/s0923-2508(00)00159-5 .10919516
12 Moturi J , Kim KY , Hosseindoust A , Lee JH , Xuan B , Park J , et al . Effects of Lactobacillus salivarius isolated from feces of fast-growing pigs on intestinal microbiota and morphology of suckling piglets. Scientific reports. 2021;11 (1 ):6757. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85630-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7990948.33762614
13 Li HY , Zhou DD , Gan RY , Huang SY , Zhao CN , Shang A , et al . Effects and mechanisms of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, and postbiotics on metabolic diseases targeting gut microbiota: a narrative review. Nutrients. 2021;13 (9 ). doi: 10.3390/nu13093211 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8470858.34579087
14 Rahayu ES , Mariyatun M , Putri Manurung NE , Hasan PN , Therdtatha P , Mishima R , et al . Effect of probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum Dad-13 powder consumption on the gut microbiota and intestinal health of overweight adults. World journal of gastroenterology. 2021;27 (1 ):107–28. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i1.107 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7789061.33505154
15 Rajkumar H , Mahmood N , Kumar M , Varikuti SR , Challa HR , Myakala SP . Effect of probiotic (VSL#3) and omega-3 on lipid profile, insulin sensitivity, inflammatory markers, and gut colonization in overweight adults: a randomized, controlled trial. Mediators Inflamm. 2014;2014 :348959. Epub 20140326. doi: 10.1155/2014/348959 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3984795.24795503
16 Yadav H , Lee JH , Lloyd J , Walter P , Rane SG . Beneficial metabolic effects of a probiotic via butyrate-induced GLP-1 hormone secretion. J Biol Chem. 2013;288 (35 ):25088–97. Epub 20130708. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.452516 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3757173.23836895
17 Song J , Jeong S-J , Lim CB , Kang B , Oh SS , Yun S , et al . Assessment of a 50:50 mixture of two Bacillus subtilis strains as growth promoters for finishing pigs: productivity improvement and noxious gas reduction. J Anim Sci 2023;101 :1–8. doi: 10.1093/jas/skad374 37975179
18 Lee D , Oh T , Kang B , Ahn JS , Cho Y . Throughput screening of Bacillus subtilis strains that abundantly secrete surfactin in vitro identifies effective probiotic candidates. PloS one. 2022;17 (11 ):e0277412. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277412 .36417387
19 Bolyen E , Rideout JR , Dillon MR , Bokulich NA , Abnet CC , Al-Ghalith GA , et al . Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nature biotechnology. 2019;37 (8 ):852–7. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7015180.31341288
20 Callahan BJ , McMurdie PJ , Rosen MJ , Han AW , Johnson AJ , Holmes SP . DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nature methods. 2016;13 (7 ):581–3. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4927377.27214047
21 Beccati A , Gerken J , Quast C , Yilmaz P , Glockner FO . SILVA tree viewer: interactive web browsing of the SILVA phylogenetic guide trees. BMC bioinformatics. 2017;18 (1 ):433. doi: 10.1186/s12859-017-1841-3 .28964270
22 Quast C , Pruesse E , Yilmaz P , Gerken J , Schweer T , Yarza P , et al . The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic acids research. 2013;41 (Database issue ):D590–6. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3531112.23193283
23 Morton JT , Sanders J , Quinn RA , McDonald D , Gonzalez A , Vazquez-Baeza Y , et al . Balance trees reveal microbial niche differentiation. mSystems. 2017;2 (1 ). Epub 20170117. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00162-16 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5264246.28144630
24 Mandal S , Van Treuren W , White RA , Eggesbo M , Knight R , Peddada SD . Analysis of composition of microbiomes: a novel method for studying microbial composition. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2015;26 :27663. Epub 20150529. doi: 10.3402/mehd.v26.27663 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4450248.26028277
25 Team CR. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. version 4.1.2 ed. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021.
26 Douglas GM , Maffei VJ , Zaneveld JR , Yurgel SN , Brown JR , Taylor CM , et al . PICRUSt2 for prediction of metagenome functions. Nature biotechnology. 2020;38 (6 ):685–8. doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0548-6 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7365738.32483366
27 Wang X , Tsai T , Deng F , Wei X , Chai J , Knapp J , et al . Longitudinal investigation of the swine gut microbiome from birth to market reveals stage and growth performance associated bacteria. Microbiome. 2019;7 (1 ):109. Epub 20190730. doi: 10.1186/s40168-019-0721-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6664762.31362781
28 Martin R , Miquel S , Ulmer J , Kechaou N , Langella P , Bermudez-Humaran LG . Role of commensal and probiotic bacteria in human health: a focus on inflammatory bowel disease. Microb Cell Fact. 2013;12 :71. Epub 20130723. doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-12-71 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3726476.23876056
29 Ghouri YA , Richards DM , Rahimi EF , Krill JT , Jelinek KA , DuPont AW . Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2014;7 :473–87. Epub 20141209. doi: 10.2147/CEG.S27530 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4266241.25525379
30 Abdelbary MMH , Hatting M , Bott A , Dahlhausen A , Keller D , Trautwein C , et al . The oral-gut axis: Salivary and fecal microbiome dysbiosis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12 :1010853. Epub 20221007. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.1010853 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9585322.36275026
31 Wang C , Zhao J , Zhang H , Lee YK , Zhai Q , Chen W . Roles of intestinal bacteroides in human health and diseases. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2021;61 (21 ):3518–36. Epub 20200806. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2020.1802695 .32757948
32 Turnbaugh PJ , Ley RE , Hamady M , Fraser-Liggett CM , Knight R , Gordon JI . The human microbiome project. Nature. 2007;449 (7164 ):804–10. doi: 10.1038/nature06244 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3709439.17943116
33 Luise D , Bosi P , Raff L , Amatucci L , Virdis S , Trevisi P . Bacillus spp. probiotic strains as a potential tool for limiting the use of antibiotics, and improving the growth and health of pigs and chickens. Frontiers in microbiology. 2022;13 :801827. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.801827 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8859173.35197953
34 Kim K , He Y , Xiong X , Ehrlich A , Li X , Raybould H , et al . Dietary supplementation of Bacillus subtilis influenced intestinal health of weaned pigs experimentally infected with a pathogenic E. coli. J Animal Science and Biotechnology. 2019;10 :52.
35 Mingmongkolchai S , Panbangred W . Bacillus probiotics: an alternative to antibiotics for livestock production. Journal of applied microbiology. 2018;124 (6 ):1334–46. doi: 10.1111/jam.13690 .29316021
36 Backhed F , Ding H , Wang T , Hooper LV , Koh GY , Nagy A , et al . The gut microbiota as an environmental factor that regulates fat storage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101 (44 ):15718–23. Epub 20041025. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0407076101 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC524219.15505215
37 Backhed F , Manchester JK , Semenkovich CF , Gordon JI . Mechanisms underlying the resistance to diet-induced obesity in germ-free mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104 (3 ):979–84. Epub 20070108. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0605374104 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1764762.17210919
38 Turnbaugh PJ , Ley RE , Mahowald MA , Magrini V , Mardis ER , Gordon JI . An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature. 2006;444 (7122 ):1027–31. doi: 10.1038/nature05414 .17183312
39 Weber TE , Kerr BJ . Effect of sodium butyrate on growth performance and response to lipopolysaccharide in weanling pigs. Journal of animal science. 2008;86 (2 ):442–50. Epub 20071112. doi: 10.2527/jas.2007-0499 .17998428
40 Vigors S , O’Doherty JV , Kelly AK , O’Shea CJ , Sweeney T . The effect of divergence in feed efficiency on the intestinal microbiota and the intestinal immune response in both unchallenged and lipopolysaccharide challenged ileal and colonic explants. PloS one. 2016;11 (2 ):e0148145. Epub 20160203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148145 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4739713.26840831
41 Jørgensen JN , Laguna JS , Millán C , Casabuena O , Gracia MI . Effects of a Bacillus-based probiotic and dietary energy content on the performance and nutrient digestibility of wean to finish pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2016;221 :54–61.
