Advertisement

Journal of Comparative Physiology B

, Volume 187, Issue 2, pp 339–351 | Cite as

Modulation of digestive enzyme activities in the avian digestive tract in relation to diet composition and quality

  • Kevin D. Kohl
  • M. Eugenia Ciminari
  • Juan G. Chediack
  • James O. Leafloor
  • William H. Karasov
  • Scott R. McWilliams
  • Enrique Caviedes-Vidal
Original Paper

Abstract

In nature, birds are faced with variable food sources that may differ in composition (protein vs. carbohydrates) and quality (highly digestible material vs. indigestible fiber). Studies in passerine birds and some commercial poultry demonstrate that the gastrointestinal tract can respond to varying diet composition and quality by changing morphology and/or activities of digestive enzymes. However, studies in additional avian species are warranted to understand generalities of these trends. We first fed juvenile mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), chickens (Gallus gallus), and quails (Coturnix coturnix) on either high-carbohydrate or high-protein diets. For the most part, birds fed the high-carbohydrate diet had higher small intestinal and cecal disaccharidase activities (maltase and sucrase). However, only mallards exhibited higher small intestinal aminopeptidase-N (APN) activities when fed the high-protein diet. These results differ from passerine birds, which largely modulate small intestinal proteases, but not disaccharidases. In another trial, we fed Canada geese (Branta canadensis) diets that varied in both their protein and fiber concentrations for approximately 3.5 months. Birds fed the high-fiber diets had significantly longer small intestines and caeca compared to those fed low-fiber diets. Additionally, geese fed the high-fiber diets exhibited lower mass-specific activities of small intestinal sucrase, and higher activities of APN when summed across the small intestine and ceca. Similar to the avian species above, geese fed the high-protein diets did not exhibit flexibility in their small intestinal APN activities. Overall, these experiments demonstrate that responsiveness of the avian digestive tract to diet composition may have phylogenetic or ecological constraints. Studies on other avian taxa are needed to understand these patterns.

Keywords

Birds Digestion Digestive physiology Fiber Maltase 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the following individuals for their help in collecting eggs in Akimiski Island: Ken Abraham, Dan Byers, Mike Donovan, Bert French, Mike Hill, Leslie Jaeger, Cynthia Kapke, Art Smith, Chris Swannell, Scott Taylor, Gary Tupling, and Roel Teunisson. We wish to thank Ciaran Hannan, Chris Jungbluth, Ann Normington (Voek), and Bettina Potts for their assistance with care and measurements of birds. Funding was in part provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and state and federal agencies of the Mississippi and Atlantic flyways. Funding was provided by the National Science Foundation (IBN-9318675 to W.H.K. and DBI 1400456 to K.D.K.) and the Universidad Nacional de San Luis—Ciencia y Técnica Grant 2-0814 and CONICET PIP 2015-834 to E.C.-V.

Supplementary material

360_2016_1037_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (301 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 301 kb)

References

  1. Afik D, Caviedes-Vidal E, Martínez del Rio C, Karasov WH (1995) Dietary modulation of intestinal hydrolytic enzymes in yellow-rumped warblers. Am J Physiol 269:R413–R420PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baeza E, Arnould C, Jlali M, Chartrin P, Gigaud V, Mercerand F, Durand C, Meteau K, Le Bihan-Duval E, Berri C (2012) Influence of increasing slaughter age of chickens on meat quality, welfare, and technical and economic results. J Anim Sci 90:2003–2013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Biviano AB, Martínez del Rio C, Phillips DL (1993) Ontogenesis of intestine morphology and intestinal disaccharidases in chickens (Gallus gallus) fed contrasting purified diets. J Comp Physiol B 163:508–518PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brzęk P, Caviedes-Vidal E, Karasov WH (2010a) House sparrow fledglings leave the nest digestively immature but more flexible than adults. Integr Comp Biol 50:E19–E19Google Scholar
  5. Brzęk P, Lessner KM, Caviedes-Vidal E, Karasov WH (2010b) Low plasticity in digestive physiology constrains feeding ecology in diet specialist, zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). J Exp Biol 213:798–807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Camci O, Erensayin C, Aktan S (2002) Relations between age at sexual maturity and some production characteristics in quails. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 66:280–282Google Scholar
  7. Caviedes-Vidal E, Afik D, Martínez del Rio C, Karasov WH (2000) Dietary modulation of intestinal enzymes of the house sparrow (Passer domesticus): testing an adaptive hypothesis. Comp Biom Physiol A 125:11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chinery R, Goodlad RA, Wright NA (1992) Soy polysaccharide in an enteral diet: effects on rat intestinal cell proliferation, morphology and metabolic function. Clin Nutr 11:277–283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ciminari ME, del Valle Moyano G, Chediack JG, Caviedes-Vidal E (2005) Feral pigeons in urban environments: dietary flexibility and enzymatic digestion? Rev Chil Hist Nat 78:267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciminari ME, Chediack JG, Caviedes-Vidal E (2014) Effect of dietary protein and carbohydrate content on growth and enzymatic digestion in chickens. Asian J Poult Sci 8:49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clench MH, Mathias JR (1995) The avian cecum: a review. Wilson Bull 107:93–121Google Scholar
  12. Dahlqvist A (1984) Assay of intestinal disaccharidases. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 44:169–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamond JM (1993) Evolutionary physiology. In: Boyd CAR, Noble D (eds) Logic of Life: The Challenge of Integrative Physiology. Oxford Press, New York, pp 89–111Google Scholar
  14. Diamond JM, Hammond K (1992) The matches, achieved by natural selection, between biological capacities and their natural loads. Experientia 48:551–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dobush GR, Ankney CD, Krementz DG (1985) The effect of apparatus, extraction time, and solvent type on lipid extractions of snow geese. Can J Zool 63:1917–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foye OT, Black BL (2006) Intestinal adaptation to diet in the young domestic and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Comp Biochem Physiol A 143:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ (1970) Forage fiber analysis, vol 379. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedemann MS, Eskildsen M, Lærke HN, Pedersen C, Lindberg JE, Laurinen P, Bach Knudsen KE (2006) Intestinal morphology and enzymatic activity in newly weaned pigs fed contrasting fiber concentrations and fiber properties. J Anim Sci 84:1375–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Iji PA, Saki AA, Tivey DR (2001) Intestinal structure and function of broiler chickens on diets supplemented with a mannan oligosaccharide. J Sci Food Agric 81:1186–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karasov WH (1990) Digestion in birds: chemical and physiological determinants and ecological implications. Stud Avian Biol 13:391–415Google Scholar
  21. Karasov WH, Martinez del Rio C (2007) Physiological ecology: how animals process energy, nutrients, and toxins. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  22. Kehoe FP, Ankney CD, Alisauskas RT (1988) Effects of dietary fiber and diet diversity on digestive organs of captive Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos). Can J Zool 66:1597–1602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Khokhar S (1994) Dietary fibers: their effects on intestinal digestive enzyme activities. J Nutr Biochem 5:176–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lang CA (1958) Simple microdetermination of Kjeldahl nitrogen in biological materials. Anal Chem 30:1692–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lepkovsky S, Wagner M, Furuta F, Ozone K, Koike T (1964) The proteases, amylase and lipase of the intestinal contents of germfree and conventional chickens. Poult Sci 43:722–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levey DJ, Place AR, Rey PJ, Martínez del Rio C (1999) An experimental test of dietary enzyme modulation in pine warblers Dendroica pinus. Physiol Biochem Zool 72:576–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Maldonado K, Bozinovic F, Rojas JM, Sabat P (2011) Within-species digestive tract flexibility in rufous-collared sparrows and the climatic variability hypothesis. Physiol Biochem Zool 84:377–384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Maroux S, Louvard D, Barath J (1973) The aminopeptidase from hog intestinal brush border. Biochim Biophys Acta Enzymol 321:282–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martínez del Rio C (1990) Dietary, phylogenetic, and ecological correlates of intestinal sucrase and maltase activity in birds. Physiol Zool 63:987–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martínez del Rio C, Brugger KE, Rios JL, Vergara ME, Witmer M (1995) An experimental and comparative study of dietary modulation of intestinal enzymes in European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Physiol Zool 68:490–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McLandress MR, Raveling DG (1981) Changes in diet and body composition of Canada geese before spring migration. Auk 98:65–79Google Scholar
  32. McLelland J (1989) Anatomy of the avian cecum. J Exp Biol 252(S3):2–9Google Scholar
  33. McWhorter TJ, Caviedes-Vidal E, Karasov WH (2009) The integration of digestion and osmoregulation in the avian gut. Biol Rev 84:533–565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. McWilliams SR (1999) Digestive strategies of avian herbivores. In: Adams NJ, Slotow RH (eds) XXII international ornithological congress, Durban, pp 2198–2207Google Scholar
  35. Montagne L, Pluske JR, Hampson DJ (2003) A review of interactions between dietary fibre and the intestinal mucosa, and their consequences on digestive health in young non-ruminant animals. Anim Feed Sci Tech 108:95–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Murphy ME, King JR (1982) Semi-synthetic diets as a tool for nutritional ecology. Auk 99:165–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Obst BS, Diamond JM (1989) Interspecific variation in sugar and amino acid transport by the avian cecum. J Exp Zool 252(S3):117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parrish J (2000) Behavioral, energetic, and conservation implications for foraging plasticity during migration. Stud Avian Biol 20:53–70Google Scholar
  39. Richman SE, Leafloor JO, Karasov WH, McWilliams SR (2015) Ecological implications of reduced forage quality on growth and survival of sympatric geese. J Anim Ecol 84:284–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Roberts MJ, Russo R (1999) A student’s guide to analysis of variance. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Sabat P, Novoa F, Bozinovic F, Martínez del Rio C (1998) Dietary flexibility and intestinal plasticity in birds: a field and laboratory study. Physiol Biochem Zool 71:226–236Google Scholar
  42. Savory CJ, Gentle MJ (1976) Changes in food intake and gut size in Japanese quail in response to manipulation of dietary fibre content. Brit Poult Sci 17:571–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sedinger J (1997) Adaptations to and consequences of an herbivorous diet in grouse and waterfowl. Condor 99:314–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sell JL, Koldovsky O, Reid BL (1989) Intestinal disaccharidases of young turkeys: temporal development and influence of diet composition. Poult Sci 68:265–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Siddons RC (1972) Effect of diet on disaccharidase activity in the chick. Brit J Nutr 27:343–352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomsen LL, Tasman-Jones C (1982) Disaccharidase levels of the rat jejunum are altered by dietary fibre. Digestion 23:253–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Undersander D, Mertens DR, Thiex N (1993) Forage analysis procedures. Omaha, NEGoogle Scholar
  48. Williamson SE, Jones SKC, Munn AJ (2014) Is gastrointestinal plasticity in king quail (Coturnix chinensis) elicited by diet-fibre or diet-energy dilution? J Exp Biol 217:1839–1842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Yang Y, Iji PA, Kocher A, Mikkelsen LL, Choct M (2007) Effects of mannanoligosaccharide on growth performance, the development of gut microflora, and gut function of broiler chickens raised on new litter. J Appl Poult Res 16:280–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Instituto Multidisciplinario de Investigaciones Biológicas de San LuisUniversidad Nacional de San LuisSan LuisArgentina
  3. 3.Departamento de Bioquímica y Ciencias Biológicas, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasUniversidad Nacional de San LuisSan LuisArgentina
  4. 4.Canadian Wildlife ServiceWinnipegCanada
  5. 5.Department of Forestry and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin MadisonMadisonUSA
  6. 6.Department of Natural Resources ScienceUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations