Biological Trace Element Research

, Volume 189, Issue 2, pp 548–555 | Cite as

Effects of Different Selenium Sources on Laying Performance, Egg Selenium Concentration, and Antioxidant Capacity in Laying Hens

  • Tiantian Meng
  • Yi-lin Liu
  • Chun-yan XieEmail author
  • Bin Zhang
  • Yi-qiang Huang
  • Ya-wei Zhang
  • Yajun Yao
  • Ruilin Huang
  • Xin WuEmail author


Supplementation of selenium (Se) is a common practice in the poultry industry via sodium selenite (SS) and selenium yeast (SY), while the effects of nano-selenium (NS) on laying hens are poorly known. This study aimed to compare the effects of NS, SS, and SY on productivity; selenium (Se) deposition in eggs; and antioxidant capacity in laying hens. A total of 288 30-week-old Brown Hy-line laying hens were randomly assigned into four dietary treatments, which included corn-soybean meal basal diet (Con) without Se sources and basal diets supplemented with 0.3 mg Se/kg as SS, SY, or NS, respectively. The results exhibited that Se-supplemented treatments achieved greater egg production, egg weight, and daily egg mass, also better feed conversion ratio than Con group (p < 0.05). Se supplementation significant increased egg Se concentration and decreased the egg Se deposition efficiency (p < 0.05), while SY or NS supplementation had higher Se deposition efficiency than SS group at 35 days (p < 0.05). Moreover, serum glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) activity increased in SS or NS group compared to Con group (p < 0.05). The glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX-4) mRNA levels in liver were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in SS or SY group than in NS group, and mRNA levels of the methionine (Met) metabolism gene glycine N-methyltranserfase (GNMT) were markedly upregulated (p < 0.05) in SY group compared to SS or NS group. Taken together, the results revealed Se from SY is deposited into eggs more efficiently than Se from NS or SS, probably via enhancing the route of Met metabolism. Meanwhile, it might be concluded that SS or SY supplementation directly regulated GSH-Px activity via enhancing GPx4 level, whereas NS via GPx1, thus affecting body oxidation and development.


Selenium yeast Nano-selenium Antioxidant capacity Egg selenium concentration Laying hens 



This research received financial support from national key research and development program of China (2016YFD0501200, 2016YFD0200900, 2016YFD0500500), Agricultural innovation project of Hunan Province (2017YC03) and Science and Technology Service Network Initiative program of Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Compliance with ethical standards

The methods used in this study were approved by the Animal Care Committee of the Institute of Subtropical Agriculture at the Chinese Academy of Science.


  1. 1.
    Holben DH, Smith AM (1999) The diverse role of selenium within selenoproteins. J Am Diet Assoc 99:836–843. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang Z, Liu C, Liu C, Teng X, Li S (2016) Selenium deficiency mainly influences antioxidant selenoproteins expression in broiler immune organs. Biol Trace Elem Res 172:209–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jiakui L, Xiaolong W (2004) Effect of dietary organic versus inorganic selenium in laying hens on the productivity, selenium distribution in egg and selenium content in blood, liver and kidney. J Trace Elem Med Biol 18:65–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Payne RL, Lavergne TK, Southern LL (2005) Effect of inorganic versus organic selenium on hen production and egg selenium concentration. Poult Sci 84:232–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pan CL, Huang KH, Zhao YX, Qin SY, Chen F, Hu QH (2007) Effect of selenium source and level in hen’s diet on tissue selenium deposition and egg selenium concentrations. J Agric Food Chem 55:1027–1032. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peng D, Zhang J, Liu Q, Taylor EW (2007) Size effect of elemental selenium nanoparticles (Nano-Se) at supranutritional levels on selenium accumulation and glutathione S-transferase activity. J Inorg Biochem 101:1457–1463. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang J, Wang X, Xu T (2008) Elemental selenium at nano size (Nano-Se) as a potential chemopreventive agent with reduced risk of selenium toxicity: comparison with se-methylselenocysteine in mice. Toxicol Sci 101:22–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hu CH, Li YL, Xiong L, Zhang HM, Song J, Xia MS (2012) Comparative effects of nano elemental selenium and sodium selenite on selenium retention in broiler chickens. Anim Feed Sci Technol 177:204–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chantiratikul A, Chinrasri O, Chantiratikul P (2018) Effect of selenium from selenium-enriched kale sprout versus other selenium sources on productivity and selenium concentrations in egg and tissue of laying hens. Biol Trace Elem Res 182:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leeson S, Namkung H, Caston L, Durosoy S, Schlegel P (2008) Comparison of selenium levels and sources and dietary fat quality in diets for broiler breeders and layer hens. Poult Sci 87:2605–2612. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu Y, Lin X, Zhou X, Wan D, Wang Z, Wu X, Yin Y (2017) Effects of dynamic feeding low and high methionine diets on egg quality traits in laying hens. Poult Sci 96:1459–1465. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xie C, Wu X, Long C, Wang Q, Fan Z, Li S, Yin Y (2016) Chitosan oligosaccharide affects antioxidant defense capacity and placental amino acids transport of sows. BMC Vet Res 12:243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Han XJ, Qin P, Li WX, Ma QG, Ji C, Zhang JY, Zhao LH (2017) Effect of sodium selenite and selenium yeast on performance, egg quality, antioxidant capacity, and selenium deposition of laying hens. Poult Sci 96:3973–3980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pavlović Z, Miletić I, Jokić Ž, Šobajić S (2009) The effect of dietary selenium source and level on hen production and egg selenium concentration. Biol Trace Elem Res 131:263–270. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paton ND, Cantor AH, Pescatore AJ, Ford MJ, Smith CA (2002) The effect of dietary selenium source and level on the uptake of selenium by developing chick embryos. Poult Sci 81:1548–1554. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Utterback PL, Parsons CM, Yoon I, Butler J (2005) Effect of supplementing selenium yeast in diets of laying hens on egg selenium content. Poult Sci 84:1900–1901. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chantiratikul A, Chinrasri O, Chantiratikul P (2008) Effect of sodium selenite and zinc-L-selenomethionine on performance and selenium concentrations in eggs of laying hens. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 21:1048–1052. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chantiratikul A, Chinrasri O, Chantiratikul P (2017) Effect of selenium from selenium-enriched kale sprout versus other selenium sources on productivity and selenium concentrations in egg and tissue of laying hens. Biol Trace Elem Res 182:105–110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bennett DC, Cheng KM (2010) Selenium enrichment of table eggs. Poult Sci 89:2166–2172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lu J, Qu L, Shen MM, Hu YP, Guo J, Dou TC, Wang KH (2018) Comparison of dynamic change of egg selenium deposition after feeding sodium selenite or selenium-enriched yeast. Poult Sci 97:3102–3108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schrauzer GN (2003) The nutritional significance, metabolism and toxicology of selenomethionine. Adv Food Nutr Res 47:73–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petrovič V, Boldižárová K, Faix Š, Mellen M, Arpášová H, Leng L (2006) Antioxidant and selenium status of laying hens fed with diets supplemented with selenite or Se-yeast. J Anim Feed Sci 15:435–444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qin SY, Chen F, Guo YG, Huang BX, Zhang JB, Ma JF (2014) Effects of nano-selenium on kindey selenium contents, glutathione peroxidase activities and GPx-1 mRNA expression in mice. Adv Mater Res 1051:383–387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cantor AH, Moorhead PD, Musser MA (1982) Comparative effects of sodium selenite and selenomethionine upon nutritional muscular-dystrophy, selenium-dependent glutathione-peroxidase, and tissue selenium concentrations of Turkey poults. Poult Sci 61:478–484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jing CL, Dong XF, Wang ZM, Liu S, Tong JM (2015) Comparative study of DL-selenomethionine vs sodium selenite and seleno-yeast on antioxidant activity and selenium status in laying hens. Poult Sci 94:965–975. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boostani A, Sadeghi AA, Mousavi SN, Chamani M, Kashan N (2015) Effects of organic, inorganic, and nano-Se on growth performance, antioxidant capacity, cellular and humoral immune responses in broiler chickens exposed to oxidative stress. Livest Sci 178:330–336. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mahan DC, Parrett NA (1996) Evaluating the efficacy of selenium-enriched yeast and sodium selenite on tissue selenium retention and serum glutathione peroxidase activity in grower and finisher swine. J Anim Sci 74:2967–2974. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhou X, Wang Y (2011) Influence of dietary nano elemental selenium on growth performance, tissue selenium distribution, meat quality, and glutathione peroxidase activity in Guangxi yellow chicken. Poult Sci 90:680–686. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yuan D, Zhan XA, Wang YX (2012) Effect of selenium sources on the expression of cellular glutathione peroxidase and cytoplasmic thioredoxin reductase in the liver and kidney of broiler breeders and their offspring. Poult Sci 91:936–942. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chen F, Zhu L, Qiu H, Qin S (2016) Selenium-enriched Saccharomyces cerevisiae improves growth, antioxidant status and selenoprotein gene expression in Arbor Acres broilers. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 101:259–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kurz B, Jost B, Schünke M (2002) Dietary vitamins and selenium diminish the development of mechanically induced osteoarthritis and increase the expression of antioxidative enzymes in the knee joint of STR/1N mice. Osteoarthr Cartil 10:119–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reasbeck PG, Barbezat GO, Weber FL Jr, Robinson MF, Thomson CD (1985) Selenium absorption by canine jejunum. Dig Dis Sci 30:489–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Surai PF, Kochish II, Velichko OA (2017) Nano-Se assimilation and action in poultry and other monogastric animals: is gut microbiota an answer? Nanoscale Res Lett 12:612. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiantian Meng
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yi-lin Liu
    • 2
  • Chun-yan Xie
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bin Zhang
    • 1
  • Yi-qiang Huang
    • 3
  • Ya-wei Zhang
    • 3
  • Yajun Yao
    • 3
  • Ruilin Huang
    • 2
  • Xin Wu
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Hunan Co-Innovation Center of Safety Animal Production, College of Animal Science and Technology; College of Bioscience and BiotechnologyHunan Agricultural UniversityChangshaChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Engineering Laboratory for Pollution Control and Waste Utilization in Livestock and Poultry Production, Hunan Provincial Engineering Research Center for Healthy Livestock and Poultry Production, Scientific Observing and Experimental Station of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science in South-Central, Ministry of AgricultureChangshaPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Xingjia Bio-Engineering Co., Ltd.ChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations