Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Scientific Reports
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. scientific reports
  3. articles
  4. article
Effectiveness of probiotic supplementation on growth performance, gut microbiota, and Salmonella reduction in broiler chicks challenged with Salmonella Typhimurium
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 02 February 2026

Effectiveness of probiotic supplementation on growth performance, gut microbiota, and Salmonella reduction in broiler chicks challenged with Salmonella Typhimurium

  • Benjamas Khurajog1,
  • Imporn Saenkankam1,
  • Prasert Apiwatsiri1,
  • Natthapong Supimon1,
  • Ratchnida Kamwa1,2,
  • Waree Niyomtham1,
  • Jitrapa Yindee1,
  • Cherdpong Phupolphan3,
  • David J. Hampson4 &
  • …
  • Nuvee Prapasarakul1,5 

Scientific Reports , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Diseases
  • Microbiology

Abstract

Salmonella infection poses a major threat to poultry production, affecting both animal health and food safety. With rising concerns over antimicrobial resistance, probiotics have gained attention as effective non-antibiotic interventions to control enteric pathogens while supporting gut health. This study evaluated the efficacy of a locally isolated probiotic blend comprising Ligilactobacillus salivarius BF12, and Pediococcus acidilactici strains BF9 and BYF20 (ProCU) in comparison with a commercial Clostridium butyricum-based probiotic (TOP GUT) in broiler chicks challenged with Salmonella Typhimurium (ST). A total of 196 chicks were assigned to seven groups receiving different treatments with or without Salmonella challenge. Parameters assessed included growth performance, intestinal histomorphometry, cecal Salmonella load, and microbiota composition and function. Before challenge, ProCU increased fecal lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and enriched amino acid and carbohydrate metabolism pathways. Post-challenge, TOP GUT significantly reduced Salmonella load and maintained growth, while ProCU showed a limited effect on pathogen reduction. Both probiotics improved intestinal morphology, increased Lactobacillus and Akkermansia abundance, and upregulated oxidative stress defense genes. Notably, TOP GUT also enriched Parabacteroides and other Bacteroidetes members and prolonged microbial metabolic activity. These findings emphasize strain-specific probiotic effects and suggest that continuous supplementation, particularly with spore-forming strains, may enhance gut health and reduce the Salmonella burden in poultry.

Data availability

The raw sequencing data generated by this study were deposited in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under BioProject accession number PRJNA792023.

References

  1. Jajere, S. M. A review of Salmonella enterica with particular focus on the pathogenicity and virulence factors, host specificity and antimicrobial resistance including multidrug resistance. Vet. World. 12, 504 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gast, R. K. & Porter, R. E. Jr. in In Diseases of Poultry. 717–753 (eds Swayne, D. E.) (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2020).

  3. Antunes, P., Mourão, J., Campos, J. & Peixe, L. Salmonellosis: the role of poultry meat. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 22, 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2015.12.004 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shah, D. H., Paul, N. C., Sischo, W. C., Crespo, R. & Guard, J. Population dynamics and antimicrobial resistance of the most prevalent poultry-associated Salmonella serotypes. Poult. Sci. 96, 687–702 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Han, D. et al. Application and substitution of antibiotics in animal feeding. Med. Weter. 80, 5–11 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Salam, M. A. et al. Antimicrobial resistance: A growing serious threat for global public health. Healthc. (Basel). 11 https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11131946 (2023).

  7. Castanon, J. I. R. History of the use of antibiotic as growth promoters in European poultry feeds. Poult. Sci. 86, 2466–2471. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2007-00249 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Farouk, M. M., El-Molla, A., Salib, F. A., Soliman, Y. A. & Shaalan, M. Therapeutic potential of Bulgarian propolis against antibiotic-resistant Salmonella species. Thai J. Veterinary Med. 52, 83–96 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fallah, R., Kiani, A. & Azarfar, A. A review of the role of five kinds of alternatives to in-feed antibiotics in broiler production. J. Veterinary Med. Anim. Health. 5, 317–321 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zhu, Q. et al. Progress on gut health maintenance and antibiotic alternatives in broiler chicken production. Front. Nutr. 8 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.692839 (2021).

  11. FAO/WHO. Evaluation of Certain Food Additives: sixty-fifth Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Report No. 92412093480512-3054 (World Health Organization, 2006).

  12. Reuben, R. C., Sarkar, S. L., Ibnat, H., Roy, P. C. & Jahid, I. K. Novel mono- and multi-strain probiotics supplementation modulates growth, intestinal microflora composition and haemato-biochemical parameters in broiler chickens. Vet. Med. Sci. 8, 668–680. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.709 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Khatun, A. et al. Effects of feeding multi-strain probiotics and multi-enzymes to broilers on growth performance, intestinal morphology and cost effectiveness of production. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 10, 389–396. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2022/10.2.389.396 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Qiu, K. et al. Dietary supplementation of a new probiotic compound improves the growth performance and health of broilers by altering the composition of cecal microflora. Biology 11 https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11050633 (2022).

  15. Khan, S. & Chousalkar, K. K. Short-term feeding of probiotics and synbiotics modulates caecal microbiota during Salmonella typhimurium infection but does not reduce shedding and invasion in chickens. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 104, 319–334 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Khochamit, N., Siripornadulsil, S., Sukon, P. & Siripornadulsil, W. Bacillus subtilis and lactic acid bacteria improve the growth performance and blood parameters and reduce Salmonella infection in broilers. Vet. World. 13, 2663. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Butel, M. J. Probiotics, gut microbiota and health. Med. Mal Infect. 44, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medmal.2013.10.002 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Aziz Mousavi, S. M. A., Hosseini, H. M. & Mirhosseini, S. A. A review of dietary probiotics in poultry. J. Appl. Biotechnol. Rep. 5, 48–54 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Zenner, C. et al. Early-life immune system maturation in chickens using a synthetic community of cultured gut bacteria. Msystems 6, e01300–01320 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Attia, Y. A. et al. Gut dysbiosis: causes and prevention Strategies–A review. Annals Anim. Sci. 25, 1297–1311 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Khan, S. & K Chousalkar, K. Salmonella typhimurium infection disrupts but continuous feeding of Bacillus based probiotic restores gut microbiota in infected hens. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 11, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-020-0433-7 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zhan, R. et al. Effects of antibiotics on chicken gut microbiota: community alterations and pathogen identification. Front. Microbiol. 16–2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1562510 (2025).

  23. Sassone-Corsi, M. & Raffatellu, M. No vacancy: how beneficial microbes cooperate with immunity to provide colonization resistance to pathogens. J. Immun. 194, 4081–4087 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Vasquez, K. S., Shiver, A. L. & Huang, K. C. Cutting the gordian knot of the microbiota. Mol. Cell. 70, 765–767 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Yokoi, Y. et al. Paneth cell granule dynamics on secretory responses to bacterial stimuli in enteroids. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–10 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Choi, J. H., Kim, G. B. & Cha, C. J. Spatial heterogeneity and stability of bacterial community in the Gastrointestinal tracts of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 93, 1942–1950. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2014-03974 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Yan, W., Sun, C., Yuan, J. & Yang, N. Gut metagenomic analysis reveals prominent roles of Lactobacillus and cecal microbiota in chicken feed efficiency. Sci. Rep. 7, 45308. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep45308 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pan, D. & Yu, Z. Intestinal Microbiome of poultry and its interaction with host and diet. Gut Microbes. 5, 108–119. https://doi.org/10.4161/gmic.26945 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Yeoman, C. J. et al. The Microbiome of the chicken Gastrointestinal tract. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 13, 89–99 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Clavijo, V. & Flórez, M. J. V. The Gastrointestinal Microbiome and its association with the control of pathogens in broiler chicken production: A review. Poult. Sci. 97, 1006–1021 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Veken, W. V. d. Feed Additives And Salmonella Mitigation, (2024). https://www.huvepharma.com/news/article/feed-additives-and-salmonella-mitigation/

  32. Popov, I. V. et al. A review of the effects and production of Spore-Forming probiotics for poultry. Animals 11, 1941 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Li, S., Zhang, X., Li, Y., Tao, L. & Li, T. Optimization of pH conditions to improve the spore production of Clostridium Butyricum NN-2 during fermentation process. Arch. Microbiol. 202, 1251–1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-020-01820-3 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wirunpan, M., Savedboworn, W. & Wanchaitanawong, P. Survival and shelf life of Lactobacillus lactis 1464 in shrimp feed pellet after fluidized bed drying. Agric. Nat. Resour. 50, 1–7 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kamwa, R. et al. Water-soluble microencapsulation using gum Arabic and skim milk enhances viability and efficacy of Pediococcus acidilactici probiotic strains for application in broiler chickens. Anim. Biosci. 37, 1440–1451. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.23.0446 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Karimi Torshizi, M. A., Moghaddam, A. R., Rahimi, S. & Mojgani, N. Assessing the effect of administering probiotics in water or as a feed supplement on broiler performance and immune response. Br. Poult. Sci. 51, 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071661003753756 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Soumeh, E. A., Cedeno, A., Niknafs, S., Bromfield, J. & Hoffman, L. C. The efficiency of probiotics administrated via different routes and doses in enhancing production Performance, meat Quality, gut Morphology, and microbial profile of broiler chickens. Anim. (Basel). 11 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11123607 (2021).

  38. Khochamit, N., Buahom, J., Siripornadulsil, S. & Siripornadulsil, W. Association of probiotic supplementation with improvements in the gut Microbes, blood lipid profile and caecal villus morphology of broilers. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 47, 6807–6819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-021-06390-0 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nii, T., Jirapat, J., Isobe, N. & Yoshimura, Y. Effects of oral administration of Lactobacillus reuteri on mucosal barrier function in the digestive tract of broiler chicks. J. Poult. Sci. 57, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.2141/jpsa.0190035 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Emami, N. K., Calik, A., White, M. B., Kimminau, E. A. & Dalloul, R. A. Effect of Probiotics and Multi-Component Feed Additives on Microbiota, Gut Barrier and Immune Responses in Broiler Chickens During Subclinical Necrotic Enteritis. Frontiers in Veterinary Science Volume 7– (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.572142 (2020).

  41. Wang, W. et al. Dietary supplementation of compound probiotics improves intestinal health by modulated microbiota and its SCFA products as alternatives to In-Feed antibiotics. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins. 17, 1969–1984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-024-10314-3 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Yosi, F. & Metzler-Zebeli, B. U. Dietary probiotics modulate gut barrier and Immune-Related gene expression and histomorphology in broiler chickens under Non- and Pathogen-Challenged conditions: A Meta-Analysis. Animals 13, 1970 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Jazi, V. et al. Effects of Pediococcus acidilactici, mannan-oligosaccharide, Butyric acid and their combination on growth performance and intestinal health in young broiler chickens challenged with Salmonella typhimurium. Poult. Sci. 97, 2034–2043. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey035 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Vandeplas, S. et al. Efficiency of a Lactobacillus plantarum-xylanase combination on growth performances, microflora populations, and nutrient digestibilities of broilers infected with Salmonella typhimurium. Poult. Sci. 88, 1643–1654. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00479 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Marcq, C., Cox, E., Szalo, I. M., Théwis, A. & Beckers, Y. Salmonella typhimurium oral challenge model in mature broilers: bacteriological, immunological, and growth performance aspects. Poult. Sci. 90, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01017 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rajani, J. et al. Effect of extracted Galactoglucomannan oligosaccharides from pine wood (Pinus brutia) on Salmonella typhimurium colonisation, growth performance and intestinal morphology in broiler chicks. Br. Poult. Sci. 57, 682–692 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Morales-Barrera, E. et al. Risks involved in the use of Enrofloxacin for Salmonella enteritidis or Salmonella Heidelberg in commercial poultry. Front. Veterinary Sci. 3–2016. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2016.00072 (2016).

  48. Jeurissen, S. H. et al. Parameters and techniques to determine intestinal health of poultry as constituted by immunity, integrity, and functionality. Curr. Issues Intest Microbiol. 3, 1–14 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Belote, B. L. et al. Applying different morphometric intestinal mucosa methods and the correlation with broilers performance under Eimeria challenge. Poult. Sci. 102, 102849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.102849 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50 Laudadio, V. et al. Productive performance and histological features of intestinal mucosa of broiler chickens fed different dietary protein levels. Poult. Sci. 91, 265–270. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01675 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Xie, S., Li, Y., Zhao, S., Lv, Y. & Yu, Q. Salmonella infection induced intestinal crypt hyperplasia through Wnt/β-catenin pathway in chicken. Res. Vet. Sci. 130, 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2020.03.008 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Song, J. et al. Effects of inulin supplementation on intestinal barrier function and immunity in specific pathogen-free chickens with Salmonella infection. J. Anim. Sci. 98 https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz396 (2020).

  53. Šefcová, M. A. et al. Effects of Lactobacillus fermentum administration on intestinal morphometry and antibody serum levels in Salmonella-Infantis-Challenged chickens. Microorganisms 11, 256 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Withanage, G. S. K. et al. Cytokine and chemokine responses associated with clearance of a primary Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium infection in the chicken and in protective immunity to Rechallenge. Infect. Immun. 73, 5173–5182. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.73.8.5173-5182.2005 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Chang, C. H., Teng, P. Y., Lee, T. T. & Yu, B. Effects of multi-strain probiotic supplementation on intestinal microbiota, tight junctions, and inflammation in young broiler chickens challenged with Salmonella Enterica subsp. Enterica. Asian-Australas J. Anim. Sci. 33, 1797–1808. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.19.0427 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Zhen, W. et al. Effect of dietary Bacillus coagulans supplementation on growth performance and immune responses of broiler chickens challenged by Salmonella enteritidis. Poult. Sci. 97, 2654–2666. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey119 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wang, Y. et al. Lactobacillus casei DBN023 protects against jejunal mucosal injury in chicks infected with Salmonella pullorum CMCC-533. Res. Vet. Sci. 127, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2019.09.010 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zhang, X., Song, M., Lv, P., Hao, G. & Sun, S. Effects of Clostridium Butyricum on intestinal environment and gut Microbiome under Salmonella infection. Poult. Sci. 101, 102077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2022.102077 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Chen, C. et al. Effects of a probiotic on the growth performance, intestinal flora, and immune function of chicks infected with Salmonella pullorum. Poult. Sci. 99, 5316–5323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.07.017 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Chen, C. Y., Tsen, H. Y., Lin, C. L., Yu, B. & Chen, C. S. Oral administration of a combination of select lactic acid bacteria strains to reduce the Salmonella invasion and inflammation of broiler chicks. Poult. Sci. 91, 2139–2147. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2012-02237 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Closs, G. et al. The probiotic Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG supplementation reduces Salmonella load and modulates growth, intestinal morphology, gut microbiota, and immune responses in chickens. Infect. Immun. 93, e00420–00424. https://doi.org/10.1128/iai.00420-24 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  62. He, T. et al. Ligilactobacillus salivarius XP132 with antibacterial and Immunomodulatory activities inhibits horizontal and vertical transmission of Salmonella pullorum in chickens. Poult. Sci. 103, 104086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104086 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Peng, X. et al. Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus alleviates intestinal inflammation and promotes microbiota-mediated protection against Salmonella fatal infections. Front. Immunol. 13–2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.973224 (2022).

  64. Knap, I. et al. Bacillus subtilis (DSM17299) significantly reduces Salmonella in broilers. Poult. Sci. 90, 1690–1694. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2010-01056 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Nakphaichit, M. et al. Protective effect of Lactobacillus reuteri KUB-AC5 against Salmonella enteritidis challenge in chickens. Benef Microbes. 10, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.3920/bm2018.0034 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Luo, X. et al. Colonization of Clostridium Butyricum in rats and its effect on intestinal microbial composition. Microorganisms 9, 1573 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Deng, L. & Wang, S. Colonization resistance: the role of gut microbiota in preventing Salmonella invasion and infection. Gut Microbes. 16, 2424914. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2024.2424914 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Rivera-Chávez, F. et al. Depletion of Butyrate-Producing Clostridia from the gut microbiota drives an aerobic luminal expansion of Salmonella. Cell. Host Microbe. 19, 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2016.03.004 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Zhang, Z. J., Pedicord, V. A., Peng, T. & Hang, H. C. Site-specific acylation of a bacterial virulence regulator attenuates infection. Nat. Chem. Biol. 16, 95–103 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Gantois, I. et al. Butyrate specifically Down-Regulates Salmonella pathogenicity Island 1 gene expression. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 946–949. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.72.1.946-949.2006 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Olnood, C. G., Beski, S. S. M., Choct, M. & Iji, P. A. Novel probiotics: their effects on growth performance, gut development, microbial community and activity of broiler chickens. Anim. Nutr. 1, 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2015.07.003 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  72. van Der Wielen, P. W. et al. Role of volatile fatty acids in development of the cecal microflora in broiler chickens during growth. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 2536–2540. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.66.6.2536-2540.2000 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Khurajog, B. et al. Selection and evaluation of lactic acid bacteria from chicken feces in Thailand as potential probiotics. PeerJ 11, e16637 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Videnska, P. et al. Succession and replacement of bacterial populations in the caecum of egg laying hens over their whole life. PLoS One. 9, e115142 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Zhu, L. et al. Akkermansia muciniphila protects intestinal mucosa from damage caused by S. pullorum by initiating proliferation of intestinal epithelium. Vet. Res. 51 (34). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-020-00755-3 (2020).

  76. Li, L. et al. Function and therapeutic prospects of next-generation probiotic Akkermansia muciniphila in infectious diseases. Front. Microbiol. 15–2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1354447 (2024).

  77. Yang, Y. et al. Oral supplementation with lactic acid bacteria improve the intestinal epithelial barrier and gut microbiota of broiler chicks to alleviate Salmonella enteritidis infection. Poult. Sci. 103, 104385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104385 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Molnár, A. et al. Effects of wheat Bran and Clostridium Butyricum supplementation on cecal Microbiota, Short-Chain fatty acid Concentration, pH and histomorphometry in broiler chickens. Animals 10, 2230 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  79. El-Sharkawy, H. et al. Evaluation of Bifidobacteria and Lactobacillus probiotics as alternative therapy for Salmonella typhimurium infection in broiler chickens. Animals 10, 1023 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  80. El Hage, R. et al. The detection of potential native probiotics Lactobacillus spp. Against Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella infantis and Salmonella Kentucky ST198 of Lebanese chicken origin. Antibiotics 11, 1147 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Tabashsum, Z. et al. Competitive reduction of poultry-borne enteric bacterial pathogens in chicken gut with bioactive Lactobacillus casei. Sci. Rep. 10, 16259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73316-5 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Lu, F. et al. Early-life polyphenol intake promotes Akkermansia growth and increase of host goblet cells in association with the potential synergistic effect of Lactobacillus. Food Res. Int. 149, 110648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110648 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Kverka, M. et al. Oral administration of Parabacteroides distasonis antigens attenuates experimental murine colitis through modulation of immunity and microbiota composition. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 163, 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2249.2010.04286.x (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Gaifem, J. et al. Akkermansia muciniphila and parabacteroides distasonis synergistically protect from colitis by promoting ILC3 in the gut. mBio 15, e0007824. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00078-24 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85 Han, S. et al. Probiotic Gastrointestinal transit and colonization after oral administration: A long journey. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 11–2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.609722 (2021).

  86. Sato, R. & Tanaka, M. Intestinal distribution and intraluminal localization of orally administered Clostridium Butyricum in rats. Microbiol. Immunol. 41, 665–671 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Zmora, N. et al. Personalized gut mucosal colonization resistance to empiric probiotics is associated with unique host and Microbiome features. Cell 174, 1388–1405e1321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.041 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Ma, B. et al. Enrofloxacin Shifts Intestinal Microbiota and Metabolic Profiling and Hinders Recovery from Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Serovar Typhimurium Infection in Neonatal Chickens. mSphere 5, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1128/msphere.00725, doi:10.1128/msphere.00725-20.

  89. Kerek, Á., Szabó, Á. & Jerzsele, Á. Amoxicillin resistance: an in vivo study on the effects of an approved formulation on antibiotic resistance in broiler chickens. Anim. (Basel). 15 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15131944 (2025).

  90. Jomova, K. et al. Reactive oxygen species, toxicity, oxidative stress, and antioxidants: chronic diseases and aging. Arch. Toxicol. 97, 2499–2574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-023-03562-9 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Kurutas, E. B. The importance of antioxidants which play the role in cellular response against oxidative/nitrosative stress: current state. Nutr. J. 15, 1–22 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Surai, P. F., Kochish, I. I., Fisinin, V. I. & Kidd, M. T. Antioxidant defence systems and oxidative stress in poultry biology: an update. Antioxidants 8, 235 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Verberkmoes, N. C. et al. Shotgun metaproteomics of the human distal gut microbiota. ISME J. 3, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2008.108 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Obianwuna, U. E. et al. Recent trends on mitigative effect of probiotics on Oxidative-Stress-Induced gut dysfunction in broilers under necrotic enteritis challenge: A review. Antioxid. (Basel). 12 https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox12040911 (2023).

  95. Cao, L., Wu, X., Bai, Y., Wu, X. & Gu, S. Anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activities of probiotic powder containing Lactobacillus plantarum 1.2567 in necrotic enteritis model of broiler chickens. Livest. Sci. 223, 157–163 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Rinttilä, T. & Apajalahti, J. Intestinal microbiota and metabolites—Implications for broiler chicken health and performance1 1Presented as a part of the informal nutrition symposium metabolic responses to nutrition and modifiers at the poultry science association’s annual meeting in Athens, Georgia, July 9, 2012. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 22, 647–658. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr.2013-00742 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Polansky, O. et al. Important metabolic pathways and biological processes expressed by chicken cecal microbiota. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82, 1569–1576. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03473-15 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Wang, Y. et al. Effect of probiotics on the meat flavour and gut microbiota of chicken. Sci. Rep. 7, 6400. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06677-z (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  99. de Vos, W. M., Microbe & Profile Akkermansia muciniphila: a conserved intestinal symbiont that acts as the gatekeeper of our mucosa. Microbiology 163, 646–648. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.000444 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Rodrigues, D. R. et al. Cecal Microbiome composition and metabolic function in probiotic treated broilers. PLoS One. 15, e0225921. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225921 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  101. Oakley, B. B. et al. The chicken Gastrointestinal Microbiome. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 360, 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6968.12608 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Yang, E. et al. Influence of culture media, pH and temperature on growth and bacteriocin production of bacteriocinogenic lactic acid bacteria. AMB Express. 8, 10 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  103. Hawkins, J. L. et al. The effect of previous life cycle phase on the growth kinetics, morphology, and antibiotic resistance of Salmonella typhimurium DT104 in brain heart infusion and ground chicken extract. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1043 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Gokduman, K., Avsaroglu, M. D., Cakiris, A., Ustek, D. & Gurakan, G. C. Recombinant plasmid-based quantitative Real-Time PCR analysis of Salmonella enterica serotypes and its application to milk samples. J. Microbiol. Methods. 122, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2016.01.008 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  105. Marchewka, J. et al. Gastrointestinal tract morphometrics and content of commercial and Indigenous chicken breeds with differing ranging profiles. Anim. (Basel). 11 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071881 (2021).

  106. Parsons, B. N. et al. Invasive Non-Typhoidal Salmonella typhimurium ST313 are not Host-Restricted and have an invasive phenotype in experimentally infected chickens. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 7, e2487. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002487 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  107. Apiwatsiri, P. et al. Metagenomic analysis of the gut microbiota in piglets either challenged or not with enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli reveals beneficial effects of probiotics on Microbiome composition, resistome, digestive function and oxidative stress responses. PLoS One. 17, e0269959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269959 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  108. Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with bowtie 2. Nat. Methods. 9, 357–359 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  109. Wood, D. E., Lu, J. & Langmead, B. Improved metagenomic analysis with kraken 2. Genome Biol. 20, 1–13 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  110. Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible Microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  111. Li, D., Liu, C. M., Luo, R., Sadakane, K. & Lam, T. W. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 31, 1674–1676 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  112. Gurevich, A., Saveliev, V., Vyahhi, N. & Tesler, G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 29, 1072–1075 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  113. Meyer, F. et al. MG-RAST version 4—lessons learned from a decade of low-budget ultra-high-throughput metagenome analysis. Brief. Bioinform. 20, 1151–1159 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Kanehisa, M. & Goto, S. K. E. G. G. Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.27 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  115. Guevarra, R. B. et al. The dynamics of the piglet gut Microbiome during the weaning transition in association with health and nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 9, 1–9 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  116. Wang, Y. et al. Effects of a probiotic-fermented herbal blend on the growth performance, intestinal flora and immune function of chicks infected with Salmonella pullorum. Poult. Sci. 100, 101196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2021.101196 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical and logistical support provided by ThaiFoods Group Public Company Limited, Bangkok, Thailand, for facilitating animal housing and sample collection throughout the trial. ThaiFoods Group Public Company Limited had no role in the study design, data analysis, data interpretation, or decision to publish the manuscript. We also extend our sincere appreciation to Huvepharma Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand, for kindly providing the commercial probiotic product used in this study.

Funding

The scientific research was financially supported by the 2022-Fundamental Fund, Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI), Chulalongkorn University (FOOD66310012), the 90th Anniversary of Chulalongkorn University Scholarship (Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund). The funding body had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Microbiology Faculty of Veterinary Science , Chulalongkorn University , 10330, Bangkok, Thailand

    Benjamas Khurajog, Imporn Saenkankam, Prasert Apiwatsiri, Natthapong Supimon, Ratchnida Kamwa, Waree Niyomtham, Jitrapa Yindee & Nuvee Prapasarakul

  2. The International Graduate Course of Veterinary Science and Technology Faculty of Veterinary Science , Chulalongkorn University , Bangkok, 10330, Thailand

    Ratchnida Kamwa

  3. Faculty of Veterinary Science , The Livestock Animal Hospital Chulalongkorn University , Nakhon Pathom, 73000, Thailand

    Cherdpong Phupolphan

  4. School of Veterinary Medicine , Murdoch University , Perth, 6150, Australia

    David J. Hampson

  5. Center of Excellence in Diagnosis and Monitoring of Animal Pathogens (DMAP) , Chulalongkorn University , Bangkok, 10330, Thailand

    Nuvee Prapasarakul

Authors
  1. Benjamas Khurajog
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Imporn Saenkankam
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Prasert Apiwatsiri
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Natthapong Supimon
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ratchnida Kamwa
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Waree Niyomtham
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jitrapa Yindee
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Cherdpong Phupolphan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. David J. Hampson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Nuvee Prapasarakul
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

B.K., W.N., and N.P. conceived and designed the study. B.K., I.S., N.S., R.K., and J.Y. carried out the experiments. P.A. provided consultation on bioinformatics analyses. C.P. performed the histological evaluations. Data analysis and interpretation were conducted by B.K. and C.P. B.K. drafted the manuscript. N.P. (corresponding author) and D.J.H. critically revised the manuscript. All authors reviewed, commented on, and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nuvee Prapasarakul.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Supplementary Material 3

Supplementary Material 4

Supplementary Material 5

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khurajog, B., Saenkankam, I., Apiwatsiri, P. et al. Effectiveness of probiotic supplementation on growth performance, gut microbiota, and Salmonella reduction in broiler chicks challenged with Salmonella Typhimurium. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-37506-x

Download citation

  • Received: 30 July 2025

  • Accepted: 22 January 2026

  • Published: 02 February 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-37506-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Chicken
  • Growth performance
  • Metagenomic analysis
  • Probiotic
  • Salmonella Typhimurium challenge
Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • About Scientific Reports
  • Contact
  • Journal policies
  • Guide to referees
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editor's Choice
  • Journal highlights
  • Open Access Fees and Funding

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Scientific Reports (Sci Rep)

ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

nature.com sitemap

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing Microbiology

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Microbiology newsletter — what matters in microbiology research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Microbiology