Next Article in Journal
How Can We Introduce ART into Wild Felid Conservation in Practice? Joint Experience in Semen Collection from Captive Wild Felids in Europe
Next Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Different Sources of Zinc, Manganese, and Copper on Broiler Performance and Excreta Output
Previous Article in Journal
Freezing Protocol Optimization for Iberian Red Deer (Cervus elaphus hispanicus) Epididymal Sperm under Field Conditions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Dietary Chromium Picolinate on Gut Microbiota, Gastrointestinal Peptides, Glucose Homeostasis, and Performance of Heat-Stressed Broilers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Impact of Probiotic Bacillus subtilis on Injurious Behavior in Laying Hens

1
Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Animal Food Safety, College of Veterinary Medicine, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
2
Department of Animal Sciences, College of Agriculture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
3
Livestock Behavior Research Unit, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(7), 870; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070870
Submission received: 10 February 2022 / Revised: 27 March 2022 / Accepted: 27 March 2022 / Published: 30 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Poultry Nutrition and Metabolism)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Injurious behavior prevention is a critical issue in the poultry industry due to increasing social stress, leading to negative effects on bird production and survivability, consequently enhancing gut microbiota dysbiosis and neuroinflammation via the microbiota–gut–brain axis. Probiotics have been used as potential therapeutic psychobiotics to treat or improve neuropsychiatric disorders or symptoms by boosting cognitive and behavioral processes and reducing stress reactions in humans and various experimental animals. The current data will first report that probiotic Bacillus subtilis reduces stress-induced injurious behavior in laying hens via regulating microbiota–gut–brain function with the potential to be an alternative to beak trimming during poultry egg production.

Abstract

Intestinal microbiota functions such as an endocrine organ to regulate host physiological homeostasis and behavioral exhibition in stress responses via regulating the gut–brain axis in humans and other mammals. In humans, stress-induced dysbiosis of the gut microbiota leads to intestinal permeability, subsequently affecting the clinical course of neuropsychiatric disorders, increasing the frequency of aggression and related violent behaviors. Probiotics, as direct-fed microorganism, have been used as dietary supplements or functional foods to target gut microbiota (microbiome) for the prevention or therapeutic treatment of mental diseases including social stress-induced psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, impulsivity, and schizophrenia. Similar function of the probiotics may present in laying hens due to the intestinal microbiota having a similar function between avian and mammals. In laying hens, some management practices such as hens reared in conventional cages or at a high stocking density may cause stress, leading to injurious behaviors such as aggressive pecking, severe feather pecking, and cannibalism, which is a critical issue facing the poultry industry due to negative effects on hen health and welfare with devastating economic consequences. We discuss the current development of using probiotic Bacillus subtilis to prevent or reduce injurious behavior in laying hens.

1. Introduction

Numerous studies have revealed that the intestinal microbiota regulates host physiological homeostasis and behavioral exhibition in response to stress and related neurological disorders via the microbiota–gut–brain (MGB) and microbiota–gut–immune (MGI) axes in humans and other mammals [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. Stress has a major impact on gut physiological homeostasis, leading to increased intestinal permeability (gut dysbiosis), subsequently causing neuroinflammation [11] and affecting the clinical course of neuropsychiatric disorders and behavioral exhibition including aggression [12,13,14,15,16]. Gastrointestinal diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome have been linked to psychological disorders [17,18]. Fecal microbiota transplantation has potential to treat neuropsychiatric disorders [3,19,20]. Probiotics (or named direct-fed microbials) have been defined as: “live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amount confer a health benefit on the host” [21,22]. Numerous probiotics such as Lactobacillus plantarum and Bifidobacterium lactis have been used as dietary supplements or functional foods with therapeutic potential to target gut microbiota for the prevention or potential therapeutic treatment of mental diseases including social stress-induced psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia [15,19,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. Similar function of the probiotics via modification of the gut microbiota may present in poultry.
Some management practices used in the poultry industry such as hatched under commercial conditions, reared in conventional cages or at high stocking density, mixed with strangers, and transported between housing facilities may cause stress in birds, leading to abnormal behavior such as injurious pecking (aggressive pecking and severe feather pecking) and cannibalism [31,32,33]. Injurious behavior prevention is a critical issue in the poultry industry due to the negative effects on bird production and survivability with devastating economic consequences [34,35,36,37,38]. Beak trimming (BT), the removal of 1/3 to 1/2 of a beak using hot blaze or infrared, is a routine husbandry procedure practiced in laying hens to prevent or reduce injurious behavior [39,40]. However, BT causes tissue damage, which may increase somatosensory sensitization of the damaged nerve tissues, resulting in pain (acute, chronic or both) in the trimmed birds [31,39,40]. Both enriched-caging and free-range production systems have been developed to meet the chickens’ ‘natural’ behavioral needs, however, injurious behavior still occurs within the flocks, and other management strategies must be implemented [32,41,42,43]. With the growing public concern for laying hen health and welfare, there is a pressing need to identify and develop alternatives to BT. This review focused on the recent findings to provide an overview of the feasibility of using probiotics as a management strategy to inhibit or reduce these injurious behaviors in laying hens.

2. Production Environments and Related Stress in Commercial Laying Hens

Chickens as well as other farm animals are constantly selected by both nature (natural selection) and humans (artificial selection). During selection, the animals’ biological and behavioral characteristics have been constantly changed [44,45]. The process is affected by multiple factors including their surrounding environments, by which the animals have been selected for increased fitness (that is survival and reproductive success) over generations.
Commercial chickens have been selected for production (laying hens for eggs and broilers for meat) to meet the increasing demand for poultry products [46,47]. The consumption of chicken meat and eggs represents cheap, healthy, and quality protein sources in human nutrition globally. However, the breeding programs may subject chickens to physiological dysfunction and immunosuppression by simply focusing on reproduction and or growth rates [48,49], subsequently increasing susceptibility to metabolic disorders and management-associated stressors [50,51]. For example, a laying hen produces approximately 310 eggs annually with a low feed consumption of just 110 g per day [52]. The extreme selection for one trait (production) could affect other biological traits, causing negative impacts on animal health and welfare such as aggression and related injurious behavior [53]. Selection for production increases aggression as, from an evolutionary point of view, aggression in animals is a natural behavior associated with competition to deal with life-threating situations affecting an individual’s survival, growth, and reproductive success within a group [54,55]. Controversially, selection based on hen behavior may reduce feather pecking, but it may result in an unfavorable correlated selection response, reducing egg production [56].
Currently, the conventional (battery) cage system is the most common housing facility for laying hens in the United Sates (U.S.), which was estimated to be 70.7% of the table egg layer flocks (approximately 231.7 million laying hens) at the end of 2020 [57]. Typically, commercial laying hens are housed in groups ranging from five to nine birds per cage or greater at a density of 67–86 in2/hen, starting at about 18 weeks of age. The high stocking density of hens and limited space for hens to display their “natural” behavior (such as foraging, exploration, perching, and nesting) negatively impact their welfare status, resulting in a chronic state of stress [58]. One of the possible strategies to improve hen health and welfare is to modify their rearing environments, and several alternatives to the conventional cage system have been developed such as enriched cage system (consisting of a nest, litter bath or scratch area, perches, and abrasive strip) and cage-free systems with or without outdoor access such as aviaries (single- and multiple-tiered) [59]. Although hens housed in the enriched cage system and non-cage systems seem to be possible ways to improve their welfare by displaying some degree of “natural” behavior such as nesting, roosting, and scratching [60,61], there is a high risk of increased exhibition of injurious behavior (feather pecking, aggression, and cannibalism) resulting from large group sizes and social instability [41,42,43,62,63]. Social stress and associated injurious behavior are major concerns in all current housing environments including cage and cage-free systems [41,42].

3. Injurious Behavior in Laying Hens

Chickens as well as other farm animals were domesticated from wild animals several thousand years ago. During domestication and subsequent artificial selection (breeding), the selected animals have continuously had their physiological stress response (adaptive capability, i.e., effect of reactive ability on growth, metabolism, and reproduction) and behavioral profile (social and emotional exhibitions as well as cognitive ability) changed to ‘fit’ the given environments and related management practices. However, not all individuals and species (phenotype and or genotype) of animals have equal capability to adapt to their environments or to modify their physiological and behavioral characteristics in response to environmental challenges [64]. Consequently, animals that exhibit less adaptation to their rearing environment may have a risk of poor health and welfare by reducing fitness [65].

3.1. Feather Pecking

Feather pecking in laying hens is a behavior performed by birds pecking repetitively to conspecifics. It includes two categories: gentle and severe feather pecking [66], driven by different motivational systems [67]. Gentle feather pecking, repeated pecking at the tips and edges of feather without removal of the feather from the receivers, has been considered as a common behavior related to social discrimination and exploration [68] without association of severe feather pecking [69]; others have suggested that gentle feather pecking acts as a precursor of severe feather pecking and is associated with plumage damage [66]. Severe feather pecking, forcefully pecking at and pulling of feather, could be redirected foraging behavior [66,70], which is significantly increased if the hens’ foraging motivation cannot be fulfilled [71], if a suitable substrate is not provided [72,73] or removed [74]. A recent study indicates that feather pecking is a more complex reward and motivation procedure rather than redirected food-related foraging behavior, and is involved in multiple factors including motivation, foraging, exploration, and food selection [73]. Feather pecking, especially severe feather pecking, is a serious health and welfare problem in the poultry egg industry [37], which could affect up to 80% of birds in current housing systems [43,75]. In addition, feather pecking is associated with social stress-induced fearfulness [36]. Feather pecking in extreme cases leads to cannibalistic pecking, removing, and eating flesh from the victims, which can be further enforced via the gut–brain reward system (the central serotonergic and dopaminergic systems) [76,77], and spreads among the conspecifics (as a socially transmitted learning behavior) [78], leading to death. Cannibalistic pecking can be also induced by aggressive pecking following skin damage.

3.2. Aggressive Pecking and Cannibalism

Aggression within a group is to establish a dominance hierarchy when the animals are first brought together in a common environment [55,79]. In chickens, aggressive pecking, directly to the head and comb area, occurs to establish hierarchy within a group or in response to stress-induced social instability during rearing practices such as mixing individuals with unfamiliar birds during transfer from grower to layer facilities [80]. From an evolutionary perspective, aggression (also called combativeness) in animals is related to survival, growth, and reproduction [54,80,81]. Based on the natural selection theory, an animal’s productivity is correlated with its competitive ability. Dominance research has revealed a shift from a focus on species characteristics to the modern recognition of rich inter-individual variation (the behavioral and physiological phenotypes) [82]. Traditional techniques used for the selection of animals for breeding are primarily based on individuals with great targeted biomarkers (characteristics), mostly focused on productivity or profitability, resulting in a high risk of impaired ability to cope with their environment and biological problems, increasing competition and aggression [83]. In addition, based on the “frustration-aggression hypothesis”, aggression is a predictable reaction to external stimuli such as ambient conditions [84,85]. When restrictive environments such as conventional cages do not allow chickens to perform their natural behavior, they enter a state of frustration, with stress reactions and increased aggression [86,87]. In poultry, for example, egg production may have been increased through breeding selection while potentially injurious feather pecking and cannibalism have concurrently increased. For example, through more than 30 years of selection, egg production has been increased significantly in a former commercial Dekalb XL strain reared in conventional cages, whereas mortality due to aggression and cannibalism in non-beak trimmed hens had also increased about 10-fold [88,89] (Figure 1).

3.3. Management and Beak Trimming in Laying Hens

In response to growing public pressures relating to poultry welfare, the management practices of laying hens have been modified, and various methods have been used to prevent or reduce social stress and stress-induced injurious behavior. For example, reducing light intensity, modifying nutritive value or taste of diets [64], providing straw, grain, or pelleted diets [42,91], rearing dual-purpose hybrids [38], housing hens in floor-pens [72], development of enriched cages [92,93], and aviary systems [41]. These management strategies have certain positive effects on laying hen welfare, but none of them provides a guarantee of preventing these injurious behaviors entirely.
Beak trimming (BT, also termed debeaking, beak tipping, beak mutilation, and partial beak amputation) is a routine procedure practiced in the U.S. egg industry and in most non-EU countries for preventing or reducing social stress and related injurious behavior [52]. The process involves the use of either infrared beak treatment (at the hatchery) or hot-blade beak trimming (prior to 10 days of age) to remove a portion of the upper, or upper and lower mandibles (i.e., the remaining length is 2–3 mm from the upper beak distal to the nostrils) [52]. A chicken’s beak is a complex, functional, and highly innervated organ that contains a great number of various sensory receptors including mechanoreceptors, thermoreceptors, and nociceptors [39,94]. Worldwide, BT continues to solicit a great deal of debate pertaining to the relative impact of BT on bird welfare. While the bestowed benefits of lowered aggression, feather pecking, and cannibalism may indeed favor improved well-being during the laying cycle [93,95], there are considerable anatomical, physiological, and biochemical changes that occur in cut peripheral nerves and damaged tissues, resulting in pain (acute, chronic, or both) with a negative impact on the welfare of billions of chickens annually [39]. There is growing pressure from animal welfare and consumer groups advocating the banning of this practice and to develop alternatives [96].
Injurious behavior can be improved through genetic selection such as group selection in which social interaction is included [34,97,98]. However, there is no sign that breeders will be able to guarantee ‘non-peck’ layers any time soon. One possibility is to develop an alternative to BT that minimizes social stress and pain, thereby preventing injurious behavior and related damage, by which it increases the health and welfare of laying hens. Recent studies have indicated that modification of gut microbiota composition, as a potential method, to prevent or reduce stress-induced gut dysbiosis and related inflammation [99,100,101,102], by which it further affects the hosts’ social behavior via the MGB and MGI axes [103].

4. Gut Microbiota, Stress, Injurious Behavior, and the Microbiota–Gut–Brain Axis

Gut microbiota is the collection of a large community with highly diverse microorganisms that reside within the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of chickens as well as warm blooded animals. Its function resembles an endocrine organ engaged in multiple pathways (biological systems) including metabolic, immune, endocrine, and neural regulations by integrating the signals received from the internal and external stimulations via the bidirectional communications between the gut and brain [6,104,105,106,107,108,109]. Maintenance of gut microbial balance is essential for chickens to keep their physiological and behavioral homeostasis, which is critical for optimal growth, reproduction, health, and welfare under the current poultry industry globally. To meet the continuously growing demand for human consumption, the current breeding programs and management practices (focused on high production and economic efficiency) may result in multiple stressors affecting chicken health and welfare [31,106,107,108,109,110,111] (Figure 2).
Under normal rearing conditions, chickens adapted to rearing-related factors have a balanced gut microbiota composition, maintaining its optimal function in feed digestion, nutrient resorption, synthesis of biochemicals, and neural and immune regulation [112,113]. However, under certain conditions, these management-associated stressors have negative effects on the gut microbial structure and functions by (1) disrupting the commensal bacterial populations and colonization (the stability of the gut microbiota), thus reducing beneficial bacteria and increasing pathogenic variant (low-grade inflammation); (2) increasing pathogen survival and invasive capability (bacterial translocation to increase neuroinflammation); (3) disrupting the absorption of nutrients and minerals including calcium, a key bone mineral; (4) disrupting microbial neuroendocrine functions (producing several signaling molecules and neurochemicals including serotonin (5-HT); (5) disrupting the gut epithelial barrier, thereby increasing intestinal permeability causing the gut to leak certain bacteria and harmful substances into the bloodstream (leaky gut), resulting in inflammation and or infection; and (6) damaging epithelial cells, thus producing free radicals and reducing antioxidant efficacy (oxidative stress) [31,114,115,116,117,118]. These changes resulted from the gut microbiota alterations (imbalanced microbiota composition with dysfunction) that influenced host behavioral display and health status via the nerve systems (i.e., the vagus nerve, enteric nerve, and autonomic nervous system), hormone signaling, immune system, and microbial metabolites (such as short chain fatty acids) to regulate the function of the gut–brain and gut–immune axes (Figure 3). Intestinal bacteria, for example, are involved in tryptophan metabolism [119,120,121]. Tryptophan, a precursor of 5-HT, directly affects brain 5-HT synthesis as tryptophan can pass the brain–blood barrier (BBB) [122,123], being a direct link between the gut microbiota and brain [122]. Tryptophan has long been used to attenuate aggressive behavior, control stress, and modulate immune function in humans and several species of farm animals including chickens [124,125]. In chickens, both genetic and phenotypic feather peckers of divergently selected high (HFP) and low (LFP) feather pecking lines have lower plasma tryptophan concentrations compared to their non-pecking counterparts [126]. Tryptophan-enriched diet (neurodietary supplements) fed chickens have elevated serotonergic activity (5-HIAA/5-HT ratio) in the hypothalamus, which results in a decreased stress response accompanied by a significant reduction in cortisol levels when exposed to social-mixing related stress [127,128,129]. The hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis is functionally involved in the pathophysiology of many neuropsychiatric disorders including major depressive disorder and cognitive dysfunction [130]; and tryptophan hydroxylase 2 (TPH2), rate-limiting enzyme of 5-HT synthesis in the brain, has been used as a therapeutic target for psychiatric disorders [131,132]. It has been proposed that the potential novel strategies of psychotherapy aim at increasing tryptophan concentrations through restoring the normal gut microbiota composition and intestinal homeostasis to prevent or reduce stress-induced abnormal behavior in humans [127,133] and various animals including laying hens [125,134].
Gut microbial alteration in humans is associated with depression, anxiety, and neuropsychiatric disorders caused by various neurodegeneration or neuroinflammation [11,135,136,137,138,139]. Similarly, the gut microbiota (microbiome) in chickens affect their health and emotion, memory, social, and feeding behavior [102,132]. Breeding-induced changes of gut microbiota (composition and or diversity) have been recognized as the major reason causing the changes in behavior, such as anxiety-like behavior in quails and social and feeding behavior in chickens and turkeys [140]. For example, selection for digestive efficiency in chickens causes the differences in gut microbiota compositions co-localizing with loci involved in feeding behavior, consequently, the most efficient birds have great feed intake with less fear [141]. In addition, feather pecking in laying hens has been proposed to be a consequence of the gut–brain axis dysregulation. Meyer et al. [142] reported that there were differences in intestinal microbial metabolites between HFP and LFP birds, which could impact on the function of the gut–brain axis. Recent studies have further revealed that the gut microbiota diversity is different in layer strains divergently selected HFP and LFP lines [143,144]. High feather pecking birds have a higher genera of Clostridiales but lower Staphylococcus and Lactobacillus compared to LFP birds [143,144]. Early-life homologous microbiota transplantation from adult HFP and LFP birds (i.e., receiving microbiota from the same line) influences the active behavior of recipient birds with long-lasting effects on developing feather pecking through the regulation of the serotonergic and immune systems [145]. In one of our recent studies, the chicks (a third line) that received cecal microbial transplantation (CMT) from line 63 adult birds (a gentle line) displayed significantly less aggressive behavior (during paired behavioral test) with higher concentrations of brain serotonin than the chicks that received CMT from line 72 adult birds (an aggressive line) and the controls (orally administrated saline) [146]. This suggests that aggression in chickens, similar to humans [84], could be prevented or reduced by the modification of gut microbiota composition and function. Similarly, fecal microbiota transplantation from aged broilers to young broilers daily from day 5 to day 12 altered recipient birds’ behavior, intestinal morphology, and gut microbiota composition [147]. The recipient birds exhibited lower fearfulness during both the novel arean test and vigilance test (a predator model) than the controls (orally administrated saline). The recipient birds also had a higher relative abundance of Lentisphaeae at the phylum level, while a lower Megamonas at the genus level, with increased activities of the glutamatergic synapse and N-glycan biosynthesis pathways revealed by the functional capabilities of microbial community analysis [147]. In addition, there were biological differences in gut motility (contraction velocity and amplitude) in chickens, which was corrected with the distinct feather pecking phenotypes [148]. In contrast, a recent study reported that the differences in gut microbiota compositions between the divergently selected HFP and LFP lines were not associated with feather pecking and antagonistic behavior due to there not being significant differences in microbial abilities [149]. Thus, the current results provide insights into understanding the function of gut microbiota in the regulation of stress response and injurious behavior in poultry, which are summarized in Table 1.

5. Probiotics, Bacillus subtilis-Based Probiotics, Social Challenge-Induced Aggression

Probiotics are commensal bacteria (“direct-fed microbials”, DFM) that offer potential health beneficial effects to the host’s stress response (acute, chronic or both). Several commercial probiotics have been used in poultry production [150,151], and numerous studies have shown that probiotics aid chickens in adapting to their environment and improving their health and welfare by: (1) altering the microbiota profile with beneficial bacteria to prevent the growth of pathogens and to compete with enteric pathogens for the limited availability of nutrient and attachment sites; (2) producing bacteriocins (such as bacteriostatic and bactericidal substances) with antimicrobial function and short chain fatty acids to regulate the activity of intestinal digestive enzymes and energy homeostasis; (3) modulating gut and systemic immunity; (4) restoring the intestinal barrier integrity preventing pathogens from crossing the mucosal epithelium; (5) stimulating the endocrine system and attenuating stress-induced disorders of the HPA and/or sympathetic-adrenal-medullary (SMA) axes via the gut–brain axis; (6) inducing epithelial heat shock proteins to protect cells from oxidative damage; and (7) synthesis and secretion of neurotransmitters such as 5-HT and tryptophan [104,107,113,115,152] (Figure 3).
It has been stated in humans and non-human primates that the gut microbiota have potential effects on their hosts’ aggressive behaviors and anxiety symptoms [153,154,155]. In rodent studies, germ-free (GF) animals with exaggerated HPA responses to social stress can be normalized by certain probiotics [126,156,157]. In addition, probiotics have successfully attenuated anxiety and depressive behaviors in rat offspring separated from their mother [158,159] and the obsessive-compulsive-like behaviors in mice [160,161]. These results support the psychobiotics theory [15,162] (i.e., a special class of probiotics (beneficial bacteria) delivering mental and cognitive health benefits (such as anxiolytic and antidepressant effects) to individuals) and provide a potential to use probiotics as a biotherapeutic strategy for improving a host’s mental and cognitive function in humans and other animals including chickens [163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170]. Probiotics may have similar effects on chicken behavior due to the human–animal transmission occurs during the evolution and ecology of gastrointestinal microbial development (the host–microbial coevolution) [171,172]. Several probiotics have been used in preventing injurious damage in poultry. For example, probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus JB-1 supplementation (5 × 109/mL in drinking water provided from week 19 to week 28) reduces chronic stress (social disruption, physical and manual restraint, and blocking nest boxes and perch usage applied from week 24 to week 26) induced feather pecking and cecal microbiota dysbiosis, along with increased T cell populations in the spleen and cecal tonsils of adult chickens regardless of the genetic lines (HFP and LFP lines) [173] (Table 2). Probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus supplement (applied from day 1 to week 9) also counteracted stress-induced decrease in T cells, along with a short-term (from week 10 to week 13) increase in plasma tryptophan and the TRP:(PHE + TYR) ratio (from week 14 to week 15), but without effects on feather pecking in pullets [126]. The TRP:(PHE  +  TYR) ratio has been used as an indicator of the competition between tryptophan and other amino acids for uptake across the BBB [174]. In addition, the number of feather pecking bouts was positively correlated with intestinal contraction velocity and amplitude in peckers, which can be modulated by administrated L. rhamnosus [148]. Lactobacillus-based probiotic supplements also reduced stress-associated immobility behavior in rodents during the forced swine test [175]. Parois et al. [176] also reported that probiotic Pediococcus acidilactici reduced fearfulness in selected short tonic immobility birds, indicated by a short immobility during the tonic immobility test via regulation of the MGB axis. Reduced fearfulness was also found in a synbiotic study [177]. It consisted of a probiotic (Enterococcus faecium, Pediococcus acidilactici, Bifidobacterium animalis, and Lactobacillus reuteri) and a prebiotic (fructooligosaccharides). The synbiotic fed broilers had a shorter latency to make the first vocalization with a higher vocalization rate during an isolation test, and a greater number of synbiotic fed birds reached the observer during a touch test. There results revealed a potential strategy to use probiotics to reduce stress response and stress-induced injurious behavior during poultry production. However, large gaps about probiotic functions in improving neuropsychiatric disorders remain, which are affected by multiple factors including the type of probiotic bacteria and duration and dosage of the intervention.

Bacillus subtilis

Bacillus subtilis is one of the three most common species of probiotic products in the U.S. [181] and has been used widely as a functional feed supplement such as in several dairy and non-dairy fermented foods for improving human health and well-being [182,183,184,185]. Similarly, Bacillus subtilis-based probiotics have been used as antibiotic growth promoter alternatives in poultry [186,187,188,189]. Bacillus subtilis are spore-forming bacteria. They are heat stable, low pH-resistant (the gastric barrier), and tolerate multiple environmental stressors [190,191]. Several mechanisms of actions of Bacillus spp. have been proposed: regulating intestinal microstructure [192] and digestive enzymes [193,194]; synthesizing and releasing antimicrobial and antibiotic compounds [187]; increasing immunity [193,195,196], and neurochemical activities including 5-HT [197,198,199] as well as affecting animal behavior [198] following various stressors. For example, in response stimulations, Bacillus subtilis alleviates oxidative stress, provokes a specific biological response, and improves the mood status of hosts via the gut–brain axis [79,200]. In addition, Bacillus subtilis can overproduce L-tryptophan [201,202,203], and consequently increase 5-HT in the hypothalamus [204]. Tryptophan functions as an antidepressant and anti-anxiety agent [204,205,206,207] and eliminates nervous tension in mice [208,209]. In one study, chickens were used as an animal model to assess whether dietary supplementation of the probiotic Bacillus subtilis reduced aggressive behaviors following social challenge [178].
Chickens, as social animals, show fear, depression, and or anxiety in novel environments [172] and show aggression toward others for establishing aa social dominance rank in unfamiliar social groups [210,211,212], which is similar to the rodents used in human psychopharmacological studies [213,214,215]. The paired social ranking-associated behavioral test used in this study [206] has been routinely performed in chicken behavioral analysis [201,216,217]. The rationale of the test is similar to the resident-intruder test, which is a standardized method used in rodents for detecting social stress-induced aggression and violence [180,218,219,220].
In the study [208], the role of the probiotic Bacillus subtilis on the aggression in hens of the Dekalb XL (DXL) line was examined. One-day-old female chicks were kept in single-bird cages [178]. The hens at 24-weeks-old were paired based on their body weight for the first behavioral test (pre-probiotic treatment, day 0) in a novel floor pen. To determine the dominant individual per pair, behaviors were video-taped for 2 h immediately after the release of two hens simultaneously into the floor pen. After the test, the subordinate and dominant hens were fed the regular diet or the diet mixed with 250 ppm probiotic (1.0 × 106 cfu/g of feed) for two weeks, respectively. The probiotic contained three proprietary strains of Bacillus subtilis (Sporulin®, Novus International Inc., Saint Charles, MO, USA). After the treatment (day 14), the second aggression test was conducted within the same pair of hens. The injurious behaviors were detected and analyzed (Table 3).
The results indicated that compared to their initial levels at day 0, the levels of threat kick were reduced (Figure 4A. p = 0.04), the frequency of aggressive pecking tended to be lower (Figure 4B. p = 0.053), and the levels of feather pecking was reduced but without statistical significance (Figure 4C. 60%. p = 0.33) in probiotic fed dominant hens. There was no change in injurious behaviors in the regular diet fed subordinate hens between day 0 and day 14 (Figure 4A–D). The behavioral changes in probiotic fed dominant hens were correlated with the changes in blood 5-HT concentrations. Post-treatment (day 14), plasma 5-HT levels were reduced toward the levels of the controls (subordinates) in the probiotic fed dominant hens (Figure 5. p = 0.02) compared to their related levels prior to treatment (day 0). Similarly, the effects of probiotic dietary supplements on behavior have been found in turkeys [180]. The turkey poults fed probiotic Bacillus amyloliquefaciens had increased feeding frequency and duration with decreased distress call and aggressive behavior.
The similar relations between reduced aggressive behavioral exhibition and blood 5-HT concentrations were identified in our previous studies [53,89], genetic selection for prevention of social stress-induced feather pecking, and aggression. Compared to MBB mean bad birds (MBB), kind gentle birds (KGB) had lower blood 5-HT concentrations as well as lower concentrations of blood dopamine (DA) and corticosterone (CORT) and a lower heterophil/lymphocyte (H/L) ratio, a stress marker, with lower frequency of injurious pecking [53,91] (Table 4). Bolhuis et al. [221] also reported that peripheral serotonin activity reflected the predisposition to develop severe feather pecking in laying hens. Similarly, individuals with a lower blood 5-HT level that showed less aggressiveness were found in humans [222,223,224] and canine [225] while an elevated level of blood 5-HT has been revealed in patients with aggressive behavior [226,227] and in aggressive teleost fish [228]. These results provide evidence for serotonergic mediation for aggressive behavior and stress coping strategy; and chicken aggression can be reduced or inhibited by probiotic supplementation by directly or indirectly regulating the serotonergic system.
Whether the changes in blood 5-HT levels in probiotic fed dominant hens represent a similar change in 5-HT concentrations in the brain is unclear as 5-HT cannot pass the blood–brain barrier and is regulated differently between brain neurons and peripheral tissues [229]. The plasma 5-HT is synthesized mainly by the enterochromaffin (EC) cells (also known as Kulchitsky cells), types of enteroendocrine and neuroendocrine cells, of the gut and stored in the platelets [230]. However, it has been proposed that platelet 5-HT uptake is a limited peripheral marker of brain serotonergic synaptosomes [229]. Lactobacillus plantarum strain PS128, a dietary probiotic that causes an increase in the levels of striatal 5-HT as well as DA, is correlated with improving anxiety-like behavior in germ-free (GF) mice [230]. Similar results have been obtained from our current studies [178,179]. In another study, chickens (broilers) were fed Bacillus subtilis from day 1 to day 43. The results indicate that Bacillus subtilis fed chickens had higher levels of 5-HT in the raphe nuclei and lower levels of norepinephrine (NE) and DA in the hypothalamus compared to the controls fed a regular diet [230]. Probiotic fed chickens also had improved skeletal traits (bone mineral density, bone mineral content and robusticity index). In one heat stress (32 °C for 10 h) study, Bacillus subtilis fed chickens (broilers) had lower heat stress-related behaviors including panting and wing spreading and inflammatory response in the hypothalamus compared to the controls [203]. Further studies, however, are needed to examine how the correlations present between injurious behavior and peripheral and or brain 5-HT in probiotic fed chickens.

6. Conclusions and Perspectives

Injurious behavior is a critical issue facing the poultry industry due to increasing social stress, leading to negative effects on bird production and survivability. Numerous studies have revealed that enteric microbiota play a critical role in the hosts’ response to acute and chronic stress. Social stress-induced changes of the gut microbiota lead to inflammation and ‘leaking out’ of bacterial metabolites, affecting brain function, especially the function (activation) of both the HPA axis and the SMA axis. These changes, consequently, negatively affect the physiological and behavior homeostasis, leading to mental disorders with abnormal behaviors including aggression. Several recent studies suggest that dietary inclusion of probiotics such as Bacillus subtilis have positive effects on reducing agonistic behavior in laying hens through the modification of the serotonergic system. The novel approach could be transferred directly or indirectly to other species of farm animals that are subjected to painful husbandry procedures such as the dehorning of calves and teeth-clipping of piglets to prevent body injuries.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: S.J., J.-Y.H. and H.-W.C.; Methodology: J.-Y.H. and H.-W.C.; Sample collection: J.-Y.H. and H.-W.C.; Formal analysis: J.-Y.H.; Investigation: J.-Y.H. and H.-W.C.; Resources: H.-W.C.; Writing: S.J. and H.-W.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The studies cited in this review were supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Foundation program of the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program under Award No. 2013-67021-21094. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement of the USDA. The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Institutional Review Board Statement

All experimental procedures and animal handling and care were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of Purdue University, protocol number: 1712001657, and the animals were housed in accordance with the guidelines of the Federation of Animal Science Societies at the Animal Research and Education Center of Purdue University (West Lafayette, IN, USA).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the scientists and technicians of the Livestock Behavior Research Unit, USDA-ARS; and the farm staff and the graduate students at Purdue University who contributed to the sample collection of the studies cited in this review.

Conflicts of Interest

We declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Faraj, J.; Takanti, V.; Tavakoli, H.R. The gut-brain axis: Literature overview and psychiatric applications. Fed. Pract. 2021, 38, 356–362. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Ge, T.; Yao, X.; Zhao, H.; Yang, W.; Zou, X.; Peng, F.; Li, B.; Cui, R. Gut microbiota and neuropsychiatric disorders: Implications for neuroendocrine-immune regulation. Pharmacol. Res. 2021, 173, 105909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Generoso, J.S.; Giridharan, V.V.; Lee, J.; Macedo, D.; Barichello, T. The role of the microbiota-gut-brain axis in neuropsychiatric disorders. Braz. J. Psychiatry 2021, 43, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Huang, F.; Wu, X. Brain neurotransmitter modulation by gut microbiota in anxiety and depression. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 9, 649103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jacobson, A.; Yang, D.; Vella, M.; Chiu, I.M. The intestinal neuro-immune axis: Crosstalk between neurons, immune cells, and microbes. Mucosal Immunol. 2021, 14, 555–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Konjevod, M.; Nikolac Perkovic, M.; Sáiz, J.; Svob Strac, D.; Barbas, C.; Rojo, D. Metabolomics analysis of microbiota-gut-brain axis in neurodegenerative and psychiatric diseases. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2021, 194, 113681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Maiuolo, J.; Gliozzi, M.; Musolino, V.; Carresi, C.; Scarano, F.; Nucera, S.; Scicchitano, M.; Oppedisano, F.; Bosco, F.; Ruga, S.; et al. The contribution of gut microbiota-brain axis in the development of brain disorders. Front. Neurosci. 2021, 15, 616883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Morais, L.H.; Schreiber, H.L., IV; Mazmanian, S.K. The gut microbiota-brain axis in behaviour and brain disorders. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sun, P.; Su, L.; Zhu, H.; Li, X.; Guo, Y.; Du, X.; Zhang, L.; Qin, C. Gut microbiota regulation and their implication in the development of neurodegenerative disease. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. El-Hakim, Y.; Bake, S.; Mani, K.K.; Sohrabji, F. Impact of intestinal disorders on central and peripheral nervous system diseases. Neurobiol. Dis. 2022, 165, 105627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Matisz, C.E.; Gruber, A.J. Neuroinflammatory remodeling of the anterior cingulate cortex as a key driver of mood disorders in gastrointestinal disease and disorders. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2022, 133, 104497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Yarandi, S.S.; Peterson, D.A.; Treisman, G.J.; Moran, T.H.; Pasricha, P.J. Modulatory effects of gut microbiota on the central nervous system: How gut could play a role in neuropsychiatric health and diseases. J. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2016, 22, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Sylvia, K.E.; Jewell, C.P.; Rendon, N.M.; St John, E.A.; Demas, G.E. Sex-specific modulation of the gut microbiome and behaviour in Siberian hamsters. Brain Behav. Immun. 2017, 60, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Goswami, A.; Wendt, F.R.; Pathak, G.A.; Tylee, D.S.; De Angelis, F.; De Lillo, A.; Polimanti, R. Role of microbes in the pathogenesis of neuropsychiatric disorders. Front. Neuroendocrinol. 2021, 62, 100917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Tremblay, A.; Lingrand, L.; Maillard, M.; Feuz, B.; Tompkins, T.A. The effects of psychobiotics on the microbiota-gut-brain axis in early-life stress and neuropsychiatric disorders. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 2021, 105, 110142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Trzeciak, P.; Herbet, M. Role of the intestinal microbiome, intestinal barrier and psychobiotics in depression. Nutrients 2021, 13, 927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Aziz, M.N.M.; Kumar, J.; Muhammad Nawawi, K.N.; Raja Ali, R.A.; Mokhtar, N.M. Irritable bowel syndrome, depression, and neurodegeneration: A bidirectional communication from gut to brain. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Person, H.; Keefer, L. Psychological comorbidity in gastrointestinal diseases: Update on the brain-gut-microbiome axis. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 2021, 107, 110209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Alagiakrishnan, K.; Halverson, T. Microbial therapeutics in neurocognitive and psychiatric disorders. J. Clin. Med. Res. 2021, 13, 439–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Socała, K.; Doboszewska, U.; Szopa, A.; Serefko, A.; Włodarczyk, M.; Zielińska, A.; Poleszak, E.; Fichna, J.; Wlaz, P. The role of microbiota-gut-brain axis in neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders. Pharmacol. Res. 2021, 172, 105840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Heyman, M.; Ménard, S. Probiotic microorganisms: How they affect intestinal pathophysiology. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2002, 59, 1151–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization). Joint FAO/WHO Working Group Report on Drafting Guidelines for the Evaluation of Probiotics in Food; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  23. Anker-Ladefoged, C.; Langkamp, T.; Mueller-Alcazar, A. The potential impact of selected bacterial strains on the stress response. Healthcare 2021, 9, 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cheng, Y.; Liu, J.; Ling, Z. Short-chain fatty acids-producing probiotics: A novel source of psychobiotics. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 6, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Dey, G.; Mookherjee, S. Probiotics-targeting new milestones from gut health to mental health. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2021, 368, fnab096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ding, Y.; Bu, F.; Chen, T.; Shi, G.; Yuan, X.; Feng, Z.; Duan, Z.; Wang, R.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Q.; et al. A next-generation probiotic: Akkermansia muciniphila ameliorates chronic stress-induced depressive-like behaviour in mice by regulating gut microbiota and metabolites. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 105, 8411–8426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Methiwala, H.N.; Vaidya, B.; Addanki, V.K.; Bishnoi, M.; Sharma, S.S.; Kondepudi, K.K. Gut microbiota in mental health and depression: Role of pre/pro/synbiotics in their modulation. Food Funct. 2021, 12, 4284–4314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, H.; He, S.; Xin, J.; Zhang, T.; Sun, N.; Li, L.; Ni, X.; Zeng, D.; Ma, H.; Bai, Y. Psychoactive effects of lactobacillus johnsonii against restraint stress-induced memory dysfunction in mice through modulating intestinal inflammation and permeability-a study based on the gut-brain axis hypothesis. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 662148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yang, H.; Liu, Y.; Cai, R.; Li, Y.; Gu, B. A narrative review of relationship between gut microbiota and neuropsychiatric disorders: Mechanisms and clinical application of probiotics and prebiotics. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2021, 10, 2304–2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Meng, H.Y.H.; Mak, C.C.H.; Mak, W.Y.; Zuo, T.; Ko, H.; Chan, F.K.L. Probiotic supplementation demonstrates therapeutic potential in treating gut dysbiosis and improving neurocognitive function in age-related dementia. Eur. J. Nutr. 2022, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Janczak, A.M.; Riber, A.B. Review of rearing-related factors affecting the welfare of laying hens. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 1454–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Decina, C.; Berke, O.; van Staaveren, N.; Baes, C.F.; Widowski, T.M.; Harlander-Matauschek, A. A cross-sectional study on feather cover damage in Canadian laying hens in non-cage housing systems. BMC Vet. Res. 2019, 15, 435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hedlund, L.; Jensen, P. Effects of stress during commercial hatching on growth, egg production and feather pecking in laying hens. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0262307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ellen, E.D.; Bijma, P. Can breeders solve mortality due to feather pecking in laying hens? Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 3431–3442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Fijn, L.B.; Staay, F.J.V.; Goerlich-Jansson, V.C.; Arndt, S.S. Importance of basic research on the causes of feather pecking in relation to welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Iffland, H.; Wellmann, R.; Preuß, S.; Tetens, J.; Bessei, W.; Piepho, H.P.; Bennewitz, J. A novel model to explain extreme feather pecking behaviour in laying hens. Behav. Genet. 2020, 50, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. De Haas, E.N.; Newberry, R.C.; Edgar, J.; Riber, A.B.; Estevez, I.; Ferrante, V.; Hernandez, C.E.; Kjaer, J.B.; Ozkan, S.; Dimitrov, I.; et al. Prenatal and Early Postnatal behavioural programming in laying hens, with possible implications for the development of injurious pecking. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 678500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rieke, L.; Spindler, B.; Zylka, I.; Kemper, N.; Giersberg, M.F. Pecking behaviour in conventional layer hybrids and dual-purpose hens throughout the laying period. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 660400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kuenzel, W.J. Neurobiological basis of sensory perception: Welfare implications of beak trimming. Poult. Sci. 2007, 86, 1273–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Marchant-Forde, R.M.; Fahey, A.G.; Cheng, H.W. Comparative effects of infrared and one-third hot-blade trimming on beak topography, behaviour, and growth. Poult. Sci. 2008, 87, 1474–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Coton, J.; Guinebretière, M.; Guesdon, V.; Chiron, G.; Mindus, C.; Laravoire, A.; Pauthier, G.; Balaine, L.; Descamps, M.; Bignon, L.; et al. Feather pecking in laying hens housed in free-range or furnished-cage systems on French farms. Br. Poult. Sci. 2019, 60, 617–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Schreiter, R.; Damme, K.; von Borell, E.; Vogt, I.; Klunker, M.; Freick, M. Effects of litter and additional enrichment elements on the occurrence of feather pecking in pullets and laying hens—A focused review. Vet. Med. Sci. 2019, 5, 500–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. van Staaveren, N.; Ellis, J.; Baes, C.F.; Harlander-Matauschek, A. A meta-analysis on the effect of environmental enrichment on feather pecking and feather damage in laying hens. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 397–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kaiser, S.; Hennessy, M.B.; Sachser, N. Domestication affects the structure, development and stability of biobehavioural profiles. Front. Zool. 2015, 12, S19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Travis, J.; Reznick, D.N. Natural Selection: How Selection on behaviour interacts with selection on morphology. Curr. Biol. 2018, 28, R882–R884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Davis, T.C.; White, R.R. Breeding animals to feed people: The many roles of animal reproduction in ensuring global food security. Theriogenology 2020, 150, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ramachandran, R. Current and future reproductive technologies for avian species. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2014, 752, 23–31. [Google Scholar]
  48. Webster, A.B. Welfare implications of avian osteoporosis. Poult. Sci. 2004, 83, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bain, M.M.; Nys, Y.; Dunn, I.C. Increasing persistency in lay and stabilising egg quality in longer laying cycles. What are the challenges? Br. Poult. Sci. 2016, 57, 330–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Moreira, G.C.M.; Salvian, M.; Boschiero, C.; Cesar, A.S.M.; Reecy, J.M.; Godoy, T.F.; Ledur, M.C.; Garrick, D.; Mourão, G.B.; Coutinho, L.L. Genome-wide association scan for QTL and their positional candidate genes associated with internal organ traits in chickens. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Rubio, L.A. Possibilities of early life programming in broiler chickens via intestinal microbiota modulation. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 695–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. UEP (United Egg Producers). Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg-Laying Hens. 2017 Edition. Available online: https://uepcertified.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/CF-UEP-Guidelines_17-3.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2021).
  53. Cheng, H.W.; Muir, W.M. Mechanisms of aggression and production in chickens: Genetic variations in the functions of serotonin, catecholamine, and corticosterone. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2007, 63, 233–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Veroude, K.; Zhang-James, Y.; Fernàndez-Castillo, N.; Bakker, M.J.; Cormand, B.; Faraone, S.V. Genetics of aggressive behaviour: An overview. Am. J. Med. Genet. B Neuropsychiatr. Genet. 2016, 171, 3–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Foister, S.; Doeschl-Wilson, A.; Roehe, R.; Arnott, G.; Boyle, L.; Turner, S. Social network properties predict chronic aggression in commercial pig systems. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0205122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Bennewitz, J.; Bögelein, S.; Stratz, P.; Rodehutscord, M.; Piepho, H.P.; Kjaer, J.B.; Bessei, W. Genetic parameters for feather pecking and aggressive behaviour in a large F2-cross of laying hens using generalized linear mixed models. Poult. Sci. 2014, 93, 810–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. UEP (Unite Egg Producers). Facts and Stats. 2020. Available online: https://unitedegg.com/facts-stats/ (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  58. Blatchford, R.A.; Fulton, R.M.; Mench, J.A. The utilization of the Welfare Quality® assessment for determining laying hen condition across three housing systems. Poult. Sci. 2016, 95, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Widmar, N.; Bir, C.; Wolf, C.; Lai, J.; Liu, Y. #Eggs: Social and online media-derived perceptions of egg-laying hen housing. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 5697–5706. [Google Scholar]
  60. Appleby, M.C.; Walker, A.W.; Nicol, C.J.; Lindberg, A.C.; Freire, R.; Hughes, B.O.; Elson, H.A. Development of furnished cages for laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 2002, 43, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Campbell, D.L.M.; Hinch, G.N.; Downing, J.A.; Lee, C. Early enrichment in free-range laying hens: Effects on ranging behaviour, welfare and response to stressors. Animal 2018, 12, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Brantsæter, M.; Nordgreen, J.; Hansen, T.B.; Muri, K.; Nødtvedt, A.; Moe, R.O.; Janczak, A.M. Problem behaviours in adult laying hens—Identifying risk factors during rearing and egg production. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zepp, M.; Louton, H.; Erhard, M.; Schmidt, P.; Helmer, F.; Schwarzer, A. The influence of stocking density and enrichment on the occurrence of feather pecking and aggressive pecking behaviour in laying hen chicks. J. Vet. Behav. 2018, 24, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Emous, R.A.V.; Krimpen, M.M.V. Effects of Nutritional Interventions on Feathering of Poultry—A Review; Olukosi, O.A., Olori, V.E., Helmbrecht, A., Lambton, S., French, N.A., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2019; pp. 133–150. [Google Scholar]
  65. Hocking, P.M. Unexpected consequences of genetic selection in broilers and turkeys: Problems and solutions. Br. Poult. Sci. 2014, 55, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Rodenburg, T.B.; Van Krimpen, M.M.; De Jong, I.C.; De Haas, E.N.; Kops, M.S.; Riedstra, B.J.; Nordquist, R.E.; Wagenaar, J.P.; Bestman, M.; Nicol, C.J. The prevention and control of feather pecking in laying hens: Identifying the underlying principles. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2013, 69, 361–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Frizzell, K.M.; Jendral, M.J.; Maclean, I.M.; Dixon, W.T.; Putman, C.T. Physicochemical determinants of pH in pectoralis major of three strains of laying hens housed in conventional and furnished cages. Br. Poult. Sci. 2018, 59, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Dixon, L.M.; Duncan, I.J.H.; Mason, G. What’s in a peck? Using fixed action pattern morphology to identify the motivational basis of abnormal feather-pecking behaviour. Anim. Behav. 2008, 76, 1035–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Hughes, A.L.; Buitenhuis, A.J. Reduced variance of gene expression at numerous loci in a population of chickens selected for high feather pecking. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 1858–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Savory, C.J. Feather pecking and cannibalism. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 1995, 51, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lambton, S.L.; Nicol, C.J.; Friel, M.; Main, D.C.; McKinstry, J.L.; Sherwin, C.M.; Walton, J.; Weeks, C.A. A bespoke management package can reduce levels of injurious pecking in loose-housed laying hen flocks. Vet. Rec. 2013, 172, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Blokhuis, H.J. Feather-pecking in poultry: Its relation with ground-pecking. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1986, 16, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rudkin, C. Feather pecking and foraging uncorrelated—The redirection hypothesis revisited. Br. Poult. Sci. 2021, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Huber-Eicher, B.; Wechsler, B. Feather pecking in domestic chicks: Its relation to dustbathing and foraging. Anim. Behav. 1997, 54, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Lay, D.C., Jr.; Fulton, R.M.; Hester, P.Y.; Karcher, D.M.; Kjaer, J.B.; Mench, J.A.; Mullens, B.A.; Newberry, R.C.; Nicol, C.J.; O’Sullivan, N.P.; et al. Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 278–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Kops, M.S.; de Haas, E.N.; Rodenburg, T.B.; Ellen, E.D.; Korte-Bouws, G.A.; Olivier, B.; Güntürkün, O.; Bolhuis, J.E.; Korte, S.M. Effects of feather pecking phenotype (severe feather peckers, victims and non-peckers) on serotonergic and dopaminergic activity in four brain areas of laying hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). Physiol. Behav. 2013, 120, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. García-Cabrerizo, R.; Carbia, C.; O’Riordan, K.J.; Schellekens, H.; Cryan, J.F. Microbiota-gut-brain axis as a regulator of reward processes. J. Neurochem. 2020, 157, 1495–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cronin, G.M.; Hopcroft, R.L.; Groves, P.J.; Hall, E.J.S.; Phalen, D.N.; Hemsworth, P.H. Why did severe feather pecking and cannibalism outbreaks occur? An unintended case study while investigating the effects of forage and stress on pullets during rearing. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 1484–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Lewis, R.J. Aggression, rank and power: Why hens (and other animals) do not always peck according to their strength. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2022, 377, 20200434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Majolo, B.; de Bortoli Vizioli, A.; Lehmann, J. The effect of intergroup competition on intragroup affiliation in primates. Anim. Behav. 2016, 114, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Nandy, B.; Dasgupta, P.; Halder, S.; Verma, T. Plasticity in aggression and the correlated changes in the cost of reproduction in male Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav. 2016, 114, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Strauss, E.D.; Curley, J.P.; Shizuka, D.; Hobson, E.A. The centennial of the pecking order: Current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2022, 377, 20200432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Muir, W.M. Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: Selection program and direct responses. Poult. Sci. 1996, 75, 447–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sherwin, E.; Bordenstein, S.R.; Quinn, J.L.; Dinan, T.G.; Cryan, J.F. Microbiota and the social brain. Science 2019, 366, eaar2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Papini, M.R.; Penagos-Corzo, J.C.; Pérez-Acosta, A.M. Avian emotions: Comparative perspectives on fear and frustration. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Duncan, I.J. Behaviour and behavioural needs. Poult. Sci. 1998, 77, 1766–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Rehman, M.S.; Mahmud, A.; Mehmood, S.; Pasha, T.N.; Khan, M.T.; Hussain, J. Assessing behaviour in Aseel pullets under free-range, part-time free-range, and cage system during growing phase. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 725–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Cheng, H.W.; Dillworth, G.; Singleton, P.; Chen, Y.; Muirt, W.M. Effects of group selection for productivity and longevity on blood concentrations of serotonin, catecholamines, and corticosterone of laying hens. Poult. Sci. 2001, 80, 1278–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Cheng, H.W.; Eicher, S.D.; Chen, Y.; Singleton, P.; Muirt, W.M. Effect of genetic selection for group productivity and longevity on immunological and hematological parameters of chickens. Poult. Sci. 2001, 80, 1079–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Cheng, H.W.; Muir, W.M. The effects of genetic selection for survivability and productivity on chicken physiological homeostasis. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2005, 61, 383–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kriegseis, I.; Bessei, W.; Meyer, B.; Zentek, J.; Würbel, H.; Harlander-Matauschek, A. Feather-pecking response of laying hens to feather and cellulose-based rations fed during rearing. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91, 1514–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Appleby, M.C. Modification of laying hen cages to improve behaviour. Poult. Sci. 1998, 77, 1828–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hartcher, K.M.; Tran, K.T.; Wilkinson, S.J.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Thomson, P.C.; Cronin, G.M. The effects of environmental enrichment and beak-trimming during the rearing period on subsequent feather damage due to feather-pecking in laying hens. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 852–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Iqbal, A.; Moss, A.F. Review: Key tweaks to the chicken’s beak: The versatile use of the beak by avian species and potential approaches for improvements in poultry production. Animal 2021, 15, 100119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Struthers, S.; Classen, H.L.; Gomis, S.; Schwean-Lardner, K. The effect of beak tissue sloughing and post-treatment beak shape on the productivity of infrared beak-treated layer pullets and hens. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 3637–3646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Riber, A.B.; Hinrichsen, L.K. Welfare consequences of omitting beak trimming in barn layers. Front. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Muir, W.M.; Cheng, H.W. Genetic Influences on the Behaviour of Chickens Associated with Welfare and Productivity. In Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals, 2nd ed.; Temple, G., Mark, J.D., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 317–359. [Google Scholar]
  98. Falker-Gieske, C.; Iffland, H.; Preuß, S.; Bessei, W.; Drögemüller, C.; Bennewitz, J.; Tetens, J. Meta-analyses of genome wide association studies in lines of laying hens divergently selected for feather pecking using imputed sequence level genotypes. BMC Genet. 2020, 21, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Lv, W.J.; Wu, X.L.; Chen, W.Q.; Li, Y.F.; Zhang, G.F.; Chao, L.M.; Zhou, J.H.; Guo, A.; Liu, C.; Guo, S.N. The gut microbiome modulates the changes in liver metabolism and in inflammatory processes in the brain of chronic unpredictable mild stress rats. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2019, 2019, 7902874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Thomann, A.K.; Mak, J.W.Y.; Zhang, J.W.; Wuestenberg, T.; Ebert, M.P.; Sung, J.J.Y.; Bernstein, Ç.N.; Reindl, W.; Ng, S.C. Review article: Bugs, inflammation and mood-a microbiota-based approach to psychiatric symptoms in inflammatory bowel diseases. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2020, 52, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Münger, E.; Montiel-Castro, A.J.; Langhans, W.; Pacheco-López, G. Reciprocal interactions between gut microbiota and host social behaviour. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kraimi, N.; Dawkins, M.; Gebhardt-Henrich, S.G.; Velge, P.; Rychlik, I.; Volf, J.; Creach, P.; Smith, A.; Colles, F.; Leterrier, C. Influence of the microbiota-gut-brain axis on behaviour and welfare in farm animals: A review. Physiol. Behav. 2019, 210, 112658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Sarkar, A.; Harty, S.; Johnson, K.V.; Moeller, A.H.; Carmody, R.N.; Lehto, S.M.; Erdman, S.E.; Dunbar, R.I.M.; Burnet, P.W.J. The role of the microbiome in the neurobiology of social behaviour. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2020, 95, 1131–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Bindari, Y.R.; Gerber, P.F. Centennial Review: Factors affecting the chicken gastrointestinal microbial composition and their association with gut health and productive performance. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Bosi, A.; Banfi, D.; Bistoletti, M.; Giaroni, C.; Baj, A. Tryptophan metabolites along the microbiota-gut-brain axis: An interkingdom communication system influencing the gut in health and disease. Int. J. Tryptophan Res. 2020, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Chen, S.; Luo, S.; Yan, C. Gut Microbiota Implications for Health and Welfare in Farm Animals: A Review. Animals 2021, 12, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Shehata, A.A.; Yalçın, S.; Latorre, J.D.; Basiouni, S.; Attia, Y.A.; Abd El-Wahab, A.; Visscher, C.; El-Seedi, H.R.; Huber, C.; Hafez, H.M.; et al. Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Phytogenic Substances for Optimizing Gut Health in Poultry. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. El Sabry, M.I.; Hassan, S.S.A.; Zaki, M.M.; Stino, F.K.R. Stocking density: A clue for improving social behaviour, welfare, health indices along with productivity performances of quail (Coturnix coturnix)-a review. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2022, 54, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Ricke, S.C.; Rothrock, M.J., Jr. Gastrointestinal microbiomes of broilers and layer hens in alternative production systems. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 660–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Sun, L.J.; Li, J.N.; Nie, Y.Z. Gut hormones in microbiota-gut-brain cross-talk. Chin. Med. J. 2020, 133, 826–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Gautron, J.; Dombre, C.; Nau, F.; Feidt, C.; Guillier, L. Review: Production factors affecting the quality of chicken table eggs and egg products in Europe. Animal 2022, 16 (Suppl. 1), 100425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Adedokun, S.A.; Olojede, O.C. Optimizing Gastrointestinal Integrity in Poultry: The role of nutrients and feed additives. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Villageliu, D.N.; Lyte, M. Microbial endocrinology: Why the intersection of microbiology and neurobiology matters to poultry health. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 2501–2508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Cao, C.; Chowdhury, V.S.; Cline, M.A.; Gilbert, E.R. The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis during Heat Stress in Chickens: A Review. Front. Physiol. 2021, 12, 752265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Lyte, J.M.; Martinez, D.A.; Robinson, K.; Donoghue, A.M.; Daniels, K.M.; Lyte, M. A neurochemical biogeography of the broiler chicken intestinal tract. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Mandal, R.K.; Jiang, T.; Wideman, R.F., Jr.; Lohrmann, T.; Kwon, Y.M. Microbiota Analysis of Chickens Raised Under Stressed Conditions. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 482637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Molina-Torres, G.; Rodriguez-Arrastia, M.; Roman, P.; Sanchez-Labraca, N.; Cardona, D. Stress and the gut microbiota-brain axis. Behav. Pharmacol. 2019, 30, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Van Goor, A.; Redweik, G.A.J.; Stromberg, Z.R.; Treadwell, C.G.; Xin, H.; Mellata, M. Microbiome and biological blood marker changes in hens at different laying stages in conventional and cage free housings. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 2362–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Agus, A.; Planchais, J.; Sokol, H. Gut microbiota regulation of tryptophan metabolism in health and disease. Cell Host Microbe 2018, 23, 716–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  120. Gheorghe, C.E.; Martin, J.A.; Manriquez, F.V.; Dinan, T.G.; Cryan, J.F.; Clarke, G. Focus on the essentials: Tryptophan metabolism and the microbiome-gut-brain axis. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 2019, 48, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Kaur, A.; Chen, T.; Green, S.J.; Mutlu, E.; Martin, B.R.; Rumpagaporn, P.; Patterson, J.A.; Keshavarzian, A.; Hamaker, B.R. Physical inaccessibility of a resistant starch shifts mouse gut microbiota to butyrogenic firmicutes. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2019, 63, e1801012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Gao, K.; Mu, C.-L.; Farzi, A.; Zhu, W.-Y. Tryptophan metabolism: A link between the gut microbiota and brain. Adv. Nutr. 2020, 11, 709–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Hoglund, E.; Overli, O.; Winberg, S. Tryptophan metabolic pathways and brain serotonergic activity: A comparative review. Front. Endocrinol. 2019, 10, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Jenkins, T.A.; Nguyen, J.C.; Polglaze, K.E.; Bertrand, P.P. Influence of tryptophan and serotonin on mood and cognition with a possible role of the gut-brain axis. Nutrients 2016, 8, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Comai, S.; Bertazzo, A.; Brughera, M.; Crotti, S. Tryptophan in health and disease. Adv. Clin. Chem. 2020, 95, 165–218. [Google Scholar]
  126. Mindus, C.; van Staaveren, N.; Fuchs, D.; Gostner, J.M.; Kjaer, J.B.; Kunze, W.; Mian, M.F.; Shoveller, A.K.; Forsythe, P.; Harlander-Matauschek, A.L. Rhamnosus improves the immune response and tryptophan catabolism in laying hen pullets. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 19538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Shen, Y.B.; Voilque, G.; Odle, J.; Kim, S.W. Dietary L-tryptophan supplementation with reduced large neutral amino acids enhances feed efficiency and decreases stress hormone secretion in nursery pigs under social-mixing stress. J. Nutr. 2012, 142, 1540–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  128. Morandini, L.; Roberto Ramallo, M.; Guimaraes Moreira, R.; Hoecht, C.; Manuel Somoza, G.; Silva, A.; Pandolfi, M. Serotonergic outcome, stress and sexual steroid hormones, and growth in a South American cichlid fish fed with an L-tryptophan enriched diet. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 2015, 223, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. de Haas, E.N.; van der Eijk, J.A.J. Where in the serotonergic system does it go wrong? Unravelling the route by which the serotonergic system affects feather pecking in chickens. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2018, 95, 170–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Mikulska, J.; Juszczyk, G.; Gawrońska-Grzywacz, M.; Herbet, M. HPA Axis in the pathomechanism of depression and schizophrenia: New therapeutic strategies based on its participation. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Kulikova, E.A.; Kulikov, A.V. Tryptophan hydroxylase 2 as a therapeutic target for psychiatric disorders: Focus on animal models. Expert. Opin. Ther. Targets 2019, 23, 655–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Pereira, G.R.C.; Tavares, G.D.B.; de Freitas, M.C.; De Mesquita, J.F. In silico analysis of the tryptophan hydroxylase 2 (TPH2) protein variants related to psychiatric disorders. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0229730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Karakula-Juchnowicz, H.; Rog, J.; Juchnowicz, D.; Łoniewski, I.; Skonieczna-Żydecka, K.; Krukow, P.; Futyma-Jedrzejewska, M.; Kaczmarczyk, M. The study evaluating the effect of probiotic supplementation on the mental status, inflammation, and intestinal barrier in major depressive disorder patients using gluten-free or gluten-containing diet (SANGUT study): A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical study protocol. Nutr. J. 2019, 18, 50. [Google Scholar]
  134. Endres, K.; Schäfer, K.H. Influence of commensal microbiota on the enteric nervous system and its role in neurodegenerative diseases. J. Innate Immun. 2018, 10, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Grosso, G. Nutritional Psychiatry: How Diet Affects Brain through Gut Microbiota. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Chakrabarti, A.; Geurts, L.; Hoyles, L.; Iozzo, P.; Kraneveld, A.D.; La Fata, G.; Miani, M.; Patterson, E.; Pot, B.; Shortt, C.; et al. The microbiota-gut-brain axis: Pathways to better brain health. Perspectives on what we know, what we need to investigate and how to put knowledge into practice. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2022, 79, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Chen, Y.; Xu, J.; Chen, Y. Regulation of neurotransmitters by the gut microbiota and effects on cognition in neurological disorders. Nutrients 2021, 13, 2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Knuesel, T.; Mohajeri, M.H. The role of the gut microbiota in the development and progression of major depressive and bipolar disorder. Nutrients 2021, 14, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Margolis, K.G.; Cryan, J.F.; Mayer, E.A. The microbiota-gut-brain axis: From motility to mood. Gastroenterology 2021, 160, 1486–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Kraimi, N.; Calandreau, L.; Biesse, M.; Rabot, S.; Guitton, E.; Velge, P.; Leterrier, C. Absence of Gut Microbiota Reduces Emotional Reactivity in Japanese Quails (Coturnix japonica). Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Mignon-Grasteau, S.; Chantry-Darmon, C.; Boscher, M.Y.; Sellier, N.; Le Bihan-Duval, E.; Bertin, A. Genetic Determinism of Fearfulness, General Activity and Feeding Behaviour in Chickens and Its Relationship with Digestive Efficiency. Behav. Genet. 2017, 47, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Meyer, B.; Zentek, J.; Harlander-Matauschek, A. Differences in intestinal microbial metabolites in laying hens with high and low levels of repetitive feather-pecking behaviour. Physiol. Behav. 2013, 110–111, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Birkl, P.; Bharwani, A.; Kjaer, J.B.; Kunze, W.; McBride, P.; Forsythe, P.; Harlander-Matauschek, A. Differences in cecal microbiome of selected high and low feather-pecking laying hens. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 3009–3014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. van der Eijk, J.A.J.; de Vries, H.; Kjaer, J.B.; Naguib, M.; Kemp, B.; Smidt, H.; Rodenburg, T.B.; Lammers, A. Differences in gut microbiota composition of laying hen lines divergently selected on feather pecking. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 7009–7021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. van der Eijk, J.A.J.; Rodenburg, T.B.; de Vries, H.; Kjaer, J.B.; Smidt, H.; Naguib, M.; Kemp, B.; Lammers, A. Early-life microbiota transplantation affects behavioural responses, serotonin and immune characteristics in chicken lines divergently selected on feather pecking. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Fu, Y. Targeting Gut Microbiota to Reduce Aggression and Improve Welfare in Poultry; InnovatED, Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2022; pp. 10–11. [Google Scholar]
  147. Yan, C.; Xiao, J.; Li, Z.; Liu, H.; Zhao, X.; Liu, J.; Chen, S.; Zhao, X. Exogenous Fecal Microbial Transplantation Alters Fearfulness, Intestinal Morphology, and Gut Microbiota in Broilers. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 706987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. van Staaveren, N.; Krumma, J.; Forsythe, P.; Kjaer, J.B.; Kwon, I.Y.; Mao, Y.K.; West, C.; Kunze, W.; Harlander-Matauschek, A. Cecal motility and the impact of Lactobacillus in feather pecking laying hens. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Borda-Molina, D.; Iffland, H.; Schmid, M.; Müller, R.; Schad, S.; Seifert, J.; Tetens, J.; Bessei, W.; Bennewitz, J.; Camarinha-Silva, A. Gut Microbial Composition and Predicted Functions Are Not Associated with Feather pecking and Antagonistic Behaviour in Laying Hens. Life 2021, 11, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Jha, R.; Das, R.; Oak, S.; Mishra, P. Probiotics (direct-fed microbials) in poultry nutrition and their effects on nutrient utilization, growth and laying performance, and gut health: A systematic review. Animals 2020, 10, 1863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Krysiak, K.; Konkol, D.; Korczyński, M. Overview of the Use of Probiotics in Poultry Production. Animals 2021, 11, 1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Khan, S.; Moore, R.J.; Stanley, D.; Chousalkar, K.K. The Gut Microbiota of Laying Hens and Its Manipulation with Prebiotics and Probiotics To Enhance Gut Health and Food Safety. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2020, 86, e00600-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Sylvia, K.E.; Demas, G.E. A gut feeling: Microbiome-brain-immune interactions modulate social and affective behaviours. Horm. Behav. 2018, 99, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Ren, C.C.; Sylvia, K.E.; Munley, K.M.; Deyoe, J.E.; Henderson, S.G.; Vu, M.P.; Demas, G.E. Photoperiod modulates the gut microbiome and aggressive behaviour in Siberian hamsters. J. Exp. Biol. 2020, 223, jeb212548. [Google Scholar]
  155. Pirbaglou, M.; Katz, J.; de Souza, R.J.; Stearns, J.C.; Motamed, M.; Ritvo, P. Probiotic supplementation can positively affect anxiety and depressive symptoms: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Nutr. Res. 2016, 36, 889–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Cryan, J.F.; Dinan, T.G. Mind-altering microorganisms: The impact of the gut microbiota on brain and behaviour. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2012, 13, 701–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Rincel, M.; Darnaudery, M. Maternal separation in rodents: A journey from gut to brain and nutritional perspectives. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2020, 79, 113–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Slykerman, R.F.; Hood, F.; Wickens, K.; Thompson, J.M.D.; Barthow, C.; Murphy, R.; Kang, J.; Rowden, J.; Stone, P.; Crane, J.; et al. Effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001 in pregnancy on postpartum symptoms of depression and anxiety: A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial. EBioMedicine 2017, 24, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  159. Sanders, A.; Rackers, H.; Kimmel, M. A role for the microbiome in mother-infant interaction and perinatal depression. Int. Rev. Psychiatry 2019, 31, 280–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Kantak, P.A.; Bobrow, D.N.; Nyby, J.G. Obsessive-compulsive-like behaviours in house mice are attenuated by a probiotic (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG). Behav. Pharmacol. 2014, 25, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Latalova, K.; Hajda, M.; Prasko, J. Can gut microbes play a role in mental disorders and their treatment? Psychiatr. Danub. 2017, 29, 28–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  162. Nikolova, V.L.; Hall, M.R.B.; Hall, L.J.; Cleare, A.J.; Stone, J.M.; Young, A.H. Perturbations in gut microbiota composition in psychiatric disorders: A review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 2021, 78, 1343–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Tian, P.; O’Riordan, K.J.; Lee, Y.K.; Wang, G.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Cryan, J.F.; Chen, W. Towards a psychobiotic therapy for depression: Bifidobacterium breve CCFM1025 reverses chronic stress-induced depressive symptoms and gut microbial abnormalities in mice. Neurobiol. Stress 2020, 12, 100216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Yadav, M.; Mandeep; Shukla, P. Probiotics of diverse origin and their therapeutic applications: A review. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2020, 39, 469–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Zagórska, A.; Marcinkowska, M.; Jamrozik, M.; Wiśniowska, B.; Paśko, P. From probiotics to psychobiotics—The gut-brain axis in psychiatric disorders. Benef. Microbes 2020, 11, 717–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Ligezka, A.N.; Sonmez, A.I.; Corral-Frias, M.P.; Golebiowski, R.; Lynch, B.; Croarkin, P.E.; Romanowicz, M. A systematic review of microbiome changes and impact of probiotic supplementation in children and adolescents with neuropsychiatric disorders. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 2021, 108, 110187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Ruiz-Gonzalez, C.; Roman, P.; Rueda-Ruzafa, L.; Rodriguez-Arrastia, M.; Cardona, D. Effects of probiotics supplementation on dementia and cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 2021, 108, 110189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Sharma, R.; Gupta, D.; Mehrotra, R.; Mago, P. Psychobiotics: The next-generation probiotics for the brain. Curr. Microbiol. 2021, 78, 449–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Berding, K.; Cryan, J.F. Microbiota-targeted interventions for mental health. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2022, 35, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Deidda, G.; Biazzo, M. Gut and Brain: Investigating physiological and pathological interactions between microbiota and brain to gain new therapeutic avenues for brain diseases. Front. Neurosci. 2021, 15, 753915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Ellis, R.J.; Bruce, K.D.; Jenkins, C.; Stothard, J.R.; Ajarova, L.; Mugisha, L.; Viney, M.E. Comparison of the distal gut microbiota from people and animals in Africa. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e54783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Reese, A.T.; Chadaideh, K.S.; Diggins, C.E.; Schell, L.D.; Beckel, M.; Callahan, P.; Ryan, R.; Emery Thompson, M.; Carmody, R.N. Effects of domestication on the gut microbiota parallel those of human industrialization. elife 2021, 10, e60197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Mindus, C.; van Staaveren, N.; Bharwani, A.; Fuchs, D.; Gostner, J.M.; Kjaer, J.B.; Kunze, W.; Mian, M.F.; Shoveller, A.K.; Forsythe, P.; et al. Ingestion of Lactobacillus rhamnosus modulates chronic stress-induced feather pecking in chickens. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 17119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Wurtman, R.J.; Hefti, F.; Melamed, E. Precursor control of neurotransmitter synthesis. Pharmacol. Rev. 1980, 32, 315–335. [Google Scholar]
  175. Mindus, C.; Ellis, J.; van Staaveren, N.; Harlander-Matauschek, A. Lactobacillus-Based Probiotics Reduce the Adverse Effects of Stress in Rodents: A Meta-analysis. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2021, 15, 642757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Parois, S.; Calandreau, L.; Kraimi, N.; Gabriel, I.; Leterrier, C. The influence of a probiotic supplementation on memory in quail suggests a role of gut microbiota on cognitive abilities in birds. Behav. Brain Res. 2017, 331, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  177. Mohammed, A.; Mahmoud, M.; Murugesan, R.; Cheng, H.W. Effect of a Synbiotic Supplement on Fear Response and Memory Assessment of Broiler Chickens Subjected to Heat Stress. Animals 2021, 11, 427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Rushen, J. The peck orders of chickens—How do they develop and why are they linear. Anim. Behav. 1982, 30, 1129–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Wang, W.C.; Yan, F.F.; Hu, J.Y.; Amen, O.A.; Cheng, H.W. Supplementation of Bacillus subtilis-based probiotic reduces heat stress-related behaviours and inflammatory response in broiler chickens. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 1654–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Abdel-Azeem, N.M. Do probiotics affect the behaviour of turkey poults? J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health 2013, 5, 144–148. [Google Scholar]
  181. Joerger, R.D.; Ganguly, A. Current status of the preharvest application of pro- and prebiotics to farm animals to enhance the microbial safety of animal products. Microbiol. Spectr. 2017, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Jeżewska-Frąckowiak, J.; Seroczyńska, K.; Banaszczyk, J.; Jedrzejczak, G.; Żylicz-Stachula, A.; Skowron, P.M. The promises and risks of probiotic Bacillus species. Acta Biochim. Pol. 2018, 65, 509–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  183. Campbell, D.L.M.; Dickson, E.J.; Lee, C. Application of open field, tonic immobility, and attention bias tests to hens with different ranging patterns. PeerJ 2019, 7, e8122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Paytuví-Gallart, A.; Sanseverino, W.; Winger, A.M. Daily intake of probiotic strain Bacillus subtilis DE111 supports a healthy microbiome in children attending day-care. Benef. Microbes 2020, 11, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Trotter, R.E.; Vazquez, A.R.; Grubb, D.S.; Freedman, K.E.; Grabos, L.E.; Jones, S.; Gentile, C.L.; Melby, C.L.; Johnson, S.A.; Weir, T.L. Bacillus subtilis DE111 intake may improve blood lipids and endothelial function in healthy adults. Benef. Microbes 2020, 11, 621–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Abd El-Hack, M.E.; El-Saadony, M.T.; Shafi, M.E.; Qattan, S.Y.A.; Batiha, G.E.; Khafaga, A.F.; Abdel-Moneim, A.E.; Alagawany, M. Probiotics in poultry feed: A comprehensive review. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 104, 1835–1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Park, I.; Lee, Y.; Goo, D.; Zimmerman, N.P.; Smith, A.H.; Rehberger, T.; Lillehoj, H.S. The effects of dietary Bacillus subtilis supplementation, as an alternative to antibiotics, on growth performance, intestinal immunity, and epithelial barrier integrity in broiler chickens infected with Eimeria maxima. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 725–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Jiang, S.; Yan, F.F.; Hu, J.Y.; Mohammed, A.; Cheng, H.W. Bacillus subtilis-based probiotic improves skeletal health and immunity in broiler chickens exposed to heat stress. Animals 2021, 11, 1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Neveling, D.P.; Dicks, L.M.T. Probiotics: An antibiotic replacement strategy for healthy broilers and productive rearing. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2021, 13, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Cartman, S.T.; La Ragione, R.M.; Woodward, M.J. Bacillus subtilis spores germinate in the chicken gastrointestinal tract. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 5254–5258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  191. Mingmongkolchai, S.; Panbangred, W. Bacillus probiotics: An alternative to antibiotics for livestock production. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 124, 1334–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Samanya, M.; Yamauchi, K. Histological alterations of intestinal villi in chickens fed dried Bacillus subtilis var. natto. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2002, 133, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Fernandez-Alarcon, M.F.; Trottier, N.; Steibel, J.P.; Lunedo, R.; Campos, D.M.B.; Santana, A.M.; Pizauro, J.M., Jr.; Furlan, R.L.; Furlan, L.R. Interference of age and supplementation of direct-fed microbial and essential oil in the activity of digestive enzymes and expression of genes related to transport and digestion of carbohydrates and proteins in the small intestine of broilers. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 2920–2930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Bar Shira, E.; Friedman, A. Innate immune functions of avian intestinal epithelial cells: Response to bacterial stimuli and localization of responding cells in the developing avian digestive tract. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0200393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  195. Abudabos, A.M.; Aljumaah, M.R.; Alkhulaifi, M.M.; Alabdullatif, A.; Suliman, G.M.; Al Sulaiman, A.R. Comparative effects of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis on live performance, blood metabolites and intestinal features in broiler inoculated with Salmonella infection during the finisher phase. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 139, 103870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Galagarza, O.A.; Smith, S.A.; Drahos, D.J.; Eifert, J.D.; Williams, R.C.; Kuhn, D.D. Modulation of innate immunity in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) by dietary supplementation of Bacillus subtilis endospores. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018, 83, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Lyte, M. Probiotics function mechanistically as delivery vehicles for neuroactive compounds: Microbial endocrinology in the design and use of probiotics. Bioessays 2011, 33, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Fan, W.-J.; Li, Y.-T.; Chen, J.-J.J.; Chen, S.-C.; Lin, Y.S.; Kou, Y.R.; Peng, C.-W. Sexually dimorphic urethral activity in response to pharmacological activation of 5-HT1A receptors in the rat. Am. J. Physiol. Renal Physiol. 2013, 305, F1332–F1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  199. Gong, Q.; Liu, L.; Janowski, M. Dopaminergic and serotoninergic signaling in black fur BL6 and albino, rag2-/-, immunodeficient BL6 mice subjected to lens-induced (LIM) and form-deprivation myopia (FDM). Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018, 59, 704. [Google Scholar]
  200. El Aidy, S.; Dinan, T.G.; Cryan, J.F. Gut Microbiota: The conductor in the orchestra of immune-neuroendocrine communication. Clin. Ther. 2015, 37, 954–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Sarsero, J.P.; Merino, E.; Yanofsky, C. A Bacillus subtilis operon containing genes of unknown function senses tRNA(Trp) charging and regulates expression of the genes of tryptophan biosynthesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 2656–2661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  202. Gollnick, P.; Babitzke, P.; Antson, A.; Yanofsky, C. Complexity in regulation of tryptophan biosynthesis in Bacillus subtilis. Ann. Rev. Genet. 2005, 39, 47–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Bjerre, K.; Cantor, M.D.; Norgaard, J.V.; Poulsen, H.D.; Blaabjerg, K.; Canibe, N.; Jensen, B.B.; Stuer-Lauridsen, B.; Nielsen, B.; Derkx, P.M. Development of Bacillus subtilis mutants to produce tryptophan in pigs. Biotechnol. Lett. 2017, 39, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  204. Porter, R.J.; Phipps, A.J.; Gallagher, P.; Scott, A.; Stevenson, P.S.; O’Brien, J.T. Effects of acute tryptophan depletion on mood and cognitive functioning in older recovered depressed subjects. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2005, 13, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. van Veen, J.F.; van Vliet, I.M.; de Rijk, R.H.; van Pelt, J.; Mertens, B.; Fekkes, D.; Zitman, F.G. Tryptophan depletion affects the autonomic stress response in generalized social anxiety disorder. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2009, 34, 1590–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Duan, K.-M.; Ma, J.-H.; Wang, S.-Y.; Huang, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Yu, H. The role of tryptophan metabolism in postpartum depression. Metab. Brain Dis. 2018, 33, 647–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Kaluzna-Czaplinska, J.; Gatarek, P.; Chirumbolo, S.; Chartrand, M.S.; Bjorklund, G. How important is tryptophan in human health? Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 72–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Aune, T.M.; Pogue, S.L. Inhibition of tumor-cell growth by interferon-gamma is mediated by 2 distinct mechanisms dependent upon oxygen-tension-induction of tryptophan degradation and depletion of intracellular nicotinamide adenine-dinucleotide. J. Clin. Investig. 1989, 84, 863–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  209. Waider, J.; Araragi, N.; Gutknecht, L.; Lesch, K.-P. Tryptophan hydroxylase-2 (TPH2) in disorders of cognitive control and emotion regulation: A perspective. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2011, 36, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  210. Shabalina, A.T. Dominance rank, fear scores and reproduction in cockerels. Br. Poult. Sci. 1984, 25, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  211. D’Eath, R.B.; Keeling, L.J. Social discrimination and aggression by laying hens in large groups: From peck orders to social tolerance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 84, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Fox, A.S.; Kalin, N.H. A Translational neuroscience approach to understanding the development of social anxiety disorder and its pathophysiology. Am. J. Psychiatry 2014, 171, 1162–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Jupp, B.; Murray, J.E.; Jordan, E.R.; Xia, J.; Fluharty, M.; Shrestha, S.; Robbins, T.W.; Dalley, J.W. Social dominance in rats: Effects on cocaine self-administration, novelty reactivity and dopamine receptor binding and content in the striatum. Psychopharmacology 2016, 233, 579–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  214. Larrieu, T.; Sandi, C. Stress-induced depression: Is social rank a predictive risk factor? Bioessays 2018, 40, e1800012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Guhl, A.M.; Craig, J.V.; Mueller, C.D. Selective breeding for aggressiveness in chickens. Poult. Sci. 1960, 39, 970–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Dennis, R.L.; Lay, D.C., Jr.; Cheng, H.W. Effects of early serotonin programming on behaviour and central monoamine concentrations in an avian model. Behav. Brain Res. 2013, 253, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Hollis, F.; Kabbaj, M. Social defeat as an animal model for depression. ILAR J. 2014, 55, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  218. Koolhaas, J.M.; Coppens, C.M.; de Boer, S.F.; Buwalda, B.; Meerlo, P.; Timmermans, P.J.A. The resident-intruder paradigm: A standardized test for aggression, violence and social stress. J. Vis. Exp. 2013, 4, e4367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  219. Jager, A.; Maas, D.A.; Fricke, K.; de Vries, R.B.; Poelmans, G.; Glennon, J.C. Aggressive behaviour in transgenic animal models: A systematic review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2018, 91, 198–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Masis-Calvo, M.; Schmidtner, A.K.; de Moura Oliveira, V.E.; Grossmann, C.P.; de Jong, T.R.; Neumann, I.D. Animal models of social stress: The dark side of social interactions. Stress 2018, 21, 417–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  221. Bolhuis, J.E.; Ellen, E.D.; Van Reenen, C.G.; De Groot, J.; Ten Napel, J.; Koopmanschap, R.E.; Reilingh, G.D.; Uitdehaag, K.A.; Kemp, B.; Rodenburg, T.B. Effects of genetic group selection against mortality on behaviour and peripheral serotonin in domestic laying hens with trimmed and intact beaks. Physiol. Behav. 2009, 97, 470–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  222. Moffitt, T.E.; Brammer, G.L.; Caspi, A.; Fawcett, J.P.; Raleigh, M.; Yuwiler, A.; Silva, P. Whole blood serotonin relates to violence in an epidemiological study. Biol. Psychiatry 1998, 43, 446–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Hercigonja Novkovic, V.; Rudan, V.; Pivac, N.; Nedic, G.; Muck-Seler, D. Platelet serotonin concentration in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychobiology 2009, 59, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Rosado, B.; Garcia-Belenguer, S.; Palacio, J.; Chacon, G.; Villegas, A.; Alcalde, A.I. Serotonin transporter activity in platelets and canine aggression. Vet. J. 2010, 186, 104–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Brown, G.L.; Goodwin, F.K.; Bunney, W.E., Jr. Human aggression and suicide: Their relationship to neuropsychiatric diagnoses and serotonin metabolism. Adv. Biochem. Psychopharmacol. 1982, 34, 287–307. [Google Scholar]
  226. Mann, J.J.; Brent, D.A.; Arango, V. The neurobiology and genetics of suicide and attempted suicide: A focus on the serotonergic system. Neuropsychopharmacology 2001, 24, 467–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. McDonald, M.D.; Gonzalez, A.; Sloman, K.A. Higher levels of aggression are observed in socially dominant toadfish treated with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, fluoxetine. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2011, 153, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  228. Pietraszek, M.H.; Takada, Y.; Yan, D.; Urano, T.; Serizawa, K.; Takada, A. Relationship between Serotonergic Measures in Periphery and the Brain of Mouse. Life Sci. 1992, 51, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Sarrias, M.J.; Martinez, E.; Celada, P.; Udina, C.; Alvarez, E.; Artigas, F. Plasma free 5HT and platelet 5HT in depression: Case-control studies and the effect of antidepressant therapy. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 1991, 294, 653–658. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  230. Yan, F.F.; Wang, W.C.; Cheng, H.W. Bacillus subtilis based probiotic improved bone mass and altered brain serotoninergic and dopaminergic systems in broiler chickens. J. Funct. Foods 2018, 49, 501–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Percent mortality of the birds. Compared to the birds from both Dekalb XL (a commercial line) and the control (non-selected) lines, the birds from the selected KGB (kinder gentle bird) line had the lowest mortality [90].
Figure 1. Percent mortality of the birds. Compared to the birds from both Dekalb XL (a commercial line) and the control (non-selected) lines, the birds from the selected KGB (kinder gentle bird) line had the lowest mortality [90].
Animals 12 00870 g001
Figure 2. Factors affecting the gut microbiota composition and the mechanisms of its effects on chicken health and welfare via the bilateral gut–brain connections based on inputs and outputs animal welfare measurements (modified according to Chen et al. [106] and Shehata et al. [107]). Figure was created with BioRender.com, accessed on 15 March 2022.
Figure 2. Factors affecting the gut microbiota composition and the mechanisms of its effects on chicken health and welfare via the bilateral gut–brain connections based on inputs and outputs animal welfare measurements (modified according to Chen et al. [106] and Shehata et al. [107]). Figure was created with BioRender.com, accessed on 15 March 2022.
Animals 12 00870 g002
Figure 3. The effects of stressors and probiotics on the gut microbiota–host interaction. Stressors increase gut permeability, consequently increasing host stress response and stress-induced physiological and behavioral disorders via the neural, endocrine, and immune pathways. Probiotics reverse the stress-induced gut microbial disorders and recover the physiological and behavioral changes in hosts via multiple pathways (modified from Yarandi et al. [12]).
Figure 3. The effects of stressors and probiotics on the gut microbiota–host interaction. Stressors increase gut permeability, consequently increasing host stress response and stress-induced physiological and behavioral disorders via the neural, endocrine, and immune pathways. Probiotics reverse the stress-induced gut microbial disorders and recover the physiological and behavioral changes in hosts via multiple pathways (modified from Yarandi et al. [12]).
Animals 12 00870 g003
Figure 4. Frequency of aggressive behaviors at day 0 (pre-treatment) and day 14 (post-treatment) in probiotic fed hens and regular diet fed hens followed by the paired social test (n = 12). (A) The frequency of threat kick. (B) The frequency of aggressive pecking. (C) The frequency of feather pecking. (D) The frequency of threat. The exhibition of aggressive behaviors in the regular diet fed subordinates was not affected by treatment (p > 0.05, respectively), while the frequency of threat kick (p = 0.04) was reduced, aggressive pecking (p = 0.053) tended to be lower, and feather pecking was lower (60%, p = 0.33) in probiotic fed dominant hens post-treatment. Notes: The treatment effects on the measured behaviors were reversed between dominants and subordinates during the second social rank test. a,b Between the frequency at day 0 and day 14, least square means lacking common superscripts differ (p < 0.05); and † trend difference (0.05 ≤ p < 0.10). A modified copy from Hu et al. [178].
Figure 4. Frequency of aggressive behaviors at day 0 (pre-treatment) and day 14 (post-treatment) in probiotic fed hens and regular diet fed hens followed by the paired social test (n = 12). (A) The frequency of threat kick. (B) The frequency of aggressive pecking. (C) The frequency of feather pecking. (D) The frequency of threat. The exhibition of aggressive behaviors in the regular diet fed subordinates was not affected by treatment (p > 0.05, respectively), while the frequency of threat kick (p = 0.04) was reduced, aggressive pecking (p = 0.053) tended to be lower, and feather pecking was lower (60%, p = 0.33) in probiotic fed dominant hens post-treatment. Notes: The treatment effects on the measured behaviors were reversed between dominants and subordinates during the second social rank test. a,b Between the frequency at day 0 and day 14, least square means lacking common superscripts differ (p < 0.05); and † trend difference (0.05 ≤ p < 0.10). A modified copy from Hu et al. [178].
Animals 12 00870 g004
Figure 5. Plasma serotonin (5-HT) levels at day 0 (pre-treatment) and day 14 (post-treatment) in probiotic fed dominant hens and regular diet fed subordinate hens. The plasma 5-HT concentration was measured by using the high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Compared to subordinate hens, plasma 5-HT concentrations were higher in dominant hens at day 0 but without statistical difference (p = 0.24); the difference disappeared at day 14. Compared to the levels at day 0, blood concentrations of 5-HT were reduced in probiotic fed dominant hens at day 14 (p = 0.02) but were not in regular diet fed subordinate hens (p > 0.05). a,b Between the concentrations at day 0 and day 14, least square means lacking common superscripts differ (p < 0.05). A copy from Hu et al. [178].
Figure 5. Plasma serotonin (5-HT) levels at day 0 (pre-treatment) and day 14 (post-treatment) in probiotic fed dominant hens and regular diet fed subordinate hens. The plasma 5-HT concentration was measured by using the high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Compared to subordinate hens, plasma 5-HT concentrations were higher in dominant hens at day 0 but without statistical difference (p = 0.24); the difference disappeared at day 14. Compared to the levels at day 0, blood concentrations of 5-HT were reduced in probiotic fed dominant hens at day 14 (p = 0.02) but were not in regular diet fed subordinate hens (p > 0.05). a,b Between the concentrations at day 0 and day 14, least square means lacking common superscripts differ (p < 0.05). A copy from Hu et al. [178].
Animals 12 00870 g005
Table 1. A list of recent studies showing the relationship between intestinal microbiota composition and injurious behavior in laying hens.
Table 1. A list of recent studies showing the relationship between intestinal microbiota composition and injurious behavior in laying hens.
TreatmentEffectsConclusionReference
H & L birds of the HFP & LFP linesSelection caused line’s differences in intestinal microbial metabolites.These changes could relate to lines’ differences in behaviors via the MGB axis.[142]
Birds of the HFP & LFP LinesHFP birds had ↓cecal microbial beta diversity with ↑relative abundance of Clostridiae but ↓Lactobaccillacae.Selection causes differences in the cecal microbial profile; cecal microbiota may involve in FP behavior.[143]
Genotypes: Selected HFP & LFP linesHFP birds had ↑genera of Clostridiales, ↓Staphylococcus & Lactobacillus in LM.
HFP birds had ↑diversity & evenness for both cecal MAM & LM.
HFP neutral birds had ↑genera of Clostridiales, ↓Lactobacillus with ↑diversity & evenness in LM but not MAM.
Feather pecking genotype but not phenotype affects LM composition; but the correlation between FP and microbiota composition remains to be elucidated.[144]
Phenotypes: Feather peckers & neutrals
HFP & LFP recipients received microbiota from the same line (HMT) during the 1st two weeksHMT influenced immune characteristics in both lines.
HMT influenced active behavior and peripheral serotonin in the LFP line.
HMT without effects on gut microbiota composition, stress response, and FP.
Early MT may influence the development of FP due to its effects on FP-associated behavioral and physiological characteristics.[145]
Birds of the HFP & LFP linesHFP birds had ↓genera Lactobacillus, ↑Escherichia in ileum digesta, and ↓Faecalibacturium & Blautia in cecal digesta & mucoa.Gut microbial composition and its functions are not associated with FP & antagonistic behavior.[149]
DXL recipients received CMT from lines 63, 72 or saline orally from day 1 to day 10, then boosted once from week 3 to week 5HFP birds had ↑tryptophan metabolism & lysine degradation in digesta & mucosa. There were no line effects on microbial abilities. [146]
63-CMT recipients displayed less aggressive behavior during paired aggression test with higher concentrations of serotonin.Early-life CMT has the potential to reduce aggressive behavior through the GMB axis.
Line 63: gentle birds; Line 72: aggressive birds; CMT: cecal microbiota transplantation; FP: feather pecking, H: high feather-pecking birds; HFP: high feather pecking line; HMT: microbiota transplantation within the same line; L: low feather-pecking birds; LFP: low feather line; LM: luminal microbiota, MAM: mucosa-associated microbiota; MGB axis: the microbiota–gut–brain axis.
Table 2. Non-comprehensive list of recent studies showing the effects of probiotics modifying gut microbiota on behaviors in poultry.
Table 2. Non-comprehensive list of recent studies showing the effects of probiotics modifying gut microbiota on behaviors in poultry.
Birds/TreatmentEffectsConclusionReference
LayersL. rhamnosus (5 × 109 CFU/mL) in-drinking water of stressed HFP birds, LFP birds, & a unselected pulletsPecks (phenotypic and genotypic) had lower plasma TRP.
L. rhamnosus caused a short-term increase in plasma TRYP and the TRP:(PHE + TYR) ratio and all subsets of T cell proportions.
A transient effect on the immune and TRP catabolism with minimal changes in behavior in pullets.[126]
L. rhamnosus (5 × 109/mL) in-drinking water of chronic stressed adult HPF & LPF hensL. rhamnosus prevented stress-induced FP.
L. rhamnosus increased T cells in the spleen and cecal tonsil.
L. rhamosus reduced cecal microbiota dysbiosis.
Reduces stress-induced FP; and improves hen welfare.[173]
L. rhamnosus (5 × 108 CFU/mL) orally fed peckers & non-peckersL. rhamosus caused ↑cecal contractions and their amplitude; It positively correlated with the number of FP of peckers.Impacted gut motility with FP phenotypic effects.[148]
B. subtilis (1 × 106 CFU/g) fed dominant & subordinate hensB. subtilis caused ↓threat kick and ↓aggressive pecking during paired aggression test, and ↓plasma serotonin.
B. subtilis caused ↓HS-associated behavior but ↑eating, foraging, standing, and walking.
B. subtilis led to ↓hepatic IL-6, HSP70, cecal IgA & IgY but ↑hepatic IL-10.
Dietary probiotic could be a suitable strategy for controlling aggression in chickens.[178]
BroilersB. subtilis (1 × 106 CFU/g) fed HS broilersReduces HS-induced inflammatory reactions via the microbiota-immune axis, while increases broilers to copy HS more effectively.[179]
* A synbiotic fed HS broilersSnybiotic fed birds had a shorter latency to make the first vocalization, with higher vocalization rates during the isolation test and a greater number of birds reached the observer during the touch test.The synbiotic can reduce the fear response and stress state of HS broilers.[177]
TurkeysB. amyloliquefaciens fed turkey poultsProbiotic increased the feeding time and decreased distress call and aggressive behaviors.Probiotics regulates behavior in turkey poults via modulation of gut microbiota.[180]
QuailsP. acidilactici (2.54 × 106/g) fed STI & LTI quailsProbiotic reduces immobility duration of STI birds during TI test.The probiotic affected host behavior and memory via the effects on gut microbiota[176]
B. amyloliquefaciens: Bucillus amyloliquefaciens; B. subtilis: Bacillus subtilis; CMP: cecal microbiota transplantation; FP: feather pecking; HMT: homologous microbiota transplantation from the same line; HPF: high feather pecking birds; HS: heat stress; HSP: heat shock protein; IL: interleukin; L. rhamosus: Lactobacillus rhamnosus; IL: interleukin; LFP: low feather pecking birds; LTI: long tonic immobility quails; P. acidilactici: Pediococcus acidilactici; PHE: phenylalanine; STI: short tonic immobility quails; T: T lymphocytes; TI: Tonic immobility test; TRP: tryptophan; TYR: tyrosine. * Synbiotic consisted of a probiotic (Enterococcus faecium, Pediococcus acidilactici, Bifidobacterium animalis, and Lactobacillus reuteri) and a prebiotic (fructooligosaccharides).
Table 3. Behavioral ethogram 1.
Table 3. Behavioral ethogram 1.
BehaviorDescription
Feather PeckingOne bird pecking at feathers of another bird can be (a) gentle peck (nibbling or gentle pecking in which feathers are not removed or pulled) or (b) severe peck (vigorous pecking to feathers in which feathers are often pulled, broken, or removed).
ThreatOne bird standing with its neck erect and hackle feathers raised in front of another bird.
Aggressive peckingForceful downward pecks directed at the head or neck of other birds
Threat KickOne bird forcefully extending one or both legs such that the foot strikes another bird.
1 Modified from Hu et al. [178].
Table 4. Selection-induced alterations in blood concentrations of dopamine, serotonin, and corticosterone in laying hens.
Table 4. Selection-induced alterations in blood concentrations of dopamine, serotonin, and corticosterone in laying hens.
LinesCorticosterone (ng/mL)Dopamine (ng/mL)Epinephrin (ng/mL)Serotonin (ng/mL)H/L Ratio 2 (×100)
KGB 11.87 + 0.190.59 + 0.08 a0.30 + 0.06 a11.8 + 0.07 a13.0 a
MBB1.49 + 0.212.42 + 0.76 b0.59 + 0.13 b14.3 + 0.06 b29.4 b
a,b Means within a column with different superscript are statistically different (n = 12, p < 0.05). 1 The KGB (kind gentle bird) and MBB (mean bad bird) lines were selected for high and low productivity and survivability resulting from cannibalism and flightiness, respectively. 2 Heterophil/lymphocyte ratio [90].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jiang, S.; Hu, J.-Y.; Cheng, H.-W. The Impact of Probiotic Bacillus subtilis on Injurious Behavior in Laying Hens. Animals 2022, 12, 870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070870

AMA Style

Jiang S, Hu J-Y, Cheng H-W. The Impact of Probiotic Bacillus subtilis on Injurious Behavior in Laying Hens. Animals. 2022; 12(7):870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070870

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jiang, Sha, Jia-Ying Hu, and Heng-Wei Cheng. 2022. "The Impact of Probiotic Bacillus subtilis on Injurious Behavior in Laying Hens" Animals 12, no. 7: 870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070870

APA Style

Jiang, S., Hu, J. -Y., & Cheng, H. -W. (2022). The Impact of Probiotic Bacillus subtilis on Injurious Behavior in Laying Hens. Animals, 12(7), 870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070870

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop