Synbiotics are synergistic combinations of prebiotics and probiotics. In chickens, synbiotics can be delivered in ovo to expedite colonization of the gut by beneficial bacteria. We therefore aimed to design synbiotics in vitro and validate them in broiler chickens upon in ovo delivery. The probiotic components of the synbiotics were Lactobacillus salivarius and Lactobacillus plantarum. Their growth was assessed in MRS medium supplemented with different prebiotics. Based on in vitro results (hatchability and growth curve), two synbiotics were designed: S1 –Lactobacillus salivarius with galactooligosaccarides (GOS) and S2 –Lactobacillus plantarum with raffinose family oligosaccharides (RFO). These synbiotics were delivered to Cobb broiler chicken embryos on day 12 of incubation at optimized doses (10⁵ cfu egg^-1 of probiotic, 2 mg egg^-1 of prebiotic). Post hatching, 2,400 roosters were reared (600 individuals group^-1 divided into eight replicate pens). Microbial communities were analyzed in ileal and cecal digesta on day 21 using FISH. Gene expression analysis (IL1β, IL4, IL6, IL8, IL12, IL18, IFNβ, and IFNγ) was performed on days 7, 14, 21, and 42 for the spleen and cecal tonsils with RT-qPCR. Body weight and feed intake of the roosters did not differ by the treatments. Microbial populations of Lactobacillus spp. and Enterococcus spp. in the ileum were higher in S1 and S2 than in the control. In the cecum, the control had the highest bacterial counts. S1 caused significant up-regulation of IL6, IL18, IL1β, IFNγ, and IFNβ in the spleen on day 21 and IL1β on day 7 (P < 0.05). In cecal tonsils, S1 caused significant down-regulation of IL12, IL8, and IL1β on day 42 and IFNβ on day 14 (P < 0.05). S2 did not elicit such patterns in any tissues investigated. Thus, we demonstrate that divergent effects of synbiotics in broiler chickens were reflected in in vitro tests.

Commercially produced chickens have become key food-producing animals in the global food system. The scale of production in industrial settings has changed management systems to a point now very far from traditional methods. During the perinatal period, newly hatched chicks undergo processing, vaccination and transportation, which introduces a gap in access to feed and water. This gap, referred to as the hatching window, dampens the potential for microflora inoculation and as such, prevents proper microbiome, gastrointestinal system and innate immunity development. As a consequence, the industrial production of chickens with a poor microbial profile leads to enteric microbial infestation and infectious disease outbreaks, which became even more prevalent after the withdrawal of antibiotic growth promoters on many world markets (e.g., the EU). This review presents the rationale, methodology and life-long effects of in ovo stimulation of chicken microflora. In ovo stimulation provides efficient embryonic microbiome colonization with commensal microflora during the perinatal period. A carefully selected bioactive formulation (prebiotics, probiotics alone or combined into synbiotics) is delivered into the air cell of the egg on day 12 of egg incubation. The prebiotic penetrates the outer and inner egg membranes and stimulates development on the innate microflora in the embryonic guts. Probiotics are available after the mechanical breakage of the shell membranes by the chick’s beak at the beginning of hatching (day 19). The intestinal microflora after in ovo stimulation is potent enough for competitive exclusion and programs the lifespan condition. We present the effects of different combinations of prebiotic and probiotic delivered in ovo on day 12 of egg incubation on microflora, growth traits, feed efficiency, intestinal morphology, meat microstructure and quality, immune system development, physiological characteristics and the transcriptome of the broiler chickens. We discuss the differences between in ovo stimulation (day 12 of egg incubation) and in ovo feeding (days 17–18 of egg incubation) and speculate about possible future developments in this field. In summary, decades of research on in ovo stimulation and the lifelong effects support this method as efficient programming of lifespan conditions in commercially raised chickens.

The awareness of poultry production safety is constantly increasing. The safety of poultry production is defined as biosecurity and the health status of birds. Hence the constant pursuit of developing new strategies in this area is necessary. Biosecurity is an element of good production practices that ensures adequate hygiene and maintaining the health status of poultry production. Poultry production is the world leader among all livestock species. Producers face many challenges during rearing, which depend on the utility type, the direction of use, and consumer requirements. For many years, the aim was to increase production results. Increasing attention is paid to the quality of the raw material and its safety. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure hygiene status during production. It can affect the immune system's functioning and birds' health status. Feed, water, and environmental conditions, including light, gases, dust, and temperature, play an essential role in poultry production. This review aims to look for stimulators and modulators of the poultry immune system while affecting the biosecurity of poultry production. Such challenges in current research by scientists aim to respond to the challenges posed as part of the One Health concept. The reviewed issues are a massive potential for an innovative approach to poultry production and related risks as part of the interaction of the animal-human ecosystem.

Intestinal mucosa is the interface between the microbial content of the gut and the host’s milieu. The goal of this study was to modulate chicken intestinal microflora by in ovo stimulation with galactooligosaccharides (GOS) prebiotic and to demonstrate the molecular responses of the host. The animal trial was performed on meat-type chickens (Ross 308). GOS was delivered by in ovo injection performed into the air cell on day 12 of egg incubation. Analysis of microbial communities and mucosal gene expression was performed at slaughter (day 42 post-hatching). Chyme (for DNA isolation) and intestinal mucosa (for RNA isolation) from four distinct intestinal segments (duodenum, jejunum, ileum, and caecum) was sampled. The relative abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. in DNA isolated from chyme samples was determined using qPCR. On the host side, the mRNA expression of 13 genes grouped into two panels was analysed with RT-qPCR. Panel (1) included genes related to intestinal innate immune responses (IL-1β, IL-10 and IL-12p40, AvBD1 and CATHL2). Panel (2) contained genes involved in intestinal barrier function (MUC6, CLDN1 and TJAP1) and nutrients sensing (FFAR2 and FFAR4, GLUT1, GLUT2 and GLUT5). GOS increased the relative abundance of Bifidobacterium in caecum (from 1.3% to 3.9%). Distinct effects of GOS on gene expression were manifested in jejunum and caecum. Cytokine genes (IL-1β, IL-10 and IL-12p40) were up-regulated in the jejunum and caecum of the GOS-treated group. Host defence peptides (AvBD1 and CATHL2) were up-regulated in the caecum of the GOS-treated group. Free fatty acid receptors (FFAR2 and FFAR4) were up-regulated in all three compartments of the intestine (except the duodenum). Glucose transporters were down-regulated in duodenum (GLUT2 and GLUT5) but up-regulated in the hindgut (GLUT1 and GLUT2). In conclusion, GOS delivered in ovo had a bifidogenic effect in adult chickens. It also modulated gene expression related to intestinal immune responses, gut barrier function, and nutrient sensing.

The relationship between the intestines and their microbiota, the liver, and the neuronal system is called the gut-liver-brain axis. This relationship has been studied and observed for a relatively short time but is considered in the development of research focused on, e.g., liver diseases and intestinal dysbiosis. The role of the gut microbiota in this relationship is crucial, as it acts on poultry’s performance and feed utilization, affecting meat and egg quality. The correct composition of the intestinal microbiota makes it possible to determine the essential metabolic pathways and biological processes of the individual components of the microbiota, allowing further speculation of the role of microbial populations on internal organs such as the liver and brain in the organism. The gut microbiota forms a complex, dense axis with the autonomic and enteric nervous systems. The symbiotic relationship between the liver and gut microbiota is based on immune, metabolic and neuroendocrine regulation, and stabilization. On the other hand, the gut-brain axis is a bidirectional interaction and information transfer system between the gastrointestinal tract and the central nervous system. The following paper will discuss the current state of knowledge of the gut-liver-brain axis of poultry, including factors that may affect this complex relationship.