Table 1.
Effect of dietary fiber type and fat content on pig growth performance.
Table 2.
Effect of dietary fiber type and fat content on concentration of volatile fatty acids in the cecum.
Figure 1.
Band numbers from the PCR-DGGE profiles of cecal microbial communities.
Dietary fiber type and fat content affected band numbers of 16S rRNA gene PCR-DGGE profiles of cecal microbial communities. LFD, low fat diet-fed pigs; HFD, high fat diet-fed pigs; Inu, inulin diet-fed pigs; Sol, solka floc diet fed pigs. Bars represent least-squares means ± SE. Different letters on bars indicate significant difference (P<0.05).
Figure 2.
Dendrogram of PCR-DGGE profiles of pig cecal bacterial community.
Dendrogram of PCR-DGGE profiles of pig cecal bacterial community on diets with different fat levels and fiber types. The unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) dendrogram was generated based on a matrix of pairwise Dice similarity comparisons of 16S rRNA gene PCR-DGGE fingerprints. LFD, low fat diet-fed pigs; HFD, high fat diet-fed pigs; Inu, inulin diet-fed pigs; Sol, solka floc diet fed pigs. The scaled bar on the upper-left indicates percentage similarity coefficients. Labels indicate bands that are significantly associated with the inulin diet.
Figure 3.
Principal component analysis of pig cecal bacterial community.
Principal component analysis of pig cecal bacterial community was based on comparisons of16S rRNA gene PCR-DGGE fingerprint profiles. LFD, low fat diet-fed pigs; HFD, high fat diet-fed pigs; Inu, inulin diet-fed pigs; Sol, solka floc diet fed pigs. Values on the axis indicate variation percentages contributed to the first three principal components (X, Y, Z, respectively).
Figure 4.
Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) of bacterial PCR-DGGE community profiles from pig cecal samples.
The colored spots represent samples from four different treatments. Each red line represents a variable, IBF: inner back fat, TBF: total back fat and ADG: average daily gain. The variables significantly (P<0.05) correlate to the differences in bacterial community structure. The length of each line represents the contribution of each variable to the bacterial community structure difference.
Table 3.
Fisher’s exact test results on bands/bacteria associated with different fiber types.
Table 4.
Effect of dietary fiber type and fat content on percentages of Bifidobacterium and Bacteroides to total bacteria in cecal content.
Table 5.
Effect of dietary fiber type and fat content on gene expression in the liver.
Table 6.
Effect of dietary fiber type and fat content on gene expression in subcutaneous adipose tissue.
Table 7.
Effect of dietary fiber type and fat content on gene expression in the mesenteric adipose tissue.