Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 6 Effect of clays on intestinal morphology of pigs experimentally infected with a pathogenic E. coli 1

From: Escherichia coli challenge and one type of smectite alter intestinal barrier of pigs

  Treatment2   P-value
  Sham E. coli   Main effect3 CON vs. Clays4
Item CON SMA SMB ZEO CON SMA SMB ZEO SEM E. coli Diet E x D Sham E. coli
Duodenum               
VH5 384.6 374.6 380.6 359.1 356.6 393.8 382.5 365.0 21.06 0.99 0.78 0.80 0.64 0.40
CD6 264.9 276.3 263.8 262.0 273.5 257.1 259.9 275.45 39.15 0.98 0.95 0.63 0.87 0.55
VH:CD7 1.55 1.48 1.53 1.47 1.39 1.84 1.61 1.45 0.26 0.42 0.25 0.15 0.70 0.07
Ileum               
VH 299.0 310.7 288.7 305.8 305.4 289.8 282.1 309.9 9.15 0.64 0.36 0.72 0.85 0.45
CD 208.4 214.1 212.8 222.4 228.5 232.3 230.8 217.6 8.37 0.05 0.96 0.48 0.45 0.88
VH:CD 1.44 1.49 1.37 1.38 1.34 1.25 1.25 1.45 0.08 0.10 0.61 0.35 0.76 0.81
Colon               
CD 236.0 229.0 247. 7 227.5 228.8 244.2 223.1 216.4 73.94 0.28 0.36 0.18 0.90 0.93
  1. 1n = 8 pigs/treatment.
  2. 2Sham = unchallenged; E. coli = E. coli challenged; CON = control diet; SMA = 0.3% smectite A; SMB = 0.3% smectite B; ZEO = 0.3% zeolite.
  3. 3E. coli = E. coli challenge effect; Diet = diet effect; E x D = interaction between E. coli and diet effects.
  4. 4Contrast between CON and all clay treatments within challenge treatments.
  5. 5Villus height, μm.
  6. 6Crypt depth, μm.
  7. 7Villus height:crypt depth ratio.