Skip to main content

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.