
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.
Sec. Intestinal Microbiome
Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2025.1579950
This article is part of the Research Topic Gut Microbiota Dynamics and Nutritional Strategies in Porcine Weaning Period View all 5 articles
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
The persistent African swine fever epidemic has significantly compromised China's swine production. To accelerate production recovery, commercial farms are increasingly adopting retention of two-way backcross sows (Landrace × Yorkshire × Landrace, LLY) for breeding. This study aimed to investigate the effects of yeast protein, an emerging sustainable protein source, on reproductive performance, immune responses, and gut microbiota in LY and LLY sows. The experiment employed a 2×2 factorial design evaluating two fixed factors: sow hybrid (LY vs LLY) and yeast protein supplementation (0% vs 2.6%). The four treatment groups were: LY sows without yeast protein supplementation (LY-C), LLY sows without yeast protein supplementation (LLY-C), LY sows with yeast protein supplementation (LY-YP), and LLY sows with yeast protein supplementation (LLY-YP). A total of one hundred healthy sows of 2-6 parities (50 LY sows and 50 LLY sows), were stratified by backfat thickness, body weight, and parity, then allocated to four treatment groups on day 105 of gestation, with 25 sows in each group. The experiment lasted from day 106 of gestation to day 18 of lactation. Yeast protein supplementation showed no significant effects on most reproductive parameters of sows, but reduced backfat loss by 30.5% during lactation (P < 0.05) and demonstrated a numerical reduction in mummification rate of fetuses (P = 0.06). Immunological assessments revealed that LLY sows exhibited 26.8% lower serum IgM concentration than LY sows (P < 0.05), while yeast protein supplementation significantly reduced serum IL-1β levels by 45.6% (P < 0.05) on day 18 of lactation. 16S rRNA gene sequencing analysis revealed comparable fecal microbial diversity across treatments (P > 0.05), though differences were observed in certain bacterial genera between LY and LLY sows during late gestation and lactation. Yeast protein supplementation enriched beneficial bacteria including Ruminococcaceae_UCG-002, Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group, and Christensenellaceae_R_7_group, while suppressing potentially detrimental bacteria such as Family_XIII_AD3011_group (P < 0.05). These findings demonstrate the practical feasibility of retaining LLY sows for commercial breeding. Yeast protein supplementation, as a substitute for fishmeal during late gestation and lactation, significantly reduced lactational backfat loss, moderately attenuated inflammatory response, and enhanced gut microbiome homeostasis through selective microbial enrichment in sows.
Keywords: Yeast protein, Reproductive performance, immune response, Gut Microbiota, sow hybrids
Received: 19 Feb 2025; Accepted: 24 Mar 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Zhou, Liu, Zhao, Wu, Shen, Duan, Che, Zhang and Yan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Honglin Yan, School of Life Science and Engineering, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang, Sichuan Province, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.