Abstract

Background

Selective breeding for disease resistance is an effective strategy to control duck hepatitis A virus type 3 (DHAV-3) in waterfowl. However, the mechanism underlying resistance remains poorly understood, particularly those associated with antioxidant defense, intestinal development and host-microbiota interactions.

Method

A total of 100 1-day-old Pekin ducklings were used in this study with 50 DHAV-3 susceptible and resistant ducks, respectively. Samples were collected at 7 days post-hatching (D7), D21 and D42, 10 birds per group. We compared DHAV-3 resistant and susceptible ducks during early development with respect to immune organ indices, antioxidant capacity, intestinal morphology, barrier-related gene expression and cecal microbiota.

Result

Resistant ducks exhibited higher spleen indices and stronger antioxidant capacity, characterized by increased superoxide dismutase, reduced glutathione, and total antioxidant capacity, along with lower malondialdehyde levels at D7 and D21. In contrast, susceptible ducks showed compensatory thymus hypertrophy and delayed development of antioxidant defense and intestinal maturation. Ileal morphology revealed greater villus height and width with more regular arrangement in resistant ducks at D7, whereas these differences diminished at D21 and D42. Gene expression analysis demonstrated higher early expression of the tight junction proteinsCLDN1andCLDN3in resistant ducks, while susceptible ducks displayed elevatedMUC2andOCLN, suggesting stress induced compensatory responses. Cecal microbiota analysis revealed distinct colonization patterns in early development. Resistant ducks were enriched with Firmicutes and beneficial genera such asEnterococcusandLactobacillus, whereas susceptible ducks harbored higher abundances of Bacteroidota and potentially opportunistic taxa. Microbial diversity increased with age in both groups, but resistant ducks displayed more orderly succession and enrichment of SCFA producing genera, includingSubdoligranulumandPhascolarctobacterium, which positively correlated with plasma antioxidant indices.

Conclusion

DHAV-3 resistant ducks exhibit early advantages in antioxidant defense, intestinal barrier development and colonization by beneficial microbiota, which collectively contribute to enhanced disease resistance. These findings highlight the synergistic roles of host physiology and gut microbiota in shaping resistance. In the future, integrating genomic selection with microbiota modulation and antioxidant interventions may accelerate the breeding of highly resistant duck lines and provide scientific evidence and practical strategies for controlling duck viral hepatitis.

Data Availability

Datasets used in the present study are available from the corresponding author on request.

Abbreviations

  • CLDN1 :: Claudin 1
  • CLDN2 :: Claudin 2
  • CLDN3 :: Claudin 3
  • CP:: Crude protein
  • D7:: 7 days post-hatching
  • DHAV-3:: Duck hepatitis A virus 3
  • FDR:: False discovery rate
  • GSH:: Glutathione
  • GSH-Px:: Glutathione peroxidase
  • H&E:: Hematoxylin and eosin
  • MDA:: Malondialdehyde
  • ME:: Metabolizable energy
  • MUC2 :: Mucin 2
  • OCLN :: Occludin
  • PCoA:: Principal coordinate analysis
  • ROS:: Reactive oxygen species
  • RT-qPCR:: Real-time quantitative PCR
  • SCFA:: Short-chain fatty acid
  • SOD:: Superoxide dismutase
  • T-AOC:: Total antioxidant capacity

References

  1. 1.Zhao SS, Wu BR, Wang QQ, Wei XH, Liu X, Tang Y, et al. Advances in the Duck Hepatitis A virus and lessons learned from those in recent years. Microb Pathog. 2024;197.(2024)107018. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.micpath.: 107018.
    10.1016/j.micpath.2024.107018
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  2. 2.Zhang XL, Cao C, Qu ZH, Zhang WJ, Liu Y, Qi HH, et al. Pathogenicity of duck hepatitis A virus type 3 and innate immune responses of the ducklings to virulent DHAV-3. Mol Immunol. 2018;95.(2018)30–8. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.molimm.: 30.
    10.1016/j.molimm.2018.01.007
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  3. 3.Ye LN, Zhou SY, Zhang HL, Zhang TJ, Yang DQ, Hong XP. A meta-analysis for vaccine protection rate of duck hepatitis A virus in mainland China in 2009–2021. BMC Vet Res. 2023;19.(2009)org/10.1186/s12917-023-03744-8.: 179.
    10.1186/s12917-023-03744-8
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  4. 4.Zhang JJ, Jiang Y, Wang XY, Zhou ZK, Xie M, Hou SS. The preliminary study of breeding for Peking ducks resistance to duck hepatitis a virus type 3. Chin J Anim Sci. 2016;52(17).(2016)5–8.(in Chinese).: 5.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  5. 5.Wang XY, Zhang JJ, Meng RZ, Jiang Y, Liang SY, Zhang YS, et al. Host differences affecting resistance and susceptibility of the second generation of a Pekin duck flock to duck hepatitis A virus genotype 3. Front Microbiol. 2017;8.(2017)1128. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmicb.: 1128.
    10.3389/fmicb.2017.01128
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  6. 6.Cao JT, Wen ZG, Zhang YS, Zhang B, Chen Y, Xing GN, et al. Effects of DHAV-3 infection on innate immunity, antioxidant capacity, and lipid metabolism in ducks with different DHAV-3 susceptibilities. Poult Sci. 2024;103(3).(2024)2023.103374.: 103374.
    10.1016/j.psj.2023.103374
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  7. 7.Khomich OA, Kochetkov SN, Bartosch B, Ivanov AV. Redox biology of respiratory viral infections. Viruses. 2018;10(8).(2018)org/10.3390/v10080392.: 392.
    10.3390/v10080392
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  8. 8.Birben E, Sahiner UM, Sackesen C, Erzurum S, Kalayci O. Oxidative stress and antioxidant defense. World Allergy Organ J. 2012;5(1).(2012)1097/WOX.0b013e3182439613.: 9.
    10.1097/WOX.0b013e3182439613
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  9. 9.Sies H. Hydrogen peroxide as a central redox signaling molecule in physiological oxidative stress.(2017)oxidative eustress.Redox Biol.: 613.
    10.1016/j.redox.2016.12.035
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  10. 10.Kurutas EB. The importance of antioxidants which play the role in cellular response against oxidative/nitrosative stress.(2015)current state.Nutr J.: 71.
    10.1186/s12937-016-0186-5
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  11. 11.Gu FF, Zhu SL, Hou JX, Tang YF, Liu JX, Xu QB, et al. The hindgut microbiome contributes to host oxidative stress in postpartum dairy cows by affecting glutathione synthesis process. Microbiome. 2023;11.(2023)org/10.1186/s40168-023-01535-9.: 87.
    10.1186/s40168-023-01535-9
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  12. 12.Zhao JS, Zhao F, Yuan JM, Liu HW, Wang Y. Gut microbiota metabolites, redox status, and the related regulatory effects of probiotics. Heliyon. 2023;9(11).(2023)e21431. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.heliyon.
    10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21431
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  13. 13.Ahmad Dar M, Ahmad SM, Bhat BA, Ali Dar T, Haq ZU, Wani BA, et al. Comparative RNA-Seq analysis reveals insights inSalmonelladisease resistance of chicken; and database development as resource for gene expression in poultry. Genomics. 2022;114(5).(2022)110475. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.ygeno.: 110475.
    10.1016/j.ygeno.2022.110475
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  14. 14.Mo GD, Wei P, Hu BW, Nie QH, Zhang XQ. Advances on genetic and genomic studies of ALV resistance. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2022;13.(2022)org/10.1186/s40104-022-00769-1.: 123.
    10.1186/s40104-022-00769-1
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  15. 15.Wang JY, Yao L, Su J, Fan RR, Zheng JQ, Han YZ. Effects ofLactobacillusplantarum and its fermentation products on growth performance, immune function, intestinal pH, and cecal microorganisms of Lingnan yellow chicken. Poult Sci. 2023;102(6).(2023)102610. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.psj.: 102610.
    10.1016/j.psj.2023.102610
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  16. 16.Liang WF, Li HT, Zhou HY, Wang M, Zhao X, Sun XH, et al. Effects ofTaraxacumandAstragalusextracts combined with probioticBacillus subtilisandLactobacillusonEscherichia coli-infected broiler chickens. Poult Sci. 2021;100(4).(2021)101007. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.psj.: 101007.
    10.1016/j.psj.2021.01.030
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  17. 17.Wang Y, Wang JH, Li HH, Lao JL, Jia D, Liu JL, et al. Antioxidant effects ofBifidobacterium longumT37a in mice weight loss and aging model induced by D-galactose. BMC Microbiol. 2023;23.(2023)org/10.1186/s12866-023-02846-5.: 103.
    10.1186/s12866-023-02846-5
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  18. 18.Schieber M, Chandel NS. ROS function in redox signaling and oxidative stress. Curr Biol. 2014;24(10).(2014)R453–62. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.cub.
    10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.034
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  19. 19.Cooke MS, Evans MD, Dizdaroglu M, Lunec J. Oxidative DNA damage.(2003)mechanisms, mutation, and disease.FASEB J.: 1195.
    10.1096/fj.02-0752rev
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  20. 20.Yoshikawa T, You F. Oxidative stress and bio-regulation. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(6).(2024)org/10.3390/ijms25063360.: 3360.
    10.3390/ijms25063360
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  21. 21.Jo SH, Son MK, Koh HJ, Lee SM, Song IH, Kim YO, et al. Control of mitochondrial redox balance and cellular defense against oxidative damage by mitochondrial NADP+-dependent isocitrate dehydrogenase. J Biol Chem. 2001;276(19).(2001)1074/jbc.M010120200.: 16168.
    10.1074/jbc.M010120200
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  22. 22.Ghezzi P, Bonetto V, Fratelli M. Thiol-disulfide balance.(2005)from the concept of oxidative stress to that of redox regulation.Antioxid Redox Signal.: 964.
    10.1089/ars.2005.7.964
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  23. 23.Wang L, Zhao ZJ, Zhao L, Zhao YJ, Yang G, Wang C, et al.Lactobacillus plantarumDP189 reduces α-SYN aggravation in MPTP-induced Parkinson’s disease miceviaregulating oxidative damage, inflammation, and gut microbiota disorder. J Agric Food Chem. 2022;70(4).(2022)jafc.1c07711.: 1163.
    10.1021/acs.jafc.1c07711
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  24. 24.Liang Y, Zhao LL, Zhang X, Liu S, Lu PJ, Wang JX, et al.Lactobacillusameliorates myocardial ischemia reperfusion injury by attenuating apoptosis, inflammation, oxidative stress, and ferroptosis. BMC Med. 2025;23.(2025)org/10.1186/s12916-025-04203-x.: 377.
    10.1186/s12916-025-04203-x
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  25. 25.Cao L, Sun FX, Ren QF, Jiang ZY, Chen J, Li YL, et al. Effects of mink-originEnterococcus faeciumon growth performance, antioxidant capacity, immunity, and intestinal microbiota of growing male minks. Animals. 2024;14(14).(2024)org/10.3390/ani14142120.: 2120.
    10.3390/ani14142120
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  26. 26.Mohammadi Z, Ghazanfari S, Moradi MA. Effect of supplementing clove essential oil to the diet on microflora population, intestinal morphology, blood parameters and performance of broilers. Eur Poult Sci. 2014;78.(2014)1–11. https://doi. org/10.1399/eps.: 1.
    10.1399/eps.2014.51
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  27. 27.van Dijk JE, Huisman J, Koninkx JFJG. Structural and functional aspects of a healthy gastrointestinal tract. In.(2002)Nutrition and health of the gastrointestinal tract.Wageningen: Wageningen Academic;.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  28. 28.Barry RE Jr. Mucosal surface areas and villous morphology of the small intestine of small mammals.(1976)functional interpretations.J Mammal.: 273.
    10.2307/1379688
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  29. 29.Alizadeh A, Akbari P, Garssen J, Fink-Gremmels J, Braber S. Epithelial integrity, junctional complexes, and biomarkers associated with intestinal functions. Tissue Barriers. 2022;10(3).(2022)2021.1996830.: 1996830.
    10.1080/21688370.2021.1996830
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  30. 30.Awad WA, Dublecz F, Hess C, Dublecz K, Khayal B, Aschenbach JR, et al.Campylobacter jejunicolonization promotes the translocation ofEscherichia colito extra-intestinal organs and disturbs the short-chain fatty acids profiles in the chicken gut. Poult Sci. 2016;95(10).(2016)org/10.3382/ps/pew151.: 2259.
    10.3382/ps/pew151
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  31. 31.Awad WA, Smorodchenko A, Hess C, Aschenbach JR, Molnár A, Dublecz K, et al. Increased intracellular calcium level and impaired nutrient absorption are important pathogenicity traits in the chicken intestinal epithelium duringCampylobacter jejunicolonization. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015;99(15).(2015)org/10.1007/s00253-015-6543-z.: 6431.
    10.1007/s00253-015-6543-z
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  32. 32.Awad WA, Hess C, Hess M. Enteric pathogens and their toxin-induced disruption of the intestinal barrier through alteration of tight junctions in chickens. Toxins. 2017;9(2).(2017)org/10.3390/toxins9020060.: 60.
    10.3390/toxins9020060
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  33. 33.Burrows PB, Godoy-Santos F, Lawther K, Richmond A, Corcionivoschi N, Huws SA. Decoding the chicken gastrointestinal microbiome. BMC Microbiol. 2025;25.(2025)org/10.1186/s12866-024-03690-x.: 35.
    10.1186/s12866-024-03690-x
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  34. 34.Ma LY, Lyu WT, Zeng T, Wang W, Chen Q, Zhao JC, et al. Duck gut metagenome reveals the microbiome signatures linked to intestinal regional, temporal development, and rearing condition. iMeta. 2024;3(4).(2024)1002/imt2.198.
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  35. 35.Oakley BB, Lillehoj HS, Kogut MH, Kim WK, Maurer JJ, Pedroso A, et al. The chicken gastrointestinal microbiome. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2014;360(2).(2014)1111/1574-6968.12608.: 100.
    10.1111/1574-6968.12608
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  36. 36.Pan D, Yu ZT. Intestinal microbiome of poultry and its interaction with host and diet. Gut Microbes. 2014;5(1).(2014)4161/gmic.26945.: 108.
    10.4161/gmic.26945
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  37. 37.Hu ZG, Zhi Z, Zhang HY, Zhou J, Cui MM, Zhang JQ, et al. Isolation and identification of duck intestinal probiotics and their effects on the production and immune performance of Pekin ducks. Biomolecules. 2025;15(9).(2025)org/10.3390/biom15091217.: 1217.
    10.3390/biom15091217
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  38. 38.Naeem M, Bourassa D. Probiotics in poultry.(2025)unlocking productivity through microbiome modulation and gut health.Microorganisms.: 257.
    10.3390/microorganisms13020257
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  39. 39.Yang Q, Liu J, Wang XF, Robinson K, Whitmore MA, Stewart SN, et al. Identification of an intestinal microbiota signature associated with the severity of necrotic enteritis. Front Microbiol. 2021;12.(2021)703693. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmicb.: 703693.
    10.3389/fmicb.2021.703693
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  40. 40.Luo QH, Lei XY, Xu J, Jahangir A, He JB, Huang C, et al. An altered gut microbiota in duck-origin parvovirus infection on cherry valley ducklings is associated with mucosal barrier dysfunction. Poult Sci. 2021;100(4).(2021)101021. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.psj.: 101021.
    10.1016/j.psj.2021.101021
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  41. 41.Hogg R, Pearson A.Streptococcus gallolyticussubspeciesgallolyticusinfection in ducklings. Vet Rec. 2009;165(10).(2009)10.297-a.: 297.
    10.1136/vetrec.165.10.297-a
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  42. 42.He ZX, Liu RR, Wang MJ, Wang Q, Zheng JM, Ding JQ, et al. Combined effect of microbially derived cecal SCFA and host genetics on feed efficiency in broiler chickens. Microbiome. 2023;11.(2023)org/10.1186/s40168-023-01627-6.: 198.
    10.1186/s40168-023-01627-6
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  43. 43.Liao XD, Shao YX, Sun GM, Yang YF, Zhang LY, Guo YL, et al. The relationship among gut microbiota, short-chain fatty acids, and intestinal morphology of growing and healthy broilers. Poult Sci. 2020;99(11).(2020)5883–95. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.psj.: 5883.
    10.1016/j.psj.2020.08.033
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  44. 44.Campos PM, Miska KB, Jenkins MC, Yan X, Proszkowiec-Weglarz M. Effects ofEimeria acervulinainfection on the luminal and mucosal microbiota of the duodenum and jejunum in broiler chickens. Front Microbiol. 2023;14.(2023)1147579. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmicb.: 1147579.
    10.3389/fmicb.2023.1147579
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  45. 45.Van Hul M, Le Roy T, Prifti E, Dao MC, Paquot A, Zucker J, et al. From correlation to causality.(2020)the case ofSubdoligranulum.Gut Microbes.: 1849998.
    10.1080/19490976.2020.1849998
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  46. 46.Wang Y, Wang H, Howard AG, Tsilimigras MC, Avery CL, Meyer KA, et al. Associations of sodium and potassium consumption with the gut microbiota and host metabolites in a population-based study in Chinese adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;112(6).(2020)org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa263.: 1599.
    10.1093/ajcn/nqaa263
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  47. 47.Zhang Q, Yu H, Xiao X, Hu L, Xin F, Yu X. Inulin-type fructan improves diabetic phenotype and gut microbiota profiles in rats. PeerJ. 2018;6.(2018)7717/peerj.4446.
    10.7717/peerj.4446
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  48. 48.Ge CY, Luo XY, Wu LC, Lv YJ, Hu ZY, Yu DY, et al. Plant essential oils improve growth performance by increasing antioxidative capacity, enhancing intestinal barrier function, and modulating gut microbiota in Muscovy ducks. Poult Sci. 2023;102(8).(2023)102813. https://doi. org/10. 1016/j.psj.: 102813.
    10.1016/j.psj.2023.102813
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  49. 49.He J, He YX, Pan DD, Cao JX, Sun YY, Zeng XQ. Associations of gut microbiota with heat stress-induced changes of growth, fat deposition, intestinal morphology, and antioxidant capacity in ducks. Front Microbiol. 2019;10.(2019)903. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmicb.: 903.
    10.3389/fmicb.2019.00903
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  50. 50.Martin-Gallausiaux C, Marinelli L, Blottière HM, Larraufie P, Lapaque N. SCFA.(2021)mechanisms and functional importance in the gut.Proc Nutr Soc.: 37.
    10.1017/S0029665120006916
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar
  51. 51.Semenova N, Garashchenko N, Kolesnikov S, Darenskaya M, Kolesnikova L. Gut microbiome interactions with oxidative stress.(2024)mechanisms and consequences for health.Pathophysiology.: 309.
    10.3390/pathophysiology31030023
    Article|CAS|PubMed|Google Scholar

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFD1301800), grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 32502899), China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA (CARS-42-10), the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program of CAAS (CAAS-ASTIP-2023-IFR-13).

Ethics Declaration

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All animal procedures of this experiment were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Institute of Feed Research, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (approval number: IFR-CAAS20220922).

Consent for publication

No applicable.

Competing interests

All authors listed have read and approved this manuscript of the paper, and there is no conflict of interest in the submission of this manuscript.

Rights and Permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Reprints and permissions