Comparing the Influences of Selenium Nanospheres, Sodium Selenite, and Biological Selenium on the Growth Performance, Blood Biochemistry, and Antioxidative Capacity of Growing Turkey Pullets

Abstract

Supplementation of selenium in poultry feed is required in an optimum dose and form for optimizing the growth performance and health status. Selenium nanospheres are suggested as an efficient and alternative to the conventional organic or inorganic forms. The study evaluated
the effects of selenium (Se) nanospheres (SeNPs) as an alternative to organic Se (Sel-Plex®) or inorganic Se (sodium selenite, Se(IV Se(IV)) on the growth performance, carcass traits, blood biochemistry, and antioxidative capacity in turkey pullets. A total of 160 on-day-old Bronze turkey poults chicks were divided into four groups with 40 pullets each. The birds were fed on four types of diets as fellow: control (basal diet, 0.01 Se mg/kg), SeNPs (0.43 Se mg/kg),
organic Se Sel-Plex® (0.41 Se mg/kg), and inorganic Se(IV) (0.42 Se mg/kg) for 8 weeks. No
changes were seen in the body weight gain in growing turkey pullet but, chicks fed Sel-Plex® form recorded the lowest feed intake (p < 0.05) compared to other treatments. Dietary SeNPs and Se(IV) selenium sources improved the feed conversion ratio compared to other treatments. All Se forms fed on turkey pullets showed higher carcass percentage weight and liver Se content than the control group. However, the gizzard percentage weight in the SeNPs group
was lower than in the other treatments (p < 0.05). Birds fed SeNPs, and Selplex® forms supplemental diets had a lower cholesterol concentration (p < 0.05) than the control and Se(IV). While high-density lipoprotein (HDL) concentration was increased in SeNPs and Se(IV) groups and total protein concentration was higher in Se(IV) group. Furthermore, dietary SeNPs reduced (p < 0.05) the low-density lipoprotein (LDL), total lipids, triglycerides, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), creatine, uric acid, urea, malondialdehyde plasma concentrations while increased the glutathione peroxidase activity (GPx) and total antioxidative capacity (TAC). In conclusion, the results confirmed that feeding turkey pullets on SeNPs form with the 0.4 Se mg/kg of feed enhanced feed efficiency, growth performance, carcass traits, plasma lipids concentration, and antioxidative capacity.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Biological Trace Element Research
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-021-02894-w
Comparing theInfluences ofSelenium Nanospheres, Sodium
Selenite, andBiological Selenium ontheGrowth Performance, Blood
Biochemistry, andAntioxidative Capacity ofGrowing Turkey Pullets
SamyaE.Ibrahim1· MohammedH.Alzawqari2,3· YahyaZ.Eid2· MohsenZommara4· AzizaM.Hassan5·
MahmoudA.O.Dawood6
Received: 21 June 2021 / Accepted: 17 August 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021
Abstract
Supplementation of selenium in poultry feed is required in an optimum dose and form for optimizing the growth performance
and health status. Selenium nanospheres are suggested as an efficient and alternative to the conventional organic or inorganic
forms. The study evaluated the effects of selenium (Se) nanospheres (SeNPs) as an alternative to organic Se (Sel-Plex®) or
inorganic Se (sodium selenite, Se(IV Se(IV)) on the growth performance, carcass traits, blood biochemistry, and antioxida-
tive capacity in turkey pullets. A total of 160 1-day-old Bronze turkey poults chicks were divided into four groups with 40
pullets each. The birds were fed on four types of diets as fellow: control (basal diet, 0.01 Se mg/kg), SeNPs (0.43 Se mg/
kg), organic Se Sel-Plex® (0.41 Se mg/kg), and inorganic Se(IV) (0.42 Se mg/kg) for 8weeks. No changes were seen in the
body weight gain in growing turkey pullet, but chicks fed with Sel-Plex® form recorded the lowest feed intake (p < 0.05)
compared to other treatments. Dietary SeNPs and Se(IV) selenium sources improved the feed conversion ratio compared to
other treatments. All Se forms fed on turkey pullets showed higher carcass percentage weight and liver Se content than the
control group. However, the gizzard percentage weight in the SeNPs group was lower than in the other treatments (p < 0.05).
Birds fed SeNPs, and Sel-Plex® forms supplemental diets had a lower cholesterol concentration (p < 0.05) than the control
and Se(IV). While high-density lipoprotein (HDL) concentration was increased in SeNPs and Se(IV) groups, and total protein
concentration was higher in the Se(IV) group. Furthermore, dietary SeNPs reduced (p < 0.05) the low-density lipoprotein
(LDL), total lipids, triglycerides, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), creatine, uric acid, urea,
and malondialdehyde plasma concentrations and increased the glutathione peroxidase activity (GPx) and total antioxidative
capacity (TAC). In conclusion, the results confirmed that feeding turkey pullets on SeNPs form with the 0.4 Se mg/kg of
feed enhanced feed efficiency, growth performance, carcass traits, plasma lipids concentration, and antioxidative capacity.
Keywords Biological Se· Performance· Carcass traits· Blood parameters· Turkey pullets
* Yahya Z. Eid
yahya.eid@agr.kfs.edu.eg
* Mahmoud A. O. Dawood
mahmoud.dawood@agr.kfs.edu.eg
1 Animal Production Research Institute, Agriculture Research
Center, Giza, Egypt
2 Department ofPoultry Production, Faculty ofAgriculture,
Kafrelsheikh University, Kafrelsheikh33516, Egypt
3 Department ofAnimal Production, Faculty ofAgriculture
andFood Sciences, Ibb University, 70270Ibb, Yemen
4 Department ofDairy Science, Faculty ofAgriculture,
Kafrelsheikh University, Kafrelsheikh33516, Egypt
5 Department ofBiotechnology, College ofScience, Taif
University, P.O. Box11099, Taif21944, SaudiArabia
6 Department ofAnimal Production, Faculty ofAgriculture,
Kafrelsheikh University, Kafrelsheikh33512, Egypt

S.E.Ibrahim et al.
1 3
Introduction
Selenium is an essential micronutrient required for the
optimal performance of poultry [1]. It regulates various
physiological functions such as growth performance, sur-
vivability, meat quality, and antioxidant protection level
[2]. There are approximately twenty-five selenoproteins
involved in multiple biological and physiological pro-
cesses in the body, requiring sufficient amounts of sele-
nium [3]. Because of selenium’s (Se) importance in the
structure of glutathione peroxidase (GPx), it plays a sig-
nificant role in protecting cells and cell membranes from
oxidation [4]. Most importantly, selenium participates in
selenocysteine formation, the active center of GPx [5–7].
GPx can catalyze the reduction of hydrogen peroxide and
lipid peroxides to less harmful hydroxides [8]. The Se effi-
ciency in some enzymes, both invivo and invitro, depends
on its chemical form [9]. The retained Se is involved in
protein syntheses in the entire body tissues (skeletal mus-
cles, kidney, pancreas, liver, stomach, erythrocytes, and
gastrointestinal epithelium) [10]. The availability and
functionality of Se for tissue absorption are dependent on
its form and concentration in the basal ration [11–13].
Selenium (Se) has two chemical forms: organic (L-sele-
nomethionine) and inorganic forms (selenite and selenate),
which can be added to poultry ration. However, the organic
form compared with inorganic can supply more Se for
absorption, which is easier to transfer into the body [14].
It is well understood that in poultry feed, the Se amount
varies widely according to the plant ingredients composi-
tion in the diet and the Se properties of the soils in which
the plants were cultivated [12]. The selenite of soils can
affect the synthesis of organic selenomethionine, thereby
forming selenoamino acids [15]. Selenomethionine is also
the major selenocompound in Se-enriched yeast used as
functional feed additives in commercial poultry diets as a
source of Se (e.g., Sel-Plex®, Alltech Inc., Nicholasville,
KY) [16].
Bio-nanotechnology-produced materials are charac-
terized by their small sizes and active surface, making
them novel medical and nutritional materials [17]. Con-
ventionally, nanomaterials were produced through chemi-
cal and physical methods. However, both techniques have
side effects associated with using expensive techniques
equipped with high pressure and temperature or using a
toxic chemical known for its negative impact on the eco-
system [18]. Therefore, the synthesis of nanoparticles
through biological procedures is recommended by apply-
ing beneficial microorganisms [19, 20]. Biologically pro-
duced nanoparticles are safe, clean, non-toxic, functional,
and environmentally friendly materials [21]. Lactic acid
bacteria (LAB) are widely applied in the production of
fermented food with a high ability to biotransform organic
Se to high efficient Se nanoparticles (SeNPs) used in feed-
ing livestock, birds, and fish [22, 23]. Lactobacillus aci-
dophilus bacteria are commonly used to synthesize SeNPs
using a wet sterilization process, resulting in high bioavail-
able SeNPs with low toxicity [18].
Supplementation of Se in poultry feed is required in an
optimum dose for improving the antioxidant and immune
responses [24, 25]. Markedly, the inclusion of SeNPs in the
poultry diet resulted in the enhancement of reproduction,
feed efficiency, growth performance, and immune response
[26, 27]. Besides, supplementation of SeNPs had a meaning-
ful effect on the carcass properties without showing adverse
effects on internal organs in broilers [28]. The inclusion of
Se in an optimal dose is necessary to ensure the require-
ments of birds and the safe accumulation of this element
in the birds’ bodies to provide humans with sufficient Se
required for diverse physiological functions [29, 30].
Therefore, the current bioassay has been conducted to
evaluate the effect of SeNPs product as an alternative to the
commercial organic selenium or inorganic Se (sodium sel-
enite) as a source of Se supplementation on growth perfor-
mance carcass traits, blood biochemistry, and antioxidative
capacity of growing turkey pullets.
Materials andMethods
Production ofSelenium Nanospheres
Pure yogurt cultures were obtained from the National Col-
lection of Agricultural and Industrial Microorganisms,
Budapest, Hungary. Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bul-
garicus (NCAIM B 02206) and Streptococcus thermophilus
(CNCM I-1670) were mixed (1:1, w/w) by following the
procedure detailed by Prokisch and Széles [31]. Selenium
nanosphere determination was carried out according to the
method previously described by Zommara and Prokisch [32]
(Supplementary file).
Birds, Experimental Design, andHusbandry
This study was performed at the Animal Production
Research Institute (APRI), Agriculture Research Center,
Ministry of Agriculture, Mehalet Mousa Turkeys Research
Station, Kafrelsheikh, Egypt. The Animal Ethics Committee
of APRI approved all procedures used in this experiment.
A total of 160 1-day-old mixed-sex Bronze turkey poults
chicks were grown over 8 weeks. The birds were divided
randomly into four equal groups: forty turkey birds for each
one (four replicates with ten birds). Birds were fed on com-
mercial basal diets (28% protein) supplemented with Se
(0.4 Se mg/kg). The control group fed the basal diet (no

Comparing theInfluences ofSelenium Nanospheres, Sodium Selenite, andBiological Selenium…
1 3
supplemental Se (0.01 mg Se/kg by analysis)), the second
group fed inorganic Se(IV) (sodium selenite), the third group
fed organic Se (Sel-Plex®, dairy product prepared by Pedio-
coccus acidilactici), and the fourth group fed biologically
produced SeNPs (mentioned earlier). The selected dose of
Se was decided based on the suggestion of Taylor and Sunde
[29, 30]. The birds were raised on the previously mentioned
diet for 8 weeks. All diets shown in Table1 were formu-
lated to provide the recommended requirements for broilers
according to NRC [33]. The actual content of Se in the pre-
pared diets was confirmed by following AOAC [34] method
using atomic absorption spectrophotometer-graphite furnace
(GBC-Avanta E, Victoria, Australia). The average content of
Se in control, Se(IV), Sel-Plex®, and SeNPs supplemented
diets (brooding and growing) was 0.01, 0.42, 0.41, and 0.43
mg Se/kg, respectively. The birds were reared in an environ-
mentally controlled room and had free access to feed and
water. All birds had the same environmental management
(temperature, moisture, ventilation, and light).
Bird Growth Performance
Feed intake (FI) and body weight gain (BWG) were recorded
and a weekly calculation of the feed conversion ratio (FCR).
The FCR was calculated by dividing the FI relative to BWG.
Throughout the experimental phase, the health status and
mortalities were measured daily regularly.
Carcass Organ Traits
At the end of the experiment, five birds from each treat-
ment were randomly chosen and slaughtered. Eviscerated
weight, organs weight (gizzard, liver, and heart), and carcass
were weighted as carcass traits. Selenium content in the liver
tissue was detected by following the AOAC [34] method
using atomic absorption spectrophotometer-graphite furnace
(GBC-Avanta E, Victoria, Australia).
Blood Parameters Analysis
At slaughtering time, the blood samples (5 ml) were col-
lected and centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 20 min. The plasma
produced was frozen at −20°C until the time of chemical
analysis. Cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol
(HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), triglyceride, ala-
nine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase
(AST), albumin, total protein, urea, uric acid, glutathione
peroxidase (GPx), and total antioxidant capacity (TAC)
were determined. Total cholesterol, HDL, LDL, triglyceride,
total protein, urea, creatinine, and uric acid were determined
enzymatically using kits from Spectrum, MDSS GmbH,
Schiffgarben 41, 30175 Hannover, Germany, and obtained
from Egyptian Company for Biotechnology (S.A.E), Obour
City industrial area, Cairo, Egypt, as described by Høstmark
and Lystad [35]. Albumin was determined enzymatically
using Medical Device Safety Services (MDSS GmbH) kits,
Burckhardtstr.1, 30163 Hannover, Germany, manufactured
in Egypt by Vitro Scient Heliopolis, Cairo. Malondialdehyde
(MDA) in plasma was determined enzymatically using kits
from Biodiagonstic, Dokki, Giza, Egypt.
Statistical Analysis
One-way ANOVA analyzed the collected data in a com-
pletely randomized designed using IBM SPSS Statistics
version 26 (IBM Corp. Released 2019. IBM SPSS Statis-
tics for Windows, Version 26 Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).
The significance of means’ differences was tested using the
Tukey test, and all differences were considered significant
at p < 0.05.
Table 1 Ingredients and calculation of the brooding and growing tur-
key basal diet
1 Premix content; each kilogram of premix contains the vitamin pre-
mix and trace minerals. The vitamin premix contributed the follow-
ing: vitamin A, 12.000.000IU; vitamin D3, 2.200.000IU; vitamin E,
10,000mg; vitamin K, 2000 mg; vitamin B1, 1000 mg; vitamin B2,
4000mg; vitamin B12, 10mg; vitamin B6, 1000mg; niacin, 2000mg;
pantothenic acid, 10,000mg; folic acid, 1000mg; and biotin, 50mg.
The trace mineral premix contributed the following: copper sulfate,
1000 mg; potassium iodide, 1000 mg; manganese oxide, 5500 mg;
zinc oxide, 50,000mg; and selenium 100mg; 2values were calculated
according to the nutrient composition of the NRC[28]
Item Brooding Growing
1–2weeks 2–8weeks
Ingredient, %
Yellow corn 50.00 69.00
Soybean meal, 44% CP 39.00 20.00
Fish meal, 64% CP 10.00 10.00
Dicalcium phosphate - 0.30
Ground limestone 0.40 0.10
DL-methionine - 0.30
L-lysine 0.10 0.10
 Premix10.25 0.10
NaCl 0.25 0.25
Total 100 100
Calculated nutrient levels2
AME, Kcal/Kg 2830 3000
Crude protein, % 27.50 20.87
Extract either, % 3.15 3.72
Crude fiber, % 3.90 2.90
Calcium, % 0.79 0.72
Available phosphorus, % 0.43 0.42
Lysine, % 1.80 1.38
Methionine, % 0.78 0.80
Methionine + Cysteine, % 0.90 0.82

S.E.Ibrahim et al.
1 3
Results
Growth Performance
Table2 shows the effect of different biological produced
selenium forms on growth performance, including BWG,
FI, and FCR. It is clear that BW and BWG in growing turkey
pullets fed on different forms of selenium were not increased
(p > 0.05). By contrast, chicks fed with a diet supplemented
with Sel-Plex® selenium form recorded the lowest FI (p <
0.05) compared to other treatments. The value of FCR is
reduced by dietary supplementation of SeNPs and Se(IV)
selenium source compared to other treatments.
Carcass Traits andLiver Selenium Content
Table3 illustrated the findings related to differences in
biological produced selenium forms treatments on certain
carcass traits, including the percentages of bird’s carcass,
gizzard, liver, and heart of growing turkey pullets. The
carcass weight showed a higher percentage in all selenium
forms than in the control group (p < 0.05). However, the giz-
zard percentage weight in the SeNPs group was lower than
in the other treatments (p < 0.05). On the other hand, no dif-
ferences were found among treatments in the percentages of
liver and heart relative organs weight. Selenium content was
higher (p < 0.05) in the livers of birds fed SeNPs, Sel-Plex®,
and Se(IV) than the control (Se free) (Table4).
Blood Parameters
The effect of selenium sources on blood parameters includ-
ing cholesterol, HDL, LDL, total lipids, TG, ALT, AST,
albumin, total protein, creatinine, uric acid, urea, MDA, and
TAC concentration in growing turkey pullets are presented
in Table5. Birds fed with SeNPs, and Sel-Plex® selenium
forms had a lower cholesterol concentration (p < 0.05) than
those fed with other selenium forms and the control group.
Table 2 The effect of different selenium forms on the performance of growing turkey pullets
a,
b,cMeans with superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). Values are expressed as means ± standard error. The groups were named
selenium (Se) nanospheres (SeNPs), organic Se (Sel-Plex®), or inorganic Se (sodium selenite, Se(IV Se(IV)). FCR, feed conversion ratio
Item Experimental diets p value
Control SeNPs Selplex Se(IV)
Initial body weight, g 56.79 ± 1.45 57.16 ± 1.25 56.87 ± 1.17 56.97 ± 1.17 0.8200
Final body weight, g 4182.35 ± 274.54 4236.90 ± 202.23 4037.50 ± 261.09 4179.75 ± 290.74 0.1530
Body weight gain, g 4125.56 ± 274.63 4179.75 ± 225.61 3980.63 ± 261.47 4122.77 ± 291.10 0.1550
Feed intake, g/6weeks 14,288.00 ± 16.92a13,752.00 ± 16.92b13,483.00 ± 16.92c13,736.00 ± 16.92b0.0001
FCR, g/g 3.48 ± 0.22a3.22 ± 0.18b3.46 ± 0.24a3.28 ± 0.23b0.0010
Table 3 The effect of different
selenium forms on carcass traits
of growing turkey pullets
a,b,c Means with superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). Values are expressed as
means ± standard error. The groups were named selenium (Se) nanospheres (SeNPs), organic Se (Sel-
Plex®), or inorganic Se (sodium selenite, Se(IV Se(IV)). BW, body weight
Item Experimental diets p value
Control SeNPs Selplex Se(IV)
Carcass weight, g/100g BW 65.16 ± 0.29b67.57 ± 0.32a67.26 ± 0.38a67.74 ± 0.14a0.0001
Gizzard weight, g/100g BW 2.59 ± 0.03ab 2.20 ± 0.03c2.64 ± 0.03a2.51 ± 0.05b0.0001
Liver weight, g/100g BW 1.53 ± 0.03 1.50 ± 0.01 1.52 ± 0.05 1.53 ± 0.02 0.8790
Heart weight, g/100g BW 0.36 ± 0.02 0.31 ± 0.02 0.36 ± 0.01 0.36 ± 0.01 0.1530
Table 4 The levels of different
selenium forms in the prepared
diets and liver tissue of growing
turkey pullets
a,
b,cMeans with superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). Values are expressed as
means ± standard error. The groups were named as selenium (Se) nanospheres (SeNPs), organic Se (Sel-
Plex®), or inorganic Se (sodium selenite, Se(IV Se(IV))
Item Experimental diets p value
Control SeNPs Selplex Se(IV)
Liver tissue 0.21 ± 0.001a0.63 ± 0.02b0.61 ± 0.03b0.64 ± 0.01b0.0041

Comparing theInfluences ofSelenium Nanospheres, Sodium Selenite, andBiological Selenium…
1 3
While HDL concentration was increased in SeNPs and
Se(IV) dietary groups, and total protein concentration was
higher in the Se(IV) group than the other groups. Further-
more, dietary SeNPs, Sel-Plex®, and Se(IV) reduced (p <
0.05) LDL, total lipids, triglycerides, ALT, AST, creatine,
uric acid, urea, and MDA plasma concentrations (Fig.1C)
and increased GPx activity (Fig.1B) and TAC concentration
(Fig.1B). Interestingly, birds fed with dietary SeNPs showed
the highest GPx and TAC and the lowest MDA compared to
the other selenium forms.
Discussion
Growth Performance
There have been several studies on the effects of selenium
(Se) type on growth efficiency in poultry, while there have
been enormous variations between these studies due to dis-
crepancies in the study design duration, sample sizes, growth
step, rearing environments, or conditions for feed process-
ing. Our results are in accordance with previous studies that
report no meaningful influence of Se on final BW and BWG
in organic or mineral forms [36, 37]. The FCR was increased
when organic Se was supplemented to birds relative to con-
trol [38, 39]. Another research by Naylor and Choct [40]
indicated improved FCR in broilers fed with organic Se (at
0.25 ppm), resulting from lower feed intakes while retaining
the same increase in live WG. Zhou and Wang [41] observed
similar findings, reporting that supplementing nano-Se type
in chicken diets with 0.30 mg/kg has a successful effect in
increasing chicken growth efficiency and FCR. The increase
in FCR could be attributed to better feathering of chickens
fed with organic Se-supplemented diets [42–44]. The dis-
crepancies in the researcher’s results in the growth perfor-
mance were probably due to the form of Se in the feedstuffs
reported.
Carcass Traits andLiver Selenium Content
Our observations on carcass characteristics are consist-
ent with the analysis that increases in carcass weight in
chicken fed in the form of organic selenium [12]. They
recorded that the organic form of Se caused the average
carcass weight to appear to increase. Although eviscerated
weight and Maryland weight were improved by includ-
ing organic selenium in the male broiler diet, there were
interactions between Se level and source. Increasing the
organic Se dose improved breast yield and weight, while
the organic form had the opposite effect. The increase in
carcass weight will depend on the activity of glutathione
peroxidase and hemoglobin levels in the blood, and the
deposition rate is increased, and the bioavailability of
the SeNPs may be increased. By comparison, Deniz and
Gezen [39] found that carcass yield was unaffected by sup-
plementing organic Se in broiler diets. The use of the Se
selenite or Se yeast in the diet did not affect the carcass
yield or the properties of the turkey muscles [36]. Mark-
edly, higher Se content was observed in the livers of birds
fed with dietary SeNPs, Sel-Plex®, and Se(IV) than the
control (Se free). Similarly, Zhou and Wang [41] reported
that birds fed with dietary SeNPs showed high Se content
in the liver. Petrovič and Boldižárová [45] and Pan and
Table 5 The effect of different
selenium forms on plasma
parameters of growing turkey
pullets
a,b,c Means with superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). Values are expressed as
means ± standard error. The groups were named selenium (Se) nanospheres (SeNPs), organic Se (Sel-
Plex®), or inorganic Se (sodium selenite, Se(IV Se(IV)). HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density
lipoprotein; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase
Item Experimental diets p value
Control SeNPs Selplex Se(IV)
Cholesterol, mg/dl 154.73 ± 0.65a126.42 ± 5.65b127.24 ± 1.70b150.21 ± 0.56a0.0001
HDL, mg/dl 46.47 ± 1.41b56.30 ± 4.21a49.62 ± 1.93ab 54.13 ± 0.82a0.0350
LDL, mg/dl 269.37 ± 1.09a222.27 ± 2.20c250.67 ± 7.17b247.20 ± 1.96b0.0001
Total lipids, mg/dl 821.61 ± 13.30a709.65 ± 21.26b735.62 ± 7.67b742.05 ± 11.04b0.0001
Triglyceride, mg/dl 143.51 ± 2.22a124.80 ± 3.60b122.57 ± 2.51b128.26 ± 2.61b0.0001
ALT, U/I 50.41 ± 1.17a43.31 ± 0.48b42.72 ± 0.73b44.45 ± 0.43b0.0001
AST, U/I 38.41 ± 0.69a33.86 ± 0.27b33.75 ± 0.24b34.89 ± 0.36b0.0001
Albumen, mg/dl 1.86 ± 0.13a1.71 ± 0.07a1.86 ± 0.07a1.43 ± 0.13b0.0020
Total protein, mg/dl 4.52 ± 0.07ab 4.08 ± 0.2b4.05 ± 0.06b4.74 ± 0.34a0.0250
Ceratine, mg/dl 0.65 ± 0.04a0.48 ± 0.01b0.53 ± 0.03b0.56 ± .02b0.0010
Uric acid, mg/dl 5.21 ± 0.14a4.73 ± 0.06b4.84 ± 0.12b4.57 ± 0.09b0.0020
Urea, mg/dl 15.67 ± 0.12a15.01 ± 0.35ab 14.24 ± 0.22b14.28 ± 0.406b0.0040

S.E.Ibrahim et al.
1 3
Huang [46] also reported high Se content in birds’ livers
fed with Se-yeast form. Further, birds treated with Se(IV)
showed increased liver Se content [5]. The increased
accumulation of Se particles in the liver tissue is prob-
ably related to the active absorption of pathways associ-
ated with the lack of Se in the entire body cells. Optimum
Se supplementation can quickly saturate selenoenzymes,
thereby increasing the tissue content of Se.
Blood Parameters andLipid Peroxidation
Dietary supplementation of the biological Se form reduced
some blood parameters, including cholesterol and creati-
nine. Organic and inorganic Se levels and their relationship
reduced plasma cholesterol concentration [47]. Besides,
Yang and Meng [48] and Invernizzi and Agazzi [49] showed
similar effects of selenium on the total cholesterol and tri-
glycerides concentrations. Also, SeNPs showed synergistic
effects in combination with a probiotic (based on Aspergil-
lus spp.) that increased the level of serum alpha-tocopherol,
growth, and muscle fatty acid profile [50]. Besides, Se sup-
plementation improved the overall antioxidant potential of
birds (GPx and TAC), whereas the SeNPs group was more
effective than the remaining groups. There was lower malon-
dialdehyde (MDA) concentration in birds treated with Se
[51]. Similarly, SeNPs prevented cell damage and controlled
altered levels of antioxidant enzymes (catalase, superoxide
dismutase, and GPx) during chromium toxicity [52]. How-
ever, Li and Wang [53] confirmed that the Se sources had
no effect on MDA concentration. Further, dietary Se-yeast,
SeNPs, and Se(IV) improved GPx in birds as indicated
by Han and Qin [5] and Zhou and Wang [41]. Jing and
Dong [54] illuminated that hens fed with dietary organic
Se showed improved GPx. GPx is a Se-dependent enzyme
that inhibits the production of free radicals by catalyzing
the reduction of hydrogen peroxide and organic peroxides
to water and the equivalent stable alcohol [55]. Thus, Se is
reported as a natural antioxidative agent that can regulate the
antioxidative capacity of birds to overcome the abiotic and
biotic stressors-induced oxidative stress. Yang and Meng
[48] tested sodium selenite and showed no changes in total
protein and albumin. Zhang and Yuan [56] found that there
were effects on the serum urea nitrogen by supplementing
sodium selenite to Simmental steers. Our research found
that blood albumin, total protein, and urea nitrogen were
not affected by supplementary Se, which agrees with these
findings. The group that supplemented with organic Se gave
higher total protein than the other groups [1]. Ramezani
and Riasi [57] reported that due to Se supplementation, an
increased total blood protein was observed. On the other
hand, Yang and Meng [48] found that Se does not affect the
total protein, globulin, and glucose concentration. Inorganic
or organic Se supplementation increased serum concentra-
tions of glutathione peroxidase but did not affect total blood
protein and albumin compared with the control group [49].
Conclusions
In conclusion, there is a possibility to use SeNPs as a source of
selenium supplementation in poultry diets to replace Sel-Plex®
and Se selenite forms. The results obtained from the current
(A)
(B)
(C)
c
a
bb
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Control SeNPs Selplex Se(IV)
Glutathione peroxidase
(mmol/L)
c
aab b
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Control SeNPs Selplex Se(IV)
Total antioxidant capacity
(nM/L)
a
c
bb
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Control SeNPs Selplex Se(IV)
Malondialdehyde (mg/dl)
Fig. 1 The effect of different selenium forms on plasma A glu-
tathione peroxidase, B total antioxidative capacity, and C malon-
dialdehyde level of growing turkey pullets. a,b,cBars with superscript
letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). The groups were named
selenium (Se) nanospheres (SeNPs), organic Se (Sel-Plex®), or inor-
ganic Se (sodium selenite, Se(IV Se(IV)). Values are expressed as
means ± standard error

Comparing theInfluences ofSelenium Nanospheres, Sodium Selenite, andBiological Selenium…
1 3
experiment confirmed that feeding growing turkey pullets
SNP at 0.4 Se mg/kg of feed would maintain FI, FCR growth
performance, carcass traits, plasma lipids concentration, and
antioxidative capacity (TAC and GPx).
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12011- 021- 02894-w .
Acknowledgements This work was financially supported by the project
“Biological production of nano selenium spheres and its application in
livestock production” by the National Strategy for Genetic Engineering
and Biotechnology, Academy of Scientific Research and Technology,
Egypt. The work was funded by Taif University Researchers Support-
ing Project number (TURSP-2020/76), Taif University, Taif, Saudi
Arabia.
Author Contribution Conceptualization: Samya E. Ibrahim, Moham-
med H. Alzawqari, Yahya Z. Eid, and Mohsen Zommara. Data cura-
tion: Samya E. Ibrahim, Mohammed H. Alzawqari, and Yahya Z. Eid.
Formal analysis: Samya E. Ibrahim and Mohammed H. Alzawqari.
Funding acquisition: Samya E. Ibrahim, Mohammed H. Alzawqari,
Yahya Z. Eid, Mohsen Zommara, Aziza M. Hassan, and Mahmoud
A.O. Dawood. Methodology: Samya E. Ibrahim, Mohammed H.
Alzawqari, Yahya Z. Eid, Mohsen Zommara, Aziza M. Hassan, and
Mahmoud A.O. Dawood. Resources: Samya E. Ibrahim, Mohammed
H. Alzawqari, Yahya Z. Eid, Mohsen Zommara, Aziza M. Hassan, and
Mahmoud A.O. Dawood. Supervision: Yahya Z. Eid, Mohsen Zom-
mara, and Mahmoud A.O. Dawood. Writing—original draft: Yahya Z.
Eid, Mohsen Zommara, and Mahmoud A.O. Dawood. Writing—review
and editing: Aziza M. Hassan and Mahmoud A.O. Dawood. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding This work was financially supported by the project “Biologi-
cal production of nano selenium spheres and its application in livestock
production” by the National Strategy for Genetic Engineering and Bio-
technology, Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt.
The work was funded by Taif University Researchers Supporting Pro-
ject number (TURSP-2020/76), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.
Availability of Data and Materials The datasets generated during and/or
analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding
author on reasonable request.
Code Availability Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate The experimental proce-
dure was approved by the ethics review board of the Institutional Ani-
mal Care and Use Committee in Kafrelsheikh University (Kafrelsheikh,
Egypt).
Consent for Publication Not applicable.
Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
1. Elnaggar AS etal (2020) Impact of selenium sources on produc-
tive and physiological performance of broilers. Egypt Poult Sci J
40(3):577–597
2. Abdelnour SA etal (2021) Nanominerals: fabrication methods,
benefits and hazards, and their applications in ruminants with spe-
cial reference to selenium and zinc nanoparticles. Animals 11(7)
3. Wang Y (2009) Differential effects of sodium selenite and
Nano-Se on growth performance, tissue Se distribution, and glu-
tathione peroxidase activity of Avian broiler. Biol Trace Elem Res
128(2):184–190
4. Oliveira TFB etal (2014) Effect of different sources and levels of
selenium on performance, meat quality, and tissue characteristics
of broilers. J Appl Poult Res 23(1):15–22
5. Han XJ etal (2017) Effect of sodium selenite and selenium yeast
on performance, egg quality, antioxidant capacity, and selenium
deposition of laying hens. Poult Sci 96(11):3973–3980
6. El-Deep MH etal (2020) In ovo injection of nano-selenium
spheres mitigates the hatchability, histopathology image and
immune response of hatched chicks. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr
104(5):1392–1400
7. Abd El-Kader MF etal (2021) Selenium nanoparticles act poten-
tially on the growth performance, hemato-biochemical indices,
antioxidative, and immune-related genes of European seabass
(Dicentrarchus labrax). Biol Trace Elem Res 199(8):3126–3134
8. Ursini F, Maiorino M (2013) Glutathione peroxidases. In: Lennarz
WJ, Lane MD (eds) encyclopedia of biological chemistry (Second
Edition). Academic Press, Waltham, pp 399–404
9. Pouri S etal (2018) Biological synthesis of selenium nanoparticles
and evaluation of their bioavailability. Braz Arch Biol Technol 60
10. Schrauzer GN (2001) Nutritional selenium supplements: product
types, quality, and safety. J Am Coll Nutr 20(1):1–4
11. Payne RL, Southern LL (2005) Comparison of inorganic and
organic selenium sources for broilers12. Poult Sci 84(6):898–902
12 Choct M, Naylor AJ, Reinke N (2004) Selenium supplementation
affects broiler growth performance, meat yield and feather cover-
age. Br Poult Sci 45(5):677–683
13. Skrivan M etal (2006) Effect of dietary sodium selenite, Se-
enriched yeast and Se-enriched Chlorella on egg Se concentra-
tion, physical parameters of eggs and laying hen production. Czeh
J Anim Sci 51(4):163
14. Surai PF (2002) Natural antioxidants in avian nutrition and repro-
duction. Nottingham University Press Nottingham
15. Whanger PD (2002) Selenocompounds in plants and animals and
their biological significance. J Am Coll Nutr 21(3):223–232
16. Połatajko A etal (2005) Investigation of the recovery of selenom-
ethionine from selenized yeast by two-dimensional LC–ICP MS.
Anal Bioanal Chem 381(4):844–849
17. Albrecht MA, Evans CW, Raston CL (2006) Green chemis-
try and the health implications of nanoparticles. Green Chem
8(5):417–432
18. Visha P etal (2015) Biosynthesis and structural characteris-
tics of selenium nanoparticles using Lactobacillus acidophilus
bacteria by wet sterilization process. Int J Adv Vet Sci Technol
4(1):178–183
19. Kaler A etal (2011) Extracellular biosynthesis of silver nanopar-
ticles using aqueous extract of Candida viswanathii. J Bionanosci
5(1):53–58
20. Dhillon GS etal (2012) Green approach for nanoparticle biosyn-
thesis by fungi: current trends and applications. Crit Rev Biotech-
nol 32(1):49–73
21. Zommara MA, Prokisch J (2019) Conversion of inorganic sele-
nium to organic form (s) by Lactobacillus acidophilus. Alex J
Food Sci Technol 16(2):17–24

S.E.Ibrahim et al.
1 3
22. Zommara M, Prokisch J (2015) Selenium rich yoghurt: bio-forti-
fication for better health. Egypt J Dairy Sci 43(2):159–167
23. Pophaly SD etal (2014) Selenium enrichment of lactic acid bacte-
ria and bifidobacteria: a functional food perspective. Trends Food
Sci Technol 39(2):135–145
24. Cai SJ etal (2012) Effects of nano-selenium on performance,
meat quality, immune function, oxidation resistance, and tissue
selenium content in broilers. Poult Sci 91(10):2532–2539
25. Lee SH etal (2014) Effects of in ovo injection with selenium on
immune and antioxidant responses during experimental necrotic
enteritis in broiler chickens1. Poult Sci 93(5):1113–1121
26. Pelyhe C, Mézes M (2013) Myths and facts about the effects
of nano selenium in farm animals–mini-review. Eur Chem Bull
2(12):1049–1052
27. Marković R etal (2018) The effects of dietary Selenium-yeast
level on glutathione peroxidase activity, tissue Selenium content,
growth performance, and carcass and meat quality of broilers.
Poult Sci 97(8):2861–2870
28. Ahmadi M, Ahmadian A, Seidavi AR (2018) Effect of different
levels of nano-selenium on performance, blood parameters, immu-
nity and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. Poult Sci J
6(1):99–108
29. Taylor RM, Sunde RA (2016) Selenoprotein transcript level and
enzyme activity as biomarkers for selenium status and selenium
requirements in the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). PLoS One
11(3):e0151665
30. Taylor RM, Sunde RA (2017) Selenium requirements based on
muscle and kidney selenoprotein enzyme activity and transcript
expression in the turkey poult (Meleagris gallopavo). PLoS One
12(11):e0189001
31. Prokisch J etal (2008) Formation of metal selenium nanospheres
in bacteria: is it a possible detoxification mechanism? Cereal Res
Commun 36:947–950
32. Zommara M etal (2007) Utilization of whey from the manufacture
of Kareish cheese enriched with organic selenium in bread mak-
ing. in The 10th International Conference for Dairy Science and
Technology
33. NRC, National Research Council (1994) Nutrient requirements of
poultry. 9 edn. Nat., Acad. Press, Washington
34. AOAC (2012) Official methods of analysis of AOAC international.
19th edition. AOAC International, Gaithersburg. www. eoma. aoac.
org
35. Høstmark AT etal (1989) Plasma lipids, lipoproteins, and fecal
excretion of neutral sterols and bile acids in rats fed various high
fat diets or a low fat/high sucrose diet. J Nutr 119(3):356–363
36. Mikulski D etal (2009) The effect of selenium source on perfor-
mance, carcass traits, oxidative status of the organism, and meat
quality of turkeys. J Anim Feed Sci 18:518–530
37. Taylor RM, Bourget VG, Sunde RA (2019) High dietary inorganic
selenium has minimal effects on turkeys and selenium status bio-
markers. Poult Sci 98(2):855–865
38. Downs KM, Hess JB, Bilgili SF (2000) Selenium source effect on
broiler carcass characteristics, meat quality and drip loss. J Appl
Anim Res 18(1):61–71
39. Deniz G, Gezen S, Turkmen I (2005) Effects of two supplemental
dietary selenium sources (mineral and organic) on broiler perfor-
mance and drip-loss. Rev Méd Vét 156(8/9):423
40. Naylor A, Choct M, Jacques K (2000) Effects of selenium source
and level on performance and meat quality in male broilers. Poult
Sci 79(Suppl 1):117
41. Zhou X, Wang Y (2011) Influence of dietary nano elemental sele-
nium on growth performance, tissue selenium distribution, meat
quality, and glutathione peroxidase activity in Guangxi Yellow
chicken. Poult Sci 90(3):680–686
42. Edens F, Parkhurst C, Havenstein G (1999) Selenium yeast (Sel-
Plex 50) improves feathering rate of broilers reared in either con-
ventional or cage environments. Poult Sci 78:133
43. Ravindran V, Elliott S (2017) Influence of selenium source on the
performance, feathering and meat quality of broilers. J Appl Anim
Nutr 5
44. Hu CH etal (2012) Comparative effects of nano elemental sele-
nium and sodium selenite on selenium retention in broiler chick-
ens. Anim Feed Sci Technol 177(3):204–210
45. Petrovič V etal (2006) Antioxidant and selenium status of laying
hens fed with diets supplemented with selenite or Se-yeast. J Anim
Feed Sci 15(3):435–444
46. Pan C etal (2007) Effect of selenium source and level in hen’s diet
on tissue selenium deposition and egg selenium concentrations. J
Agric Food Chem 55(3):1027–1032
47. Attia Y etal (2010) Effect of inorganic or organic selenium sup-
plementation on productive performance, egg quality and some
physiological traits of dual-purpose breeding hens. Czeh J Anim
Sci 55(11):505–519
48. Yang Y etal (2012) Effect of organic and inorganic selenium
supplementation on growth performance, meat quality and anti-
oxidant property of broilers. Afr J Biotechnol 11(12):3031–3036
49. Invernizzi G etal (2013) Effects of inclusion of selenium-enriched
yeast in the diet of laying hens on performance, eggshell quality,
and selenium tissue deposition. Ital J Anim Sci 12(1):e1
50. Saleh AA (2014) Effect of dietary mixture of Aspergillus probiotic
and selenium nano-particles on growth, nutrient digestibilities,
selected blood parameters and muscle fatty acid profile in broiler
chickens. Anim Sci Pap Rep 32(1):65–79
51. Wang C etal (2011) Effects of copper-loaded chitosan nan-
oparticles on growth and immunity in broilers. Poult Sci
90(10):2223–2228
52. Hassanin KMA, Abd El-Kawi SH, Hashem KS (2013) The pro-
spective protective effect of selenium nanoparticles against chro-
mium-induced oxidative and cellular damage in rat thyroid. Int J
Nanomed 8:1713–1720
53. Li KX etal (2018) Effects of different selenium sources and levels
on antioxidant status in broiler breeders. Asian Australas J Anim
Sci 31(12):1939–1945
54. Jing CL etal (2015) Comparative study of DL-selenomethionine
vs sodium selenite and seleno-yeast on antioxidant activity and
selenium status in laying hens. Poult Sci 94(5):965–975
55. Behne D, Kyriakopoulos A (2001) Mammalian selenium-contain-
ing proteins. Annu Rev Nutr 21(1):453–473
56. Zhang S etal (2013) Effects of selenium and vitamin E on nutri-
ent apparent digestibility, nitrogen balance, energy metabolism
and blood biochemical indices of beef cattle. Chin J Anim Nutr
25(6):1219–1228
57. Ramezani S etal (2011) Effect of selenium and sodium bicar-
bonate supplementation diets on blood biochemical properties,
growth performance and carcass traits of broilers in heat stress
condition. Vet J 13–22
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.