| Literature DB >> 25452815 |
Yu Qian1, Huayi Suo2, Muying DU2, Xin Zhao1, Jian Li3, Gui-Jie Li1, Jia-Li Song4, Zhenhu Liu5.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of Lactobacillus fermentum Lee (LF-Lee) on activated carbon-induced constipation in ICR mice. ICR mice were orally administered lactic acid bacteria for nine days. Body weight, dietary and water intake, defecation status, gastrointestinal (GI) transit and defecation time, as well as levels of motilin (MTL), gastrin (Gas), endothelin (ET), somatostatin (SS), acetylcholinesterase (AChE), substance P (SP) and vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) in serum were measured to evaluate the preventive effects of LF-Lee on constipation. Bisacodyl, a laxative drug, was administered as a positive control. The time taken until the first defecation of a black stool for normal, control, bisacodyl- (100 mg/kg, oral administration), Lactobacillus bulgaricus (LB)-, LF-Lee low dose (L)- and LF-Lee high dose (H)-treated mice was 90, 218, 117, 180, 161 and 151 min, respectively. Following the consumption of LB, LF-Lee (L) or LF-Lee (H), or the oral administration of bisacodyl, the GI transit was reduced to 55.2, 65.8, 73.1 and 94.6%, respectively, of the transit in normal mice. The serum levels of MTL, Gas, ET, AChE, SP and VIP were significantly increased and those of SS were reduced in the mice treated with LF-Lee compared with those in the untreated control mice (P<0.05). These results demonstrate that lactic acid bacteria have preventive effects on constipation in mice and that LF-Lee has superior functional activity.Entities:
Keywords: Lactobacillus fermentum Lee; activated carbon; bisacodyl; constipation; gastrointestinal transit
Year: 2014 PMID: 25452815 PMCID: PMC4247307 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2014.2064
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
Resistance to biological barriers and the level of hydrophobicity of Lactobacillus fermentum Lee (LF-Lee).
| Strain | Survival in artificial gastric juice of pH 3.0 (%) | Hydrophobic property (%) | Growth in bile salt (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| 0.3% | 0.5% | 1.0% | |||
| LF-Lee | 87.99±5.21 | 68.20±3.72 | 25.31±2.03 | 20.17±1.89 | 15.22±1.14 |
| LB | 27.81±3.41 | 25.56±2.71 | 2.61±0.34 | 1.57±0.37 | 1.31±0.22 |
Values presented are the mean ± standard deviation. LB, Lactobacillus bulgaricus.
Figure 1Body weights of mice during the experiment (n=10 per group). The dose of bisacodyl was 100 mg/kg body weight (bw). LB, Lactobacillus bulgaricus [1.0×109 colony-forming unit (CFU)/kg bw]; LF-Lee (L), Lactobacillus fermentum Lee low dose (0.5×109 CFU/kg bw); LF-Lee (H), Lactobacillus fermentum Lee high dose (1.0×109 CFU/kg bw).
Food intake (g) by the various groups of mice during the experiment.
| LF-Lee (x109 CFU/kg bw) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Treatment | Normal | Control | Bisacodyl | LB | 0.5 | 1.0 |
| Day 1 | 2.69±0.12 | 2.66±0.17 | 2.72±0.14 | 2.74±0.12 | 2.68±0.20 | 2.72±0.12 |
| Day 2 | 2.73±0.13 | 2.71±0.21 | 2.77±0.12 | 2.75±0.16 | 2.70±0.18 | 2.77±0.22 |
| Day 3 | 2.90±0.11 | 2.84±0.20 | 2.86±0.20 | 2.79±0.14 | 2.82±0.13 | 2.90±0.15 |
| Day 4 | 3.04±0.15 | 3.01±0.16 | 3.02±0.15 | 3.00±0.12 | 3.01±0.21 | 3.15±0.10 |
| Day 5 | 3.08±0.18 | 3.06±0.15 | 3.07±0.10 | 3.12±0.11 | 3.13±0.10 | 3.17±0.12 |
| Day 6 | 3.10±0.16 | 3.09±0.14 | 3.12±0.11 | 3.15±0.16 | 3.15±0.10 | 3.18±0.18 |
| Day 7 | 3.14±0.10 | 2.60±0.22 | 2.88±0.22 | 2.63±0.12 | 2.70±0.15 | 2.77±0.12 |
| Day 8 | 3.15±0.13 | 2.19±0.15 | 2.78±0.17 | 2.40±0.15 | 2.53±0.11 | 2.62±0.15 |
| Day 9 | 3.22±0.13 | 2.02±0.09 | 2.70±0.14 | 2.22±0.13 | 2.37±0.12 | 2.42±0.11 |
Values presented are the mean ± standard deviation (n=10 per group). LB, Lactobacillus bulgaricus; LF-Lee, Lactobacillus fermentum Lee; CFU, colony-forming unit; bw, body weight. The dose of bisacodyl was 100 mg/kg bw and the dose of LB was 1.0×109 CFU/kg bw.
Liquid uptake (ml) by the various groups of mice during the experiment.
| LF-Lee (x109 CFU/kg bw) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Treatment | Normal | Control | Bisacodyl | LB | 0.5 | 1.0 |
| Day 1 | 6.24±0.20 | 6.25±0.20 | 6.24±0.20 | 6.24±0.12 | 6.25±0.20 | 6.25±0.10 |
| Day 2 | 6.26±0.21 | 6.28±0.15 | 6.30±0.20 | 6.22±0.16 | 6.25±0.18 | 6.27±0.17 |
| Day 3 | 6.27±0.12 | 6.24±0.16 | 6.30±0.16 | 6.26±0.12 | 6.27±0.15 | 6.29±0.18 |
| Day 4 | 6.25±.020 | 6.25±0.20 | 6.29±0.15 | 6.28±0.16 | 6.30±0.11 | 6.28±0.13 |
| Day 5 | 6.32±0.20 | 6.31±0.15 | 6.32±0.20 | 6.30±0.13 | 6.30±0.22 | 6.30±0.12 |
| Day 6 | 6.34±0.20 | 6.28±0.21 | 6.34±0.18 | 6.32±0.10 | 6.32±0.17 | 6.31±0.16 |
| Day 7 | 6.37±0.21 | 6.14±0.17 | 6.28±0.15 | 6.17±0.13 | 6.22±0.15 | 6.27±0.15 |
| Day 8 | 6.38±0.18 | 5.75±0.18 | 6.25±0.15 | 5.93±0.14 | 6.02±0.15 | 6.10±0.10 |
| Day 9 | 6.40±0.22 | 5.63±0.20 | 6.21±0.17 | 5.75±0.12 | 5.93±0.15 | 6.04±0.11 |
Values presented are the mean ± standard deviation (n=10 per group). LB, Lactobacillus bulgaricus; LF-Lee, Lactobacillus fermentum Lee; CFU, colony-forming unit; bw, body weight. The dose of bisacodyl was 100 mg/kg bw and the dose of LB was 1.0×109 CFU/kg bw.
Defecation status of the various groups of mice during the experiment.
| LF-Lee (x109 CFU/kg bw) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Treatment | Normal | Control | Bisacodyl | LB | 0.5 | 1.0 |
| Days 1–6 | ||||||
| Defecation weight (g) | 0.90±0.09 | 0.94±0.11 | 1.13±0.07 | 0.91±0.05 | 0.91±0.05 | 0.89±0.06 |
| Defecation particle counts (n) | 35±4 | 36±7 | 49±6 | 36±2 | 35±5 | 36±4 |
| Water content of defecation (%) | 47±4 | 47±5 | 55±5 | 49±4 | 46±5 | 48±4 |
| Days 7–9 | ||||||
| Defecation weight (g) | 0.91±0.05 | 0.37±0.06 | 0.74±0.15 | 0.40±0.05 | 0.55±0.05 | 0.61±0.05 |
| Defecation particle counts (n) | 36±3 | 19±6 | 38±5 | 21±3 | 26±3 | 30±5 |
| Water content of defecation (%) | 46±5 | 16±3 | 40±3 | 23±2 | 27±4 | 34±6 |
Treatment alone was administered;
treatment and activated carbon were administered. Values presented are the mean ± standard deviation (n=10 per group).
LB, Lactobacillus bulgaricus; LF-Lee, Lactobacillus fermentum Lee; CFU, colony-forming unit; bw, body weight. The dose of bisacodyl was 100 mg/kg bw and the dose of LB was 1.0×109 CFU/kg bw.
Figure 2First black stool defecation time of mice in the various groups on the final day of the experiment, following the induction of constipation by activated carbon (n=10 per group). The dose of bisacodyl was 100 mg/kg body weight (bw). LB, Lactobacillus bulgaricus [1.0×109 colony-forming unit (CFU)/kg bw]; LF-Lee (L), Lactobacillus fermentum Lee low dose (0.5×109 CFU/kg bw); LF-Lee (H), Lactobacillus fermentum Lee high dose (1.0×109 CFU/kg bw); a–fMean values with different letters over the bars are significantly different (P<0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
Figure 3Effect of various treatments on the gastrointestinal (GI) transit in the mouse model of activated carbon-induced constipation (n=10 per group). The dose of bisacodyl was 100 mg/kg body weight (bw). LB, Lactobacillus bulgaricus [1.0×109 colony-forming unit (CFU)/kg bw]; LF-Lee (L), Lactobacillus fermentum Lee low dose (0.5×109 CFU/kg bw); LF-Lee (H), Lactobacillus fermentum Lee high dose (1.0×109 CFU/kg bw); a–fMean values with different letters over the bars are significantly different (P<0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
Effect of various treatments on serum levels in the mouse model of activated carbon-induced constipation (pg/ml).
| LF-Lee (x109 CFU/kg bw) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Analyte | Normal | Control | Bisacodyl | LB | 0.5 | 1.0 |
| MTL | 173.2±12.6 | 101.3±9.7 | 155.4±8.7 | 119.7±.7.7 | 134.2±7.6 | 143.7±8.1 |
| Gas | 80.2±3.2 | 44.3±2.7 | 73.6±2.6 | 50.2±2.1 | 59.2±2.2 | 67.2±2.8 |
| ET | 13.9±0.4 | 7.1±0.3 | 12.0±0.3 | 8.4±0.3 | 9.0±0.3 | 10.0±0.3 |
| SS | 33.2±.1.9 | 61.8±1.6 | 40.3±2.0 | 56.2±1.9 | 50.0±0.9 | 45.2±0.7 |
| AChE | 31.1±1.2 | 12.7±0.9 | 27.8±0.9 | 15.9±0.8 | 20.3±1.1 | 23.6±0.7 |
| SP | 63.2±2.8 | 37.2±1.9 | 55.3±1.7 | 41.3±0.5 | 45.7±0.6 | 50.3±0.8 |
| VIP | 52.3±1.9 | 30.6±1.0 | 47.1±1.1 | 33.6±0.9 | 38.8±1.0 | 42.7±0.6 |
Values presented are the mean ± standard deviation (n=10 per group). LB, Lactobacillus bulgaricus; LF-Lee, Lactobacillus fermentum Lee; CFU, colony-forming unit; bw, body weight; MTL, motilin; Gas, gastrin; ET, endothelin; SS, somatostatin; AChE, acetylcholinesterase; SP, substance P; VIP, vasoactive intestinal peptide. The dose of bisacodyl was 100 mg/kg bw and the dose of LB was 1.0×109 CFU/kg bw.
Mean values with different letters in the same column are significantly different (P<0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test.