| Literature DB >> 27244133 |
Busra Aktas1, Travis J De Wolfe1, Nasia Safdar2,3, Benjamin J Darien4, James L Steele1.
Abstract
The probiotic function to impact human health is thought to be related to their ability to alter the composition of the gut microbiota and modulate the human innate immune system. The ability to function as a probiotic is believed to be strain specific. Strains of Lactobacillus casei are commonly utilized as probiotics that when consumed alter the composition of the gut microbiota and modulate the host immune response. L. casei strains are known to differ significantly in gene content. The objective of this study was to investigate seven different L. casei strains for their ability to alter the murine gut microbiota and modulate the murine immune system. C57BL/6 mice were fed L. casei strains at a dose of 108 CFU/day/mouse for seven days and sacrificed 3.5h after the last administration. The cecal content and the ileum tissue were collected for microbiota analysis and immune profiling, respectively. While 5 of the L. casei strains altered the gut microbiota in a strain specific manner, two of the strains did not alter the overall cecal microbiota composition. The observed changes cluster into three groups containing between 1 and 2 strains. Two strains that did not affect the gut microbiota composition cluster together with the control in their impact on pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) expression, suggesting that the ability to alter the cecal microbiota correlates with the ability to alter PRR expression. They also cluster together in their impact on the expression of intestinal antimicrobial peptides (AMPs). This result suggests that a relationship exists between the capability of a L. casei strains to alter the composition of the gut microbiota, PRR regulation, and AMP regulation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27244133 PMCID: PMC4887021 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156374
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Comparison of the impact of Lactobacillus casei strains on the composition of cecal microbiome.
Mice were administered 1 dose (108 CFU/mouse/day) daily of L. casei 12A, ATCC334, 32G, CRF28, UW1, BL23 or M36 for 1 week and sacrificed 3.5h after the last dose. (A) Pair wise comparison of the OTUs at genus level detected in the cecal microbiome of each treatment. A Monte-Carlo test with 10,000 replicates was utilized to identify treatments that were significantly (p≤0.05) different. The values with p≤0.05 are highlighted. (B) Predominant genera in the cecum microbiome of mice administered L. casei strains. Treatments that are not significantly (p≤0.05) different are clustered together. Only genera that comprise greater than 5% of the total microbiome in at least one treatment are presented (n: 6 for each bar).
Bacterial genera detected in cecum content of mice administered saline (control) or Lactobacillus casei strains.
| Taxon | Percentage (mean ± SE) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 12A | ATCC334 | 32G | CRF28 | UW1 | BL23 | M36 | |
| 31.8±8.6 | 37.0±14.7 | 35.2±7.3 | 29.3±4.9 | 36.3±9.2 | 37.6±9.5 | |||
| 30.4±9.4 | 24.5±6.4 | 24.2±7.4 | 28.3±10.3 | |||||
| 15.5±10.8 | 16.8±5.2 | 18.7±5.4 | 14.8±4.0 | 15.2±5.1 | ||||
| 9.6±4.1 | 11.7±3.3 | 13.0±6.2 | 8.4±1.6 | 8.2±1.7 | 8.8±2.6 | |||
| 2.7±6.4 | BQL | BQL | 0.2±0.4 | BQL | 0.0±0.0 | BQL | 0.0±0.1 | |
| 2.0±0.6 | 1.8±0.4 | 2.0±0.6 | 1.7±0.5 | 2.0±0.8 | 2.2±0.8 | |||
| 1.8±1.8 | 1.3±0.5 | 1.3±0.5 | 1.0±1.5 | 1.5±1.0 | 1.2±1.4 | |||
| 1.7±0.5 | 2.2±0.8 | 2.3±1.5 | 1.5±0.3 | 1.5±0.5 | 1.5±0.8 | |||
| 1.3±1.1 | 1.0±0.6 | 1.0±0.6 | BQL | |||||
| 0.9±0.4 | 1.2±0.4 | 1.0±0.0 | 1.0±0.0 | 0.7±0.2 | 0.7±0.5 | 0.9±0.1 | ||
| 0.6±0.2 | 0.7±0.8 | 0.8±0.4 | 1.3±1.5 | 0.8±0.4 | ||||
| 0.4±0.1 | 0.2±0.4 | BQL | 0.2±0.4 | |||||
| 0.3±0.1 | BQL | 0.3±0.5 | 0.3±0.5 | BQL | BQL | 0.3±0.1 | ||
| 0.1±0.2 | BQL | BQL | BQL | BQL | BQL | BQL | BQL | |
| 0.0±0.0 | BQL | BQL | BQL | BQL | BQL | BQL | 1.8±4.3 | |
| - | - | 2 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 6 | |
aOnly genera that were present at ≥1% in a sample are included in this table.
bMice were administered 1 dose (108 CFU/mouse/day) daily of L. casei strains for 1 week and sacrificed 3.5h after the last dose.
cThe detection limit was 0.00009 and this value was used to calculate the p-value.
dGenera that differ from control within each group are shown in bold (p≤0.05). The statistical difference was examined using the Monte-Carlo test.
eThe number of genera that differed from the control for that treatment.
IS: Incertae Sedis.
BQL: Below quantifiable limit.
Fig 2Fold change in gene expression of antimicrobials, pattern recognition receptors, and cytokines in the ileum of mice administered L. casei 12A, ATCC 334, 32G, CRF28, UW-1, BL23 or M36.
The strains were administered 1 dose (108 CFU/ mouse) daily for 1 week and sacrificed 3.5h after the last dose; * p<0.05: significant differences from the control, (n: 6/group).
Fig 3Hierarchical clustering of seven The results presented in average.
Change in gene expression of AMPs of mouse ileum fed with Lactobacillus casei strains.
| ATCC 334 | 12A | 32G | CRF28 | UW-1 | BL23 | M36 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSC | NSC | NSC | ↑ | ↑ | NSC | NSC | |
| NSC | NSC | ↑ | ↑ | NSC | ↑ | ↑ | |
| NSC | NSC | ↑ | NSC | NSC | NSC | NSC | |
| NSC | NSC | NSC | NSC | NSC | NSC | ↓ |
↑: significant increase in the gene expression. ↓: significant decrease in the gene expression. NSC: No significant change in the gene expression.
Fig 4Proposed interaction between probiotics and the gut microbiota.
PRR, pattern recognition receptor; AMP, antimicrobial peptide.