| Literature DB >> 27633101 |
Soyoung Yeo1, Suro Lee1, Hyunjoon Park2, Heuynkil Shin3, Wilhelm Holzapfel2, Chul Sung Huh4,5.
Abstract
Enforced restrictions on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters (AGPs) in animal production have prompted investigations into alternative feed additives in recent decades. Probiotics are currently the main feed additive used in livestock. However, the selection of probiotic candidates relies on human-based methods and little is known about the verification criteria for host-specific selection. We investigated the probiotic potential of Lactobacillus salivarius strains isolated from fed pig feces for their use as porcine feed additives. Two methods were developed that simulated the pig gastrointestinal (GI) tract and the intestinal epithelium, and these were compared with human-based in vitro methods and used for selecting porcine probiotics. Lactobacillus salivarius strain LS6 was identified as a promising probiotic strain for potential use as a porcine feed additive. This strain prevented disruption of the epithelial integrity of pig small intestine (PSI) cells by inhibiting the adherence of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli K88. It also showed high survival rates in the in vitro pig GI tract model and good adhesion to PSI cells. We propose that host target-specific screening and validation methods are important tools in the development of effective probiotic feed additives, and this approach may support future-oriented agriculture.Entities:
Keywords: Adhesion ability; Feed additives; Gastrointestinal tract; Lactobacillus salivarius; Porcine; Probiotics
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27633101 PMCID: PMC5102953 DOI: 10.1007/s00253-016-7812-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol ISSN: 0175-7598 Impact factor: 4.813
The constituents, chemicals, and conditions used for the human and porcine in vitro gastrointestinal tract (GIT) models
Minimum inhibitory concentrations (μg ml−1) of antibiotics to Lactobacillus salivarius strains
| AMP | VAN | GEN | CHL | STR | ERY | CLI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| LS1 | 2 | >512 | 64 | 2 | 128 | 1 | 2 |
| LS3 | 2 | >512 | 64 | 4 | 256 | >8 | >8 |
| LS4 | 1 | >512 | 128 | 4 | 512 | >8 | >8 |
| LS6 | 1 | >512 | 128 | 2 | 256 | 1 | 0.5 |
| LS8 | 2 | >512 | 128 | 2 | 256 | 1 | 0.25 |
| Suggested breakpoints for | |||||||
| NCCLS | ≥16 | ≥16 | ≥8 | ≥2 | |||
| EFSA | 4 | n.r. | 16 | 4 | 64 | 1 | 1 |
| SCAN | 2 | 4 | 1 | 16 | 16 | 4 | |
| Danielsen and Wind ( | 4 | 4 | 256 | 16 | >256 | 1 | 2 |
AMP ampicillin, VAN vancomycin, GEN gentamicin, CHL chloramphenicol, STR streptomycin, ERY erythromycin, CLI clindamycin, n.r. not required
Safety assessment of the metabolic end products of the Lactobacillus salivarius test strains to be used as probiotics
| Bacterial culture | Biogenic amine production | Hemolytic activity | Gelatinase activitya | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AR | ANAR | AR | ANAR | AR | ANAR | |
| Positive control | ||||||
|
| + | + | n.r. | n.r. | 1.1 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 |
|
| n.r. | n.r. | + | + | n.r. | n.r. |
|
| ||||||
| LS1 | − | − | − | − | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.0 |
| LS3 | − | − | − | − | 0.9 ± 0.0 | 0.8 ± 0.0 |
| LS4 | − | − | − | − | 0.8 ± 0.0 | 0.8 ± 0.0 |
| LS6 | − | − | − | − | 0.8 ± 0.0 | 0.8 ± 0.0 |
| LS8 | − | − | − | − | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 0.7 ± 0.0 |
n.r. not required, AR, ANAR 37 °C aerobic and anaerobic conditions, respectively
aAverage diameter (cm) values ± the standard deviation (n = 2)
Fig. 1Fermentative and enzymatic profiling of selected Lactobacillus salivarius strains isolated from pig feces. The colorimetric intensity is indicated by color gradients: black represents high activity, while white represents no reaction. The carbohydrates and enzymes for which most strains did not react are not shown
Probiotic properties of Lactobacillus strains
| Bacterial culture | Acid tolerancea (%) | Bile tolerance (% slopeb) | BSH activity | Diameter of the zone of inhibitionc | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E. c | E. f | L. m | L. i | |||||||||
| 0 h | 2 h | AR | ANAR | AR | ANAR | AR | ANAR | AR | ANAR | |||
|
| ||||||||||||
| LS1 | 100 | 66.95* | 18.4 | + | + | ++ | (+) | − | ++ | − | ++ | +++ |
| LS3 | 100 | 85.88 | 6.6 | + | + | + | − | − | ++ | − | + | ++ |
| LS4 | 100 | 50.11** | 12.0 | + | + | ++ | − | − | ++ | − | ++ | ++ |
| LS6 | 100 | 95.17* | 15.8 | + | + | ++ | − | − | ++ | − | +++ | ++ |
| LS8 | 100 | 59.29* | 10.8 | + | + | ++ | (+) | − | ++ | − | ++ | ++ |
|
| ||||||||||||
| GG | 100 | 77.30 | 30.4 | − | + | ++ | − | − | ++ | − | ++ | ++ |
L. rhamnosus GG, a commercial lactic acid bacteria, was used as a standard reference culture
E. c Escherichia coli K88, E. f Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212, L. m Listeria monocytogenes KCTC 13064, L. i Listeria innocua ATCC 33090, AR, ANAR 37 °C aerobic and anaerobic conditions, respectively, BSH bile salt hydrolase
aCell survival at pH 3.0. Significance is indicated as follows: * P ≤ 0.05; ** P ≤ 0.01, compared to the survival of LGG
bSlope; (x, y) = (time, OD600 value) of 0–3 h in MRS broth supplemented with 0.3 % bovine bile. r = 0.97 ± 0.02
c+++, >3 cm; ++, >2 cm; +, >1 cm; (+), < 1 cm; −, no clear zone
Fig. 2Change in TEER across confluent PSI cells and bacterial adherence to PSI cells during co-culturing of Lactobacillus strains and enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) K88. The graphs (a) represent TEER values (% of initial value, 0 h) of PSI cells after 6 h of co-incubation of Lactobacillus strains and Escherichia coli K88. Adherence was investigated 2.5 h after bacterial treatment. b Binding ability of ETEC K88 to PSI cells. c Binding ability of human-derived LGG strain and pig-derived Lactobacillus salivarius strains. The data represent the means and standard errors of three replicates. Significance is indicated as follows: *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.01
Fig. 3The viability of Lactobacillus strains on passing through the in vitro GIT model, simulating a the human and b the pig GI tract. Relative survival rate was calculated as a fold change compared with LGG survival. See also Table 1 for information on the factors modified between the porcine and human GIT models. The data represent the means and standard errors of three replicates. Significance is indicated as follows: *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.01; ***P ≤ 0.001
Fig. 4The relative adhesion ability of Lactobacillus strains on a Caco-2 and b PSI cells. Relative adherence was calculated as a fold change compared with LGG adherence, which was 5.1 and 15.5 % on Caco-2 and PSI cells, respectively. The data represent the means and standard errors of three replicates. Significance is indicated as follows: **P ≤ 0.01; ***P ≤ 0.001