| Literature DB >> 29120368 |
Muhammed Shafeekh Muyyarikkandy1, Mary Anne Amalaradjou2.
Abstract
Salmonella Enteritidis (SE), Salmonella Typhimurium (ST), and Salmonella Heidelberg (SH) have been responsible for numerous outbreaks associated with the consumption of poultry meat and eggs. Salmonella colonization in chicken is characterized by initial attachment to the cecal epithelial cells (CEC) followed by dissemination to the liver, spleen, and oviduct. Since cecal colonization is critical to Salmonella transmission along the food chain continuum, reducing this intestinal association could potentially decrease poultry meat and egg contamination. Hence, this study investigated the efficacy of Lactobacillus delbreuckii sub species bulgaricus (NRRL B548; LD), Lactobacillus paracasei (DUP-13076; LP), and Lactobacillus rhamnosus (NRRL B442; LR) in reducing SE, ST, and SH colonization in CEC and survival in chicken macrophages. Additionally, their effect on expression of Salmonella virulence genes essential for cecal colonization and survival in macrophages was evaluated. All three probiotics significantly reduced Salmonella adhesion and invasion in CEC and survival in chicken macrophages (p < 0.05). Further, the probiotic treatment led to a significant reduction in Salmonella virulence gene expression (p < 0.05). Results of the study indicate that LD, LP, and LR could potentially be used to control SE, ST, and SH colonization in chicken. However, these observations warrant further in vivo validation.Entities:
Keywords: Salmonella; cecal colonization; gene expression; in vitro; lactic acid bacteria; macrophages; probiotic
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29120368 PMCID: PMC5713350 DOI: 10.3390/ijms18112381
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1(a) Effect of sub-inhibitory concentrations of LAB supernatants on Salmonella motility. Data are presented as means ± SEM. a−c Different superscripts indicate the significant difference in LS-means (p < 0.05), MRS-de Man, Rogosa and Sharpe broth, SE: S. Enteritidis 90; ST: S. Typhimurium DT104 43; SH: S. Heidelberg V6FA; LR: L. rhamnosus NRRL B442; LP: L. paracasei DUP-13076; LD: L. delbreuckii bulgaricus NRRL B548; (b) Representative image of the motility assay performed with Salmonella Enteritidis 90 (SE90) treated with and without SIC of L. rhamnosus NRRL B442 (LR) supernatant; (c) Effect of sub-inhibitory concentrations of LAB supernatants on the expression of motility genes in Salmonella. Data are presented as means ± SEM; (d) Representative TEM images of Salmonella Enteritidis 90 (SE90) treated with and without SICs of L. rhamnosus NRRL B442 (LR) supernatant. Salmonella, Arrows indicate the presence and absence of flagella.
Figure 2Confirmation of epithelial characteristics of CEC using immunofluorescence.
Figure 3(a) Effect of LAB pre-treatment on Salmonella adhesion to primary cecal epithelial cells. Salmonella; a−e Different superscripts indicate the significant difference in LS-means (p < 0.05); (b) Effect of LAB pre-treatment on Salmonella invasion in primary cecal epithelial cells. Salmonella; Data are represented as means ± SEM; a−f Different superscripts indicate the significant difference in LS-means (p < 0.05).
Effect of sub-inhibitory concentrations of LAB supernatants on the expression of virulence genes in Salmonella Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, and S. Heidelberg.
| Treatments | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SE Ctrl | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a |
| SE + LR | –1.85 ± 0.08 b | –4.58 ± 1.13 b–d | –2.90 ± 0.15 b,c | –5.01 ± 0.76 b–d | –18.69 ± 0.46 g | –6.67 ± 1.39 b–d | –8.17± 1.55 b–d |
| SE + LD | –2.66± 0.14 b,c | –3.54 ± 0.71 b,c | –2.20 ± 0.10 b | –1.87 ± 0.15 b | –1.91 ± 0.19 b | –2.93 ± 0.44 b,c | –17.27 ± 3.26 f,g |
| SE + LP | –4.07± 0.84 a,b | –4.07 ± 0.38 b–d | –2.81 ± 0.28 b,c | –11.19± 0.36 d,e | –27.19 ± 0.66 i | –15.70± 0.54 e–g | –25.46 ± 0.91 h,i |
| ST Ctrl | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a |
| ST + LR | –11.31± 0.22 d,e | –2.31 ± 1.04 b,c | –2.74 ± 0.9 b,c | –2.89 ± 1.12 b | –19.35 ± 0.27 g | –3.55 ± 0.51 b,c | –7.16 ± 0.88 b–d |
| ST + LD | –3.98 ± 1.2 a,b | –3.98 ± 0.93 b–d | –2.09 ± 0.66 b | –1.37 ± 0.28 b | –1.78 ± 0.28 b | –1.89 ± 0.28 b | –10.40 ± 1.17 d,e |
| ST + LP | –3.05± 0.77 b,c | –1.45 ± 0.56 b | –2.72 ± 0.55 b,c | –12.13± 1.65 d–f | –28.92 ± 1.53 i | –6.00 ± 1.93 b–d | –25.46 ± 4.8 h,i |
| SH Ctrl | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a | 1 a |
| SH + LR | –3.12 ± 0.64 b,c | –2.00 ± 0.2 a | –2.54 ± 0.6 b,c | –3.29 ± 0.16 b,c | –17.21 ± 3.45 f,g | –3.22 ± 0.33 b,c | –19.97 ± 0.22 g,h |
| SH+ LD | –4.42 ± 1.09 a,b | –5.76 ± 0.55 b–d | –2.04 ± 0.63 b | –1.67 ± 0.17 b | –3.29 ± 0.75 b,c | –2.22 ± 0.23 b | –19.61 ± 0.53 g,h |
| SH + LP | –5.45 ± 2.53 a,b | –12.11± 0.55 d–f | –2.68 ± 0.22 b,c | –10.53 ± 0.99 d,e | –27.96 ± 1.99 i | –4.69 ± 0.67 b–d | –30.86 ± 1.41 i |
a−i Different superscripts indicate the significant difference in LS-means (p < 0.05).
Figure 4(a) Effect of LAB pre-treatment on Salmonella Enteritidis 90 invasion and survival in chicken macrophages. Data are represented as means ± SEM; (b) Effect of LAB pre-treatment on Salmonella Typhimurium DT 104 43 invasion and survival in chicken macrophages. Data are represented as means ± SEM; (c) Effect of LAB pre-treatment on Salmonella Heidelberg V6FA invasion and survival in chicken macrophages. Data are represented as means ± SEM.