| Literature DB >> 31372184 |
Zajeba Tabashsum1, Mengfei Peng2, Cassendra Bernhardt2, Puja Patel1, Michael Carrion1, Debabrata Biswas1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Majority of enteric infections are foodborne and antimicrobials including antibiotics have been used for their control and treatment. However, probiotics or prebiotics or their combination offer a potential alternative intervention strategy for improving the host health and preventing foodborne pathogen colonization/infections in reservoir. Further, bioengineered probiotics expressing bioactive products to achieve specific function is highly desirable. Recently, we over-expressed mcra (myosin cross-reactive antigen) gene in Lactobacillus casei (Lc) and developed a bioengineered probiotics Lc + CLA which produce higher amounts of metabolites including conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). Furthermore, we also reported that prebiotic like components such as berry pomace (byproduct) phenolic extracts (BPEs) can enhance the growth of probiotics and improved the beneficial effects of probiotics. In this study, we evaluated the antimicrobial effect of modified Lc + CLA in combination of BPEs on growth, survival and pathogenesis of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC).Entities:
Keywords: EHEC; Prebiotic; Prevention; Probiotic; Synbiotic
Year: 2019 PMID: 31372184 PMCID: PMC6661093 DOI: 10.1186/s13099-019-0320-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gut Pathog ISSN: 1757-4749 Impact factor: 4.181
Fig. 1Growth pattern of EHEC (A–C) at various time (24, 48, and 72 h) points with or without treatments. Error bars indicate standard deviation from 6 parallel trails. Different letters (a–f) at each time point indicate the significant growth reduction when compared with single culture as a control and among the treatments at p < 0.05
Fig. 2Adhesion of EHEC to INT-407 cells with or without pre-treatments (A–C) with probiotics (Lc or Lc + CLA) and their metabolites in CFCSs. Error bars indicate standard deviation from 6 parallel trails. Bars with different letters (a through d) are significantly different when compared with control and among the treatments at p < 0.05
Physicochemical properties of EHEC treated with BPEs/CFCSs collected from overnight culture of Lc/Lc + CLA
| Treatment | Auto-aggregation (%) | Hydrophobicity (%) | Injured cell (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 5.89 ± 1.47*,a | 13.1 ± 2.16a | 16.52 ± 5a |
| 0.1 mg/ml GAE | 5.38 ± 1.61a | 9.87 ± 2.52ab | 26.84 ± 5.07ab |
| 0.1 mg/ml GAE + CFCS-Lc | 4.65 ± 2.7a | 8.28 ± 2.49bc | 41.4 ± 5.57bc |
| 0.1 mg/ml GAE + CFCS-Lc + CLA | 2.91 ± 1.52ab | 4.57 ± 2.06bc | 50.35 ± 3.93c |
| 0.5 mg/ml GAE | 4.45 ± 1.34a | 8.38 ± 1.98b | 36.33 ± 6.06b |
| 0.5 mg/ml GAE + CFCS-Lc | 3.41 ± 1.56a | 6.85 ± 1.77bc | 45.9 ± 4.77bc |
| 0.5 mg/ml GAE + CFCS-Lc + CLA | 2.18 ± 1.21b | 3.5 ± 1.2dc | 53.2 ± 7.01c |
| 1.0 mg/ml GAE | 3.69 ± 0.86a | 6.36 ± 1.74bc | 45.34 ± 5.42bc |
| 1.0 mg/ml GAE + CFCS-Lc | 2.78 ± 1.41b | 4.8 ± 1.54c | 49.92 ± 6.47bc |
| 1.0 mg/ml GAE + CFCS-Lc + CLA | 1.45 ± 0.02b | 2.89 ± 1.14c | 58.97 ± 3.45c |
*Values indicate mean ± standard deviation and means with different letters (a–c) within the same column are different when compared with control and among the treatments at p < 0.05
Fig. 3Biofilm formation pattern of EHEC (A–C) treated with BPEs alone or CFCSs collected from Lc or Lc + CLA grown in the presence of BPEs. Error bars indicate standard deviation from 6 parallel trails. Different letters (a–d) indicate the significant reduction in biofilm formation when compared with control and among the treatments at p < 0.05
Fig. 4Relative expression of different virulence genes of EHEC (a–c) treated with BPEs alone or CFCSs collected from Lc or Lc + CLA grown in the presence of BPEs (0.1 mg/ml GAE or 0.5 mg/ml GAE or 1.0 mg/ml GAE). Error bars indicate standard deviation from 6 parallel trails. Bars with different number of asterisks (*) are significantly different at p < 0.05