Lotta K Stenman1, Elaine Patterson2, Johann Meunier3, Francois J Roman3, Markus J Lehtinen1. 1. DuPont Nutrition & Biosciences, Sokeritehtaantie 20, 02460 Kantvik, Finland. 2. DuPont Nutrition & Biosciences, Sokeritehtaantie 20, 02460 Kantvik, Finland. Electronic address: elaine.patterson@dupont.com. 3. Amylgen SAS, 2196 Boulevard de la Lironde, 34980 Montferrier-sur-Lez, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Changes in the gut microbiota have been implicated in mood and cognition. In rodents, supplementation with certain bacteria have been shown to alleviate adverse effects of stress on gut microbiota composition and behaviour, but little is known of how the performance of different strains compare to each other. We took a systematic approach to test the efficacy of twelve candidate probiotic strains from ten species/sub-species of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus on behaviours and neuroendocrine responses of chronically stressed mice. METHODS: The strains were tested in four screening experiments with non-stressed and chronically stressed vehicle groups. The three most efficacious strains were re-tested to validate the results. Mice were administered a daily oral gavage containing either 1 × 109 colony forming units (CFU) of selected candidate probiotic or saline solution for one week prior to and for three weeks during daily chronic restraint stress. Behavioural tests including the elevated plus maze, open field, novel object recognition, and forced swim test were applied during week five. Corticosterone and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) were analysed to measure the neuroendocrine response to stress. Plasma and tissue samples were collected for biomarker analyses. RESULTS: Of the twelve candidate probiotics, Lactobacillus paracasei Lpc-37, Lactobacillus plantarum LP12407, Lactobacillus plantarum LP12418 and Lactobacillus plantarum LP12151 prevented stress-associated anxiety and depression-related behaviours from developing compared with chronically stressed vehicle mice. In addition, Lpc-37 improved cognition. CONCLUSION: This systematic screening indicates species- and strain-dependent effects on behavioural outcomes related to stress and further suggests that strains differ from each other in their effects on potential mechanistic outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Changes in the gut microbiota have been implicated in mood and cognition. In rodents, supplementation with certain bacteria have been shown to alleviate adverse effects of stress on gut microbiota composition and behaviour, but little is known of how the performance of different strains compare to each other. We took a systematic approach to test the efficacy of twelve candidate probiotic strains from ten species/sub-species of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus on behaviours and neuroendocrine responses of chronically stressed mice. METHODS: The strains were tested in four screening experiments with non-stressed and chronically stressed vehicle groups. The three most efficacious strains were re-tested to validate the results. Mice were administered a daily oral gavage containing either 1 × 109 colony forming units (CFU) of selected candidate probiotic or saline solution for one week prior to and for three weeks during daily chronic restraint stress. Behavioural tests including the elevated plus maze, open field, novel object recognition, and forced swim test were applied during week five. Corticosterone and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) were analysed to measure the neuroendocrine response to stress. Plasma and tissue samples were collected for biomarker analyses. RESULTS: Of the twelve candidate probiotics, Lactobacillus paracasei Lpc-37, Lactobacillus plantarum LP12407, Lactobacillus plantarum LP12418 and Lactobacillus plantarum LP12151 prevented stress-associated anxiety and depression-related behaviours from developing compared with chronically stressed vehicle mice. In addition, Lpc-37 improved cognition. CONCLUSION: This systematic screening indicates species- and strain-dependent effects on behavioural outcomes related to stress and further suggests that strains differ from each other in their effects on potential mechanistic outcomes.
Authors: Claire Mindus; Jennifer Ellis; Nienke van Staaveren; Alexandra Harlander-Matauschek Journal: Front Behav Neurosci Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 3.558
Authors: Kelsey M Loupy; Kristin E Cler; Brandon M Marquart; Tumim W Yifru; Heather M D'Angelo; Mathew R Arnold; Ahmed I Elsayed; Matthew J Gebert; Noah Fierer; Laura K Fonken; Matthew G Frank; Cristian A Zambrano; Steven F Maier; Christopher A Lowry Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 7.217