| Literature DB >> 35231139 |
S Zhang1, T Wang2, D Zhang1, X Wang2, Z Zhang2, C Lim1,3, S Lee1,3.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the probiotic characteristics of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum HOM3204 isolated from homemade pickled cabbage and to examine its restoration effect on antibiotic-induced dysbiosis in mice. Lact. plantarum HOM3204 tolerated simulated gastric and intestinal juices with a 99·38% survival rate. It also showed strong adhesion ability (3·45%) to Caco-2 cells and excellent antimicrobial activity against foodborne pathogens in vitro. For safety (antibiotic susceptibility) of this strain, it was susceptible to all the tested seven antibiotics. Lact. plantarum HOM3204 had good stability during storage, especially in cold and frozen conditions. Furthermore, Lact. plantarum HOM3204 significantly restored the gut microbiota composition by increasing the abundance of Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria and decreasing Enterococci, and improved antioxidative function by raising the concentrations of glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) in serum of antibiotic-induced dysbiosis in mice. These results suggest that Lact. plantarum HOM3204 could be a potential probiotic as a functional food ingredient.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990Lactiplantibacillus plantarumzzm321990; antioxidation; gut dysbiosis; probiotic; short-chain fatty acids
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35231139 PMCID: PMC9315005 DOI: 10.1111/lam.13683
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lett Appl Microbiol ISSN: 0266-8254 Impact factor: 2.813
Tolerance to simulated gastric and intestinal juices and adhesion ability to Caco‐2 cells
| Treatment |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Tolerance to simulated gastric and intestinal juices (survival rate, %) | ||
| pH 3·0, 3 h | 99·63 ± 4·48 | 98·31 ± 3·83 |
| 0·3% bile salt, 3 h | 98·50 ± 3·07 | 95·30 ± 2·15 |
| 0·3% bile salt, 21 h | 99·38 ± 3·52 | 90·96 ± 3·39 |
| Adhesion ability to Caco‐2 cells | ||
| Adhesion percentage (%) | 3·45 ± 0·38 | 3·84 ± 0·52 |
| Adhesion index (CFU per cell) | 4·14 ± 0·52 | 4·61 ± 0·41 |
Survival rate, determined viable cell count/initial viable cell count × 100%; Adhesion percentage, count of adhered bacteria/count of added bacteria × 100%; Adhesion index, count of adhered bacteria/count of Caco‐2 cells (by well).
P < 0·05 vs Lact. rhamnosus GG group.
Pathogenic bacteria inhibition ability of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum HOM3204
| Strains |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOM3204 | +++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| GG | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
Indications of inhibition zone diameter: ‘–’ no inhibition; ‘+’ 11–16 mm; ‘++’ 17–22 mm; ‘+++’ ≥23 mm.
Figure 1The stability of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum HOM3204 during storage at different temperature. Viable cell densities were checked monthly by plate counting. Temperature: (●) −20°C, (▲) 4°C, (■) 25°C. The survival rate was calculated by comparing the viable cell count at each check point with the initial viable cell count.
Figure 2The restorative effect of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum HOM3204 following ampicillin‐induced dysbiosis via gut microbiota. Control group: daily gavage of 0·9% saline for 6 weeks. Model group: daily gavage of ampicillin (500 mg kg−1 body weight) for 2 weeks and daily gavage of 0·9% saline for another 4 weeks. HOM3204 group: daily gavage of ampicillin (500 mg kg−1 body weight) for 2 weeks and then daily gavage of Lact. plantarum HOM3204 (1 × 109 CFU) for 4 weeks. The abundance of Lactobacilli (a), Bifidobacteria (b), Enterococci (c), and Enterobacteriaceae (d) in faeces were measured by selective agars. *P < 0·05 vs model group, ΔP < 0·05 vs control group, ΔΔP < 0·01 vs control group.
Figure 3The restoration effect of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum HOM3204 after ampicillin‐induced dysbiosis on the selected four organic acids and antioxidation. The levels of lactate (a), acetate (b), propionate (c), and butyrate (d) in faeces were measured by gas chromatography. The concentration of GSH‐Px (e), and SOD (f) in serum were measured by using commercial kits. *P < 0·05 vs model group, ΔP < 0·05 vs control group, ΔΔP < 0·01 vs control group.