| Literature DB >> 35978708 |
Yousef Nami1, Mahdi Kahieshesfandiari2, Gilda Lornezhad3, Amir Kiani4, Daniel Elieh-Ali-Komi4, Mahdieh Jafari5, Mehdi Jaymand6, Babak Haghshenas4.
Abstract
We investigated the probiotic potential of a microencapsulated Enterococcus faecium ABRIINW.N7 for control of Streptococcus agalactiae infection in hybrid (Oreochromis niloticus × Oreochromis mossambicus) red tilapia. A two-phase experiment approach was completed in which E. faecium bacteria were propagated, from which a culture was isolated, identified using molecular techniques, and microencapsulated to produce a stable commercial fructooligosaccharide (FOS) and fenugreek (Fk) product of optimal concentration. The FOS and Fk products were assessed in a 90-days in vivo challenge study, in which red hybrid tilapia were allocated to one of five treatments: (1) No Streptococcus agalactiae (Sa) challenge (CON); (2) Sa challenge only (CON+); (3) Sa challenge in a free cell (Free Cell); (4) Sa challenge with 0.8% (w/v) Alginate; (5) Microencapsulated FOS and Fk. In vitro results showed high encapsulation efficiency (≥98.6 ± 0.7%) and acceptable viability of probiotic bacteria within the simulated fish digestive system and high stability of viable cells in all gel formulations (34 < SR% <63). In vivo challenges demonstrated that the FOS and Fk products could be used to control S. agalactiae infection in tilapia fish and represented a novel investigation using microencapsulation E. faecium as a probiotic diet for tilapia fish to control S. agalactiae infection and to lower fish mortality. It is recommended that local herbal gums such as 0.2% Persian gum and 0.4% Fk in combination with 0.8% alginate (Formulation 7) can be used as a suitable scaffold and an ideal matrix for the encapsulation of probiotics. These herbal gums as prebiotics are capable of promoting the growth of probiotic cells in the food environment and digestive tract.Entities:
Keywords: Streptococcus agalactiae; aquaculture; fenugreek; fructooligosaccharide; microencapsulated E. faecium; tilapia
Year: 2022 PMID: 35978708 PMCID: PMC9376237 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2022.938380
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Antibiotic susceptibility of isolated Enterococcus faecium against the high consumption antibiotics performed by disk diffusion assay and antimicrobial activity of isolate against the pathogenic bacteria.
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 20.2 ± 2.3 | 21.4 ± 3.3 | 23.1 ± 2.6 | 18.2 ± 2.7 | 25.4 ± 3.1 | 16.2 ± 2.6 | 17.3 ± 2.4 |
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| 19.2 ± 1.8 | 13.4 ± 1.6 | 18.3 ± 1.5 | 13.3 ± 1.7 | 14.4 ± 1.4 | ||
All tests were performed in triplicate.
Compositions, size, water activity, moisture content (%), and encapsulation efficiency (%) of microencapsulated Enterococcus faecium with various gel and prebiotic concentrations.
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALG | 0.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 790–980 | 0.55 ± 0.002 | 3.22 ± 0.04 | 99.1 ± 0.7 |
| F1 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0 | 0 | 320–350 | 0.48 ± 0.003b | 3.25 ± 0.06a | 98.8 ± 0.5a |
| F2 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0 | 360–370 | 0.37 ± 0.001c | 3.12 ± 0.03a | 99.4 ± 0.9a |
| F3 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0 | 360–380 | 0.36 ± 0.004c | 3.29 ± 0.06a | 99.6 ± 0.6a |
| F4 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0 | 390–410 | 0.34 ± 0.005c | 2.98 ± 0.02a | 99.0 ± 0.4a |
| F5 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.2 | 540–580 | 0.27 ± 0.006d | 3.18 ± 0.07a | 98.6 ± 0.7a |
| F6 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.3 | 570–600 | 0.25 ± 0.007d | 2.92 ± 0.05a | 99.3 ± 0.8a |
| F7 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.4 | 640–670 | 0.24 ± 0.002d | 3.08 ± 0.08a | 99.5 ± 0.9a |
Alginate-encapsulated cells [2% (w/v)] were used as control. F1–F7: various gel formulations. Values shown are means ± standard deviations (n = 3).
Values followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P < 0.05). Statistical analysis of each formulation was done separately.
ALG, alginate-encapsulated cells; PG, Persian gum; FOS, fructooligosaccharides.
Cell viability of microencapsulated Enterococcus faecium with various gel and prebiotic concentrations after incubation in simulated fish gastric juices (0.08 M HCl containing 0.2% NaCl, pH 1.4) for 0, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min and sequentially in stimulated fish intestinal juice containing (0.5% w/v oxgall, pH 8 at 37°C for 120 min).
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Un-microencapsulated cells | 0 | 0 | 9.87 ± 0.02a | 5.12 ± 0.04b | 4.73 ± 0.05b | 4.18 ± 0.01c | 3.85 ± 0.05c | 39 ± 0.7f |
| ALG | 0 | 0 | 9.76 ± 0.04a | 5.04 ± 0.01b | 4.77 ± 0.06c | 4.59 ± 0.07c | 4.39 ± 0.06d | 45 ± 0.3e |
| F1 | 0 | 0 | 9.69 ± 0.02a | 6.23 ± 0.04b | 5.94 ± 0.03c | 5.46 ± 0.08d | 5.14 ± 0.01e | 53 ± 0.4d |
| F2 | FOS | 0.2 | 9.92 ± 0.07a | 7.18 ± 0.03b | 6.74 ± 0.02c | 6.51 ± 0.04c | 6.05 ± 0.04d | 61 ± 0.2c |
| F3 | FOS | 0.3 | 9.79 ± 0.03a | 7.42 ± 0.01b | 7.09 ± 0.09c | 6.58 ± 0.04d | 6.17 ± 0.03e | 63 ± 0.2c |
| F4 | FOS | 0.4 | 9.94 ± 0.04a | 7.58 ± 0.03b | 7.26 ± 0.02b | 6.89 ± 0.07c | 6.36 ± 0.02d | 64 ± 0.8c |
| F5 | FK | 0.2 | 9.57 ± 0.05a | 7.97 ± 0.04b | 7.56 ± 0.03c | 7.36 ± 0.04c | 6.99 ± 0.07d | 73 ± 0.6b |
| F6 | FK | 0.3 | 9.91 ± 0.06a | 8.12 ± 0.01b | 7.91 ± 0.04c | 7.74 ± 0.07c | 7.43 ± 0.05d | 75 ± 0.3b |
| F7 | FK | 0.4 | 9.83 ± 0.01a | 8.59 ± 0.02b | 8.33 ± 0.06c | 8.12 ± 0.05d | 7.96 ± 0.04d | 81 ± 0.7a |
Alginate-encapsulated cells [0.8% (w/v)] were used as control. F1–F7: various gel formulations. Values shown are means ± standard deviations (n = 3).
Values followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P < 0.05). Statistical analysis of each formulation was done separately.
ALG, alginate-encapsulated cells; FOS, fructooligosaccharides; Con, concentration; SR, survival rate.
Figure 1Number of free and microencapsulated E. faecium with different gel and prebiotic formulations during 8 weeks storage in food pellet at 25°C. Alginate-encapsulated cells [0.8% (w/v)] were used as control. F1: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%); F2: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%) + FOS (0.2%); F3: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%) + FOS (0.3%); F4: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%) + FOS (0.4%); F5: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%) + Fk (0.2%); F6: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%) + Fk (0.3%); F7: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%) + Fk (0.4%). Values shown are means ± standard deviations (n = 3).
Figure 2Releasing rates of microencapsulated E. faecium with different gel formulations at simulated intestine pH solution containing digestive enzymes for each hour (up to hour 12). ALG: alginate-encapsulated cells (control). F1: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%); F2: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%) + FOS (0.2%); F3: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%) + FOS (0.3%); F4: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%) + FOS (0.4%); F5: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%) + Fk (0.2%); F6: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%) + Fk (0.3%); F7: ALG (0.6%) + PG (0.2%) + Fk (0.4%). Values shown are means ± standard deviations (n = 3).
Figure 3Representative of the fish in each test group. Hemorrhage on the base of the pectoral fin (A) and near the mouth (B) in the infected tilapia (black arrow). Degeneration hepatocytes i.e., swelling [C (a)], necrosis [C (b)], and congestion blood vessels [C (c)] in the liver of infected tilapia compared with normal liver tissue in the probiotic treated group without any infection (D). Presence of corpuscles of stannius [E (a)], congestion in renal vessel [E (b)], and degeneration of tubular cells [E (c)] in the kidney of infected fish compared with normal kidney tissue in the probiotic treated group without any infection by S. agalactiae (F). H&E, Mag. 1,000×. (Bar = 100 μm).
Growth performance, mortality and survival rates of fish infected with Streptococcus agalactiae (1.6 × 108 CFU ml−1) after 90 days of feeding with food pellets containing Enterococcus faecium microencapsulated with various gel and prebiotic concentrations.
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| _ | 90.9 ± 3.6 | 1.01 | 2.1 ± 0.3 | 181.8 ± 7.3 | 1.15 ± 0.02 | 0 | 100.00 ± 0.0h |
| CON+ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 88.2 ± 5.3 | 0.98 | 1.8 ± 0.5 | 176.4 ± 4.6 | 1.13 ± 0.07 | 29/30 | 3.33 ± 1.00g |
| Free Cell | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 91.8 ± 1.6 | 1.02 | 2.2 ± 0.2 | 183.6 ± 2.7 | 1.16 ± 0.05 | 25/30 | 16.66 ± 2.00f |
| ALG | 0.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 92.3 ± 6.5 | 1.02 | 2.3 ± 0.4 | 183.9 ± 8.4 | 1.17 ± 0.09 | 23/30 | 23.33 ± 2.00e |
| F1 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 92.7 ± 4.6 | 1.03 | 2.3 ± 0.1 | 185.4 ± 9.3 | 1.18 ± 0.03 | 20/30 | 33.33 ± 0.00d |
| F2 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0 |
|
| 87.3 ± 7.2 | 0.97 | 1.8 ± 0.7 | 174.6 ± 5.1 | 1.12 ± 0.06 | 18/30 | 40.00 ± 3.00c |
| F3 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0 |
|
| 89.1 ± 5.5 | 0.99 | 2.0 ± 0.4 | 178.2 ± 8.6 | 1.13 ± 0.05 | 18/30 | 40.00 ± 1.00c |
| F4 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0 |
|
| 90.6 ± 3.7 | 1.00 | 2.1 ± 0.8 | 180.9 ± 4.1 | 1.14 ± 0.08 | 17/30 | 43.33 ± 0.00c |
| F5 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.2 |
|
| 88.8 ± 2.9 | 0.98 | 1.9 ± 0.5 | 176.7 ± 9.4 | 1.13 ± 0.03 | 15/30 | 50.00 ± 1.00b |
| F6 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.3 |
|
| 93.6 ± 6.2 | 1.04 | 2.4 ± 0.1 | 187.2 ± 5.9 | 1.18 ± 0.04 | 15/30 | 50.00 ± 3.00b |
| F7 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.4 |
|
| 90.7 ± 7.3 | 1.01 | 2.2 ± 0.7 | 181.2 ± 9.8 | 1.15 ± 0.09 | 11/30 | 63.33 ± 2.00 |
The control group (CON) was injected with 0.1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4). CON+ group injected with 1.6 × 108 CFU ml−1 of S. agalactiae without probiotic treatment. F1–F7: various gel formulations. Values shown are means ± standard deviations (n = 3).
Values followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P < 0.05). Statistical analysis of each formulation was done separately.
Free Cell, un-encapsulated probiotic cells; ALG, alginate-encapsulated probiotic cells; PG, Persian gum; FOS, fructooligosaccharides.
WG (g): weight gain: [final wt.(g) – initial wt.(g)].
DWG (g): daily weight gain.
RGR (%/day): relative growth rate: [(final wt.(g) – initial wt.(g))/initial wt.(g) × duration of study (days)] × 100.
PWG (%): percent weight gain: [(final wt.(g) – initial wt.(g))/initial wt.(g)] × 100.
SGR (%): specific growth rate: [ln(final wt.(g)) – ln(initial wt.(g))/days] × 100.