Display options
Share it on

Adv Pharm Bull. 2016 Mar;6(1):37-47. doi: 10.15171/apb.2016.007. Epub 2016 Mar 17.

Probiotic Assessment of Lactobacillus plantarum 15HN and Enterococcus mundtii 50H Isolated from Traditional Dairies Microbiota.

Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin

Babak Haghshenas, Minoo Haghshenas, Yousef Nami, Ahmad Yari Khosroushahi, Norhafizah Abdullah, Abolfazl Barzegari, Rozita Rosli, Mohammad Saeed Hejazi

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Biosciences, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.
  2. School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  3. Drug Applied Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
  4. Chemical and Environmental Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.
  5. Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Molecular Medicine and Therapy Lab, Research Center for Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology, Tabriz, Iran.
  6. Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tabriz, Iran.

PMID: 27123416 PMCID: PMC4845554 DOI: 10.15171/apb.2016.007

Abstract

PURPOSE: Probiotics are microorganisms, which show beneficial health effects on hosts once consumed in sufficient amounts. Among probiotic bacteria, the bioactive compounds from lactic acid bacteria (LAB) group can be utilized as preservative agents. LAB group can be isolated and characterized from traditional dairy sources. This study aimed to isolate, identify, and biologically characterize probiotic LAB strains from Iranian traditional dairy products.

METHODS: A total of 19 LAB strains were identified by sequencing of their 16S rRNA genes. They were examined for adherence to human intestinal Caco-2 cells and tolerance to low pH/high bile salts and simulated in vitro digestion conditions. Moreover, they were evaluated further to assess their ability to prevent the adhesion of Escherichia coli 026 to the intestinal mucosa, inhibitory functions against pathogens, and sensitivity to conventional antibiotics.

RESULTS: L. plantarum 15HN and E. mundtii 50H strains displayed ≥ 71% survival rates at low pH/high bile salts and ≥ 40% survival rates in digestive conditions. Their adherences to Caco-2 cells were 3.2×105 and 2.6×105 CFU mL-1 respectively and high values of anti-adhesion capability were observed (≥36%). They inhibited the growth of 13 and 11 indicator pathogens respectively. Moreover, they were sensitive or semi-sensitive to seven and three out of eight antibiotics respectively.

CONCLUSION: L. plantarum 15HN and E. mundtii 50H, which were isolated from shiraz product, displayed above-average results for all of the criteria. Therefore, they can be introduced as novel candidate probiotics that could be used in the food industry.

Keywords: Adherence; Antimicrobial resistance; Lactic acid bacteria; Probiotic

References

  1. Int J Food Microbiol. 1999 Sep 15;50(1-2):45-57 - PubMed
  2. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000 Mar;14(2):99-105 - PubMed
  3. Int J Food Microbiol. 2001 Feb 28;64(1-2):95-104 - PubMed
  4. J Agric Food Chem. 2001 Feb;49(2):1049-55 - PubMed
  5. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2001 Nov 27;205(1):31-6 - PubMed
  6. Br J Nutr. 2002 Sep;88 Suppl 1:S101-8 - PubMed
  7. Int J Food Microbiol. 2003 Feb 25;81(1):1-10 - PubMed
  8. Int J Food Microbiol. 2003 Feb 15;80(3):201-10 - PubMed
  9. Int J Food Microbiol. 2003 Aug 1;84(3):299-318 - PubMed
  10. J Med Microbiol. 2003 Oct;52(Pt 10):925-30 - PubMed
  11. Vet Microbiol. 2004 May 20;100(1-2):107-14 - PubMed
  12. J Dairy Sci. 2005 Jan;88(1):55-66 - PubMed
  13. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005 Dec;11(12):958-66 - PubMed
  14. J Food Prot. 2005 Dec;68(12):2672-8 - PubMed
  15. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2006 Mar;29(2):145-55 - PubMed
  16. Anaerobe. 2002 Dec;8(6):341-4 - PubMed
  17. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2006;15(4):570-5 - PubMed
  18. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007 Nov 30;120(1-2):191-5 - PubMed
  19. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008 Jul;61(3):321-8 - PubMed
  20. Food Microbiol. 2008 Oct;25(7):929-35 - PubMed
  21. Int J Food Microbiol. 2009 Jun 1;132(1):59-66 - PubMed
  22. Biomed Environ Sci. 2009 Oct;22(5):401-12 - PubMed
  23. J Environ Manage. 2011 Jan;92(1):250-5 - PubMed
  24. Food Microbiol. 2011 Oct;28(7):1359-66 - PubMed
  25. Anaerobe. 2011 Oct;17(5):239-45 - PubMed
  26. Int J Food Microbiol. 2011 Dec 2;151(2):125-40 - PubMed
  27. Food Microbiol. 2012 May;30(1):59-67 - PubMed
  28. Anaerobe. 2012 Aug;18(4):436-44 - PubMed
  29. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012 Jul;46(6):468-81 - PubMed
  30. J Dairy Sci. 2012 Jul;95(7):3549-58 - PubMed
  31. Meat Sci. 2013 Mar;93(3):675-80 - PubMed
  32. Int J Med Microbiol. 2013 Aug;303(6-7):360-79 - PubMed
  33. Food Microbiol. 2013 Oct;36(1):22-9 - PubMed
  34. Anaerobe. 2013 Aug;22:57-63 - PubMed
  35. Res Pharm Sci. 2013 Oct;8(4):260-8 - PubMed
  36. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014 Jan;78(1):93-7 - PubMed
  37. Food Microbiol. 2014 Aug;41:19-26 - PubMed
  38. Anaerobe. 2014 Aug;28:29-36 - PubMed
  39. J Med Microbiol. 2014 Aug;63(Pt 8):1044-51 - PubMed
  40. Food Microbiol. 2014 Dec;44:220-5 - PubMed
  41. Anaerobe. 2014 Dec;30:51-9 - PubMed
  42. J Med Microbiol. 2015 Feb;64(Pt 2):137-146 - PubMed
  43. J Appl Microbiol. 2015 Apr;118(4):1048-57 - PubMed
  44. Microbiologyopen. 2015 Oct;4(5):803-13 - PubMed
  45. Front Microbiol. 2015 Jul 29;6:782 - PubMed
  46. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2014 Dec;2(4):205-212 - PubMed
  47. J Dairy Sci. 1987 Jan;70(1):1-12 - PubMed
  48. Am J Clin Pathol. 1966 Apr;45(4):493-6 - PubMed
  49. J Dairy Sci. 1993 Apr;76(4):956-61 - PubMed

Publication Types