Display options
Share it on

Microorganisms. 2015 Apr 15;3(2):198-212. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms3020198.

Comparison of Microbiological and Probiotic Characteristics of Lactobacilli Isolates from Dairy Food Products and Animal Rumen Contents.

Microorganisms

Neethu Maria Jose, Craig R Bunt, Malik Altaf Hussain

Affiliations

  1. Department of Wine, Food and Molecular Biosciences, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand. [email protected].
  2. Department of Agriculture, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand. [email protected].
  3. Department of Wine, Food and Molecular Biosciences, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand. [email protected].

PMID: 27682086 PMCID: PMC5023236 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms3020198

Abstract

Lactobacilli are employed in probiotic food preparations and as feed additives in poultry and livestock, due to health benefits associated with their consumption. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the probiotic potential of ten lactobacilli strains isolated from commercial dairy food products and animal rumen contents in New Zealand. Genetic identification of the isolates revealed that all belonged to the genus Lactobacillus, specifically the species L. reuteri, L. rhamnosus and L. plantarum. All isolates did not show any haemolytic behaviour. Isolates of dairy origin showed better tolerance to low pH stress. On the other hand, rumen isolates exhibited a higher tolerance to presence of bile salts. All isolates exhibited resistance to aminoglycoside antibiotics, however most were sensitive to ampicillin. Isolates of rumen origin demonstrated a higher inhibitory effect on Listeria monocytogenes, Enterobacter aerogenes and Salmonella menston. Bacterial adherence of all isolates increased with a decrease in pH. This screening study on lactobacilli isolates has assessed and identified potential probiotic candidates for further evaluation.

Keywords: animal rumen; comparing in vitro characteristics; dairy food; lactobacilli; screening

References

  1. Int J Food Microbiol. 2010 Jul 31;141 Suppl 1:S98-108 - PubMed
  2. Curr Issues Intest Microbiol. 2007 Sep;8(2):44-61 - PubMed
  3. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2009 Jul-Sep;27(3):202-9 - PubMed
  4. J Dairy Sci. 2000 Apr;83(4):894-907 - PubMed
  5. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Feb;73(2 Suppl):365S-373S - PubMed
  6. Int J Food Microbiol. 2005 Aug 15;103(1):109-15 - PubMed
  7. Anaerobe. 2010 Aug;16(4):321-6 - PubMed
  8. J Appl Microbiol. 2006 Jun;100(6):1171-85 - PubMed
  9. Anaerobe. 2011 Dec;17(6):440-3 - PubMed
  10. Food Microbiol. 2011 Aug;28(5):1033-40 - PubMed
  11. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007 Apr 1;115(1):35-42 - PubMed
  12. Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Jun 1;32(11):1567-76 - PubMed
  13. Int J Food Microbiol. 1996 Feb;29(1):105-9 - PubMed
  14. Front Microbiol. 2013 Jul 18;4:202 - PubMed
  15. ISRN Nutr. 2013 Jan 02;2013:481651 - PubMed
  16. Biotechnol Lett. 2009 Apr;31(4):571-6 - PubMed
  17. Food Microbiol. 2007 Sep;24(6):559-70 - PubMed
  18. Dig Liver Dis. 2006 Dec;38 Suppl 2:S242-7 - PubMed
  19. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Sep 15;26(6):767-78 - PubMed
  20. J Dairy Sci. 1995 Dec;78(12):2838-46 - PubMed
  21. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2006 Jul;43(1):91-7 - PubMed
  22. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000 Dec;16(4):531-6 - PubMed
  23. Immunol Cell Biol. 2000 Feb;78(1):80-8 - PubMed
  24. J Dairy Sci. 1999 Jan;82(1):23-31 - PubMed
  25. Gut. 2003 Jul;52(7):988-97 - PubMed

Publication Types