Folia Microbiologica

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 177–187 | Cite as

Evaluation of enterococci for potential probiotic utilization in dogs

  • Ivana Kubašová
  • Andrea Lauková
  • Ľudmila Hamarová
  • Peter Pristaš
  • Viola StrompfováEmail author
Original Article


Some strains of the genus Enterococcus are effective probiotic bacteria if they meet safety and probiotic criteria. In our study, 17 canine enterococci previously selected from a group of 160 isolates based on safety criteria were screened for some functional properties relevant to their use as probiotics. The results of antimicrobial resistance testing showed sensitivity of eleven strains to EFSA recommended antimicrobials. In contrast, the most frequent resistance was observed for cefotaxim (15/17) and oxacillin (13/17). PCR detection of resistance genes (vanA, vanB, vanC, tetM, tetL, ermB, and mefA) revealed the presence of mefA gene in five Enterococcus faecium strains and vanA gene in one strain. The production of enzymes commonly associated with intestinal diseases was in general rare (β-glucosidase 2/17, α-chymotrypsin 1/17, N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase 0/17, and β-glucuronidase 0/17). The measurement of strain survival rate (%) under the conditions simulating gastric (pH 2.5) and bile juices (0.3% bile) showed considerable differences between strains (< 0.01 to 4.7% after 90 min for gastric juices, 48.0 to 254.0% after 180 min for bile). The concentration of produced l-lactic acid ranged between 83.1 to 119.3 mmol/L after 48 h cultivation depending on the strain. All strains fermented 16 out of 49 different carbohydrates (range from 17 to 23/49). Antimicrobial activity was recorded for two strains against some species of Listeria sp. and Enterococcus sp. Finally, two E. faecium candidates (IK25 and D7) were selected for testing in dogs, and hereafter they could possibly extend the currently limited range of beneficial bacteria of canine origin used as a dietary supplement for dogs.


Funding information

The study was funded by the Slovak Scientific Agency VEGA (no. 2/0012/16).


  1. Arboleya S, Ruas-Madiedo P, Margolles A, Solís G, Salminen S, de Los Reyes-Gavilán CG, Gueimonde M (2011) Characterization and in vitro properties of potentially probiotic Bifidobacterium strains isolated from breast-milk. Int J Food Microbiol 149:28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aymerich T, Holo H, Havarstein LS, Hugas M, Garriga M, Nes IF (1996) Biochemical and genetic characterization of enterocin A from Enterococcus faecium, a new antilisterial bacteriocin in the pediocin family of bacteriocins. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:1676–1682Google Scholar
  3. Baele M, Chiers K, Davriese LA, Smith HE, Wisselink HJ, Vaneechoutte M, Haesebrouck F (2001) The gram-positive tonsillar and nasal flora of piglets before and after weaning. J Appl Microbiol 91:997–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bessède E, Angla-gre M, Delagarde Y, Sep Hieng S, Ménard A, Mégraud F (2011) Matrix-assisted laser-desorption/ionization biotyper: experience in the routine of a university hospital. Clin Microbiol Infect 17:533–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biavasco F, Foglia G, Paoletti C, Zandri G, Magi G, Guaglianone E, Sundsfjord A, Pruzzo C, Donelli G, Facinelli B (2007) VanA-type enterococci from humans, animals, and food: species distribution, population structure, Tn1546 typing and location, and virulence determinants. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:3307–3319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Billington EO, Phang SH, Gregson DB, Pitout JDD, Ross T, Church DL, Laupland KB, Parkins MD (2014) Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes for Enterococcus spp. blood stream infections: a population-based study. Int J Infect Dis 26:76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casaus P, Nilsen T, Cintas LM, Nes IF, Hernández PE, Holo H (1997) Enterocin B, a new bacteriocin from Enterococcus faecium T136 which can act synergistically with enterocin A. Microbiol 143:2287–2294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen HR, Frøkiaer H, Pestka JJ (2002) Lactobacilli differentially modulate expression of cytokines and maturation surface markers in murine dendritic cells. J Immunol 168:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cintas LM, Casaus P, Håvarstein LS, Hernández PE, Nes IF (1997) Biochemical and genetic characterization of enterocin P, a novel sec-dependent bacteriocin from Enterococcus faecium P13 with a broad antimicrobial spectrum. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:4321–4330Google Scholar
  10. Cintas LM, Casaus P, Holo H, Hernández PE, Nes IF, Håverstein LS (1998) Enterocins L50A and L50B, two novel bacteriocins from Enterococcus faecium L50 are related to staphylococcal hemolysins. J Bacteriol 180:1988–1994Google Scholar
  11. De Preter V, Raemen H, Cloetens E, Houben E, Rutgeerts P, Verbeke K (2008) Effect of dietary intervention with different pre- and probiotics on intestinal bacterial enzyme activities. Eur J Clin Nutr 62:225–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Vuyst L, Foulquie Moreno MR, Revets H (2003) Screening for enterocins and detection of hemolysin and vancomycin resistance in enterococci of different origin. Int J Food Microbiol 84:299–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. D'Ercole S, Petrelli D, Prenna M, Zampaloni C, Catania MR, Ripa S, Vitali LA (2005) Distribution of mef(A)-containing genetic elements in erythromycin-resistant isolates of Streptococcus pyogenes from Italy. Clin Microbiol Infect 11:927–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dobson A, Cotter PD, Ross RP, Hill C (2012) Bacteriocin production: a probiotic trait? Appl Environ Microbiol 78:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dressman JB (1986) Comparison of canine and human gastrointestinal physiology. Pharm Res 3:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dutka-Malen S, Evers S, Courvalin P (1995) Detection of glycopeptide resistance genotypes and identification to the species level of clinically relevant enterococci by PCR. J Clin Microbiol 33:24–27Google Scholar
  17. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances usen in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) (2012a) Guidance on the safety assessment of Enterococcus faecium in animal nutrition. EFSA J 10:2682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances usen in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) (2012b) Guidance on the assessment of bacterial susceptibility to antimicrobials of human and veterinary importance. EFSA J 10:2740Google Scholar
  19. Global Industry Analysts Inc. (2011). Global market opening for lactic acid [WWW document].
  20. Grześkowiak Ł, Endo A, Beasley S, Salminen S (2015) Microbiota and probiotics in canine and feline welfare. Anaerobe 34:14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hummel AS, Hertel C, Holzapfel WH, Franz CM (2007) Antibiotic resistances of starter and probiotic strains of LAB. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:730–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jain S (2017) A study on susceptibility pattern of nitrofurantoin in clinical isolates of Enterococcus. Natl J Integr Res Med 8:53–56Google Scholar
  23. Jensen LB, Frimodt-Moller N, Aarestrup FM (1999) Presence of erm gene classes in gram-positive bacteria of animal and human origin in Denmark. FEMS Microbiol Lett 170:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Juers DH, Matthews BW, Huber RE (2012) LacZ β-galactosidase: structure and function of an enzyme of historical and molecular biological importance. Protein Sci 21:1792–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kastner S, Perreten V, Bleuler H, Hugenschmidt G, Lacroix CH, Meile L (2006) Antibiotic susceptibility patterns and resistance genes of starter cultures and probiotic bacteria used in food. Syst Appl Microbiol 29:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kataoka Y, Umino Y, Ochi H, Harada K, Sawada S (2014) Antimicrobial susceptibility of enterococcal species isolated from antibiotic-treated dogs and cats. J Vet Med Sci 76:1399–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kubašová I, Strompfová V, Lauková A (2017) Safety assessment of commensal enterococci from dogs. Folia Microbiol 62:491–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kumar S, Pattanaik AK, Sharma S, Gupta R, Jadhav SE, Dutta N (2017) Comparative assessment of canine-origin Lactobacillus johnsonii CPN23 and dairy-origin Lactobacillus acidophillus NCDC 15 for nutrient digestibility, faecal fermentative metabolites and selected gut health indices in dogs. J Nutr Sci 6:e38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lebreton F, Willems RJL, Gilmore MS (2014) Enterococcal species: natural and man-made habitats. In: Gilmore MS, Clewell DB, Ike Y et al (eds) Enterococci: from commensals to leading causes of drug resistant infection. Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, BostonGoogle Scholar
  30. Minelli EB, Beninin A (2008) Relationship between number of bacteria and their probiotic effects. Microb Ecol Health Dis 20:180–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nes IF, Holo H (2000) Class II antimicrobial peptides from lactic acid bacteria. Biopolym 55:50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ness IF, Diep DB, Ike Y (2014) Enterococcal bacteriocins and antimicrobial proteins that contribute to niche control. In: Gilmore, MS, Clewell, DB, Ike Y et al. (Eds.) Enterococci: from commensals to leading causes of drug resistant infection [internet]. Boston: Massachusetts Eye and Ear InfirmaryGoogle Scholar
  33. Nonaka L, Ikeno K, Suzuki S (2007) Distribution of tetracycline resistance gene, tet (M) in gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria isolated from sediment and seawater at a coastal aquaculture site in Japan. Microbes Environ 22:355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ossiprandi MC, Zerbini L (2015) Antimicrobial susceptibility of enterococcal species isolated from Italian dogs. In: Ossiprandi MC (ed.) Antimicrobial resistance - an open challenge, Ossiprandi, M.C. (Ed.), InTech,
  35. Park YH, Cho KM, Kim HW, Kim C (2010) Method for producing lactic acid with high concentration and high yield using lactic acid bacteria. CJ Cheiljedang Corp. U.S., patent 7682814 B2Google Scholar
  36. Ramsey M, Hartke A, Huycke M (2014) The Physiology and Metabolism of Enterococci. In: Gilmore MS, Clewell DB, Ike Y et al (eds) Enterococci: from commensals to leading causes of drug resistant infection. Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, BostonGoogle Scholar
  37. Roberts MC (1994) Epidemiology of tetracycline resistance determinants. Trends Microbiol 2:353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmitz S, Suchodolski J (2016) Understanding the canine intestinal microbiota and its modification by pro-, pre- and synbiotics – what is the evidence? Vet Med Sci 2:71–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Skalka B, Pillich J, Pospíšil L (1983) Further observation on Corynebacterium renale as an indicator organism in the detection of exfoliation-positive strains Staphylococcus aureus. Zentralbl Bakteriol Hyg A256:168–174Google Scholar
  40. Song SJ, Lauber C, Costello EK, Lozupone CA, Humphrey G, Berg-Lyons D, Caporaso G, Knights D, Clemente JC, Nakielny S, Gordon JI, Fierer N, Knighet R (2013) Cohabiting family members share microbiota with one another and with their dogs. eLife 2:e00458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stovcik V, Javorsky P, Pristas P (2008) Antibiotic resistance patterns and resistance genes in enterococci isolated from sheep gastrointestinal tract in Slovakia. Bull Vet Inst Pulawy 52:53–57Google Scholar
  42. Strompfová V, Lauková A, Ouwehand AC (2004) Lactobacilli and enterococci--potential probiotics for dogs. Folia Microbiol 49:203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Strompfová V, Lauková A, Simonová M, Marciňáková M (2008) Occurrence of the structural enterocin A, P, B, L50B genes in enterococci of different origin. Vet Microbiol 132:293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Subramanian MR, Talluri S, Christopher LP (2015) Production of lactic acid using a new homofermentative Enterococcus faecalis isolate. Microb Biotechnol 8:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (2017) Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 7.0.
  46. Weese JS, Anderson EC (2002) Preliminary evaluation of Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG, a potential probiotic in dogs. Can Vet J 43:771–774Google Scholar
  47. Yun JS, Wee JY, Ryu HW (2003) Production of optically pure l(+)-lactic acid from various carbohydrates by batch fermentation of Enterococcus faecalis RKY1. Enzym Microb Technol 33:416–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zdolec N (2017) Fermented meat products: health aspects. CRC Press, Boca Raton 572 pages, ISBN 9781315352831CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Microbiology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivana Kubašová
    • 1
  • Andrea Lauková
    • 1
  • Ľudmila Hamarová
    • 1
  • Peter Pristaš
    • 1
  • Viola Strompfová
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Centre of Biosciences Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Animal PhysiologyKošiceSlovakia

Personalised recommendations