Probiotic potential and safety of enterococci strains
- 75 Downloads
The aims of this research were to evaluate the safety and probiotic potential of Enterococcus spp. strains and select novel strains for future development of new functional fermented products. Bile salt hydrolase (BSH) activity, capacity of auto-aggregation and co-aggregation, hydrophobicity, tolerance to different pH values and NaCl content, mucin degradation, and antibiotic susceptibility were evaluated. Considering the preliminary probiotic features and safety, the strains were selected for complementary tests: tolerance to gastrointestinal tract (GIT) conditions, adhesion to Caco-2 cells and β-galactosidase activity, and presence of genes encoding virulence factors, antibiotic resistance, and biogenic amines were also performed for the selected strains. Enterococcus faecium SJRP20 and SJRP65 resisted well to the GIT conditions, presented low adhesion property, produced β-galactosidase although they did not present genes implicated in adhesion, aggregation, and colonization. Enterococcus faecium SJRP65 showed fewer genes related to antibiotic resistance and virulence factors and presented good functional properties, with interesting features for future application in dairy products.
KeywordsLactic acid bacteria Antibiotic resistance Virulence factors Enterococcus faecium Tolerance to gastrointestinal tract
The authors would also like to thank Dr. José Manoel de Moura Filho for his assistance with statistical analysis.
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP, Brazil, Project N° 2014/02131-8), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, Brazil, Project 307155/2015–3) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, Brazil).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
- Acurcio LB, Souza MR, Nunes AC, Oliveira DLS, Sandes SHC, Alvim LB (2014) Isolation, enumeration, molecular identification and probiotic potential evaluation of lactic acid bacteria isolated from sheep milk. Braz J Vet Res Ann Sci 66:940–948Google Scholar
- Ahmadova A, Todorov SD, Choiset Y, Rabesona H, Zadi TM, Kuliyev A, Franco BDGM, Chobert JM, Haertlé T (2013) Evaluation of antimicrobial activity, probiotic properties and safety of wild strain Enterococcus faecium AQ71 isolated from Azerbaijani Motal cheese. Food Control 30:631–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cavalieri SJ, Rankin ID, Harbeck RJ, Sautter RL, McCarter YS, Sharp SE, Ortez JH, Spiegel CA (2005) Manual of antimicrobial susceptibility testing. American Society for Microbiology, SeattleGoogle Scholar
- Devriese L, Baele M, Butaye P (2006) The genus enterococcus In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer KH, Stackebrandt E (eds) The prokaryotes: a handbook on the biology of bacteria. Vol. 4: Bacteria: Firmicutes, Cyanobacteria, 3rd Edn. Springer Science Business Media, New York, pp 163–174Google Scholar
- FAO/WHO (2002) Guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food: report of a joint FAO/WHO working group on drafting guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food. LondonGoogle Scholar
- Gheytanchi E, Heshmati L, Shargh BK, Nowroozi J, Movahedzadeh F (2010) Study on β-galactosidase enzyme produced by isolated lactobacilli from milk and cheese. Afr J Microbiol Res 4:454–458Google Scholar
- Hwanhlem N, Biscola V, El-Ghaish S, Jaffrès E, Dousset X, Haertlé T, Kittikun AH, Chobert JC (2013) Bacteriocin-producing lactic acid bacteria isolated from mangrove forests in southern Thailand as potential bio-control agents: purification and characterization of bacteriocin produced by Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis KT2W2L. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 5:264–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jiménez E, Ladero V, Chico I, Maldonado-Barragán A, López M, Martín V, Fernández L, Fernández M, Álvarez MA, Torres C, Rodríguez JM (2013) Antibiotic resistance, virulence determinants and production of biogenic amines among enterococci from ovine, feline, canine, porcine and human milk. BMC Microbiol 13:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Penna ALB, de Paula AT, Casarotti SN, Silva LF, Diamantino VR, Todorov SD (2015). Overview of the functional lactic acid bacteria in fermented milk products. In: Rai R and Bai JA (eds) Beneficial microbes in fermented and functional foods. CRC Press: Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 113–149Google Scholar
- Sánchez-Ortiz AC, Luna-González A, Campa-Córdova AI, Escamilla-Montes R, Flores-Miranda MDC, Mazón-Suástegui JM (2015) Isolation and characterization of potential probiotic bacteria from pustulose ark (Anadara tuberculosa) suitable for shrimp farming. Lat Am J Aquat Res 43:123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sattari M (2009) Prevalence of ant(4′)-Ia gene among clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus using multiplex-PCR method. Pathol Res Pract 12:59–68Google Scholar
- Sauer P, Síla J, Vágnerová I (2009) Virulence factors in vancomycin-susceptible and vancomycin-resistant enterococci in the university hospital Olomouc. Klin Mikrobiol Infekc Lek J 15:44–47Google Scholar
- Silva LF (2015) Diversity and evolution of authocthonous lactic microbiota in water buffalo Mozzarella cheese and technological application of isolates. Ph D Thesis, São Paulo State UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Todorov SD, Botes M, Guigas C, Schillinger U, Wiid I, Wachsman MB, Holzapfel WH, Dicks LM (2008) Boza, a natural source of probiotic lactic acid bacteria. J Appl Microbiol 104:465–477Google Scholar
- Zommiti M, Cambronel M, Maillot O, Barreau M, Sebei K, Feuilloley M, Ferchichi M, Connil N (2018) Evaluation of probiotic properties and safety of Enterococcus faecium isolated from artisanal Tunisian meat “dried Ossban”. Front Microbiol 9:1685. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01685 CrossRefGoogle Scholar