Isolation, technological characterization and in vitro probiotic evaluation of Lactococcus strains from traditional Turkish skin bag Tulum cheeses
- 178 Downloads
The present study was undertaken to evaluate in vitro prerequisite probiotic and technological characteristics of ten Lactococcus strains isolated from traditional goat skin bags of Tulum cheeses from the Central Taurus mountain range in Turkey.
All isolates were identified based on the nucleotide sequences of the 16S rRNA gene. Eight isolates belonged to Lactococcus lactis and two belonged to Lactococcus garvieae. Probiotic potential was determined from resistance to acid and bile salt, resistance to gastric and pancreatic juices, resistance to antibiotic, auto-aggregation, co-aggregation, diacetyl, hydrogen peroxide and exopolysaccharide productions. Technological properties were verified by alcohol, NaCl and hydrogen peroxide resistance and temperature tests.
L. lactis NTH7 displayed high growth at all alcohol concentrations while L. lactis NTH4 grew very well even at NaCl concentrations of 10%. All strains showed to some extent resistance to acid and bile. Five strains exhibited desirable survival in gastric juice (pH 2.0), while three strains survived in pancreatic juice (pH 8.0). All Lactococcus isolates were sensitive to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, erythromycin, vancomycin, kanamycin, gentamycin and tetracycline. Also, only L. lactis NTH7 from among the isolates showed resistance against penicillin. L. lactis NTH10 and L. lactis NTH7 had higher auto-aggregation values in comparison with all other strains. All the strains demonstrated a co-aggregation ability against model food pathogens, particularly, L. lactis NTH10 which showed a superior ability with L. monocytogenes. All the ten strains produced H2O2 and exopolysaccharide (EPS); however, diacetyl production was detected for only four strains including L. lactis NTH10.
These results demonstrate that the L. lactis NTH10 isolate could be regarded as a favorable probiotic candidate for future in vivo studies.
KeywordsProbiotic Technological characteristics Lactococcus Tulum cheese
TUBITAK (Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) supported the isolation and identification of Lactococcus strains from traditional Turkish skin bag Tulum cheeses by the project number TOAG-214Z054.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Abushelaibi A, Al-Mahadin S, El-Tarabily K, Shah NP, Ayyash M (2017) Characterization of potential probiotic lactic acid bacteria isolated from camel milk. LWT-Food Sci Technol 79:316–325Google Scholar
- An YH, Dickinson RB, Doyle RJ (2000) Mechanisms of bacterial adhesion and pathogenesis of implant and tissue infections. Handbook of Bacterial Adhesion. Springer, In, pp 1–27Google Scholar
- Attar MA, Yavarmanesh M, Mortazavi A, Dovom MRE, Najafi MBH (2018) Antibacterial effects of Lactococcus lactis isolated from Lighvan cheese regarding the recognition of Nisin, Lacticin and Lactococcin structural genes. LWT-Food Sci Technol 89:186–191Google Scholar
- Badis A, Guetarni D, Boudjema BM, Henni D, Kihal M (2004) Identification and technological properties of lactic acid bacteria isolated from raw goat milk of four Algerian races. Food Microbiol 21:579–588Google Scholar
- Bao Y et al (2010) Screening of potential probiotic properties of Lactobacillus fermentum isolated from traditional dairy products. Food Control 21:695–701Google Scholar
- Bautista-Gallego J, Arroyo-López F, Rantsiou K, Jiménez-Díaz R, Garrido-Fernández A, Cocolin L (2013) Screening of lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented table olives with probiotic potential. Food Res Int 50:135–142Google Scholar
- Cakmakci S, Dagdemir E, Hayaloglu A, Gurses M, Gundogdu E (2008) Influence of ripening container on the lactic acid bacteria population in Tulum cheese. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 24:293–299Google Scholar
- Chalas R, Janczarek M, Bachanek T, Mazur E, Cieszko-Buk M, Szymanska J (2016) Characteristics of oral probiotics–a review. Curr Issues Pharm Med Sci 29:8–10Google Scholar
- Charteris WP, Kelly MP, Morelli L, Collins KJ (1998a) Antibiotic susceptibility of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus species. Journal Food Prot 61(12):1636–1164Google Scholar
- Charteris WP, Kelly MP, Morelli L, Collins KJ (1998b) Development and application of an in vitro methodology to determine the transit tolerance of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species in the upper human gastrointestinal tract. J Appl Microbiol 84:759–768PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cogan TM et al (1997) Characterization of the lactic acid bacteria in artisanal dairy products. J Dairy Res 64:409–421Google Scholar
- Das P, Khowala S, Biswas S (2016) In vitro probiotic characterization of Lactobacillus casei isolated from marine samples. LWT-Food Sci Technol 73:383–390Google Scholar
- de Almeida Júnior WLG, da Silva FÍ, de Souza JV, da Silva CDA, da Costa MM, Dias FS (2015) Characterization and evaluation of lactic acid bacteria isolated from goat milk. Food Control 53:96–103Google Scholar
- FAO/WHO (2001) Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on evaluation of health and nutritional properties of probiotics in food including powder milk with live lactic acid bacteria. CórdobaGoogle Scholar
- Franciosi E, Settanni L, Cavazza A, Poznanski E (2009) Biodiversity and technological potential of wild lactic acid bacteria from raw cows' milk. Int Dairy J 19:3–11Google Scholar
- Gurses M, Erdogan A (2006) Identification of lactic acid bacteria isolated from Tulum cheese during ripening period. Int J Food Prop 9:551–557Google Scholar
- Hoque M, Akter F, Hossain K, Rahman M, Billah M, Islam K (2010) Isolation, identification and analysis of probiotic properties of Lactobacillus spp. from selective regional yoghurts. World J Dairy Food Sci 5:39–46Google Scholar
- Hviid A-MM, Ruhdal-Jensen P, Kilstrup M (2017) Butanol is cytotoxic to Lactococcus lactis while ethanol and hexanol are cytostatic. Microbiol 163:453–461Google Scholar
- Karakas-Sen A, Karakas E (2018) Isolation, identification and technological properties of lactic acid bacteria from raw cow milk. Biosci J 34:385–399Google Scholar
- Khemariya P, Singh S, Nath G, Gulati AK (2013) Isolation, identification and antibiotic susceptibility of nis+ Lactococcus lactis from dairy and non-dairy sources. Czech J Food Sci 31(4):323–331Google Scholar
- Kondrotiene K et al (2018) Characterization and application of newly isolated nisin producing Lactococcus lactis strains for control of Listeria monocytogenes growth in fresh cheese. LWT-Food Sci Technol 87:507–514Google Scholar
- Kumar BV, Vijayendra SVN, Reddy OVS (2015) Trends in dairy and non-dairy probiotic products-a review. J Food Sci Technol 52:6112–6124Google Scholar
- Lopez-Dıaz T, Alonso C, Roman C, Garcıa-Lopez M, Moreno B (2000) Lactic acid bacteria isolated from a hand-made blue cheese. Food Microbiol 17:23–32Google Scholar
- Patel A, Lindström C, Patel A, Prajapati J, Holst O (2012) Probiotic properties of exopolysaccharide producing lactic acid bacteria isolated from vegetables and traditional Indian fermented foods. Int J Fermented Foods 1:87–101Google Scholar
- Patrick WA, Wagner HB (1949) Determination of hydrogen peroxide in small concentrations. Anal Chem 21:1279–1280Google Scholar
- Piard J, Desmazeaud M (1992) Inhibiting factors produced by lactic acid bacteria. 2. Bacteriocins and other antibacterial substances. Lait 72:113–142Google Scholar
- Picon A, Garde S, Ávila M, Nuñez M (2016) Microbiota dynamics and lactic acid bacteria biodiversity in raw goat milk cheeses. Int Dairy J 58:14–22Google Scholar
- Prasad J, Gill H, Smart J, Gopal PK (1998) Selection and characterisation of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains for use as probiotics. Int Dairy J 8:993–1002Google Scholar
- Rochat T, Miyoshi A, Gratadoux J, Duwat P, Sourice S, Azevedo V, Langella P (2005) High-level resistance to oxidative stress in Lactococcus lactis conferred by Bacillus subtilis catalase KatE. Microbiol 151:3011–3018Google Scholar
- Rodgers S (2008) Novel applications of live bacteria in food services: probiotics and protective cultures. Trends Food Sci Technol 19:188–197Google Scholar
- Shehata M, El Sohaimy S, El-Sahn MA, Youssef M (2016) Screening of isolated potential probiotic lactic acid bacteria for cholesterol lowering property and bile salt hydrolase activity. Ann Clin Lab Sci 61:65–75Google Scholar
- Solem C, Dehli T, Jensen PR (2013) Rewiring Lactococcus lactis for ethanol production. J Appl Environ Microbiol 79:2512–2518Google Scholar
- Takeda S et al (2011) The investigation of probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria isolated from traditional Mongolian dairy products. Animal Sci J 82:571–579Google Scholar
- Tambekar D, Bhutada S (2010) Studies on antimicrobial activity and characteristics of bacteriocins produced by Lactobacillus strains isolated from milk of domestic animals. Internet J Microbiol 8:1–6Google Scholar
- Umer Khan S (2014) Probiotics in dairy foods: a review Nutrition & Food Science 44:71-88Google Scholar
- Van Geel-Schutten G, Flesch F, Ten Brink B, Smith M, Dijkhuizen L (1998) Screening and characterization of Lactobacillus strains producing large amounts of exopolysaccharides. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 50:697–703Google Scholar
- Vidhyasagar V, Saraniya A, Jeevaratnam K (2013) Identification of pectin degrading lactic acid bacteria from fermented food sources. Int J Adv Lif Sci 6:8–12Google Scholar
- Vinderola C, Reinheimer J (2003) Lactic acid starter and probiotic bacteria: a comparative “in vitro” study of probiotic characteristics and biological barrier resistance. Food Res Int 36:895–904Google Scholar
- Weichselbaum E (2009) Probiotics and health: a review of the evidence. Nutr Bull 34:340–373Google Scholar
- Yüksekdağ Z, Beyatli Y, Aslim B (2004) Determination of some characteristics coccoid forms of lactic acid bacteria isolated from Turkish kefirs with natural probiotic. LWT-Food Sci Technol 37:663–667Google Scholar