Advertisement

Combined use of eBeam irradiation and the potential probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus Vahe for control of foodborne pathogen Klebsiella pneumoniae

  • Marine H. BalayanEmail author
  • Astghik Z. Pepoyan
  • Anahit M. Manvelyan
  • Vardan V. Tsaturyan
  • Bagrat Grigoryan
  • Arusyak Abrahamyan
  • Michael L. Chikindas
Open Access
Short Communication
  • 135 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The implementation of electron beam radiation coupled with the use of probiotics is one of the newest food processing technologies that may be used to ensure food safety and improve shelf life of food products. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of 50–150-Gy electron beam irradiation on the antimicrobial activity of the putative probiotic strain Lactobacillus rhamnosus Vahe.

Methods

Low-dose electron beam irradiation of lactobacilli cells was performed using the Advanced Research Electron Accelerator Laboratory’s electron accelerator, and the agar well diffusion method and Verhulst logistic function were used to evaluate the effect of radiation on anti–Klebsiella pneumoniae activity of the cell free supernatant of L. rhamnosus Vahe cells in vitro.

Results

Our results suggest that 50–150-Gy electron beam irradiation decreases the viability of the investigated lactobacilli, but does not significantly change the probiotic’s activity against K. pneumoniae.

Conclusions

Results indicate that the combined use of irradiation and L. rhamnosus Vahe might be suggested for non-thermal food sterilizing technologies.

Keywords

Lactobacillus rhamnosus Vahe Cell viability Antimicrobial activity Probiotic 

Findings

Electron beam irradiation (eBeam), being an inexpensive, environmentally friendly, and time-efficient alternative to traditional thermal decontamination technology, has the potential for use in food processing technologies to improve food quality and reduce the risk of microbial contamination of food products (Ravindran and Jaiswal 2019). Probiotics are defined as live cells which, when administered in adequate amounts, benefit the host’s health. Some of them (including lactobacilli probiotics) also possess antagonistic potential against pathogens (Pepoyan et al. 2018a, Pepoyan et al. 2018c)and are used in food production for control of foodborne pathogens (Mattila-Sandholm et al. 2002). The combined use of eBeam (50–100 Gy) and Lactobacillus rhamnosus Vahe (potential probiotic) and Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS®-1 (Lacto-G, a marketed synbiotic formulation) cells was previously suggested by our group for quality improvement and packaging practices (Pepoyan et al. 2019). While no significant changes in cell surface hydrophobicity (CSH) were found after the 150-Gy eBeam irradiation, an increase in biofilm-formation (BF) ability was shown for L. rhamnosus Vahe and L. acidophilus DDS®-1 (0.22 ± 0.03 vs. 0.149 ± 0.02 and 0.218 ± 0.021 vs. 0.17 ± 0.012, respectively) (Pepoyan et al. 2019). The evaluation of radiation dose-response effects revealed that L. rhamnosus Vahe is more resistant to 50–150-Gy irradiation than L acidophilus DDS®-1. D10 value of L. rhamnosus Vahe was defined as the radiation dose (Gy) required to reduce the number of CFU by one Log10. This (218 Gy) was determined by calculating the negative reciprocal of the slope of the linear regression curve (Manvelyan et al. 2019). Taking into account the use of low-dose eBeam in different food processing technologies and possible changes in antagonistic activities against pathogens after irradiation, we further investigate the impact of 50–150-Gy eBeam irradiation on the anti–Klebsiella pneumoniae activity of the probiotic L. rhamnosus Vahe.

The putative probiotic L. rhamnosus Vahe was isolated from the feces of a healthy infant (Pepoyan et al. 2018b). A multidrug-resistant clinical isolate of K. pneumoniae was obtained from the Armenian National Agrarian University culture collection. Bacterial strains were cultured in de Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe (MRS) broth and on MRS agar (Thermo Scientific™, UK). When required, Oxoid™ Endo Agar (Thermo Scientific™, UK) and VITEK® 2 compact (BioMerieux, France) were used for the identification of bacterial cells.

AREAL, a laser-driven photocathode RF gun-based electron accelerator, was used to irradiate lactobacilli cells (Tsakanov et al. 2016). A bacterial suspension was prepared in phosphate buffered saline (2 ml; 1.5 × 108 CFU/ml) from overnight-grown cell cultures, immediately before irradiation. Bacteria were irradiated in glass vessels, which allows for the scattering on the background of absorption to be ignored. A detailed description of the parameters and conditions of irradiation is given in Pepoyan et al. (2019): radio frequency (RF) high voltage, 117 kV; RF phase, − 82°; pulse repetition rate, 12 Hz; solenoid current, 9.7/47 A/V; dipole current, 4/9 A/V; corrector magnet (X | Y), 2.5/7.3 A/V (RF system); beam charge (C-IN/FC-OUT), 440/55 pC; beam energy, 3.6 MeV; laser pulse duration, 0.42 ps; mass of the samples, 3.2 g; dose, 50–150 Gy; time (mm/ss), 3 min 7 s, 4 m in23 s, and 6 min 35 s.

After irradiation, an 0.1 ml suspension of L. rhamnosus Vahe cells was transferred into 0.9 ml of fresh MRS broth and incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. The cells were then removed by centrifugation at 4200g for 15 min, and the supernatant was sterilized using 0.22 μm Millipore filters (Millex-GV, Sigma-Aldrich). The inhibitory activity of the lactobacilli cell free supernatant (CFS) against K. pneumoniae was initially evaluated by observing the changes in optical density (OD600) of the pathogen’s suspension after 24-h incubation at 37 °C using the biochemical analyzer (STAT FAX 3300, Awareness Technology). Colony-forming units (CFU) were determined after 24-h incubation by plating on MRS agar. To describe the growth characteristics of K. pneumoniae treated with the cell free supernatants of irradiated and non-irradiated lactobacilli, Verhulst’s function was used (Gasparyan et al. 2013; Pepoyan et al. 2017):
$$ X=\frac{\left(A-C\right)}{\left(1+{10}^{\alpha +\beta \times t}\right)}+C $$
(function 1)
where X is the optical density at time t; A is the asymptote, maximal optical density; C is the initial value of optical density; t is the total cultivation time; and α and β are kinetic parameters that define the shape, point of inflection, and slope of the curve.

The inhibitory activity of lactobacilli CFS against K. pneumoniae was also evaluated by the agar well diffusion method. In this case, 0.1 ml of irradiated and non-irradiated suspensions of L. rhamnosus Vahe was transferred onto MRS agar plates. Plates were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C, and one colony from each plate was transferred into 0.9 ml MRS broth and grown at 37 °C for 24 h. Then cultures were centrifuged at 4200g for 15 min and the supernatants were harvested. Supernatants were sterilized using 0.22-μm Millipore filters. The pathogen was propagated overnight in MRS broth. Then the pathogenic bacteria were streaked on the surface of Mueller-Hinton agar. Wells were made (6 mm diameter) on the surface of the streaked agar. The CFSs from the culture of L. rhamnosus Vahe were placed in the wells (100 μl) and the plates were then incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. A clear zone of inhibition (≥ 6 mm in diameter) was defined as positive result.

Statistical processing of the data was performed using the Mann-Whitney and Student t test, as well as the Chi-square test (Excel 2010). The probability P < 0.01 was considered as statistically significant. All experiments were performed in duplicate twice.

The growth kinetics of K. pneumoniae treated with the CFS of irradiated L. rhamnosus Vahe cells are presented in Fig. 1. The non-treated pathogen’s OD600 reached 1.58 ± 0.09 after a 24-h incubation in MRS broth. However, the pathogen’s growth was inhibited in the presence of the untreated L. rhamnosus Vahe CFS (OD600 = 0.14 ± 0.06). When the pathogen was treated with the irradiated L. rhamnosus Vahe CFS, its OD600 reached 0.13 ± 0.08 (50-Gy irradiated cells), 0.22 ± 0.12 (100 Gy), and 0.68 ± 0.05 (150 Gy), respectively. The antagonistic effect of the CFS was much less pronounced after irradiation of lactobacilli with a higher dose (150 Gy), which can be explained by the number of viable lactobacilli after irradiation, as described earlier in our assessment of dose-response effects of 50–150-Gy eBeam irradiation (Manvelyan et al. 2019). The results shown in Fig. 1 also indicate a decrease in the number of viable lactobacilli in correlation with an increase in eBeam radiation doses.
Fig. 1

Anti–K. pneumoniae effects of cell free supernatants from the irradiated and non-irradiated L. rhamnosus Vahe (24-h incubation). CFS, cell free supernatant; CFU, colony-forming unit

Modeling the growth of microbial populations serves as a tool for predicting changes in artificial and natural biocenoses. The use of mathematical models to determine the characteristics of bacterial growth can serve as one of the criteria for the intelligent use of probiotics. Verhulst’s equation was previously used to describe the growth phases of gut Escherichia coli isolates (Gasparyan et al. 2013) and to evaluate and quantify the beneficial effects of the probiotic strain L. acidophilus INMIA 9602 Er 317/402 on patients with familial Mediterranean fever (Pepoyan et al. 2017).

Taking into account the importance of evaluating the specific growth rate in comparative studies (Berneyet et al. 2006), the specific growth rate of pathogens was also calculated. The data obtained and calculations utilizing the Verhulst equation demonstrated the inhibitory effect of the lactobacilli’s CFS on the growth parameters of K. pneumonia cells (Fig. 2). These changes, independent of changes in the pH of the growth medium (data not shown), refer to the preparatory (lag), logarithmic, and stationary phases of the growth of the pathogen (Fig. 2). Control (non-treated) K. pneumoniae cells had a significantly higher maximum specific growth rate (μmax) and achieved a greater total biomass compared with K. pneumoniae cells treated with the CFS of L. rhamnosus Vahe cells (the coefficient of determination of R2 was 0.9955 and 0.8829, respectively) (Fig. 2). The duration of the preparatory phase, including the phase of growth inhibition, when there is no growth, and the phase of accelerated growth, when the growth rate reaches its maximum (before the logarithmic growth phase), was more than twice as high in the CFS-treated groups compared with that in the control group of K. pneumoniae. At the same time, there were no statistically significant differences in these characteristics of growth of the pathogen after the addition of the CFSs of irradiated and non-irradiated L. rhamnosus Vahe (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Growth kinetics according to Verhulst’s model: Function 1 and specific growth rate of control K. pneumoniae cells (a) and K. pneumoniae cells (b) treated with the CFS of 150-Gy electron beam irradiated and none-irradiated L. rhamnosus Vahe.X, the optical density at time t; A, maximal optical density; C, the initial value of the optical density; t, the total cultivation time; α and β, kinetic parameters that define the shape, point of inflection, and slope of the curve; μ, specific growth rate

The evaluation of the effect of CFS on activity against K. pneumoniae was also conducted by the agar well diffusion method. The results showed no statistical differences in the antagonistic effects of the CFS derived from non-irradiated and irradiated cells, when the bacterial titers of L. rhamnosus Vahe in the suspensions were the same. Also, 85 ± 5% of wells with CFSs from the control (untreated) and irradiated cells produced ≥ 6-mm inhibition zone. The anti–K. pneumoniae activity of neutralized (pH 7.0 ± 0.01) CFS did not differ much from that of non-neutralized CFS.

Lactobacilli produce a wide range of antibacterial compounds, including weak organic acids (lactic acid and acetic acid), hydrogen peroxide, and proteinaceous compounds such as bacteriocins (Giri et al. 2009). The anti–K. pneumoniae activity of the CFS from the putative probiotic strain L. rhamnosus Vahe is reported here and can be explained by antibacterial compounds that are naturally produced by the lactobacilli.

Currently, X-ray and eBeam technologies аrе used to eliminate microbial pathogens (i.e., cold pasteurization) or (in higher doses) to sterilize food ingredients (Pillai 2016). They can also be used at very low doses for phytosanitary treatment, which eliminates insects and pests on agricultural products (Pillai 2016). Gosiewski et al. (2016) reported that 3–50-Gy doses of irradiation have a neutral effect on viability of lactobacilli, while our study has shown that 50–150-Gy eBeam irradiation decreases the viability of the novel potential probiotic strain L. rhamnosus Vahe. At the same time, the strain’s antagonistic potential was not affected.

Thus, the obtained results suggest that 150-Gy eBeam-irradiated cells of probiotic L. rhamnosus Vahe produce metabolite(s) with an anti–K. pneumoniae effect, similar to the effects of non-irradiated lactobacilli cells. The combined use of eBeam (5–100 Gy) and L. rhamnosus Vahe might be suggested for possible use in different scenarios in the healthcare and food industries where inhibition of undesired microorganisms is required.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Richard Weeks for proofreading the manuscript.

Author contributions

Conceived and designed the study: AP and BG. Performed sampling and laboratory testing: MB, AM, AA, and BG. Analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript: AP, AM, MB, VT, and MC. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding information

This work was supported by the RA MES Science Committee, within the scope of the research project No. 17A-1F010. MC was supported in part by the Ministry of Science of the Russian Federation (Project Number 19.6015.2017/8.9).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors

Informed consent

N/A

References

  1. Berneyet M, Weilenmann H, Ihssen J, Bassin C, Egli T (2006) Specific growth rate determines the sensitivity of Escherichia coli to thermal, UVA, and solar disinfection. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:2586–2593.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.72.4.2586-2593.200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gasparyan G, Balayan M, Grigoryan A, Hakobyan A, Manvelyan A, Mirzabekyan S, Trchunyan A, Pepoyan A (2013) Growth peculiarities of commensal Escherichia coli isolates from the gut microflora in Crohns disease patients. Biophysics 58:690–696.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S0006350913040064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Giri S, Sukumaran V, Sen S, Vinumonia J, Banu B, Jena P, Todorov S (2009) Bacteriocins from Lactobacillus plantarum – production, genetic organization and mode of action. Braz J Microbiol 40:209–221.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-83822009000200001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gosiewski T, Mroz T, Ochonska D, Pabian W, Bulanda M, Brzychczy-Wloch M (2016) A study of the effects of therapeutic doses of ionizing radiation in vitro on Lactobacillus isolates originating from the vagina - a pilot study. BMC Microbiol 16:99.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-016-0716-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Manvelyan A, Balayan M, Grigoryan B, Pepoyan A (2019) Impact of low dose electron beam irradiation on putative probiotic strain Lactobacillus rhamnosus VAHE. Bull State Agrarian Univ Armenia 1:61–64Google Scholar
  6. Mattila-Sandholm T, Myllarinen P, Crittenden R, Mogensen G, Fonden R, Saarela M (2002) Technological challenges for future probiotic foods. Int Dairy J 12:173–182.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-6946(01)00099-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Pepoyan AZ, Balayan MH, Manvelyan AM, Mamikonyan V, Tsaturyan VV IM, Kamiya S, Netrebov V, Chikindas ML (2017) Lactobacillus acidophilus INMIA 9602 Er-2 strain 317/402 probiotic regulates growth of commensal Escherichia coli in gut microbiota of Familial Mediterranean fever disease subjects. Lett Appl Microbiol 64:254–260.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lam.12722 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Pepoyan A, Balayan M, Manvelyan A, Galstyan L, Pepoyan S, Petrosyan S, Tsaturyan V, Kamiya S, Torok T, Chikindas M (2018a) Probiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus strain INMIA 9602 Er 317/402 administration reduces the numbers of Candida albicans and abundance of enterobacteria in the gut microbiota of familial Mediterranean fever patients. Front Immunol 9:1426.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.01426 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Pepoyan A, Balayan M, Malkasyan L, Manvelyan A, Bezhanyan T, Paronikyan R, Tsaturyan V, Tatikyan S, Kamiya S, Chikindas M (2018b) Effects of probiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus strain INMIA 9602 Er 317/402 and putative probiotic lactobacilli on DNA damages in small intestine of Wistar rats in vivo. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 11(3):905–909.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-018-9491-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pepoyan A, Balayan M, Manvelyan A, Pepoyan S, Malkhasyan L, Bezhanyan T, Paronikyan R, Malakyan M, Bajinyan S, Tsaturyan V, Kamiya S, Chikindas M (2018c) Radioprotective effects of lactobacilli with antagonistic activities against human pathogens. Biophys J 114:665a.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2017.11.3586 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pepoyan A, Manvelyan A, Balayan M, Galstyan S, Tsaturyan V, Grigoryan B, Chikindas M (2019) Low-dose electron-beam irradiation for the improvement of biofilm formation by probiotic lactobacilli. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins doi.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-019-09566-1 [Epub ahead of print]
  12. Pillai S (2016) Introduction to Electron-Beam Food Irradiation. CEP Magazine 112:36–44Google Scholar
  13. Ravindran R, Jaiswal AK (2019) Wholesomeness and safety aspects of irradiated foods. Food Chem 285:363–368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.02.002. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Tsakanov V, Aroutiounian R, Amatuni G (2016) AREAL Low energy electron beam applications in life and materials sciences. Nuclear Instruments Methods Phys Res ANIM A 829:248–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2016.02.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Food Safety and BiotechnologyArmenian National Agrarian UniversityYerevanArmenia
  2. 2.International Association for Human and Animals Health ImprovementYerevanArmenia
  3. 3.Yerevan state medical university after Mkhitar HeratsiYerevanArmenia
  4. 4.CANDLE Synchrotron Research InstituteYerevanArmenia
  5. 5.Canadian Centre for DNA BarcodingUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  6. 6.Academy of Biology and BiotechnologySouthern Federal UniversityRostov-on-DonRussia
  7. 7.Health Promoting Natural LaboratoryRutgers State UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations