Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Probiotic Potential of a Lactobacillus Bacterium of Canine Faecal-Origin and Its Impact on Select Gut Health Indices and Immune Response of Dogs

  • Published:
Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to develop a probiotic of canine-origin for its potential application in pet nutrition. Accordingly, 32 lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strains were isolated from faeces of dogs, out of which 9 strains were short-listed for further in vitro testing based on the aggregation time and cell surface hydrophobicity. The results of acid-, bile- and phenol-tolerance tests indicated that out of the nine, isolate cPRO23 was having better resistance to these adverse conditions likely to be encountered in the gastrointestinal tract. The isolate also showed optimal enzymatic activities for amylase, lipase and protease. Further assessments also indicated its superiority in terms of co-aggregation and antagonistic activity against pathogenic strains of Salmonella typhimurium and Salmonella enteritidis. Subsequently, the isolate was identified through 16S rRNA sequencing and sequence homology, and designated as Lactobacillus johnsonii CPN23. The candidate probiotic was then evaluated in vivo using 15 adult Labrador dogs, divided into 3 groups, viz. CON (with no probiotics), dPRO (with Lactobacillus acidophilus NCDC 15 as a conventional dairy-origin probiotic) and cPRO (with L. johnsonii CPN23 as a canine-origin probiotic). Results of the 9-week study indicated that supplementation of cPRO improved (P < 0.05) the faecal concentration of acetate and butyrate with a concomitant reduction (P < 0.05) in faecal ammonia. The cell-mediated immune response, assessed as delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to phytohaemagglutinin-P, was better (P < 0.05) in dogs fed cPRO as compared to the CON dogs. There were, however, no variations evident in the antibody response to sheep-erythrocytes among the three groups. It is concluded that the canine-origin L. johnsonii CPN23, in addition to possessing all the in vitro functional attributes of a candidate probiotic, also has the potential to be used as a probiotic in pet nutrition programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Manson JM, Rauch M, Gilmore MS (2008) The commensal microbiology of the gastrointestinal tract. Adv Exp Med Biol 635:15–28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jena PK, Trivedi D, Thakore K, Chaudhary H, Giri SS, Seshadri S (2013) Isolation and characterization of probiotic properties of Lactobacilli isolated from rat faecal microbiota. Microbiol Immunol 57:407–416

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kore KB, Pattanaik AK, Sharma K, Mirajkar PP (2012) Effect of feeding traditionally prepared fermented milk dahi (curd) as a probiotics on nutritional status, hindgut health and haematology in dogs. Indian J Tradit Know 11:35–39

    Google Scholar 

  4. El-Naggar MYM (2004) Comparative study of probiotic culture to control the growth of Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Salmonella typhimurium. Biotechnol 3:173–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McCoy S, Gilliland SE (2007) Isolation and characterization of lactobacillus species having potential for use as probiotic cultures for dogs. J Food Sci 72:M94–M97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dunne C, Murphy L, Flynn S et al (1999) Probiotics: from myth to reality. Demonstration of functionality in animal models of disease and in human clinical trials. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 76:279–292

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ouwehand AC, Salminen S, Isolauri E (2002) Probiotics: an overview of beneficial effects. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 82:279–289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fuller R (1986) Probiotics. J Appl Bacteriol 60:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Uyeno Y, Shigemori S, Shimosato T (2015) Effect of probiotics/prebiotics on cattle health and productivity. Microbes Environ 30:126–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Xanthopoulos V, Litopoulou-Tzanetaki E, Tzanetakis N (2000) Characterization of lactobacillus isolates from infant faeces as dietary adjuncts. Food Microbiol 17:2205–2215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Agazzi A, Tirloni E, Stella S et al (2014) Effects of species-specific probiotic addition to milk replacer on calf health and performance during the first month of life. Ann Anim Sci 14:101–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ehrmann MA, Kurzak P, Bauer J, Vogel RF (2002) Characterization of lactobacilli towards their use as probiotic adjuncts in poultry. J Appl Microbiol 92:966–975

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Vineetha PG, Tomar S, Saxena VK, Susan C, Sandeep S, Adil K, Mukesh K (2016) Screening of Lactobacillus isolates from gastrointestinal tract of guinea fowl for probiotic qualities using in vitro tests to select species-specific probiotic candidates. Br Poult Sci 57:474–482

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Nandi A, Dan SK, Banerjee G, Ghosh P, Ghosh K, Ringø E, Ray AK (2016) Probiotic potential of autochthonous bacteria isolated from the gastrointestinal tract of four freshwater teleosts. Probiotics Antimicro Prot. doi:10.1007/s12602-016-9228-8

    Google Scholar 

  15. Biagi G, Cipollini I, Pompei A, Zaghini G, Matteuzzi D (2007) Effect of a Lactobacillus animalis strain on composition and metabolism of the intestinal microflora in adult dogs. Vet Microbiol 124:160–165

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Perelmuter K, Fraga M, Zunino P (2008) In vitro activity of potential probiotic Lactobacillus murinus isolated from the dog. J Appl Microbiol 104:1718–1725

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. O’Mahony D, Murphy KB, MacSharry J et al (2009) Portrait of a canine probiotic Bifidobacterium—from gut to gut. Vet Microbiol 139:106–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Manninen TJK, Rinkinen ML, Beasley SS, Saris PEJ (2006) Alteration of the canine small-intestinal lactic acid bacterium microbiota by feeding of potential probiotics. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:6539–6543

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tuomola E, Crittenden R, Playne M, Isolauri E, Salminen S (2001) Quality assurance criteria for probiotic bacteria. Am J Clin Nutr 73:393S–398S

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Strompfova V, Laukova A, Ouwehand AC (2004) Selection of Enterococci for potential canine probiotic additives. Vet Microbiol 100:107–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kelley R, Hayek MG, Levy K (2012) Effects of varying doses of a probiotic supplement fed to healthy dogs undergoing kenneling stress. Int J Appl Res 10:205–216

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Reniero R, Cocconcelli PS, Bottazzi V, Morelli L (1992) High frequency of conjugation in lactobacillus mediated by an aggregation-promoting factor. J Gen Microbiol 138:763–768

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ekmekci H, Aslim B, Ozturk S (2009) Characterization of vaginal lactobacilli coaggregation ability with Escherichia coli. Microbiol Immunol 53:59–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim EY, Kim YH, Rhee MH et al (2007) Selection of lLactobacillus sp. PSC101 that produces active dietary enzymes such as amylase, lipase, phytase and protease in pigs. J Gen Appl Microbiol 53:111–117

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Garriga M, Pascual M, Monfort JM, Hugas M (1998) Selection of lactobacilli for chicken probiotic adjuncts. J Appl Microbiol 84:125–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Jin LZ, Ho YW, Abdullah N, Ali MA, Jalaludin S (1996) Antagonistic effects of intestinal Lactobacillus isolates on pathogens of chicken. Lett Appl Microbiol 23:67–71

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Handley PS, Harty DWS, Wyatt JE, Brown CR, Doran JP, Gibbs ACC (1987) A comparison of the adhesion, co-aggregation and cell-surface hydrophobicity properties of fibrillar and fimbriate strains of Streptococcus salivarius. J Gen Microbiol 133:3207–3217

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Schillinger U, Lucke F (1989) Antibacterial activity of Lactobacillus sake isolated from meat. Appl Environ Microbiol 55:1901–1906

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Patil MM, Pal A, Anand T, Ramana KV (2010) Isolation and characterization of lactic acid bacteria from curd and cucumber. Indian J Biotechnol 9:166–172

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lane DJ (1991) 16S/23S rRNA sequencing. In: Stackebrandt E, Goodfellow M (eds) Nucleic acid techniques in bacterial systematics. Wiley, New York, pp 115–175

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tajabadi N, Mardan M, Manap MYA, Mustafa S (2013) Molecular identification of Lactobacillus spp. isolated from the honey comb of the honey bee (Apis dorsata) by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. J Apic Res 52:235–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG (1997) The CLUSTAL_X windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res 25:4876–4882

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. NRC (2006) Nutrient requirements of dogs and cats. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  34. Samal L, Chaturvedi VB, Saikumar G, Somvanshi R, Pattanaik AK (2015) Prebiotic potential of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) in Wistar rats: effects of levels of supplementation on hindgut fermentation, intestinal morphology, blood metabolites and immune response. J Sci Food Agric 95:1689–1696

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Samal L, Chaturvedi VB, Baliyan S, Saxena M, Pattanaik AK (2012) Jerusalem artichoke as a potential prebiotic: influence on nutrient utilization, hindgut fermentation and immune response of Labrador dogs. Anim Nutr Feed Technol 12:343–352

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pattanaik AK, Khan SA, Goswami TK (2007) Influence of iodine on nutritional, metabolic and immunological response of goats fed Leucaena leucocephala leaf meal diet. J Agric Sci 145:395–405

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Wegmann TG, Smithies O (1966) A simple hemagglutination system requiring small amounts of red cells and antibodies. Transfusion 6:67–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fuller R (1975) Nature of the determinant responsible for the adhesion of lactobacilli to chicken crop epithelial cell. J Appl Bacteriol 37:245–250

    Google Scholar 

  39. Taheri HR, Moravej H, Tabandeh F, Zaghari M, Shivazad M (2009) Screening of lactic acid bacteria toward their selection as a source of chicken probiotic. Poult Sci 88:1586–1593

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Patel AK, Ahire JJ, Pawar SP, Chaudhari BL, Chincholkar SB (2009) Comparative accounts of probiotic characteristics of Bacillus spp. isolated from food wastes. Food Res Int 42:505–510

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. DelRe B, Sgorbati B, Miglioli M, Palenzona D (2000) Adhesion, autoaggregation and hydrophobicity of 13 strains of Bifidobacterium longum. Letts Appl Microbiol 31:438–442

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Lee HS, Gilliland SE, Carter S (2001) Amylolytic cultures of Lactobacillus acidophilus: potential probiotics to improve dietary starch utilization. J Food Sci 66:338–344

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Reid G (2001) Probiotic agents to protect the urogenital tract against infection. Am J Clin Nutr 73:437–443

    Google Scholar 

  44. Morelli L (2007) In vitro assessment of probiotic bacteria: from survival to functionality. Int Dairy J 17:1278–1283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gilliland SE, Staley TE, Bush LJ (1984) Importance of bile tolerance of Lactobacillus acidophilus used as dietary adjunct. J Dairy Sci 67:3045–3051

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Strompfova V, Marciňáková M, Simonová M, Matijašić BB, Laukova A (2006) Application of potential probiotic Lactobacillus fermentum AD1 strain in healthy dogs. Anaerobe 12:75–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gilliland SE, Walker DK (1990) Factors to consider when selecting a culture of L. acidophilus as a dietary adjunct to produce a hypercholesterolemic effect in humans. J Dairy Sci 73:905–909

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Suskovic J, Brkic B, Matosic S, Maric V (1997) Lactobacillus acidophilus M92 as potential probiotic strain. Milchwissenschaft 52:430–435

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Pinto MGV, Franz CMAP, Schillinger U, Holzapfel WH (2006) Lactobacillus spp. with in vitro probiotic properties from human faeces and traditional fermented products. Int J Food Microbiol 109:205–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Malik A, Sakamoto M, Hanazaki S, Osawa M, Suzuki T, Tochigi M, Kakii K (2003) Coaggregation among nonflocculating bacteria isolated from activated sludge. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:6056–6063

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Collado MC, Meriluoto J, Salminen S (2007) Measurement of aggregation properties between probiotics and pathogens: in vitro evaluation of different methods. J Microbiol Methods 71:71–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Presser KA, Ratkowsky DA, Ross T (1997) Modelling the growth rate of Escherichia coli as a function of pH and lactic acid concentration. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:2355–2360

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Payne JB, Osborne JA, Jenkins PK, Sheldon BW (2007) Modeling the growth and death kinetics of Salmonella in poultry litter as a function of pH and water activity. Poult Sci 86:191–201

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Soomro AH, Masud T, Anwaar K (2002) Role of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) in food reservation and human health: a review. Pak J Nutr 1:20–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Simova ED, Beshkova DB, Dimitrov ZP (2009) Characterization and antimicrobial spectrum of bacteriocins produced by lactic acid bacteria isolated from traditional Bulgarian dairy products. J Appl Microbiol 106:692–701

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Reque FE, Pandey A, Franco SG, Soccol CR (2000) Isolation, identification and physiological study of Lactobacillus fermentum LBP for use as probiotic in chickens. Braz J Microbiol 31:303–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ghosh AR (2012) Appraisal of probiotics and prebiotics in gastrointestinal infections. Gastroenterol 3:1–27

    Google Scholar 

  58. Kore KB, Pattanaik AK, Das A, Sharma K (2009) Evaluation of alternative cereal sources in dog diets: effect on nutrient utilisation and hindgut fermentation characteristics. J Sci Food Agric 89:2174–2180

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Sakata T, Kojima T, Fujieda M, Takahashi M, Michibata T (2003) Influences of probiotic bacteria on organic acid production by pig caecal bacteria in vitro. Proc Nutr Soc 62:73–80

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Cummings JH, Macfarlane GT (1991) Review: the control and consequences of bacterial fermentation in the human colon. J Appl Bacteriol 70:443–459

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Pattanaik AK, Kumar A, Baliyan S, Dutta N, Kumar A, Jadhav SE (2012) Effect of source of cereal on the response to probiotic supplementation in Labrador dogs reared on homemade diets. In: Pattanaik AK, Dutta N, Verma AK, Jadhav SE, Dhuria RK, Chaudhary LC (eds) Animal nutrition research strategies for food security, Animal Nutrition Association, Izatnagar, India, p 253

    Google Scholar 

  62. Strompfová V, Lauková A, Cilik D (2013) Synbiotic administration of canine-derived strain Lactobacillus fermentum CCM 7421 and inulin to healthy dogs. Can J Microbiol 59:347–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Pattanaik AK, Kumar A, Baliyan S, Kumar A, Jadhav SE (2013) Effect of dietary protein matrix in homemade diets on the response to probiotic supplementation by Labrador dogs. In: Proc of Waltham International Nutritional Sciences Symposium. Mars Inc. and Waltham, Portland, OR, USA p 136. https://www.waltham.com/dyn/_assets/_pdfs/winss/FINALWINSSProceedings2013.pdf. Accessed 3 Nov 2016

  64. Collado MC, Isolauri E, Salminen S, Sanz Y (2009) The impact of probiotic on gut health. Curr Drug Metab 10:68–78

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Conway PL (1995) Microbial ecology of the human large intestine. In: Ginson GR, MacFarlane GT (eds) Human colonic bacteria: role in nutrition, physiology and pathology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  66. Goldin BR (1998) Health benefits of probiotics. Br J Nutr 80:S203–S207

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Baillon MLA, Jones ZVM, Butterwick RF (2004) Effects of probiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus strain DSM13241 in healthy adult dogs. Am J Vet Res 65:338–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Weese JS, Andersen MEC (2002) Preliminary evaluation of Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG, a potential probiotic in dogs. Can Vet J 43:771–774

    Google Scholar 

  69. Meydani SN, Woel-Kyu HA (2000) Immunologic effects of yogurt. Am J Clin Nutr 71:861–872

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Kim HW, Chew BP, Wong TS, Park JS, Weng BC, Byrne KM et al (2000) Dietary lutein stimulates immune response in the canine. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 74:315–327

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Erickson KL, Hubbard NE (2000) Probiotic immunomodulation in health and disease. J Nutr 130:403S–409S

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Galdeano CM, Perdigón G (2006) The probiotic bacterium Lactobacillus casei induces activation of the gut mucosal immune system through innate immunity. Clin Vaccine Immunol 13:219–226

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Perdigon G, Alvarze SE, Vintine M, Medine M, Medici M (1999) Study of the possible mechanisms involved in the mucosal immune system activation by lactic acid bacteria. J Dairy Sci 82:1108–1114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Matsuzaki T, Chin J (2000) Modulating immune responses with probiotic bacteria. Immunol Cell Biol 78:67–73

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Benyacoub J, Maulden GLC, Cavadini C et al (2003) Supplementation of food with Enterococcus faecium (SF68) stimulates immune functions in young dogs. J Nutr 133:1158–1162

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Hatcher GE, Lambrecht RS (1993) Augmentation of macrophage phagocytic activity by cell-free extracts of selected lactic acid-producing bacteria. J Dairy Sci 76:2485–2492

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Shimada T, Cai Y, Cheng L, Motonaga C, Fukada K, Kitamura Y et al (2009) Immunomodulation effects of heat-treated Enterococcus faecalis FK-23 (FK-23) in mice. J Nanjing Med Univ 23:173–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Wu X, Zhao C, Guo Z, Hao Y, Li J, Shi H, Sun Y (2016) Genome sequence of Lactobacillus johnsonii strain W1, isolated from mice. Genome Announc 4(3):e00561–e00516. doi:10.1128/genomeA.00561-16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. La Ragione RM, Narbad A, Gasson MJ, Woodward MJ (2004) In vivo characterization of Lactobacillus johnsonii FI9785 for use as a defined competitive exclusion agent against bacterial pathogens in poultry. Lett Appl Microbiol 38:197–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Liu H, Roos S, Jonsson H, Ahl D, Dicksved J, Lindberg JE, Lundh T (2015) Effects of Lactobacillus johnsonii and Lactobacillus reuteri on gut barrier function and heat shock proteins in intestinal porcine epithelial cells. Physiol Rep 3(4):e12355. doi:10.14814/phy2.12355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Aiba Y, Nakano Y, Koga Y, Takahashi K, Komatsu Y (2015) A highly acid-resistant novel strain of Lactobacillus johnsonii no. 1088 has antibacterial activity, including that against Helicobacter pylori, and inhibits gastrin-mediated acid production in mice. MicrobiologyOpen 4:465–474

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Haller D, Bode C, Hammes WP, Pfeifer AM, Schiffrin EJ, Blum S (2000) Non-pathogenic bacteria elicit a differential cytokine response by intestinal epithelial cell/leucocyte co-cultures. Gut 47:79–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Shida K, Kiyoshima-Shibata J, Kaji R, Nagaoka M, Nanno M (2009) Peptidoglycan from lactobacilli inhibits interleukin-12 production by macrophages induced by Lactobacillus casei through toll-like receptor 2-dependent and independent mechanisms. Immunology 128:e858–e869

  84. Sauter SN, Benyacoub J, Allenspach K, Gaschen F, Ontsouka E, Reuteler G et al (2006) Effects of probiotic bacteria in dogs with food responsive diarrhoea treated with an elimination diet. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 90:269–277

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Valladares R, Sankar D, Li N, Williams E, Lai KK, Abdelgeliel AS, Gonzalez CF, Wasserfall CH, Larkin J, Schatz D, Atkinson MA, Triplett EW, Neu J, Lorca GL (2010) Lactobacillus johnsonii N6.2 mitigates the development of type 1 diabetes in BB-DP rats. PLoS One 5:e10507. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Pradhan SK, Das A, Kullu SS, Saini M, Pattanaik AK, Dutta N, Sharma AK (2015) Effect of feeding Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) root as prebiotic on nutrient utilization, fecal characteristics and serum metabolite profile of captive Indian leopard (Panthera pardus fusca) fed a meat-on-bone diet. Zoo Biol 34:153–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Liu H, Ivarsson E, Dicksved J, Lundh T, Lindberg JE (2012) Inclusion of chicory (Cichorium intybus L.) in pigs’ diets affects the intestinal microenvironment and the gut microbiota. Appl Environ Microbiol 78:4102–4109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Wang J, Jin HF, Hou CL, Wang SX, Zhang DY, Liu H, Shan DC, Wang YM (2014) Effects of Lactobacillus johnsonii XS4 supplementation on reproductive performance, gut environment, and blood biochemical and immunological index in lactating sows. Livestock Sci 164:96–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the Director, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, India for all the facilities provided. The financial support provided to the first author in the form of Senior Research Fellowship by the institute is also acknowledged.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Sachin Kumar

    Present address: Animal Nutrition Division, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, 132 001, India

  2. Ashok Kumar Pattanaik

    Present address: Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical and Pet Nutrition Laboratory, Centre of Advanced Faculty Training in Animal Nutrition, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, 243 122, India

    Sachin Kumar, Ashok Kumar Pattanaik, Shalini Sharma, Sunil Eknath Jadhav, Narayan Dutta & Avneesh Kumar

Authors
  1. Sachin Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashok Kumar Pattanaik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shalini Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sunil Eknath Jadhav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Narayan Dutta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Avneesh Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashok Kumar Pattanaik.

Ethics declarations

Funding

The authors wish to acknowledge the funding provided by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research, New Delhi, India for this study under the Niche Area of Excellence Program.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted. The study protocol involving the animal use was approved by the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC) and the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, S., Pattanaik, A.K., Sharma, S. et al. Probiotic Potential of a Lactobacillus Bacterium of Canine Faecal-Origin and Its Impact on Select Gut Health Indices and Immune Response of Dogs. Probiotics & Antimicro. Prot. 9, 262–277 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9256-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9256-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation