European Food Research and Technology

, Volume 241, Issue 3, pp 385–392 | Cite as

Evaluation of the proteolytic activity of Enterococcus faecalis FT132 and Lactobacillus paracasei FT700, isolated from dairy products in Brazil, using milk proteins as substrates

  • Fabrício Luiz Tulini
  • Vanessa Bíscola
  • Yvan Choiset
  • Nolwenn Hymery
  • Gwenaelle Le Blay
  • Elaine Cristina Pereira De MartinisEmail author
  • Jean-Marc Chobert
  • Thomas Haertlé
Original Paper


Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) have been used by mankind from immemorial times due to their technological properties and ability to improve sensorial properties of foods. Some LAB strains are also able to hydrolyze milk proteins, which increase their digestibility and contribute to the production of desirable flavors. Moreover, proteolytic activity of LAB on milk proteins may release bioactive peptides with different activities such as antihypertensive, antioxidant, antimicrobial, immunomodulatory and mineral-binding activities. This study aimed to evaluate the proteolytic activity of Enterococcus faecalis FT132 and Lactobacillus paracasei FT700, isolated from Brazilian dairy products. The proteolytic activity was checked by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and high-performance liquid chromatography using milk proteins as substrates in different conditions. Both E. faecalis FT132 and L. paracasei FT700 were proteolytic at pH 6.5 in the range of 37–42 °C, and these activities were due to metalloproteases. L. paracasei FT700 could then be used as adjunct culture in fermented dairy products in order to increase their digestibility. On the contrary, E. faecalis FT132, which harbors three virulence genes asa1, ace and gelE and which is resistant to erythromycin and tetracycline, cannot be added to food products. However, the peptides produced after hydrolytic activity on milk proteins by both strains might be used as ingredients in purified formulas.


Lactic acid bacteria Milk Proteolysis Enterococcus Lactobacillus 



The authors thank the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for fellowship to Fabrício Luiz Tulini (#2011/11983-0, #2012/11379-8), the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for financial support (#480772/2011-8), and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for fellowship to Vanessa Bíscola (#9694/11-0). This study is part of the cooperation program CAPES-COFECUB 730/11.

Conflict of interest

F.L. Tulini, V. Bíscola, Y. Choiset, N. Hymery, G. Le Blay, E.C.P. De Martinis, J-M Chobert and T. Haertlé declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Compliance with ethical requirements

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.


  1. 1.
    Sousa MJ, Ardo Y, Mcsweeney PLH (2001) Advances in the study of proteolysis during cheese ripening. Int Dairy J 11:327–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu M, Bayjanov JR, Renckens B, Nauta A, Siezen RJ (2010) The proteolytic system of lactic acid bacteria revisited: a genomic comparison. BMC Genomics 11:36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Savijoki K, Ingmer H, Varmanen P (2006) Proteolytic systems of lactic acid bacteria. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 71:394–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Settanni L, Moschetti G (2010) Non-starter lactic acid bacteria used to improve cheese quality and provide health benefits. Food Microbiol 27:691–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Korhonen H (2009) Milk-derived bioactive peptides: from science to applications. J Funct Foods 1:177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanwar JR, Kanwar RK, Sun X, Punj V, Matta H, Morley SM, Parrat A, Puri M, Sehgal R (2009) Molecular and biotechnological advances in milk proteins in relation to human health. Curr Protein Pept Sci 10:308–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mills S, Ross RP, Hill C, Fitzgerald GF, Stanton C (2011) Milk intelligence: mining milk for bioactive substances associated with human health. Int Dairy J 21:377–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Korhonen H, Pihlanto A (2007) Technological options for the production of health-promoting proteins and peptides derived from milk and colostrum. Curr Pharm Des 13:829–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dziuba B, Dziuba M (2014) Milk proteins-derived bioactive peptides in dairy products: molecular, biological and methodological aspects. Acta Sci Pol Technol Aliment 13:5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Potier M, Tomé D (2008) Comparison of digestibility and quality of intact proteins with their respective hydrolysates. J AOAC Int 91:1002–1005Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ceballos LS, Sánz-Sampelayo MR, Extremera FG, Osorio MR (2009) Evaluation of the allergenicity of goat milk, cow milk, and their lactosera in a guinea pig model. J Dairy Sci 92:837–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ahmadova A, El-Ghaish S, Choiset Y, Rabesona H, Drouet M, Chobert JM, Kuliev AA, Haertlé T (2012) Modification of IgE binding to β- and αS1-caseins by proteolytic activity of Lactobacillus helveticus A75. J Food Biochem 37:491–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fira D, Kojic M, Banina A, Spasojevic I, Strahinic I, Topisirovic L (2001) Characterization of cell envelope-associated proteinases of thermophilic lactobacilli. J Appl Microbiol 90:123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    El-Ghaish S, Dalgalarrondo M, Choiset Y, Sitohy M, Ivanova I, Haertlé T, Chobert J-M (2010) Screening of strains of Lactococci isolated from Egyptian dairy products for their proteolytic activity. Food Chem 120:758–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hummel AS, Hertel C, Holzapfel WH, Franz CM (2007) Antibiotic resistances of starter and probiotic strains of lactic acid bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:730–7309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee K, Lee M, Lee Y (2008) Safety assessment of commercial Enterococcus probiotics in Korea. J Microbiol Biotechnol 18:942–945Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clinical And Laboratory Standards Institute (2012) Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, twenty-second informational supplement. CLSI document M100-S22. Wayne, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Briggiler-Marcó M, Capra ML, Quiberoni A, Vinderola G, Reinheimer JA, Hynes E (2007) Nonstarter Lactobacillus strains as adjunct cultures for cheese making: in vitro characterization and performance in two model cheeses. J Dairy Sci 90:4532–4542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Milesi MM, Wolf IV, Bergamini CV, Hynes ER (2010) Two strains of nonstarter lactobacilli increased the production of flavor compounds in soft cheeses. J Dairy Sci 93:5020–5031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milesi MM, Vinderola G, Sabbag N, Meinardi CA, Hynes ER (2009) Influence of cheese proteolysis and sensory characteristics of non-starter lactobacilli strains with probiotic potential. Food Res Int 42:1186–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ogier JC, Serror P (2008) Safety assessment of dairy microorganisms: the enterococcus genus. Int J Food Microbiol 126:291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oumer A, Gaya P, Fernández-García E, Mariaca R, Garde S, Medina M, Núñez M (2001) Proteolysis and formation of volatile compounds in cheese manufactured with a bacteriocin-producing adjunct culture. J Dairy Res 68:117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muguerza M, Ramos M, Sánchez E, Manso MA, Miguel M, Aleixandre A, Delgado MA, Recio I (2006) Antihypertensive activity of milk fermented by Enterococcus faecalis strains isolated from raw milk. Int Dairy J 16:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Williams AG, Banks JM (1997) Proteolytic and other hydrolytic enzyme activities in non-starter lactic acid bacteria (NSLAB) isolated from cheddar cheese manufactured in the United Kingdom. Int Dairy J 7:763–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tsakalidou E, Anastasiou R, Vandenberghe I, Van Beeumen J, Kalantzopoulos G (1999) Cell-wall-bound proteinase of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. lactis ACA-DC 178: characterization and specificity for β-casein. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:2035–2040Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sarantinopoulos P, Kalantzopoulus G, Tsakalidou E (2002) Effect of Enterococcus faecium on microbiological, physicochemical and sensory characteristics of Greek Feta cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 76:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Reenen CA, Dicks LM (2011) Horizontal gene transfer amongst probiotic lactic acid bacteria and other intestinal microbiota: what are the possibilities? A review. Arch Microbiol 193:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Werner G, Coque TM, Franz CMAP, Grohmann E, Hegstad K, Jensen L, Van Schaik W, Weaver K (2013) Antibiotic resistant enterococci—tales of a drug resistance gene trafficker. Int J Med Microbiol 303:360–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Perin LM, Miranda RO, Todorov SD, Franco BDGM, Nero LA (2014) Virulence, antibiotic resistance and biogenic amines of bacteriocinogenic lactococci and enterococci isolated from goat milk. Int J Food Microbiol 185:121–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gomes BC, Esteves CT, Palazzo ICV, Darini ALC, Felis GE, Sechi LA, Franco BDGM, De Martinis ECP (2008) Prevalence and characterization of Enterococcus spp. isolated from Brazilian foods. Food Microbiol 25:668–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lopes MFS, Simões AP, Tenreiro R, Marques JJF, Crespo MTB (2006) Activity and expression of a virulence factor, gelatinase, in dairy enterococci. Int J Food Microbiol 112:208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bernardeau M, Vernoux JP, Henri-Dubernet S, Guéguen M (2008) Safety assessment of dairy microorganisms: the Lactobacillus genus. Int J Food Microbiol 126:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ogier JC, Casalta E, Farrokh C, Saïhi A (2008) Safety assessment of dairy microorganisms: the Leuconostoc genus. Int J Food Microbiol 126:286–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mathur S, Singh R (2005) Antibiotic resistance in food lactic acid bacteria—a review. Int J Food Microbiol 105:281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fisher K, Phillips C (2009) The ecology, epidemiology and virulence of Enterococcus. Microbiology 155:1749–1757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Teuber M, Meile L, Schwarz F (1999) Acquired antibiotic resistance in lactic acid bacteria from food. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 76:115–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Omar NB, Castro A, Lucas R, Abriouel H, Yousif NMK, Franz CMAP, Holzapfel WH, Ruben PP, Martiez-Canamero M, Gálvez A (2004) Functional and safety aspects of enterococci isolated from different Spanish foods. Syst Appl Microbiol 27:118–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vankerckhoven V, Autgaerden TV, Vael C, Lammens C, Chapelle S, Rossi R, Jabes D, Goossens H (2004) Development of a multiplex PCR for the detection of asa1, gelE, cylA, esp, and hyl genes in enterococci and survey for virulence determinants among European hospital isolates of Enterococcus faecium. J Clin Microbiol 42:4473–4479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eaton TJ, Gasson MJ (2001) Molecular screening of Enterococcus virulence determinants and potential for genetic exchange between food and medical isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:1628–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrício Luiz Tulini
    • 1
  • Vanessa Bíscola
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yvan Choiset
    • 3
  • Nolwenn Hymery
    • 4
  • Gwenaelle Le Blay
    • 4
    • 5
  • Elaine Cristina Pereira De Martinis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jean-Marc Chobert
    • 3
  • Thomas Haertlé
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão PretoUniversidade de São PauloRibeirão PrêtoBrazil
  2. 2.Faculdade de Ciências FarmacêuticasUniversidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.UR 1268, INRA, Biopolymers Interactions AssembliesNantes Cedex 3France
  4. 4.UEB EA3882 Laboratoire Universitaire de Biodiversité et Ecologie Microbienne, ESIABUniversité de BrestPlouzanéFrance
  5. 5.UEB, Institut Universitaire Européen de la Mer (IUEM), UMR UBO, CNRS, IFREMER 6197, Laboratoire de Microbiologie des Environnements Extrêmes (LMEE)Université de BrestPlouzanéFrance

Personalised recommendations