Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 102, Issue 4, pp 561–568 | Cite as

Comparative evaluation of three Lactobacilli with strain-specific activities for rats when supplied in drinking water

Original Paper


To test the in vivo benefits of three lactobacilli and to compare their different efficacies based on strain-specific activities by using rats as an experimental model, a growth-promotion and a challenge trial were conducted. The three strains, Lactobacillus salivarius G1-1, Lactobacillus reuteri G22-2, and Lactobacillus reuteri G8-5 shared antimicrobial, bile-salt-hydrolase and amylolytic activities in vitro, respectively. In the 17 day growth-promotion trial, 48 rats were allotted to four treatments with 12 replicates per treatment: a control group, which received saline, as well as three experimental groups, which received 108 cells/ml of one of the three lactobacilli in saline suspension. The results showed that compared with the control group, L. reuteri G8-5 significantly improved feed efficiency and decreased fecal pH values on days 8 and 17, concomitant with reduced faecal coliform counts on d 17 (p < 0.05). All treatments with lactobacilli caused an increase in the moisture content of the faeces and a decrease in the serum total cholesterol and blood urea nitrogen levels. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol was only elevated for rats which received L.reuteri G22-2. In the Salmonella-challenge trial, 40 rats were allotted to five treatments (8 replicates per treatment) which consisted of a positive control (infected, no Lactobacillus pretreatment), a negative control (uninfected, no Lactobacillus pretreatment) and three Lactobacillus-pretreated groups (109 cells/ml in saline). The results showed that rats in all Lactobacillus pretreated groups were protected from infection with significantly higher weight gain, feed intake and feed efficiency compared with positive control rats (p < 0.05). Rats treated with L. salivarius G1-1 and L.reuteri G22-2 tended to exhibit higher weight gains than those pretreated with L. reuteri G8-5. Significantly lower Salmonella shedding in faeces, Salmonella numbers in the spleen and the relative weight of the spleen were observed in the Lactobacillus groups (p < 0.05). Based on the overall results, it can be concluded that not all strains within the same lactobacilli species show similar effects and that some of the beneficial functionalities to animals were strain-specific. Therefore strains for practical application need to be carefully selected based on their strain-specific characters.


Probiotics Lactobacillus Strain-specific Rats Efficacy 



This work was financially supported by the Korean research program F-AD13-2006-09-01, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30901045), and Scientific Research Foundation for Returned Scholars of Ministry of Education of China, and Startup Fund for Scholars of South-central University for Nationalities.


  1. Akalin AS, Gonc S, Duzel S (1997) Influence of yogurt and acidophilus yogurt on serum cholesterol levels in mice. J Dairy Sci 80:2721–2725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bovee-Oudenhoven IM, Wissink ML, Wouters JT, Van der Meer R (1999) Dietary calcium phosphate stimulates intestinal lactobacilli and decreases the severity of a Salmonella infection in rats. J Nutr 129:607–612PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang YH, Kim JK, Kim HJ, Kim WY, Kim YB, Park YH (2001) Selection of a potential probiotic Lactobacillus strain and subsequent in vivo studies. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 80:193–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chiu CH, Lu TY, Tseng YY, Pan TM (2006) The effects of Lactobacillus-fermented milk on lipid metabolism in hamsters fed on high-cholesterol diet. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 71:238–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Angelis M, Siragusa S, Berloco M, Caputo L, Settanni L, Alfonsi G, Amerio M, Grandi A, Ragni A, Gobbetti M (2006) Selection of potential probiotic lactobacilli from pig feces to be used as additives in pelleted feeding. Res Microbiol 157:792–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Smet I, De Boever P, Verstraete W (1998) Cholesterol lowering in pigs through enhanced bacterial bile salt hydrolase activity. Br J Nutr 79:185–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. du Toit M, Franz CMAP, Dicks LMT, Schillinger U, Haberer P, Warlies B, Ahrens F, Holzapfel WH (1998) Characterisation and selection of probiotic lactobacilli for a preliminary minipig feeding trial and their effect on serum cholesterol levels, faeces pH and faeces moisture content. Int J Food Microbiol 40:93–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dumonceaux TJ, Hill JE, Hemmingsen SM, Van Kessel AG (2006) Characterization of intestinal microflora and response to dietary virginiamycin supplementation in the broiler chicken. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:2815–2823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fukushima M, Nakano M (1996) Effects of a mixture of organisms, Lactobacillus acidophilus or Streptococcus faecalis on cholesterol metabolism in rats fed on a fat- and cholesterol-enriched diet. Br J Nutr 76:857–867PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuller R (1989) Probiotics in man and animals. J Appl Bacteriol 66:365–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gill HS, Shu Q, Lin H, Rutherfurd KJ, Cross ML (2001) Protection against translocating Salmonella Typhimurium infection in mice by feeding the immuno-enhancing probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain HN001. Med Microbiol Immunol 190:97–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilliland SE (1990) Health and nutritional benefits from lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev 7:175–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guo XH, Kim JM, Nam HM, Park SY (2010) Screening lactic acid bacteria from swine origins for multistrain probiotics based on in vitro functional properties. Anaerobe 16:321–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jin L, Ho Y, Abdullah N, Ali M, Jalaludin S (1998) Effects of adherent lactobacillus cultures on growth, weight of organs and intestinal microflora and volatile fatty acids in broilers. Anim Feed Sci Technol 70:197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klaenhammer TR (1998) Functional activities of Lactobacillus probiotics: genetic mandate. Int Dairy J 8:497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klaenhammer TR, Kullen MJ (1999) Selection and design of probiotics. Int J Food Microbiol 50:45–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. LeBlanc JG, Piard JC, Sesma F, de Giori GS (2005) Lactobacillus fermentum crl 722 is able to deliver active alpha-galactosidase activity in the small intestine of rats. FEMS Microbiol Lett 248:177–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee HS, Gilliland SE, Carter S (2001) Amylolytic cultures of Lactobacillus acidophilus: potential probiotics to improve dietary starch utilization. J Food Sci 66:338–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lin WH, Yu B, Jang SH, Tsen HY (2007) Different probiotic properties for Lactobacillus fermentum strains isolated from swine and poultry. Anaerobe 13:107–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luyer MD, Buurman WA, Hadfoune M, Speelmans G, Knol J, Jacobs JA, Dejong CHC, Vriesema AJM, Greve JWM (2005) Strain-specific effects of probiotics on gut barrier integrity following hemorrhagic shock. Infect Immun 73:3686–3692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Naughton PJ, Grant G, Spencer RJ, Bardocz S, Pusztai A (1996) A rat model of infection by Salmonella typhimurium or Salm. enteritidis. J Appl Bacteriol 81:651–656PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Reid G, Kim SO, Kohler GA (2006) Selecting, testing and understanding probiotic microorganisms. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 46:149–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Spring P, Wenk C, Dawson KA, Newman KE (2000) The effects of dietary mannaoligosaccharides on cecal parameters and the concentrations of enteric bacteria in the ceca of Salmonella-challenged broiler chicks. Poult Sci 79:205–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Torres-Rodriguez A, Donoghue AM, Donoghue DJ, Barton JT, Tellez G, Hargis BM (2007) Performance and condemnation rate analysis of commercial turkey flocks treated with a Lactobacillus spp.-based probiotic. Poult Sci 86:444–446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Tortuero F, Fernandez E, Ruperez P, Moreno M (1997) Raffinose and lactic acid bacteria influence caecal fermentation and serum cholesterol in rats. Nutr Res 17:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang Y, Xu N, Xi A, Ahmed Z, Zhang B, Bai X (2009) Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum MA2 isolated from Tibet kefir on lipid metabolism and intestinal microflora of rats fed on high-cholesterol diet. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 84:341–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Xie N, Cui Y, Yin YN, Zhao X, Yang JW, Wang ZG, Fu N, Tang Y, Wang XH, Liu XW, Wang CL, Lu FG (2011) Effects of two lactobacillus strains on lipid metabolism and intestinal microflora in rats fed a high-cholesterol diet. BMC Complement Altern Med 11:53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zareie M, Johnson-Henry K, Jury J, Yang PC, Ngan BY, McKay DM, Soderholm JD, Perdue MH, Sherman PM (2006) Probiotics prevent bacterial translocation and improve intestinal barrier function in rats following chronic psychological stress. Gut 55:1553–1560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Lab for Microorganisms and BiotransformationSouth-Central University for NationalitiesWuhan CityChina
  2. 2.Microbiology DivisionNational Veterinary Research & Quarantine ServiceAnyang CityRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations