Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 243–249 | Cite as

Enterococcus faecium AL 41: Its Enterocin M and Their Beneficial Use in Rabbits Husbandry

  • Andrea Lauková
  • L’ubica Chrastinová
  • Monika Pogány Simonová
  • Viola Strompfová
  • Iveta Plachá
  • Klaudia Čobanová
  • Zuzana Formelová
  • Mária Chrenková
  • L’ubomír Ondruška


Enterococci are ubiquitous microbiota constituting a large proportion of autochthonous microflora in animals. Some produce bacteriocins mostly enterocins; some of bacteriocin-producing strains also possess probiotic properties. Enterococcus faecium AL 41, Ent M-producing strain was tested for beneficial effect in rabbits. Five-week-old animals (72, Hycole) were divided into experimental groups (E1, E2) and control (C); 24 animals in each. Rabbits in E1 were administered AL 41 (500 μl per animal/day, 109 cfu/ml) in water for 21 days; rabbits in E2 were administered Ent M (50 μl/animal/day, activity 12,800 AU/ml) in water for 21 days. Rabbits in C fed a commercial diet. The experiment lasted 42 days. Sampling of faeces and blood was provided on day 0–1 and 21, 42; 3 animals per group were slaughtered. Caecum and appendix were separated. AL 41 colonized rabbits intestines <1.0 (log10) cfu/g, but stimulation of immunity was noted (P < 0.01; P < 0.001). Antimicrobial activity of both was noticed in faeces and/or caecum against pseudomonads. Significant decrease of coliform bacteria in faeces of E1 was noted on day 42 comparing with E2 (P < 0.05). On day 21, S. aureus cells were not detected in E1, E2. On day 42, S. aureus was not found in E2; in E1 their counts were <1.0 cfu/g, while in C it was in the count more than 1.0 cfu/g. In appendix, on day 21, significant decrease of not specified bacteria was found in E1, E2 comparing with C (P < 0.01). Administration of additives has not evoked oxidative stress. Biochemical parameters were not influenced. Higher average daily weight gains were detected by both, AL 41 and Ent M.


Enterococcus faecium EnterocinRabbit Benefity 



We are acknowledged to Dr. R. Jurčík and Dr. J. Párkány for their kind help by blood sampling. Financial support of the results achieved was covered by the Slovak Scientific Agency VEGA, the project 2/0002/11 and APVV Agency SK-HU-0006-08. We are grateful to Mrs. Margita Bodnárová for her skillful assistance.


  1. 1.
    Berufsgenossenschaft der Chemischen Industrie (1995) In safety and health promotion aspects of enterococci-brochure FAIR-CT97-3078—Enterococci in food fermentations. Functional and Safety AspectsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ciganková V, Lauková A, Guba P, Nemcová R (2004) Effect of enterocin A on the intestinal epithelium of Japanese quails infected by Salmonella duesseldorf. Bull Vet Inst Pulawy 48:25–27Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cortéz S, Brandenburger H, Greuel E, Sundrum A (1992) Investigations of the relationship between feed and health status on the intestinal microflora of rabbits. Tierarztl Umsch 47:544–549Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Devriese LA, Ceussens K, Haesebrouck F (1991) Characteristics of Enterococcus caecorum strains from intestines of different animal species. Lett Appl Microbiol 12:137–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Vuyst L, Callewaert R, Pot B (1996) Characterization of the antagonistic activity of Lactobacillus amylovorus DCE471 and large scale isolation of its bacteriocin amylovorin L471. Syst Appl Microbiol 19:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Escribano BM, Castejón FM, Vivo R, Aguera S, Aguera EL, Rubio MD (2005) Nonspecific immune response of peripheral blood neutrophils in two horse breeds Anglo-Arabian and Spanish-Arabian:response to exercise. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 28:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Commission (2004) List of the authorized additives in feeding stuffs published in application of article 9th (b) of council directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feeding stuffs. Official J Euro Union C50Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Franz CHMAP, Holzapfel WH, Stiles ME (1999) Enterococci at the crossroads of food safety? Int J Food Microbiol 47:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franz CHMAP, van Belkum MJ, Holzapfel WH, Abriouel H, Gálvez A (2007) Diversity of enterococcal bacteriocins and their grouping in a new classification scheme. FEMS Microbiol Rev 31:293–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giraffa G (2002) Enterococci from foods. FEMS Microbiol Rev 744:1–9Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herich R, Kokinčáková T, Lauková A, Levkutová M (2010) Effect of preventive application of Enterococcus faecium EF55 on intestinal mucosa during salmonellosis in chickens. Czech J Anim Sci 55:42–47Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holzapfel WH, Geisen R, Shillinger U (1995) Biological preservation of foods with reference to protective cultures, bacteriocins and food-grade enzymes. Int J Food Microbiol 24:343–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hu CB, Malaphan W, Zendo T, Nakayama J, Sonomoto K (2010) Enterocin X, a novel two-peptide bacteriocin from Enterococcus faecium KU-B5, has an antibacterial spectrum entirely different from those of its component peptides. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:4542–4545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chrastinová L’, Chrenková M, Polačiková M, Lauková A, Simonová M, Szabóová R, Strompfová V, Ondruška L’, Chlebec I, Párkány V, Rafay J, Vasilková Z (2010) Influence of selected phytoadditives and probiotics on zootechnical performance, caecal parameters and meat quality of rabbits. Arch Zootech 13:30–35Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lauková A, Mareková M, Javorský P (1993) Detection and antimicrobial spectrum of a bacteriocin-like substance produced by Enterococcus faecium CCM 4231. Lett Appl Microbiol 16:257–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lauková A, Juriš P (1997) Distribution and characterization of Enterococcus sp. in municipal sewages. Microbios 89:73–80Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lauková A, Czikková S, Vasilková Z, Juriš P, Mareková M (1998) Occurrence of bacteriocin production among environmental enterococci. Lett Appl Microbiol 27:178–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lauková A, Mareková M, Štyriak I (2003) Inhibitory effect of different enterocins against fecal bacterial isolates. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 116:37–40Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lauková A, Strompfová V, Skřivanová V, Volek Z, Jindřichová E, Marounek M (2006) Bacteriocin-producing strain of Enterococcus faecium EK13 with probiotic character and its application in the digestive tract of rabbits. Biol (Bratislava) 61:79–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lauková A, Strompfová V, Michlovičová G, Plachá I, Čobanová K, Pogány Simonová M, Faix Š (2009) Model experiment testing new enterocin M-producing probiotic Enterococcus faecium AL41 in chicken. In: Levkut M, Pistl J, Revajova V, Herich R, Faixova Z (eds) Intestinal barrier of animals and alternative methods of its influencing, “science for practise”, 25th of June 2009, Košice, Slovakia, ISBN 978–80–8077–129–4Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lauková A (2011) Using natural and novel antimicrobials to improve the safety and shelf-life stability of processed meat products. In: Kerry JP, Kerry JF (eds) Prosessed meats-improving safety, nutrition and quality. Woodhead publishing Limited, Abington HallGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levkut M, Revajová V, Lauková A, Ševčíková Z, Spišáková V, Faixová Z, Levkutová M, Strompfová V, Pistl J, Levkut M (2012) Leucocytic responses and intestinal mucin dynamics of broilers protected with Enterococcus faecium EF55 and challenged with Salmonella Enteritidis. Res Vet Sci 93:195–201. doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.06.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marciňáková M, Simonová M, Strompfová V, Lauková A (2006) Oral application of Enterococcus faecium strain EE3 in healthy dogs. Folia Microbiol 51:239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marciňáková M, Lauková A, Simonová M, Strompfová V, Koréneková B, Naď P (2008) New probiotic and bacteriocin-producing strain of Enterococcus faecium EF9296 and its use in the grass ensiling. Czech J Anim Sci 53:347–356Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mareková M, Lauková A, Skaugen M (2007) Isolation and characterization of a new bacteriocin, termed enterocin M, produced by environmental isolate Enterococcus faecium AL41. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 34:533–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mueller T, Ulrich A, Ott EM, Mueller M (2001) Identification of plant-associated enterococci. J Appl Microbiol 91:268–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ondráček J, Mach K, Majzlík I (2006) Influence of PROBIOSTAN on gain and health of broiler rabbits. In: Rafay J (ed) Proceedings from the XXIII. Conference, Nitra, Slovakia, in Slovak, pp 73–77. ISBN 80-88872-58-8Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Piskoríková M (2010) Quality and characterization of existing and new probiotics (EFSA QPS). In: Proceedings of regulatory framework workshop health claim approval of probiotics in the European Union issues, barriers, success drivers, Košice, 18 June 2010Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Simonová M (2006) Probiotic and bacteriocin-producing bacteria and their effect on the physiology of digestion in rabbits. PhD Thesis (in Slovak, summary in English), Institute of Animal Physiology Slovak Academy of Sciences, pp 1–126Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simonová M, Lauková A (2007) Bacteriocin activity of enterococci from rabbits. Vet Res Commun 31:143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pogány Simonová M, Chrastinová L’, Lauková A, Strompfová V, Faix Š, Vasilková Z, Ondruška R, Jurčík R, Rafay J (2009) Enterococcus faecium CCM 7420, bacteriocin PPB CCM 7420 and their effect in the digestive tract of rabbits. Czech J Anim Sci 54:376–386Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pogány Simonová M, Lauková A, Chrastinová L’, Szabóová R, Mojto J, Strompfová V, Rafay J (2009) Quality of rabbit meat after application of bacteriocinogennic and probiotic strain Enterococcus faecium CCM4231 in rabbits. Int J Prob Preb 4:1–6Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Skřivanová V, Marounek M (2002) Effects of caprylic acid on performance and mortality of growing rabbits. Acta Vet Brno 71:435–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Strompfová V, Mudroňová D, Lauková A (2003) Effect of bacteriocin-like substance produced by Enterococcus faecium EF55 on the composition of avian gastrointestinal microflora. Acta Vet Brno 72:559–564Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Strompfová V, Lauková A (2007) In vitro study on bacteriocin of Enterococci associated with chickens. Anaerobe 13:228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Švec P, Devriese LA, Sedláček I, Baelae M, Vancanneyt M, Haesebrouck F, Swings JD, Doškaŕ J (2001) Enterococcus haemoperoxidus sp. nov. and Enterococcus moraviensis sp. nov. isolated from water. J Syst Evol Microbiol 51:1567–1574Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Szabóová R, Lauková A, Chrastinová L’, Pogány Simonová M, Strompfová V, Plachá I, Čobanová K, Vasilková Z, Chrenková M (2011) Enterocin 4231 produced by Enterococcus faecium CCM 4231 and its use in rabbits. Acta Vet (Beograd) 61:523–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Szabóová R, Lauková A, Chrastinová L’, Strompfová V, Pogány Simonová M, Vasilková Z, Čobanová K, Plachá I, Chrenková M (2011) Effect of combined administration of enterocin 4231 and sage in rabbits. Polish J Vet Sci 14:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vetvička V, Fornousek L, Kopeček J, Kaminková J, Kašpárek L, Vránová M (1982) Phagocytosis of human blood leukocytes, a simple micro-method. Immunol Lett 5:97–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Lauková
    • 1
  • L’ubica Chrastinová
    • 2
  • Monika Pogány Simonová
    • 1
  • Viola Strompfová
    • 1
  • Iveta Plachá
    • 1
  • Klaudia Čobanová
    • 1
  • Zuzana Formelová
    • 2
  • Mária Chrenková
    • 2
  • L’ubomír Ondruška
    • 2
  1. 1.Slovak Academy of SciencesInstitute of Animal PhysiologyKosiceSlovakia
  2. 2.Animal Production Research CentreNitra-LužiankyNitraSlovakia

Personalised recommendations