Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 801–812 | Cite as

Exploring the Probiotic and Compound Feed Fermentative Applications of Lactobacillus plantarum SK1305 Isolated from Korean Green Chili Pickled Pepper

  • Kai-Min Niu
  • Damini Kothari
  • Sang-Buem Cho
  • Sung-Gu Han
  • In-Geun Song
  • Sam-Churl Kim
  • Soo-Ki KimEmail author


Herein, we explore the probiotic potentials and soybean meal (SBM) compound feed fermentative applications of Lactobacillus plantarum SK1305 strain isolated previously from Korean green chili pickled pepper (gochu-jangajji). The isolate exhibited higher acid (pH 2.5) and bile tolerance (0.3%, w/v) up to 2 h and 4 h, respectively. The cell-free culture supernatant (CFCS) displayed a broad spectrum antibacterial activities against various pathogens, which may be ascribed to high lactic acid production (L-form, 86.8 ± 0.8 mM and D-form, 44.8 ± 0.2 mM). Further, the strain displayed high cell-surface hydrophobicity (92.7 ± 1.0%), coupled with low auto-aggregation (23.6 ± 4.4%) but relatively higher co-aggregation properties with C. perfringens (49.6 ± 0.6%) as well as H2O2 (1.0 mM) resistant property. Additionally, the isolate displayed significant DPPH free radical scavenging activity (55.2 ± 0.6%) and superoxide reducing ability in MAC-T cells. Considering safety, the isolate has no transmissible antibiotic resistant genes and harmful enzymes as well as non-hemolytic activities. Ushered by these appreciable probiotic properties, the isolate was used for solid state fermentation (SSF) of SBM compound feed. Notably, we observed a higher strain adaptability (> 1010 CFU/g) following the production of L- (> 6.0 ± 0.0 mM) and D-form (> 5.2 ± 0.3 mM) lactic acid during fermentation for 8 h. The methanolic extracts of fermented feed displayed high antibacterial and antioxidant activities, affirming the potential functional activities of fermented compound feeds. Therefore, L. plantarum SK1305 may act as a worthy inoculum toward fermentation of feed with enhanced nutritional properties.


Antibacterial activity Antioxidant activity Lactic acid Lactobacillus plantarum SK1305 Solid state fermentation 



This work was supported by Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (IPET) through Agri-Bio Industry Technology Development Program, funded by Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (No.312058–03) and Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project No. PJ010906), Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Wang J, Han M, Zhang G, Qiao S, Li D, Ma X (2016a) The signal pathway of antibiotic alternatives on intestinal microbiota and immune function. Curr Protein Pept Sci 17:785–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hossain MI, Sadekuzzaman M, Ha SD (2017) Probiotics as potential alternative biocontrol agents in the agriculture and food industries: a review. Food Res Int 100:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    FAO/WHO (2006) Probiotics in food. Health and nutritional properties and guidelines for evaluation in FAO food and nutrition paper. No. 85. WHO/FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanmani P, Satish Kumar R, Yuvaraj N, Paari KA, Pattukumar V, Arul V (2013) Probiotics and its functionally valuable products—a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 53:641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang L, Zhang H, Rehman MU, Mehmood K, Jiang X, Iqbal M, Tong X, Li J (2018) Antibacterial activity of Lactobacillus plantarum isolated from Tibetan yaks. Microb Pathog 115:293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Body Ecology (2009) Lactobacillus Plantarum: The Key Benefits of This “Superstar” Probiotic and How to Get It in Your Diet.
  7. 7.
    Argyri AA, Zoumpopoulou G, Karatzas KAG, Tsakalidou E, Nychas GJE, Panagou EZ, Tassou CC (2013) Selection of potential probiotic lactic acid bacteria from fermented olives by in vitro tests. Food Microbiol 33:282–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patra JK, Das G, Paramithiotis S, Shin HS (2016) Kimchi and other widely consumed traditional fermented foods of Korea: a review. Front Microbiol 7:1–15Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Son SH, Jeon HL, Jeon EB, Lee NK, Park YS, Kang DK, Paik HD (2017) Potential probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum Ln4 from kimchi: evaluation of β-galactosidase and antioxidant activities. LWT Food Sci Technol 85:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Uttara B, Singh AV, Zamboni P, Mahajan RT (2009) Oxidative stress and neurodegenerative diseases: a review of upstream and downstream antioxidant therapeutic options. Curr Neuropharmacol 7:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mishra V, Shah C, Mokashe N, Chavan R, Yadav H, Prajapati J (2015) Probiotics as potential antioxidants: a systematic review. J Agric Food Chem 63:3615–3626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Canibe N, Jensen BB (2003) Fermented and nonfermented liquid feed to growing pigs: effect on aspects of gastrointestinal ecology and growth performance. J Anim Sci 81:2019–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Engberg RM, Hammershoj M, Johansen NF, Abousekken MS, Steenfeldt S, Jensen BB (2009) Fermented feed for laying hens: effects on egg production, egg quality, plumage condition and composition and activity of the intestinal microflora. Br Poult Sci 50:228–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shrivastava B, Jain KK, Kalra A, Kuhad RC (2014) Bioprocessing of wheat straw into nutritionally rich and digested cattle feed. Sci Rep 4:1–9Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seo SH, Cho SJ (2016) Changes in allergenic and antinutritional protein profiles of soybean meal during solid-state fermentation with Bacillus subtilis. LWT Food Sci Technol 70:208–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhu J, Gao M, Zhang R, Sun Z, Wang C, Yang F, Huang T, Qu S, Zhao L, Li Y, Hao Z (2017) Effects of soybean meal fermented by L. plantarum, B. subtilis and S. cerevisieae on growth, immune function and intestinal morphology in weaned piglets. Microb Cell Factories 16:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adeyemo SM, Onilude AA (2013) Enzymatic reduction of anti-nutritional factors in fermenting soybeans by Lactobacillus plantarum isolates from fermenting cereals. Nigerian Food J 31:84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang L, Zhou H, He R, Xu W, Mai K, He G (2016b) Effects of soybean meal fermentation by Lactobacillus plantarum P8 on growth, immune responses, and intestinal morphology in juvenile turbot (Scophthalmus maximus L.). Aquaculture 464:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Song YS, Pérez VG, Pettigrew JE, Martinez-Villaluenga C, de Mejia EG (2010) Fermentation of soybean meal and its inclusion in diets for newly weaned pigs reduced diarrhea and measures of immunoreactivity in the plasma. Anim Feed Sci Technol 159:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coghetto CC, Vasconcelos CB, Brinques GB, Ayub MAZ (2016) Lactobacillus plantarum BL011 cultivation in industrial isolated soybean protein acid residue. Braz J Microbiol 47:941–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hernandez D, Cardell E, Zarate V (2005) Antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria isolated from Tenerife cheese: initial characterization of plantaricin TF711, a bacteriocin-like substance produced by Lactobacillus plantarum TF711. J Appl Microbiol 99:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim PI, Jung MY, Chang YH, Kim S, Kim SJ, Park YH (2007) Probiotic properties of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains isolated from porcine gastrointestinal tract. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 74:1103–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bao Y, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Wang S, Dong X, Wang Y, Zhang H (2010) Screening of potential probiotic properties of Lactobacillus fermentum isolated from traditional dairy products. Food Control 21:695–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kheadr E, Dabour N, Le Lay C, Lacroix C, Fliss I (2007) Antibiotic susceptibility profile of Bifidobacteria as affected by oxgall, acid, and hydrogen peroxide stress. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xu H, Jeong HS, Lee HY, Ahn J (2009) Assessment of cell surface properties and adhesion potential of selected probiotic strains. Lett Appl Microbiol 49:434–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kos B, Suskovic J, Vukovic S, Simpraga M, Frece J, Matosic S (2003) Adhesion and aggregation ability of probiotic strain Lactobacillus acidophilus M29. J Appl Microbiol 94:981–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Del Re B, Sgorbati B, Miglioli M, Palenzona D (2000) Adhesion, auto-aggregation and hydrophobicity of 13 strains of Bifidobacterium longum. Lett Appl Microbiol 31:438–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li S, Zhao Y, Zhang L, Zhang X, Huang L, Li D, Niu C, Yang Z, Wang Q (2012) Antioxidant activity of Lactobacillus plantarum strains isolated from traditional Chinese fermented foods. Food Chem 135:1914–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim DO, Lee KW, Lee HJ, Lee CY (2002) Vitamin C equivalent antioxidant capacity (VCEAC) of phenolic phytochemicals. J Agric Food Chem 50:3713–3717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Han SG, Newsome B, Hennig B (2013) Titanium dioxide nanoparticles increase inflammatory responses in vascular endothelial cells. Toxicology 306:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Angmo K, Kumari A, Bhalla TC (2016) Probiotic characterization of lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented foods and beverage of Ladakh. LWT Food Sci Technol 66:428–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sanders ME, Huis J (1999) Bringing a probiotic-containing functional food to the market: microbiological, product, regulatory and labeling issues. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 76:293–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Trontel A, Batušić A, Gusić I, Slavica A, Šantek B, Novak S (2011) Production of d-and l-lactic acid by mono-and mixed cultures of Lactobacillus sp. Food Technol Biotechnol 49:75–82Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gautam N, Sharma N (2015) Evaluation of probiotic potential of new bacterial strain, Lactobacillus spicheri G2 isolated from Gundruk. Proc Natl Acad Sci India B Biol Sci 85:979–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vijayakumar M, Ilavenil S, Kim DH, Arasu MV, Priya K, Choi KC (2015) In vitro assessment of the probiotic potential of Lactobacillus plantarum KCC-24 isolated from Italian rye-grass (Lolium multiflorum) forage. Anaerobe 32:90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saelim K, Jampaphaeng K, Maneerat S (2017) Functional properties of Lactobacillus plantarum S0/7 isolated fermented stinky bean (Sa Taw Dong) and its use as a starter culture. J Funct Foods 38:370–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schnürer J, Magnusson J (2005) Antifungal lactic acid bacteria as biopreservatives. Trends Food Sci Technol 16:70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Boke H, Aslim B, Alp G (2010) The role of resistance to bile salts and acid tolerance of exopolysaccharides (EPSS) produced by yogurt starter bacteria. Arch Biol Sci 62:323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Goh YJ, Klaenhammer TR (2010) Functional roles of aggregation-promoting-like factor in stress tolerance and adherence of Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:5005–5012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rajoka MSR, Mehwish HM, Siddiq M, Haobin Z, Zhu J, Yan L, Shao D, Xu X, Shi J (2017) Identification, characterization, and probiotic potential of Lactobacillus rhamnosus isolated from human milk. LWT Food Sci Technol 84:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Missotten JAM, Goris J, Michiels J, Van Coillie E, Herman L, De Smet S, Dierick NA, Heyndrickx M (2009) Screening of isolated lactic acid bacteria as potential beneficial strains for fermented liquid pig feed production. Anim Feed Sci Technol 150:122–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dias FS, Duarte WF, Schwan RF (2013) Evaluation of adhesive properties of presumptive probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum strains. Biosci J 29:1678–1686Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tareb R, Bernardeau M, Gueguen M, Vernoux JP (2013) In vitro characterization of aggregation and adhesion properties of viable and heat-killed forms of two probiotic Lactobacillus strains and interaction with foodborne zoonotic bacteria, especially Campylobacter jejuni. J Med Microbiol 62:637–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Das D, Goyal A (2015) Antioxidant activity and γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) producing ability of probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum DM5 isolated from Marcha of Sikkim. LWT Food Sci Technol 61:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yang X, Li L, Duan Y, Yang X (2017) Antioxidant activity of Lactobacillus plantarum JM113 in vitro and its protective effect on broiler chickens challenged with deoxynivalenol. J Anim Sci 95:837–846Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Park SY, Lim SD (2015) Probiotic characteristics of Lactobacillus plantarum FH185 isolated from human feces. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour 35:615–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    De Verse M, Stegelmann A, Richter B, Fenselau S, Laue C, Schrezenmeir J (2003) Probiotics-compensation for lactose insufficiency. Am J Clin Nutr 73:421–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Humblot C, Murkovic M, Rigottier-Gois L, Bensaada M, Bouclet A, Andrieux C, Anba J, Rabot S (2007) β-glucuronidase in human intestinal microbiota is necessary for the colonic genotoxicity of the food-borne carcinogen 2-amino-3-methylimidazo [4, 5-f] quinoline in rats. Carcinogenesis 28:2419–2425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Danielsen M, Wind A (2003) Susceptibility of Lactobacillus spp. to antimicrobial agents. Int J Food Microbiol 82:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gueimonde M, Sánchez B, de los Reyes-Gavilán CG, Margolles A (2013) Antibiotic resistance in probiotic bacteria. Front Microbiol 4:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Borriello SP, Hammes WP, Holzapfel W, Marteau P, Schrezenmeir J, Vaara M, Valtonen V (2003) Safety of probiotics that contain lactobacilli or bifidobacteria. Clin Infect Dis 36:775–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dujardin M, Elain A, Lendormi T, Le Fellic M, Le Treut Y, Sire O (2014) Keeping under control a liquid feed fermentation process for pigs: a reality scale pilot based study. Anim Feed Sci Technol 194:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gan RY, Shah NP, Wang MF, Lui WY, Corke H (2017) Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1 fermentation differentially affects antioxidant capacity and polyphenol content in mung bean (Vigna radiata) and soya bean (Glycine max) milks. J Food Process Preserv 41:1–9Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Choct M, Dersjant-Li Y, McLeish J, Peisker M (2010) Soy oligosaccharides and soluble non-starch polysaccharides: a review of digestion, nutritive and anti-nutritive effects in pigs and poultry. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 23:1386–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Singh BP, Vij S (2018) α-Galactosidase activity and oligosaccharides reduction pattern of indigenous lactobacilli during fermentation of soy milk. Food Biosci 22:32–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Olstorpe M, Lyberg K, Lindberg JE, Schnürer J, Passoth V (2008) Population diversity of yeasts and lactic acid bacteria in pig feed fermented with whey, wet wheat distillers’ grains, or water at different temperatures. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:1696–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Merrell DS, Camilli A (2002) Acid tolerance of gastrointestinal pathogens. Curr Opin Microbiol 5:51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    van Winsen RL, Urlings BA, Lipman LJ, Snijders JM, Keuzenkamp D, Verheijden JH, van Knapen F (2001) Effect of fermented feed on the microbial population of the gastrointestinal tracts of pigs. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:3071–3076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Missotten JAM, Michiels J, Goris J, Herman L, Heyndrickx M, De Smet S, Dierick NA (2007) Screening of two probiotic products for use in fermented liquid feed. Livest Sci 108:232–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zhang Y, Vadlani PV, Kumar A, Hardwidge PR, Govind R, Tanaka T, Kondo A (2016) Enhanced D-lactic acid production from renewable resources using engineered Lactobacillus plantarum. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zhao D, Shah NP (2014) Changes in antioxidant capacity, isoflavone profile, phenolic and vitamin contents in soymilk during extended fermentation. LWT Food Sci Technol 58:454–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chandra P, Arora DS (2016) Production of antioxidant bioactive phenolic compounds by solid-state fermentation on agro-residues using various fungi isolated from soil. Asian J Biotechnol 8:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wang NF, Le GW, Shi YH, Zeng Y (2014) Production of bioactive peptides from soybean meal by solid state fermentation with lactic acid bacteria and protease. Adv J Food Sci Technol 6:1080–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sanjukta S, Rai AK, Muhammed A, Jeyaram K, Talukdar NC (2015) Enhancement of antioxidant properties of two soybean varieties of Sikkim Himalayan region by proteolytic Bacillus subtilis fermentation. J Funct Foods 14:650–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chi CH, Cho SJ (2016) Improvement of bioactivity of soybean meal by solid-state fermentation with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens versus Lactobacillus spp. and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. LWT Food Sci Technol 68:619–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai-Min Niu
    • 1
  • Damini Kothari
    • 1
  • Sang-Buem Cho
    • 2
  • Sung-Gu Han
    • 3
  • In-Geun Song
    • 4
  • Sam-Churl Kim
    • 5
  • Soo-Ki Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Animal Science and TechnologyKonkuk UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Animal ScienceChonbuk National UniversityJeonju-siRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Food Science of Animal ResourceKonkuk UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Bigbiogen. Co., LtdAnseongRepublic of Korea
  5. 5.Division of Applied Life ScienceGyeongsang National UniversityJinjuRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations