Advertisement

Evaluation of an Industrial Soybean Byproduct for the Potential Development of a Probiotic Animal Feed Additive with Bacillus Species

  • Rachel Mahoney
  • Richard Weeks
  • Ting Zheng
  • Qingrong Huang
  • Weijie Dai
  • Yong Cao
  • Guo Liu
  • Yongjing Guo
  • Vladimir Chistyakov
  • Michael L. ChikindasEmail author
Article
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

Probiotics are gaining public attention for their application in animal husbandry due to their ability to promote growth and prevent infections. Bacillus subtilis KATMIRA1933 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens B-1895 are two spore-forming probiotic microorganisms that have been demonstrated to provide health benefits for poultry when supplemented into their diet. These strains can be propagated on a wide range of substrates, including soybean-derived byproducts from the food processing industry. Soybean-derived byproducts are often incorporated into animal feeds, but the value of an additive could potentially be increased by the addition of probiotic microorganisms, which may decrease production costs and reduce environmental impact. In this study, a soybean byproduct and a desalted version of this byproduct were evaluated as potential substrates for the growth of two probiotic bacilli species. Chemical analysis of these byproducts showed favorable carbohydrate, fat, and amino acid profiles, which were not affected by the desalting process. The desalted byproduct was further evaluated as a substrate for the growth of B. subtilis KATMIRA1933 and B. amyloliquefaciens B-1895 under solid-state conditions, and samples from this experiment were visualized by scanning electron microscopy. The results of this study indicate that the desalted soybean byproduct is a suitable substrate for the propagation of the two Bacillus species, which grew to numbers sufficient for the formulation of a probiotic animal feed additive.

Keywords

Probiotics Bacillus Solid-state fermentation Desalted soybean byproduct Valorization 

Notes

Funding information

VC was supported in full and MC was supported in part by the Ministry of Science of the Russian Federation (Project Number 19.6015.2017/8.9).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12602_2019_9619_MOESM1_ESM.doc (72 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 72 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Pandey A (1992) Recent process developments in solid-state fermentation. Process Biochem 27(2):109–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-9592(92)80017-W CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Couto SR, Sanroman MA (2006) Application of solid-state fermentation to food industry - a review. J Food Eng 73(3):291–302.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.05.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen L, Madl RL, Vadlani PV, Li L, Wang W (2013) Value-added products from soybean: removal of anti-nutritional factors via bioprocessing. In: El-Shemy HA (ed) Soybean-bio-active compounds. Chapter 8, IntechOpen.  https://doi.org/10.5772/52993 Accessed 17 October 2019Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dai C, Ma H, He R, Huang L et al (2017) Improvement of nutritional value and bioactivity of soybean meal by solid-state fermentation with Bacillus subtilis. LWT Food Sci Technol 86(12):1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.07.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mukherjee R, Chakraborty R, Dutta A (2016) Role of fermentation in improving nutritional quality of soybean meal - a review. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 29(11):1523–1529.  https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0627 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seo S, Cho S (2016) Changes in allergenic and antinutritional protein profiles of soybean meal during solid-state fermentation with Bacillus subtilis. LWT Food Sci Technol 70:208–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.02.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ballardo C, Abraham J, Barrena R, Artola A, Gea T, Sánchez A (2016) Valorization of soy waste through SSF for the production of compost enriched with Bacillus thuringiensis with biopesticide properties. J Environ Manag 169:126–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.12.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Raddadi N, Crotti E, Rolli E, Marasco R, Fava F, Daffonchio D (2012) The most important Bacillus species in biotechnology. In: Sansinenea E (ed) Bacillus thuringiensis biotechnology. Springer, Dordrecht.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3021-2_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sutyak KE, Wirawan RE, Aroutcheva AA, Chikindas ML (2008) Isolation of the Bacillus subtilis antimicrobial peptide subtilosin from the dairy product-derived Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. J Appl Microbiol 104:1067–1074.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03626.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karlyshev AV, Melnikov VG, Chikindas ML (2014) Draft genome sequence of Bacillus subtilis strain KATMIRA1933. Genome Announc 2(3):e00619–e00614.  https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00619-14 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karlyshev AV, Melnikov VG, Chistyakov VA (2014) Draft genome sequence of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens B-1895. Genome Announc 2(3):e00633–e00614.  https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00633-14 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amrouche T, Sutyak NK, Wang Y, Huang Q, Chikindas ML (2010) Antibacterial activity of subtilosin alone and combined with curcumin, poly-lysine and zinc lactate against Listeria monocytogenes strains. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 2:250–257.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-010-9042-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Algburi A, Zehm S, Netrebov V, Bren AB, Chistyakov V, Chikindas ML (2017) Subtilosin prevents biofilm formation by inhibiting bacterial quorum sensing. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 9:81–90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-016-9242-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Golovko GV, Zipelt LI, Karpenko GI, Chistyakov VA, et al. (2008) Method for growth of young Azov-Chernomorskaya royal fish in ponds. RU Patent 2376755. https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2376755C1/en
  15. 15.
    Chistyakov V, Melnikov V, Chikindas ML, Khutsishvili M et al (2014) Poultry-beneficial solid-state Bacillus amyloliquefaciens B-1895 fermented soybean formulation. Biosci Microbiota Food Health 34(1):25–28.  https://doi.org/10.12938/bmfh.2014-012 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mazanko MS, Gorlov IF, Prazdnova EV, Makarenko MS, Usatov AV, Bren AB, Chistyakov VA, Tutelyan AV, Komarova ZB, Mosolova NI, Pilipenko DN, Krotova OE, Struk AN, Lin A, Chikindas ML (2018) Bacillus probiotic supplementations improve laying performance, egg quality, hatching of laying hens, and sperm quality of roosters. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 10(2):367–373.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9369-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prazdnova E, Chistyakov V, Churilov M, Mazanko M et al (2015) DNA-protection and antioxidant properties of fermentates from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens B-1895 and Bacillus subtilis KATMIRA1933. Lett Appl Microbiol 61:549–554.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lam.12491 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Makarenko MS, Chistyakov VA, Usatov AV, Mazanko MS, Prazdnova EV, Bren AB, Gorlov IF, Komarova ZB, Chikindas ML (2019) The impact of Bacillus subtilis KATMIRA1933 supplementation on telomere length and mitochondrial DNA damage of laying hens. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 11(2):588–593.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-018-9440-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mazanko MS, Makarenko MS, Chistyakov VA, Usatov AV, Prazdnova EV, Bren AB, Gorlov IF, Komarova ZB, Weeks R, Chikindas ML (2019) Probiotic intake increases the expression of vitellogenin genes in laying hens. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-019-9519-y
  20. 20.
    Prazdnova EV, Mazanko MS, Bren AB, Chistyakov V et al (2019) SOS response inhibitory properties by potential probiotic formulations of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens B-1895 and Bacillus subtilis KATMIRA1933 obtained by solid-state fermentation. Curr Microbiol 76(3):312–319.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-018-01623-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Manimaran P, Senthamaraikannan P, Sanjay MR, Marichelvam MK, Jawaid M (2018) Study on characterization of Furcraea foetida new natural fiber as composite reinforcement for lightweight applications. Carbohydr Polym 181:650–658.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.11.099 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mohamad Haafiz MK, Eichhorn SJ, Hassan A, Jawaid M (2013) Isolation and characterization of microcrystalline cellulose from oil palm biomass residue. Carbohydr Polym 93(2):628–634.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.01.035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Algburi A, Volski A, Cugini C, Walsh E et al (2016) Safety properties and probiotic potential of Bacillus subtilis KATMIRA1933 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens B-1895. Adv Microbiol 6:432–452.  https://doi.org/10.4236/aim.2016.66043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Torres NI, Noll KS, Xu S, Li J, Huang Q, Sinko PJ, Wachsman MB, Chikindas ML (2013) Safety, formulation and in vitro antiviral activity of the antimicrobial peptide subtilosin against herpes simplex virus type 1. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 5:26–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-012-9123-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Diarra MS, Malouin F (2014) Antibiotics in Canadian poultry productions and anticipated alternatives. Front Microbiol 17:282.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cheng G, Hao H, Xie S, Wang X et al (2014) Antibiotic alternatives: the substitution of antibiotics in animal husbandry? Front Microbiol 5:217.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00217 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wadhwa M, Bakshi MPS (2016) Chapter 10 - application of waste-derived proteins in the animal feed industry, protein byproducts. Academic Press, pp 161–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802391-4.00010-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singh AV, Vyas V, Patil R, Sharma V, Scopelliti PE, Bongiorno G, Podestà A, Lenardi C, Gade WN, Milani P (2011) Quantitative characterization of the influence of the nanoscale morphology of nanostructured surfaces on bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. PLoS One 6(9):e25029.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025029 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ayala FR, Bauman C, Cogliati S, Leñini C et al (2017) Microbial flora, probiotics, Bacillus subtilis and the search for a long and healthy human longevity. Microb Cell 4(4):133–136.  https://doi.org/10.15698/mic2017.04.569 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Casula G, Cutting S (2002) Bacillus probiotics: spore germination in the gastrointestinal tract. Appl Environ Microbiol 68(5):2344–2352.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.5.2344-2352.2002 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berikashvili V, Sokhadze K, Kachlishvili E, Elisashvili V, Chikindas ML (2018) Bacillus amyloliquefaciens spore production under solid-state fermentation of lignocellulosic residues. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 10(4):755–761.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9371-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Khardziani T, Kachlishvili E, Sokhadze K, Elisashvili V, Weeks R, Chikindas ML, Chistyakov V (2017) Elucidation of Bacillus subtilis KATMIRA1933 potential for spore production in submerged fermentation of plant raw materials. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 9(4):435–443.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9303-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Elisashvili V, Kachlishvili E, Chikindas ML (2019) Recent advances in the physiology of spore formation for Bacillus probiotic production. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 11(3):731–747.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-018-9492-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Al-Khalaifah HS (2018) Benefits of probiotics and/or prebiotics for antibiotic-reduced poultry. Poult Sci 97:3807–3815.  https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey160 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hosoi T, Ametani A, Kiuchi K, Kaminogawa S (2000) Improved growth and viability of lactobacilli in the presence of Bacillus subtilis (natto), catalase, or subtilisin. Can J Microbiol 46(10):892–897.  https://doi.org/10.1139/w00-070 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hsia CH, Shen MC, Lin JS, Wen YK, Hwang KL, Cham TM, Yang NC (2009) Nattokinase decreases plasma levels of fibrinogen, factor VII, and factor VIII in human subjects. Nutr Res 29(3):190–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutres.2009.01.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang H, Sun X, Wang L, Wu H et al (2018) Coproduction of menaquinone-7 and nattokinase by Bacillus subtilis using soybean curd residue as a renewable substrate combined with a dissolved oxygen control strategy. Ann Microbiol 68:655–665.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13212-018-1372-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Promoting Naturals Laboratory, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences Rutgers State UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, School of Environmental and Biological SciencesRutgers State UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  3. 3.Department of Food Science, School of Environmental and Biological SciencesRutgers State UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  4. 4.Guangdong Huiertai Biotechnology Co., Ltd.GuangzhouChina
  5. 5.Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Nutraceuticals and Functional FoodsSouth China Agricultural UniversityGuangzhouChina
  6. 6.Academy of Biology and BiotechnologySouthern Federal UniversityRostov-on-DonRussia

Personalised recommendations