Advertisement

World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 7, Issue 6, pp 587–592 | Cite as

In vitro appraisal of the probiotic value of intestinal lactobacilli

  • L. Vandevoorde
  • H. Christiaens
  • W. Verstraete
Research Paper

Abstract

Lactobacilli play a distinctive role in the microbial balance of the chicken gut. In experiments simulating the chicken crop, the antagonism of lactobacilli against Enterobacteriaceae and Salmonella typhimurium was demonstrated and was attributed to lactic acid production. Moreover, adhesion to the crop epithelium was a common characteristic of intestinal lactobacilli. As opposed to salmonellas, lactobacilli were sensitive to deconjugated bile salts at 2.5mm. This sensitivity could lower their chance of proliferation in the small bowel of the chicken tract.

Key words

Adhesion antagonism bile salts lactobacillus salmonella 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams R.F. & Conway P.L. 1981 The effect of erythrosine on the surface-associated bacteria of the rat stomach and caecum. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 51, 171–181.Google Scholar
  2. Cole C.B. & Fuller R. 1984 Bile acid deconjugation and attachment of chicken gut bacteria: their possible role in growth depression. British Poultry Science 25, 227–231.Google Scholar
  3. Conway P.L. & Adams R.F. 1989 Role of erythrosine in the inhibition of adhesion of Lactobacillus fermentum strain 737 to mouse stomach tissue. Journal of General Microbiology 35, 1167–1173.Google Scholar
  4. Dashkevicz M.P. & Feighner S.D. 1989 Development of a differential medium for bile salt hydrolase—active Lactobacillus spp. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 55, 11–16.Google Scholar
  5. Feighner S.D. & Dashkevicz M.P. 1987 Subtherapeutical levels of antibiotics in poultry feed and their effects on weight gain, feed efficiency and bacterial cholyltaurine hydrolase activity. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 53, 331–336.Google Scholar
  6. Fuller R. 1973 Ecological studies on the Lactobacillus flora associated with the crop epithelium of the fowl. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 36, 131–139.Google Scholar
  7. Fuller R. 1977 The importance of lactobacilli in maintaining normal microbial balance in the crop. British Poultry Science 18, 85–94.Google Scholar
  8. Fuller R. 1978 Epithelial attachment and other factors controlling the colonization of the intestine of the gnotobiotic chicken by lactobacilli. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 45, 389–395.Google Scholar
  9. Fuller R. 1989 A review. Probiotics in man and animals. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 66, 365–378.Google Scholar
  10. Fuller R. & Turvey A. 1971 Bacteria associated with the intestinal wall of the fowl. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 34, 617–622.Google Scholar
  11. Fuller R., Houghton S.B. & Brooker B.E. 1981. Attachment of Streptococcus faecium to the duodenal epithelium of the chicken and its importance in colonization of the small intestine. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 41, 1433–1441.Google Scholar
  12. Gilliland S.E. 1988 Probiotics: facts or fancy? In Proceedings of the 8th International Biotechnology Symposium, eds. Durand G., Bobichon L. & Florent G. pp. 923–933. Paris: Sociéte Francaise de Microbiologie.Google Scholar
  13. Gilliland S.E., Staley T.E. & Bush L.J. 1984 Importance of bile tolerance of Lactobacillus acidophilus used as a dietary adjunct. Journal of Dairy Science 67, 3045–3051.Google Scholar
  14. Green J. & Kellogg T.F., 1987 Bile acid concentrations in serum, bile, jejunal contents, and excreta of male broiler chicks during the first six weeks posthatch. Poultry Science 66, 535–540.Google Scholar
  15. Haslewood G.A.D. 1971 Bile salts of germ-free domestic fowl and pigs. Biochemistry Journal 123, 15–18.Google Scholar
  16. Ochi Y., Mitsuoka T. & Sega T. 1964 Untersuchungen bei die Darmflora des Huhn. III Mitteilung: die Entwicklung der Darmflora von Kken bis zum Huhn. Zentralblatt für Bacteriologie, Parasitenkunde, Infektionskrankheiten und Hygiene, Abteilung 1, Originale 1, Reihe A, 193, 80–95.Google Scholar
  17. Salanitro J.P., Blake I.G., Muirhead P.A., Maglio M. & Goodman J.R. 1978. Bacteria isolated from the duodenum, ileum and caecum of young chicks. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 35, 782–790.Google Scholar
  18. Soerjadi A.S., Stehman S.M. & Snoeyenbos G.H. 1981 Some measurements of protection against paratyphoid Salmonella and Escherichia coli by competitive exclusion in chickens. Avian Diseases 25, 706–712.Google Scholar
  19. Soerjadi A.S., Rufner R., Snoeyenbos G.H. & Weinack O.M. 1982 Adherence of salmonellae and native gut microflora to the gastro-intestinal mucosa of chicks. Avian Diseases 26, 576–584.Google Scholar
  20. Stavric S., Gleeson T.M., Blanchfield B. & Pivnick H. 1987 Role of adhering microflora in competitive exclusion of Salmonella from young chicks. Journal of Food Protection 50, 928–932.Google Scholar
  21. Stavric S., Gleeson T.M. & Blanchfield B. 1991 Effect of avian intestinal microflora possessing adhering and hydrophobic properties on competitive exclusion of Salmonella typhimurium from chicks. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 12, 414–421.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Vandevoorde
  • H. Christiaens
  • W. Verstraete

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations