Advertisement

Folia Microbiologica

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 203–207 | Cite as

Lactobacilli and enterococci — Potential probiotics for dogs

  • V. StrompfováEmail author
  • A. Lauková
  • A. C. Ouwehand
Article

Abstract

Forty strains of enterococci and forty strains of lactobacilli isolated from feces of 10 healthy dogs were tested for the antimicrobial activity, tolerance to bile and adhesion activity. The total count of fecal enterococci reached 5.5 log CFU/g and of lactobacilli 7.6 log CFU/g. Screening for production of bacteriocin-like substances showed an to partly inhibit the growth ofEnterobacter sp. (hazy zones of inhibition). Ten strains ofEnterococcus sp. and nine strains ofLactobacillus sp. were found without any inhibitory activity against all indicators used. Seven enterococcal strains and six lactobacilli with the broadest antimicrobial spectrum were selected for further probiotic assays. In the presence of 1 % bile, the survival rate of selected enterococci (71.7–97.5 %) was higher than that of lactobacilli (66.7–75.4 %). The adhesion of strains to human intestinal mucus (5.1–8.2 % by enterococci, 2.7–8.3 % by lactobacilli) was found to be similar as adhesion to canine intestinal mucus (3.7–10.6 % by enterococci, 2.1–6.0 % by lactobacilli). Strain AD1, one lactobacillus isolate, reduced the higher level of serum cholesterol and alanine aminotransferase after oral administration to dogs suffering from diseases of the gastrointestinal tract.

Keywords

Lactobacillus Lactic Acid Bacterium Lactobacillus Acidophilus Adhesion Activity Intestinal Mucus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Referencés

  1. Alander M., Satokari R., Korpela R., Saxelin M., Vilpponen-Salmela T., Mattila-Sandholm T., von Wright A.: Persistence of colonization of human colonic mucosa by a probiotic strain,Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG after oral consumption.Appl.Environ.Microbiol.65, 351–354 (1999).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baele M., Baele P., Vaneechoutte M., Storms V., Butaye P., Devriese L., Verschraegen G., Gillis M., Haesebrouck F.: Application of tDNA-PCR for the identification of enterococci.J.Clin.Microbiol.38, 4201–4207 (2000).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Caplice E., Fitzgerald G.F.: Food fermentations: role of microorganisms in food production and preservation.Internat.J.Food Microbiol.50, 131–149 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Casas I.A., Edens F.W., Dobrogosz W.J.:Lactobacillus reuteri: an effective probiotic for poultry and other animals, pp. 475–518 in S. Salminen, A. von Wright (Eds):Lactic Acid Bacteria: Microbiology and Functional Aspects. Marcel Dekker, New York 1998.Google Scholar
  5. Du Toit M., Franz C.M.A.P., Dicks L.M.T., Holzapfel W.H.: Preliminary characterization of bacteriocins produced byEnterococcus faecium andEnterococcus faecalis isolated from pig feces.J.Appl.Microbiol.88, 482–494 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elliott S.E., Buret A., McKnight W., Miller M.J.S., Wallace J.L.: Bacteria rapidly colonize and modulate healing of gastric ulcers in rats.Amer.J.Physiol.275, G425-G432 (1998).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilliland S.E., Walker D.K.: Factors to consider when selecting a culture ofLactobacillus acidophilus as a dietary adjunct to produce a hypocholesterolemic effect in humans.J.Dairy Sci.73, 905–911 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Havenaar R., Ten Brink B., Huis In’t Veld J.H.J.: Selection of strains for probiotic use, pp. 209–221 in R. Fuller (Ed.):Probiotics — the Scientific Basis. Chapman and Hall, London 1992.Google Scholar
  9. Klaenhammer T.R.: Genetics of bacteriocins produced by lactic acid bacteria.FEMS Microbial Rev.12, 224–227 (1993).Google Scholar
  10. Larsen L.A., Raben A., Haulrik N., Hansen A.S., Manders M., Astrop A.: Effect of 8 week intake of probiotic milk products on risk factors for cardiovascular diseases.Eur.J.Clin.Nutr.54, 288–297 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nes LF., Diep D.B., Havarstein L.S., Brurnerg M.B., Eijdink V., Holo H.: Biosynthesis of bacteriocins in lactic acid bacteria.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek70, 113–128 (1996).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Osuntoki A.A., Gbenle G.O., Olukoya D.K.: Evidence for chromosomal determination of fungicidal activity in strains ofLactobacillus brevis andLactobacillus fermentum isolated from fermented foods.Folia Microbiol.48, 56–58 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ouwehand A.C., Kirjavainen P.V., Shortt C., Saminen S.: Probiotics: mechanisms and established effects.Internat.Dairy J.9, 43–52 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rinkinen M., Mättö J., Salminen S., Westermarck E., Ouwehand A.C.:In vitro adhesion of lactic acid bacteria to canine small intestinal mucus.J.Anim.Physiol.Anim.Nutr.84, 43–47 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Salminen S., von Wright A., Morelli L., Marteuau P., Brassart D., de Vos W.M., Fonden R., Saxelin M., Collins K., Mogensen G., Birkeland S.E., Mattila-Sandholm T.: Demonstration of safety of probiotics — a review.Internat.J.Food Microbiol.44, 93–106 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schaafsma G., Meuling W.J.A., Van Dokkum W., Bouley C.: Effects of a milk product, fermented byLactobacillus acidophilus and with fructo-oligosaccharides added, on blood lipids in male volunteers.Eur.J.Clin.Nutr.52, 436–440 (1998).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schrezenmeir J., de Vrese M.: Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics — approaching a definition.Amer.J.Clin.Nutr.73 (Suppl.), 361S-364S (2001).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Strickling J.A., Harmon D.L., Dawson K.A., Gross K.L.: Evaluation of oligosaccharide addition to dog diets: influences on nutrient digestion and microbial populations.Amm.Feed Sci.Technol.86, 205–219 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tannock G.W.: Microbial interference in the gastrointestinal tract.ASE Amer.J.Clin.Sci.2, 2–34 (1981).Google Scholar
  20. Tomita H., Fujimoto S., Tanimoto K., Ike Y.: Cloning and genetic organization of the bacteriocin 21 determinant encoded on theEnterococcus faecalis pheromone-responsive conjugative plasmid pPD1.J.Bacteriol.179, 7843–7855 (1997).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Welsh J., McClelland M.: Genomic fingerprints produced by PCR with consensus tRNA gene primers.Nucl.Acids Res.19, 861–866 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Xanthopoulos V., Litopoulou-Tzanetakis E., Tzanetakis N.:In vitro study of lactobacillus species strains on bile tolerance and cholesterol removal, inLactic Acid Bacteria — Lactic 97. Presses Universitaires de Caen, Caen 1997.Google Scholar
  23. Zentek J., Molitor D., Kamphues J.: Prüfung intestinaler Effekte eines Probiotikums (Enterococcus faectum) bei Hunden.Kleintierpraxis43, 187–197 (1998).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Microbiology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Animal PhysiologySlovak Academy of SciencesKošiceSlovakia
  2. 2.Department of Biochemistry and Food ChemistryUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations