Current Microbiology

, Volume 56, Issue 6, pp 613–618 | Cite as

Resistance to Simulated Gastrointestinal Conditions and Adhesion to Mucus as Probiotic Criteria for Bifidobacterium longum Strains

  • E. Izquierdo
  • M. Medina
  • S. Ennahar
  • E. Marchioni
  • Y. SanzEmail author


Eight Bifidobacterium longum strains, including reported probiotic strains (commercial and noncommercial), collection strains, and laboratory isolates, were investigated for their ability to adhere to mucin as well as their ability to tolerate acid and bile. Strains could be discriminated based on their sensitivity at pH values of 2.0 to 2.5 and bile concentrations of 0.5% to 2.0%. B. longum NCC 2705, a strain known for its probiotic properties, showed the highest resistance to gastrointestinal conditions, whereas the commercial probiotic strains B. longum BB 536 and SP 07/3 were the least resistant. In parallel, the human isolate B. longum BIF 53 showed the highest adhesion to mucin, whereas the commercial probiotic strains B. longum W 11, BB 536, and SP 07/3 were the least adhesive. The bacterial adhesion to mucin of strains B. longum NCC 2705 and BIF 53 could be reduced by lysozyme, indicating that cell-wall components are involved in the adhesion process. These results showed that there is no obvious link between adhesion and resistance to gastrointestinal conditions and the probiotic status of the studied strains. This calls for a definition of conditions for in vitro tests that better predict the in vivo functionality of probiotic strains.


Probiotic Strain Adhesion Ability Bile Concentration Growth Ability Bifidobacterium Longum 
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.



Nestec (Nestec Ltd, Nestlé Research Center Lausanne, Switzerland) and Comercial Química Masó (Barcelona, Spain) are acknowledged for providing the strains B. longum NCC 2705 and B. longum BB 536, respectively. This work was supported by the “Ministère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche” and by Grants No. AGL2005-05788-C02-01 and Consolider Fun-C-Food CSD2007-00063 from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education (MEC). The postdoctoral grant to M Medina from MEC (Spain) is also fully acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    Bianchi MA, del Rio D, Pellegrini N, Sansebastiano G, Neviani E, Brighenti F (2004) A fluorescence-based method for the detection of adhesive properties of lactic acid bacteria to Caco-2 cells. Lett Appl Microbiol 39:301–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Collado MC, Gueimonde M, Hernandez M, Sanz Y, Salminen S (2005) Adhesion of selected Bifidobacterium strains to human intestinal mucus and the role of adhesion in enteropathogen exclusion. J Food Prot 68:2672–2678PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collado MC, Hernandez M, Sanz Y (2005) Production of bacteriocin-like inhibitory compounds by human fecal Bifidobacterium strains. J Food Prot 68:1034–1040PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collado MC, Moreno Y, Cobo JM, Hernandez M (2006) Microbiological evaluation and molecular characterization of bifidobacteria strains in commercial fermented milks. Eur Food Res Technol 222:112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    FAO/WHO working group (2002) Guidelines for the Evaluation of Probiotics in Food. Available at: Joint FAO/WHO Working Group, London, Ontario, Canada, April 30 and May 1
  6. 6.
    Gueimonde M, Delgado S, Mayo B, Ruas-Madiedo P, Margolles A, De Los Reyes-Gavilan C (2004) Viability and diversity of probiotic Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium populations included in commercial fermented milks. Food Res Int 37:839–850Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kirjavainen PV, Ouwehand AC, Isolauri E, Salminen SJ (1998) The ability of probiotic bacteria to bind to human intestinal mucus. FEMS Microbiol Lett 167:185–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lahtinen SJ, Gueimonde M, Ouwehand AC, Reinikainen JP, Salminen SJ (2006) Comparison of four methods to enumerate probiotic bifidobacteria in a fermented food product. Food Microbiol 23:571–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mukai T, Kaneko S, Matsumoto M, Ohori H (2004) Binding of Bifidobacterium bifidum and Lactobacillus reuteri to the carbohydrate moieties of intestinal glycolipids recognized by peanut agglutinin. Int J Food Microbiol 90:357–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ouwehand AC, Salminen SJ (1998) The health effects of cultured milk products with viable and non-viable bacteria. Int Dairy J 8:749–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pineiro M, Stanton C (2007) Probiotic bacteria: legislative framework-requirements to evidence basis. J Nutr 137:850–853Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ruas-Madiedo P, Gueimonde M, Margolles A, De Los Reyes-Gavilan C, Salminen S (2006) Exopolysaccharides produced by probiotic strains modify the adhesion of probiotics and enteropathogens to human intestinal mucus. J Food Prot 69:2011–2015PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Senok AC, Ismaeel AY, Botta GA (2005) Probiotics: Facts and myths. Clin Microbiol Infect 11:958–966PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Servin AL, Coconnier MH (2003) Adhesion of probiotic strains to the intestinal mucosa and interaction with pathogens. Best Pract Res Cl Ga 17:741–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Société des Produits Nestlé S.A., Arigoni F, Delley M, Mollet B, Pridmore RD, Schell MA et al (2002) Genome sequence and protection from pathogenic microorganisms by strain NCC2705 of Bifidobacterium longum. European Patent 1227152Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Izquierdo
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Medina
    • 1
  • S. Ennahar
    • 2
  • E. Marchioni
    • 2
  • Y. Sanz
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de AlimentosBurjassot-ValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Chimie Analytique et Sciences des Aliments, IPHC-DSA, ULPCNRSIllkirchFrance

Personalised recommendations