Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 137–145 | Cite as

Optimization of Culture Conditions for Mass Production of the Probiotics Pseudomonas MCCB 102 and 103 Antagonistic to Pathogenic Vibrios in Aquaculture

  • R. Preetha
  • K. K. Vijayan
  • N. S. Jayapraksh
  • S. V. Alavandi
  • T. C. Santiago
  • I. S. Bright SinghEmail author


Rapid growth of shrimp farming industry is affected by the recurrence of diverse diseases, among which vibriosis is predominant. Eco-friendly disease management strategy by the application of antagonistic probiotics is widely accepted. In the present study, culture conditions of antagonistic probiotics, Pseudomonas MCCB 102 and 103, were optimized to enhance their biomass production and antagonistic activity against the shrimp pathogen V. harveyi MCCB 111. Primarily, one-dimensional screening was carried out to fix the optimum range of sodium chloride concentration, pH and temperature. The second step optimization was done using a full-factorial central composite design of response surface methodology. As per the model, 12.9 g/L sodium chloride and pH 6.5 for Pseudomonas MCCB 102, and 5 g/L sodium chloride and pH 7 for Pseudomonas MCCB 103 were found to be ideal to maximize antagonistic activity. However, optimum temperature was the same (25 °C) for both isolates. Finally, the models were experimentally validated for enhanced biomass production and antagonistic activity. The optima for biomass and antagonistic activity were more or less the same, suggesting the possible influence of biomass on antagonistic activity.


Probiotic Pseudomonas Antagonistic activity Vibrios Response surface methodology Central composite design 



This research was supported by Department of Ocean Development (DOD), Government of India [DOD/11/MRDF/4/3/UNI/97 (p-8)]. The first author thanks DOD for Fellowship.

Conflict of interest

R. Preetha, K.K. Vijayan, N.S. Jayapraksh, S.V. Alavandi, T.C. Santiago and I.S. Bright Singh declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Supplementary material

12602_2015_9185_MOESM1_ESM.doc (50 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 50 kb)


  1. 1.
    Baron SS, Rowe JJ (1981) Antibiotic action of pyocyanin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 20:814–820. doi: 10.1128/AAC.20.6.814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bly JE, Quiniou SMA, Lawson LA, Clem LW (1997) Inhibition of Saprolegnia pathogenic for fish by Pseudomonas fluorescens. J Fish Dis 20:35–40. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2761.1997.d01-104.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chin-A-Woeng TFC, Bloemberg GV, Lugtenberg BJJ (2003) Phenazines and their role in biocontrol by Pseudomonas bacteria. New Phytol 157:503–523. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00686.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chythanya R, Karunasagar I, Karunasagar I (2002) Inhibition of shrimp pathogenic vibrios by a marine Pseudomonas I-2 strain. Aquaculture 208:1–10. doi: 10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00714-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Esser DW, Eberly L, Hadero A, Crawford IP (1990) Identification and characterization of genes for a second anthranilate synthase in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: interchangeability of the anthranilate synthase and evolutionary implications. J Bacteriol 172:884–900Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gram L, Melchiorsen J, Spanggaard B, Huber I, Nielsen TF (1999) Inhibition of Vibrio anguillarum by Pseudomonas flurescens AH2, a possible probiotic treatment of fish. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:969–973Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guerra NP, Pastrana L (2002) Nisin and Pediocin production on mussel-processing waste supplemented with glucose and five nitrogen sources. Lett Appl Microbiol 34:114–118. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-765x.2002.01054.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jayaprakash NS (2005) Antibody based diagnostics for detection of vibrios and their biological control using antagonistic bacteria in Macrobrachium rosenbergii larval rearing system. Ph.D. Thesis, Cochin University of Science and Technology, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jayaprakash NS, Somnath Pai S, Anas A, Preetha R, Philip R, Singh ISB (2006) A marine Micrococcus MCCB104 antagonistic to vibrios in prawn larval rearing systems. Dis Aquat Org 8:39–45Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kerr JK, Taylor GW, Rutman A, Hoiby N, Cole PJ, Wilson R (1999) Pseudomonas aeruginosa pyocyanin and 1-hydroxyphenazine inhibit fungal growth. J Clin Pathol 52:385–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar RS, Ayyadurai N, Pandiaraja P, Reddy AV, Venkateswarlu Y, Prakash O, Sakthivel N (2005) Characterization of antifungal metabolite produced by a new strain Pseudomonas aeruginosa PUPa3 that exhibits broad-spectrum antifungal activity and biofertilizing traits. J Appl Microbiol 98:145–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02435.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liong MT, Shah NP (2005) Optimization of cholesterol removal by probiotics in the presence of prebiotics by using a response surface method. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:1745–1753. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.4.1745-1753.2005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luis-Villasenor IE, Castellanos-Cervantes T, Gomez-Gil B, Carrillo-García AE, Campa-Córdova AI, Ascencio F (2013) Probiotics in the intestinal tract of juvenile whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei: modulation of the bacterial community. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 29:257–265. doi: 10.1007/s11274-012-1170-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mavrodi DV, Blankenfeldt W, Thomashow LS (2006) Phenazine compounds in fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. biosynthesis and regulation. Annu Rev Phytopathol 44:18.1–18.29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Norman RS, Moeller P, Mc Donald TJ, Morris PJ (2004) Effect of pyocyanin on a crude-oil-degrading microbial community. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:4004–4011. doi: 10.1128/AEM.70.7.4004-4011.2004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Preetha R, Jayaprakash NS, Philip R, Singh ISB (2007) Optimization of carbon and nitrogen sources and growth factors for the production of an aquaculture probiotic (Pseudomonas MCCB 103) using response surface methodology. J Appl Microbiol 102:1043–1051. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03149.x Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Preetha R, Seena J, Prathapan S, Vijayan KK, Jayaprakash NS, Philip R, Singh ISB (2010) An inhibitory compound produced by Pseudomonas with effectiveness on Vibrio harveyi. Aquac Res 41:1452–1461. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02436.x Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raaijmakers JM, David MW, Thomasshow LS (1997) Frequency of antibiotic-producing Pseudomonas spp. in natural environment. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:881–887Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sen R, Swaminathan T (1997) Application of response-surface methodology to evaluate the optimum conditions for the enhanced production of surfactin. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 47:358–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith P, Davey S (1993) Evidence for the competitive exclusion of Aeromonas salmonicida from fish with stress-inducible furunculosis by a fluorescent pseudomonad. J Fish Dis 16:521–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vijayan KK, Singh ISB, Jayaprakash NS, Alavandi SV, Pai SS, Preetha R, Rajan JJS, Santiago TC (2006) A brackish water isolate of Pseudomonas PS-102, a potential antagonistic bacterium against pathogenic vibrios in penaeid and non-penaeid rearing systems. Aquaculture 251(192):200. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.10.010 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang Y-X, Lu Z-X (2004) Statistical optimization of media for extracellular polysaccharide by Pholiota squarrosa (Pers. Ex Fr.) Quel. AS 5.245 under submerged cultivation. Biochem Eng J 20:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weuster-Botz D (2000) Experimental design for fermentation media development statistical design or global random search? J Biosci Eng 90:473–483. doi: 10.1016/S1389-1723(01)80027-X Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Preetha
    • 1
    • 4
  • K. K. Vijayan
    • 2
  • N. S. Jayapraksh
    • 1
  • S. V. Alavandi
    • 3
  • T. C. Santiago
    • 3
  • I. S. Bright Singh
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.National Centre for Aquatic Animal HealthCochin University of Science and TechnologyCochinIndia
  2. 2.Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (Indian Council of Agriculture Research)Ernakulam North, CochinIndia
  3. 3.Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture (Indian Council of Agriculture Research)ChennaiIndia
  4. 4.Department of Food and Process Engineering, School of BioengineeringSRM UniversityKattankulathurIndia

Personalised recommendations