Encapsulating Viability of Multi-strain Lactobacilli as Potential Probiotic in Pigs
Important aspects of the selection of probiotics to be used for mixing in animal feed include host species specificity and probiotic cell survival during production and storage of their products. The research was to screen and investigate some probiotic properties of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) isolated from pig fecal samples. One hundred and thirty-eight representative LAB isolates, which were isolated from 51 pig fecal samples, were tested for acid and bile tolerance, antimicrobial susceptibility, antibacterial activity, potential adhesion to the cell surface, and survival rates when stored in varied microencapsulation forms: freeze-dried, spray-dried, and micro-beads. The antibacterial activity results of the ten LAB isolates, which were acid- (pH 2, 3 h) and bile- (50% (v/v) fresh pig bile, 8 h) tolerant and suitable for resisting the five antibiotics commonly used for treating pig infections with pathogenic indicator strains, showed that three isolates (L21, L80, L103) had strong inhibition to Escherichia coli, Salmonella group B, and Salmonella group D using co-culturing and agar spot assays. The three isolates had high hydrophobicity (65–73%) and did not show antagonistic growth against each other. All three selected isolates had greater than 80% survival in freeze-dried and micro-bead forms at 25–30 °C after 2 days of storage (80.4–86.75%, 7.31–7.89 log CFU/ml). Sequence analysis of the 16S rRNA genes demonstrated that the three isolates belong to Lactobacillus plantarum (strain L21 and strain L80) and L. paraplantarum (strain L103). The single and multiple strains of these bacteria may have potential use as probiotics in pig diets.
KeywordsEncapsulation Multi-strain Probiotic Pigs
The authors would like to acknowledge the Thailand Research Fund organization (Research and Researcher for Industry 2014) (PHD57I0071) for the financial support in this study.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, Morelli L, Canani RB, Flint HJ, Salminen S, Calder PC, Sanders ME (2014) The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Ver Gastroenterol Hepatol 11:506–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Pringsulaka O, Rueangyotchanthana K, Suwannasai N, Watanapokasin R, Amnueysit P, Sunthornthummas S, Sukkhum S, Sarawaneeyaruk S, Rangsiruji A (2015) In vitro screening of lactic acid bacteria for multi-strain probiotics. Livest Sci 174:66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.01.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.De Man JC, Rogosa M, Sharpe EM (1960) A medium for the cultivation of lactobacilli. J Appl Microbiol 23:30–35Google Scholar
- 10.Park SC, Hwang MH, Kim YH, Kim JC, Song JC, Lee KW, Jeong KS, Rhee MH, Kim KS, Kim TW (2006) Comparison of pH and bile resistance of Lactobacillus acidophilus strains isolated from rat, pig, chicken, and human sources. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 22:35–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-005-4856-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Bauer A, Kirby WM, Sherris JC, Turck M (1966) Antibotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol 45:493–496Google Scholar
- 12.Klare I, Konstabel C, Muller-Bertling S, Reissbrodt R, Huys G, Vancanneyt M, Swings J, Goossens H, Witte W (2005) Evaluation of new broth media for microdilution antibiotic susceptibility testing of Lactobacilli, Pediococci, Lactococci, and Bifidobacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:8982–8986. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.12.8982-8986.2005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Charteris WP, Kelly PM, Morelli L, Collins JK (1998) Antibiotic susceptibility of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus species. J Food Prot 6:636–643Google Scholar
- 14.Tejero-Sariñena S, Barlow J, Costabile A, Gibson GR, Rowland I (2013) Antipathogenic activity of probiotics against Salmonella typhimurium and Clostridium difficile in anaerobic batch culture systems: is it due to synergies in probiotic mixtures or the specificity of single strains? Anaerobe 24:60–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2013.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.García-Hernández Y, Pérez-Sánchez T, Boucourt R, Balcázar JL, Nicoli JR, Moreira-Silva J, Rodríguez Z, Fuertes H, Nuñez O, Albelo N, Halaihel N (2016) Isolation, characterization and evaluation of probiotic lactic acid bacteria for potential use in animal production. Res Vet Sci 108:125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2016.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Abriouel H, Casado MDCC, Lerma LL, Montoro BP, Bockelmann W, Pichner R, Kabisch J, Cho G-S, Franz CMAP, Gálvez A, Benomar N (2015) New insights in antibiotic resistance of Lactobacillus species from fermented foods. Food Res Int 78:465–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.09.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Sornplang P, Sakulsawasdiphan K, Piyadeatsoontorn S, Surasorn B (2016) Antimicrobial susceptibility of lactic acid bacteria isolated from human and food-producing animal feces in Khon Kaen Province, Thailand. Trop Anim Health Prod 48:1739–1745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-016-1116-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Gisela G, Leonardo AE, Lucia P, Rodrigo V, Eduard G, Angeles CM (2014) Enhacement of the viability of Lactobacillus plantarum during the preservation and storage process based on the response surface methodology. Food Nutr Sci 5:1746–1755. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2014.518188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Šipailienė A, Petraitytė S (2018) Encapsulation of probiotics: proper selection of the probiotic strain and the influence of encapsulation technology and materials on the viability of encapsulated microorganisms. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 10:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9347-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar