Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Potential Probiotic Properties of Lactobacillus and Bacillus Strains Derived from Various Sources for Their Potential Use in Swine Feeding

  • Published:
Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Beneficial effects of probiotics are relevant to the various potential properties of individual strains, and they may also relate to the original sources of the probiotic strains. This study aimed to characterize the potential probiotic properties of the strains originating from various sources for probiotics use in swine feeding. A total of 9 potential probiotic strains, seven lactobacilli and 2 bacilli, were examined for antimicrobial production against swine pathogens, adhesion and anti-adhesion of potential probiotic strains to IPEC-J2 cells, aggregation ability, host defense peptide expression, and hemolytic assay. The results highlight that all strains derived from different sources could exhibit probiotic properties, although different abilities were observed. L. rhamnosus SD11 exhibited the highest inhibitory effect against all pathogens compared to other strains. Bacillus licheniformis KMP-9, B. subtilis KMP-N004, and L. fermentum SD7 gave the highest internalization and that related to high abilities of exclusion, competition, and displacement inhibition to pathogens. Such strains also gave a higher co-aggregation to all pathogens compared to other potential probiotic strains. L. rhamnosus GG, L. fermentum SD7, L. rhamnosus SD4, and B. subtilis KMP-N004 had significantly higher pBD-2 mRNA expression than other strains. None of potential probiotic strains showed hemolytic activity. In conclusion, the strains derived from either humans or animals possessed desirable probiotic properties including inhibition against porcine pathogens, adhesion capacity to porcine enterocytes, anti-adhesion pathogens to porcine enterocytes, and modulated innate immunity. Results indicate that these probiotic strains may be good candidates for use in swine feeding to reduce the risk of infection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Gaggia F, Mattarelli P, Biavati B (2010) Probiotics and prebiotics in animal feeding for safe food production. Int J Food Microbiol 141:S15–S28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.02.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yang J, Qian K, Wang C, Wu Y (2018) Roles of probiotic lactobacilli inclusion in helping piglets establish healthy intestinal inter-environment for pathogen defense. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 10:243–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9273-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Liao SF, Nyachoti M (2017) Using probiotics to improve swine gut health and nutrient utilization. Anim Nutr 3:331–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2017.06.007

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Markowiak P, Śliżewska K (2017) Effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on human health. Nutrients 9:1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9091021

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kritas SK, Morrison RB (2005) Evaluation of probiotics as a substitute for antibiotics in a large pig nursery. Vet Rec 156:447–448. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.156.14.447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guo X, Li D, Lu W, Piao X, Chen X (2006) Screening of Bacillus strains as potential probiotics and subsequent confirmation of the in vivo effectiveness of Bacillus subtilis MA139 in pigs. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 90:139–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-006-9067-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ohashi Y, Ushida K (2009) Health-beneficial effects of probiotics: its mode of action. Anim Sci J 80:361–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2009.00645.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Frese SA, Benson AK, Tannock GW, Loach DM, Kim J, Zhang M, Oh PL, Heng NC, Patil PB, Juge N, Mackenzie DA, Pearson BM, Lapidus A, Dalin E, Tice H, Goltsman E, Land M, Hauser L, Ivanova N, Kyrpides NC, Walter J (2011) The evolution of host specialization in the vertebrate gut symbiont Lactobacillus reuteri. PLoS Genet 7:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001314

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Oh PL, Benson AK, Peterson DA, Patil PB, Moriyama EN, Roos S, Walter J (2010) Diversification of the gut symbiont Lactobacillus reuteri as a result of host-driven evolution. ISME J 4:377–387. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2009.123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Walter J, Britton RA, Roos S (2011) Host-microbial symbiosis in the vertebrate gastrointestinal tract and the Lactobacillus reuteri paradigm. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:4645–4652. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000099107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Teanpaisan R, Dahlen G (2006) Use of polymerase chain reaction techniques and sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis for differentiation of oral Lactobacillus species. Oral Microbiol Immunol 21:79–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-302X.2006.00259.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Piwat S, Teanpaisan R (2013) 16S rRNA PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of oral Lactobacillus casei group and their phenotypic appearances. ISRN Microbiol 23:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/342082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Teanpaisan R, Piwat S, Dahlén G (2011) Inhibitory effect of oral Lactobacillus against oral pathogens. Lett Appl Microbiol 53:452–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2011.03132.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Teanpaisan R, Piwat S (2014) Lactobacillus paracasei SD1, a novel probiotic, reduces mutans streptococci in human volunteers: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Clin Oral Investig 18:857–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1057-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rungsri P, Akkarachaneeyakorn N, Wongsuwanlert M, Piwat S, Nantarakchaikul P, Teanpaisan R (2017) Effect of fermented milk containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus SD11 on oral microbiota of healthy volunteers: a randomized clinical trial. J Dairy Sci 100:7780–7787. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12961

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fukushima H, Katsube K, Tsunomori Y, Kishi R, Atsuta J, Akiba Y (2009) Comprehensive and rapid real-time PCR analysis of 21 foodborne outbreaks. Int J Microbiol 2009:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/917623

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Piwat S, Sophatha B, Teanpaisan R (2015) An assessment of adhesion, aggregation and surface charges of Lactobacillus strains derived from the human oral cavity. Lett Appl Microbiol 61:98–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/lam.12434

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ren D, Li C, Qin Y, Yin R, Li X, Tian M, Du S, Guo H, Liu C, Zhu N, Sun D, Li Y, Jin N (2012) Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus adherence to Caco-2 cells by lactobacilli and cell surface properties that influence attachment. Anaerobe 18:508–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2012.08.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kos B, Susković J, Vuković S, Simpraga M, Frece J, Matosic S (2003) Adhesion and aggregation ability of probiotic strain Lactobacillus acidophilus M92. J Appl Microbiol 94:981–987. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.01915.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mariani V, Palermo S, Fiorentini S, Lanubile A, Giuffra E (2009) Gene expression study of two widely used pig intestinal epithelial cell lines: IPEC-J2 and IPI-2I. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 131:278–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2009.04.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Collado-Romero M, Arce C, Ramirez-Boo M, Carvajal A, Garrido JJ (2010) Quantitative analysis of the immune response upon Salmonella typhimurium infection along the porcine intestinal gut. Vet Res 41:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1051/vetres/2009072

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Leite AMO, Miguel MAL, Peixoto RS, Paschoalin VMF, Mayo B (2015) Probiotic potential of selected lactic acid bacteria strains isolated from Brazilian kefir grains. J Dairy Sci 98:3622–3632. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fairbrother JM, Nadeau E, Gyles CL (2005) Escherichia coli in post-weaning diarrhea in pigs: an update on bacterial types, pathogenesis, and prevention strategies. Anim Health Res Rev 6:17–39. https://doi.org/10.1079/ahr2005105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. MacInnes JI, Desrosiers R (1999) Agents of the “suiside diseases” of swine: Actinobacillus suis, Haemophilus parasuis, and Streptococcus suis. Can J Vet Res 63:83–89

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Segura M, Calzas C, Grenier D, Gottschalk M (2016) Initial steps of the pathogenesis of the infection caused by Streptococcus suis: fighting against nonspecific defenses. FEBS Lett 590:3772–3799. https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.12364

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gottschalk M, Segura M (2000) The pathogenesis of the meningitis caused by Streptococcus suis: the unresolved questions. Vet Microbiol 76:259–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(00)00250-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ma T, Suzuki Y, Guan LL (2018) Dissect the mode of action of probiotics in affecting host-microbial interactions and immunity in food producing animals. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 205:35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2018.10.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lu R, Fasano S, Madayiputhiya N, Morin NP, Nataro J, Fasano A (2009) Isolation, identification, and characterization of small bioactive peptides from Lactobacillus GG conditional media that exert both anti-gram-negative and gram-positive bactericidal activity. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 49:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0b013e3181924d1e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wannun P, Piwat S, Teanpaisan R (2014) Purification and characterization of bacteriocin produced by oral Lactobacillus paracasei SD1. Anaerobe 27:17–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2014.03.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wannun P, Piwat S, Teanpaisan R (2016) Purification, characterization, and optimum conditions of fermencin SD11, a bacteriocin produced by human orally Lactobacillus fermentum SD11. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 179:572–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-016-2014-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Juntunen M, Kirjavainen P, Ouwehand A, Salminen S, Isolauri E (2001) Adherence of probiotic bacteria to human intestinal mucus in healthy infants and during rotavirus infection. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 8:293–296. https://doi.org/10.1128/cdli.8.2.293-296.2001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Brosnahan AJ, Brown DR (2012) Porcine IPEC-J2 intestinal epithelial cells in microbiological investigations. Vet Microbiol 156:229–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.10.017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sophatha B, Piwat S, Teanpaisan R (2020) Adhesion, anti-adhesion and aggregation properties relating to surface charges of selected Lactobacillus strains: study in Caco-2 and H357 cells. Arch Microbiol 202:1349–1357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-020-01846-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Li XJ, Yue LY, Guan XF, Qiao SY (2008) The adhesion of putative probiotic lactobacilli to cultured epithelial cells and porcine intestinal mucus. J Appl Microbiol 104:1082–1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03636.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sang Y, Patil A, Zhang G, Ross C, Blecha F (2006) Bioinformatic and expression analysis of novel porcine α-defensins. Mamm Genome 17:332–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00335-005-0158-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Veldhuizen EJ, van Dijk A, Tersteeg MH, Kalkhove SI, van der Meulen J, Niewold TA, Haagsman HP (2007) Expression of beta-defensins pBD-1 and pBD-2 along the small intestinal tract of the pig: lack of upregulation in vivo upon Salmonella typhimurium infection. Mol Immunol 44:276–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2006.03.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Veldhuizen EJ, Rijnders M, Claassen EA, van Dijk A, Haagsman HP (2008) Porcine beta-defensin 2 displays broad antimicrobial activity against pathogenic intestinal bacteria. Mol Immunol 45:386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2007.06.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Veldhuizen EJ, Hendriks HG, Hogenkamp A, van Dijk A, Gaastra W, Tooten PC, Haagsman HP (2006) Differential regulation of porcine beta-defensins 1 and 2 upon Salmonella infection in the intestinal epithelial cell line IPI-2I. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 114:94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2006.07.012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang J, Deng J, Wang Z, Che C, Li YF, Yang Q (2011) Modulatory effects of Lactobacillus salivarius on intestinal mucosal immunity of piglets. Curr Microbiol 62:1623–1631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-011-9906-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Collado MC, Grześkowiak Ł, Salminen S (2007) Probiotic strains and their combination inhibit in vitro adhesion of pathogens to pig intestinal mucosa. Curr Microbiol 55:260–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-007-0144-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mao X, Gu C, Hu H, Tang J, Chen D, Yu B, He J, Yu J, Luo J, Tian G (2016) Dietary Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG supplementation improves the mucosal barrier function in the intestine of weaned piglets challenged by porcine rotavirus. PLoS ONE 4:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-007-0144-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Joint FAO/WHO Working Group (2002) Guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food. World Health Organization, London

    Google Scholar 

  43. Timmerman HM, Koning CJ, Mulder L, Rombouts FM, Beynen AC (2004) Monostrain, multistrain and multispecies probiotics-a comparison of functionality and efficacy. Int J Food Microbiol 96:219–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.05.012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors also would like to thank the Oral Microbiology Laboratory, Faculty of Dentistry (Hat-Yai, Thailand) for facilitating all equipment. Some probiotics strains were kindly provided by the KMP Biotech company, Thailand. The suppliers had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Science and Technology Development Agency, Thailand (Co-project, 2017).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Common Oral Diseases and Epidemiology Research Center, Hat Yai, Thailand

    Nuntiya Pahumunto & Rawee Teanpaisan

  2. Department of Oral Diagnostic Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand

    Nuntiya Pahumunto & Rawee Teanpaisan

  3. Department of Oral Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Odontology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Gunnar Dahlen

Authors
  1. Nuntiya Pahumunto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gunnar Dahlen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rawee Teanpaisan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rawee Teanpaisan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pahumunto, N., Dahlen, G. & Teanpaisan, R. Evaluation of Potential Probiotic Properties of Lactobacillus and Bacillus Strains Derived from Various Sources for Their Potential Use in Swine Feeding. Probiotics & Antimicro. Prot. 15, 479–490 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-021-09861-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-021-09861-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation