Advertisement

Journal of Food Science and Technology

, Volume 55, Issue 7, pp 2801–2807 | Cite as

Evaluation of some in vitro probiotic properties of Lactobacillus fermentum Strains

  • Aiswarya S. Panicker
  • Syed Azmal Ali
  • Santosh Anand
  • Narender Raju Panjagari
  • Sudarshan Kumar
  • A. K. Mohanty
  • Pradip V. Behare
Short Communication

Abstract

This study aimed to check the in vitro probiotic properties of eleven Lactobacillus fermentum strains previously isolated from fermented dairy products and infant faeces. These cultures were tested for their tolerance to different pH such as 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 6.5, bile salt hydrolysis and cell surface hydrophobicity. All the strains were persistent at pH 3.5 for 3 h whereas only faecal origin isolates such as L. fermentum BIF-19, BIF-20, BIF-18 and MTCC 8711 had shown considerable growth at pH 2.5. The strains NCDC-400, MTCC 8711, BIF-18, BIF-19 and BIF-20 showed slight to intense precipitation zone of bile salt hydrolase activity by agar plate assay. The strain L. fermentum BIF-19 exhibited best preliminary probiotic properties was selected for the adhesion to Caco-2 cell lines, which shows similar adhesion to that observed for standard probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG.

Keywords

Probiotic Acid tolerance BSH Cell adhesion Caco-2 Lactobacillus fermentum 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contribution of Director, ICAR-NDRI, Karnal, for the financial support and providing a necessary facility for carrying out this study.

References

  1. Bao Y, Zhang Y, Zhang Y et al (2010) Screening of potential probiotic properties of Lactobacillus fermentum isolated from traditional dairy products. Food Control 21:695–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Begley M, Hill C, Gahan CG (2006) Bile salt hydrolase activity in probiotics. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:1729–1738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouchez-Naitali M, Blanchet D et al (2001) Evidence for interfacial uptake in hexadecane degradation by Rhodococcus equi: the importance of cell flocculation. Microbiology 147:2537–2543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cerbo AD, Palmieri B, Aponte M, Morales-Medina JC, Iannitti T (2016) Mechanisms and therapeutic effectiveness of lactobacilli. J Clin Pathol 69:187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark RB (1997) Arbuscular mycorrhizal adaptation, spore germination, root colonization, and host plant growth and mineral acquisition at low pH. Plant Soil 192:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daliria EB, Lee BH (2015) New perspectives on probiotics in health and disease. Food Sci Hum Wellness 4:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Angelis M, Gobbetti M (2004) Environmental stress responses in Lactobacillus: a review. Proteomics 4:106–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dimitrov Z, Gotova I, Chorbadjiysk E (2014) In vitro characterization of the adhesive factors of selected probiotics to Caco-2 epithelium cell line. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 28:1079–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geertsema-Doornbusch GI, Van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ (1993) Microbial cell surface hydrophobicity the involvement of electrostatic interactions in microbial adhesion to hydrocarbons (MATH). J Microbiol Methods 18:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giard JC, Laplace JM, Rince A, Pichereau V, Benachour A, Leboeuf C, Flahaut S, Auffray Y, Hartke A (2001) The stress proteome of Enterococcus faecalis. Electrophoresis 22:2947–2954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greene JD, Klaenhammer TR (1994) Factors involved in adherence of lactobacilli to human Caco-2 cells. Appl Environ Microbiol 60:4487–4494Google Scholar
  12. Grill JP, Cayuela C et al (2000) Isolation and characterization of a Lactobacillus amylovorus mutant depleted in conjugated bile salt hydrolase activity: relation between activity and bile salt resistance. J Appl Microbiol 89:553–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobsen CN, Nielsen VR et al (1999) Screening of probiotic activities of forty-seven strains of Lactobacillus spp. by in vitro techniques and evaluation of the colonization ability of five selected strains in humans. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:4949–4956Google Scholar
  14. Kaewnopparat S, Dangmanee N et al (2013) In vitro probiotic properties of Lactobacillus fermentum SK5 isolated from vagina of a healthy woman. Anaerobe 22:6–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaur G, Ali SA, Kumar S, Mohanty AK, Behare PV (2017) Label-free quantitative proteomic analysis of Lactobacillus fermentum NCDC 400 during bile salt exposure. J Proteom 7:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kullisaar T, Zilmer K, Salum T, Rehema A, Zilmer M (2016) The use of probiotic L. fermentum ME-3 containing Reg’Activ Cholesterol supplement for 4 weeks has a positive influence on blood lipoprotein profiles and inflammatory cytokines: an open-label preliminary study. Nutr J 15:93.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-016-0213-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Panicker AS, Behare PV (2014) Evaluation of bile tolerance in dairy and human origin Lactobacillus fermentum strains. Ind J Dairy Sci 67:421–425Google Scholar
  18. Parijat P, Lule V, Munjal K, Ali SA, Rawat P, Kumar S, Behare PV, Mohanty AK (2016) Evaluation of stationary phase and bile stress related protein spots in Lactobacillus fermentum NCDC 400 by 2-DE method. Ind J Dairy Sci 69:455–459Google Scholar
  19. Parijat P, Kaur G, Ali SA, Bhatla S, Rawat P, Lule V, Kumar S, Mohanty AK, Behare PV (2017) High-resolution mass spectrometry-based global proteomic analysis of probiotic strains Lactobacillus fermentum NCDC 400 and RS2. J Proteom 152:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pfeiler EA, Azcarate-Peril MA, Klaenhammer TR (2007) Characterization of a novel bile-inducible operon encoding a two-component regulatory system in Lactobacillus acidophilus. J Bacteriol 189:4624–4634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramos CL, Thorsen L et al (2013) Strain-specific probiotics properties of Lactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus brevis isolates from Brazilian food products. Food Microbiol 36:22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosenberg M, Gutnick D, Rosenberg E (1980) Adherence of bacteria to hydrocarbons: a simple method for measuring cell-surface hydrophobicity. FEMS Microbiol Lett 9:29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh TP, Kaur G, Kapila S, Malik RK (2017) Antagonistic activity of Lactobacillus reuteri strains on the adhesion characteristics of selected pathogens. Front Microbiol 8:486.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00486 Google Scholar
  24. Sriphannam W, Lumyong S, Niumsap P, Ashida H, Yamamoto K, Khanongnuch C (2012) A selected probiotic strain of Lactobacillus fermentum CM33 isolated from breast-fed infants as a potential source of β-galactosidase for prebiotic oligosaccharide synthesis. J Microbiol 50:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strevett KA, Chen G (2003) Microbial surface thermodynamics and applications. Res Microbiol 154:329–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tanaka H, Doesburg K et al (1999) Screening of lactic acid bacteria for bile salt hydrolase activity. J Dairy Sci 82:2530–2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taranto MP, Sesma F, Valdez FG (1999) Localization and primary characterization of bile salt hydrolase from Lactobacillus reuteri. Biotechnol Lett 21:935–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Veiga P, Pons N, Agrawal A et al (2014) Changes of the human gut microbiome induced by a fermented milk product. Sci Rep 4:6328.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06328 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. West NP, Pyne DB et al (2011) Lactobacillus fermentum (PCC®) supplementation and gastrointestinal and respiratory-tract illness symptoms: a randomised control trial in athletes. Nutr J 10:30.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-10-30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang Y, Li S, Gan R, Zhou T, Xu D, Li H (2015) Impacts of gut bacteria on human health and diseases. Int J Mol Sci 16:7493–7519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zoumpopoulou G, Foligne B et al (2008) Lactobacillus fermentum ACA-DC179 displays probiotic potential in vitro and protects against trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid (TNBS)-induced colitis and Salmonella infection in murine models. Int J Food Microbiol 121:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aiswarya S. Panicker
    • 1
  • Syed Azmal Ali
    • 2
  • Santosh Anand
    • 1
  • Narender Raju Panjagari
    • 3
  • Sudarshan Kumar
    • 2
  • A. K. Mohanty
    • 2
  • Pradip V. Behare
    • 1
  1. 1.Techno-Functional Starter Lab, Dairy Microbiology DivisionICAR-National Dairy Research InstituteKarnalIndia
  2. 2.Proteomics and Cell Biology Lab, Animal Biotechnology CentreICAR-National Dairy Research InstituteKarnalIndia
  3. 3.Food Packaging Lab, Dairy Technology DivisionICAR-National Dairy Research InstituteKarnalIndia

Personalised recommendations