Skip to main content

Selection of a potential probiotic Lactobacillus strain and subsequent in vivo studies

Abstract

The probiotic potential of a Lactobacillus strain, isolated from pig faeces, was assessed as a probiotic in piglets. The strain was examined for resistance to pH 2.0, 0.5% oxgall and antibiotics, and antimicrobial activities against enteric pathogenic bacteria. The probiotic strain, L. reuteri BSA131, was administered through the feed to 25 1-month-old Landrace piglets. The piglets were divided into five groups of five piglets each and fed with different diets for 28 days. The daily consumption of L. reuteriBSA131 was assigned into two groups by the concentration of 106 or 108 freeze-dried bacteria. Fecal samples were collected before, during, and after consumption. Lactobacilli and enterobacteria cell counts were determined in the fecal samples. The liveweight gains and feed consumption of the piglets were recorded daily. This study showed that strain BSA 131 enhanced liveweight gains and feed conversion rates in piglets. It also showed a significant increase in lactobacilli cell counts and decreases in enterobacterial numbers in the fecal samples. Strain BSA 131 was considered to be a potential probiotic for piglets, especially after weaning.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Backstom L (1973) Environment and health in piglet production. A field study of incidences and correlations. Acta Vet. Scand. Suppl., 41: 1-240

    Google Scholar 

  • Charteris WP, Kelly PM, Morelli L & Collins JK (1998) Antibiotic susceptibility of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus species. J. Food Prot. 61: 1636-1643

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung WJ, Axelsson LT, Lindgren SE & Dobrogosz TC (1989) In vitro studies on reuterin synthesis by Lactobacillus reuteri. Microb. Ecol. Health Dis. 2: 131-144

    Google Scholar 

  • De Smet I, van Hoorde L, van de Woestyne M, Christiaens H & VerstraeteW(1995) Significance of bile-salt hydrolytic activities of lactobacilli. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 79: 292-301

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein J (1993) PHYLIP (phylogeny inference package), version 3.5c, Seattle: Department of Genetics, University of Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Francisco T, Juan R, Erenia F & Maria LR (1995) Response of piglets to oral administration of lactic acid bacteria. J. Food. Protect. 58: 1369-1374

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller R (1989) Probiotics in man and animals. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 66: 365-378

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller R & Gibson GR (1997) Modification of the intestinal microflora using probiotics and prebiotics. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 222: 28-31

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimura K, McCartney AL, McConnell MA & Tannock GW (1997) Analysis of fecal populations of bifidobacteria and lactobacilli and investigation of the immunological responses of their human hosts to the predominant strains. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63: 3394-3398

    Google Scholar 

  • King JOL (1968) Lactobacillus acidophilus as a growth stimulant for pigs. The Veterinarian 5: 273-280

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaenhammer TR (1993) Genetics of bacteriocins produced by lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 12: 39-86

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane DJ (1991) 16S/23S rRNA sequencing. In: Stackebrandt E & Goodfellow M (Ed) Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematics (pp 115-175). John Wiley & Sons, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattila-Sandholm T, Matto J & Saarela M (1999) Lactic acid bacteria with health claims-interactions and interference with gastrointestinal flora. Int. Dairy J. 9: 25-35

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsuoka T (1992) The human gastrointestinal tract. In: Wood BJB (Ed) The Lactic Acid Bacteria, Vol 1 (pp 69-114). The lactic acid bacteria in health and disease. Elsevier Applied Science, London

    Google Scholar 

  • National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (1997) Methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria, 4th Edn. Approved standard. NCCLS publication no. M11-A4. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Neu HC (1992) The crisis in antibiotic resistance. Science 257: 1064-1078

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollman DS, Danielson DM & Wren WB (1984) Influence of Lactobacillus acidophilus inoculum on gnotobiotic and convensional pigs. J. Am. Sci. 51: 629-637

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe B, Cole CB, Fuller R & Newport MJ (1986) The effect of yoghurt and milk fermented with a porcine intestinal strain of Lactobacillus reuteri on the performance and gastrointestinal flora of pigs weaned at two days of age. Food Microbiol. 3: 203-211

    Google Scholar 

  • Salminen S, Isolauri E & Salminen E (1996) Clinical uses of probiotics for stabilizing the gut mucosal barrier: successful strains and future challenges. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 70: 347-358

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahani KM, Vakil JR & Kilara A (1976) Natural antibiotic activity of Lactobacillus acidophilus and bulgaricus, I. Cultural conditions for the production of antibiosis. Cultured Dairy Products J. 11: 14-17

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannock GW (1995) Normal Microflora. An Introduction to Microbes Inhabiting the Human Body. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannock GW, Crichton C, Welling GW, Koopman JP & Midtvedt T (1988) Reconstitution of the gastrointestinal microflora of lactobacillus-free mice. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 54: 2871-2975

    Google Scholar 

  • Vescovo M, Morelli L & Bottazzi V (1982) Drug resistance plasmids in Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus reuteri. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 43: 50-56

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young-Hyo Chang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chang, YH., Kim, JK., Kim, HJ. et al. Selection of a potential probiotic Lactobacillus strain and subsequent in vivo studies. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 80, 193–199 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012213728917

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012213728917

  • antibiotics
  • antimicrobial
  • feed trial
  • intestinal microflora
  • Lactobacillus
  • probiotics