Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Screening, Identification, and Probiotic Properties of Bacillus Pumilus From Yak

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

Abstract

The yak has a unique physiological structure suited to life in anoxic and cold environments at high altitudes. The aim of this study was to isolate Bacillus species with good probiotic properties from yak feces. A series of tests were performed on the isolated Bacillus: 16S rRNA identification, antibacterial activity, tolerance to gastroenteric fluid, hydrophobicity, auto-aggregation, antibiotic sensitivity, growth performance, antioxidants, and immune indexes. A safe and harmless Bacillus pumilus DX24 strain with good survival rate, hydrophobicity, auto-aggregation, and antibacterial activity was identified in the yak feces. Feeding mice with Bacillus pumilus DX24 increased their daily weight gain, jejunal villus length, villi/Crypt ratio, blood IgG levels, and jejunum sIgA levels. This study confirmed the probiotic effects of Bacillus pumilus isolated from yak feces and provides the theoretical basis for the clinical application and development of new feed additives.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

  1. Desselberger U (2018) The mammalian intestinal microbiome: composition, interaction with the immune system, significance for vaccine efficacy, and potential for disease therapy. Pathogens 7:57. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens7030057

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G et al (2014) Expert consensus document. The international scientific association for probiotics and prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 11:506–514. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66

  3. Luz C, Calpe J, Manuel Quiles J et al (2021) Probiotic characterization of lactobacillus strains isolated from breast milk and employment for the elaboration of a fermented milk product. J Funct Foods 84:104599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2021.104599

  4. Konuray Altun G, Erginkaya Z (2021) Identification and characterization of bacillus coagulans strains for probiotic activity and safety. LWT 151:112233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112233

  5. Darvishi N, Fard NA, Sadrnia M (2021) Genomic and proteomic comparisons of bacteriocins in probiotic species lactobacillus and bifidobacterium and inhibitory ability of escherichia coli mg 1655. Biotechnol Rep 31:e654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2021.e00654

  6. Yaqub A, Awan MN, Kamran M et al (2021) Evaluation of potential applications of dietary probiotic (bacillus licheniformis sb3086): effect on growth, digestive enzyme activity, hematological, biochemical, and immune response of tilapia (oreochromis mossambicus). Turk J Fish Aquat Sc 22. https://doi.org/10.4194/TRJFAS19882

  7. Wu Y, Wang L, Luo R et al (2021) Effect of a multispecies probiotic mixture on the growth and incidence of diarrhea, immune function, and fecal microbiota of pre-weaning dairy calves. Front Microbiol 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.681014

  8. Hu J, Kim I (2022) Effect of bacillus subtilis c-3102 spores as a probiotic feed supplement on growth performance, nutrient digestibility, diarrhea score, intestinal microbiota, and excreta odor contents in weanling piglets. Animals 12:316. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030316

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Mosolov AA, Miroshnik AS, Slozhenkina MI et al (2021) Efficiency of the use of probiotics in comparison with antibiotics in pig breeding. IOP conference series. Earth Environ Sci 848:12067. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/848/1/012067

  10. List of feed additives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People's Republic (2013)

  11. Zidour M, Belguesmia Y, Cudennec B et al (2019) Genome sequencing and analysis of bacillus pumilus icvb403 isolated from acartia tonsa copepod eggs revealed surfactin and bacteriocin production: insights on anti-staphylococcus activity. Probiotics Antimicro 11:990–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-018-9461-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cavalini L, Jankoski P, Correa APF et al (2021) Characterization of the antimicrobial activity produced by bacillus sp. Isolated from wetland sediment. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 93. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202120201820

  13. Xia Y, Qin S, Shen Y (2019) Probiotic potential of weissella strains isolated from horse feces. Microb Pathog 132:117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2019.04.032

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Aunpad R, Na-Bangchang K (2007) Pumilicin 4, a novel bacteriocin with anti-mrsa and anti-vre activity produced by newly isolated bacteria bacillus pumilus strain wapb4. Curr Microbiol 55:308–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-006-0632-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. van Heel AJ, Montalban-Lopez M, Oliveau Q et al (2017) Genome-guided identification of novel head-to-tail cyclized antimicrobial peptides, exemplified by the discovery of pumilarin. Microbial Genomics 3. https://doi.org/10.1099/mgen.0.000134

  16. Hill JE, Baiano JCF, Barnes AC (2009) Isolation of a novel strain ofbacillus pumilus from penaeid shrimp that is inhibitory against marine pathogens. J Fish Dis 32:1007–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2761.2009.01084.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bilal M, Si W, Barbe F et al (2021) Effects of novel probiotic strains of bacillus pumilus and bacillus subtilis on production, gut health, and immunity of broiler chickens raised under suboptimal conditions. Poultry Sci 100:100871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.11.048

  18. Zhang N, Wang L, Wei Y (2021) Effects ofbacillus pumilus on growth performance, immunological indicators and gut microbiota of mice. J Anim Physiol an N 105:797–805. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.13505

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Luan S, Duersteler M, Galbraith EA et al (2015) Effects of direct-fed bacillus pumilus 8g–134 on feed intake, milk yield, milk composition, feed conversion, and health condition of pre- and postpartum holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 98:6423–6432. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9512

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. He Y, Jinno C, Kim K et al (2020) Dietary bacillus spp. Enhanced growth and disease resistance of weaned pigs by modulating intestinal microbiota and systemic immunity. J Anim Sci Biotechno 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-020-00498-3

  21. Qi X, Zhang Q, He Y et al (2019) The transcriptomic landscape of yaks reveals molecular pathways for high altitude adaptation. Genome Biol Evol 11:72–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evy264

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Han X, Liu H, Hu L et al (2021) Bacterial community characteristics in the gastrointestinal tract of yak (bos grunniens) fully grazed on pasture of the qinghai-tibetan plateau of china. Animals 11:2243. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11082243

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Zeng Z, He X, Li F et al (2021) Probiotic properties of bacillus proteolyticus isolated from tibetan yaks, china. Front Microbiol 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.649207

  24. Bao Y, Zhang Y, Zhang Y et al (2010) Screening of potential probiotic properties of lactobacillus fermentum isolated from traditional dairy products. Food Control 21:695–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.10.010

  25. Chen T, Wang L, Li Q et al (2020) Functional probiotics of lactic acid bacteria from hu sheep milk. Bmc Microbiol 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-01920-6

  26. Kober AKMH, Riaz Rajoka MS, Mehwish HM et al (2022) Immunomodulation potential of probiotics: a novel strategy for improving livestock health, immunity, and productivity. Microorganisms 10:388. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10020388

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang W, Lai S, Zhou Z et al (2022) Screening and evaluation of lactic acid bacteria with probiotic potential from local holstein raw milk. Front Microbiol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.918774

  28. Kivanc SA, Güllülü G, Kivanc M et al (2014) Bacillus spp. Isolated from the conjunctiva and their potential antimicrobial activity against other eye pathogens. Afr Health Sci 14:364–371. https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v14i2.11

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Li A (2019) Isolation and identification of potential bacillus probiotics from free ranging yaks of tibetan plateau, china. Pak Vet J 39:377–382. https://doi.org/10.29261/pakvetj/2019.032

  30. Krausova G, Hyrslova I, Hynstova I (2019) In vitro evaluation of adhesion capacity, hydrophobicity, and auto-aggregation of newly isolated potential probiotic strains. Fermentation 5:100. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation5040100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Saito K, Tomita S, Nakamura T (2019) Aggregation oflactobacillus brevis associated with decrease in ph by glucose fermentation. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 83:1523–1529. https://doi.org/10.1080/09168451.2019.1584522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Darmastuti A, Hasan PN, Wikandari R et al (2021) Adhesion properties of lactobacillus plantarum dad-13 and lactobacillus plantarum mut-7 on sprague dawley rat intestine. Microorganisms 9:2336. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9112336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Nath S, Sikidar J, Roy M et al (2020) In vitro screening of probiotic properties oflactobacillus plantarum isolated from fermented milk product. Food Quality and Safety 4:213–223. https://doi.org/10.1093/fqsafe/fyaa026

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kuebutornye FKA, Lu Y, Abarike ED et al (2020) In vitro assessment of the probiotic characteristics of three bacillus species from the gut of nile tilapia, oreochromis niloticus. Probiotics Antimicro 12:412–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-019-09562-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Geraylou Z, Vanhove MPM, Souffreau C et al (2014) In vitro selection and characterization of putative probiotics isolated from the gut ofacipenser baerii (brandt, 1869). Aquac Res 45:341–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2012.03232.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zeng Z, Zhang J, Li Y et al (2022) Probiotic potential of bacillus licheniformis and bacillus pumilus isolated from tibetan yaks, china. Probio Antimicro 14:579–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-022-09939-z

  37. Li AY, Jiang X, Wang YP et al (2019) The impact of bacillus subtilis 18 isolated from tibetan yaks on growth performance and gut microbial community in mice. Microb Pathogenesis 128:153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2018.12.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhao C, Zhu J, Hu J et al (2019) Effects of dietarybacillus pumilus on growth performance, innate immunity and digestive enzymes of giant freshwater prawns (macrobrachium rosenbergii). Aquacult Nutr 25:712–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/anu.12894

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kemgang TS, Kapila S, Shanmugam VP et al (2014) Cross-talk between probiotic lactobacilli and host immune system. J Appl Microbiol 117:303–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12521

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yi H, Wang L, Xiong Y et al (2018) Effects of lactobacillus reuteri lr1 on the growth performance, intestinal morphology, and intestinal barrier function in weaned pigs. J Anim Sci 96:2342–2351. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky129

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Xing SC, Huang CB, Mi JD et al (2019) Bacillus coagulans r11 maintained intestinal villus health and decreased intestinal injury in lead-exposed mice by regulating the intestinal microbiota and influenced the function of faecal micrornas. Environ Pollut 255:113139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113139

  42. Kleessen B, Hartmann L, Blaut M (2003) Fructans in the diet cause alterations of intestinal mucosal architecture, released mucins and mucosa-associated bifidobacteria in gnotobiotic rats. Brit J Nutr 89:597–606. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN2002827

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tang Q, Yi H, Hong W et al (2021) Comparative effects of l. Plantarum cgmcc 1258 and l. Reuteri lr1 on growth performance, antioxidant function, and intestinal immunity in weaned pigs. Front Vet Sci 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.728849

  44. Wang Y, Dong Z, Song D et al (2018) Effects of microencapsulated probiotics and prebiotics on growth performance, antioxidative abilities, immune functions, and caecal microflora in broiler chickens. Food Agr Immunol 29:859–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540105.2018.1463972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Li A, Wang Y, Li Z et al (2019) Probiotics isolated from yaks improves the growth performance, antioxidant activity, and cytokines related to immunity and inflammation in mice. Microb Cell Fact 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-019-1161-6

  46. Callewaert L, Michiels CW (2010) Lysozymes in the animal kingdom. J Biosci 35:127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-010-0015-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wang J, Feng J, Liu S et al (2021) The probiotic properties of different preparations using lactococcus lactis z-2 on intestinal tract, blood and hepatopancreas in cyprinus carpio. Aquaculture 543:736911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736911

  48. Zhao F, Zhang Z, Yao H et al (2013) Effects of cold stress on mrna expression of immunoglobulin and cytokine in the small intestine of broilers. Res Vet Sci 95:146–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2013.01.021

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Xu H, Huang W, Hou Q et al (2019) Oral administration of compound probiotics improved canine feed intake, weight gain, immunity and intestinal microbiota. Front Immunol 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00666

  50. McCoy KD, Ronchi F, Geuking MB (2017) Host-microbiota interactions and adaptive immunity. Immunol Rev 279:63–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/imr.12575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Suzanne Leech, PhD, from Liwen Bianji (Edanz) (www.liwenbianji.cn) for editing the English text of a draft of this manuscript.

Funding

This paper is supported by the Sichuan Science and Technology Innovation Seedling Project (No. 2022026), Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan Province (No. 22NSFSC3161), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 32202871), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. ZYN2022108).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Southwest Minzu University, Chengdu, 610041, China

    Jiangying Lei, Xuan Ran, Minghao Guo, Jiahao Liu, Falong Yang & Dechun Chen

  2. Key Laboratory of Qinghai‐Tibetan Plateau Animal Genetic Resource Reservation and Utilization (Southwest Minzu University), Ministry of Education, Chengdu, 610041, China

    Falong Yang & Dechun Chen

Authors
  1. Jiangying Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xuan Ran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Minghao Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jiahao Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Falong Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dechun Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Jiangying Lei summarized and analyzed the experimental data, plotted Figs. 1–6 and Tables 1–3, and wrote the article. Xuan Ran provided the experimental data for this part of the article on the effects of Bacillus pumilus on growth performance, antioxidant and immunity in mice. Minghao Guo provided experimental datas on Bacillus pumilus tolerance to gastrointestinal fluids, hydrophobicity, auto-aggregation, and antibiotic susceptibility. Jiahao Liu provided experimental data on the isolation and identification of Bacillus pumilus and safety experiments. Falong Yang designed the experiment. Dechun Chen supervised the progress of the experiments and guided Jiangying Lei on the wrote of the article. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dechun Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

None of the authors have any financial or personal relationships that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of the paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lei, J., Ran, X., Guo, M. et al. Screening, Identification, and Probiotic Properties of Bacillus Pumilus From Yak. Probiotics & Antimicro. Prot. 16, 531–540 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-023-10054-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-023-10054-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation