Lactobacillus plantarum strains with probiotic potentials isolated from creole pigs

Article Sidebar

PDF (Español (España)) EPUB (Español (España)) XML-JATS (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España))
Published: Aug 1, 2018
Keywords:
probiotic, Lactobacillus plantarum, pigs

Main Article Content

Ronald Vera-Mejía
Escuela Superior Politécnica Agropecuaria de Manabí
José Ormaza-Donoso
Escuela Superior Politécnica Agropecuaria de Manabí
Jesús Muñoz-Cedeño
Escuela Superior Politécnica Agropecuaria de Manabí
Fátima Arteaga-Chávez
Escuela Superior Politécnica Agropecuaria de Manabí
Lilian Sánchez-Miranda
Centro Nacional de Sanidad Agropecuaria

Abstract

The objective of the present work was to characterize, by means of in vitro tests, two strains of Lactobacillus plantarum (22 CML and 41 CML), isolated from the caecum mucosa of Creole pigs. Their probiotic activity was evaluated by the growth stability tests at different temperatures (30, 37 and 45°C) and pH (3.4; 4; 5.4; 6.7; 7.5.), as well as the acidification capacity of the culture medium, tolerance to artificial gastric juice and bile salts. Adherence tests, such as autoaggregation, hydrophobicity and microbial antagonism, were performed in four pathogenic strains. The strains grew in all the conditions evaluated, showing probiotic potentialities for their resistance to the treatment with bile salts until 24 hours. Microbial growth was observed from 4.20 -5.17 log CFU/ml at 90 minutes with artificial gastric juice. They were self-aggregating and hydrophobic, and inhibited the growth of Escherichia coli, Salmonella sp., Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes. The strain L. plantarum 22 LMC presented the best results as probiotics. The inhibitory substances produced by L. plantarum were quantified as lactic acid (1, 05-2, 8 gL-1) and hydrogen peroxide (0, 20- 0, 28 gl-1). The susceptibility profile to 14 antimicrobials was evaluated, and most of the strains revealed resistance to four of them.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Vera-Mejía R, Ormaza-Donoso J, Muñoz-Cedeño J, Arteaga-Chávez F, Sánchez-Miranda L. Lactobacillus plantarum strains with probiotic potentials isolated from creole pigs. Rev. Salud Anim. [Internet]. 2018 Aug. 1 [cited 2024 Nov. 22];40(2). Available from: https://revistas.censa.edu.cu/index.php/RSA/article/view/969
Issue
Vol. 40 No. 2 (2018): mayo-agosto
Section
ARTÍCULOS ORIGINALES
National Center for Animal and Plant Health (CENSA)

References

Gutiérrez R, Montoya LA, Vélez ZO. Probióticos: una alternativa de producción limpia y de reemplazo a los antibióticos promotores de crecimiento en la alimentación animal. Producción + Limpia 2013;8(1):135-146.

WHO/FAO Guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food. Report of a joint FAO/WHO working group on drafting guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food. World Health Organization, London Ontario Canada. 2002; 8. ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/wgreport2.pdf.

Narváez-Solarte J, Díaz-López WE. Probióticos en cerdos: resultados contradictorios. Biosalud. 2015;14(1):81-90.

Maron D, Smith T, Nachman K. Restrictions on antimicrobial use in food animal production: an international regulatory and economic survey. Globalization and Health. 2013;9:1-11.

Ferreira CLF. Grupos de bacterias lácticas Caracterización y aplicación tecnológicas de bacterias probióticas. En Ferreira CLF, editor. Prebiótico y probiótico: actualización y prospección. Viçosa: Minas Gerais; 2003;7-34.

Sánchez L, Tromps J. Caracterización in vitro de bacterias ácido lácticas con potencial probiótico. Rev Salud Anim. 2014; 36( 2):124-129.

Jurado GH, Jarrín JV. Cinética de crecimiento de Lactobacillus lactis y determinación del efecto probiótico en cepas patógenas. Biosalud. 2015;14(2):49-62.

Teshima E. Seleção de bactérias bífidas isoladas de lactentes e modulação da microbiota intestinal por meio de probióticos, prebióticos e simbióticos, [Tese Doutorado]. Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa. 2001;113.

Neumann E. Comportamento in vitro de estirpes de Lactobacillus acidophilus sensível e resistente à bacteriocina sob condições do trato digestivo. 1991. Dissertação (mestrado em Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos). Universidade Federal de Viçosa, 1991.

Kociubinski G, Perez P, De Antoni G. Screening of bile resistance and bile precipitation in lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria. J Food Prot. 1999;62:905-912.

Gilliland SE, Staley TE, Bush LJ. Importance of bile tolerance of Lactobacillus acidophilus used as dietary adjunct. J Dairy Sci. 2004;67:3045-3051.

Teixeira GS, Carvalho FP, Arantes RM,Nunes AC, Moreira JL, Mendonça M, Almeida RB, Farias LM, Carvalho MA, et al. Characteristics of Lactobacillus and Gardnerella vaginalis from women with or without bacterial vaginosis and their relationships in gnotobiotic mice. J Med Microbiol. 2012;61:1074-1081.

Nader-Macias MEF. Advances in the design of probiotic products for the prevention of major diseases in dairy cattle. J Ind Microbiol Biot. 2008;35(11):1387-1395.

Kos B, Suskovic J, Vukovic S, Simpraga M, Frece J, Matosic S. Adhesion and aggregation ability of probiotic strain Lactobacillus acidophilus M92. J Appl Microbiol. 2003;94(6):981-987.

Santos CMA, Pires MCV, Sánchez L, Martins F, Nicoli J. Selection of Lactobacillus strains as potential probiotics for vaginitis treatment. Microbiol. 2016; 162:1195-1207.

Sanni AI, Fapounda EM, Onilude AA. Characteristic properties of lactic acid bacteria isolated from the rumen of Maradi goats. Chem Microbiol Technol Lebensm. 1995;17:99-104.

Charteris WP, Kelly PM, Morelli L, Collins JK. Antibiotic susceptibility of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus species. J Food Prot.1998;61(12):1636-16437.

Duncan B. Multiple ranges and multiple F. Test Biometrics.1955;11:1.

Sánchez L, Omura M, Lucas A, Pérez T, Llanes M, Ferreira CL. Cepas de Lactobacillus spp. con capacidades probióticas aisladas del tracto intestinal de terneros neonatos. Rev Salud Anim. 2015;37(2):94-104.

Pérez J, Rocha E, Uzcategui D, Aranguren Y, Machado E. Aislamiento Selección y Caracterización de cepas del género Lactobacillus aisladas de líquido ruminal vacuno en la zona sur del Lago Venezuela Rev Colombiana Cienc Anim. 2015;7(2):165-170.

Song M, Yun B, Moon JH, Park DJ, Lim K & Oh S. Characterization of selected Lactobacillus strains for use as probiotics. Korean J Food Sci An. 2015;35(4):551.

Mojgani N, Hussaini F, Vaseji N. Characterization of Indigenous Lactobacillus strains for probiotic properties. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2015;8(2):17523.

Brizuela MA. Selección de cepas de bacterias ácido lácticas para la obtención de un preparado con propiedades probióticas y su evaluación en cerdos. Tesis Dr. C. Veterinarias. Instituto de Ciencia Animal. La Habana, Cuba. 2003. p. 102.

Collins JW, La Region RM, Woodward MJ, Searle LEJ. Application of Prebiotics and Probiotics in Livestock. In: Charalampopoulos D and Rastall RA (eds) Prebiotic and probiótico Science and technology Springer New York. 2009;pp.1123-1192.

Gutiérrez C, López C, Parra G. Lesiones en órganos de cerdos post destete, inducidas por el lipopolisacárido deE. coli. Córdoba- Montería, CO. Revista MVZ Córdova. 2013;18(12).

Suárez, Belloch J, and Latorre MA. Nutrición y salud intestinal de los lechones al destete. IVIS SUIS. 2014;105:14-19.

Hou C, Zeng X, Yang F, Liu H, Hou SQ. Study and use of the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri in pigs: a review. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2015; 6(1):14.

Abramov V, Khlebnikov V, Kosarev I, Bairamova G, Vasilenko R, Suzina N, et al. Probiotic Properties of Lactobacillus crispatus 2,029: Homeostatic Interaction with Cervicovaginal Epithelial Cells and Antagonistic Activity to Genitourinary Pathogens. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2014; 6(3-4):165-176.

Rodrigues NF, Kästle J, Coutinho TJ, Amorim AT, Campos GB, Santos VM, et al. Qualitative analysis of the vaginal microbiota of healthy cattle and cattle with genital-tract disease. Genet Mol Res. 2015;14(2):6518-6528.

Laurencio M, Arteaga F, Rondón AJ, Ormaza J, Pinto J, Pazmiño D et al. Potencial probiótico in vitro de cepas de Lactobacillus spp. procedentes de la vagina de vacas lecheras. Rev Pastos y Forrajes. 2017; 40(3):206-215.

Most read articles by the same author(s)