1887

Microbiology Society logo

Volume 167, Issue 11

Cell-free supernatants produced by lactic acid bacteria reduce population Free

Abstract

The genus is closely associated with foodborne outbreaks and animal diseases, and reports of antimicrobial resistance in species are frequent. Several alternatives have been developed to control this pathogen, such as cell-free supernatants (CFS). Our objective here was to evaluate the use of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) CFS against . Seventeen strains of LAB were used to produce CFS, and their antimicrobial activity was screened towards six strains of . In addition, CFS were also pH-neutralized and/or boiled. Those with the best results were lyophilized. MICs of lyophilized CFS were 11.25–22.5 g l. Freeze-dried CFS were also used to supplement swine and poultry feed (11.25 g kg) and simulated digestion of both species was performed, with contamination of 5×10 and 2×10 c.f.u. g of swine and poultry feed, respectively. In the antimicrobial screening, all acidic CFS were able to inhibit the growth of . After pH neutralization, Llorente, CCT 1629, PUCPR44, BioGaia, ATCC 7469 and UM116 CFS were the only strains that partially maintained their antimicrobial activity and, therefore, were chosen for lyophilization. In the simulated swine digestion, counts were reduced ≥1.78 log c.f.u. g in the digesta containing either of the CFS. In the chicken simulation, a significant reduction was obtained with all CFS used (average reduction of 0.59±0.01 log c.f.u. ml). In general, the lyophilized CFS of CCT 1629, ATCC 7469 and Llorente presented better antimicrobial activity. In conclusion, CFS show potential as feed additives to control in animal production and may be an alternative to the use of antibiotics, minimizing problems related to antimicrobial resistance.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): animal production , feed supplements , food animals and zoonotic bacteria
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (Award 308598/2020-2)
    • Principle Award Recipient: Bittencourt LucianoFernando
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (Award 437728/2018-8)
    • Principle Award Recipient: Bittencourt LucianoFernando
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Award 001)
    • Principle Award Recipient: Gonçalves EvangelistaAlberto
© 2021 The Authors
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001102
2021-11-05
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/micro/167/11/mic001102.html?itemId=/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001102&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Chlebicz A, Śliżewska K. Campylobacteriosis, salmonellosis, yersiniosis, and listeriosis as zoonotic foodborne diseases: A review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15:E863 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Salmonella; 2020 www.cdc.gov/salmonella
  3. European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (EFSA and ECDC) The European Union One Health 2018 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J 2019; 17:e05926 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Maki DG. Coming to grips with foodborne infection--peanut butter, peppers, and nationwide salmonella outbreaks. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:949–953 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Harfield S, Beazley R, Denehy E, Centofanti A, Dowsett P et al. An outbreak and case-control study of salmonella havana linked to alfalfa sprouts in South Australia, 2018. Commun Dis Intell 2019; 43: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Sadler-Reeves L, Aird H, de Pinna E, Elviss N, Fox A et al. The occurrence of salmonella in raw and ready-to-eat bean sprouts and sprouted seeds on retail sale in England and Northern Ireland. Lett Appl Microbiol 2016; 62:126–129 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Hassan R, Rounds J, Sorenson A, Leos G, Concepción-Acevedo J et al. Multistate Outbreak of Salmonella Anatum Infections Linked to Imported Hot Peppers - United States, May-July 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2017; 66:663–667 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Zhang L, Fu Y, Xiong Z, Ma Y, Wei Y et al. Highly prevalent multidrug-resistant salmonella from chicken and pork meat at retail markets in Guangdong, China. Front Microbiol 2018; 9:2104 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bonardi S. Salmonella in the pork production chain and its impact on human health in the European Union. Epidemiol Infect 2017; 145:1513–1526 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bai L, Lan R, Zhang X, Cui S, Xu J et al. Prevalence of salmonella isolates from chicken and pig slaughterhouses and emergence of ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime co-resistant S. Enterica serovar indiana in Henan, China. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0144532 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Rogers AWL, Tsolis RM, Bäumler AJ. Salmonella versus the microbiome. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2021; 85:e00027-19 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. European Food Safety Authority Report of the Task Force on Zoonoses Data Collection on the Analysis of the baseline survey on the prevalence of Salmonella in slaughter pigs, in the EU, 2006–2007 - Part A: Salmonella prevalence estimates. EFSA J 6:1–111 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bjork KE, Fields V, Garber LP, Kopral CA. Factors associated with salmonella prevalence in U.S. Swine grower-finisher operations, 2012. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2018; 15:489–497 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Zhou Z, Jin X, Zheng H, Li J, Meng C et al. The prevalence and load of salmonella, and key risk points of salmonella contamination in a swine slaughterhouse in Jiangsu Province, China. Food Control 2018; 87:153–160 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Zhou Z, Li J, Zheng H, Jin X, Shen Y et al. Diversity of salmonella isolates and their distribution in a pig slaughterhouse in Huaian, China. Food Control 2017; 78:238–246 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Wang Y, Zhang A, Yang Y, Lei C, Jiang W et al. Emergence of salmonella enterica Serovar indiana and California isolates with concurrent resistance to cefotaxime, amikacin and ciprofloxacin from chickens in China. Int J Food Microbiol 2017; 262:23–30 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (EFSA BIOHAZ Panel) Koutsoumanis K, Allende A, Alvarez-Ordóñez A, Bolton D et al. Salmonella control in poultry flocks and its public health impact. EFSA J 2019; 17:e05596 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Demirbilek SK. Salmonellosis in Animals. in: Salmonella - a Re-Emerging Pathogen. InTech 2018 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cheng G, Ning J, Ahmed S, Huang J, Ullah R et al. Selection and dissemination of antimicrobial resistance in agri-food production. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2019; 8:158 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Carattoli A. Plasmid-mediated antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella enterica. Curr Issues Mol Biol 2003; 5:113–122 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Khan SB, Khan MA, Ahmad I, Ur Rehman T, Ullah S et al. Phentotypic, gentotypic antimicrobial resistance and pathogenicity of salmonella enterica serovars typimurium and enteriditis in poultry and poultry products. Microb Pathog 2019; 129:118–124 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Shigemura H, Matsui M, Sekizuka T, Onozuka D, Noda T et al. Decrease in the prevalence of extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Salmonella following cessation of ceftiofur use by the Japanese poultry industry. Int J Food Microbiol 2018; 274:45–51 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhu A, Zhi W, Qiu Y, Wei L, Tian J et al. Surveillance study of the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of salmonella in pork from open markets in Xuzhou, China. Food Control 2019; 98:474–480 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Procura F, Bueno DJ, Bruno SB, Rogé AD. Prevalence, antimicrobial resistance profile and comparison of methods for the isolation of Salmonella in chicken liver from Argentina. Food Res Int 2019; 119:541–546 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Huey CR, Edwards PR. Resistance of salmonella typhimurium to tetracyclines. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1958; 97:550–551 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Grant A, Hashem F, Parveen S. Salmonella and Campylobacter: Antimicrobial resistance and bacteriophage control in poultry. Food Microbiol 2016; 53:104–109 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Heithoff DM, House JK, Thomson PC, Mahan MJ. Development of a Salmonella cross-protective vaccine for food animal production systems. Vaccine 2015; 33:100–107 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Danielski GM, Evangelista AG, Luciano FB, de Macedo REF. Non-conventional cultures and metabolism-derived compounds for bioprotection of meat and meat products: A review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 20201–14 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Evangelista AG, Corrêa JAF, Pinto ACSM, Luciano FB. The impact of essential oils on antibiotic use in animal production regarding antimicrobial resistance - a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 20211–17 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Ryan M. Evaluating the economic benefits and costs of antimicrobial use in food-producing animals. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 2019
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Omonijo FA, Ni L, Gong J, Wang Q, Lahaye L et al. Essential oils as alternatives to antibiotics in swine production. Anim Nutr 2018; 4:126–136 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Yang C, Chowdhury MA, Huo Y, Gong J. Phytogenic Compounds as Alternatives to In-Feed Antibiotics: Potentials and Challenges in Application. Pathogens 2015; 4:137–156 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Evangelista AG, Luciano FB. Presença de Salmonella spp. na produção animal e o uso de fermentados bacterianos para mitigação dos riscos – revisão de literatura. Arq Ciências Veterinárias e Zool da UNIPAR 24:1–7 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Klose V, Bayer K, Bruckbeck R, Schatzmayr G, Loibner AP. In vitro antagonistic activities of animal intestinal strains against swine-associated pathogens. Vet Microbiol 2010; 144:515–521 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kim H, Kang SS. Antifungal activities against Candida albicans, of cell-free supernatants obtained from probiotic Pediococcus acidilactici HW01. Arch Oral Biol 2019; 99:113–119 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Corrêa JAF, dos SJ, Evangelista AG, Pinto A, de MR et al. Combined application of phenolic acids and essential oil components against Salmonella Enteritidis and Listeria monocytogenes in vitro and in ready-to-eat cooked ham. LWT 2021; 149:111881 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Boisen S, Fernández JA. Prediction of the total tract digestibility of energy in feedstuffs and pig diets by in vitro analyses. Animal Feed Science and Technology 1997; 68:277–286 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Oliveira GR, Oliveira WK, Andrade C, Melo ADB, Luciano FB et al. Natural antimicrobials for control of Salmonella Enteritidis in feed and in vitro model of the chicken digestive process. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2019; 103:756–765 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lim HS, Yeu JE, Hong SP, Kang MS. Characterization of antibacterial cell-free supernatant from oral care probiotic Weissella cibaria, CMU. Molecules 2018; 23:E1984 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Lianou A, Nychas GJE, Koutsoumanis KP. Variability in the adaptive acid tolerance response phenotype of Salmonella enterica strains. Food Microbiol 2017; 62:99–105 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Dey BC, Rai N, Das S, Mandal S, Mandal V. Partial purification, characterization and mode of action of bacteriocins produced by three strains of Pediococcus sp. J Food Sci Technol 2019; 56:2594–2604 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Prudêncio CV, Mantovani HC, Cecon PR, Prieto M, Vanetti MCD. Temperature and pH influence the susceptibility of Salmonella Typhimurium to nisin combined with EDTA. Food Control 2016; 61:248–253 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. De Keersmaecker SCJ, Verhoeven TLA, Desair J, Marchal K, Vanderleyden J et al. Strong antimicrobial activity of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG against Salmonella Typhimurium is due to accumulation of lactic acid. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2006; 259:89–96 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Peng M, Biswas D. Short chain and polyunsaturated fatty acids in host gut health and foodborne bacterial pathogen inhibition. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2017; 57:3987–4002 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Shehata MG, Badr AN, El Sohaimy SA, Asker D, Awad TS. Characterization of antifungal metabolites produced by novel lactic acid bacterium and their potential application as food biopreservatives. Annals of Agricultural Sciences 2019; 64:71–78 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Gutiérrez S, Martínez-Blanco H, Rodríguez-Aparicio LB, Ferrero MA. Effect of fermented broth from lactic acid bacteria on pathogenic bacteria proliferation. J Dairy Sci 2016; 99:2654–2665 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Složilová I, Purkrtová S, Kosová M, Mihulová M, Šviráková E et al. Antilisterial activity of lactic acid bacteria against listeria monocytogenes strains originating from different sources. Czech J Food Sci 2014; 32:145–151 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Corrêa JAF, Evangelista AG, Nazareth T de M, Luciano FB. Fundamentals on the molecular mechanism of action of antimicrobial peptides. Materialia 2019; 8:100494 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Pridmore RD, Pittet AC, Praplan F, Cavadini C. Hydrogen peroxide production by Lactobacillus johnsonii NCC 533 and its role in anti-Salmonella activity. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2008; 283:210–215 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhao R, Duan G, Yang T, Niu S, Wang Y. Purification, characterization and antibacterial mechanism of bacteriocin from Lactobacillus acidophilus XH1. Trop J Pharm Res 2015; 14:989–995 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Boléa G, Ginies C, Vallier MJ, Dufour C. Lipid protection by polyphenol-rich apple matrices is modulated by pH and pepsin in in vitro gastric digestion. Food Funct 2019; 10:3942–3954 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Walker GK, Jalukar S, Brake J. Effect of refined functional carbohydrates from enzymatically hydrolyzed yeast on the presence of Salmonella spp. in the ceca of broiler breeder females. Poult Sci 2017; 96:2684–2690 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Aviles B, Klotz C, Smith T, Williams R, Ponder M. Survival of Salmonella enterica serotype tennessee during simulated gastric passage is improved by low water activity and high fat content. J Food Prot 2013; 76:333–337 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Cochrane RA, Huss AR, Aldrich GC, Stark CR, Jones CK. Evaluating chemical mitigation of Salmonella Typhimurium ATCC 14028 in animal feed ingredients. J Food Prot 2016; 79:672–676 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001102
Loading
Cell-free supernatants produced by lactic acid bacteria reduce Salmonella population in vitro
Microbiology 167, 001102 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.001102
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001102
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001102
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error