Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:30:27.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Synbiotic effect of Lactobacillus helveticus M92 and prebiotics on the intestinal microflora and immune system of mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Jadranka Frece ,
Blaženka Kos ,
Ivan Krešimir Svetec ,
Zoran Zgaga ,
Jasna Beganović ,
Andreja Leboš  and
Jagoda Šušković
Jadranka Frece*
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemical Engineering, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Blaženka Kos
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemical Engineering, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Ivan Krešimir Svetec
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemical Engineering, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Zoran Zgaga
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemical Engineering, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Jasna Beganović
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemical Engineering, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Andreja Leboš
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemical Engineering, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Jagoda Šušković
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemical Engineering, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, Croatia
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: jgoreta@pbf.hr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The synbiotic effect of the oral treatment of Swiss albino mice with milk-based diets supplemented with Lactobacillus helveticus M92 and various kinds of prebiotics was investigated. Survival, competition, adhesion and colonization, as well as, immunomodulating capability of Lb. helveticus M92, in synbiotic combination, in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of mice, were monitored. After the mice were fed with synbiotics, the lactic acid bacteria (LAB) counts in faeces were increased and reduction of enterobacteria and sulphite-reducing clostridia was observed. Similar results were obtained in homogenates of small and large intestine of mice on the 1st and 14th day, after feeding with synbiotics. After the mice were orally given viable Lb. helveticus M92 cells, alone or in combination with prebiotic, the concentration of faecal SIgA and total serum IgA antibodies from all immunized mice were higher compared with the control. The specific humoral immune response was not evoked after oral administration, therefore their synbiotic application is suitable. Among inulin, lactulose and raffinose, Lb. helveticus M92 in combination with inulin, has shown the best synbiotic effect on intestinal and faecal microflora and immune system of mice.

Keywords

Lactobacillus helveticusintestinal microfloraprobioticprebioticsynbioticmice
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 98 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Avall-Jaaskelainen, S & Palva, A 2005 Lactobacillus surface layers and their applications. FEMS Microbiology Review 29 511–529CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brink, M, Todorov, SD, Martin, JH, Senekal, M & Dicks, LMT 2006 The effects of prebiotics on production of antimicrobial compounds, resistance to growth at low pH and in the presence of bile, and adhesion of probiotic cells to intestinal mucus. Journal of Applied Microbiology 100 813–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frece, J, Kos, B, Svetec, IK, Zgaga, Z, Mrša, V & Šušković, J 2005a Importance of S-layer proteins in probiotic activity of Lactobacillus acidophilus M92. Journal of Applied Microbiology 98 285–292CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frece, J, Kos, B, Beganović, J, Vuković, S & Šušković, J 2005b In vivo testing of functional properties of three selected probiotic strains. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 21 1401–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frece, J 2007 In vitro and in vivo studies of probiotic mechanism effects in bacteria: Lactobacillus helveticus M92, Lactobacillus plantarum L4 and Enterococcus faecium L3, PhD Thesis, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
Hosono, A, Ozawan, A & Kato, R 2003 Dietary fructooligosaccharides induce immunoregulation of intestinal IgA secretion by murine Peyer's patch cells. Bioscience in Biotechnology and Biochemistry 67 758–764CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hynonen, V, Westerlund-Wikston, BA & Korhowen, TK 2002 Fibronectin-binding function in the SlpA surface protein of Lactobacillus brevis. Journal of Biotechnology 174 3360–3362Google Scholar
Kos, B, Šušković, J, Goreta, J & Matošić, S 2000 Effect of protectors on the viability of Lactobacillus acidophilus M92 in simulated gastrointestinal conditions. Food Technology and Biotechnology 36 121–127Google Scholar
Kos, B 2001 Probiotic concept: In vitro investigations with chosen lactic acid bacteria. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
Kos, B, Šušković, J, Vuković, S, Šimpraga, M, Frece, J & Matošić, S 2003 Adhesion and aggregation ability of probiotic strain Lactobacillus acidophilus M92. Journal of Applied Microbiology 94 981–987CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kos, B, Šušković, J, Beganović, J, Gjuračić, K, Frece, J, Iannaccone, C & Canganella, F 2008 Characterization of the three selected probiotic strains for the application in food industry. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 24 699–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Losada, MA & Olleros, T 2002 Towards a healthier diet for the colon: the influence of fructooligosaccharides and lactobacilli on intestinal health. Nutrition Research 22 71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, B, Adamsson, I & Edlund, C 2002 Gastrointestinal transit survival of an Enterococcus faecium probiotic strain administered with or without vancomycin. International Journal of Food Microbiology 77 109–115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manhart, N, Spittler, A, Bergmeister, H, Mittlbock, M & Roth, E 2003 Influence of fructooligosaccharides on peyer's patch lymphocyte numbers in healthy and endotoxemic mice. Nutrition 19 657–660CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marquina, D, Santos, A, Corpas, I, Munoz, J, Zazo, J & Peinado, JM 2002 Dietary influence of kefir on microbial activities in the mouse bowel. Letters of Applied Microbiology 35 136–140CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mountzouris, KC, Balaskas, C, Fava, F, Tuohy, KM, Gibson, GR & Fegeros, K 2006 Profiling of composition and metabolic activities of the colonic microflora of growing pigs fed diets supplemented with prebiotic oligosaccharides. Anaerobe 12 178–185CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreau, MC & Baforiau-Routhiau, V 2000 Influence of resident intestinal microflora on development and functions of the interstinal-associated lymphoid tissue. In Probiotics 3, p. 69–114 (Eds Fuller, R & Perdigon, G). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, the NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council 1996 Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Washington, DC: Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
Ouwehand, AC, Salminen, S & Isolauri, E 2002 Probiotics: an overview of beneficial effects. In Lactic Acid Bacteria Genetics, Metabolism and Applications: Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Lactic Acid Bacteria Genetics, Metabolism and Applications, Egmond Aan Zee, Netherlands (Eds Siezen, JR., Kok, J, Abee, T & Schaafsma, G). Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 1402009224, 279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS® 1995 User's Guide: Statistics, Version 6.12 Edition, Cary, NC: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Shu, Q & Gill, HS 2001 A dietary probiotic (Bifidobacterium lactis HN019) reduces the severity of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 Infection in mice. Medical Microbiology and Immunology 44 213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šušković, J 1996 The growth and probiotic effect of chosen lactic acid bacteria. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology, University of Zagreb, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
Šušković, J, Kos, B, Matošić, S & Besendorfer, V 2000 The effect of bile salts on survival and morphology of potential probiotic strain Lactobacillus acidophilus M92. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 16 673–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šušković, J, Kos, B, Goreta, J & Matošić, S 2001 Role of lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria in synbiotic effect. Food Technology and Biotechnology 39 227–235Google Scholar
Ulrich, RL & Hughes, T 2001 A rapid procedure for isolating chromosomal DNA from Lactobacillus species and other Gram-positive bacteria. Letters of Applied Microbiology 32 52–56CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veyrat, A, Miralles, MC & Perez-Martinez, G 1999 A fast method for monitoring the colonization rate of lactobacilli in a meat model system. Journal of Applied Microbiology 87 49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zierikzee, AM, Tol, EAF, Kroes, H, Alles, MS, Kok, FJ & Bindels, JG 2006 Faecal SIgA secretion in infants fed on pre- or probiotic infant formula. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology 17 134–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar