4.5 Article

Potentially probiotic and bioprotective lactic acid bacteria starter cultures antagonise the Listeria monocytogenes adhesion to HT29 colonocyte-like cells

期刊

BENEFICIAL MICROBES
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 337-343

出版社

WAGENINGEN ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3920/BM2014.0056

关键词

Lactobacillus; pathogen; adhesion; competition; antagonism

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competiveness (MINECO) [AGL2012-33278, RTA2009-00045-00-00]
  2. INIA ('Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias')

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The capability of five lactic acid bacteria (LAB) to counteract the adhesion of Listeria monocytogenes to the epithelial intestinal cell line HT29 was studied. The highest adhesion ability to HT29 was achieved by the intestinal strain Lactobacillus rhamnosus CTC1679, followed by the meat-derived strains Lactobacillus sakei CTC494 and Enterococcus faecium CTC8005. Surprisingly, the meat strains showed significantly better adhesion to HT29 than two faecal isolates of Lactobacillus casei and even significantly higher than the reference strain L. rhamnosus GG. Additionally, the anti-listerial, bacteriocin-producer starter culture L. sakei CTC494 was able to significantly reduce the adhesion of L. monocytogenes to HT29 in experiments of exclusion, competition and inhibition. The performance was better than the faecal isolate L. rhamnosus CTC1679. Our results reinforce the fact that the ability of LAB to interact with a host epithelium model, as well as to antagonise with foodborne pathogens, is a strain-specific characteristic. Additionally, it is underlined that this trait is not dependent on the origin of the bacterium, since some food LAB behave better than intestinal ones. Therefore, the search for novel strains in food niches is a suitable approach to find those with potential health benefits. These strains are likely pre-adapted to the food environment, which would make their inclusion in the formulation of probiotic foods more feasible.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据