4.7 Article

Isolation of a Lactobacillus paracasei Strain with Probiotic Attributes from Kefir Grains

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines8120594

关键词

kefir; lactic acid bacteria; probiotics; adherence; cancer cells; apoptosis; flow cytometry

资金

  1. project: Research Infrastructure on Food Bioprocessing Development and Innovation Exploitation-Food Innovation RI [MIS 5027222]
  2. project: OPENSCREEN-GR: An Open-Access Research Infrastructure of Target-Based Screening Technologies and Chemical Biology for Human and Animal Health, Agriculture and Environment [MIS 5002691]
  3. European Union (European Regional Development Fund)
  4. Operational Program Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation (NSRF 2014-2020)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kappa efir is a rich source of potentially probiotic bacteria. In the present study, firstly, in vitro screening for probiotic characteristics of ten lactic acid bacteria (LAB) isolated from kefir grains was performed. Strain AGR 4 was selected for further studies. Molecular characterization of strain AGR 4, confirmed that AGR 4 belongs to the Lactobacillus paracasei (reclassified to Lacticaseibacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei) species. Further testing revealed that L. paracasei AGR 4 displayed adhesion capacity on human adenocarcinoma cells, HT-29, similar to that of the reference strain, L. casei ATCC 393. In addition, the novel strain exerted significant time- and dose-dependent antiproliferative activity against HT-29 cells and human melanoma cell line, A375, as demonstrated by the sulforhodamine B cytotoxicity assay. Flow cytometry analysis was employed to investigate the mechanism of cellular death; however, it was found that AGR 4 did not act by inducing cell cycle arrest and/or apoptotic cell death. Taken together, these findings promote the probiotic character of the newly isolated strain L. paracasei AGR 4, while further studies are needed for the detailed description of its biological properties.

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

4.7
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