4.5 Article

Safety characterisation and inhibition of fungi and bacteria by a novel multiple enterocin-producing Enterococcus lactis 4CP3 strain

期刊

MICROBIAL PATHOGENESIS
卷 118, 期 -, 页码 32-38

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2018.03.005

关键词

Lactic acid bacteria; Enterococcus lactis; Enterocin; Antimicrobial activity; Safety; Shrimps

资金

  1. Ministry of High Education, Tunisia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to characterise a potential bacteriocinogenic lactic acid bacterial strain isolated from a raw pink shrimp (Palaemon serratus) and evaluate its safety aspect. The strain designated as 4CP3 was noted to display antibacterial activities (P < 0.05) against Gram-positive and Gram-negative foodbome pathogens (Listeria monocytogenes and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and some filamentous fungi (e.g. Aspergillus niger A79). Phenotypic and molecular techniques as well as phylogenetic analysis identified the isolate 4CP3 as Enterococcus lactis. Its produced antimicrobial substance was determined as a bacteriocin that was stable over a wide range of pH (2-10) and after heating at 100 degrees C for 15 min. The maximum bacteriocin production was 1400 AU/ml recorded after 12 h of incubation in de Man, Rogosa and Sharpe (MRS) broth medium at 30 degrees C. The mode of action of the bacteriocin produced by 4CP3 strain was identified as bactericidal against L. monocytogenes EGDe 107776 and P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853. By specific PCR amplifications, E. lactis 4CP3 was shown to produce the enterocins A, B and P. To our knowledge, this feature is newly described for E. lactis strain isolated from raw shrimps. Regarding safety aspect of E. Incas 4CP3, it has been demonstrated that this strain was not haemolytic, gelatinase negative, sensitive to vancomycin, and free of common antibiotic resistance genes and virulence factors. Therefore, it may be useful as a safe natural agent in preservation of foods or as a new probiotic strain in food and feed.

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