4.3 Article

Influence of bovine lactoferrin on the growth of selected probiotic bacteria under aerobic conditions

期刊

BIOMETALS
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 905-914

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10534-014-9758-z

关键词

Lactoferrin; Probiotic; Lactic acid bacterium; Bifidobacterium

资金

  1. National Science Council [NSC 102-2320-B-562 -001]
  2. St. Mary's Junior College of Medicine, Nursing and Management [SMC103-I-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bovine lactoferrin (bLf) is a natural glycoprotein, and it shows broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity. However, reports on the influences of bLf on probiotic bacteria have been mixed. We examined the effects of apo-bLf (between 0.25 and 128 mg/mL) on both aerobic and anaerobic cultures of probiotics. We found that bLf had similar effects on the growth of probiotics under aerobic or anaerobic conditions, and that it actively and significantly (at concentrations of > 0.25 mg/mL) retarded the growth rate of Bifidobacterium bifidum (ATCC 29521), B. longum (ATCC 15707), B. lactis (BCRC 17394), B. infantis (ATCC 15697), Lactobacillus reuteri (ATCC 23272), L. rhamnosus (ATCC 53103), and L. coryniformis (ATCC 25602) in a dose-dependent manner. Otherwise, minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were 128 or > 128 mg/mL against B. bifidum, B. longum, B. lactis, L. reuteri, and L. rhamnosus (ATCC 53103). With regard to MICs, bLf showed at least four-fold lower inhibitory effect on probiotics than on pathogens. Intriguingly, bLf (> 0.25 mg/mL) significantly enhanced the growth of Rhamnosus (ATCC 7469) and L. acidophilus (BCRC 14065) by approximately 40-200 %, during their late periods of growth. Supernatants produced from aerobic but not anaerobic cultures of L. acidophilus reduced the growth of Escherichia coli by about 20 %. Thus, bLf displayed a dose-dependent inhibitory effect on the growth of most probiotic strains under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions. An antibacterial supernatant prepared from the aerobic cultures may have significant practical use.

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

4.3
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