Interactions between Staphylococcus aureus and lactic acid bacteria: An old story with new perspectives
Abstract
Staphylococcus aureus is a gram positive opportunistic pathogen and a major concern for both animal and human health worldwide. In some contexts where Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) are the normal dominant microbiota, such as in fermented food or in the vaginal ecosystem, S. aureus sometimes colonises, persists, expresses virulence factors and produces food poisoning or urogenital infections, respectively. Studies on the interactions between LAB and S. aureus began a few decades ago and were pursued to shed light on the inhibitory capabilities that LAB might have on S. aureus growth and/or enterotoxin production in fermented foodstuffs. These early studies had the aim of developing methods to prevent staphylococcal food poisoning, thus improving food safety. More recently, the concept of vaginal probiotic LAB has emerged as a promising way to prevent urogenital infections, S. aureus being one of the potential pathogens targeted. This review provides an up-to-date look at the current hypotheses of the mechanisms involved in the inhibition of S. aureus by LAB in both the vaginal ecosystem and in fermented food ecosystems. We also emphasise that post-genomic approaches can now be envisioned in order to study these diverse and complex interactions at the molecular level. Further works in this field will open up new avenues for methods of biocontrol by LAB and/or for biotechnological uses of LAB-compounds to fight against the long-standing, yet incumbent menace of staphylococcal infection.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Humans likely respond to psychosocial stress with gut microbiome responses comparable to, if distinct from, those of laboratory animals.
“it seems likely that humans respond to psychosocial stress with responses that are comparable to, if distinct from, the reactions of laboratory animals.”
From The Gut Microbiome and the Brain (2014) · cites this paper as [125]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 128 · Cited by 215
- Authors
- Charlier, C., Cretenet, M., Even, S., & Le Loir, Y.
- Affiliations
- Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR)
- Science et Technologie du Lait et de l'Oeuf (FR)
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Food Microbiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 131
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 30-39
- ISSN
- 0168-1605 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2069910836
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 128
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 9.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Food Microbiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche
- Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
- Keywords
- Staphylococcus aureus, lactic acid bacteria, bacterial interactions, staphylococcal food poisoning, enterotoxin production, vaginal probiotics, urogenital infections, fermented foods, antimicrobial inhibition, biological control, virulence factors, vaginal microbiota
- MeSH terms
- Female, Fermentation, Food Microbiology, Food Preservation, Humans, Lactobacillaceae, Staphylococcal Infections, Staphylococcus aureus, Vagina, Ecosystem, Probiotics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review