CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Probiotics and Fermented FoodsSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

Lactobacillus reuteri and Enterococcus faecium from Poultry Gut Reduce Mucin Adhesion and Biofilm Formation of Cephalosporin and Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Salmonella enterica

Open access
Siddique, Abubakar, Azim, Sara, Ali, Amjad, Adnan, Fazal, Arif, Maryum, Imran, Muhammad, Ganda, Erika, Rahman, Abdur·2021·Animals
DOI 10.3390/ani11123435PMC PMC8697943
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS) can cause infection in poultry, livestock, and humans. Although the use of antimicrobials as feed additives is prohibited, the previous indiscriminate use and poor regulatory oversight in some parts of the world have resulted in increased bacterial resistance to antimicrobials, including cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones, which are among the limited treatment options available against NTS. This study aimed to isolate potential probiotic lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strains from the poultry gut to inhibit fluoroquinolone and cephalosporin resistant MDR Salmonella Typhimurium and S. Enteritidis. The safety profile of the LAB isolates was evaluated for the hemolytic activity, DNase activity, and antibiotic resistance. Based on the safety results, three possible probiotic LAB candidates for in vitro Salmonella control were chosen. Candidate LAB isolates were identified by 16S rDNA sequencing as Lactobacillus reuteri PFS4, Enterococcus faecium PFS13, and Enterococcus faecium PFS14. These strains demonstrated a good tolerance to gastrointestinal-related stresses, including gastric acid, bile, lysozyme, and phenol. In addition, the isolates that were able to auto aggregate had the ability to co-aggregate with MDR S. Typhimurium and S. Enteritidis. Furthermore, LAB strains competitively reduced the adhesion of pathogens to porcine mucin Type III in co-culture studies. The probiotic combination of the selected LAB isolates inhibited the biofilm formation of S. Typhimurium FML15 and S. Enteritidis FML18 by 90% and 92%, respectively. In addition, the cell-free supernatant (CFS) of the LAB culture significantly reduced the growth of Salmonella in vitro. Thus, L. reuteri PFS4, E. faecium PFS13, and E. faecium PFS 14 are potential probiotics that could be used to control MDR S. Typhimurium and S. Enteritidis in poultry. Future investigations are required to elucidate the in vivo potential of these probiotic candidates as Salmonella control agents in poultry and animal feed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ani11123435

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Siddique et al. demonstrated that CFS from various LAB strains significantly inhibit biofilm formation of Salmonella Typhi, increasing inhibition up to 84% compared to control.

    “a study by Siddique et al.63, demonstrated that CFS derived from various strains of LAB exhibited a significant ability to inhibit the biofilm formation of SalmonellaTyphi, increasing this inhibition by up to 84% compared to the control group.”

    From Probiotic potential of Lactobacillus acidophilus TMPC 41127 isolated from traditional cheese in inhibiting Salmonella Typhi biofilms and virulence genes (2026) · cites this paper as Siddique et al.63

    The Discussion reports that LAB cell-free supernatants significantly reduced Salmonella biofilm formation by up to 84% compared with controls. However, the Methodology and Results identify the tested serovars as S. Typhimurium and S. Enteritidis, not S. Typhi; the Results also report maximum inhibition of 90% and 92% for those serovars. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 108 · Cited by 33

Research works printed but not linked: 96

  1. [1]Adetoye A. Pinloche E. Adeniyi B.A. Ayeni F.A. Characterization and anti-salmonella activities of lactic acid bacteria isolated from cattle faeces BMC Microbiol. 2018 18 96 10.1186/s12866-018-1248-y 30165820 PMC6118008 · DOI
  2. [2]Nhung N. Van N. Van Cuong N. Duong T. Nhat T. Hang T. Nhi N. Kiet B. Hien V. Ngoc P. Antimicrobial residues and resistance against critically important antimicrobials in non-typhoidal Salmonella from meat sold at wet markets and supermarkets in Vietnam Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018 266 301 309 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.12.015 29275223 PMC5783717 · DOI
  3. [3]Azam A. Shafique M. Agriculture in Pakistan and its Impact on Economy Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2017 103 47 60 10.14257/ijast.2017.103.05 · DOI
  4. [4]Rafique M. Potter R.F. Ferreiro A. Wallace M.A. Rahim A. Malik A.A. Siddique N. Abbas M.A. D’Souza A.W. Burnham C. Genomic characterization of antibiotic resistant Escherichia coli isolated from domestic chickens in Pakistan Front. Microbiol. 2020 10 3052 10.3389/fmicb.2019.03052 32010104 PMC6978674 · DOI
  5. [5]Cox J. Pavic A. Advances in enteropathogen control in poultry production J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010 108 745 755 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04456.x 19702864 · DOI
  6. [7]Heredia N. García S. Animals as sources of food-borne pathogens: A review Anim. Nutr. 2018 4 250 255 10.1016/j.aninu.2018.04.006 30175252 PMC6116329 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [8]Gut A.M. Vasiljevic T. Yeager T. Donkor O.N. Salmonella infection–prevention and treatment by antibiotics and probiotic yeasts: A review Microbiology 2018 164 1327 1344 10.1099/mic.0.000709 30136920 · DOI
  8. [9]Hur J. Jawale C. Lee J.H. Antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella isolated from food animals: A review Food Res. Int. 2012 45 819 830 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.05.014 · DOI
  9. [11]Breurec S. Reynaud Y. Frank T. Farra A. Costilhes G. Weill F.-X. Le Hello S. Serotype distribution and antimicrobial resistance of human Salmonella enterica in Bangui, Central African Republic, from 2004 to 2013 PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2019 13 e0007917 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007917 31790418 PMC6907862 · DOI
  10. [12]EFSA The European Union Summary Report on Antimicrobial Resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2017/2018 EFSA J. 2020 18 6007 PMC7448042 32874244
  11. [13]EFSA The European Union Summary Report on Antimicrobial Resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2018/2019 EFSA J. 2021 19 6490 PMC8040295 33868492
  12. [15]Wang H. Ye K. Wei X. Cao J. Xu X. Zhou G. Occurrence, antimicrobial resistance and biofilm formation of Salmonella isolates from a chicken slaughter plant in China Food Control 2013 33 378 384 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.03.030 · DOI
  13. [16]Peruzy M.F. Capuano F. Proroga Y.T.R. Cristiano D. Carullo M.R. Murru N. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Salmonella Serovars Isolated from Food Samples: Five-Year Monitoring (2015–2019) Antibiotics 2020 9 365 10.3390/antibiotics9070365 PMC7400401 32610532 · DOI
  14. [17]Lunn A.D. Fàbrega A. Sánchez-Céspedes J. Vila J. Prevalence of mechanisms decreasing quinolone-susceptibility among Salmonella spp. clinical isolates Int. Microbiol. 2010 13 15 20 20890836
  15. [18]Siddiqui T.R. Bibi S. Mustufa M.A. Ayaz S.M. Khan A. High prevalence of typhoidal Salmonella enterica serovars excreting food handlers in Karachi-Pakistan: A probable factor for regional typhoid endemicity J. Health Popul. Nutr. 2015 33 27 10.1186/s41043-015-0037-6 26825058 PMC5025978 · DOI
  16. [19]Venter H. Henningsen M.L. Begg S.L. Antimicrobial resistance in healthcare, agriculture and the environment: The biochemistry behind the headlines Essays Biochem. 2017 61 1 10 10.1042/EBC20160053 28258225 PMC5900547 · DOI
  17. [20]Fijan S. Frauwallner A. Langerholc T. Krebs B. ter Haar née Younes J.A. Heschl A. Mičetić Turk D. Rogelj I. Efficacy of using probiotics with antagonistic activity against pathogens of wound infections: An integrative review of literature BioMed Res. Int. 2019 2019 7585486 10.1155/2019/7585486 31915703 PMC6930797 · DOI
  18. [21]Hossain M.I. Mizan M.F.R. Ashrafudoulla M. Nahar S. Joo H. Jahid I. Park S. Kim K. Ha S. Inhibitory effects of probiotic potential lactic acid bacteria isolated from kimchi against Listeria monocytogenes biofilm on lettuce, stainless-steel surfaces, and MBEC™ biofilm device LWT 2020 118 108864 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108864 · DOI
  19. [22]Prabhurajeshwar C. Chandrakanth K. Evaluation of antimicrobial properties and their substances against pathogenic bacteria in-vitro by probiotic Lactobacilli strains isolated from commercial yoghurt Clin. Nutr. Exp. 2019 23 97 115 10.1016/j.yclnex.2018.10.001 · DOI
  20. [24]Oyewole O.F. Maria C.O. Tope P.S. Funmi O.O. In vitro Study of Potential Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from The Gut of Chickens in Abeokuta, Nigeria Alex. J. Vet. Sci. 2018 58 73 84 10.5455/ajvs.290499 · DOI
  21. [25]Sanders M.E. Akkermans L.M. Haller D. Hammerman C. Heimbach J.T. Hörmannsperger G. Huys G. Safety assessment of probiotics for human use Gut Microbes 2010 1 164 185 10.4161/gmic.1.3.12127 21327023 PMC3023597 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [26]Drago L. Gismondo M.R. Lombardi A. De Haën C. Gozzini L. Inhibition of in vitro growth of enteropathogens by new Lactobacillus isolates of human intestinal origin FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1997 153 455 463 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1997.tb12610.x 9271875 · DOI
  23. [28]Pellegrino M.S. Frola I.D. Natanael B. Gobelli D. Nader-Macias M.E. Bogni C. In vitro characterization of lactic acid bacteria isolated from bovine milk as potential probiotic strains to prevent bovine mastitis Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2019 11 74 84 10.1007/s12602-017-9383-6 29297159 · DOI
  24. [29]Filho R.A. Higgins J. Higgins S. Gaona G. Wolfenden A. Tellez G. Hargis B. Ability of bacteriophages isolated from different sources to reduce Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis in vitro and in vivo Poult. Sci. 2007 86 1904 1909 10.1093/ps/86.9.1904 17704377 · DOI
  25. [30]Vinderola G. Gueimonde M. Gomez-Gallego C. Delfederico L. Salminen S. Correlation between in vitro and in vivo assays in selection of probiotics from traditional species of bacteria Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017 68 83 90 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.08.005 · DOI
  26. [31]Ashraf R. Shah N.P. Selective and differential enumerations of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei and Bifidobacterium spp. in yoghurt—A review Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011 149 194 208 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.07.008 21807435 · DOI
  27. [32]Siddique A. Azim S. Ali A. Andleeb S. Ahsan A. Imran M. Rahman A. Antimicrobial Resistance Profiling of Biofilm Forming Non Typhoidal Salmonella enterica Isolates from Poultry and Its Associated Food Products from Pakistan Antibiotics 2021 10 785 10.3390/antibiotics10070785 34203245 PMC8300803 · DOI
  28. [33]Torshizi M. Rahimi S. Mojgani N. Esmaeilkhanian S. Grimes J. Screening of indigenous strains of lactic acid bacteria for development of a probiotic for poultry Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2008 21 1495 1500 10.5713/ajas.2008.80081 · DOI
  29. [34]Taheur F.B. Kouidhi B. Fdhila K. Elabed H. Slama R.B. Mahdouani K. Bakhrouf A. Chaieb K. Anti-bacterial and anti-biofilm activity of probiotic bacteria against oral pathogens Microb. Pathog. 2016 97 213 220 10.1016/j.micpath.2016.06.018 27317856 · DOI
  30. [35]Singhal N. Singh N.S. Mohanty S. Singh P. Virdi J.S. Evaluation of probiotic characteristics of lactic acid bacteria isolated from two commercial preparations available in Indian market Indian J. Microbiol. 2019 59 112 115 10.1007/s12088-018-0762-9 30728640 PMC6328401 · DOI
  31. [37]Vlková E. Rada V. Popelářová P. Trojanová I. Killer J. Antimicrobial susceptibility of bifidobacteria isolated from gastrointestinal tract of calves Livest. Sci. 2006 105 253 259 10.1016/j.livsci.2006.04.011 · DOI
  32. [38]Cheng H.-R. Jiang N. Extremely rapid extraction of DNA from bacteria and yeasts Biotechnol. Lett. 2006 28 55 59 10.1007/s10529-005-4688-z 16369876 · DOI
  33. [39]Turchi B. Mancini S. Fratini F. Pedonese F. Nuvoloni R. Bertelloni F. Ebani V.V. Cerri D. Preliminary evaluation of probiotic potential of Lactobacillus plantarum strains isolated from Italian food products World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013 29 1913 1922 10.1007/s11274-013-1356-7 23613101 · DOI
  34. [40]Rajoka M.S.R. Hayat H. Sarwar S. Mehwish H. Ahmad F. Hussain N. Shah S. Khurshid M. Siddiqu M. Shi J. Isolation and evaluation of probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria isolated from poultry intestine Microbiology 2018 87 116 126 10.1134/S0026261718010150 · DOI
  35. [41]Altschul S.F. Gish W. Miller W. Myers E.W. Lipman D.J. Basic local alignment search tool J. Mol. Biol. 1990 215 403 410 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 2231712 · DOI · Paper page
  36. [42]Gómez N.C. Ramiro J.M. Quecan B.X. Franco B.D.d.M. Use of potential probiotic lactic acid bacteria (LAB) biofilms for the control of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Escherichia coli O157: H7 biofilms formation Front. Microbiol. 2016 7 863 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00863 27375584 PMC4901071 · DOI
  37. [43]Sharma S. Kandasamy S. Kavitake D. Shetty P.H. Probiotic characterization and antioxidant properties of Weissella confusa KR780676, isolated from an Indian fermented food LWT 2018 97 53 60 10.1016/j.lwt.2018.06.033 · DOI
  38. [44]Nachtigall C. Weber C. Rothenburger S. Jaros D. Rohm H. Test parameters and cell chain length of Streptococcus thermophilus affect the microbial adhesion to hydrocarbons assay: A methodical approach FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2019 366 fnz150 10.1093/femsle/fnz150 31271420 · DOI
  39. [45]Valeriano V. Parungao-Balolong M. Kang D.K. In vitro evaluation of the mucin-adhesion ability and probiotic potential of Lactobacillus mucosae LM 1 J. Appl. Microbiol. 2014 117 485 497 10.1111/jam.12539 24807045 · DOI
  40. [46]Saxena S. Banerjee G. Garg R. Singh M. Comparative study of biofilm formation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from patients of lower respiratory tract infection J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2014 8 DC09 24995174 PMC4079995
  41. [47]Kaur S. Sharma P. Kalia N. Singh J. Kaur S. Anti-biofilm Properties of the Fecal Probiotic Lactobacilli Against Vibrio spp Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2018 8 120 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00120 29740541 PMC5928150 · DOI
  42. [48]Tareb R. Bernardeau M. Gueguen M. Vernoux J. In vitro characterization of aggregation and adhesion properties of viable and heat-killed forms of two probiotic Lactobacillus strains and interaction with foodborne zoonotic bacteria, especially Campylobacter jejuni J. Med. Microbiol. 2013 62 637 649 10.1099/jmm.0.049965-0 23329323 · DOI
  43. [49]Das D.J. Shankar A. Johnson J.B. Thomas S. Critical insights into antibiotic resistance transferability in probiotic Lactobacillus Nutrition 2020 69 110567 10.1016/j.nut.2019.110567 31733594 · DOI
  44. [50]Ficoseco C.A. Mansilla F.I. Maldonado N.C. Miranda H. Nader-Macias M.E.F. Vignolo G.M. Safety and growth optimization of lactic acid bacteria isolated from feedlot cattle for probiotic formula design Front. Microbiol. 2018 9 2220 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02220 30323790 PMC6172481 · DOI
  45. [51]Musikasang H. Tani A. H-kittikun A. Maneerat S. Probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria isolated from chicken gastrointestinal digestive tract World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009 25 1337 1345 10.1007/s11274-009-0020-8 · DOI
  46. [52]Hammerum A.M. Enterococci of animal origin and their significance for public health Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012 18 619 625 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03829.x 22487203 · DOI
  47. [53]Wang L. Fang M. Hu Y. Yang Y. Yang M. Chen Y. Characterization of the most abundant Lactobacillus species in chicken gastrointestinal tract and potential use as probiotics for genetic engineering Acta Biochim. Biophys. Sin. 2014 46 612 619 10.1093/abbs/gmu037 24850302 · DOI
  48. [54]Kuleaşan H. Çakmakçı M. Effect of reuterin, produced by Lactobacillus reuteri on the surface of sausages to inhibit the growth of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella spp Food/Nahrung 2002 46 408 410 10.1002/1521-3803(20021101)46:6<408::AID-FOOD408>3.0.CO;2-T 12577589 · DOI
  49. [55]Shi S. Qi Z. Sheng T. Tu J. Shao Y. Qi K. Antagonistic trait of Lactobacillus reuteri S5 against Salmonella enteritidis and assessment of its potential probiotic characteristics Microb. Pathog. 2019 137 103773 10.1016/j.micpath.2019.103773 31604155 · DOI
  50. [56]Audisio M.C. Oliver G. Apella M. Protective effect of Enterococcus faecium J96, a potential probiotic strain, on chicks infected with Salmonella pullorum J. Food Prot. 2000 63 1333 1337 10.4315/0362-028X-63.10.1333 11041131 · DOI
  51. [58]Amin M. Adams M.B. Burke C.M. Bolch C. Isolation and screening of lactic acid bacteria associated with the gastrointestinal tracts of abalone at various life stages for probiotic candidates Aquac. Rep. 2020 17 100378 10.1016/j.aqrep.2020.100378 · DOI
  52. [59]Blajman J. Gaziano C. Zbrun M.V. Soto L. Astesana D. Berisvil A. Scharpen A.R. Signorini M. Frizzo L. In vitro and in vivo screening of native lactic acid bacteria toward their selection as a probiotic in broiler chickens Res. Vet. Sci. 2015 101 50 56 10.1016/j.rvsc.2015.05.017 26267089 · DOI
  53. [60]García-Hernández Y. Pérez-Sánchez T. Boucourt R. Balcázar J.L. Nicoli J.R. Moreira-Silva J. Rodríguez Z. Fuertes H. Nuñez O. Albelo N. Isolation, characterization and evaluation of probiotic lactic acid bacteria for potential use in animal production Res. Vet. Sci. 2016 108 125 132 10.1016/j.rvsc.2016.08.009 27663381 · DOI
  54. [61]Musikasang H. Sohsomboon N. Tani A. Maneerat S. Bacteriocin-producing lactic acid bacteria as a probiotic potential from Thai indigenous chickens Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2012 57 137 149 10.17221/5568-CJAS · DOI
  55. [62]Dowarah R. Verma A. Agarwal N. The use of Lactobacillus as an alternative of antibiotic growth promoters in pigs: A review Anim. Nutr. 2017 3 1 6 10.1016/j.aninu.2016.11.002 29767055 PMC5941084 · DOI
  56. [63]Bernardeau M. Vernoux J.P. Gueguen M. Safety and efficacy of probiotic lactobacilli in promoting growth in post-weaning Swiss mice Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002 77 19 27 10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00059-4 12076035 · DOI
  57. [64]Anadón A. Martínez-Larrañaga M.R. Martínez M. Probiotics for animal nutrition in the European Union. Regulation and safety assessment Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2006 45 91 95 10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.02.004 16563585 · DOI
  58. [65]Cao G. Zeng X. Chen A. Zhou L. Zhang L. Xiao Y. Yang C. Effects of a probiotic, Enterococcus faecium, on growth performance, intestinal morphology, immune response, and cecal microflora in broiler chickens challenged with Escherichia coli K88 Poult. Sci. 2013 92 2949 2955 10.3382/ps.2013-03366 24135599 · DOI
  59. [66]Park J. Jeong J. Lee S. Kim I. Effect of dietary supplementation with a probiotic (Enterococcus faecium) on production performance, excreta microflora, ammonia emission, and nutrient utilization in ISA brown laying hens Poult. Sci. 2016 95 2829 2835 10.3382/ps/pew241 27422665 · DOI
  60. [67]Babot J.D. Argañaraz-Martínez E. Saavedra L. Apella M.C. Chaia A.P. Compatibility and safety of five lectin-binding putative probiotic strains for the development of a multi-strain protective culture for poultry Benef. Microbes 2018 9 927 935 10.3920/BM2017.0199 30099889 · DOI
  61. [68]Huys G. D’HAENE K. Danielsen M. Maettoe J. Egervärn M. Vandamme P. Phenotypic and molecular assessment of antimicrobial resistance in Lactobacillus paracasei strains of food origin J. Food Prot. 2008 71 339 344 10.4315/0362-028X-71.2.339 18326184 · DOI
  62. [69]Sornplang P. Soikum C. Effect of Lactobacillus spp. Supplementation on Spoilage Bacteria Decontamination in Chicken Meat Proceedings of the International Conference on Beneficial Microbes 2016 Phuket, Thailand 31 May–2 June 2016
  63. [70]Toomey N. Bolton D. Fanning S. Characterisation and transferability of antibiotic resistance genes from lactic acid bacteria isolated from Irish pork and beef abattoirs Res. Microbiol. 2010 161 127 135 10.1016/j.resmic.2009.12.010 20074643 · DOI
  64. [71]Wang H.H. Manuzon M. Lehman M. Wan K. Luo H. Wittum T.E. Yousef A. Bakaletz L. Food commensal microbes as a potentially important avenue in transmitting antibiotic resistance genes FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2006 254 226 231 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2005.00030.x 16445749 · DOI
  65. [72]Ouoba L.I.I. Lei V. Jensen L.B. Resistance of potential probiotic lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria of African and European origin to antimicrobials: Determination and transferability of the resistance genes to other bacteria Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008 121 217 224 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.11.018 18063151 · DOI
  66. [73]Pan L. Hu X. Wang X. Assessment of antibiotic resistance of lactic acid bacteria in Chinese fermented foods Food Control 2011 22 1316 1321 10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.02.006 · DOI
  67. [75]Giraffa G. Selection and design of lactic acid bacteria probiotic cultures Eng. Life Sci. 2012 12 391 398 10.1002/elsc.201100118 · DOI
  68. [79]Pringsulaka O. Rueangyotchanthana K. Suwannasai N. Watanapokasin R. Amnueysit P. Sunthornthummas S. Sukkhum S. Sarawaneeyaruk S. Rangsiruji A. In vitro screening of lactic acid bacteria for multi-strain probiotics Livest. Sci. 2015 174 66 73 10.1016/j.livsci.2015.01.016 · DOI
  69. [80]Pedersen K. Tannock G. Colonization of the porcine gastrointestinal tract by lactobacilli Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1989 55 279 283 10.1128/aem.55.2.279-283.1989 2719474 PMC184101 · DOI
  70. [82]Ehrmann M.A. Kurzak P. Bauer J. Vogel R.F. Characterization of lactobacilli towards their use as probiotic adjuncts in poultry J. Appl. Microbiol. 2002 92 966 975 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2002.01608.x 11972703 · DOI
  71. [83]Grajek K. Sip A. Foksowicz-Flaczyk J. Dobrowolska A. Wita A. Adhesive and hydrophobic properties of the selected LAB isolated from gastrointestinal tract of farming animals Acta Biochim. Pol. 2016 63 311 314 10.18388/abp.2015_1128 27231726 · DOI
  72. [84]Sharma K. Attri S. Goel G. Selection and evaluation of probiotic and functional characteristics of autochthonous lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented wheat flour dough babroo Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2019 11 774 784 10.1007/s12602-018-9466-z 30220016 · DOI
  73. [85]Lukic J. Strahinic I. Milenkovic M. Nikolic M. Tolinacki M. Kojic M. Begovic J. Aggregation factor as an inhibitor of bacterial binding to gut mucosa Microb. Ecol. 2014 68 633 644 10.1007/s00248-014-0426-1 24823989 · DOI
  74. [86]Klopper K.B. Deane S.M. Dicks L.M. Aciduric strains of Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactobacillus rhamnosus, isolated from human feces, have strong adhesion and aggregation properties Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2018 10 89 97 10.1007/s12602-017-9307-5 28756502 · DOI · Paper page
  75. [87]Veljović K. Popović N. Miljković M. Tolinački M. Terzić-Vidojević A. Kojić M. Novel aggregation promoting factor AggE contributes to the probiotic properties of Enterococcus faecium BGGO9-28 Front. Microbiol. 2017 8 1843 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01843 29018422 PMC5622976 · DOI
  76. [88]Chaucheyras-Durand F. Durand H. Probiotics in animal nutrition and health Benef. Microbes 2010 1 3 9 10.3920/BM2008.1002 21840795 · DOI
  77. [89]Dhama K. Verma V. Sawant P. Tiwari R. Vaid R. Chauhan R. Applications of probiotics in poultry: Enhancing immunity and beneficial effects on production performances and health: A review J. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2011 13 1 19
  78. [90]Zhang W. Liu M. Dai X. Biological characteristics and probiotic effect of Leuconostoc lactis strain isolated from the intestine of black porgy fish Braz. J. Microbiol. 2013 44 685 691 10.1590/S1517-83822013005000053 24516418 PMC3910175 · DOI
  79. [93]Li X. Yue L. Guan X. Qiao S. The adhesion of putative probiotic lactobacilli to cultured epithelial cells and porcine intestinal mucus J. Appl. Microbiol. 2008 104 1082 1091 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03636.x 18081774 · DOI
  80. [95]Uraipan S. Hongpattarakere T. Antagonistic characteristics against food-borne pathogenic bacteria of lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria isolated from feces of healthy Thai infants Jundishapur J. Microbiol. 2015 8 e18264 10.5812/jjm.8(5)2015.18264 26301060 PMC4539568 · DOI
  81. [96]Jin L. Marquardt R. Zhao X. A strain of Enterococcus faecium (18C23) inhibits adhesion of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli K88 to porcine small intestine mucus Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000 66 4200 4204 10.1128/AEM.66.10.4200-4204.2000 11010860 PMC92286 · DOI
  82. [97]Jonsson H. Ström E. Roos S. Addition of mucin to the growth medium triggers mucus-binding activity in different strains of Lactobacillus reuteri in vitro FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2001 204 19 22 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2001.tb10855.x 11682171 · DOI
  83. [98]Ventolini G. Mitchell E. Salazar M. Biofilm formation by vaginal Lactobacillus in vivo Med. Hypotheses 2015 84 417 420 10.1016/j.mehy.2014.12.020 25725906 · DOI
  84. [99]Terraf M.L. Tomás M.J. Nader-Macías M. Silva C. Screening of biofilm formation by beneficial vaginal lactobacilli and influence of culture media components J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012 113 1517 1529 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05429.x 22897406 · DOI
  85. [100]Dec M. Nowaczek A. Urban-Chmiel R. Stępień-Pyśniak D. Wernicki A. Probiotic potential of Lactobacillus isolates of chicken origin with anti-Campylobacter activity J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2018 80 1195 1203 10.1292/jvms.18-0092 29877314 PMC6115247 · DOI
  86. [101]Balakrishna A. In vitro evaluation of adhesion and aggregation abilities of four potential probiotic strains isolated from guppy (Poecilia reticulata) Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2013 56 793 800 10.1590/S1516-89132013000500010 · DOI
  87. [102]Nakphaichit M. Sobanbua S. Siemuang S. Vongsangnak W. Nakayama J. Nitisinprasert S. Protective effect of Lactobacillus reuteri KUB-AC5 against Salmonella Enteritidis challenge in chickens Benef. Microbes 2019 10 43 54 10.3920/BM2018.0034 30406695 · DOI
  88. [103]Arena M.P. Capozzi V. Spano G. Fiocco D. The potential of lactic acid bacteria to colonize biotic and abiotic surfaces and the investigation of their interactions and mechanisms Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017 101 2641 2657 10.1007/s00253-017-8182-z 28213732 · DOI
  89. [104]Camargo A.C. Todorov S.D. Chihib N.E. Drider D. Nero L.A. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and their bacteriocins as alternative biotechnological tools to control Listeria monocytogenes biofilms in food processing facilities Mol. Biotechnol. 2018 60 712 726 10.1007/s12033-018-0108-1 30073512 · DOI
  90. [105]Bjarnsholt T. The role of bacterial biofilms in chronic infections Apmis 2013 121 1 58 10.1111/apm.12099 23635385 · DOI
  91. [106]Janssens J.C. Steenackers H. Robijns S. Gellens E. Levin J. Zhao H. Hermans K. De Coster D. Verhoeven T.L. Marchal K. Brominated furanones inhibit biofilm formation by Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008 74 6639 6648 10.1128/AEM.01262-08 18791004 PMC2576703 · DOI · Paper page
  92. [107]Kecerová K. Pristaš P. Javorský P. Bacteriocin production and sensitivity Folia Microbiol. 2004 49 172 10.1007/BF02931395 15227791 · DOI
  93. [108]Lima E.T. Filho R.L.A. Okamoto A.S. Noujaim J.C. Barros M.R. Crocci A. Evaluation in vitro of the antagonistic substances produced by Lactobacillus spp. isolated from chickens Can. J. Vet. Res. 2007 71 103 107 17479773 PMC1829185
  94. [109]Martin R. Olivares M. Marin M. Xaus J. Fernández L. Rodríguez J. Characterization of a reuterin-producing Lactobacillus coryniformis strain isolated from a goat’s milk cheese Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2005 104 267 277 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.03.007 15975679 · DOI
  95. [110]Chen C.-C. Lai C.-C. Huang H.-L. Huang W.-Y. Toh H.-S. Weng T.-C. Chuang Y.-C. Lu Y.-C. Tang H.-J. Antimicrobial activity of Lactobacillus species against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae Front. Microbiol. 2019 10 789 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00789 31057508 PMC6482263 · DOI
  96. [111]El-Mokhtar M.A. Hassanein K.M. Ahmed A.S. Gad G.F. Amin M.M. Hassanein O. Antagonistic activities of cell-free supernatants of lactobacilli against extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infect. Drug Resist. 2020 13 543 552 10.2147/IDR.S235603 32110064 PMC7034963 · DOI

Authors
Siddique, A., Azim, S., Ali, A., Adnan, F., Arif, M., Imran, M., Ganda, E., & Rahman, A.
Affiliations
  • National University of Sciences and Technology (PK)
  • Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University (PK)
  • COMSATS University Islamabad (PK)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Rahman, Abdur
ORCID
Venue
Animals
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-12-01
Volume
11
Issue
12
Pages
3435
ISSN
2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ani11123435
PMC
PMC8697943
OpenAlex
W3215847267
Cited by
33
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
Lactobacillus reuteri, Enterococcus faecium, probiotics, lactic acid bacteria, multidrug-resistant Salmonella, Salmonella typhimurium, Salmonella Enteritidis, non-typhoidal Salmonella, mucin adhesion, biofilm formation, co-aggregation, antimicrobial resistance, feed additives, cell-free supernatant, probiotic safety

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