Investigation of probiotic and technological characteristics of lactic acid bacteria isolated from native Doogh of Behbahan

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan

Abstract

Background and Objectives: During thousands of years, human has unconsciously benefited from lactic acid bacteria (LAB) in the production of fermented food. This is due to the potential of these bacteria to release odor and flavor, and inhibit the growth of pathogens and food-spoilage microorganisms. LAB is Gram-positive, catalase-negative, microaerophilic and non-spore forming. In addition to their health-promoting effects, they have numerous technological and microbiological properties in food products. LAB is usually known as the microorganisms highly consumed in food products, which can be utilized as protective culture media, owing to their specific characteristics. The present study aims to examine the probiotic potential (viability in acidic and simulated gastrointestinal conditions, hydrophobicity, auto- and co-aggregation) of the LAB isolated from Behbahan local Doogh. Next, their technological properties (acidification and autolytic activities, and heat resistance) were determined. Finally, the antimicrobial activity of the strains was measured against some food pathogens.
Materials and methods: In this study, the LAB strains of Behbahan local Doogh were identified through 16S rRNA gene replication by a polymerase chain reaction. First, 85 Gram-positive and catalase-negative isolates were categorized using biochemical and sugar fermentation tests. One representative was selected from each group for the molecular identification test. In order to investigate the resistance of the bacteria to acidic conditions, their viability was examined at pH values of 2.5, 3.5 and 5. For determining the LAB viability in the gastrointestinal system, 30 µl of each bacterium was added to 270 µl of simulated gastric juice (2.5 g pepsin/l and 2 g NaCl/l) whose pH had been set at 2.75 and incubated at 37°C for 1.5 h. Then, 30 µl was mixed with 270 µl of simulated intestinal juice (1 g trypsin/l, 5 g bile salt/l, 2 g pancreatin/l, 11 g sodium bicarbonate/l and 2 g sodium chloride/l) whose pH had been adjusted to 8 and incubated at 37°C for 4 h. Afterwards, the bacteria were cultured on MRS agar at 1.5, 2, 3 and 4 h. The results were expressed as the reduction of log CFU/ml relative to time zero (time zero: 8 log CFU/ml). The other probiotic properties of the LAB, including hydrophobicity, auto- and co-aggregation were also investigated. Their technological potential was determined though acidification ability, autolytic activity and resistance to heat. Eventually, the antimicrobial activity of the strains with better probiotic and technological properties was examined against 5 food pathogens (Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella typhimurium, Micrococcus luteus and Staphylococcus aureus). One-way analysis of variance was conducted using statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) version 22. Duncan`s multiple range test was employed for mean comparison at 95% confidence level.
Results and discussion: Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus delbrueckii and Pediococcus pentosaceus were the most resistant strains to the pH values of 2.5 and 3.5, while Lactobacillus pentosus and Enterococcus faecium showed the most pronounced reduction of log CFU/ml. At the pH value of 5, all the bacteria were able to grow without being reduced. Relative to the simulated gastric juice, L. plantarum was the most resistant one with a reduction of zero log CFU/ml and E. faecium was the most sensitive one with a reduction of 3 log CFU/ml. After 3 h of digestion by the simulated intestinal juice, L. plantatum and L. delbrueckii were the most resistant strains with a reduction of 1 log CFU/ml and E. faecium was the most susceptible one with a reduction of 5 log CFU/ml. The hydrophobicity of the strains was reported to be 17.5-58.3%, the highest of which belonged to L. plantarum. The co-aggregation of the LAB varied from 25.3 to 48.2%, the highest of which was associated with P. pentosaceus. In addition, all the strains showed co-aggregation activity against E. coli, and L. plantarum had the highest value of co-aggregation (46.3%). In terms of the technological properties, the results revealed that all the strains were capable of acid reduction up to 0.4 except L. pentosus. During 24 h of incubation, P. pentosaceus and L. delbrueckii caused the largest pH variations. The results of the autolytic activity of the LAB isolates indicated that all the L. pentosus, L. plantatum and L. delbrueckii could be grouped as relatively good. The highest viability and heat resistance belonged to P. pentosaceus and L. delbrueckii and the lowest viability was related to L. pentosus and E. faecium. In general, L. delbruckeii and P. pentosaceus showed the best results in all the technological tests. Moreover, the antimicrobial activity of L. plantarum, L. delbrueckii and P. pentosaceus was investigated against E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. typhimurium, M. luteus and S. aureus. In all the samples, the acidic cell-free supernatant had a greater antimicrobial effect than the neutralized cell-free supernatant. The neutralized supernatant of L. plantarum and L. delbrueckii had no antimicrobial effect on E. coli. The shortest inhibition zone diameter of the acidic supernatants of L. plantarum, P. pentosaceus and L. delbrueckii was associated with E. coli. Furthermore, S. aureus was the most sensitive strain against the acidic supernatant of L. plantatum and S. aureus, whereas M. luteus had the longest inhibition zone diameter against the acidic supernatants of L. delbrueckii and P. pentosaceus.
Conclusion: Considering the obtained results, L. delbrueckii, L. plantarum and P. pentosaceus had superlative performances and can be used as complementary strains in the production of food products. It is suggested that supplementary tests, including the adhesion ability to intestinal epithelial cells, anti-adhesion ability against specific pathogens, and the lipolytic and proteolytic activity of these three strains be evaluated.

Keywords


امین­نژاد س و کسری-کرمانشاهی ر. 1393. فعالیت ضد بیوفیلمی بخش شناور فاقد سلول لاکتوباسیلوس کازئی در سودوموناس آئروژینوزا، دوماهنامه فیض، 18 (1)، 30-37.

دعوتی ن و زیبائی س. 1396. جداسازی و شناسایی باکتریهای اسید لاکتیک دوغ شیر شتر تک کوهانه ایرانی و بررسی خواص تکنولوژیکی آن‌ها، مجله علوم و صنایع غذایی ایران، 14 (65)، 311-322.

عباباف خ، جوینده ح و ناصحی ب.1399. تأثیر تیمار آنزیمی ترانس گلوتامیناز بر ویژگی های فیزیکی شیمیایی و میکروبی ماست سویای سین بیوتیک، پژوهش های صنایع غذایی، 30 (3)، 189-201.
میردامادی س، رجبی ا، عزیزمحسنی ف و مومن ب. 1386. تولید اسید لاکتیک توسط سویه های مختلف لاکتوباسیل، مجله علوم تغذیه و صنایع غذایی ایران، 2 (3)، 57-64.
نریمانی ط وتاری نژاد ع. 1393. جداسازی و شناسایی بیوشیمیایی و مولکولی باکتری های پروبیوتیک از شیر و ماست سنتی گاومیش شهرستان خوی، 24 (3)، 349- 335.
Abney KN and Hewlings SJ, 2019. Probiotic supplementation and reducing infiammation in hemodialysis patients: A systematic review. Journal of Renal Nutrition and Metabolism 5(1): 3-6.
Adamberg K, Kask S, Laht TM and Paalme T, 2003. The effect of temperature and pH on the growth of lactic acid bacteria: a pH-auxostat study. International Journal of Food Microbiology 85(1-2): 171-183.
Alvarez-Sieiro P, Montalbán-López M, Mu D and Kuipers OP, 2016. Bacteriocins of lactic acid bacteria: extending the family. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 100(7): 2939-2951.
Aslim B, Onal D and Beyatli Y, 2007. Factors influencing autoaggregation and aggregation of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus isolated from handmade yogurt. Journal of Food Protection 70(1): 223-227.
Ayad EH, Verheul A, Wouters JT and Smit G, 2001. Population dynamics of lactococci from industrial, artisanal and non-dairy origins in defined strain starters for Gouda-type cheese. International Dairy Journal 11(1-2): 51-61.
Bao Y, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Wang S, Dong X, Wang Y and Zhang H, 2010. Screening of potential probiotic properties of Lactobacillus fermentum isolated from traditional dairy products. Food Control 21(5): 695-701.
Cunha AF, Acurcio LB, Assis BS, Oliveira DL, Leite MO, Cerqueira MM and Souza MR., 2013. In vitro probiotic potential of Lactobacillus spp. isolated from fermented milks. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia 65(6):1876-1882.
de Souza JV and Dias FS, 2017. Protective, technological, and functional properties of select autochthonous lactic acid bacteria from goat dairy products. Current Opinion in Food Science 1: 13:1-9.
de Melo Pereira GV, de Oliveira Coelho B, Júnior AI, Thomaz-Soccol V and Soccol CR, 2018. How to select a probiotic? A review and update of methods and criteria. Biotechnology Advances 36(8): 2060-2076.
El Soda M, Ahmed N, Omran N, Osman G and Morsi A, 2003. Isolation, identification and selection of lactic acid bacteria cultures for cheesemaking. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture 51-71.
Georgieva R, Yocheva L, Tserovska L, Zhelezova G, Stefanova N, Atanasova A, Danguleva A, Ivanova G, Karapetkov N, Rumyan N and Karaivanova E, 2015. Antimicrobial activity and antibiotic susceptibility of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium spp. intended for use as starter and probiotic cultures. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 29(1): 84-91.
Guo XH, Kim JM, Nam HM, Park SY and Kim JM, 2010. Screening lactic acid bacteria from swine origins for multistrain probiotics based on in vitro functional properties. Anaerobe 16(4):321-326.
Hojjati, M., Alizadeh Behbahani, B., and Falah, F, 2020. Aggregation, adherence, anti-adhesion and antagonistic activity properties relating to surface charge of probiotic Lactobacillus brevis gp104 against Staphylococcus aureus. Microbial Pathogenesis 147: 104420.
Hoseinifar SH, Ringø E, Shenavar Masouleh A and Esteban MÁ, 2016. Probiotic, prebiotic and synbiotic supplements in sturgeon aquaculture: a review. Reviews in Aquaculture 8(1): 89-102.
Kandil S and El Soda M, 2015. Influence of freezing and freeze drying on intracellular enzymatic activity and autolytic properties of some lactic acid bacterial strains. Advances in Microbiology 5: 371-382.
Kullen MJ and Klaenhammer TR, 1999. Identification of the pH‐inducible, proton‐translocating F1F0‐ATPase (atpBEFHAGDC) operon of Lactobacillus acidophilus by differential display: gene structure, cloning and characterization. Molecular Microbiology 33(6):1152-1161.
Ly MH, Aguedo M, Goudot S, Le ML, Cayot P, Teixeira JA, Le TM, Belin JM and Waché Y, 2008. Interactions between bacterial surfaces and milk proteins, impact on food emulsions stability. Food Hydrocolloids 22(5):742-751.
Ruiz-Moyano S, dos Santos MT, Galván AI, Merchán AV, González E, de Guía Córdoba M and Benito MJ, 2019. Screening of autochthonous lactic acid bacteria strains from artisanal soft cheese: probiotic characteristics and prebiotic metabolism. LWT 14:108388.
Strus M, Pakosz K, Gościniak H, Przondo-Mordarska A, Rozynek E, Pituch H, Meisel-Mikołajczyk F and Heczko PB, 2001. Antagonistic activity of Lactobacillus bacteria strains against anaerobic gastrointestinal tract pathogens (Helicobacter pylori, Campylobacter coli, Campylobacter jejuni, Clostridium difficile). Medycyna doswiadczalna i Mikrobiologia 53(2):133-142.
Techo S, Visessanguan W, Vilaichone RK and Tanasupawat S, 2019. Characterization and antibacterial activity against helicobacter pylori of Lactic Acid Bacteria isolated from thai fermented rice noodle. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins 11(1): 92-102.
Tokatlı M, Gülgör G, Bağder Elmacı S, Arslankoz İşleyen N and Özçelik F, 2015. In vitro properties of potential probiotic indigenous lactic acid bacteria originating from traditional pickles. BioMed Research International. 2015;2015.
Vasiee A, Mortazavi SA, Sankian M, Yazdi FT, Mahmoudi M and Shahidi F, 2019. Antagonistic activity of recombinant Lactococcus lactis NZ1330 on the adhesion properties of Escherichia coli causing urinary tract infection. Microbial Pathogenesis 133:103547.
Wu C, Huang J and Zhou R, 2017. Genomics of lactic acid bacteria: current status and potential applications. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 43(4): 393-404.