Characterization of Potential Probiotic Activity of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Camel Colostrum by Biochemical and Molecular Methods

Safi, Enas; Haddad, Moawiya; Hasan, Maen; Al-Dalain, Sati Y.; Proestos, Charalampos; Siddiqui, Shahida A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8334152

Veterinary Medicine International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 8334152 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8334152

Characterization of Potential Probiotic Activity of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Camel Colostrum by Biochemical and Molecular Methods

Enas Safi,¹Moawiya Haddad,²Maen Hasan,¹Sati Y. Al-Dalain,³Charalampos Proestos,⁴and Shahida A. Siddiqui^5,6

Academic Editor: Carlos Alberto Hussni

Received17 Feb 2023

Revised28 Aug 2023

Accepted27 Sept 2023

Published07 Oct 2023

Abstract

A total of 60 isolates of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) were isolated from Jordanian camel colostrum using biochemical and molecular methods. Two dominant species were identified, and they were Lactobacillus salivarius and Enterococcus faecium. The entire 60 isolated LAB were tested for their acidity and bile tolerance, antimicrobial activity, and antibiotic sensitivity to test their potential probiotic activity. All 60 isolates were tolerant to different pH concentrations (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) with different survival rates (%). The entire isolates were also tolerant to different bile salt concentrations (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1, 2, and 3) with different bile resistance (%). All isolates have a different range of antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus, E. coli, and Salmonella typhimurium. The 60 isolates were almost sensitive to ampicillin, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin when different concentrations were used except some isolates of intermediate resistance. Only 6% of the isolates were resistant to clarithromycin at a concentration of 15 µg per disc.

1. Introduction

Food fermentation using lactic acid bacteria (LAB) is one of the oldest methods of biopreservation. LAB gained attention recently due to their ability to produce antimicrobial substances like bacteriocins and substances used as natural preservatives and to improve the shelf life and/or safety of food. It was proven that probiotic LAB had many positive health effects and it is also safe to be consumed [1].

LAB are known to be a good producer of antimicrobial substances such as hydrogen peroxide, antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), and organic acids, which can be used as food preservatives and they also can be used as an alternative for conventional antibiotics [2].

LAB are identified mainly using phenotypical methods, but nowadays, new rapid, automated, and more sensitive molecular methods are developed to be used as alternative or complementary tools for LAB identification [3]. The identification of LAB using molecular methods is based on the amplification of target sequences of LAB using specific primers, e.g., the amplification of 16S rRNA and 23S rRNA encoding genes, 16S–23S rRNA intergenic region, and ldhD and recA genes [3].

There are many genera of LAB that are used as probiotics for humans and animals, e.g., Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Enterococcus [4]. Strong evidence proved that many probiotic strains have the ability to resist enteric pathogens using several mechanisms such as food competition, antimicrobial substance production, and stimulation of the immune system. The researchers found that the antimicrobial compounds produced by probiotic LAB could have a protective mechanism against either food or gut pathogens [5].

Camel milk and colostrum are considered an important component of the human diet in many regions of the world [6]. Camel colostrum differs from camel milk in that it has high whey protein content, specifically immunoglobulin (IgG). Both share the main whey components but lack β-lactoglobulin [7]. Camel colostrum contains more vitamins, ash, proteins, and minerals than milk. It also contains a significant number of natural antimicrobial agents that enhance the camel’s calf immune system [8].

Our study investigated newly isolated strains of lactic acid bacteria from camel colostrum using biochemical and molecular methods. The probiotic properties of the isolated lactic acid bacteria were characterized by biochemical and plating assay methods. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to isolate and characterize a probiotic LAB from camel colostrum.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection

Six samples of camel colostrum were obtained from multiple sites in Jordan including Shafa Badran, Al-Jafr, Sahab, and Al-Karak. Samples were collected using presterilized 100 ml bottles in an ice box and kept refrigerated until analyzed.

2.2. Bacterial References and Pathogens

Lactobacillus plantarum ATCC14917 was used as the positive control of probiotic LAB. Salmonella typhimurium ATCC14028, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC6538, and Escherichia coli 8739 were used to test the antimicrobial activity of the LAB isolates of camel colostrum. All bacterial strains were purchased from Microbiologics Inc., USA.

2.3. Total Viable Bacterial Count (TVBC), Total Coliform (TC), and LAB Counts

Each colostrum sample was cultivated using the pour plate method on NA, VRB, and MRS agar in triplicate for each of TVBC, TC, and LAB count, respectively. Plates were incubated at 37°C for 48 h. The results were recorded as cfu ml⁻¹ [9].

2.4. Isolation of LAB

2.4.1. Isolation of LAB Using Biochemical and Culture-Dependent Methods

(1) Culture-Dependent Method. Colostrum samples were incubated on a shaker at 100 rpm, at 45°C for 7 days, and then cultivated on MRS agar by the spread plate method. Plates were incubated for 3 days at 37°C using an anaerobic jar (Thermo Scientific AnaeroGen™ 2.5 L sachets (Oxoid™)). Different shapes of the appearing viable bacterial colonies were individually picked from the plates and subcultured again on MRS agar multiple times to purify the isolates. 20% glycerol was added to the pure culture, and they were stored at −20°C until used. Other residual pure cultures were taken to the biochemical tests [10].

(2) Biochemical Method. Twenty-four-hour MRS-cys-HCl broth culture from each isolate was tested for catalase production using H₂O₂. Isolates which produced bubbles are considered catalase-positive, S. aureus was used as positive control, and sterilized broth without inoculation was used as negative control. Catalase-negative colonies are suspected to be probiotic bacteria [11]. Catalase-negative isolates were Gram-stained. Probiotic bacteria colonies are considered Gram-positive [12].

The isolates were inoculated into MRS-cys-HCl broth, and then they were incubated at 10°C and 45°C to test the ability of the isolates to produce CO₂ as a result of glucose fermentation. L. plantarum was used as positive control and sterilized broth was used as negative control. Durham tubes are placed in the media before inoculation to collect the produced gas (Bucio et al., 2006). Phenol red broth was used to test the ability of the isolates to ferment sugars. The broth was prepared by mixing 0.6 g of phenol red with 1.5 L of MRS-cys-HCl broth, and then, it was separated equally into three bottles. Each bottle was mixed with one type of sugar (1%) of each of glucose, lactose, and fructose, and then, they were autoclaved. Each isolate was inoculated into three types of phenol red broth and incubated at 37°C for 12 h. Tubes with the three sugars without inoculation were used as negative control [13]. The change of phenol broth color from red to orange or yellow indicates a positive result.

2.4.2. Isolation of LAB Using the Molecular Method

(1) DNA Extraction. Genomic DNA was extracted using the phenol/chloroform method according to Wilson (2001). The precipitate was washed with 70% ethanol, and then, the supernatant was removed, and the pellet was dried and resuspended in 50 µl of TE buffer (Tris-EDTA 1X = molecular grade (pH 8.0) is a buffer composed of 10 mM Tris-HCl containing 1 mM EDTA•Na2).

(2) Amplification of 16S rRNA Using PCR. PCR was performed using universal primers (Table 1) to amplify the 16S rRNA according to Melia et al. [14]. All 60 PCR products were purified using Spin Column Purification and sequenced (two-way) (Macrogen, South Korea) using two reactions (forward and reverse) for each one. The consensus sequences were built using Sequence-Alignment Editor (BioEdit version 7.2.5), and then, they were BLAST-searched against the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) nt database to identify the isolates [15], the results of sequencing were submitted to NCBI, and the accession numbers were obtained.

(3) Agarose Gel Electrophoresis. The PCR products were screened by electrophoresis with 1% agarose gel containing 0.05 μl/ml red safe stain. The products were separated for 25 min at 250 volts, and then they were visualized using a UV gel illuminator.

2.4.3. Probiotic Activity

(1) Antimicrobial Activity. The antimicrobial activity of the isolated LAB was tested against three pathogens, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC6538, Salmonella typhimurium ATCC14028, and E. coli 8739, using the diffusion method in triplicate. The 60 isolates were cultured for 48 h, and then they were centrifuged for 10 min at 14000 rpm to obtain cell-free supernatant. About 100 µl from each overnight pathogen culture was spread evenly on a Mueller Hinton agar plate, and then a 6 mm well was made using a sterile Pasteur pipette. About 100 µl of each isolate cell-free supernatant was put in the well. The results were recorded as free zone diameter (average for 3 replicates) using a special ruler, after 24 h incubation at 37°C [9, 16].

(2) Acidity and Bile Salt Tolerance. MRS-cys-HCl broth was adjusted to different pH and bile salt concentrations. The pH of the MRS broth was 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, while the bile salt concentrations were 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1, 2, and 3%. MRS broth without the addition of bile salt and another one at normal pH (6.7) were used as a negative control. The OD of the 60 isolates and the positive control (L. plantarum) were adjusted to 0.2. About 200 µl from each isolate was inoculated into 1800 µl of different pH and bile salt MRS broth concentrations in triplicate. The cultures were incubated at 37°C for 24 h, and then the OD was measured at 600 nm [17]. For acidity tolerance, any increase in the OD value after incubation time indicates that the isolate is resistant to acidity, and the survival rate was calculated for each isolate according to the following equation:where OD24 and OD0 are the optical density before and after incubation, respectively [18].

For bile salt tolerance, the isolate was considered tolerant if there was a 0.3 unit change in its OD value after inoculation, whereas bile salt resistance (%) was calculated for each isolate as follows [19]:

(3) Antibiotic Sensitivity Test. Isolated LAB were tested for their susceptibility to clarithromycin, ampicillin, and amoxicillin antibiotics using the overlay disc diffusion method in triplicate. The concentrations of antibiotics were as follows: 10 and 30 µg disc⁻¹ for ampicillin, 10 and 30 µg disc⁻¹ for amoxicillin, and 15 and 30 µg disc⁻¹ for clarithromycin. The OD of all the 60 isolates and control (Lactobacillus plantarum) cultures were adjusted to 0.2 (108 CFU ml⁻¹). MRS agar plates were overlaid with 1% soft agar which contained about 200 µl of each culture, then paper discs were placed on the plates and antibiotics were applied onto the discs at different concentrations, and the diameters of inhibition zones were measured after 24 h incubation at 39°C using a special ruler [19]. The average of the three replicates was recorded for each treatment, and then the antibiotic sensitivity was determined using Clinical and Laboratory Standard Procedures (Papich [20]) for clarithromycin [21] and Clinical and Laboratory Standard Procedures (CLSI M31-A3, [22]) for ampicillin and amoxicillin [23].

2.4.4. Statistical Analysis of Data

The data from the experiments were statistically analyzed using the SAS package system version 9.4. The data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA), and values less than 0.05 were considered significant for the analysis. Differences between interval times of treatment means were determined by the least significant difference (LSD) test at 5% confidence interval.

3. Results

3.1. Bacterial Counts

3.1.1. Total Viable Bacterial Count (TVBC) and Total Coliforms (TC)

The log10 cfu ml⁻¹ of colostrum samples was analyzed for TVBC and TC. The log10 average of TVBC counts was between 7.9 and 8.1. No coliform colonies were observed for all 6 camel colostrum samples.

3.1.2. LAB Count

The log10 cfu ml⁻¹ of colostrum samples was analyzed in LAB. The log10 average of LAB count was between 7.3 and 7.5 in anaerobic conditions for all 6 colostrum samples.

3.2. Isolation of LAB

3.2.1. Biochemical and Culture-Dependent Methods

A total of 60 isolates of LAB with different morphologies were isolated from 6 samples of camel colostrum collected from the south and middle of Jordan; all of them were catalase-negative, were Gram-positive, and have the ability to ferment all tested sugars (glucose, lactose, and fructose). In the CO₂ production test, no gas bubble was noticed in the culture tubes during the incubation period of the isolate broth at both 45°C and 10°C.

3.2.2. Molecular Method

The PCR results were the same among all isolates, and the amplicon size was about 1500 bp compared to the DNA ladder (Figure 1). Some consensus sequences were analyzed using BLASTn against the NCBI nt database, and the potential identification for each isolate was obtained. Isolates nos. 1.6, 1.7, 2.6, 3.15, 4.1, and 5.5 were identified depending on forward BLAST results, while isolates nos. 4.3 and 6.6 were identified depending on the reverse blast results, and two dominant species were identified. They were Lactobacillus salivarius and Enterococcus faecium as shown in Table 2. The accession numbers for the 60 isolates sequences were obtained and are recorded in Table 3.

3.3. Screening of Probiotic LAB

3.3.1. Antimicrobial Test

All 60 isolates showed different ranges of antimicrobial activity. Isolates 1.5, 1.6, 2.7, 3.7, 3.8, 3.15, and 5.10 have the strongest activity against S. aureus ATCC6538. Isolates 1.6, 1.10, 2.9, and 3.9 have the highest activity against E. coli 8739, and isolates 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.10, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.13, 6.2, and 6.3 showed the strongest activity against S. typhimurium ATCC14028. Therefore, isolate 1.6 showed the strongest antimicrobial activity against the three above pathogens, and the results are recorded in Table 3.

3.3.2. Acidity and Bile Salt Tolerance

All isolates were tolerant to all pH concentrations with different survival rates. The survival rates (%) were calculated using the average of the triplicate OD values. The lowest survival rates (%) of all the 60 isolates at pH 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, and 6.7 (negative control) were for isolate no. 2.9 (79%), and other isolates showed an increased growth in the acidic environment above the survival rate (more than 100%).

All 60 isolated lactic acid bacteria resist bile salt at different concentrations (0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.8%, 1%, 2%, and 3%) with different bile resistance (%). Isolate no. 5.9 recorded the maximum bile tolerance (%) against all bile salt concentrations, while isolate no. 3.2 recorded the minimum bile salt resistance (%) against all bile salt concentrations.

3.3.3. Antibiotic Sensitivity Test

The results revealed that 100% of the isolates were sensitive against both ampicillin 30 µg disc⁻¹ and amoxicillin 30 µg disc⁻¹ antibiotics. Only 4 isolates (6%) were resistant to clarithromycin 15 µg disc⁻¹. There were many isolates showing intermediate resistance as follows: twenty-two isolates (36%) against clarithromycin 15 µg disc⁻¹, five isolates (8%) against ampicillin 10 µg disc⁻¹, four isolates (6%) against amoxicillin 10 µg disc⁻¹, and 3 isolates (5%) against clarithromycin 30 µg disc⁻¹ (Table 4).

4. Discussion

The current study aimed to characterize the potential probiotic activities of LAB isolated from camel colostrum collected from different areas of Jordan including Amman, Al-Jafr, Sahab, and Al-Karak.

In this study, sixty different shape colonies were isolated from camel colostrum. Biochemical tests such as CO₂ production, catalase production, carbohydrate fermentation, phenotypic test (Gram stain), and molecular-based test (PCR) were performed to screen LAB from the isolated colonies. All the 60 isolates were Gram-positive, catalase-negative, have the ability to ferment different sugars (lactose, glucose, and fructose), and cannot produce CO₂. This result indicates that all the 60 isolated colonies were homofermentative LAB. These results coped with those of several previous studies [10, 24].

PCR products for the 60 isolates and the positive control (L. plantarum) were about 1500 bp. The size was similar to LAB 16S rRNA size which ensures that all of the 60 isolates are LAB and this result is in agreement with previous studies of Bulut [25] and Naeem et al. [26], which identified LAB using the molecular-based technique (PCR) and the amplicons size was 1500 bp, which is similar to the amplicons of this study.

In this study, the identification of 60 isolates was inspected based on the sequencing of the PCR products. The results of the taxonomy revealed that there are two main dominant species found in Jordanian camel colostrum: Lactobacillus salivarius and Enterococcus faecium.

There are many previous studies about the isolation of LAB including both Lactobacillus salivarius and Enterococcus faecium from camel milk, which supports the results of this study [27, 28].

In this study, the isolated LAB were screened for potential probiotic activities. The results of acidity tolerance revealed that all the 60 isolates are tolerant to different pH concentrations (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) as expected for probiotics to have the ability to survive within the varied pH of the intestinal tract, and these results were in agreement with the previous studies which proved that some Enterococcus species can survive in the pH range between 2.0 and 9.5 [29]. Other studies proved that Enterococcus faecium can survive at low pH (1.5 and 3) with the survival rate % between 43 ± 3.0 and 79 ± 4.5 [30], and according to Sanhueza et al. [31], some strains of Lactobacillus salivarius can survive for 24 h at pH 2.6.

The survival rate % results for the 60 isolates under different pH concentrations showed that the minimum survival rate was 78.8 (%) at pH = 2 while the maximum survival rate was 1166.5 (%) at pH = 10.

Probiotic needs to be bile salt tolerant to survive within the intestine. The bile salt resistance (%) results for the 60 isolates showed that all of them could resist bile salt with different bile salt concentrations (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1, 2, and 3), and these results support that all the isolates are probiotic bacteria. These results are in agreement with previous studies which said that some strains of Enterococcus faecium can survive in media with 1% bile salt concentration with a survival rate of up to 98% [32], and other study proved that some strains of Lactobacillus salivarius can resist bile salt with 1% concentration [33].

The results of bile salt resistance (%) for the 60 isolates under different bile salt concentrations showed that the minimum bile resistance % was 21.4% against 3% bile salt and the maximum bile salt resistance % was 99.9% against 0.2% bile salt. These results are expected as the higher the bile salt concentration, the lower the bile salt resistance % of the isolate.

Antimicrobial activity is necessary for LAB to be considered as probiotics, and probiotics need the antimicrobial activity to protect its environment either it is intestinal or food from different pathogens [34]. Antimicrobial activity is the most important criterion for probiotics to be used in an industrial scale as a starter culture and/or as a natural preservative for food [35].

In this study, the antimicrobial activities of the 60 isolates were tested against S. aureus, E. coli 8739, and S. typhimurium ATCC14028. The results revealed that all 60 isolates have the ability to resist the three pathogens in different ranges. Isolate no. 1.6 has the strongest antimicrobial activity against the three above pathogens. These results are in agreement with the previous studies of Murry et al. [36] and Li et al. [37], which proved that some species of Lactobacillus salivarius can resist the three above pathogens, and the results of this study are supported by a study which said that some strains of Enterococcus faecium are known to be a good producer of bacteriocins and they have a strong antimicrobial activity against all of E coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Salmonella typhimurium [38].

The results of antibiotic sensitivity revealed that all the 60 isolates were sensitive against ampicillin 30 µg disc⁻¹ and amoxicillin 30 µg disc⁻¹, while 8% of the isolates showed intermediate resistance against ampicillin 10 µg disc⁻¹ and 6% against amoxicillin 10 µg disc⁻¹. The sensitivity of the isolates against both ampicillin and amoxicillin corresponds with the previous studies [17, 39–41], which proved that many strains of Lactobacillus spp., Enterococcus spp., L. salivarius, and Enterococcus faecium are sensitive to the majority of antibiotics, especially to ampicillin and amoxicillin. The results of this study are in disagreement with the previous results which proved that the strains of Enterococcus faecium isolated from clinical specimens have ampicillin and amoxicillin resistance activity [42, 43]. Only 6% of the total 60 isolates were resistant to clarithromycin 15 µg disc⁻¹. 3 of them were identified as Enterococcus faecium, while 36% of the 60 isolates showed intermediate resistance to the same antibiotic concentration. These results are in agreement with the studies which found that macrolide-resistance genes such as ermB and msrA/B were found in some strains of Enterococcus faecium [44], and another study revealed that the ermB gene was found in strains of Enterococcus faecium and both ermB and msrC genes were found in a strain of Lactobacillus salivarius too [45]; these studies may explain the ability of some isolates to resist macrolide (clarithromycin) antibiotic in this study.

The results of the antibiotic sensitivity test were expected since the samples were collected from camels which were reared in wild areas and they did not expose to antibiotics from either food or medicine, and they may not be able to gain antibiotic resistance.

The results of the biochemical and culture-dependent methods of LAB isolation and the results of probiotic activity screening are supported by the results of the molecular analysis method. As in both the methods, the main identified species were Lactobacillus salivarius and Enterococcus faecium, which are considered usually as probiotic LAB [46, 47].

5. Conclusion

LAB were isolated from Jordanian camel colostrum. Lactobacillus salivarius and Enterococcus faecium are the two dominant species that were identified. All isolates were tolerant to different concentrations of pH and bile salt, and they were antagonists against S. aureus, E.coli, and S. typhimurium and sensitive to ampicillin, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin antibiotics. All of these features ensure that the colostrum isolates have probiotic activities. The strong antimicrobial activity of the isolates indicates that they may produce strong AMPs and/or bacteriocins, and the sensitivity of the isolates against antibiotics indicates that they are safe to use as probiotics.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Moawiya Haddad conceptualized the study; Moawiya Haddad and Maen Hasan were responsible for methodology; Maen Hasan was responsible for software; Moawiya Haddad, Maen Hasan, and Enas Safi validated the data, performed formal analysis, performed data curation, prepared the original draft, and reviewed and edited the manuscript; Moawiya Haddad and Enas Safi investigated the data and were involved in project administration; Moawiya Haddad was responsible for resources; Moawiya Haddad, Maen Hasan, and Shahida A. Siddiqui visualized the study; Moawiya Haddad and Maen Hasan were involved in study supervision and funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Al-Balqa Applied University, Deanship of Research. We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Mazen Ateyyat for offering us a great help in the statistical analysis and Jehad Al-Hawadi from Al-Shoubak University College for helping us during sample collection.

References

A. Soomro, T. Masud, and K. Anwaar, “Role of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) in food preservation and human health-a review,” Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, vol. 1, pp. 20–24, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Forsgren, T. C. Olofsson, A. Vásquez, and I. Fries, “Novel lactic acid bacteria inhibiting Paenibacillus larvae in honey bee larvae,” Apidologie, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 99–108, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Mohania, R. Nagpal, M. Kumar et al., “Molecular approaches for identification and characterization of lactic acid bacteria,” Journal of digestive Diseases, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 190–198, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Klein, A. Pack, C. Bonaparte, and G. Reuter, “Taxonomy and physiology of probiotic lactic acid bacteria,” International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 103–125, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Zacharof and R. Lovitt, “Bacteriocins produced by lactic acid bacteria a review article,” Apcbee Procedia, vol. 2, pp. 50–56, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. El-Hatmi, J.-M. Girardet, J.-L. Gaillard, M. H. Yahyaoui, and H. Attia, “Characterisation of whey proteins of camel (Camelus dromedarius) milk and colostrum,” Small Ruminant Research, vol. 70, no. 2-3, pp. 267–271, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. Merin, S. Bernstein, A. Bloch-Damti et al., “A comparative study of milk serum proteins in camel (Camelus dromedarius) and bovine colostrum,” Livestock Production Science, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 297–301, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Zeineb, O. Nadia, A. Isabelle, K. Touhami, D. Pascal, and E.-H. Halima, “Camel colostrum: nutritional composition and improvement of the antimicrobial activity after enzymatic hydrolysis,” Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 384–389, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Makete, O. A. Aiyegoro, and M. S. Thantsha, “Isolation, identification and screening of potential probiotic bacteria in milk from south african saanen goats,” Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 246–254, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. F. Mohd Adnan and I. K. Tan, “Isolation of lactic acid bacteria from Malaysian foods and assessment of the isolates for industrial potential,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 98, no. 7, pp. 1380–1385, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Mujnisa and A. Natsir, “Lactic acid production and the inhibitory capability of lactic acid bacteria isolated from poultry feces,” in Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, p. 12190, Surakarta, Indonesia, August 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Nawaz, J. Wang, A. Zhou et al., “Characterization and transfer of antibiotic resistance in lactic acid bacteria from fermented food products,” Current Microbiology, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 1081–1089, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Iwana, H. Masuda, T. Fujisawa, H. SuzuKI, and T. Mitsuoka, “Isolation and identification of Bifidobacterium spp. in commercial yogurts sold in Europe,” Bifidobacteria and Microflora, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 39–45, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Melia, E. Purwati, S. N. Aritonang, and M. Silaen, “Characterization of the antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria isolated from buffalo milk in West Sumatera (Indonesia) against Listeria monocytogenes,” Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 645–650, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Saboori, F. Shahidi, S. Hedayati, and A. Javadmanesh, “Investigating the probiotic properties and antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria isolated from an Iranian fermented dairy product, kashk,” Foods, vol. 11, no. 23, p. 3904, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Tejero-Sariñena, J. Barlow, A. Costabile, G. R. Gibson, and I. Rowland, “In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of a range of probiotics against pathogens: evidence for the effects of organic acids,” Anaerobe, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 530–538, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Padmavathi, R. Bhargavi, P. R. Priyanka, N. R. Niranjan, and P. V. Pavitra, “Screening of potential probiotic lactic acid bacteria and production of amylase and its partial purification,” Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 357–362, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Wang, R. R. Qin, L. Huang, and L. Y. Sun, “Risk factors for carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection and mortality of Klebsiella pneumoniae infection,” Chinese Medical Journal, vol. 131, no. 1, pp. 56–62, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. W. Lee, J. M. Shim, S.-K. Park et al., “Isolation of lactic acid bacteria with probiotic potentials from kimchi, traditional Korean fermented vegetable,” LWT-Food Science and Technology, vol. 71, pp. 130–137, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. G. Papich, “Antimicrobials, susceptibility testing, and minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) in veterinary infection treatment,” Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 1079–1089, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. T. Gressler, B. P. D. Silveira, M. L. Schwab, A. C. D. Vargas, L. Pötter, and S. D. A. Botton, “Susceptibility profile of Brazilian Rhodococcus equi isolates against azithromycin, clarithromycin and erythromycin,” Ciência Rural, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 680–683, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk and Dilution Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria Isolated from Animals: Approved Standard, Clinical and Laboratodntry Standards Institute (CLSI), Wayne, PA, USA, 3rd edition, 2008.
I. Ambas, N. Buller, and R. Fotedar, “Isolation and screening of probiotic candidates from marron, C herax cainii (Austin, 2002) gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and commercial probiotic products for the use in marron culture,” Journal of Fish Diseases, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 467–476, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Sobrun, A. Bhaw-Luximon, D. Jhurry, and D. Puchooa, “Isolation of lactic acid bacteria from sugar cane juice and production of lactic acid from selected improved strains,” Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology, vol. 3, no. 4, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Ç. Bulut, Isolation and Molecular Characterization of Lactic Acid Bacteria from Cheese, Izmir Institute of Technology, Urla, Türkiye, 2003.
M. Naeem, M. Ilyas, S. Haider, S. Baig, and M. Saleem, “Isolation characterization and identification of lactic acid bacteria from fruit juices and their efficacy against antibiotics,” Pakistan Journal of Botany, vol. 44, no. 8, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Rahmeh, A. Akbar, M. Kishk et al., “Distribution and antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria from raw camel milk,” New Microbes and New Infections, vol. 30, Article ID 100560, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Fugl, T. Berhe, A. Kiran et al., “Characterisation of lactic acid bacteria in spontaneously fermented camel milk and selection of strains for fermentation of camel milk,” International Dairy Journal, vol. 73, pp. 19–24, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Kıvanç, M. Kıvanç, and T. Yiğit, “Antibiotic susceptibility, antibacterial activity and characterisation of Enterococcus faecium strains isolated from breast milk,” Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1732–1740, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. M. Mansour, H. Heine, S. M. Abdou, M. E. Shenana, M. K. Zakaria, and A. El‐Diwany, “Isolation of Enterococcus faecium NM113, Enterococcus faecium NM213 and Lactobacillus casei NM512 as novel probiotics with immunomodulatory properties,” Microbiology and Immunology, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 559–569, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Sanhueza, E. Paredes-Osses, C. L. González, and A. García, “Effect of pH in the survival of Lactobacillus salivarius strain UCO_979C wild type and the pH acid acclimated variant,” Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 343–346, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Strompfová, A. Lauková, and A. C. Ouwehand, “Selection of enterococci for potential canine probiotic additives,” Veterinary Microbiology, vol. 100, no. 1-2, pp. 107–114, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. C. Bae, S. H. Choi, and M. S. Nam, “Isolation and identification of acid-and bile-tolerant Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salivarius from human faeces,” Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 1170–1178, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Arqués, E. Rodríguez, S. Langa, J. M. Landete, and M. Medina, “Antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria in dairy products and gut: effect on pathogens,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2015, Article ID 584183, 9 pages, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Šušković, B. Kos, J. Beganović, A. Leboš Pavunc, K. Habjanič, and S. Matošić, “Antimicrobial activity–the most important property of probiotic and starter lactic acid bacteria,” Food Technology and Biotechnology, vol. 48, pp. 296–307, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Murry, A. Hinton, and H. Morrison, “Inhibition of growth of Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium, and Clostridia perfringens on chicken feed media by Lactobacillus salivarius and Lactobacillus plantarum,” International Journal of Poultry Science, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 603–607, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H.-W. Li, Y.-Z. Xiang, M. Zhang et al., “A novel bacteriocin from Lactobacillus salivarius against Staphylococcus aureus: isolation, purification, identification, antibacterial and antibiofilm activity,” Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft and Technologie, vol. 140, Article ID 110826, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Khalkhali and N. Mojgani, “Bacteriocinogenic potential and virulence traits of Enterococcus faecium and E. faecalis isolated from human milk,” Iranian Journal of Microbiology, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 224–233, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Langa, A. Maldonado-Barragán, S. Delgado et al., “Characterization of Lactobacillus salivarius CECT 5713, a strain isolated from human milk: from genotype to phenotype,” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 1279–1287, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Halder, M. Mandal, S. S. Chatterjee, N. K. Pal, and S. Mandal, “Indigenous probiotic Lactobacillus isolates presenting antibiotic like activity against human pathogenic bacteria,” Biomedicines, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 31, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Ž. Grujović, K. G. Mladenović, and L. R. Čomić, “The probiotic potential and evaluation of the safety aspects of Enterococcus sp. strains isolated from traditionally made Serbian cheese,” Veterinarski Arhiv, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 317–326, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Damborg, A. H. Sørensen, and L. Guardabassi, “Monitoring of antimicrobial resistance in healthy dogs: first report of canine ampicillin-resistant Enterococcus faecium clonal complex 17,” Veterinary Microbiology, vol. 132, no. 1-2, pp. 190–196, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. T. Tsukayama, B. Wicklund, and R. P. Gruniger, “Enterococcus faecium resistant to ampicillin and gentamicin,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 1, no. 5-6, pp. 239–243, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. S. Said and E. S. Abdelmegeed, “Emergence of multidrug resistance and extensive drug resistance among enterococcal clinical isolates in Egypt,” Infection and Drug Resistance, vol. 12, pp. 1113–1125, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. C. R. Thumu and P. M. Halami, “Presence of erythromycin and tetracycline resistance genes in lactic acid bacteria from fermented foods of Indian origin,” Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 541–551, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Fuller, “Probiotics in human medicine,” Gut, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 439–442, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Messaoudi, M. Manai, G. Kergourla et al., “Lactobacillus salivarius: bacteriocin and probiotic activity,” Food Microbiology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 296–304, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Enas Safi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

552

Downloads

360

Citations