Oral administration of probiotic bacteria (E. coli Nissle, E. coli O83, Lactobacillus casei) influences the severity of dextran sodium sulfate-induced colitis in BALB/c mice
Language English Country United States Media print
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
17176771
DOI
10.1007/bf02931595
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Administration, Oral MeSH
- Escherichia coli MeSH
- Histocytochemistry MeSH
- Immunoglobulin A analysis MeSH
- Colon microbiology MeSH
- Lacticaseibacillus casei MeSH
- Disease Models, Animal MeSH
- Mice, Inbred BALB C MeSH
- Mice MeSH
- Probiotics pharmacology MeSH
- Dextran Sulfate adverse effects MeSH
- Intestinal Mucosa immunology pathology MeSH
- Colitis, Ulcerative chemically induced immunology prevention & control MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Check Tag
- Mice MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Immunoglobulin A MeSH
- Dextran Sulfate MeSH
Our study examined whether repeated preventive oral administration of live probiotic bacterial strains Escherichia coli O83:K24:H31 (Ec O83), Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 O6:K5:H1 (Ec Nis) and Lactobacillus casei DN 114001 (Lc) can protect mice against dextran sodium sulfate (DSS)-induced colitis. A significant decrease in average symptom score was observed in Ec O83-, Ec Nis- and Lc-pretreated group (p < 0.05). Significant differences in body mass loss between Lc pretreated mice with DSS-induced colitis were found when compared with nontreated mice (p < 0.05). PBS pretreated mice had a significantly shorter colon than Ec O83-, Ec Nis- and Lc-pretreated mice (p < 0.05). Administration of Lc significantly decreased the severity of DSS induced histological marks of inflammation (p < 0.05). A significant difference (p < 0.05) was also found in specific IgA level against given probiotic in enteral fluid between colitic mice and healthy mice pretreated with Ec 083 and Ec Nis.
See more in PubMed
Infect Immun. 2002 Apr;70(4):2057-64 PubMed
Gastroenterology. 2001 Feb;120(3):622-35 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2005;50(5):443-7 PubMed
Clin Exp Immunol. 1995 Dec;102(3):448-55 PubMed
Gastroenterology. 2001 Sep;121(3):580-91 PubMed
Gastroenterology. 1994 Dec;107(6):1643-52 PubMed
Infect Immun. 2001 Apr;69(4):2277-85 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 1998;43(5):545-50 PubMed
Dig Dis. 2003;21(2):105-28 PubMed
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2003 Oct;16(4):658-72 PubMed
J Immunol. 2003 Nov 15;171(10):5507-13 PubMed
Clin Exp Immunol. 2000 Apr;120(1):46-50 PubMed
Cell. 1993 Oct 22;75(2):203-5 PubMed
Gastroenterology. 1999 May;116(5):1107-14 PubMed
Pediatr Res. 1991 Apr;29(4 Pt 1):396-9 PubMed
Gut. 2004 Jun;53(6):821-8 PubMed
Lancet. 1999 Aug 21;354(9179):635-9 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Jun;66(6):2578-88 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2003;48(2):281-7 PubMed
Immunol Lett. 2004 May 15;93(2-3):97-108 PubMed
Clin Exp Immunol. 2000 Jan;119(1):57-63 PubMed
Lab Invest. 1993 Aug;69(2):238-49 PubMed
Immunity. 1995 Aug;3(2):171-4 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2001;46(6):573-6 PubMed
Scand J Immunol. 2002 Feb;55(2):204-9 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2004;49(2):203-7 PubMed
Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 May;97(5):1182-6 PubMed
Immunol Rev. 2001 Aug;182:190-200 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2004;49(2):143-6 PubMed
J Dairy Res. 2003 May;70(2):165-73 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2001;46(6):565-72 PubMed
Am J Physiol. 1999 Apr;276(4 Pt 1):G941-50 PubMed
Probiotic Lactobacillus strains: in vitro and in vivo studies
Factors for bile tolerance in Lactococcus lactis: analysis by using plasmid variants
Probiotic potential of enterococci isolated from canine feed