A quantitative fluorescent in situ hybridization method was employed to evaluate the competitive inhibitory effect of three Lactobacillus strains (Lactobacillus reuteri, Lactobacillus gasseri, and Lactobacillus plantarum) against Escherichia coli internalization in a model system of HT 29 cells. Furthermore, aggregation and adhesion abilities of the Lactobacillus strains were examined. All lactobacilli were able to attach to the HT 29 cells and aggregate with pathogens; however, the adhesion and aggregation degree was strain-dependent. L. reuteri possessed a high capacity of adhesion (6.80 ± 0.63; log CFU ± SEM per well), whereas lower capacities were expressed by L. gasseri (4.52 ± 0.55) and L. plantarum (4.90 ± 0.98). Additionally, L. reuteri showed the rapid or normal ability to aggregate with selected E. coli in comparison with remaining two lactobacilli, which showed only slow or negative aggregative reaction. Internalization of E. coli into the cell lines was markedly suppressed by L. reuteri, while L. gasseri and L. plantarum caused only a minimum anti-invasion effect. The fact that L. reuteri in our experiments showed an outstanding potential for adhering to the colon epithelial cell line, compared with the rest strains, suggested that one of the possible mechanisms of preventing pathogen adhesion and invasion is simple competitions at certain receptors and capability to block receptor binding sites, or that an avid interaction between L. reuteri and the host cell might be modulating intracellular events responsible for the E. coli internalization. Moreover, L. reuteri exhibited a strong ability to aggregate with E. coli, which could be another limiting factor of pathogen invasion.

Institute of Animal Physiology Slovak Academy of Sciences Šoltésovej 4 6 Košice 04001 Slovakia

See more in PubMed

Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005 Jul;18(3):465-83 PubMed

J Appl Microbiol. 2001 Jul;91(1):154-9 PubMed

J Urol. 1987 Aug;138(2):330-5 PubMed

Microbiol Immunol. 2003;47(6):405-9 PubMed

J Appl Microbiol. 2003;94(3):449-55 PubMed

Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2005;50(5):443-7 PubMed

BMC Microbiol. 2009 Mar 31;9:63 PubMed

Microbiol Rev. 1995 Mar;59(1):143-69 PubMed

Science. 2004 Apr 9;304(5668):242-8 PubMed

J Cell Biol. 1987 Jul;105(1):345-57 PubMed

Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2006;51(4):281-2 PubMed

J Infect Dis. 1990 Jul;162(1):82-90 PubMed

J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 2002 Apr;49(3):152-4 PubMed

Infect Immun. 1991 Sep;59(9):2901-8 PubMed

Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2004;49(2):143-6 PubMed

Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2008;53(1):61-6 PubMed

Infect Immun. 1998 Jun;66(6):2410-9 PubMed

Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007 Apr;74(5):1103-11 PubMed

Zentralbl Veterinarmed B. 1999 Dec;46(10):683-7 PubMed

Clin Microbiol Rev. 1990 Oct;3(4):335-44 PubMed

Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011 Apr;17(4):533-8 PubMed

J Infect Dis. 1994 Dec;170(6):1549-56 PubMed

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 May;66(5):2263-6 PubMed

Infect Immun. 2005 Sep;73(9):6119-26 PubMed

Int J Food Microbiol. 2001 Aug 5;67(3):207-16 PubMed