Variations in bile tolerance among Lactococcus lactis strains derived from different sources
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- Lactococcus lactis metabolism MeSH
- Colony Count, Microbial MeSH
- Probiotics metabolism therapeutic use MeSH
- Fishes microbiology MeSH
- Aquaculture MeSH
- Bile Acids and Salts pharmacology MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Check Tag
- Animals MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Bile Acids and Salts MeSH
Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis has been isolated from the intestines of marine fish and is a candidate probiotic for aquaculture. In order to use the bacterium as a probiotic, properties such as bile tolerance need to be assessed. Here, we compared bile tolerance in L. lactis strains derived from different sources. Three L. lactis subsp. lactis strains from marine fish (MFL), freshwater fish (FFL), and cheese starter (CSL) were used along with an Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris strain from cheese starter (CSC). The four strains were grown under various culture conditions: deMan-Rogosa-Sharpe (MRS) broth containing bile salts/acids, MRS agar containing oxgall, and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) containing fish bile. Survival/growth of the strains in the presence of sodium cholate and sodium deoxycholate varied in the order MFL, CSL > CSC > FFL; in the presence of sodium taurocholate, the order was MFL > CSL > CSC > FFL. In liquid media containing various concentrations of oxgall, survival of the strains was observed in the order MFL > CSL > FFL and CSC. The survival of MFL was not affected by bile collected from the goldfish (Carassius auratus subsp. auratus) or the puffer fish (Takifugu niphobles), although the other strains showed significant inhibition of growth. It is a novel and beneficial finding that MFL has the highest resistance to bile acid.
See more in PubMed
Br J Nutr. 2007 Mar;97(3):522-7 PubMed
Toxicon. 1990;28(9):1063-9 PubMed
J Appl Bacteriol. 1989 May;66(5):365-78 PubMed
Toxicon. 2001 Feb-Mar;39(2-3):411-4 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2009 Sep;54(5):395-400 PubMed
J Bacteriol. 2000 Sep;182(18):5196-201 PubMed
J Appl Microbiol. 2009 Sep;107(3):867-74 PubMed
J Gen Microbiol. 1983 Nov;129(11):3427-31 PubMed
J Dairy Sci. 1984 Dec;67(12):3045-51 PubMed
Curr Microbiol. 1996 Feb;32(2):85-8 PubMed
Lett Appl Microbiol. 1999 Nov;29(5):313-6 PubMed
Int J Food Microbiol. 2008 Jan 15;121(1):116-21 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1981 Jun;41(6):1461-7 PubMed
Lett Appl Microbiol. 1998 Sep;27(3):183-5 PubMed
Int J Food Microbiol. 2003 Jan 26;82(1):1-11 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Jun;67(6):2430-5 PubMed
Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1991 Jul;41(3):406-9 PubMed
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2008 Dec;81(3):419-29 PubMed
FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2002 Dec 13;34(4):245-53 PubMed
J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl. 2001 Feb 10;751(1):1-8 PubMed
Comp Biochem Physiol Part D Genomics Proteomics. 2006 Mar;1(1):128-32 PubMed
