Skip to content
2000
Volume 25, Issue 5
  • ISSN: 1871-5265
  • E-ISSN: 2212-3989

Abstract

Introduction

Biosurfactants are naturally occurring compounds with various applications, biodegradable, non-toxic, and effective in different conditions. This study focuses on the extraction and evaluation of biosurfactants produced by five strains of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) for their potential to inhibit biofilm formation and adhesion by .

Methods

The strains of LAB-producing biosurfactants such as , , , , and were confirmed by the hemolysis test. The presence of biosurfactants derived from LAB strains and their molecular composition were confirmed, and their cellular toxicity, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) were investigated. Ultimately, the anti-biofilm and anti-adhesive activities of LAB-derived biosurfactants against were determined. Eventually, the effect of biosurfactants on the changes in gene expression associated with biofilm formation of was assessed.

All the LAB strains used in this study were biosurfactant producers. The LAB-derived biosurfactants exhibited no cytotoxicity towards the human gingival fibroblast (HGF) cell line. According to the results, the lowest and highest MIC values were observed in the biosurfactants derived from and at 0.78 mg/mL and 6.25 mg/mL, respectively. The MBC values for the biosurfactants derived from , , , , and were 3.12, 3.12, 6.25, 12.5, and 12.5 mg/mL, respectively. The LAB-derived biosurfactants at MBC concentrations exhibited significant inhibitory effects on biofilm formation and adhesion of (<0.05) The highest anti-biofilm and anti-adhesion activities were attributed to the biosurfactants derived from , which were not significantly different from the 0.2% chlorhexidine as a positive control group (>0.05). Moreover, all biosurfactants could significantly decrease the gene expression level of (>0.05).

Results

The study found that LAB-derived biosurfactants exhibit significant anti-adhesion and anti-biofilm activities against without any observed cellular toxicity towards HGF cells.

Conclusion

These promising bioactive compounds can be utilized as natural antimicrobial agents and biofilm inhibitors to prevent microbial biofilm formation and adhesion in various dental applications, offering a safe and effective alternative for controlling dental biofilms and improving oral health outcomes.

© 2025 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/iddt/10.2174/0118715265336536241014072854
2024-12-20
2025-11-02

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/iddt/10.2174/0118715265336536241014072854
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. GayathiriE. PrakashP. PratheepT. Bio surfactants from lactic acid bacteria: An in-depth analysis of therapeutic properties and food formulation.Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.202312510.1080/10408398.2023.2230491 37401803
     [Google Scholar]
  2. MoraisI.M.C. CordeiroA.L. TeixeiraG.S. Biological and physicochemical properties of biosurfactants produced by Lactobacillus jensenii P 6A and Lactobacillus gasseri P65.Microb. Cell Fact.201716115510.1186/s12934‑017‑0769‑7 28927409
     [Google Scholar]
  3. RonE.Z. RosenbergE. Natural roles of biosurfactants.Environ. Microbiol.20013422923610.1046/j.1462‑2920.2001.00190.x 11359508
     [Google Scholar]
  4. SinghA. Van HammeJ.D. WardO.P. Surfactants in microbiology and biotechnology: Part 2. Application aspects.Biotechnol. Adv.20072519912110.1016/j.biotechadv.2006.10.004 17156965
     [Google Scholar]
  5. SharmaD. SaharanB.S. ChauhanN. ProchaS. LalS. Isolation and functional characterization of novel biosurfactant produced by Enterococcus faecium.Springerplus201541410.1186/2193‑1801‑4‑4 25674491
     [Google Scholar]
  6. SaharanB.S. NehraV. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: A critical review.Life Sci Med Res201121130
     [Google Scholar]
  7. JoshiS. BharuchaC. JhaS. YadavS. NerurkarA. DesaiA.J. Biosurfactant production using molasses and whey under thermophilic conditions.Bioresour. Technol.200899119519910.1016/j.biortech.2006.12.010 17321739
     [Google Scholar]
  8. GhasemiA. Moosavi-NasabM. SetoodehP. MesbahiG. YousefiG. Author Correction: Biosurfactant Production by Lactic Acid Bacterium Pediococcus dextrinicus SHU1593 Grown on Different Carbon Sources: Strain Screening Followed by Product Characterization.Sci. Rep.2020101117810.1038/s41598‑020‑58139‑8 31959861
     [Google Scholar]
  9. GoŀekP. BednarskiW. BrzozowskiB. DziubaB. The obtaining and properties of biosurfactants synthesized by bacteria of the genusLactobacillus.Ann. Microbiol.200959111912610.1007/BF03175608
     [Google Scholar]
  10. SharmaD. SaharanB.S. Functional characterization of biomedical potential of biosurfactant produced by Lactobacillus helveticus.Biotechnol. Rep. (Amst.)201611273510.1016/j.btre.2016.05.001 28352537
     [Google Scholar]
  11. SambanthamoorthyK. FengX. PatelR. PatelS. ParanavitanaC. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm potential of biosurfactants isolated from lactobacilli against multi-drug-resistant pathogens.BMC Microbiol.201414119710.1186/1471‑2180‑14‑197 25124936
     [Google Scholar]
  12. FalagasM.E. MakrisG.C. Probiotic bacteria and biosurfactants for nosocomial infection control: A hypothesis.J. Hosp. Infect.200971430130610.1016/j.jhin.2008.12.008 19201053
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Mostafapour-RamiM.J. Ahmadi-AsbchinS. Isolation and identification of biosurfactant-producing strains from the genus Pseudomonas aeruginosa and antibacterial effects of biosurfactant production in vitro.Biol J Microorgan2013264158
     [Google Scholar]
  14. RodriguesL. BanatI.M. TeixeiraJ. OliveiraR. Biosurfactants: Potential applications in medicine.J. Antimicrob. Chemother.200657460961810.1093/jac/dkl024 16469849
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gudiña EJ, Rocha V, Teixeira JA, Rodrigues LR. Antimicrobial and antiadhesive properties of a biosurfactant isolated from Lactobacillus paracasei ssp. paracasei A20.Lett. Appl. Microbiol.201050441942410.1111/j.1472‑765X.2010.02818.x 20184670
     [Google Scholar]
  16. PatelM. SiddiquiA.J. HamadouW.S. Inhibition of Bacterial Adhesion and Antibiofilm Activities of a Glycolipid Biosurfactant from Lactobacillus rhamnosus with Its Physicochemical and Functional Properties.Antibiotics (Basel)20211012154610.3390/antibiotics10121546 34943758
     [Google Scholar]
  17. ElshikhM. MarchantR. BanatI.M. Biosurfactants: promising bioactive molecules for oral-related health applications.FEMS Microbiol. Lett.201636318fnw21310.1093/femsle/fnw213 27619892
     [Google Scholar]
  18. SantanaG.B. QuelemesP.V. da Silva NetaE.R. de LimaS.G. ValeG.C. Chemical Characterization and Effect of a Lactobacilli-Postbiotic on Streptococcus mutans Biofilm In vitro.Microorganisms202412584310.3390/microorganisms12050843 38792672
     [Google Scholar]
  19. GaoZ. ChenX. WangC. SongJ. XuJ. LiuX. New strategies and mechanisms for targeting Streptococcus mutans biofilm formation to prevent dental caries: A review.Microbiol. Res.202327828127526
     [Google Scholar]
  20. PhilipN. SunejaB. WalshL. Beyond Streptococcus mutans: Clinical implications of the evolving dental caries aetiological paradigms and its associated microbiome.Br. Dent. J.2018224421922510.1038/sj.bdj.2018.81 29449651
     [Google Scholar]
  21. ZhangQ. MaQ. WangY. WuH. ZouJ. Molecular mechanisms of inhibiting glucosyltransferases for biofilm formation in Streptococcus mutans.Int. J. Oral Sci.20211313010.1038/s41368‑021‑00137‑1 34588414
     [Google Scholar]
  22. MadhuA.N. PrapullaS.G. Evaluation and functional characterization of a biosurfactant produced by Lactobacillus plantarum CFR 2194.Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.201417241777178910.1007/s12010‑013‑0649‑5 24258794
     [Google Scholar]
  23. SatputeS.K. BanpurkarA.G. DhakephalkarP.K. BanatI.M. ChopadeB.A. Methods for investigating biosurfactants and bioemulsifiers: A review.Crit. Rev. Biotechnol.201030212714410.3109/07388550903427280 20210700
     [Google Scholar]
  24. PłazaG.A. ZjawionyI. BanatI.M. Use of different methods for detection of thermophilic biosurfactant-producing bacteria from hydrocarbon-contaminated and bioremediated soils.J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.2006501717710.1016/j.petrol.2005.10.005
     [Google Scholar]
  25. JoeM. GomathiR. BensonA. Simultaneous application of biosurfactant and bioaugmentation with rhamnolipid-producing shewanella for enhanced bioremediation of oil-polluted soil.Appl. Sci. (Basel)2019918377310.3390/app9183773
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; Twenty-second Informational supplement. In: CLSI document M100-S22.Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute2015
     [Google Scholar]
  27. SchmutzlerK. KupitzK. SchmidA. BuehlerK. Hyperadherence of Pseudomonas taiwanensis VLB120ΔC increases productivity of (S)‐styrene oxide formation.Microb. Biotechnol.201710473574410.1111/1751‑7915.12378 27411543
     [Google Scholar]
  28. LintzeriD.A. KarimianN. Blume-PeytaviU. KottnerJ. Epidermal thickness in healthy humans: A systematic review and meta‐analysis.J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol.20223681191120010.1111/jdv.18123 35366353
     [Google Scholar]
  29. SatputeS.K. MoneN.S. DasP. BanpurkarA.G. BanatI.M. Lactobacillus acidophilus derived biosurfactant as a biofilm inhibitor: A promising investigation using microfluidic approach.Appl. Sci. (Basel)201889155510.3390/app8091555
     [Google Scholar]
  30. ShokouhfardM. KermanshahiR.K. ShahandashtiR.V. FeizabadiM.M. TeimourianS. The inhibitory effect of a Lactobacillus acidophilus derived biosurfactant on biofilm producer Serratia marcescens.Iran. J. Basic Med. Sci.2015181010011007 26730335
     [Google Scholar]
  31. WeghC.A.M. GeerlingsS.Y. KnolJ. RoeselersG. BelzerC. Postbiotics and their potential applications in early life nutrition and beyond.Int. J. Mol. Sci.20192019467310.3390/ijms20194673 31547172
     [Google Scholar]
  32. LiangB. XingD. The current and future perspectives of postbiotics.Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins20231561626164310.1007/s12602‑023‑10045‑x 36763279
     [Google Scholar]
  33. MishraB. MishraA.K. MohantaY.K. Postbiotics: The new horizons of microbial functional bioactive compounds in food preservation and security. Food Production.Processing and Nutrition2024612810.1186/s43014‑023‑00200‑w
     [Google Scholar]
  34. CochisA. FracchiaL. MartinottiM.G. RimondiniL. Biosurfactants prevent in vitro Candida albicans biofilm formation on resins and silicon materials for prosthetic devices.Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol.2012113675576110.1016/j.oooo.2011.11.004 22668702
     [Google Scholar]
  35. RufinoR.D. LunaJ.M. SarubboL.A. RodriguesL.R.M. TeixeiraJ.A.C. Campos-TakakiG.M. Antimicrobial and anti-adhesive potential of a biosurfactant rufisan produced by candida lipolytica UCP 0988.Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces20118411510.1016/j.colsurfb.2010.10.045 21247740
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/iddt/10.2174/0118715265336536241014072854
Loading
In Vitro Anti-biofilm and Anti-adhesion Effects of Lactic Acid Bacteria Derived Biosurfactants against Streptococcus mutans
Infect. Disord. Drug Targets 25, E18715265336536 (2025); https://doi.org/10.2174/0118715265336536241014072854
/content/journals/iddt/10.2174/0118715265336536241014072854
/content/journals/iddt/10.2174/0118715265336536241014072854
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): biofilm; Biosurfactant; hydrophilic; hydrophobic; lactic acid bacteria; Streptococcus mutans

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test