Skip to content
2000
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2666-6499
  • E-ISSN: 2666-6502

Abstract

Introduction

A challenge in choosing probiotic strains is to identify, in each one, specific positive health effects to offer a tailored product. An important health claim of probiotics is the competitive exclusion of pathogens and the consequent prevention and treatment of diarrhea.

Objective

The aim of the study was to evaluate the ability of lactobacilli strains to adhere to intestinal epithelial Caco-2 cells and to inhibit adhesion and .

Methods

The ability to inhibit biofilms by four strains of , three strains of , two strains of , and a commercial strain of , was evaluated on hydrophobic polystyrene surfaces and using Caco-2 cells.

Results and Discussion

All strains showed a high adhesion capacity to Caco-2 cells, with no significant difference between isolated strains and the commercial probiotic strain. In polystyrene surfaces, inhibition of biofilms by lactobacilli through the competition and exclusion mechanisms was significantly more effective when compared to displacement. However, in Caco-2 cells, the isolates were more effective in inhibiting biofilms.

Conclusion

It is concluded that hydrophobicity was not a good indicator of adhesion capability. Although all lactobacilli strains have low cell surface hydrophobicity, they showed high adhesion capacity in Caco-2 cells. The most promising strain, DTA 73, was able to inhibit adhesion in Caco-2 cells by competition, exclusion and displacement with the same efficiency, suggesting that it could be effective not only in preventing but also in treating diarrhea.

© 2025 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/probiot/10.2174/0126666499351834250212051634
2025-02-17
2025-09-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/probiot/10.2174/0126666499351834250212051634
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ChaudharyP.P. KaurM. MylesI.A. Does “all disease begin in the gut”? The gut-organ cross talk in the microbiome.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.2024108133910.1007/s00253‑024‑13180‑938771520
     [Google Scholar]
  2. HouK. WuZ.X. ChenX.Y. Microbiota in health and diseases.Signal Transduct. Target. Ther.20227113510.1038/s41392‑022‑00974‑435461318
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Di VincenzoF. Del GaudioA. PetitoV. LopetusoL.R. ScaldaferriF. Gut microbiota, intestinal permeability, and systemic inflammation: A narrative review.Intern. Emerg. Med.202419227529310.1007/s11739‑023‑03374‑w37505311
     [Google Scholar]
  4. JavanshirN. HosseiniG.N.G. SadeghiM. Evaluation of the function of probiotics, emphasizing the role of their binding to the intestinal epithelium in the stability and their effects on the immune system.Biol. Proced. Online20212312310.1186/s12575‑021‑00160‑w34847891
     [Google Scholar]
  5. MafteiN.M. RaileanuC.R. BaltaA.A. The potential impact of probiotics on human health: An update on their health-promoting properties.Microorganisms202412223410.3390/microorganisms1202023438399637
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Probiotics in food. Health and nutritional properties and guidelines for evaluation2002Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/382476b3-4d54-4175-803f-2f26f3526256/content
  7. García-SantosJ.A. Nieto-RuizA. García-RicobarazaM. CerdóT. CampoyC. Impact of probiotics on the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases in the pediatric population.Int. J. Mol. Sci.20232411942710.3390/ijms2411942737298377
     [Google Scholar]
  8. SkoufouM. TsigalouC. VradelisS. BezirtzoglouE. The networked interaction between probiotics and intestine in health and disease: A promising success story.Microorganisms202412119410.3390/microorganisms1201019438258020
     [Google Scholar]
  9. SinghS. DattaS. NarayananK.B. RajnishK.N. Bacterial exo-polysaccharides in biofilms: Role in antimicrobial resistance and treatments.J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol.202119114010.1186/s43141‑021‑00242‑y34557983
     [Google Scholar]
  10. DasT.K. PradhanS. ChakrabartiS. MondalK.C. GhoshK. Current status of probiotic and related health benefits.Applied Food Research20222210018510.1016/j.afres.2022.100185
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gieryska M, Szulc-D browska L, Struzik J, Mielcarska MB, Gregorczyk-Zboroch KP. Integrity of the intestinal barrier: The involvement of epithelial cells and microbiota—A mutual relationship.Animals 202212214510.3390/ani1202014535049768
     [Google Scholar]
  12. SchärenO.P. HapfelmeierS. Robust microbe immune recognition in the intestinal mucosa.Genes Immun.2021225-626827510.1038/s41435‑021‑00131‑x33958733
     [Google Scholar]
  13. AlemanR.S. YadavA. Systematic review of probiotics and their potential for developing functional nondairy foods.Appl. Microbiol.202341476910.3390/applmicrobiol4010004
     [Google Scholar]
  14. IcerMA ÖzbayS AğagündüzD The impacts of acidophilic lactic acid bacteria on food and human health: A review of the current knowledge.Foods20231215296510.3390/foods1215296537569234
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Abdul HakimB.N. XuanN.J. OslanS.N.H. A comprehensive review of bioactive compounds from lactic acid bacteria: Potential functions as functional food in dietetics and the food industry.Foods20231215285010.3390/foods1215285037569118
     [Google Scholar]
  16. HossainM.I. MizanM.F.R. AshrafudoullaM. Inhibitory effects of probiotic potential lactic acid bacteria isolated from kimchi against Listeria monocytogenes biofilm on lettuce, stainless-steel surfaces, and MBEC™ biofilm device.Lebensm. Wiss. Technol.202011810886410.1016/j.lwt.2019.108864
     [Google Scholar]
  17. ZhengJ. WittouckS. SalvettiE. A taxonomic note on the genus Lactobacillus: Description of 23 novel genera, emended description of the genus Lactobacillus Beijerinck 1901, and union of Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.20207042782285810.1099/ijsem.0.00410732293557
     [Google Scholar]
  18. GuerraA.F. LemosWJFJunior SantosG.O. Lactobacillus paracasei probiotic properties and survivability under stress-induced by processing and storage of ice cream bar or ice-lolly.Cienc. Rural201848910.1590/0103‑8478cr20170601
     [Google Scholar]
  19. TarrahA. da Silva DuarteV. de CastilhosJ. Probiotic potential and biofilm inhibitory activity of Lactobacillus casei group strains isolated from infant feces.J. Funct. Foods20195448949710.1016/j.jff.2019.02.004
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Alizadeh BehbahaniB. NoshadM. FalahF. Inhibition of Escherichia coli adhesion to human intestinal Caco-2 cells by probiotic candidate Lactobacillus plantarum strain L15.Microb. Pathog.201913610367710.1016/j.micpath.2019.10367731437574
     [Google Scholar]
  21. VasieeA. MortazaviS.A. SankianM. YazdiF.T. MahmoudiM. ShahidiF. Antagonistic activity of recombinant Lactococcus lactis NZ1330 on the adhesion properties of Escherichia coli causing urinary tract infection.Microb. Pathog.201913310354710.1016/j.micpath.2019.10354731112774
     [Google Scholar]
  22. WooJ. AhnJ. Probiotic-mediated competition, exclusion and displacement in biofilm formation by food-borne pathogens.Lett. Appl. Microbiol.201356430731310.1111/lam.1205123362863
     [Google Scholar]
  23. García-RuizA. González de LlanoD. Esteban-FernándezA. RequenaT. BartoloméB. Moreno-ArribasM.V. Assessment of probiotic properties in lactic acid bacteria isolated from wine.Food Microbiol.20144422022510.1016/j.fm.2014.06.01525084666
     [Google Scholar]
  24. DeviS.M. KurreyN.K. HalamiP.M. In vitro anti-inflammatory activity among probiotic Lactobacillus species isolated from fermented foods.J. Funct. Foods201847192710.1016/j.jff.2018.05.036
     [Google Scholar]
  25. ShindeT. VemuriR. ShastriM.D. Probiotic Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856 spores exhibit excellent in-vitro functional efficacy in simulated gastric survival, mucosal adhesion and immunomodulation.J. Funct. Foods20195210010810.1016/j.jff.2018.10.031
     [Google Scholar]
  26. BuX.D. LiN. TianX.Q. HuangP.L. Caco-2 and LS174T cell lines provide different models for studying mucin expression in colon cancer.Tissue Cell201143320120610.1016/j.tice.2011.03.00221470648
     [Google Scholar]
  27. TodorovS.D. BotesM. GuigasC. Boza, a natural source of probiotic lactic acid bacteria.J. Appl. Microbiol.2008104246547710.1111/j.1365‑2672.2007.03558.x17922827
     [Google Scholar]
  28. MohantyD. PandaS. KumarS. RayP. In vitro evaluation of adherence and anti-infective property of probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum DM 69 against Salmonella enterica.Microb. Pathog.201912621221710.1016/j.micpath.2018.11.01430423346
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Polak-BereckaM. Wako A, Paduch R, Skrzypek T, Sroka-Bartnicka A. The effect of cell surface components on adhesion ability of Lactobacillus rhamnosus.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek2014106475176210.1007/s10482‑014‑0245‑x25090959
     [Google Scholar]
  30. RinkinenM. WestermarckE. SalminenS. OuwehandA.C. Absence of host specificity for in vitro adhesion of probiotic lactic acid bacteria to intestinal mucus.Vet. Microbiol.2003971-2556110.1016/S0378‑1135(03)00183‑414637038
     [Google Scholar]
  31. GagnonM. Zihler BernerA. ChervetN. ChassardC. LacroixC. Comparison of the Caco-2, HT-29 and the mucus-secreting HT29-MTX intestinal cell models to investigate Salmonella adhesion and invasion.J. Microbiol. Methods201394327427910.1016/j.mimet.2013.06.02723835135
     [Google Scholar]
  32. GandhiA. ShahN.P. Effect of salt stress on morphology and membrane composition of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, and Bifidobacterium bifidum, and their adhesion to human intestinal epithelial-like Caco-2 cells.J. Dairy Sci.20169942594260510.3168/jds.2015‑1071826874411
     [Google Scholar]
  33. RamiahK. van ReenenC.A. DicksL.M.T. Surface-bound proteins of Lactobacillus plantarum 423 that contribute to adhesion of Caco-2 cells and their role in competitive exclusion and displacement of Clostridium sporogenes and Enterococcus faecalis.Res. Microbiol.2008159647047510.1016/j.resmic.2008.06.00218619532
     [Google Scholar]
  34. KoniecznaC. Słodziński M, Schmidt MT. Exopolysaccharides produced by Lactobacillus rhamnosus KL 53A and Lactobacillus casei fyos affect their adhesion to enterocytes.Pol. J. Microbiol.201867327328110.21307/pjm‑2018‑03230451443
     [Google Scholar]
  35. SarikayaH. AslimB. YuksekdagZ. Assessment of anti-biofilm activity and bifidogenic growth stimulator (BGS) effect of lyophilized exopolysaccharides (l-EPSs) from Lactobacilli strains.Int. J. Food Prop.201720236237110.1080/10942912.2016.1160923
     [Google Scholar]
  36. YangY. KongX. NiuB. YangJ. ChenQ. Differences in biofilm formation of Listeria monocytogenes and their effects on virulence and drug resistance of different strains.Foods2024137107610.3390/foods1307107638611380
     [Google Scholar]
  37. OleksyM. KlewickaE. Exopolysaccharides produced by Lactobacillus sp.: Biosynthesis and applications.Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.201658311310.1080/10408398.2016.118711227246190
     [Google Scholar]
  38. WuM.H. PanT.M. WuY.J. ChangS.J. ChangM.S. HuC.Y. Exopolysaccharide activities from probiotic Bifidobacterium: Immunomodulatory effects (on J774A.1 macrophages) and antimicrobial properties.Int. J. Food Microbiol.2010144110411010.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.09.00320884069
     [Google Scholar]
  39. NampoothiriK.M. BeenaD.J. VasanthakumariD.S. IsmailB. Health benefits of exopolysaccharides in fermented foods. In: Frias JFermented Foods in Health and Disease Prevention. FriasJ. Martinez-VillaluengaC. PeñasE. BostonAcademic Press2017496210.1016/B978‑0‑12‑802309‑9.00003‑0
     [Google Scholar]
  40. FaghfooriZ. Pourghassem GargariB. Saber GharamalekiA. BagherpourH. Yari KhosroushahiA. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of probiotics effects on colorectal cancer.J. Funct. Foods20151846347210.1016/j.jff.2015.08.013
     [Google Scholar]
  41. ZhangW. WangH. LiuJ. ZhaoY. GaoK. ZhangJ. Adhesive ability means inhibition activities for Lactobacillus against pathogens and S-layer protein plays an important role in adhesion.Anaerobe2013229710310.1016/j.anaerobe.2013.06.00523792230
     [Google Scholar]
  42. ChenX. XuJ. ShuaiJ. ChenJ. ZhangZ. FangW. The S-layer proteins of Lactobacillus crispatus strain ZJ001 is responsible for competitive exclusion against Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella typhimurium.Int. J. Food Microbiol.2007115330731210.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.11.00717289201
     [Google Scholar]
  43. HardyH. HarrisJ. LyonE. BealJ. FoeyA. Probiotics, prebiotics and immunomodulation of gut mucosal defences: homeostasis and immunopathology.Nutrients2013561869191210.3390/nu506186923760057
     [Google Scholar]
  44. CaseyP.G. GardinerG.E. CaseyG. A five-strain probiotic combination reduces pathogen shedding and alleviates disease signs in pigs challenged with Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.20077361858186310.1128/AEM.01840‑0617261517
     [Google Scholar]
  45. TuoY. SongX. SongY. Screening probiotics from Lactobacillus strains according to their abilities to inhibit pathogen adhesion and induction of pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-8.J. Dairy Sci.201810164822482910.3168/jds.2017‑1365429550135
     [Google Scholar]
  46. WangB. LiJ. ChenJ. HuangQ. LiN. LiJ. Effect of live Lactobacillus plantarum L2 on TNF induced MCP-1 production in Caco-2 cells.Int. J. Food Microbiol.20101421-223724110.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.05.02420576301
     [Google Scholar]
  47. AbramovV.M. KosarevI.V. PriputnevichT.V. S-layer protein 2 of Lactobacillus crispatus 2029, its structural and immunomodulatory characteristics and roles in protective potential of the whole bacteria against foodborne pathogens.Int. J. Biol. Macromol.202015040041210.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.02.06532045605
     [Google Scholar]
  48. ZhangZ. TaoX. ShahN.P. WeiH. Antagonistics against pathogenic Bacillus cereus in milk fermentation by Lactobacillus plantarum ZDY2013 and its anti-adhesion effect on Caco-2 cells against pathogens.J. Dairy Sci.20169942666267410.3168/jds.2015‑1058726830743
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/probiot/10.2174/0126666499351834250212051634
Loading
Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus DTA 73 Exhibits Superior Anti-adhesion Activity against Salmonella typhimurium DTA 41 in Caco-2 cells
Curr. Probiotics 2, E26666499351834 (2025); https://doi.org/10.2174/0126666499351834250212051634
/content/journals/probiot/10.2174/0126666499351834250212051634
/content/journals/probiot/10.2174/0126666499351834250212051634
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): biofilm inhibition; CaCo-2 cells; in situ; in vitro; Lactobacilli; probiotic

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