Sains Malaysiana 40(10)(2011): 1115–1122

Screening of Lactobacillus Strains Against Salmonella Both Isolated from Malaysian Free-Range Chicken Intestine for Use as Probiotic

(Penyaringan Strain Lactobacillus Melawan Salmonella yang Kedua-duanya Dipencilkan daripada

Usus Ayam Kampung Malaysia untuk Kegunaan Sebagai Probiotik)

Andri Hutari, Waleed Shaker Jaseem, AidiL Abdul Hamid & Wan Mohtar Wan Yusoff*

Department of Microbiology, School of Biosciences and Biotechnology

Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

43600 Bangi, Selangor D.E. Malaysia

Received: 15 July 2010/Accepted: 10 November 2010

ABSTRACT

A total of eight strains of Lactobacillus and two strains of Salmonella were isolated from free-range Malaysian chickens intestine. Evaluation based on in vitro studies included aggregation, co-aggregation, growth with bile salts, tolerance to acidic pH, and inhibitory activity were carried out. The isolated Lactobacillus were Lactobacillus fermentum IA, Lactobacillus fermentum IB, Lactobacillus fermentum IC, Lactobacillus fermentum ID, Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salicinus IE, Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salicinus IF, Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salivarius IG, and Lactobacillus spp. IH. The corresponding isolated Salmonella were Salmonella spp. 3B21 and Salmonella spp. 1A12. The ability of aggregation and also tolerance to pH 2.5 are found in Lactobacillus fermentum ID, Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salicinus IF, Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salivarius IG, and Lactobacillus spp. IH. The isolate most resistance to 1% bile salts is Lactobacillus fermentum ID but observed to be weak in inhibitory activity against Salmonella spp. The best co-aggregation and strongest inhibitory activity against Salmonella spp. was observed in Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salivarius IG. Despite being not so resistant in the presence of bile salts 0.5 and 1% (w/v), the lag time in the presence of bile salts 0.3% (w/v) of Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salivarius IG and also for Lactobacillus spp. IH are the shortest. Based on good aggregation properties, the best co-aggregation, tolerance to acidic pH 2.5 and bile salts 0.3% (w/v) and strongest inhibitory activity against Salmonella spp., Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salivarius IG comes out as the best candidate as probiotic for chicken.

Keywords: Inhibitory activity; Lactobacillus; Malaysian free-range chicken; Salmonella

ABSTRAK

Sebanyak lapan strain Lactobacillus dan dua strain Salmonella dipencilkan daripada usus ayam kampung Malaysia. Penilaian berdasarkan kajian in vitro seperti ujian agregasi, koagregasi, kerintangan terhadap garam hempedu, kerintangan terhadap pH asid, dan ujian aktiviti perencatan telah dilakukan. Pencilan Lactobacillus tersebut ialah Lactobacillus fermentum IA, Lactobacillus fermentum IB, Lactobacillus fermentum IC, Lactobacillus fermentum ID, Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salicinus IE, Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salicinus IF, Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salivarius IG, dan Lactobacillus spp. IH. Sedangkan pencilan salmonella yang didapatkan ialah Salmonella spp. 3B21 and Salmonella spp. 1A12. Kemampuan agregasi dan juga ketahanan terhadap pH 2.5 dijumpai pada Lactobacillus fermentum ID, Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salicinus IF, Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salivarius IG, dan Lactobacillus spp. IH. Pencilan yang paling tahan terhadap garam hempedu 1% ialah Lactobacillus fermentum ID, tetapi Lactobacillus tersebut menunjukkan aktiviti perencatan yang lemah terhadap Salmonella spp. Koagregasi terbaik dan aktiviti perencatan yang paling kuat terhadap Salmonella spp. dijumpai pada Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salivarius IG. Meskipun tidak begitu tahan di dalam kehadiran garam hempedu 0.5 dan 1% (w/v), masa lag Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salivarius IG dan juga Lactobacillus spp. IH di dalam kehadiran garam hempedu 0.3% (w/v) adalah yang paling singkat. Berdasarkan ciri-ciri agregasi yang baik, koagregasi yang terbaik, kerintangan terhadap pH 2.5 dan garam hempedu 0.3% (w/v), serta aktiviti perencatan yang paling kuat terhadap Salmonella spp., Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salivarius IG keluar sebagai calon terbaik probiotik ayam.

Kata kunci: Aktiviti perencatan; ayam kampung Malaysia; Lactobacillus; Salmonella

REFERENCES

Buchanan, R.E. & Gibson, N.E. 1974. Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology (8th ed.) Baltimore:  William & Wilkins Company. p. 1246.

Dalloul, R.A., Lillehoj, H.S., Tamim, N.M., Shellem, T.A. & Doerr, J.A. 2005. Induction of local protective immunity to Eimeria acervulina by a Lactobacillus-based probiotic. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 28: 351-361

Du Toit, M., Franz, C., Schillinger, U., Warles, B. & Holzappfel, A. 1998. Characterization and selection of probiotic lactobacilli for a preliminary minipig-feeding trail and their effect on serum cholesterol level, faeces pH and faeces moiture contents. Int. Food Microbiol. 40: 93-104.

Ehrmann, M.A., Kurzak, P., Bauer, J. & Vogel, R.F. 2002. Characterization of lactobacilli towards their use as probiotic adjuncts in poultry. Journal of Applied Microbiology 92: 966-975.

Ferket, P.R., Parks, C.W. & Grimes, J.L. 2002. Benefits of dietary antibiotic and mannanoligosaccharide supplementation for poultry. In: Multi-State Poultry Meeting, May 14-16, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Fuller, R. 1989. Probiotics in man and animals. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 66: 365-378.

Fuller, R. 1999. Probiotics for farm animals. In: Tannock, G.W. (ed.). Probiotics: A Critical Review. Wymondham, England, Horizon Scientific Press, pp. 15-22.

Gariga, M., Pascual, M., Monfort, J.M. & Hugas, M. 1998. Selection of lactobacilli for chicken probiotic adjuncts. Journal of Applied Microbiology 84:125-132.

Gusils, C., Chaia, A.P., Gonzales, S. & Oliver, G. 1999. Lactobacilli isolated from chicken intestines: Potential use as probiotics. J. Food. Protect. 2(3): 252-256.

Hammes, W.P. & Hertel, C. 2006. The Genera Lactobacillus and Carnobacterium. Prokaryotes 4: 320-403

Handley, P.S., Harty, D.W.S., Wyatt, J.E., Brown, C.R., Doran, J.P. & Gibbs, A.C.C. 1987. A comparison of the adhesion, coaggregation and cell-surface hydrophobicity properties of fibrillar and fimbriate strains of Streptococcus salivarius. Journal of General Microbiology 133: 3207-3217.

Havenaar, R., Ten Brink, B. & In‘T veld, J.H.J.H. 1992. Selection of strains for probiotic use. In: Fuller, R. (ed.).  Probiotics: A Scientific Basis. London, Chapman & Hall, pp. 209-221.

Hose, H. & T. Sozzi. 1991. Biotechnology group meeting: probiotics – fact or fiction? J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 36: 379-383.

Huis in’t Veld, J.H.J., Havenaar, R. & Marteau, P. 1994. Establishing a scientific basis for probiotic R&D. Trends Biotechnol. 12: 6-8.

Jacobsen, C.N., Nielsen, V.R., Hayford, A.E., Moller, P.L., Michaelsen, K.F., Paerregaard, A., Standstrom, B., Tvede, M. & Jacobsen, M. 1999. Screening of probiotic activities of forty-seven strains of Lactobacillus spp. by in vitro techniques and evaluation of the colonization ability of five selected strains in human. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65: 4949-4956.

Jankovic, I., Ventura, M., Meylan, V., Rouvet, M., Elli, M. & Zink, R. 2003. Contribition of aggregation-promoting factor to maintenance of cell shape in Lactobacillus gasseri 4B2. J. Bacteriol. 185(11): 3288-3296.

Jin, L.Z., Ho,Y.W., Abdullah, N., Ali, M.A. & Jalaludin, S. 1996. Antagonistic effect of intestinal Lactobacillus isolates on pathogens of chicken. Letters in Applied Microbiology 23: 67-71.

Juven, B.J., Schved, F. & Lindner, P. 1992. Antagonistic compounds produced by a chicken intestinal strain of Lactobacillus acidophilus. J. Food Protect. 55: 157-161.

Lan, P.T.N., Binh, L.T. & Benno, Y. 2003. Impact of two probiotic lactobacillus strains feeding on fecal lactobacilli and weight gains in chicken. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 49: 29-36.

Langhendries, J.P., Detry, J., Van Hees, J., Lamboray, J.M., Darimont, J., Mozin, J., Screatin, M.C. & Sentere, J. 1995. Effect of a fermented infant formular containing viable bifidobacteria on the faecal flora composition and pH of healthy full-term infants. J. Pediatric Gastroenterol. Nutr. 21: 177-181.

Makras, L., Triantafyllou, V., Fayol-Messaoudi, D., Adriany, T., Zoumpopoulou, G., Tsakalidou, E., Servin, A. & De Vuyst, L. 2006. Kinetic analysis of the antibacterial activity of probiotic lactobacilli towards Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium reveals a role for lactic acid and other inhibitory compounds. Research in Microbiology 157: 241-247.

Nowroozi, J., Mirzaii, M., Norouzi, M. 2004. Study of Lactobacillus as Probiotic Bacteria. Iranian J. Publ. Health 33(2): 1-7.

Pascual, M., Hugas, M., Badiola, J.I., Monfort, J.M. & Garriga, M. 1999. Lactobacillus salvarius CTC2197 prevents Salmonella enteriditis colonization in chicken. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65: 4981-4986.

Plummer, R.A.S., Blissett, S.J. & Dood, C.E.R. 1995. Salmonella contamination of retail chickens products sold in the UK. Journal of Food Protection 58(8): 843-846.

Reid, G. & Friendship, R. 2002. Alternatives to antibiotic use: Probiotics for the gut. Anim. Biotechnol 13: 92-97.

Reniero, R., Cocconcelli, P., Bottazzi, V. & Morelli, L. 1992. High frequency of conjugation in Lactobacillus mediated by an aggregation-promoting factor. J. Gen. Microbiol. 138: 763-768.

Schneeman, B.O. 2002. Gastrointestinal physiology and functions. Br. J. Nutr. 88(Suppl.2): S159-163.

Schillinger, U. & Lucke, F. 1989. Antibacterial activity of Lactobacillus sake isolated from meat. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 55(8): 1901-1906.

Stern N.J., Cox, N.A., Bailey, J.S., Berrang, M.E. & Musgrove, M.T. 2001. Comparison of mucosal competitive exclusion and competitive exclusion treatment to reduce Salmonella and Campylobacter spp. colonization in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 80: 156-60.

Walter, J. 2005. The microecology of Lactobacilli in the gastrointestinal tract. In: Tannock, G.W. (ed.). Probiotics & prebiotics : Scientific aspects. Wymondham, England, Caister: Academic Press. pp. 51-82.

*Corresponding author; email: wantar@ukm.my