Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 1

The determination of antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities of foodborne lactic acid bacteria against Enterobacter cloacae isolates

Pages
59–68
Publication Date
2020-02-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings indicate that L. lactis, L. fermentum, and L. casei can potentially be developed as novel antibiofilm agents.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to investigate the antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities of 10 different lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strains isolated from local food sources of animal origin against 4 Enterobacter cloacae isolates obtained from clinical cases and determine their adhesion potentials to intestinal epithelial cells.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, all Enterobacter cloacae isolates (P3, P4, P5, P7) identified with the BD Phoenix automation system were detected to form biofilm with both Congo red agar and Microtiter plate methods.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings indicate that L. lactis, L. fermentum, and L. casei can potentially be developed as novel antibiofilm agents.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Enterobacter cloacae · antimicrobial resistance · biofilm

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities of 10 different lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strains isolated from local food sources of animal origin against 4 Enterobacter cloacae isolates obtained from clinical cases and determine their adhesion potentials to intestinal epithelial cells. In this study, all Enterobacter cloacae isolates (P3, P4, P5, P7) identified with the BD Phoenix automation system were detected to form biofilm with both Congo red agar and Microtiter plate methods. Amoxicillinclavulanate, cefuroxime, and ampicillin resistance was determined in all isolates. It was determined that LAB strains producing exopolysaccharide (EPS) were able to colonize intestinal epithelial cells. It is noteworthy that LAB extracts were effective to inhibit the biofilm formation of P3Ec, which had higher antibiotic resistance than those of other isolates. Antimicrobial effect of LAB extracts on Enterobacter cloacae were also detected by both agar disc diffusion and well diffusion tests. In this study, all of the isolated LAB strains (especially L. lactis, L. fermentum, and L. casei) are good candidates for controlling Enterobacter cloacae biofilm formation. These findings indicate that L. lactis, L. fermentum, and L. casei can potentially be developed as novel antibiofilm agents.

🔖

Cite This Article

KENAR, B., ERİK, M., ERDOĞMUŞ, S. F., KÖSE, Z., DURMAZ, G. (2020). The determination of antimicrobial and antibiofilm activities of foodborne lactic acid bacteria against Enterobacter cloacae isolates. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 1, 59–68. https://ajindex.com/articles/117144

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Cramton SE, Gerke C, Schnell NF, Nichols WW, Gotz F. The intercellular adhesion [ica] locus is present in Staphylococcus aureus and is required for biofilm formation. Infection and Immunity 1999; 67: 5427-33
  2. Roy R, Tiwaria M, Donellib G, Tiwari V. Strategies for combating bacterial biofilms: a focus on anti-biofilm agents and their mechanisms of action. Virulence 2018; 9 (1): 522- 554
  3. Rasmussen TB, Givskov M. Quorum sensing inhibitors: a bargain of effects. Microbiology 2006; 152 (4): 895-904
  4. Soares GG, Costa JF, Melo Flávia BS, Mola R, Balbino TCL. Biofilm production and resistance profile of Enterobacter spp. strains isolated from pressure ulcers in Petrolina, Pernambuco, Brazil. Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial 2016; 52 (5): 293-298
  5. Sarowska J, Choroszy-Król I, Regulska-Ilow B, Frej-Madrzak M, Jama-Kmiecik A. The therapeutic effect of probiotic bacteria on gastrointestinal diseases. Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine 2013; 22 (5): 759-766
  6. Stewart PS, Costerton JW. Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms. Lancet 2001; 358 (9276): 135-138
  7. Cui X, Shi Y, Gu S, Yan X, Chen H et al. Antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of lactic acid bacteria isolated from traditional artisanal milk cheese from northeast China against enteropathogenic bacteria. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins 2018; 10 (4): 601-610
  8. De Roock S, Van Elk M, Van Dijk ME, Timmerman HM, Rijkers GT et al. Lactic acid bacteria differ in their ability to induce functional regulatory T cells in humans. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 2010; 40 (1): 103-110
  9. Corthésy B, Gaskins HR, Mercenier A. Cross-talk between probiotic bacteria and the host immune system. Journal of Nutrition 2007; 137 (3): 781-790
  10. Servin AL. Antagonistic activities of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria against microbial pathogens. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 2004; 28 (4): 405-440
  11. Freeman DJ, Falkiner FR, Keane CT. New method for detecting slime production by coagulase negative staphylococci. Journal of Clinic Pathology 1989; 42: 872-874
  12. Jain A, Agarwal A. Biofilm production, a marker of pathogenic potential of colonizing and commensal staphylococci. Journal of Microbiological Methods 2009; 76: 88-92
  13. Şahin R. Staphylococcus aureus suşlarında biyofilm üretimi, biyofilm pozitif ve negatif suşların genotipik ve fenotipik karakterlerinin karşılaştırılması. Thesis, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey, 2007 (in Turkish)
  14. Sandberg M, Maat