Key result
Lactobacillus reuteri Protectis displayed significant dose-dependent antiviral activity against Coxsackievirus type A strains 6 and 16, and Enterovirus 71, likely by impairing viral entry.
Why the study?
Does Lactobacillus reuteri Protectis reduce Coxsackievirus A and Enterovirus 71 infection in human skeletal muscle and colon cell lines?
Does Lactobacillus reuteri Protectis reduce Coxsackievirus A and Enterovirus 71 infection in human skeletal muscle and colon cell lines?
L. reuteri Protectis demonstrates significant in vitro antiviral activity against major HFMD pathogens (CA6, CA16, EV71) by physically interacting with virus particles and impairing cell entry.
Does not support clinical use; leaves open probiotic strategies against HFMD enteroviruses.
BACKGROUND: Recurrence of hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) pandemics continues to threaten public health. Despite increasing awareness and efforts, effective vaccine and drug treatment have yet to be available. Probiotics have gained recognition in the field of healthcare worldwide, and have been extensively prescribed to babies and young children to relieve gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances and diseases, associated or not with microbial infections. Since the faecal-oral axis represents the major route of HFMD transmission, transient persistence of probiotic bacteria in the GI tract may confer some protection against HFMD and limit transmission among children. METHODS: In this work, the antiviral activity of two commercially available probiotics, namely Lactobacillus reuteri Protectis (L. reuteri Protectis) and Lactobacillus casei Shirota (L. casei Shirota), was assayed against Coxsackieviruses and Enterovirus 71 (EV71), the main agents responsible for HFMD. In vitro infection set-ups using human skeletal muscle and colon cell lines were designed to assess the antiviral effect of the probiotic bacteria during entry and post-entry steps of the infection cycle. RESULTS: Our findings indicate that L. reuteri Protectis displays a significant dose-dependent antiviral activity against Coxsackievirus type A (CA) strain 6 (CA6), CA16 and EV71, but not against Coxsackievirus type B strain 2. Our data support that the antiviral effect is likely achieved through direct physical interaction between bacteria and virus particles, which impairs virus entry into its mammalian host cell. In contrast, no significant antiviral effect was observed with L. casei Shirota. CONCLUSIONS: Should the antiviral activity of L. reuteri Protectis observed in vitro be translated in vivo, such probiotics-based therapeutic approach may have the potential to address the urgent need for a safe and effective means to protect against HFMD and limit its transmission among children.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ang et al. (2016) studied Coxsackievirus A and Enterovirus 71 infection (Hand, foot and mouth disease). Lactobacillus reuteri Protectis vs. Virus alone (positive control) or Lactobacillus casei Shirota was evaluated on Viral titer reduction (plaque-forming units per mL) (p=<0.05). Lactobacillus reuteri Protectis displayed significant dose-dependent antiviral activity against Coxsackievirus type A strains 6 and 16, and Enterovirus 71, likely by impairing viral entry.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: