PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 2, 2018Journal of Dairy Research66 citations

Screening of cell surface properties of potential probiotic lactobacilli isolated from human milk

View Full Paper
NRNamita RokanaBSBrij Pal SinghNTNishchal Thakur

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Evaluation of eleven candidate probiotic Lactobacillus strains isolated from human milk showed that some of the strains were well endowed with desirable cell surface and attachment attributes. The cell surface properties (hydrophobicity, auto-aggregation, attachment to collagen and HT-29 monolayer) of probiotic Lactobacillus species of human milk origin were compared with reference probiotic/ non-probiotic species and pathogenic strains. The bacterial adhesion to hydrocarbons (BATH) was determined using three aliphatic (Chloroform, n-Hexane and n-Octane) and two aromatic (Toluene and Xylene) solvents. Maximum affinity of Lactobacillus strains towards chloroform and toluene indicated the presence of low electron acceptor/ acidic surface components on cell surface of most of the strains. The highest value of per cent hydrophobicity was recorded with chloroform in HM1 (L. casei) (97·10 ± 3·35%) and LGG (98·92 ± 1·24%). A moderate auto-aggregation attribute was observed in all of our Lactobacillus isolates. Only HM10, HM12 and HM13 exhibited comparatively enhanced precipitation rate after 7 h of incubation period. The adhesion potential to collagen matrix was highest in LGG (26·94 ± 5·83%), followed by HM1 (11·07 ± 3·54%) and HM9 (10·85 ± 1·74%) whereas, on HT-29 cells, HM8 (14·99 ± 3·61%), HM3 (13·73 ± 1·14%) and HM1 (11·21 ± 3·18%) could adhere effectively. In this manner, we noticed that although the cell surface properties and adhesion prospective of probiotic bacteria were strain dependent, five of our isolates viz. HM1, HM3, HM8, HM9 and HM10 exhibited promising cell surface properties, which could be further targeted as indigenous probiotic.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Rokana et al. (2018) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a00f50db124fe58198626d4https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022029918000432
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Assessing the adhesion of putative indigenous probiotic lactobacilli to human colonic epithelial cells2011 · 240 citations
  2. 2Cell surface hydrophobicity of dental plaque microorganisms in situ1983 · 91 citations
  3. 3Adhesion and aggregation ability of probiotic strain Lactobacillus acidophilus M922003 · 886 citations
  4. 4Extracellular polymeric substances responsible for bacterial adhesion onto solid surface2003 · 573 citations
  5. 5An assessment of adhesion, aggregation and surface charges of Lactobacillus strains derived from the human oral cavity2015 · 76 citations