Sulfites and other preservatives are considered food additives to limit bacterial contamination, and are generally regarded as safe for consumption by governmental regulatory agencies at concentrations up to 5000 parts per million (ppm). Consumption of bactericidal and bacteriostatic drugs have been shown to damage beneficial bacteria in the human gut and this damage has been associated with several diseases. In the present study, bactericidal and bacteriostatic effects of two common food preservatives, sodium bisulfite and sodium sulfite, were tested on four known beneficial bacterial species common as probiotics and members of the human gut microbiota. Lactobacillus species casei, plantarum and rhamnosus, and Streptococcus thermophilus were grown under optimal environmental conditions to achieve early log phase at start of experiments. Bacterial cultures were challenged with sulfite concentrations ranging between 10 and 3780 ppm for six hours. To establish a control, a culture of each species was inoculated into media containing no sulfite preservative. By two hours of exposure, a substantial decrease (or no increase) of cell numbers (based on OD600 readings) were observed for all bacteria types, in concentrations of sulfites between 250–500 ppm, compared to cells in sulfite free media. Further testing using serial dilution and drop plates identified bactericidal effects in concentrations ranging between 1000–3780 ppm on all the Lactobacillus species by 4 hours of exposure and bactericidal effects on S. thermophilus in 2000ppm NaHSO3 after 6 hours of exposure.
A strain of Alcaligenes paradoxus, unable to degrade phenoxyacetic acid, was shown to degrade two synthetic derivatives of this molecule, the herbicides 2,4dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid. The ability to degrade these pesticides is encoded by a 58-megadalton conjugal plasmid, pJPl.
Overview Processed foods make up about 70 percent of the North American diet. Sulfites and other food preservatives are added to these foods largely to limit bacterial contamination. The mouth microbiota and its associated enzymes are the first to encounter food and therefore likely to be the most affected. Methods Eight saliva samples from ten individuals were exposed to two sulfite preservatives, sodium sulfite and sodium bisulfite. One sample set was evaluated for bacteria composition utilizing 16s rRNA sequencing, and the number of viable cells in all sample sets was determined utilizing ATP assays at 10 and 40-minute exposure times. All untreated samples were analyzed for baseline lysozyme activity, and possible correlations between the number of viable cells and lysozyme activity. Results Sequencing indicated significant increases in alpha diversity with sodium bisulfite exposure and changes in relative abundance of 3 amplicon sequence variants (ASV). Sodium sulfite treated samples showed a significant decrease in the Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio, a marginally significant change in alpha diversity, and a significant change in the relative abundance for Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and for 6 ASVs. Beta diversity didn’t show separation between groups, however, all but one sample set was observed to be moving in the same direction under sodium sulfite treatment. ATP assays indicated a significant and consistent average decrease in activity ranging from 24–46% at both exposure times with both sulfites. Average initial rates of lysozyme activity between all individuals ranged from +/- 76% compared to individual variations of +/- 10–34%. No consistent, significant correlation was found between ATP and lysozyme activity in any sample sets. Conclusions Sulfite preservatives, at concentrations regarded as safe by the FDA, alter the relative abundance and richness of the microbiota found in saliva, and decrease the number of viable cells, within 10 minutes of exposure.
Processed foods make up about 70 percent of the American diet. Sulfites and other food preservatives are added to these foods largely to limit bacterial contamination. The mouth microbiota and its associated enzymes are the first to encounter food and therefore likely to be the most affected.Eight saliva samples from ten individuals were exposed to two sulfite preservatives, sodium sulfite and sodium bisulfite. One sample set was evaluated for bacteria composition utilizing 16s rRNA sequencing, and the number of viable cells in all sample sets was determined utilizing ATP assays at 10 and 40-minute exposure times. All untreated samples were analyzed for baseline lysozyme activity, and possible correlations between the number of viable cells and lysozyme activity.Sequencing results indicated significant increases in alpha diversity with sodium bisulfite exposure and changes in relative abundance of 3 amplicon sequence variants (ASV). Sodium sulfite treated samples showed a significant decrease in the Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio, a marginally significant change in alpha diversity, and a significant change in the relative abundance for Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and for 6 ASVs. Beta diversity didn’t show any separation between groups, however, all but one sample set was observed to be moving in the same direction under sodium sulfite treatment in a principal component analysis.ATP assays indicated a significant and consistent average decrease in activity ranging from 24 - 46% at both exposure times with both sulfites.Average initial rates of lysozyme activity between all individuals ranged from +/- 76% compared to individual variations of +/- 10 - 34%. No consistent, significant correlation was found between ATP and lysozyme activity in any sample sets.ConclusionsSulfite preservatives, at concentrations regarded as safe by the FDA, alter the relative abundance and richness of the microbiota found in saliva, and decrease the number of viable cells, within 10 minutes of exposure.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.