Aggregation and adhesion properties of 22 Lactobacillus strains

Abstract

In this paper, the autoaggregating, coaggregating, hydrophobicity, and adhering abilities of 22 Lactobacillus strains belonging to different species were assessed. No correlation existed between autoaggregation and adhesion of the strains belonging to different species, whereas a positive correlation existed between autoaggregation and adhesion of the strains belonging to the same species. After treating with guanidine HCl, the autoaggregating and adhering abilities of some Lactobacillus strains decreased, indicating that surface-bound proteins and other macromolecules played a role in the adhering and autoaggregating abilities. The strains Lactobacillus plantarum 20 and 66 had higher adhesion and coaggregation abilities and should be further studied for their probable probiotic properties. Aggregating, coaggregating, and adhering abilities of Lactobacillus strains could be used as the preliminary criteria for selecting strains having probiotic potential.

Evaluation of probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria isolated from traditional Malaysian fermentedBambangan(Mangifera pajang)

“…The auto-aggregation property of the probiotic candidates is important since it is related to the type and the amount of surface layer protein that contributes to the bacterial adhesion onto the intestinal cell wall; a prerequisite attribute in providing beneficial health effects to the host (Bao et al, 2010). Several studies had also demonstrated that auto-aggregation ability of LAB ceases to exist if their surface layer protein had been removed (Tareb, Bernardeau, Gueguen, & Vernoux, 2013;Tuo et al, 2013). For the surface hydrophobicity of bacteria cells, L. plantarum 0103 is most adherent (55.14%) to n-hexadecane among the selected Lactobacillus strains.…”

Chicken intestinal microbiota function with a special emphasis on the role of probiotic bacteria

“…It has been reported that bacteria demonstrating a high auto-aggregation capacity, also show good adhesion properties to the mucus. Auto-aggregation allows some probiotic strains to reach the cell mass necessary for the achievement of their functionality, and to form a barrier which mechanically prevents pathogen-mucosa contact (Tuo et al 2013). On the other hand, co-aggregation with potential pathogens allows to interact closely with undesirable bacteria.…”

“…All these attributes become useful when competing against enteric pathogens. L. salivarius, L. plantarum, L. rhamnosus and L. casei strains demonstrate auto-and co-aggregation (Garriga et al 1998, Tuo et al 2013). However, it should be noted that a strong auto-aggregation capacity is not always combined with a strong co-aggregation property.…”

“…For instance highly auto-aggregative L. rhamnosus GG, one strain of L. agilis and two strains of L. reuteri demonstrated average co-aggregative abilities with pathogenic bacteria. Interestingly, the co-aggregative bacteria are almost always auto-aggregative (Ehrmann et al 2002, Tuo et al 2013.…”

Safety and Antioxidant Properties of Five Probiotic <i>Lactobacillus plantarum</i> Strains Isolated from the Digestive Tract of Honey Bees

“…Former studies like those of Zavaglia et al [37] on the physico-chemistry of microbial have revealed that hydrophilic surfaces are related with the existence of polysaccharides at the cell surface while the occurrence of (glyco-) proteinaceous material results in the higher hydrophobicity. It has been established that bacterial cells with hydrophobicity possess a high affinity for epithelial or mucus adhesion [38]. Base on the studies of Lee and Yii [39], it was acknowledged that bacterial cell is hydrophobic when its adhesion percentage is at least 50%, hydrophile when this percentage is less than 20% and moderately hydrophobic if the rate is included between these two values.…”