Binding of Aflatoxin B1 to Lactic Acid Bacteria and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in vitro: A Useful Model to Determine the Most Efficient Microorganism

In vitroaflatoxin B1binding capacity by twoEnterococcus faeciumstrains isolated from healthy dog faeces

“…The cell wall peptidoglycans and polysaccharides have been proposed to be responsible for mycotoxin binding by bacteria (Haskard et al 2001;Lahtinen et al 2004). In several previous studies, it has been reported that heat treated bacteria were more effective in removing AFB 1 than viable cells (Shetty and Jespersen 2006;; the results obtained in the present work are similar to another studies reporting that no significant differences were found in the removal of the toxin by viable and nonviable cells (El-Nezami et al 1998;Haskard et al 2001;Pizzolito et al 2011). Therefore, the fact that nonviable and viable micro-organisms are able to remove AFB 1 in vitro conditions with similar efficiency suggests that the removal process does not require metabolic conversion of the toxin by cells and it could be dependent on the strain.…”

“…About the effect of incubation time, Peltonen et al (2001) reported that the removal of AFB 1 was a fast process and the AFB 1 binding by Lactobacillus amylovorus CSCC 5197 increased from 52 (0 h) to 68% (48 h). In another study, it was observed that at cero hour the percentage of removed AFB 1 was not significantly different from the one at 72 h (Pizzolito et al 2011). On the other hand, reported that at 1 h, Ent.…”

“…Hernandez- Mendoza et al (2009) reported that using PBS solution, about 60-70% of AFB 1 remained bound to the cells, suggesting that the toxin is attached to the bacteria by weak, no covalent interactions that could be at least partially reversible. Pizzolito et al (2011) reported that after five washings with PBS, AFB 1 bound to different LAB cells were close to 50%, and the washing time did not change the release percentages when it varied from 1 to 60 min. Similarly, the results obtained in the present work showed that the toxin remained in the bacterial cells in a high percentage (35-50%) after three washes with PBS solution.…”

“…in aqueous medium did not affect the percentage of AFB 1 binding; however, it affects the binding speed. In addition, Pizzolito et al (2011), in a binding assay with yeast and LAB using different AFB 1 concentrations, reported that the removal of the toxin depended of the strain; some were more effective at a lower concentration (Lact. rhamnosus I at 50 ppb) and some others were more effective at a higher concentration (Lactobacillus acidophilus 24 at 100 ppb and Lactobacillus casei subsp.…”

Probiotic characteristics and aflatoxin B1binding ability ofDebaryomyces hanseniiandKazaschtania exiguafrom rainbow trout environment

“…In the present work nearly half of the strains isolated from trout intestine were able to co-aggregate at least with one bacterial pathogen. Pizzolitto et al (2011) showed that the capacity of yeasts to bind to a microorganism varied according to the yeast strain and the microorganism involved. The co-aggregation ability of a probiotic strain can enhance the formation of a barrier that may prevent the colonization of the intestine by pathogenic bacteria (Collado, Meriluuoto, & Salminen, 2007;Jankovic et al, 2012;Kos et al, 2003).…”