Next Article in Journal
The Association of Procalcitonin and C-Reactive Protein with Bacterial Infections Acquired during Intensive Care Unit Stay in COVID-19 Critically Ill Patients
Previous Article in Journal
Aerosol Inhalation Delivery of Ag Nanoparticles in Mice: Pharmacokinetics and Antibacterial Action
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ligilactobacillus salivarius 7247 Strain: Probiotic Properties and Anti-Salmonella Effect with Prebiotics

by
Vyacheslav M. Abramov
1,2,*,
Igor V. Kosarev
1,2,
Andrey V. Machulin
3,
Evgenia I. Deryusheva
4,
Tatiana V. Priputnevich
2,
Alexander N. Panin
1,
Irina O. Chikileva
5,
Tatiana N. Abashina
3,
Ashot M. Manoyan
1,
Anna A. Ahmetzyanova
1,
Olga E. Ivanova
1,
Tigran T. Papazyan
6,
Ilia N. Nikonov
7,
Nataliya E. Suzina
3,
Vyacheslav G. Melnikov
8,
Valentin S. Khlebnikov
9,
Vadim K. Sakulin
9,
Vladimir A. Samoilenko
3,
Alexey B. Gordeev
2,
Gennady T. Sukhikh
2 and
Vladimir N. Uversky
10
add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
1
Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhoznadzor) Federal State Budgetary Institution “The Russian State Center for Animal Feed and Drug Standardization and Quality” (FGBU VGNKI), 123022 Moscow, Russia
2
Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health, 117997 Moscow, Russia
3
Skryabin Institute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Microorganisms, Federal Research Center “Pushchino Scientific Center for Biological Research of Russian Academy of Science”, Russian Academy of Science, 142290 Pushchino, Russia
4
Institute for Biological Instrumentation, Federal Research Center “Pushchino Scientific Center for Biological Research of Russian Academy of Science”, Russian Academy of Science, 142290 Pushchino, Russia
5
Laboratory of Cell Immunity, Blokhin National Research Center of Oncology, Ministry of Health RF, 115478 Moscow, Russia
6
Alltech Company, 105062 Moscow, Russia
7
Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education Moscow State Academy of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnology Named after K.I. Skryabin, 109472 Moscow, Russia
8
Gabrichevsky Research Institute for Epidemiology and Microbiology, 125212 Moscow, Russia
9
Institute of Immunological Engineering, 142380 Lyubuchany, Russia
10
Department of Molecular Medicine, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33612, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2023, 12(10), 1535; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12101535
Submission received: 12 September 2023 / Revised: 28 September 2023 / Accepted: 2 October 2023 / Published: 12 October 2023

Abstract

:
The Ligilactobacillus salivarius 7247 (LS7247) strain, originally isolated from a healthy woman’s intestines and reproductive system, has been studied for its probiotic potential, particularly against Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) and Salmonella Typhimurium (ST) as well as its potential use in synbiotics. LS7247 showed high tolerance to gastric and intestinal stress and effectively adhered to human and animal enterocyte monolayers, essential for realizing its probiotic properties. LS7247 showed high anti-Salmonella activity. Additionally, the cell-free culture supernatant (CFS) of LS7247 exhibited anti-Salmonella activity, with a partial reduction upon neutralization with NaOH (p < 0.05), suggesting the presence of anti-Salmonella factors such as lactic acid (LA) and bacteriocins. LS7247 produced a high concentration of LA, reaching 124.0 ± 2.5 mM after 48 h of cultivation. Unique gene clusters in the genome of LS7247 contribute to the production of Enterolysin A and metalloendopeptidase. Notably, LS7247 carries a plasmid with a gene cluster identical to human intestinal strain L. salivarius UCC118, responsible for class IIb bacteriocin synthesis, and a gene cluster identical to porcine strain L. salivarius P1ACE3, responsible for nisin S synthesis. Co-cultivation of LS7247 with SE and ST pathogens reduced their viability by 1.0–1.5 log, attributed to cell wall damage and ATP leakage caused by the CFS. For the first time, the CFS of LS7247 has been shown to inhibit adhesion of SE and ST to human and animal enterocytes (p < 0.01). The combination of Actigen prebiotic and the CFS of LS7247 demonstrated a significant combined effect in inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST to human and animal enterocytes (p < 0.001). These findings highlight the potential of using the LS7247 as a preventive strategy and employing probiotics and synbiotics to combat the prevalence of salmonellosis in animals and humans caused by multidrug resistant (MDR) strains of SE and ST pathogens.

1. Introduction

Salmonella is a Gram-negative, facultative anaerobic, intracellular pathogen that belongs to the Enterobacteriaceae family. Currently, more than 2600 serotypes of Salmonella are known [1]. The dominant nontyphoidal serovars of S. enterica, Enteritidis (SE), and Typhimurium (ST) are common foodborne pathogens responsible for 93.8 million cases of gastroenteritis, 155,000 deaths annually worldwide, and significant economic losses [2,3,4]. SE and ST are considered socially significant zoo-anthroponotic infections as they can cause gastrointestinal diseases in various host species and severe infections in infants, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals [5]. These pathogens are primarily associated with the consumption of contaminated poultry meat and raw eggs [6]. In the late 20th century, SE emerged as a major egg-associated pathogen [7]. Epidemiologic data from the United States, European Union, England, Wales, Germany, Canada, and other countries indicate that SE has filled the ecologic niche left by the eradication of the S. enterica serovar Gallinarum in poultry, resulting in an epidemic rise in human infections [8,9,10,11,12,13]. Between 1996 and 1999, there was a 44% increase in the number of reported cases of human SE infections associated with food products [14]. SE infects table eggs through horizontal transmission from infected laying hens’ feces, vertical transmission via the yolk, protein, or eggshell membranes before egg laying, and contamination of the eggshell after laying [15,16]. SE has become a significant global concern for food safety [12,17].
The widespread use of antibiotics as feed additives to promote the growth of farm animals has contributed to the emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogenic microorganisms, including Salmonella [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Antibiotics have traditionally been employed as a strategy to combat Salmonella infections. However, the frequent and prolonged use of antibiotics not only increases antibiotic resistance among Salmonella serovars but also disrupts the normal intestinal microbiota [27]. Antibiotic-resistant SE and ST strains in farm animals can directly transmit to humans through the food chain, or indirectly transfer their resistance genes to human pathogens using mobile genetic elements associated with conjugative plasmids [28]. The rapid global spread of MDR pathogens poses a significant threat to humans and animals, necessitating the development and implementation of alternative methods to antibiotics for combating these pathogens [29]. One promising alternative approach is the potential preventive and therapeutic use of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics against various enteropathogens, including Salmonella.
The anti-Salmonella activity of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and their potential as probiotic feed additives, particularly for combating salmonellosis, have been demonstrated [30,31,32]. The antagonistic activity exhibited by lactobacilli as probiotics is a significant functional characteristic that benefits the microbiome of both humans and animals. The antimicrobial effects of LAB may arise from the action of either a single compound or a combination of compounds [33,34,35,36]. For instance, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum 1201 has been shown to inhibit intestinal infection by the S. enterica subsp. enterica serovar Typhimurium strain ATCC 13311 in mice fed a high-fat diet [37]. Limosilactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus delbrueckii, and L. gasseri strains isolated from human infants and yogurt have displayed varying in vitro activity against SE [38]. Ligilactobacillus salivarius species have evolutionarily adapted to diverse microecological niches within the host organisms (animals and humans) and play a role in enhancing their resistance to pathogens [30,39,40,41].
The anti-Salmonella potential of four lactobacilli (L. salivarius CECT5713, L. gasseri CECT5714, L. gasseri CECT5715, and L. fermentum CECT5716), isolated from fresh human breast milk, was evaluated in [41]. The findings indicated that all the strains exhibited anti-Salmonella properties. L. salivarius CECT5713 exhibited the highest level of antibacterial activity in vitro and demonstrated the most significant protective effect against Salmonella serotype Choleraesuis in a murine infection model compared to the other tested lactobacillus strains. L. salivarius CECT 5713 was originally isolated simultaneously from breast milk and infant feces of a healthy mother–infant pair. The strain was strongly adhesive to Caco-2 cells, produced lactic acid and hydrogen peroxide, and showed a high survival rate after exposition to conditions simulating those found in the gastrointestinal tract [40].
Complete genomic sequencing of L. salivarius CECT 5713 detected a megaplasmid pHN3 containing six open reading frames (ORFs) that are closely related, but not identical, to the genes responsible for the biosynthesis of salivaricin ABP-118 [42]. The antibacterial activity of L. salivarius CECT5713 against SE and ST pathogens has not been studied. L. salivarius derived from breast milk has the potential to contribute to the anti-infective protection of newborns and could be considered a candidate for the development of probiotic and synbiotic products for children and young animals [41]. Certain lactobacillus strains, such as L. salivarius, L. fermentum, and L. gasseri, residing in the mother’s intestines during breastfeeding, utilize the entero-mammary pathway to migrate from the intestine to the mammary glands [40,43]. Breast milk contains oligosaccharides that serve as prebiotics, offering protection against intestinal pathogens for infants [44]. A probiotic strain of lactobacilli that has penetrated through the entero-mammary pathway into breast milk forms, together with milk oligosaccharides, a synbiotic that enters the baby’s gastrointestinal tract together with the mother’s milk and enhances the effectiveness of protection against intestinal pathogens [45].
Various virulence genes, found both in the chromosome and plasmids of Salmonella, play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of salmonellosis [46,47,48].
The initial stage of Salmonella infection involves the adhesion of the pathogen to human and animal enterocytes. The plasmid-encoded fimbriae gene (pefA) is responsible for Salmonella’s adhesion to the intestinal epithelial cells of the host [49]. Subsequently, the second stage of infection is invasion, facilitated by Salmonella’s outer proteins and the hilA virulence genes, which contribute to the invasion of host epithelial cells [46]. Salmonella expresses the FimH adhesin of type 1 pili on its surface, allowing interaction with mannose residues present on human and animal intestinal enterocytes [50]. Prebiotics that contain mannose polymers have the ability to inhibit the adhesion of Salmonella to enterocytes [51].
The presence of synergistic effects between prebiotics and probiotics in inhibiting the adhesion of Salmonella to enterocytes is highly significant [52]. This is important when creating new synbiotics and synbiotic feed additives for the prevention of salmonellosis in humans and animals. While the concept of synbiotics for salmonellosis prevention is promising, it is worth noting that not all combinations of prebiotics and probiotics demonstrate optimal results [53,54]. This highlights the necessity for further research in creating synbiotics with targeted properties. L. acidophilus, L. gasseri, and L. salivarius within the family Lactobacillaceae have evolutionarily adapted to the microecological niches of humans and farm animals. They take part in ensuring the colonization resistance of the digestive system to intestinal pathogens, including Salmonella [30,55,56,57,58].
The antimicrobial activity of probiotics is specific to their species and strains, with notable effectiveness against Salmonella. Careful screening is necessary for the selection of new effective probiotic strains with pronounced anti-Salmonella properties. In order to enhance the antibacterial effects of probiotics, screening for suitable prebiotics and the development of synbiotics is also important.
Thus, the purpose of this work was to select a Lactobacillus strain from the three studied (LS7247, LA7234, and LG7528) with the maximum tolerance to gastrointestinal stress and strong anti-Salmonella activity, study its probiotic properties and genetic control of bacteriocin production, and identify a prebiotic for creating a synbiotic with anti-Salmonella activity.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Tolerance of Lactobacillus Strains to Gastric and Intestinal Stresses

The tolerance of probiotic microorganisms to gastric and intestinal stress is a crucial requirement for their proper functioning in the host’s digestive system. This section of the research aimed to select the most resistant strain of lactobacillus to gastric and intestinal stress among the three strains tested. The results of the in vitro assessment of the tolerance of L. animalis IIE 7234 (LA7234), L. salivarius IIE 7247 (LS7247), and L. gasseri IIE 7528 (LG7528) to gastric and intestinal stress are presented in Table 1. LA7234 exhibited acceptable tolerance to gastric stress but showed an unacceptable sensitivity to intestinal stress. LG7528 demonstrated good tolerance to gastric stress but was sensitive to intestinal stress at an unacceptable level. In contrast, LS7247 displayed high tolerance to both gastric and intestinal stress. After 60 min of exposure to gastric juice, the LS7247 strain’s degree of resistance to gastric stress was at very good level, with an RD of 2.0. After 5 h of exposure to intestinal juice, the LS7247 strain’s degree of resistance to intestinal stress was at very good level, with an RD of 4.0.
The challenging environment in the intestines of humans and animals, particularly bile salts, poses difficulties for probiotic strains [59]. The use of comparative genomic analysis by Pan Q. et al. revealed that the mechanisms underlying the tolerance of L. salivarius probiotic strains to bile salts are primarily associated with chaperones, the phosphotransferase system (PTS), and peptidoglycan synthesis [60]. The genome of the LS7247 strain contains genes responsible for these functions (2102-15, Accession CP090411.1). A list of “probiotic marker” genes, including those involved in stress resistance (acid, osmotic, oxidative, and temperature), bile salt hydrolase activity, adhesion capacity, and intestinal persistence, was proposed [61,62,63,64].

2.2. Anti-Salmonella Activity of Lactobacillus Strains

The anti-Salmonella activity of the L. animalis IIE 7234 (LA7234), L. salivarius IIE 7247 (LS7247), and L. gasseri IIE 7528 (LG7528) strains was determined using the delayed antagonism method. The results, presented in Table 2, indicate that all three strains exhibited antagonistic activity against Salmonella serovars SE and ST. However, the anti-Salmonella activity of the LA7234 and LG7528 strains was significantly lower compared to the LS7247 strain (p < 0.05). The LS7247 strain produced inhibition zones against SE pathogens (S. Enteritidis ATCC 13076, S. Enteritidis ATCC 4931, S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 6215, S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 6218, and S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 6219 strains) ranging from 16.5 ± 0.7 to 18.9 ± 0.6 mm, and against ST pathogens (S. Typhimurium ATCC 700720, S. Typhimurium ATCC 14028, S. Typhimurium IIE BR 6458, and S. Typhimurium IIE BR 6461 strains) ranging from 16.9 ± 0.8 to 18.6 ± 0.4 mm.
The antimicrobial activity against foodborne pathogens is a crucial property of intestinal probiotics as it contributes to the resistance of the gastric and intestinal microecological niches of the host organism [65]. It is worth noting that the known L. salivarius strains generally exhibit low anti-Salmonella activity [43,66]. In order to further investigate the nature of the anti-Salmonella activity of the LS7234 strain, the antibacterial properties of its CFS were examined in subsequent experiments. Given that the LA7234 and LG7528 strains are sensitive to intestinal stress (Table 1) and display low anti-Salmonella activity (Table 2), they were excluded from further experiments.

2.3. Anti-Salmonella Activity of CFS from LS7247

The anti-Salmonella activity of CFS from LS7247 strain are shown in Table 3. The CFS demonstrated pronounced anti-Salmonella activity. Intact CFS-induced inhibition zones of SE and ST pathogens ranged from 14.2 ± 0.4 to 18.5 ± 0.6 mm and 14.5 ± 0.5 to 19.4 ± 0.6 mm, respectively. However, when the CFS was neutralized with NaOH, there was a significant decrease in the level of anti-Salmonella activity (p < 0.05). Previous studies [67] have shown that a lactic acid concentration of approximately 5 mM can suppress the growth of S. Typhimurium and E. coli O157:H7. In the present study, the low pH of the medium was attributed to lactic acid produced by the L. salivarius culture. This high concentration of lactic acid and low pH allowed L. salivarius to inhibit the growth of S. Typhimurium and E. coli in poultry feed [67]. The main antimicrobial compound produced by L. rhamnosus GG against S. Typhimurium was lactic acid [68]. Due to the fact that lactic acid contributes to the antibacterial properties of the LS7247 strain against SE and ST pathogens, we studied the dynamics of the production of this short-chain fatty acid in the following experiments. Neutralizing the lactic acid in CFS from the LS7247 strain using NaOH reduced the level of anti-Salmonella activity, although it was not completely eliminated. These findings suggest that the residual antibacterial activity of the LS7247 strain could be attributed to other factors, such as the production of bacteriocins.

2.4. Lactic Acid Production by LS7247 Strain

The results of our research, presented in Table 4, demonstrate the production dynamics of lactic acid by the LS7247 strain. After 4 h of cultivation, the concentration of lactic acid in the culture fluid was found to be 3.5 ± 0.4 mM. After 24 h, the concentration of lactic acid increased to 69.7 ± 0.8 mM, and after 48 h, it further rose to 124.0 ± 2.5 mM. Previously, it was found that lactic acid at physiological concentrations (55–110 mM) mediates a potent 106-fold decrease in the viability of 17 different bacterial vaginosis-associated bacteria [69]. Lactic acid was identified as the main antimicrobial compound against S. Typhimurium [68,70], S. Enteritidis, E. coli, and Listeria monocytogenes [71]. The production of lactic acid by LAB creates an unfavorable local microenvironment for pathogens [72]. Lactic acid exerts antimicrobial effects by targeting the bacterial cell wall, cytoplasmic membrane, and specific metabolic functions involved in the replication and protein synthesis of pathogens, ultimately leading to their disruption and death [73,74].

2.5. Anti-Salmonella Activity of LS7247 Strain Co-Cultivated with SE and ST Pathogens

The antagonistic activity of the LS7247 strain co-cultivated with SE pathogens (S. Enteritidis ATCC 13076, S. Enteritidis ATCC 4931, S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 6215, S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 6218, and S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 6219 strains) and ST pathogens (S. Typhimurium ATCC 700720, S. Typhimurium ATCC 14028, S. Typhimurium IIE BR 6458, and S. Typhimurium IIE BR 6461 strains) is shown in Table 5. In the co-culture experiments, SE and ST pathogens were sensitive to the bacteriolytic action of the LS7247 strain. Co-cultivation of SE and ST pathogens with the LS7247 strain for 24 h reduced the CFUs of viable test cultures by 1.0–1.5 logs. Gram-negative microorganisms, including Salmonella, have an outer membrane (OM) in their cell wall, which acts as an effective permeability barrier against external agents. In most Gram-negative microorganisms, the OM consists of an asymmetric bilayer of phospholipids and lipopolysaccharides, with the latter exclusively found in the outer leaflet [75].

2.6. Bacteriocins Produced by LS7247 Strain

The complete genome sequence of LS7247 (2102-15) is available at NCBI GenBank under the accession numbers CP090411:CP090413. A cluster of genes located in the chromosome is responsible for the production of the phage tail protein Enterolysin A and metalloendopeptidase family protein. Enterolysin A belongs to the class III peptidoglycan-degrading bacteriocins that cleave (1→4)-β-linkages between N-acetylmuramic acid and N-acetyl-D-glucosamine residues in a peptidoglycan [76]. Metalloendopeptidase hydrolyzes short peptides connecting the peptidoglycan layers of the bacterial cell wall [77]. The data obtained (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 5) indicate a high anti-Salmonella activity for LS7247. Lactic acid produced by the LS7247 strain increases the permeability of Salmonella strains’ outer membrane [74], which is necessary for the realization of the antibacterial activity of Enterolysin and metalloendopeptidase against Gram-negative pathogens [78].
Salmonellosis refers to nosocomial infections. This is one of the serious problems of medicine. According to the severity of the clinical course (more than 80%), severe and moderate forms of infection prevail in a newborn and elderly [79]. The genes encoding Enterolysin protein and metalloendopeptidase protein have not been found in the genome of the well-characterized human intestinal isolate L. salivarius UCC118 [80] and in the genome of the L. salivarius P1CEA3 strain, isolated from the gastrointestinal tract of pigs [81]. The decoded genomes of L. salivarius strains isolated from humans and animals do not contain the genes encoding Enterolysin protein and metalloendopeptidase protein [82,83,84,85,86]. In this regard, the LS7247 strain is unique in terms of the content of anti-Salmonella factors.
A cluster of genes located in the plasmid pLS2102-15 of the LS7247 strain are responsible for the production of class IIb bacteriocin. This bacteriocin belongs to class IIb and consists of two peptides. Both peptides are initially produced as bacteriocin precursors, with the α chain comprising 64 amino acids and the β chain comprising 68 amino acids. These precursor peptides have N-terminal leader sequences of 19 and 22 amino acids, respectively. The mature peptides, after processing, contain 45 and 46 amino acid residues, respectively (Figure 1A). The estimated molecular weight of the α chain is 4950 Da, and the β chain is 5060 Da. The genes encoding the α chain and β chain are genetically linked and are part of the same operon (2102-15, Accession CP090411.1). These findings align with earlier results [87].
In our studies, we compared the primary structures of class IIb two-component bacteriocins produced by LS7247 and other lactobacilli, including the human intestinal isolate L. salivarius UCC118. The amino acid sequences of these bacteriocins were found to be identical (Figure 1B). The UCC118 probiotic strain, which was isolated from the human intestines, has been extensively characterized at the molecular level [80]. The bacteriocin from LS7247 is encoded by a gene on the chromosome (2102-15, Accession CP090411.1), while class IIb bacteriocin from UCC118 is encoded by a gene on a 242 kb megaplasmid [88]. Similarly, in another L. salivarius strain, SECT 5713, the class IIb bacteriocin is also located on a megaplasmid [43]. The alpha and beta peptide chains of salivaricin P, a class IIb bacteriocin, produced by L. salivarius strains isolated from pig feces and ceca (DPC6005, DPC6027, DPC6189, and M7.2, 7.3), were compared to those produced by L. salivarius UCC118, isolated from human intestine [89].
The production of two-component bacteriocins by L. salivarius strains may provide ecological advantages within intestinal bacterial communities [89,90]. Nissen-Meyer and co-authors discovered that the two peptides of class IIb two-peptide bacteriocins form a spiral–spiral structure that penetrates the membrane of intestinal pathogens, leading to membrane leakage and cell death of the pathogens [91]. The increase in antibacterial activity may also be attributed to the presence of genes responsible for the production of additional bacteriocins in the genome of L. salivarius strains. The LS7247 strain harbors a plasmid containing genes responsible for the production of a bacteriocin called nisin (Access: CP0904412.1).
LS7247 produces nisin as a lantibiotic precursor consisting of 59 amino acid residues. It contains a 25-residue N-terminal leader sequence, and the mature nisin consists of 34 residues. The estimated molecular weight of mature nisin is 4350 Da. The newly identified nisin produced by the LS7247 strain exhibits specific substitutions of individual amino acid residues compared to known variants of this peptide, such as nisin P, nisin U, nisin U2, nisin H, nisin Q, nisin F, nisin A, nisin Z, nisin 03, nisin 01-2, nisin J, subtilin, and kunkecin A. The primary structure of nisin produced by the LS7247 strain is identical to the primary structure of nisin S produced by the L. salivarius P1CEA3 strain, which was isolated from the gastrointestinal tract of pigs [81]. Nisin exerts its antimicrobial activity by forming pores in the cytoplasmic membrane and inhibiting cell wall synthesis [92]. Figure 2 illustrates the predicted primary structure of nisin from the LS7247 strain.
Bacteria-derived natural antimicrobial compounds, including bacteriocins and organic acids, have gained significant interest as therapeutic alternatives for both humans and animals. Such artificial mixtures show high antibacterial activity to various pathogens [93]. The LS7247 strain possesses the unique capability of producing a mixture of lactic acid, Enterolysin A, metalloendopeptidase, a bacteriocin (class IIb), and the lantibiotic nisin S. This mixture provides the LS7247 strain with high anti-Salmonella activity.

2.7. CFS of LS7247 Strain Induces ATP Leakage from SE and ST Pathogens

The CFS of the LS7247 strain induced cell damage in SE and ST pathogen cells, leading to ATP leakage. The levels of ATP leakage, which serve as indicators of cell injury, were investigated and the results are presented in Table 6. Cultivating SE pathogens (S. Enteritidis ATCC 13076, S. Enteritidis ATCC 4931, S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 6215, S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 6218, and S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 6219 strains) in the presence of LS7247 CFS for 2.5 h increased the extracellular ATP level from 4.5 ± 0.6 (nm/OD) to 28.5 ± 1.3 (nm/OD) (p < 0.05). Similarly, cultivating ST pathogens (S. Typhimurium ATCC 700720, S. Typhimurium ATCC 14028, S. Typhimurium IIE BR 6458, and S. Typhimurium IIE BR 6461 strains) with LS7247 CFS for 2.5 h increased the extracellular ATP level from 4.0 ± 0.5 (nm/OD) to 29.5 ± 1.2 (nm/OD) (p < 0.05). The natural antibacterial complex produced by the LS7247 strain, consisting of lactic acid, a class IIb bacteriocin, and nisin S, increased the permeability of the OM in SE and ST pathogens [94], leading to ATP leakage.

2.8. Adhesion of LS7247 Strain to a Monolayer Formed from Human Caco-2, Porcine IPEC-J2, or Chicken Primary Cecal Enterocytes

The studies of the LS7247 strain’s adhesion to the small intestine enterocytes of humans, pigs, and chickens are shown in Table 7. The LS7247 strain demonstrated efficient adhesion to immortalized Caco-2 human intestinal epithelial cells (AA-100%; AI-38.6 ± 2.5), immortalized porcine IPEC-J2 intestinal epithelial cells (AA-100%; AI-32.4 ± 1.9), and chicken primary cecal epithelial cells (AA-100%; AI-27.5 ± 1.6). These findings indicate that the LS7247 strain exhibits high adhesion to enterocytes regardless of the host species (human, pig, or chicken). The ability of the LS7247 strain to adhere strongly to the intestinal epithelium of humans and animals is essential for its colonization and performance of various probiotic functions in the digestive system [95,96,97].

2.9. Total Effect of the Actigen Prebiotic and CFS from LS7247 Strain in Inhibiting the Adhesion of SE and ST Pathogens to Caco-2, IPEC-J2, and Chicken Primary Cecal Enterocytes

2.9.1. Inhibiting Effect on Adhesion to Caco-2 Enterocytes

Intensive adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to human Caco-2 enterocytes was detected (Table 8). The adhesion indices of SE and ST pathogens to Caco-2 enterocytes were 25.5 ± 1.2–28.7 ± 1.3 and 26.5 ± 1.2–29.2 ± 1.4, respectively. The Actigen prebiotic inhibited the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to Caco-2 enterocytes (p < 0.01). The adhesion index of SE and ST pathogens to Caco-2 enterocytes decreased 4.0–4.9 times and 3.1–4.3 times, respectively, in relation to the control. For the first time, the CFS from the LS7247 strain was shown to inhibit adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to Caco-2 enterocytes (p < 0.01). The adhesion indices of SE and ST pathogens to Caco-2 enterocytes decreased 2.6–4.9 times and 3.0–3.1 times, respectively, in relation to the control. The combination of the Actigen prebiotic and CFS of LS7247 demonstrated a significant combined effect in inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to Caco-2 cells (p < 0.001). The adhesion indices of SE and ST pathogens to Caco-2 enterocytes decreased 34.0–34.2 times and 44.9–50.3 times, respectively, in relation to the control. The CFS of the LS7247 strain after incubation together with proteinase K (∆CFS) lost the ability to inhibit the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to human Caco-2 enterocytes and did not enhance the anti-adhesive effect of the Actigen prebiotic.

2.9.2. Inhibiting Effect on Adhesion to Porcine IPEC-J2 Enterocytes

Intensive adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to porcine IPEC-J2 enterocytes was observed (Table 9). The adhesion indices of SE and ST pathogens to IPEC-J2 enterocytes ranged from 25.4 ± 1.1 to 29.4 ± 1.5 and 25.8 ± 1.3 to 28.2 ± 1.6, respectively. The presence of the Actigen prebiotic significantly inhibited the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to IPEC-J2 enterocytes (p < 0.01), resulting in a reduction of the adhesion indices by 4.5–4.8 times and 3.8–5.0 times, respectively, compared to the control. Notably, this study revealed for the first time that the CFS from the LS7247 strain had an inhibitory effect on the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to IPEC-J2 enterocytes (p < 0.01). The adhesion indices of SE and ST pathogens to IPEC-J2 enterocytes decreased 3.1–3.5 times and 3.0–3.2 times, respectively, in relation to the control. The combination of the Actigen prebiotic and CFS of LS7247 demonstrated significant total effects in inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to IPEC-J2 enterocytes (p < 0.001). The adhesion indices of SE and ST pathogens to IPEC-J2 enterocytes decreased 52.9–60.0 times and 42.1–57.3 times, respectively, in relation to the control. However, it is worth noting that when the CFS of the LS7247 strain was incubated with proteinase K (∆CFS), it lost its ability to inhibit the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to porcine IPEC-J2 enterocytes and did not enhance the anti-adhesive effect of the Actigen prebiotic.

2.9.3. Inhibiting Effect on Adhesion to CPCEs

Intensive adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to chicken primary cecal enterocytes was identified (Table 10). The adhesion indices of SE and ST pathogens to CPCEs were 19.4 ± 1.5–22.3 ± 1.4 and 20.4 ± 1.3–23.6 ± 1.1, respectively. The Actigen prebiotic effectively suppressed the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to CPCEs (p < 0.01). Consequently, the adhesion indices of SE and ST pathogens to CPCEs were reduced by approximately 4.0–4.8 times and 3.6–4.5 times, respectively, compared to the control. For the first time, the CFS from the LS7247 strain was shown to inhibit adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to CPCEs (p < 0.01). The adhesion indices of SE and ST pathogens to CPCEs decreased by approximately 3.0–3.5 times and 2.7–3.6 times, respectively, relative to the control. The combination of the Actigen prebiotic and CFS of LS7247 demonstrated a significant combined effect in inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to CPCEs (p < 0.001). This combination resulted in a remarkable reduction in adhesion indices for SE and ST pathogens, decreasing by approximately 38.8–55.7 times and 34.0–39.3 times, respectively, in comparison to the control. However, the CFS of the LS7247 strain after incubation together with proteinase K (∆CFS) lost the ability to inhibit the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to chicken primary cecal enterocytes and did not enhance the anti-adhesive effect of the Actigen prebiotic.
Thus, we have discovered the anti-adhesive activity of CFS and the combined effect of the Actigen prebiotic and CFS in inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to human Caco-2 enterocytes, porcine IPEC-J2 enterocytes, and chicken primary cecal enterocytes.
The Actigen prebiotic and CFS from the LS7247 strain have a different structure and differ in their mechanisms of action. It is known that the Actigen prebiotic is a component of the yeast cell wall that contains mannose biopolymers (MOSs) [98]. The monosaccharide mannose acts as a ligand for the FimH domain found in type I fimbria of Salmonella. The FimH domain is responsible for recognizing mannose patterns on the surface of host enterocytes and facilitating mannose-dependent adhesion of pathogens, including Salmonella [50,99,100,101,102]. MOSs bind to the FimH domain, competing with mannose structures on host enterocytes, thus inhibiting the adhesion of pathogens. In this way, it performs a function that mimics the receptor [103,104].
The mechanism of anti-adhesive action of LS7247 CFS has not been studied. We assume that the native supernatant contains a protein that interacts with the active site of the FimH domain and reduces its affinity for mannose patterns on the surface of host enterocytes. The consequence of this interaction is a decrease in the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to enterocytes. Cultivation of the supernatant in conjunction with proteinase K led to proteolysis of proteins, including a protein capable of interacting with the active site of the FimH domain. Proteolysis led to a loss of the anti-adhesive activity by the supernatant (Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10). Further research is required to clarify the mechanisms of the anti-adhesive action of the supernatant.
SE and ST pathogens are facultative intracellular bacteria. After adhesion, these pathogens could enter cells through a trigger mechanism mediated by a type three secretion system called T3SS-1 or through OM proteins, Rck and PagN, which have been identified as Salmonella invasins [105,106,107,108]. Upon invasion of host cells, Salmonella triggers inflammation and disrupts the tight junctions of the bowel [51]. Antibiotics have been widely used in clinical settings for the treatment of salmonellosis. However, antibiotic treatment can lead to the emergence of MDR Salmonella strains, which can hinder host immune defenses [109]. Therefore, it is crucial to develop novel and reliable methods for preventing salmonellosis.
The invasion of SE and ST pathogens can only occur after their adhesion to the surface of human and animal enterocytes. Thus, effectively inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to human and animal enterocytes is of paramount importance for the prevention of salmonellosis. This can be achieved through the use of a synbiotic containing the LS7247 strain and Actigen prebiotic, or a feed additive based on them.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Bacterial Strains and Growth Conditions

A complete list of the bacteria used in this work, including strains from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) and their growth conditions, is provided in Table 11.

3.2. Intestinal Epithelial Cells and Growth Conditions

3.2.1. Caco-2 Human Intestinal Epithelial Cells

Immortalized Caco-2 human intestinal epithelial cells were suspended in culture medium (DMEM plus 10% fetal calf serum (FCS) and 0.02% penicillin and streptomycin each), and were seeded into 12-well cell culture plates at a density of 5 × 105 cells/mL to form a cell monolayer. The plates were incubated for 48 h at 37 °C under 5% CO2.

3.2.2. IPEC-J2 Porcine Intestinal Epithelial Cells

The pig, due to its genetic and physiological similarities to humans, is considered a suitable animal model for studying mucosal physiology, including in vitro experiments [110]. An immortalized epithelial cell line from the porcine intestine, IPEC-J2, a relevant in vitro model system for porcine intestinal pathogen–host cell interactions, was used [111]. IPEC-J2 porcine intestinal epithelial cells were suspended in culture medium (DMEM plus 10% FCS and 0.02% penicillin and streptomycin each), and were seeded into 12-well cell culture plates at a density of 5 × 105 cells/mL to form a cell monolayer. The plates were incubated for 48 h at 37 °C under 5% CO2.

3.2.3. Chicken Primary Cecal Enterocytes (CPCEs)

Primary epithelial cells were obtained from the ceca of 2-week-old chicks (Kuchinskaya jubilee breed) following an established protocol [112]. The cells were suspended in culture medium (DMEM plus 2.5% fetal calf serum, 0.1% insulin, 0.5% transferrin, 0.007% hydrocortisone, 0.1% fibronectin, 0.02% penicillin and streptomycin each), and were seeded into 12-well cell culture plates at a density of 5 × 105 cells/mL to form a cell monolayer. The plates were incubated for 48 h at 37 °C under 5% CO2.

3.3. Determination of Lactobacillus Strains Tolerance to Gastric and Intestinal Stresses

Assays were performed as previously described in [59] with modifications.

3.3.1. Gastric Stress Imitation In Vitro

A culture (100 µL) in the stationary phase grown in the MRC was diluted with 1 mL of the artificial gastric juice (dilution 1/11). The control was a culture (100 µL) in the stationary phase grown in the MRC that was diluted with 1 mL of MRS (dilution 1/11).
The cultures were incubated for various periods of time (10 min, 30 min, and 60 min) at 37 °C in 10% CO2. Serial dilutions were plated onto MRS agar for estimation of colony-forming units (CFU/mL) counts. The composition of the artificial gastric juice was as follows: NaCl (Sigma S9625)—2.2 g/L; L-lactic acid (Sigma L1750)—9.9 g/L (0.11 M); and pepsin (porcine) (Sigma P7125) (600–1800 units/mg)—3.5 g/L; pH: 2.70 ± 0.02 (increased with 35% NaOH solution). The pH after a 1/11 dilution was 3.1 ± 0.1 (pH was controlled for each culture).

3.3.2. Intestinal Stress Imitation In Vitro

A culture (100 µL) in the stationary phase grown in the MRC was diluted with 1 mL of the artificial intestinal juice 1mL (pH: 6.3). The cultures were incubated for 5 h at 37 °C in 10% CO2. The control was a culture (100 µL) in the stationary phase grown in the MRC that was diluted with 1 mL of MRS (dilution 1/11, incubation for 5 h at 37 °C in 10% CO2). Serial dilutions were plated onto MRS agar for estimation of colony-forming units (CFU/mL) counts. The composition of the artificial intestinal juice was as follows: bile salts (porcine bile, Sigma S8875)—3.3 g/L (final concentration 0.3%); and carbonate buffer NaHCO3 (Sigma S8875)—16.5 g/L (final concentration 1.5%). The final pH was 6.3.
The counting of microorganisms in a milliliter of culture (colony-forming units/mL—CFU/mL) was carried out according to the formula:
C n 1 + 0.1   n 2 d   ,
where ΣC—the sum of all characteristic colonies counted on all Petri dishes containing from 15 to 300 colonies, n1—the number of cups in the lowest dilution (2 cups per dilution), n2—number of cups in the highest dilution (2 cups per dilution), and d—the value of the first dilution (low dilution) taken for counting.
The degree of resistance to gastric or intestinal stress RD (Resistance Degree) was determined by the formula:
RD = n 1 n 2   ,
where n1—the number of colony-forming cells per ml (CFU/mL) in the control and n2—the number of colony-forming cells per ml (CFU/mL) in the experiment.
The level of discrimination of gastric and intestinal stress was evaluated as “very good” when the RD (discrimination ratio) is less than 5, “good” when the RD is between 5 and 10, “acceptable” when the RD is between 10 and 15, and “unacceptable” when the RD exceeds 15.

3.4. Screening of Anti-Salmonella Lactobacilli by Delayed Antagonism Method

The antagonistic activity of lactobacillus strains LS7247, LA7234, and LG7528 was measured in vitro using the delayed antagonism method. A 2 × 109 microbial cells/mL suspension of the studied Lactobacillus strain was sown with a stroke along the diameter of the Petri dish with a loop with a diameter of (3.5 ± 0.5) mm on an agarized medium. After 72 h of incubation at a temperature of 37 ± 1 °C in anaerobic conditions, cultures of SE or ST strains were sown perpendicular to the grown culture. A suspension of an SE or ST culture of 2–3 passages was prepared in 0.9% sodium chloride solution at a concentration of 5 × 108 microbial cells/mL. The sowing of SE or ST strains was carried out with a 2 mm wide loop in the direction perpendicular to the growth zone of the lactobacillus strain. The cups were covered with a lid, placed in a thermostat, and incubated for 24 h at a temperature of 37 ± 1 °C. Preliminary assessment of the results was carried out after 24 h and 48 h, and the size of the growth inhibition zone of the Salmonella strains in mm was finally recorded. The greater the inhibition of the growth of the Salmonella strain, the higher the antagonistic activity of the lactobacillus strain.

3.5. Preparation of Cell-Free Supernatant (CFS) and ∆CFS from LS7247 Strain

Native cell-free supernatant (CFS) was prepared from cultures of the LS7247 strain as previously described in [113] with modifications. Briefly, the LS7247 strain was grown for 18 h in MRS broth under anaerobic conditions at 37 °C. The culture was diluted to a concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/mL in MRS broth and further grown anaerobically for 48 h. CFS was collected by centrifugation at 6000× g for 25 min at 4 °C, filter-sterilized using a 0.22 µm pore size filter (Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA), and concentrated by speed-vacuum drying (Rotational Vacuum Concentrator RVC2-18, Martin Christ, Osterode am Harz, Germany). To obtain the ∆CFS, proteinase K (1.0 mg/mL) was added to native CFS from LS7247 and incubated at 37 °C for 2 h.
Native CFS and ∆CFS from the LS7247 strain alone or together with the Actigen prebiotic (Alltech Inc., Nicholasville, KY, USA) were used to study the effectiveness of inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to human and animal enterocytes.

3.6. Determination of Anti-Salmonella Activity of CFS of One of LS7247 Strain

The CFS of LS7247 was additionally tested for anti-Salmonella activity according to [114] with modifications. LS7247 cells were grown overnight in MRS broth and centrifuged at 12,000 rpm for 20 min at 4 °C. The CFS was filter-sterilized using a 0.22 µm pore size filter (Millipore, USA). The CFS from the LS7247 strain was divided into 2 parts. The first part of CFS in a volume of 100 µL was placed into wells (6 mm) drilled into Muller Hinton agar, pre-seeded with approximately 105 CFU/mL of the SE or ST strain. The second part of the CFS was titrated with NaOH to pH 7.0 and then 100 µL was placed in wells (6 mm) drilled in Muller Hinton agar, pre-seeded with about 105 CFU/mL of the SE or ST strain. All agar plates were incubated at 37 °C for 10 h, and growth inhibition zones of SE or ST in mm were then measured.

3.7. Lactic Acid Determination in CFS of LS7247

The suspension of LS7247 cells grown in the MRS broth was centrifuged at 10,000× g for 15 min at 4 °C. The culture supernatant was filtered using a 0.22 µm pore size filter (Millipore). The concentration of lactic acid in the CFS produced by the LF3872 strain was determined according to the method in [115] using a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) system equipped with an ultraviolet–visible detector (Shidmadzu, Kyoto, Japan) set at 220 nm and a Luna C18(2) column (150 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 µm; Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA). HPLC-grade lactic acid (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was used as the standard.

3.8. Identification of Genes Encoding Bacteriocins Produced by LS7247 Strain and Determination of Bacteriocin Primary Structure

Bacteriocin-related genes were identified using two methods: browsing GenBank annotations and utilizing the BAGEL4 program online (http://bagel4.molgenrug.nl/, accessed on 15 August 2023). These approaches allowed for the identification of putative bacteriocin-encoding genes from genome sequencing data [116]. The predicted primary structures of the bacteriocins produced by the LS7247 strain were determined using the nucleotide sequence of their structural genes.

3.9. Determination of Anti-Salmonella Activity of LS7247 Strain by Co-Cultivation Method in a Liquid Medium

The antibacterial activity of the LS7247 strain against the SE and ST strains was determined by co-cultivation in TGVC medium at a temperature of 37 ± 1 °C for 8 h according to [117] with modifications. Briefly, for co-cultivation, 1 mL of LS7247 inoculum grown on MRC medium (107 CFU/mL) and the test SE or ST strains (107 CFU/mL) were introduced into 20 mL of TGVC medium. In the preliminary experiments, it was found that all SE and ST strains and LS7247 strain grew on TGVC medium. The counting of SE and ST cells grown on TGVC medium in monoculture (control) and grown in the presence of lactobacilli on TGVC medium was carried out after 24 h. Aliquots of 1 mL were taken aseptically at 24 h, serially diluted, and spread onto selective xylose lysine deoxycholate (XLD) agar plates. All the plates were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C under aerobic conditions; at the end of incubation, the colonies of all SE and ST strains were counted and expressed as colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL).

3.10. Assessment of Cytoplasmic Membrane Permeability of SE and ST Pathogens by Measurement of Extracellular ATP

SE and ST pathogens at the logarithmic phase were centrifuged and resuspended in PBS (pH 7.0) with OD600 = 1.0. The pathogens were treated for 2.5 h at 37 °C in the presence of the CFS of LS7247 (100 µg/mL) and extracellular ATP levels after CFS treatment were detected by an ATP detection kit (Beyotime, Shanghai, China). Detection of luminescence was performed using an Infinite 200 PRO microplate reader (Tecan, Männedorf, Switzerland).

3.11. Determination of LS7247 Adhesion to a Monolayer Formed from Human Caco-2, Porcine IPEC-J2, or Chicken Primary Cecal Enterocytes

Immortalized epithelial Caco-2 cells were used as a human in vitro intestinal epithelial model. Immortalized epithelial IPEC-J2 cells were used as a porcine in vitro intestinal epithelial model. Primary cecal epithelial cells were used as a chicken in vitro intestinal epithelial model. Caco-2 cells and IPEC-J2 cells were seeded into 12-well cell culture plates at a density of 5 × 105 cells/mL and were grown to monolayers of immature cells with a layer of 80–100% confluency in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM, Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA) supplemented with 20% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), 2 mM L-glutamine, penicillin (100 U/mL), and streptomycin (100 mg/mL). Chicken primary cecal epithelial cells were seeded into 12-well cell culture plates at a density of 5 × 105 cells/mL and were grown in culture medium (DMEM plus 2.5% fetal calf serum, 0.1% insulin, 0.5% transferrin, 0.007% hydrocortisone, 0.1% fibronectin, and 0.02% penicillin and streptomycin each).
The plates were incubated for 48 h at 37 °C under 5% CO2. The medium was replaced daily. LS7247 cells at a concentration of 109 CFU/mL were introduced into wells containing monolayers of intestinal cells in a fresh nutrient medium. The plates were incubated at a temperature of +37 °C at 5% CO2 for 2 h and washed three times with sterile PBS to remove non-adherent bacteria, stained with azure–eosin, and examined under a Leica DM 4500B microscope (Leica, Calgary, AB, Canada). Adherent bacteria were quantified using the Leica IM modular applications system (Leica). The adhesion activity and the adhesion index were determined. The adhesion activity of the LS7247 strain is the percentage of enterocytes on the surface of which LS7247 cells are found. The adhesion index is the number of LS7247 cells adhered to the surface of one enterocyte.

3.12. Determination of Total Effects of Actigen Prebiotic and CFS from LS7247 Strain in Inhibiting the Adhesion of SE and ST Pathogens to Human Caco-2, Porcine IPEC-J2, and Chicken Primary Cecal Enterocytes

Monolayers of Caco-2, IPEC-J2, and chicken primary cecal enterocytes were incubated in the presence of the Actigen prebiotic at a concentration of 40 µg/mL, CFS at concentration of 40 µg/mL, or mixture of Actigen at a concentration of 20 µg/mL + CFS at a concentration of 20 µg/mL in PBS; the control group was treated with only PBS for 1 h at 37 °C under 5% CO2. Then, the suspension of each SE or ST pathogen (5 × 107 CFU/mL) was added to the monolayers of enterocytes. The plates were incubated for 2 h at 37 °C under 5% CO2. The monolayers of enterocytes were washed three times with sterile PBS to remove unbound SE or ST pathogens and CFS, Actigen, or the mixture, fixed with methanol, stained with azure–eosin, and examined under a Leica DM 4500B microscope (Leica). Adherent SE or ST pathogens were quantified using the Leica IM modular applications system (Leica). The adhesion of SE or ST pathogens to epithelial cells was expressed as the average number of adhering bacteria per epithelial cell.

3.13. Statistical Analysis

The results were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and represented as mean ± SD of six independent experiments, tested in triplicate. Statistical significance was evaluated by Student’s t-tests. The results were considered significant at p < 0.05.

4. Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that LS7247 has a promising potential as a probiotic. It exhibited high tolerance to both gastric and intestinal stresses. LS7247 effectively adhered to monolayers formed by human Caco-2, porcine IPEC-J2, and chicken primary cecal enterocytes, which is necessary for the long-term realization of its probiotic properties. LS7247 and its CFS demonstrated anti-Salmonella activity against SE and ST pathogens. Co-cultivation of LS7247 with SE and ST pathogens, including antibiotic-resistant strains, for 8 h resulted in a 1.0–1.5 log reduction in pathogen CFUs. Cell wall damage and ATP leakage in SE and ST pathogens were induced by CFS of LS7247.
A cluster of genes located in two plasmids of LS7247 are responsible for the production of the bacteriocin belonging to class IIb and a bacteriocin called nisin. These bacteriocins, together with lactic acid produced by LS7247, increased the permeability of the outer membrane of SE and ST pathogens and created conditions for the penetration of the lytic complex Enterolysin A and metalloendopeptidase into these pathogens. A cluster of genes located in the chromosome of LS7247 are responsible for the production of Enterolysin A and metalloendopeptidase. The CFS of LS7247 in combination with the Actigen prebiotic demonstrated a significant combined effect in inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to human and animal enterocytes. The molecular mechanisms of these properties of the CFS have not been studied.
Our future research will be aimed at elucidating the molecular mechanisms of the anti-adhesive properties of the CFS from LS7247 and its significant combined effect with the Actigen prebiotic in inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to human and animal enterocytes. The results obtained are of great importance for the development of a synbiotic formulation based on the LS7247 strain and Actigen prebiotic, or a synbiotic supplement utilizing them for the effective prevention of salmonellosis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.M.A., A.V.M., T.V.P., G.T.S. and A.N.P.; methodology, V.M.A., O.E.I., A.A.A. and A.M.M.; validation, I.V.K., A.V.M., I.V.K., E.I.D., T.N.A., V.G.M., N.E.S., I.N.N., V.S.K., V.K.S., V.A.S., A.B.G., A.M.M., A.A.A., O.E.I., T.T.P. and V.N.U.; investigation, I.V.K., A.V.M., I.O.C., E.I.D., T.N.A., V.G.M., N.E.S., I.N.N., V.S.K., V.K.S., A.M.M., A.A.A., O.E.I., T.T.P., V.N.U. and V.A.S.; data curation, V.M.A. and I.V.K.; writing—original draft preparation, V.M.A. and I.V.K.; writing—review and editing, A.V.M., E.I.D., T.V.P. and V.N.U.; supervision, V.M.A. and V.N.U.; project administration, V.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Government of the Russian Federation (Agreement No. 075-15-2022-1124, dated 1 July 2022).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. LeLièvre, V.; Besnard, A.; Schlusselhuber, M.; Desmasures, N.; Dalmasso, M. Phages for biocontrol in foods: What opportunities for Salmonella sp. control along the dairy food chain? Food Microbiol. 2019, 78, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Stanaway, J.D.; Parisi, A.; Sarkar, K.; Blacker, B.F.; Reiner, R.C.; Hay, S.I.; Nixon, M.R.; Dolecek, C.; James, S.L.; Mokdad, A.H.; et al. The global burden of non-typhoidal salmonella invasive disease: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 1312–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Marchello, C.S.; Fiorino, F.; Pettini, E.; Crump, J.A.; Martin, L.B.; Breghi, G.; Canals, R.; Gordon, M.A.; Hanumunthadu, B.; Jacobs, J.; et al. Incidence of non-typhoidal Salmonella invasive disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Infect. 2021, 83, 523–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Marchello, C.S.; Birkhold, M.; Crump, J.A.; Martin, L.B.; Ansah, M.O.; Breghi, G.; Canals, R.; Fiorino, F.; Gordon, M.A.; Kim, J.-H.; et al. Complications and mortality of non-typhoidal salmonella invasive disease: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2022, 22, 692–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ceyssens, P.-J.; Mattheus, W.; Vanhoof, R.; Bertrand, S. Trends in serotype distribution and antimicrobial susceptibility in Salmonella enterica isolates from humans in Belgium, 2009 to 2013. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2015, 59, 544–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jackson, B.R.; Griffin, P.M.; Cole, D.; Walsh, K.A.; Chai, S.J. Outbreak-associated Salmonella enterica serotypes and food Commodities, United States, 1998–2008. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2013, 19, 1239–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rabsch, W.; Hargis, B.M.; Tsolis, R.M.; Kingsley, R.A.; Hinz, K.H.; Tschäpe, H.; Bäumler, A.J. Competitive exclusion of Salmonella enteritidis by Salmonella gallinarum in poultry. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2000, 6, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Poppe, C. Salmonella enteritidis in Canada. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1994, 21, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hogue, A.; White, P.; Guard-Petter, J.; Schlosser, W.; Gast, R.; Ebel, E.; Farrar, J.; Gomez, T.; Madden, J.; Madison, M.; et al. Epidemiology and control of egg-associated Salmonella enteriditis in the United States of America. Rev. Sci. Tech. 1997, 16, 542–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Braden, C.R. Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis and eggs: A national epidemic in the United States. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2006, 43, 512–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Betancor, L.; Pereira, M.; Martinez, A.; Giossa, G.; Fookes, M.; Flores, K.; Barrios, P.; Repiso, V.; Vignoli, R.; Cordeiro, N.; et al. Prevalence of Salmonella enterica in poultry and eggs in Uruguay during an epidemic due to Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010, 48, 2413–2423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Galarce, N.E.; Bravo, J.L.; Robeson, J.P.; Borie, C.F. Bacteriophage cocktail reduces Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis counts in raw and smoked salmon tissues. Rev. Argent. Microbiol. 2014, 46, 333–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. European Food Safety Authority; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The European Union summary report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic and indicator bacteria from humans, animals and food in 2017. EFSA J. 2019, 17, e05598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chai, S.J.; White, P.L.; Lathrop, S.L.; Solghan, S.M.; Medus, C.; McGlinchey, B.M.; Tobin-D’Angelo, M.; Marcus, R.; Mahon, B.E. Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis: Increasing incidence of domestically acquired infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012, 54 (Suppl. S5), S488–S497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. De Reu, K.; Grijspeerdt, K.; Messens, W.; Heyndrickx, M.; Uyttendaele, M.; Debevere, J.; Herman, L. Eggshell factors influencing eggshell penetration and whole egg contamination by different bacteria, including Salmonella enteritidis. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 112, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Arnold, M.E.; Martelli, F.; McLaren, I.; Davies, R.H. Estimation of the rate of egg contamination from Salmonella-infected chickens. Zoonoses Public Health 2014, 61, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Saleh, S.; Van Puyvelde, S.; Staes, A.; Timmerman, E.; Barbé, B.; Jacobs, J.; Gevaert, K.; Deborggraeve, S. Salmonella Typhi, Paratyphi A, Enteritidis and Typhimurium core proteomes reveal differentially expressed proteins linked to the cell surface and pathogenicity. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2019, 13, e0007416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, R.; Lai, J.; Wang, Y.; Liu, S.; Li, Y.; Liu, K.; Shen, J.; Wu, C. Prevalence and characterization of Salmonella species isolated from pigs, ducks and chickens in Sichuan Province, China. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 163, 14–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Roca, I.; Akova, M.; Baquero, F.; Carlet, J.; Cavaleri, M.; Coenen, S.; Cohen, J.; Findlay, D.; Gyssens, I.; Heure, O.E.; et al. The global threat of antimicrobial resistance: Science for intervention. New Microbes New Infect. 2015, 6, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hiltunen, T.; Virta, M.; Laine, A.-L. Antibiotic resistance in the wild: An eco-evolutionary perspective. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 372, 20160039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhu, Y.; Lai, H.; Zou, L.; Yin, S.; Wang, C.; Han, X.; Xia, X.; Hu, K.; He, L.; Zhou, K.; et al. Antimicrobial resistance and resistance genes in Salmonella strains isolated from broiler chickens along the slaughtering process in China. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 259, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Shah, D.H.; Paul, N.C.; Sischo, W.C.; Crespo, R.; Guard, J. Population dynamics and antimicrobial resistance of the most prevalent poultry-associated Salmonella serotypes. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 687–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Castro-Vargas, R.E.; Herrera-Sánchez, M.P.; Rodríguez-Hernández, R.; Rondón-Barragán, I.S. Antibiotic resistance in Salmonella spp. isolated from poultry: A global overview. Vet. World 2020, 13, 2070–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Igbinosa, I.H.; Amolo, C.N.; Beshiru, A.; Akinnibosun, O.; Ogofure, A.G.; El-Ashker, M.; Gwida, M.; Okoh, A.I.; Igbinosa, E.O. Identification and characterization of MDR virulent Salmonella spp. isolated from smallholder poultry production environment in Edo and Delta States, Nigeria. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0281329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Soubeiga, A.P.; Kpoda, D.S.; Compaoré, M.K.A.; Somda-Belemlougri, A.; Kaseko, N.; Rouamba, S.S.; Ouedraogo, S.; Traoré, R.; Karfo, P.; Nezien, D.; et al. Molecular Characterization and the Antimicrobial Resistance Profile of Salmonella spp. Isolated from Ready-to-Eat Foods in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Int. J. Microbiol. 2022, 2022, 9640828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Urban-Chmiel, R.; Marek, A.; Stępień-Pyśniak, D.; Wieczorek, K.; Dec, M.; Nowaczek, A.; Osek, J. Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria—A Review. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hammad, A.M.; Shimamoto, T. Towards a compatible probiotic-antibiotic combination therapy: Assessment of antimicrobial resistance in the Japanese probiotics. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 109, 1349–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Heider, L.C.; Funk, J.A.; Hoet, A.E.; Meiring, R.W.; Gebreyes, W.A.; Wittum, T.E. Identification of Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica organisms with reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone from fecal samples of cows in dairy herds. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2009, 70, 389–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alcaine, S.D.; Warnick, L.D.; Wiedmann, M. Antimicrobial resistance in nontyphoidal Salmonella. J. Food Prot. 2007, 70, 780–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Adetoye, A.; Pinloche, E.; Adeniyi, B.A.; Ayeni, F.A. Characterization and anti-salmonella activities of lactic acid bacteria isolated from cattle faeces. BMC Microbiol. 2018, 18, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chen, C.-C.; Lai, C.-C.; Huang, H.-L.; Huang, W.-Y.; Toh, H.-S.; Weng, T.-C.; Chuang, Y.-C.; Lu, Y.-C.; Tang, H.-J. Antimicrobial Activity of Lactobacillus Species Against Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Cordeiro, M.A.; Souza, E.L.S.; Arantes, R.M.E.; Balthazar, C.F.; Guimarães, J.T.; Scudino, H.; Silva, H.L.A.; Rocha, R.S.; Freitas, M.Q.; Esmerino, E.A.; et al. Fermented whey dairy beverage offers protection against Salmonella enterica ssp. enterica serovar Typhimurium infection in mice. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 6756–6765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Bernet-Camard, M.F.; Liévin, V.; Brassart, D.; Neeser, J.R.; Servin, A.L.; Hudault, S. The human Lactobacillus acidophilus strain LA1 secretes a nonbacteriocin antibacterial substance(s) active in vitro and in vivo. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1997, 63, 2747–2753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Millette, M.; Luquet, F.M.; Lacroix, M. In vitro growth control of selected pathogens by Lactobacillus acidophilus- and Lactobacillus casei-fermented milk. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 44, 314–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fayol-Messaoudi, D.; Coconnier-Polter, M.-H.; Moal, V.L.-L.; Atassi, F.; Berger, C.N.; Servin, A.L. The Lactobacillus plantarum strain ACA-DC287 isolated from a Greek cheese demonstrates antagonistic activity in vitro and in vivo against Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 103, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lin, C.-K.; Tsai, H.-C.; Lin, P.-P.; Tsen, H.-Y.; Tsai, C.-C. Lactobacillus acidophilus LAP5 able to inhibit the Salmonella choleraesuis invasion to the human Caco-2 epithelial cell. Anaerobe 2008, 14, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ren, Z.; Peng, L.; Chen, S.; Pu, Y.; Lv, H.; Wei, H.; Wan, C. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum 1201 Inhibits Intestinal Infection of Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Serovar Typhimurium Strain ATCC 13311 in Mice with High-Fat Diet. Foods 2021, 11, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mustafa, A.; Nawaz, M.; Rabbani, M.; Tayyab, M.; Khan, M. Characterization and evaluation of anti-Salmonella enteritidis activity of indigenous probiotic lactobacilli in mice. Open life Sci. 2022, 17, 978–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Casey, P.G.; Casey, G.D.; Gardiner, G.E.; Tangney, M.; Stanton, C.; Ross, R.P.; Hill, C.; Fitzgerald, G.F. Isolation and characterization of anti-Salmonella lactic acid bacteria from the porcine gastrointestinal tract. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2004, 39, 431–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Martín, R.; Jiménez, E.; Olivares, M.; Marín, M.L.; Fernández, L.; Xaus, J.; Rodríguez, J.M. Lactobacillus salivarius CECT 5713, a potential probiotic strain isolated from infant feces and breast milk of a mother-child pair. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 112, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Olivares, M.; Díaz-Ropero, M.P.; Martín, R.; Rodríguez, J.M.; Xaus, J. Antimicrobial potential of four Lactobacillus strains isolated from breast milk. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2006, 101, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Jiménez, E.; Martín, R.; Maldonado, A.; Martín, V.; Gómez de Segura, A.; Fernández, L.; Rodríguez, J.M. Complete genome sequence of Lactobacillus salivarius CECT 5713, a probiotic strain isolated from human milk and infant feces. J. Bacteriol. 2010, 192, 5266–5267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Langa, S.; Maldonado-Barragán, A.; Delgado, S.; Martín, R.; Martín, V.; Jiménez, E.; Ruíz-Barba, J.L.; Mayo, B.; Connor, R.I.; Suárez, J.E.; et al. Characterization of Lactobacillus salivarius CECT 5713, a strain isolated from human milk: From genotype to phenotype. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 94, 1279–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Newburg, D.S.; Ruiz-Palacios, G.M.; Morrow, A.L. Human milk glycans protect infants against enteric pathogens. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 2005, 25, 37–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jeurink, P.V.; van Bergenhenegouwen, J.; Jiménez, E.; Knippels, L.M.J.; Fernández, L.; Garssen, J.; Knol, J.; Rodríguez, J.M.; Martín, R. Human milk: A source of more life than we imagine. Benef. Microbes 2013, 4, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huehn, S.; La Ragione, R.M.; Anjum, M.; Saunders, M.; Woodward, M.J.; Bunge, C.; Helmuth, R.; Hauser, E.; Guerra, B.; Beutlich, J.; et al. Virulotyping and antimicrobial resistance typing of Salmonella enterica serovars relevant to human health in Europe. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2010, 7, 523–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Elemfareji, O.I.; Thong, K.L. Comparative Virulotyping of Salmonella typhi and Salmonella enteritidis. Indian J. Microbiol. 2013, 53, 410–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zishiri, O.T.; Mkhize, N.; Mukaratirwa, S. Prevalence of virulence and antimicrobial resistance genes in Salmonella spp. isolated from commercial chickens and human clinical isolates from South Africa and Brazil. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2016, 83, a1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Murugkar, H.V.; Rahman, H.; Dutta, P.K. Distribution of virulence genes in Salmonella serovars isolated from man & animals. Indian J. Med. Res. 2003, 117, 66–70. Available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12931840 (accessed on 15 August 2023).
  50. Jones, C.H.; Pinkner, J.S.; Roth, R.; Heuser, J.; Nicholes, A.V.; Abraham, S.N.; Hultgren, S.J. FimH adhesin of type 1 pili is assembled into a fibrillar tip structure in the Enterobacteriaceae. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1995, 92, 2081–2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xu, X.; Qiao, Y.; Peng, Q.; Gao, L.; Shi, B. Inhibitory effects of YCW and MOS from Saccharomyces cerevisiae on Escherichia coli and Salmonella pullorum adhesion to Caco-2 cells. Front. Biol. 2017, 12, 370–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Abramov, V.M.; Kosarev, I.V.; Machulin, A.V.; Priputnevich, T.V.; Chikileva, I.O.; Deryusheva, E.I.; Abashina, T.N.; Donetskova, A.D.; Panin, A.N.; Melnikov, V.G.; et al. Limosilactobacillus fermentum strain 3872: Antibacterial and immunoregulatory properties and synergy with prebiotics against socially significant antibiotic-resistant infections of animals and humans. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Petschow, B.; Doré, J.; Hibberd, P.; Dinan, T.; Reid, G.; Blaser, M.; Cani, P.D.; Degnan, F.H.; Foster, J.; Gibson, G.; et al. Probiotics, prebiotics, and the host microbiome: The science of translation. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2013, 1306, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Rastall, R.A.; Gibson, G.R. Recent developments in prebiotics to selectively impact beneficial microbes and promote intestinal health. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2015, 32, 42–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gao, H.; Li, X.; Chen, X.; Hai, D.; Wei, C.; Zhang, L.; Li, P. The Functional Roles of Lactobacillus acidophilus in Different Physiological and Pathological Processes. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022, 32, 1226–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Moshiri, M.; Dallal, M.M.S.; Rezaei, F.; Douraghi, M.; Sharifi, L.; Noroozbabaei, Z.; Gholami, M.; Mirshafiey, A. The Effect of Lactobacillus acidophilus PTCC 1643 on Cultured Intestinal Epithelial Cells Infected with Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis. Osong Public Health Res. Perspect. 2017, 8, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fujiwara, S.; Seto, Y.; Kimura, A.; Hashiba, H. Establishment of orally-administered Lactobacillus gasseri SBT2055SR in the gastrointestinal tract of humans and its influence on intestinal microflora and metabolism. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2001, 90, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Takahashi, H.; Fujita, T.; Suzuki, Y.; Benno, Y. Monitoring and survival of Lactobacillus gasseri SBT2055 in the human intestinal tract. Microbiol. Immunol. 2006, 50, 867–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Huang, Y.; Adams, M.C. In vitro assessment of the upper gastrointestinal tolerance of potential probiotic dairy propionibacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 91, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pan, Q.; Shen, X.; Yu, L.; Tian, F.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Chen, W.; Zhai, Q. Comparative Genomic Analysis Determines the Functional Genes Related to Bile Salt Resistance in Lactobacillus salivarius. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lebeer, S.; Vanderleyden, J.; De Keersmaecker, S.C.J. Genes and molecules of lactobacilli supporting probiotic action. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2008, 72, 728–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. van den Nieuwboer, M.; van Hemert, S.; Claassen, E.; de Vos, W.M. Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1 and its host interaction: A dozen years after the genome. Microb. Biotechnol. 2016, 9, 452–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Muscariello, L.; De Siena, B.; Marasco, R. Lactobacillus Cell Surface Proteins Involved in Interaction with Mucus and Extracellular Matrix Components. Curr. Microbiol. 2020, 77, 3831–3841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Carpi, F.M.; Coman, M.M.; Silvi, S.; Picciolini, M.; Verdenelli, M.C.; Napolioni, V. Comprehensive pan-genome analysis of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum complete genomes. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 132, 592–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Šušković, J.; Kos, B.; Beganović, J.; Leboš Pavunc, A.; Habjanič, K.; Matošić, S. Antimicrobial Activity—The Most Important Property of Probiotic and Starter Lactic Acid Bacteria. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2010, 48, 296–307. [Google Scholar]
  66. Corr, S.C.; Li, Y.; Riedel, C.U.; O’Toole, P.W.; Hill, C.; Gahan, C.G.M. Bacteriocin production as a mechanism for the antiinfective activity of Lactobacillus salivarius UCC118. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 7617–7621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hinton, A.; Corrier, D.E.; Deloach, J.R. In Vitro Inhibition of Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli 0157:H7 by an Anaerobic Gram-positive Coccus Isolated from the Cecal Contents of Adult Chickens. J. Food Prot. 1992, 55, 162–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. De Keersmaecker, S.C.J.; Verhoeven, T.L.A.; Desair, J.; Marchal, K.; Vanderleyden, J.; Nagy, I. Strong antimicrobial activity of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG against Salmonella typhimurium is due to accumulation of lactic acid. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2006, 259, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. O’Hanlon, D.E.; Moench, T.R.; Cone, R.A. In vaginal fluid, bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis can be suppressed with lactic acid but not hydrogen peroxide. BMC Infect. Dis. 2011, 11, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Murry, A.C.; Hinton, A.; Morrison, H. Inhibition of growth of Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium, and Clostridia perfringens on chicken feed media by Lactobacillus salivarius and Lactobacillus plantarum. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2004, 3, 603–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wang, C.; Chang, T.; Yang, H.; Cui, M. Antibacterial mechanism of lactic acid on physiological and morphological properties of Salmonella Enteritidis, Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control 2015, 47, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dittoe, D.K.; Ricke, S.C.; Kiess, A.S. Organic Acids and Potential for Modifying the Avian Gastrointestinal Tract and Reducing Pathogens and Disease. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Surendran Nair, M.; Amalaradjou, M.A.; Venkitanarayanan, K. Antivirulence Properties of Probiotics in Combating Microbial Pathogenesis. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 98, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Zhitnitsky, D.; Rose, J.; Lewinson, O. The highly synergistic, broad spectrum, antibacterial activity of organic acids and transition metals. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 44554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Delcour, A.H. Outer membrane permeability and antibiotic resistance. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2009, 1794, 808–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Vermassen, A.; Leroy, S.; Talon, R.; Provot, C.; Popowska, M.; Desvaux, M. Cell Wall Hydrolases in Bacteria: Insight on the Diversity of Cell Wall Amidases, Glycosidases and Peptidases Toward Peptidoglycan. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Höltje, J.-V. From growth to autolysis: The murein hydrolases in Escherichia coli. Arch. Microbiol. 1995, 164, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhang, H.; HuangFu, H.; Wang, X.; Zhao, S.; Liu, Y.; Lv, H.; Qin, G.; Tan, Z. Antibacterial Activity of Lactic Acid Producing Leuconostoc mesenteroides QZ1178 Against Pathogenic Gallibacterium anatis. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 630294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Boone, I.; Rosner, B.; Lachmann, R.; D’Errico, M.L.; Iannetti, L.; Van der Stede, Y.; Boelaert, F.; Ethelberg, S.; Eckmanns, T.; Stark, K.; et al. Healthcare-associated foodborne outbreaks in high-income countries: A literature review and surveillance study, 16 OECD countries, 2001 to 2019. Euro Surveill. 2021, 26, 2001278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Flynn, S.; van Sinderen, D.; Thornton, G.M.; Holo, H.; Nes, I.F.; Collins, J.K. Characterization of the genetic locus responsible for the production of ABP-118, a novel bacteriocin produced by the probiotic bacterium Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salivarius UCC118. Microbiology 2002, 148, 973–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sevillano, E.; Peña, N.; Lafuente, I.; Cintas, L.M.; Muñoz-Atienza, E.; Hernández, P.E.; Borrero, J. Nisin S, a Novel Nisin Variant Produced by Ligilactobacillus salivarius P1CEA3. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 6813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. O’Shea, E.F.; O’Connor, P.M.; Raftis, E.J.; O’Toole, P.W.; Stanton, C.; Cotter, P.D.; Ross, R.P.; Hill, C. Production of multiple bacteriocins from a single locus by gastrointestinal strains of Lactobacillus salivarius. J. Bacteriol. 2011, 193, 6973–6982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Quilodrán-Vega, S.; Albarracin, L.; Mansilla, F.; Arce, L.; Zhou, B.; Islam, M.A.; Tomokiyo, M.; Al Kassaa, I.; Suda, Y.; Kitazawa, H.; et al. Functional and Genomic Characterization of Ligilactobacillus salivarius TUCO-L2 Isolated From Lama glama Milk: A Promising Immunobiotic Strain to Combat Infections. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 608752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lee, J.-Y.; Han, G.G.; Kim, E.B.; Choi, Y.-J. Comparative genomics of Lactobacillus salivarius strains focusing on their host adaptation. Microbiol. Res. 2017, 205, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Harris, H.M.B.; Bourin, M.J.B.; Claesson, M.J.; O’Toole, P.W. Phylogenomics and comparative genomics of Lactobacillus salivarius, a mammalian gut commensal. Microb. Genom. 2017, 3, e000115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Yang, Y.; Song, X.; Xiong, Z.; Xia, Y.; Wang, G.; Ai, L. Complete Genome Sequence of Lactobacillus salivarius AR809, a Probiotic Strain with Oropharyngeal Tract Resistance and Adhesion to the Oral Epithelial Cells. Curr. Microbiol. 2022, 79, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Diep, D.B.; Mathiesen, G.; Eijsink, V.G.H.; Nes, I.F. Use of lactobacilli and their pheromone-based regulatory mechanism in gene expression and drug delivery. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2009, 10, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Claesson, M.J.; Li, Y.; Leahy, S.; Canchaya, C.; van Pijkeren, J.P.; Cerdeño-Tárraga, A.M.; Parkhill, J.; Flynn, S.; O’Sullivan, G.C.; Collins, J.K.; et al. Multireplicon genome architecture of Lactobacillus salivarius. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 6718–6723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Barrett, E.; Hayes, M.; O’Connor, P.; Gardiner, G.; Fitzgerald, G.F.; Stanton, C.; Ross, R.P.; Hill, C. Salivaricin P, one of a family of two-component antilisterial bacteriocins produced by intestinal isolates of Lactobacillus salivarius. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 3719–3723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Balakrishnan, M.; Simmonds, R.S.; Kilian, M.; Tagg, J.R. Different bacteriocin activities of Streptococcus mutans reflect distinct phylogenetic lineages. J. Med. Microbiol. 2002, 51, 941–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Nissen-Meyer, J.; Oppegård, C.; Rogne, P.; Haugen, H.S.; Kristiansen, P.E. Structure and Mode-of-Action of the Two-Peptide (Class-IIb) Bacteriocins. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2010, 2, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. O’Sullivan, J.N.; O’Connor, P.M.; Rea, M.C.; O’Sullivan, O.; Walsh, C.J.; Healy, B.; Mathur, H.; Field, D.; Hill, C.; Ross, R.P. Nisin J, a Novel Natural Nisin Variant, Is Produced by Staphylococcus capitis Sourced from the Human Skin Microbiota. J. Bacteriol. 2020, 202, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Soltani, S.; Biron, E.; Ben Said, L.; Subirade, M.; Fliss, I. Bacteriocin-Based Synergetic Consortia: A Promising Strategy to Enhance Antimicrobial Activity and Broaden the Spectrum of Inhibition. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e0040621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sheoran, P.; Tiwari, S.K. Synergistically-acting Enterocin LD3 and Plantaricin LD4 Against Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Pathogenic Bacteria. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2021, 13, 542–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ouwehand, A.C.; Salminen, S.; Isolauri, E. Probiotics: An overview of beneficial effects. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2002, 82, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Xu, D.; Fu, L.; Pan, D.; Chu, Y.; Feng, M.; Lu, Y.; Yang, C.; Wang, Y.; Xia, J.; Sun, G. Role of probiotics/synbiotic supplementation in glycemic control: A critical umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, Sep 2, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Foshati, S.; Akhlaghi, M.; Babajafari, S. The effect of pro-/synbiotic supplementation on the brain-derived neurotrophic factor: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Food Funct. 2022, 13, 8754–8765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Waqas, M.; Mehmood, S.; Mahmud, A.; Hussain, J.; Ahmad, S.; Khan, M.T.; Rehman, A.; Zia, M.W.; Shaheen, M.S. Effect of yeast based mannan oligosaccharide (ActigenTM) supplementation on growth, carcass characteristics and physiological response in broiler chickens. Indian J. Anim. Res. 2018, 53, 1475–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ofek, I.; Mirelman, D.; Sharon, N. Adherence of Escherichia coli to human mucosal cells mediated by mannose receptors. Nature 1977, 265, 623–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Firon, N.; Ofek, I.; Sharon, N. Carbohydrate-binding sites of the mannose-specific fimbrial lectins of enterobacteria. Infect. Immun. 1984, 43, 1088–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Bouckaert, J.; Mackenzie, J.; de Paz, J.L.; Chipwaza, B.; Choudhury, D.; Zavialov, A.; Mannerstedt, K.; Anderson, J.; Piérard, D.; Wyns, L.; et al. The affinity of the FimH fimbrial adhesin is receptor-driven and quasi-independent of Escherichia coli pathotypes. Mol. Microbiol. 2006, 61, 1556–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Rosen, D.A.; Pinkner, J.S.; Walker, J.N.; Elam, J.S.; Jones, J.M.; Hultgren, S.J. Molecular variations in Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli FimH affect function and pathogenesis in the urinary tract. Infect. Immun. 2008, 76, 3346–3356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Ganner, A.; Schatzmayr, G. Capability of yeast derivatives to adhere enteropathogenic bacteria and to modulate cells of the innate immune system. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 95, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Ganner, A.; Stoiber, C.; Uhlik, J.T.; Dohnal, I.; Schatzmayr, G. Quantitative evaluation of E. coli F4 and Salmonella Typhimurium binding capacity of yeast derivatives. AMB Express 2013, 3, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Velge, P.; Wiedemann, A.; Rosselin, M.; Abed, N.; Boumart, Z.; Chaussé, A.M.; Grépinet, O.; Namdari, F.; Roche, S.M.; Rossignol, A.; et al. Multiplicity of Salmonella entry mechanisms, a new paradigm for Salmonella pathogenesis. Microbiologyopen 2012, 1, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Boumart, Z.; Velge, P.; Wiedemann, A. Multiple invasion mechanisms and different intracellular Behaviors: A new vision of Salmonella-host cell interaction. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2014, 361, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Johnson, R.; Mylona, E.; Frankel, G. Typhoidal Salmonella: Distinctive virulence factors and pathogenesis. Cell. Microbiol. 2018, 20, e12939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Lam, L.H.; Monack, D.M. Intraspecies competition for niches in the distal gut dictate transmission during persistent Salmonella infection. PLoS Pathog. 2014, 10, e1004527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Stapels, D.A.C.; Hill, P.W.S.; Westermann, A.J.; Fisher, R.A.; Thurston, T.L.; Saliba, A.-E.; Blommestein, I.; Vogel, J.; Helaine, S. Salmonella persisters undermine host immune defenses during antibiotic treatment. Science 2018, 362, 1156–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Nossol, C.; Barta-Böszörményi, A.; Kahlert, S.; Zuschratter, W.; Faber-Zuschratter, H.; Reinhardt, N.; Ponsuksili, S.; Wimmers, K.; Diesing, A.-K.; Rothkötter, H.-J. Comparing Two Intestinal Porcine Epithelial Cell Lines (IPECs): Morphological Differentiation, Function and Metabolism. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0132323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Schierack, P.; Nordhoff, M.; Pollmann, M.; Weyrauch, K.D.; Amasheh, S.; Lodemann, U.; Jores, J.; Tachu, B.; Kleta, S.; Blikslager, A.; et al. Characterization of a porcine intestinal epithelial cell line for in vitro studies of microbial pathogenesis in swine. Histochem. Cell Biol. 2006, 125, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Rath, N.C.; Liyanage, R.; Gupta, A.; Packialakshmi, B.; Lay, J.O. A method to culture chicken enterocytes and their characterization. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 4040–4047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Ashida, N.; Yanagihara, S.; Shinoda, T.; Yamamoto, N. Characterization of adhesive molecule with affinity to Caco-2 cells in Lactobacillus acidophilus by proteome analysis. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2011, 112, 333–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Georgieva, R.N.; Iliev, I.N.; Chipeva, V.A.; Dimitonova, S.P.; Samelis, J.; Danova, S.T. Identification and in vitro characterisation of Lactobacillus plantarum strains from artisanal Bulgarian white brined cheeses. J. Basic Microbiol. 2008, 48, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Dubey, U.K.; Mistry, V. V Growth characteristics of bifidobacteria in infant formulas. J. Dairy Sci. 1996, 79, 1146–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. de Jong, A.; van Hijum, S.A.F.T.; Bijlsma, J.J.E.; Kok, J.; Kuipers, O.P. BAGEL: A web-based bacteriocin genome mining tool. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34, W273–W279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Coman, M.M.; Verdenelli, M.C.; Cecchini, C.; Silvi, S.; Orpianesi, C.; Boyko, N.; Cresci, A. In vitro evaluation of antimicrobial activity of Lactobacillus rhamnosus IMC 501®, Lactobacillus paracasei IMC 502® and SYNBIO® against pathogens. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 117, 518–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (A) Predicted amino acid sequences of class IIb bacteriocin IIbB LS7247 produced by LS7247 strain. (B) Multiple amino acid sequence alignments of alpha and beta peptide chains of class IIb bacteriocins produced by L. salivarius strains: LS7247, UCC118, DPC6005, DPC6027, DPC6189, M7.2, and 7.3. Amino acid residue differences are highlighted in bold.
Figure 1. (A) Predicted amino acid sequences of class IIb bacteriocin IIbB LS7247 produced by LS7247 strain. (B) Multiple amino acid sequence alignments of alpha and beta peptide chains of class IIb bacteriocins produced by L. salivarius strains: LS7247, UCC118, DPC6005, DPC6027, DPC6189, M7.2, and 7.3. Amino acid residue differences are highlighted in bold.
Antibiotics 12 01535 g001
Figure 2. (A) The predicted primary structure of nisin (lantibiotic) based on the nucleotide sequence of the gene found in the genome of the LS7247 strain plasmid. (B) Alignment of primary structures of predicted nisins produced by LS7247 strain (highlighted in bold) with different nisins.
Figure 2. (A) The predicted primary structure of nisin (lantibiotic) based on the nucleotide sequence of the gene found in the genome of the LS7247 strain plasmid. (B) Alignment of primary structures of predicted nisins produced by LS7247 strain (highlighted in bold) with different nisins.
Antibiotics 12 01535 g002
Table 1. Tolerance of lactobacillus strains to gastric and intestinal stresses in vitro.
Table 1. Tolerance of lactobacillus strains to gastric and intestinal stresses in vitro.
NStrainGastric Stress *Intestinal Stress *
10 min30 min60 min5 h
CFU/mLCFU/mLCFU/mLCFU/mL
ExperimentControlExperimentControlExperimentControlExperimentControl
1L. animalis IIE 7234(2.40 ± 0.50) × 107(2.00 ± 0.60) × 108(1.41 ± 0.48) × 107(1.55 ± 0.63) × 108(1.35 ± 0.44) × 107(1.71 ± 0.51) × 108(5.12 ± 0.31) × 105(3.05 ± 0.47) × 108
RD = 8.1 ± 1.6
Good
RD = 10.7 ± 0.6
Acceptable
RD = 12.6 ± 0.9
Acceptable
RD = 610.0 ± 11.5
Unacceptable
2L. salivarius IIE 7247(2.18 ± 0.61) × 107(2.35 ± 0.62) × 107(2.14 ± 0.59) × 107(2.41 ± 0.55) × 107(1.19 ± 0.44) × 107(2.36 ± 0.46) × 107(5.43 ± 0.62) × 107(2.00 ± 0.51) × 108
RD = 1.1 ± 0.1
Very good
RD = 1.1 ± 0.1
Very good
RD = 2.1 ± 0.8
Very good
RD = 4 ± 0.3
Very good
3L. gasseri IIE 7528(8.82 ± 0.53) × 107(5.44 ± 0.62) × 108(2.19 ± 0.57) × 106(1.71 ± 0.65) × 107(1.20 ± 0.40) × 105(9.43 ± 0.48) × 105(1.05 ± 0.44) × 107(7.12 ± 0.82) × 108
RD = 6.1 ± 0.8
Good
RD = 7.6 ± 1.2
Good
RD = 7.8 ± 1.1
Good
RD = 67.8 ± 3.2
Unacceptable
* Data are represented as means ± SD of three independent experiments, tested in triplicate.
Table 2. Anti-Salmonella activity of lactobacillus strains.
Table 2. Anti-Salmonella activity of lactobacillus strains.
Salmonella StrainSalmonella Strain Growth Inhibition Zone (nm)
L. animalis IIE 723 L. salivarius IIE 7247L. gasseri IIE 7528
S. Enteritidis ATCC 1307610.8 ± 0.416.5 ± 0.7 *12.7 ± 0.5
S. Enteritidis ATCC 493111.2 ± 0.518.3 ± 0.6 *10.9 ± 0.5
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 621510.9 ± 0.517.4 ± 0.8 *8.2 ± 0.5
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 62188.7 ± 0.318.5 ± 0.4 *9.5 ± 0.3
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 6219 9.6 ± 0.618.9 ± 0.6 *10.2 ± 0.4
S. Typhimurium ATCC 7007208.4 ± 0.516.8 ± 0.5 *11.6 ± 0.7
S. Typhimurium ATCC 1402812.5 ± 0.617.6 ± 0.5 *7.8 ± 0.6
S. Typhimurium IIE BR 64589.8 ± 0.416.9 ± 0.8 *10.3 ± 0.5
S. Typhimurium IIE BR 64618.5 ± 0.318.6 ± 0.4 *9.7 ± 0.3
Data are represented as means ± SD of six independent experiments, tested in triplicate. Asterisks indicate a significant difference in the anti-Salmonella activity of the L. salivarius IIE 7247 strain compared to the L. animalis IIE 7234 strain and L. gasseri IIE 7528 strain (* p < 0.05).
Table 3. Anti-Salmonella activity of CFS of LS7247 strain.
Table 3. Anti-Salmonella activity of CFS of LS7247 strain.
Salmonella StrainSalmonella Strain Growth Inhibition Zone (mm)
CFS IntactCFS Neutralized by NaOH
S. Enteritidis ATCC 1307615.1 ± 0.6 *6.5 ± 0.3
S. Enteritidis ATCC 493114.2 ± 0.4 *5.4 ± 0.4
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 621518.5 ± 0.6 *5.8 ± 0.3
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 621814.9 ± 0.7 *6.9 ± 0.5
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 621915.3 ± 0.5 *6.2 ± 0.5
S. Typhimurium ATCC 70072014.7 ± 0.5 *6.8 ± 0.4
S. Typhimurium ATCC 1402819.4 ± 0.6 *5.7 ± 0.3
S. Typhimurium IIE BR 645814.5 ± 0.5 *6.2 ± 0.4
S. Typhimurium IIE BR 646114.8 ± 0.4 *5.9 ± 0.5
Data are represented as means ± SD of six independent experiments, tested in triplicate. * p < 0.05 Salmonella strain growth inhibition zone induced by CFS vs. CFS neutralized by NaOH.
Table 4. Dynamics of lactic acid production in the process of LS7247 strain cultivation in MRS broth.
Table 4. Dynamics of lactic acid production in the process of LS7247 strain cultivation in MRS broth.
Cultivation Time, h4244872
Lactic acid production, mM3.5 ± 0.469.7 ± 0.8 *124.0 ± 2.5 **41.8 ± 0.6 *
Data are represented as means ± SD of six independent experiments, tested in triplicate. * p < 0.01—lactic acid level in culture medium after 24 h of LS7247 strain cultivation vs. 4 h of cultivation; ** p < 0.001—lactic acid level in culture medium after 48 h of LS7247 strain cultivation vs. 4 h of cultivation.
Table 5. Anti-Salmonella activity of LS7247 strain.
Table 5. Anti-Salmonella activity of LS7247 strain.
Salmonella Strain0 h24 h
C 1JC 2C 1JC 2
S. Enteritidis ATCC 130762 × 1053 × 1058 × 1058 × 104
S. Enteritidis ATCC 49313 × 1053 × 1058 × 1054 × 104
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 62154 × 1054 × 1052 × 1065 × 104
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 62183 × 1053 × 1059 × 1053 × 104
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 62194 × 1054 × 1058 × 1052 × 104
S. Typhimurium ATCC 7007203 × 1053 × 1058 × 1052 × 104
S. Typhimurium ATCC 140284 × 1054 × 1052× 1065 × 104
S. Typhimurium IIE BR 64583 × 1053 × 1058 × 1054 × 104
S. Typhimurium IIE BR 64614 × 1054 × 1052 × 1064 × 104
1 Control; number of Salmonella cells in monoculture (CFU/mL). 2 Number of Salmonella cells in co-culture with LS7247 (CFU/mL). Data are representative of six independent experiments, tested in triplicate.
Table 6. Extracellular ATP levels in SE and ST pathogens treated with CFS of LS7247.
Table 6. Extracellular ATP levels in SE and ST pathogens treated with CFS of LS7247.
Salmonella StrainControl 1CFS LS7247 2
S. Enteritidis ATCC 130765.7 ± 0.825.4 ± 1.2 *
S. Enteritidis ATCC 49314.6 ± 0.723.7 ± 1.0 *
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 62155.3 ± 0.928.5 ± 1.3 *
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 62184.5 ± 0.624.3 ± 1.2 *
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 62195.9 ± 0.827.5 ± 1.2 *
S. Typhimurium ATCC 7007205.4 ± 0.928.4 ± 1.1 *
S. Typhimurium ATCC 140284.8 ± 0.725.8 ± 1.0 *
S. Typhimurium ATCC 140285.6 ± 0.529.5 ± 1.2 *
S. Typhimurium IIE BR 64614.0 ± 0.523.9 ± 1.1 *
1,2 Concentration of ATP (nm/OD). Control 1: Suspension of Salmonella cells in MRC medium. CFS of LS7247 2: Suspension of Salmonella cells in CFS of LS7247 strain. * p < 0.05 extracellular ATP level in suspension of Salmonella cells in MRC medium vs. suspension of Salmonella cells in CFS of LS7247 strain. All data are representative of six independent experiments, tested in triplicate.
Table 7. LS7247 strain indicators for its ability to adhere to a monolayer formed from human Caco-2, porcine IPEC-J2, or chicken primary cecal enterocytes.
Table 7. LS7247 strain indicators for its ability to adhere to a monolayer formed from human Caco-2, porcine IPEC-J2, or chicken primary cecal enterocytes.
Adhesion Indicator
of LS7247 Strain
Human and Animal Enterocytes
Human Caco-2Porcine IPEC-J2Chicken Cecal Cells
Adhesion activity100%100% 100%
Adhesion index 38.6 ± 2.532.4 ± 1.927.5 ± 1.6
Data are presented as the means ± SD of six independent experiments, tested in triplicate.
Table 8. Total effects of the Actigen prebiotic and CFS from LS7247 strain in inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to human Caco-2 enterocytes.
Table 8. Total effects of the Actigen prebiotic and CFS from LS7247 strain in inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to human Caco-2 enterocytes.
Salmonella StrainPBS (Control)Actigen 1CFS 2MIXT 3∆CFS 4∆MIXT 5
S. Enteritidis ATCC 1307625.5 ± 1.26.4 ± 0.8 **9.8 ± 1.0 **0.75 ± 0.04 ***27.4 ± 1.36.9 ± 0.7 **
S. Enteritidis ATCC 493128.3 ± 1.56.7 ± 0.5 **9.5 ± 1.2 **0.69 ± 0.05 ***28.6 ± 1.55.7 ± 0.9 **
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 621528.7 ± 1.35.9 ± 0.6 **8.4 ± 1.1 **0.84 ± 0.06 ***23.9 ± 1.16.1 ± 0.5 **
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 621826.4 ± 1.26.3 ± 0.7 **8.6 ± 1.2 **0.65 ± 0.03 ***29.5 ± 1.66.4 ± 0.8 **
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 621927.3 ± 1.45.8 ± 0.5 **9.3 ± 1.2 **0.56 ± 0.03 ***24.7 ± 1.15.9 ± 0.7 **
S. Typhimurium ATCC 70072026.5 ± 1.25.5 ± 0.8 **8.5 ± 1.1 **0.59 ± 0.04 ***28.2 ± 1.46.5 ± 0.8 **
S. Typhimurium ATCC 1402828.5 ± 1.45.9 ± 0.7 **9.2 ± 1.3 **0.62 ± 0.03 ***25.6 ± 1.86.3 ± 0.7 **
S. Typhimurium IIE BR 645827.6 ± 1.56.2 ± 0.5 **8.7 ± 1.1 **0.67 ± 0.04 ***24.8 ± 1.56.5 ± 0.5 **
S. Typhimurium IIE BR 646129.2 ± 1.46.8 ± 0.4 **9.5 ± 1.2 **0.58 ± 0.03 ***26.7 ± 1.46.8 ± 0.7 **
1—Actigen prebiotic (concentration: 40 µg/mL); 2—lyophilized CFS (concentration: 40 µg/mL); 3—Mixture of CFS (concentration: 20 µg/mL) and Actigen prebiotic (concentration: 20 µg/mL); 4—lyophilized ∆CFS after cultivation with proteinase K (concentration: 40 µg/mL); 5—mixture of Actigen prebiotic (concentration: 20 µg/mL) and lyophilized ∆CFS (concentration: 20 µg/mL); ** p < 0.01 adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to Caco-2 alone vs. adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to Caco-2 + Actigen or adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to Caco-2 + CFS; *** p < 0.001 adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to Caco-2 alone vs. adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to Caco-2 + Actigen + CFS. Data are presented as the means ± SD of six independent experiments, tested in triplicate.
Table 9. Total effects of the Actigen prebiotic and CFS from LS7247 strain in inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to porcine IPEC-J2 enterocytes.
Table 9. Total effects of the Actigen prebiotic and CFS from LS7247 strain in inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to porcine IPEC-J2 enterocytes.
Salmonella StrainPBS (Control)Actigen 1CFS 2MIXT 3∆CFS 4∆MIXT 5
S. Enteritidis ATCC 1307628.6 ± 1.35.4 ± 0.4 **8.7 ± 1.3 **0.64 ± 0.05 ***26.4 ± 1.36.3 ± 0.4 **
S. Enteritidis ATCC 493127.5 ± 1.26.2 ± 0.2 **9.5 ± 1.4 **0.55 ± 0.03 ***28.5 ± 1.25.8 ± 0.5 **
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 621529.4 ± 1.56.5 ± 0.3 **8.3 ± 1.2 **0.49 ± 0.05 ***27.6 ± 1.46.1 ± 0.3 **
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 621826.9 ± 1.45.2 ± 0.4 **7.9 ± 1.1 **0.46 ± 0.04 ***29.5 ± 1.27.4 ± 0.8 **
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 621925.4 ± 1.15.3 ± 0.4 **8.2 ± 1.5 **0.48 ± 0.05 ***24.8 ± 1.66.5 ± 0.5 **
S. Typhimurium ATCC 70072027.2 ± 1.47.2 ± 0.3 **9.4 ± 1.3 **0.59 ± 0.04 ***28.9 ± 1.77.1 ± 0.4 **
S. Typhimurium ATCC 1402825.8 ± 1.35.2 ± 0.6 **8.2 ± 1.2 **0.45 ± 0.03 ***29.2 ± 1.57.2 ± 0.8 **
S. Typhimurium IIE BR 645826.7 ± 1.15.7 ± 0.4 **8.4 ± 1.5 **0.48 ± 0.05 ***28.4 ± 1.46.9 ± 0.7 **
S. Typhimurium IIE BR 646128.2 ± 1.67.5 ± 0.9 **9.3 ± 1.1 **0.67 ± 0.04 ***29.6 ± 1.77.1 ± 0.5 **
1—Actigen prebiotic (concentration: 40 µg/mL); 2—lyophilized CFS (concentration: 40 µg/mL); 3—mixture of Actigen prebiotic (concentration: 20 µg/mL) and lyophilized CFS (concentration: 20 µg/mL); 4—lyophilized ∆CFS after cultivation with proteinase K (concentration: 40 µg/mL); 5—mixture of Actigen prebiotic (concentration: 20 µg/mL) and lyophilized ∆CFS (concentration: 20 µg/mL); ** p < 0.01 adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to IPEC-J2 alone vs. adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to IPEC-J2 + Actigen or adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to IPEC-J2 + CFS; *** p < 0.001 adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to IPEC-J2 alone vs. adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to IPEC-J2 + Actigen + CFS. Data are presented as the means ± SD of six independent experiments, tested in triplicate.
Table 10. Total effects of the Actigen prebiotic and CFS from LS7247 strain in inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to chicken primary cecal enterocytes.
Table 10. Total effects of the Actigen prebiotic and CFS from LS7247 strain in inhibiting the adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to chicken primary cecal enterocytes.
Salmonella StrainPBS (Control)Actigen 1CFS 2MIXT 3∆CFS 4∆MIXT 5
S. Enteritidis ATCC 1307619.4 ± 1.54.8 ± 0.3 **6.5 ± 0.8 **0.5 ± 0.04 ***23.5 ± 1.75.4 ± 0.5 **
S. Enteritidis ATCC 493121.7 ± 1.35.8 ± 0.6 **6.7 ± 0.5 **0.7 ± 0.05 ***24.8 ± 1.34.9 ± 0.6 **
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 621518.6 ± 1.64.9 ± 0.4 **5.9 ± 0.7 **0.6 ± 0.03 ***19.7 ± 1.15.7 ± 0.4 **
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 621822.3 ± 1.44.6 ± 0.3 **6.3 ± 0.6 **0.4 ± 0.02 ***20.9 ± 1.65.1 ± 0.3 **
S. Enteritidis IIE Egg 621919.5 ± 1.24.7 ± 0.5 **5.7 ± 0.4 **0.5 ± 0.03 ***22.3 ± 1.84.8 ± 0.5 **
S. Typhimurium ATCC 70072023.6 ± 1.15.3 ± 0.4 **6.6 ± 0.7 **0.6 ± 0.04 ***19.9 ± 1.25.3 ± 0.4 **
S. Typhimurium ATCC 1402820.4 ± 1.35.7 ± 0.5 **7.5 ± 0.4 **0.6 ± 0.03 ***21.4 ± 1.55.2 ± 0.6 **
S. Typhimurium IIE BR 645821.7 ± 1.55.2 ± 0.4 **7.2 ± 0.8 **0.8 ± 0.05 ***22.7 ± 1.84.9 ± 0.5 **
S. Typhimurium IIE BR 646122.5 ± 1.64.9 ± 0.3 **6.8 ± 0.5 **0.7 ± 0.04 ***20.6 ± 1.34.7 ± 0.6 **
1—Actigen prebiotic (concentration: 40 µg/mL); 2—lyophilized CFS (concentration: 40 µg/mL); 3—mixture of Actigen prebiotic (concentration: 20 µg/mL) and lyophilized CFS (concentration: 20 µg/mL); 4—lyophilized ∆CFS after cultivation with proteinase K (concentration: 40 µg/mL); 5—mixture of Actigen prebiotic (concentration: 20 µg/mL) and lyophilized ∆CFS (concentration: 20 µg/mL); ** p < 0.01 adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to CPCE alone vs. adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to CPCE + Actigen or adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to CPCE + CFS; *** p < 0.001 adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to CPCE alone vs. adhesion of SE and ST pathogens to CPCE + Actigen + CFS. Data are presented as the means ± SD of six independent experiments, tested in triplicate.
Table 11. Microorganisms used in this study.
Table 11. Microorganisms used in this study.
MicroorganismStrainAntibiotic ResistanceGrowth Conditions
L. salivariusIIE 1 LS7247 2 MRS a 37 °C in CO2 incubator, 10% CO2 or anaerobically 48 h
L. animalisIIE LA 7234 3 The same
L. gasseriIIE LG 7528 4 The same
S. EnteritidisATCC 13076 BHI b 37 °C aerobically 18 h
S. EnteritidisATCC 4931 The same
S. EnteritidisIIE Egg 6215 5NAL/AMPThe same
S. EnteritidisIIE Egg 6218AMP/TET/CIP/NAL/CHLThe same
S. EnteritidisIIE Egg 6219AMP/TET/CIP/NAL/AZMThe same
S. TyphimuriumATCC 700720 The same
S. TyphimuriumATCC 14028 The same
S. TyphimuriumIIE Br 6458 6NAL/AMP/TETThe same
S. TyphimuriumIIE Br 6461AMP/TET/SXT/AZMThe same
1 Collection of Microorganisms at the Institute of Immunological Engineering (IIE), Department of Biochemistry of Immunity and Biodefence, Lyubuchany, Moscow Region, Russia. 2 Isolate from the intestines (the analysis of feces was carried out) and reproductive system (the analysis of the vaginal discharge was carried out) of a healthy woman. 3 Isolate from a broiler chicken intestine. 4 Isolate from a piglet intestine. 5 Isolate from chicken’s eggs. 6 Isolate from fresh broiler chicken meat. a Man–Rogosa–Sharpe (MRS) broth or agar-containing plates (HiMedia, India). b Brain-Heart Infusion (BHI) broth supplemented with 0.5% yeast extract or agar containing BHI plates. Antibiotic resistance: NAL—nalidixic acid, AMP—ampicillin, TET—tetracycline, CIP—ciprofloxacin, SXT—tri methoprimsulfamethoxazole, CHL—chloramphenicol, AZM—azithromycin.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abramov, V.M.; Kosarev, I.V.; Machulin, A.V.; Deryusheva, E.I.; Priputnevich, T.V.; Panin, A.N.; Chikileva, I.O.; Abashina, T.N.; Manoyan, A.M.; Ahmetzyanova, A.A.; et al. Ligilactobacillus salivarius 7247 Strain: Probiotic Properties and Anti-Salmonella Effect with Prebiotics. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1535. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12101535

AMA Style

Abramov VM, Kosarev IV, Machulin AV, Deryusheva EI, Priputnevich TV, Panin AN, Chikileva IO, Abashina TN, Manoyan AM, Ahmetzyanova AA, et al. Ligilactobacillus salivarius 7247 Strain: Probiotic Properties and Anti-Salmonella Effect with Prebiotics. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(10):1535. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12101535

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abramov, Vyacheslav M., Igor V. Kosarev, Andrey V. Machulin, Evgenia I. Deryusheva, Tatiana V. Priputnevich, Alexander N. Panin, Irina O. Chikileva, Tatiana N. Abashina, Ashot M. Manoyan, Anna A. Ahmetzyanova, and et al. 2023. "Ligilactobacillus salivarius 7247 Strain: Probiotic Properties and Anti-Salmonella Effect with Prebiotics" Antibiotics 12, no. 10: 1535. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12101535

APA Style

Abramov, V. M., Kosarev, I. V., Machulin, A. V., Deryusheva, E. I., Priputnevich, T. V., Panin, A. N., Chikileva, I. O., Abashina, T. N., Manoyan, A. M., Ahmetzyanova, A. A., Ivanova, O. E., Papazyan, T. T., Nikonov, I. N., Suzina, N. E., Melnikov, V. G., Khlebnikov, V. S., Sakulin, V. K., Samoilenko, V. A., Gordeev, A. B., ... Uversky, V. N. (2023). Ligilactobacillus salivarius 7247 Strain: Probiotic Properties and Anti-Salmonella Effect with Prebiotics. Antibiotics, 12(10), 1535. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12101535

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop