Scientia Agricultura Sinica ›› 2020, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (14): 2964-2973.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2020.14.019

• ANIMAL SCIENCE·VETERINARY SCIENCE·RESOURCE INSECT • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Identification and Properties of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Wild Boar Feces

WANG Yi(),LI Miao,LI YongFeng,SUN Yuan(),QIU HuaJi()   

  1. State Key Laboratory of Veterinary Biotechnology, Harbin Veterinary Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Harbin 150069
  • Received:2019-08-27 Accepted:2020-02-19 Online:2020-07-16 Published:2020-08-10
  • Contact: Yuan SUN,HuaJi QIU E-mail:ywwhitewhy@163.com;sy0604@126.com;qiuhuaji@caas.cn

Abstract:

【Objective】In order to screen safe lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strains with probiotic properties, LAB were isolated in this study for further developing probiotics and providing resources for animal related products such as feed additives. 【Method】 A total of 13 samples of wild boar feces were collected from Greater Khingan Mountains in China, and the samples were quickly returned to the laboratory at 4°C for isolation and purification of LAB. The genomic DNA of the isolated Gram-positive bacteria was extracted by bacterial genomic DNA extraction kit. After 16S rDNA identification, the sequence was compared with information in GenBank database using BLAST, and the classification status of each strain was determined. The tolerance capacity of LAB was evaluated under acidic pH condition (pH 3.0) and bile salt (0.3%). The LAB was cultured overnight, observed and determined at different time, and then the autoaggregation ability was evaluated. The strains cultured overnight were mixed with Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Salmonella typhimurium at room temperature for coaggregation test. In vitro, the adhesion ability of LAB to Caco-2 cells and IPEC-J2 cells was measured and evaluated. The anti-pathogenic activities were detected by measuring the bacterial inhibition rings on plates of LAB against E. coli, S. aureus, and S. typhimurium. Evaluation of the safety of LAB strains by in vivo and in vitro tests. LAB isolates were cultured in MRS medium for 18-24 h at 37℃. Streak plate methods were performed on sheep blood agar plates to analyze hemolytic activity. The absence/presence of virulence factor genes for the isolated strains was performed using PCR amplification with primers. After 21 days of continuous LAB supplementation, the parameters of general health status including body weight gain and organ index were calculated to assess the safety of the LAB in vivo. 【Result】Three LAB strains isolated from wild boar feces were Enterococcus mundtii, Enterococcus durans, and Lactobacillus mucosae, with the excellent tolerance to acid and bile salt. The results showed that these three strains showed strong adhesion and aggregation ability, and the antimicrobial effect of L. mucosae on the three pathogenic bacteria was better than others. The result of safety evaluation demonstrated that these strains were free of hemolytic activity, and no virulence genes could be detected. The percentage of body weight gain of the mice treated with L. mucosae was significantly higher (P<0.01) than that of the control mice on day 21. 【Conclusion】Taken together, the results indicated that three probiotic strains, especially L. mucosae, had good probiotic properties and safety, so this study provided a scientific basis for further development of probiotic preparations.

Key words: wild boar, lactic acid bacteria, aggregation, adhesion ability, safety

Table 1

The primer sequences for PCR amplification"

基因名称 Gene 引物序列 (5°-3°)
Primer sequence (5°-3°)
产物长度
Length (bp)
16S rDNA 27F: AGAGTTTGATCCATGGCTCAG 1514
1541R: AAGGAGGTGATCCAGCC
ace F: CAGGCCAACATCAAGCAACA 125
R: GCTTGCCTCGCCTTCTACAA
agg F: AAGAAAAAGAAGTAGACCAAC 1553
R: AAACGGCAAGACAAGTAAATA
atpA F: CCAGGTCGTGAAGCTTATCC 110
R: GGTAAGGCCGTCATTGAACC
cfa1 F: ACGACCTGTTGTTCGACCTG 150
R: ACGACCTGTTGTTCGACCTG
ebp F: AATGTGTTAAACCATCAAGGGAAT 372
R: ACTCCTTTTTGAACTTCACCAATC
espA F: TTTGGGGCAACTGGAATAGT 407
R: CCCAGCAAATAGTCCATCAT
gelE F: CGAAGTTGGAAAAGGAGGC 372
R: GGTGAAGAAGTTACTCTGA
groEL F: GTTTGATCGCGGCTATCTGA 150
R: CCTTGTTGMACGATTTCTTG
hisD F: TGAACCACTCGGTGACTACG 150
R: GGAGCTTCCTTAGCCAAAGC
mleS F: ACAAGGTCTCAGCGTTCAGC 140
R: GACTGGGATTCCAGCTGATG
sprE F: GGTAAACCAACCAAGTGAATC 300
R: R: TTCTTCCGATTGACGCAAAA

Table 2

Species identification and acid and bile salt tolerance of three lactic acid bacteria"

菌株
Isolate
种属
Specie
pH 3.0 MRS中存活率
Survival rate at pH 3.0 (%)
0.3%胆盐MRS中存活率
Survival rate at 0.3% bile salt (%)
M6-5 蒙氏肠球菌Enterococcus mundtii 65.22 53.37
M2-38 耐久肠球菌Enterococcus durans 56.83 76.08
M6-27 黏膜乳杆菌Lactobacillus mucosae 70.47 82.99

Fig. 1

The autoaggregation and coaggregation ability of three lactic acid bacteria with the pathogenic bacteria A: Autoaggregation ability of the three strains of lactic acid bacteria; B-D: Coaggregation ability of the three strains of lactic acid bacteria with Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella typhimurium"

Fig. 2

The adhesion ability of three lactic acid bacteria NS: not significant; *: P<0.05; ***: P<0.001 A: Adhesion ability of the three strains of lactic acid bacteria to Caco-2 cells;B: Adhesion ability of the three strains of lactic acid bacteria to IPEC-J2 cells"

Table 3

Inhibition activity of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) against pathogenic bacteria (mm)"

乳酸菌株
LAB strain
抑菌环直径 Inhibition zone diameter (mm)
埃希氏大肠杆菌Escherichia coli 鼠伤寒沙门氏菌Salmonella typhimurium 金黄色葡萄球菌Staphylococcus aureus
M6-5 10.48 ± 0.19 9.91 ± 0.43
M2-38 9.97 ± 0.21
M6-27 13.63 ± 0.27 13.61 ± 0.24 13.48 ± 0.28

Fig. 3

The hemolytic activity of lactic acid bacteria A: M2-38; B: M6-5; C: M6-27; D: Negative control: Lactobacillus acidophilus (ATCC 4356); E: Positive control: Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538P)"

Fig. 4

Partial virulence factor detection results of lactic acid bacteria M: DL2000 Marker; 1-3, 6-8, 11-13 and 16-18: Amplification fragment of gelE, ebp, espA and agg; 4, 9, 14 and 19: The positive control; 5, 10, 15 and 20: The negative control"

Fig. 5

Safety evaluation of lactic acid bacteria in mice NS: not significant; **: P<0.01 A: Effect of probiotic supplementation on body weight gain of mice; B-D: The indices analysis of spleen, liver, and kidney in all the experimental groups"

[1] ARENA M P, CAPOZZI V, RUSSO P, DRIDER D, SPANO G, FIOCCO D. Immunobiosis and probiosis: antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria with a focus on their antiviral and antifungal properties. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2018,102(23):9949-9958.
doi: 10.1007/s00253-018-9403-9 pmid: 30280241
[2] TAN E W, TAN K Y, PHANG L V, KUMAR P V, IN LLA. Enhanced gastrointestinal survivability of recombinant Lactococcus lactis using a double coated mucoadhesive film approach. PLoS One, 2019,14(7):e0219912.
pmid: 31335895
[3] JÄGER R, PURPURA M, FARMER S, CASH H A, KELLER D. Probiotic Bacillus coagulans GBI-30, 6086 improves protein absorption and utilization. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, 2018,10(4):611-615.
doi: 10.1007/s12602-017-9354-y pmid: 29196920
[4] MILLER L E, OUWEHAND A C, IBARRA A. Effects of probiotic- containing products on stool frequency and intestinal transit in constipated adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Annals of Gastroenterology, 2017,30(6):629-639.
pmid: 29118557
[5] ALARD J, PEUCELLE V, BOUTILLIER D, BRETON J, KUYLLE S, POT B, HOLOWACZ S, GRANGETTE C. New probiotic strains for inflammatory bowel disease management identified by combining in vitro and in vivo approaches. Beneficial Microbes, 2018,9(2):317-331.
doi: 10.3920/BM2017.0097 pmid: 29488412
[6] LAKRITZ J R, POUTAHIDIS T, LEVKOVICH T, VARIAN B J, IBRAHIM Y M, CHATZIGIAGKOS A, MIRABAL S, ALM E J, ERDMAN S E. Beneficial bacteria stimulate host immune cells to counteract dietary and genetic predisposition to mammary cancer in mice. International Journal of Cancer, 2014,135(3):529-540.
doi: 10.1002/ijc.28702 pmid: 24382758
[7] NIIBO M, SHIROUCHI B, UMEGATANI M, MORITA Y, OGAWA A, SAKAI F, KADOOKA Y, SATO M. Probiotic Lactobacillus gasseri SBT2055 improves insulin secretion in a diabetic rat model. Journal of Dairy Science, 2019,102(2):997-1006.
doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-15203 pmid: 30471910
[8] ARISTIMUNO FICOSECO C, MANSILLA F I, MALDONADO N C, MIRANDA H, FATIMA NADER-MACIAS M E, VIGNOLO G M. Safety and growth optimization of lactic acid bacteria isolated from feedlot cattle for probiotic formula design. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2018,9:2220.
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02220 pmid: 30323790
[9] DOWARAH R, VERMA A K, AGARWAL N, SINGH P, SINGH B R. Selection and characterization of probiotic lactic acid bacteria and its impact on growth, nutrient digestibility, health and antioxidant status in weaned piglets. PLoS One, 2018,13(3):e0192978.
pmid: 29518093
[10] COLLADO M C, SURONO I, MERILUOTO J, SALMINEN S. Indigenous dadih lactic acid bacteria: cell-surface properties and interactions with pathogens. Journal of Food Science, 2007,72(3):M89-93.
pmid: 17995806
[11] MARIA CARMEN COLLADO, JUSSI MERILUOTO, SEPPO SALMINEN. Adhesion and aggregation properties of probiotic and pathogen strains. European Food Research and Technology, 2008,226:1065-1073.
[12] DOWDELL P, CHANKHAMHAENGDECHA S, PANBANGRED W, JANVILISRI T, AROONNUAL A. Probiotic activity of Enterococcus faecium and Lactococcus lactis isolated from Thai fermented sausages and their protective effect against Clostridium difficile. Probiotics Antimicrobial Proteins, 2019,12(2):641-648.
pmid: 30888623
[13] RAHMEH R, AKBAR A, KISHK M, AL-ONAIZI T, AL-AZMI A, AL-SHATTI A, SHAJAN A, AL-MUTAIRI S, AKBAR B. Distribution and antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria from raw camel milk. New Microbes New Infections, 2019,30:100560.
pmid: 31193267
[14] ARISTIMUÑO FICOSECO C, MANSILLA F I, MALDONADO N C, MIRANDA H, FÁTIMA NADER-MACIAS ME, VIGNOLO G M. Safety and growth optimization of lactic acid bacteria isolated from feedlot cattle for probiotic formula design. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2018,9:2220.
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02220 pmid: 30323790
[15] NAMI Y, VASEGHI BAKHSHAYESH R, MOHAMMADZADEH JALALY H, LOTFI H, ESLAMI S, HEJAZI M A. Probiotic properties of Enterococcus isolated from artisanal dairy products. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2019,10:300.
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00300 pmid: 30863379
[16] AL-TALIB H, ZURAINA N, KAMARUDIN B, YEAN C Y. Genotypic variations of virulent genes in Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis isolated from three hospitals in Malaysia. Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 2015,24:121-127.
doi: 10.17219/acem/38162 pmid: 25923096
[17] ŠEME H, GJURAČIĆ K, KOS B, FUJS Š, ŠTEMPELJ M, PETKOVIĆ H, ŠUŠKOVIĆ J, BOGOVIČ MATIJAŠIĆ B, KOSEC G. Acid resistance and response to pH-induced stress in two Lactobacillus plantarum strains with probiotic potential. Beneficial Microbes, 2015,6:369-379.
pmid: 25380802
[18] KOIRALA R, TAVERNITI V, BALZARETTI S, RICCI G, FORTINA M G, GUGLIELMETTI S. Melting curve analysis of a groEL PCR fragment for the rapid genotyping of strains belonging to the Lactobacillus casei group of species. Microbiological Research, 2015,173:50-58.
pmid: 25801971
[19] LI A, WANG Y, LI Z, QAMAR H, MEHMOOD K, ZHANG L, LIU J, ZHANG H, LI J. Probiotics isolated from yaks improves the growth performance, antioxidant activity, and cytokines related to immunity and inflammation in mice. Microbial Cell Factories, 2019,18:112.
doi: 10.1186/s12934-019-1161-6 pmid: 31217027
[20] 郭玉荣, 王利利, 金煜. 大兴安岭地区野生动物养殖业的机遇、挑战与应对措施. 野生动物杂志, 2006,27(5):29-31.
GUO Y R, WANG L L, JIN Y. Opportunity, Challenge and Countermeasure of wildlife farming in Greater Khingan Mountains. Chinese Wildlife, 2006,27(5):29-31. (in Chinese)
[21] NAMI Y, HAGHSHENAS B, HAGHSHENAS M, YARI KHOSROUSHAHI A. Antimicrobial activity and the presence of virulence factors and bacteriocin structural genes in Enterococcus faecium CM33 isolated from ewe colostrum. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2015,6:782.
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00782 pmid: 26284059
[22] WANG W, GANZLE M. Toward rational selection criteria for selection of probiotics in pigs. Advances in Applied Microbiology, 2019,107:83-112.
doi: 10.1016/bs.aambs.2019.03.003 pmid: 31128749
[23] HSU T C, YI P J, LEE T Y, LIU J R. Probiotic characteristics and zearalenone-removal ability of a Bacillus licheniformis strain. PLoS One, 2018,13(4), e0194866.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194866 pmid: 29641608
[24] SHARMA K, ATTRI S, GOEL G. Selection and evaluation of probiotic and functional characteristics of autochthonous lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented wheat flour dough babroo. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, 2019,11(3):774-784.
pmid: 30220016
[25] ZHANG W, LIU M, DAI X. Biological characteristics and probiotic effect of Leuconostoc lactis strain isolated from the intestine of black porgy fish. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, 2013,44(3):685-691.
pmid: 24516418
[26] JOSE N M, BUNT C R, HUSSAIN M A. Comparison of microbiological and probiotic characteristics of Lactobacilli isolates from dairy food products and animal rumen contents. Microorganisms, 2015,3(2):198-212.
pmid: 27682086
[27] INIGUEZ-PALOMARES C, JIMENEZ-FLORES R, VAZQUEZ-MORENO L, RAMOS-CLAMONT-MONTFORT G, ACEDO-FELIX E. Protein-carbohydrate interactions between Lactobacillus salivarius and pig mucins. Journal of Animal Science, 2011,89(10):3125-3131.
doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-2996 pmid: 21622872
[28] ARQUES J L, RODRIGUEZ E, LANGA S, LANDETE J M, MEDINA M. Antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria in dairy products and gut: effect on pathogens. Biomed Research International, 2015,2015:584183.
pmid: 25861634
[29] CAMPANA R, VAN HEMERT S, BAFFONE W. Strain-specific probiotic properties of lactic acid bacteria and their interference with human intestinal pathogens invasion. Gut Pathogens, 2017,9, 12.
doi: 10.1186/s13099-017-0162-4 pmid: 28286570
[30] KAUR M, SINGH H, JANGRA M, KAUR L, JASWAL P, DUREJA C, NANDANWAR H, CHAUDHURI S R, RAJE M, MISHRA S, PINNAKA A K. Lactic acid bacteria isolated from yak milk show probiotic potential. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2017,101(20):7635-7652.
pmid: 28879447
[31] DRIDER D, BENDALI F, NAGHMOUCHI K, CHIKINDAS M L. Bacteriocins: not only antibacterial agents. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, 2016,8(4):177-182.
doi: 10.1007/s12602-016-9223-0 pmid: 27481236
[1] LI ShaoHua,WANG YunPeng,WANG RongCheng,YIN Ping,LI XiangDong,ZHENG FangQiang. Spatial Distribution Pattern and Sampling Technique of Conogethes punctiferalis Larvae in Maize Fields [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(10): 1961-1970.
[2] ZENG XiaoShan,TANG GuoHua,XIE HongJun,ZHU MingDong,AO HeJun,CHEN Bo,LI FangTing,HAO Ming,XIAO Yan,FU HuiRong,ZHANG Jian,YU YingHong. Selection of PMS Rice Varieties and Application in Flooding Irrigation for Cadmium Reduction [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(17): 3561-3572.
[3] HUI YuanYuan,PENG HaiShuai,WANG BiNi,ZHANG FuXin,LIU YuFang,JIA Rong,REN Rong. Research Progress of Food-Borne Pathogen Detection Based on Electrochemical and Optical Aptasensors [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(11): 2419-2433.
[4] WANG XiaoBin, YAN Xiang, LI XiuYing. Environmental Safety Risk for Application of Anaerobic Fermentation Biogas Slurry from Livestock Manure in Agricultural Land in China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2021, 54(1): 110-139.
[5] HuiLin YU,Fang JIA,ZongHua QUAN,HaiLan CUI,XiangJu LI. Effects of Glyphosate on Weed Control, Soybean Safety and Weed Occurrence in Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Soybean [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(6): 1166-1177.
[6] Jing LIU,Chao LI,JinXiong LIU,Rui HE,YanRong SUN. The Role of High-Level Biosafety Laboratories in Biosafety and Consideration About Their Development [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2020, 53(1): 74-80.
[7] ZHAO Man, TANG JinRong, NIU LinLin, CHEN Lin, LIANG GeMei. Ecological Safety Evaluation of Different Bt Proteins on the Predator Chrysopa pallens [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(9): 1541-1552.
[8] WANG XiaoBin,YAN Xiang,LI XiuYing,JI HongJie. Environmental Risks for Application of Phosphogysum in Agricultural Soils in China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(2): 293-311.
[9] HUA WeiYi,LIU YiMing,XU Fei,LU YongQiang,KONG Mei,WANG HaiTing,HUANG HuiLi,WANG HongLei,WU LianYong,LI XiuBo. The Safety Evaluation of Cefalonium Intramammary Infusion (Dry Cow) [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2019, 52(2): 359-366.
[10] WANG XiaoBin, YAN Xiang, LI XiuYing, CAI DianXiong, LEI Mei. Environment Risk for Application of Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum in Soils in China [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51(5): 926-939.
[11] JIA ShiRong. Risk Assessment and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Crops: History and Reformation [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51(4): 601-612.
[12] LONG DingPei, HAO ZhanZhang, XIANG ZhongHuai, ZHAO AiChun. Current Status of Transgenic Technologies for Safety Consideration in Silkworm (Bombyx mori) and Future Perspectives [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51(2): 363-373.
[13] YIN Xue, GUO XueFeng, LIU JunFeng, ZHANG XiuPing, XI LinQiao, ZHANG SuJiang. Isolation and Identification of Lactic Acid Bacteria from Halostachys Caspica Silage [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2018, 51(14): 2825-2834.
[14] SHEN Ping, ZHANG QiuYan, YANG LiTao, ZHANG Li, LI WenLong, LIANG JinGang, LI XiaYing, WANG HaoQian, SHEN XiaoLing, SONG GuiWen. The Safety Management of Genome Editing Technology [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017, 50(8): 1361-1369.
[15] CAI KeQi, YANG XuanKe, WANG Peng, WU KeBang. Change Regularity and Correlation Analysis of Hainan Special wild Boar Taint Substances [J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2017, 50(15): 3024-3032.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!