» Articles » PMID: 35317800

In Vitro Assessment of Anti-Campylobacter Activity of Lactobacillus Strains Isolated from Canine Rectal Swabs

Overview
Journal BMC Vet Res
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2022 Mar 23
PMID 35317800
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Campylobacteriosis is currently the most frequently reported zoonosis. Dogs, especially puppies or those with diarrhea, are considered a possible source of human infection. Probiotic bacteria, such as Lactobacillus species, seem to be a valuable tool in controlling of intestinal pathogenic microorganisms in dogs. The main purpose of this study was to assess the anti-Campylobacter activity and some probiotic properties, like ability to produce HO bile salt and low pH tolerance of Lactobacillus strains isolated from gastrointestinal tract of healthy dogs.

Results: A total of 39 rectal swabs derived from healthy dogs and 19 from dogs with diarrhea were examined to detect Lactobacillus and Campylobacter bacteria respectively. In total, 30 strains of Lactobacillus genus and four strains of Campylobacter genus were isolated and identified. Of the 30 strains of Lactobacillus, 22 showed an inhibitory effect towards Campylobacter. Four strains with the strongest antagonism towards Campylobacter bacteria (L. salivarius 25 K/L/1, L. rhamnosus 42 K/L/2, L. sakei 50 K/L/1 and L. agilis 55 K/L/1) were selected to assess their potential probiotic traits. Three out of four analyzed strains produced extracellular HO All displayed very good or moderate survival at pH 3.0 and 2.0 and showed high tolerance to 0.5% and 1% bile salts.

Conclusions: Among selected Lactobacillus strains, all may have a potential probiotic application in reducing Campylobacter spp. in dogs and thus prevent transmission of infection to humans, although the best candidate for probiotic seems to be L. sakei 50 K/L/1. Further in vitro and in vivo studies are needed.

Citing Articles

Gut Probiotics and Health of Dogs and Cats: Benefits, Applications, and Underlying Mechanisms.

Yang Q, Wu Z Microorganisms. 2023; 11(10).

PMID: 37894110 PMC: 10609632. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11102452.

References
1.
Heredia N, Garcia S . Animals as sources of food-borne pathogens: A review. Anim Nutr. 2018; 4(3):250-255. PMC: 6116329. DOI: 10.1016/j.aninu.2018.04.006. View

2.
Bratz K, Golz G, Janczyk P, Nockler K, Alter T . Analysis of in vitro and in vivo effects of probiotics against Campylobacter spp. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2015; 128(3-4):155-62. View

3.
Iannino F, Di Donato G, Ruggieri E, Salucci S, De Massis F, Di Giannatale E . Campylobacter infections, a significant issue of veterinary urban hygiene: dog‑related risk factors. Vet Ital. 2017; 53(2):111-120. DOI: 10.12834/VetIt.904.4615.2. View

4.
. The European Union One Health 2019 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2021; 19(2):e06406. PMC: 7913300. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6406. View

5.
Guarneri T, Rossetti L, Giraffa G . Rapid identification of Lactobacillus brevis using the polymerase chain reaction. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2001; 33(5):377-81. DOI: 10.1046/j.1472-765x.2001.01014.x. View