Predominance of a bacteriocin-producing Lactobacillus salivarius component of a five-strain probiotic in the porcine ileum and effects on host immune phenotype

102Citations
Citations of this article
87Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Relative predominance of each of five probiotic strains was investigated in the ileum of weaned pigs, compared with that in feces, when administered in combination at c. 5 × 109 CFU day-1 for 28 days. Probiotic was excreted at 106-109 CFU g-1 feces, while ileal survival ranged from 102 to 106 CFU g-1 digesta. In contrast to the feces, where Lactobacillus murinus DPC6002 predominated, the bacteriocin-producing Lactobacillus salivarus DPC6005 dominated over coadministered strains both in the ileum digesta and in mucosa. Probiotic administration did not alter counts of culturable fecal Lactobacillus or Enterobacteriaceae but higher ileal Enterobacteriaceae were observed in the ileal digesta of probiotic-fed pigs (P<0.05). We observed decreased CD25 induction on T cells and monocytes (P<0.01) and decreased CTLA-4 induction (P<0.05) by the mitogen phytohemagglutinin on CD4 T cells from the probiotic group. Probiotic treatment also increased the proportion of CD4+ CD8+ T cells within the peripheral T-cell population and increased ileal IL-8 mRNA expression (P<0.05). In conclusion, superior ileal survival of L. salivarius compared with the other coadministered probiotics may be due to a competitive advantage conferred by its bacteriocin. The findings also suggest that the five-strain combination may function as a probiotic, at least in part, via immunomodulation. © 2008 Federation of European Microbiological Societies Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Walsh, M. C., Gardiner, G. E., Hart, O. M., Lawlor, P. G., Daly, M., Lynch, B., … Ross, P. (2008). Predominance of a bacteriocin-producing Lactobacillus salivarius component of a five-strain probiotic in the porcine ileum and effects on host immune phenotype. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 64(2), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00454.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free