与GG相比，DSM 22959的安全性和益生菌潜力的初步评估
Preliminary Evaluation of the Safety and Probiotic Potential of DSM 22959 in Comparison with GG.
作者信息
Cozzolino Autilia, Vergalito Franca, Tremonte Patrizio, Iorizzo Massimo, Lombardi Silvia J, Sorrentino Elena, Luongo Delia, Coppola Raffaele, Di Marco Roberto, Succi Mariantonietta
机构信息
Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Sciences (DiAAA), University of Molise, Via De Sanctis, 86100 Campobasso, Italy.
Institute of Biostructure and Bioimaging of the National Research Council (IBB-CNR), Via Mezzocannone 16, 80134 Napoli, Italy.
出版信息
Microorganisms. 2020 Jan 30;8(2):189. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8020189.
In this study, for the first time, we examined some of the physico-chemical properties of the cell surface of DSM 22959, comparing it with those of GG-one of the most extensively studied probiotic microorganisms. In particular, hydrophobicity, auto-aggregation, co-aggregation, and biofilm formation were investigated. In addition, antibiotic susceptibility, co-culture, and antimicrobial activity of the two strains were compared Hydrophobicity was evaluated using xylene and toluene, showing that DSM 22959 possessed moderate hydrophobicity. showed a faster and higher auto-aggregation ability than GG, but a lower aptitude in biofilm formation. In the co-aggregation test, the best performance was obtained by GG. Regarding the susceptibility to antibiotics, the differences between the two strains were remarkable, with DSM 22959 showing resistance to half of the antibiotic tested. Interesting results were also obtained with regard to the stimulating effect of Lb. rhamnosus GG on the growth of A. muciniphila when co-cultured.
在本研究中，我们首次检测了DSM 22959细胞表面的一些物理化学性质，并将其与研究最为广泛的益生菌微生物之一——GG的性质进行了比较。特别研究了疏水性、自聚集、共聚集和生物膜形成。此外，还比较了这两种菌株的抗生素敏感性、共培养情况和抗菌活性。使用二甲苯和甲苯评估疏水性，结果表明DSM 22959具有中等疏水性。DSM 22959显示出比GG更快、更高的自聚集能力，但生物膜形成能力较低。在共聚集试验中，GG表现最佳。关于对抗生素的敏感性，两种菌株之间的差异显著，DSM 22959对所测试的一半抗生素具有抗性。在共培养时，鼠李糖乳杆菌GG对嗜黏蛋白阿克曼氏菌生长的刺激作用也获得了有趣的结果。
Zotero 插件