Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T06:11:36.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating the antagonistic effect of Lactobacillus acidophilus against Shiga toxigenic and non-toxigenic Escherichia coli strains in bioyogurt

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2023

Karima M. Fahim ,
Zeinab I. Ali ,
Lamiaa I. Ahmed ,
Faten E. Hereher  and
Eman M. Taher
Karima M. Fahim
Affiliation:
Department of Food Hygiene and Control, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cairo University, 12211 Giza, Egypt
Zeinab I. Ali
Affiliation:
Department of Food Hygiene and Control, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cairo University, 12211 Giza, Egypt
Lamiaa I. Ahmed
Affiliation:
Department of Food Hygiene and Control, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cairo University, 12211 Giza, Egypt
Faten E. Hereher
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Naba’ Tabuk Drinking Water Company, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia
Eman M. Taher*
Affiliation:
Department of Food Hygiene and Control, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Cairo University, 12211 Giza, Egypt
*
Author for correspondence: Eman M. Taher, Email: eman.elmaghraby@cu.edu.eg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the effect of acidophilus yoghurt (yoghurt fortified with Lactobacillus acidophilus) in comparison to traditional plain yoghurt (St. thermophilus and L. bulgaricus starter cultures) on the survival of three pathogenic Escherichia coli strains; Shiga toxigenic O157 (STx O157), non-toxigenic O157 (Non-STx O157) and Shiga toxigenic non-O157 (STx O145). After six days of refrigerated storage of laboratory-manufactured yoghurt inoculated with the three strains of E. coli separately, all were eliminated in acidophilus yoghurt, while their survival extended in the traditional yoghurt along the storage period (17 d). Reduction percentages of the tested strains in acidophilus yoghurt were 99.93, 99.93 and 99.86%, with log reduction of 3.176, 3.176, and 2.865 cfu/g for Stx O157, Non-Stx O157, and Stx O145 E. coli, respectively, in comparison to 91.67, 93.33 and 93.33%, with log reduction of 1.079, 1.176 and 1.176 cfu/g in traditional yoghurt. Statistical analysis showed a significant effect of acidophilus yoghurt in reducing the count of Stx E. coli O157 (P = 0.001), Non-Stx E. coli O157 (P < 0.01) and Stx E. coli O145 (P < 0.01) compared to the traditional yoghurt. These findings emphasize the potential use of acidophilus yoghurt as a biocontrol alternative method for eliminating pathogenic E. coli, as well as other similar applications in the dairy industry.

Keywords

Acidophilus yoghurtE. colifunctional yoghurtprobioticsShiga toxin
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 90 , Issue 1 , February 2023 , pp. 82 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hannah Dairy Research Foundation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmed, L, Darwish, S, Hafiz, R and Abd Aal, A (2014) Influence of yoghurt starter culture on viability of some pathogenic microorganisms in yoghurt. International Journal of Dairy Science 9, 82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, L, Ibrahim, N, Abdel-Salam, AB and Fahim, KM (2021) Potential application of ginger, clove and thyme essential oils to improve soft cheese microbial safety and sensory characteristics. Food Bioscience 42, 101177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, ZI, Saudi, AM, Albrecht, R and Talaat, AM (2019) The inhibitory effect of nisin on Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis and its effect on mycobacterial cell wall. Journal of Dairy Science 102, 4935–4944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Nabulsi, A, Olaimat, A, Osaili, T, Ayyash, M, Abushelaibi, A, Jaradat, Z, Shaker, R, Al-Taani, M and Holley, R (2016) Behavior of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes during fermentation and storage of camel yoghurt. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 1802–1811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amal, MA, El Demerdash, HA, Metwally, MM and Shahein, MR (2016) Antimicrobial impact of some probiotic strains against selected pathogenic bacteria. Egyptian Journal of Dairy Science 44, 27–36.Google Scholar
Ameer, MA, Wasey, A and Salen, P (2022) Escherichia coli (E coli 0157 H7) In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, 2022 Jan.Google Scholar
APHA “American Public Health Association” (2004) Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products, 17h Edn. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
Bellio, A, Bianchi, D, Vitale, N, Vernetti, L, Gallina, S and Decastelli, L (2018) Behavior of Escherichia coli O157:H7 during the manufacture and ripening of Fontina protected designation of origin cheese. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 4962–4970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bian, X, Evivie, SE, Muhammad, Z, Luo, GW, Liang, HZ, Wang, NN and Huo, GC (2016) In vitro assessment of the antimicrobial potentials of Lactobacillus helveticus strains isolated from traditional cheese in Sinkiang China against food-borne pathogens. Food Function 7, 789–797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Celik, G, Dikici, A and Koluman, A (2021) Survival of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) serogroups during production and storage of yogurt. Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society 72, 2689–2694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de La Pomelie, D, Leroy, S, Talon, R, Ruiz, P, Gatellier, P and Santé-Lhoutellier, V (2021) Investigation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 survival and interaction with meal components during gastrointestinal digestion. Foods 10, 2415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dini, C, Bolla, PA and de Urraza, PJ (2016) Treatment of in vitro enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli infection using phage and probiotics. Journal Applied Microbiology 121, 78–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engdaw, T and Temesgen, W (2016) O157:H7 serotype of Escherichia coli as an important emerging zoonosis. International Journal of Microbiological Research 7, 9–17.Google Scholar
Fahim, KM, Ghoneim, RSH, Morgan, SD and Abdel Aal, AA (2016) Prevalence of Shiga toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in milk and some dairy products. Journal of Egyptian Veterinary Medicine Association 76, 209–225.Google Scholar
Fahim, KM, Ahmed, NB, Mohamed, GS, Eman, IH and Ahmed, LI (2021) Innovative application of postbiotics, parabiotics and encapsulated Lactobacillus plantarum RM1 and Lactobacillus paracasei KC39 for detoxification of aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) in milk powder. Journal of Dairy Research 88, 429–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahim, KM, Ismael, E, Khalefa, HS, Farag, HS and Hamza, DA (2019) Isolation and characterization of E. coli strains causing intramammary infections from dairy animals and wild birds. International Journal of Veterinary Science and Medicine 7, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fayemi, OE and Buys, EM (2017) Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum on the survival of acid-tolerant non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) strains in fermented goat's milk. International Journal of Dairy Technology 70, 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghadaksaz, A, Nodoushan, S, Sedighian, H, Behzadi, E and Fooladi, A (2022) Evaluation of the role of probiotics as a new strategy to eliminate microbial toxins: a review. Probiotics Antimicrobial Proteins 14, 224–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giordano, M, Baldassarre, M, Palmieri, V, Torres, D, Carbone, V, Santangelo, L, Gentile, F, Panza, R, Di-Mauro, F, Capozza, M, Di-Mauro, A and Laforgia, N (2019) Management of STEC gastroenteritis: is there a role for probiotics? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, 1649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glassman, H, Ferrato, C and Chui, L (2022) Epidemiology of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in the province of Alberta, Canada, from 2018 to 2021. Microorganisms 10, 814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joseph, A, Cointe, A, Mariani Kurkdjian, P, Rafat, C and Hertig, A (2020) Shiga toxin-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome: a narrative review. Toxins 12, 67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jurášková, D, Ribeiro, S and Silva, C (2022) Exopolysaccharides produced by lactic acid Bacteria: from biosynthesis to health-promoting properties. Foods 11, 156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, JS, Lee, MS and Kim, JH (2020) Recent updates on outbreaks of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and its potential reservoirs. Frontiersin Cellular Infection Microbiology 10, 273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minj, J, Chandra, P, Paul, C and Sharma, RK (2021) Bio-functional properties of probiotic Lactobacillus: current applications and research perspectives. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 61, 2207–2224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moineau-Jean, A, Guévremont, E, Champagne, CP, Roy, D, Raymond, Y and LaPointe, G (2017) Fate of Escherichia coli and Kluyveromyces marxianus contaminants during storage of Greek-style yogurt produced by centrifugation or ultrafiltration. International Dairy Journal 72, 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, PR, Rosenthal, KS and Pfaller, MA (2020) Medical Microbiology, 9th Edn. Section 4. Philadelphia PA, USA: Elsevier Health Sciences.Google Scholar
Neveen, SM and Ahmed, LI (2019) Survival of Staphylococcus aureus in Bio-Yoghurt. Open Journal of Applied Sciences 9, 564–572.Google Scholar
Okda, AY, Abdelhamid, SM, Fouad, MT and El Dairouty, RK (2018) Reuteri yoghurt against diarrheagenic Escherichia coli and Shiga toxin production. Current Science International 7, 590–601.Google Scholar
Ombarak, R, Hinenoya, A, Awasthi, S, Iguchi, A, Shima, A, Elbagory, A and Yamasaki, S (2016) Prevalence and pathogenic potential of Escherichia coli isolates from raw milk and raw milk cheese in Egypt. International Journal of Food Microbiology 16, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puligundla, P and Lim, S (2022) Biocontrol approaches against Escherichia coli O157:H7 in foods. Foods 11, 756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rahal, E, Fadlallah, S, Nassar, F, Kazzi, N and Matar, G (2015) Approaches to treatment of emerging Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections highlighting the O104:H4 serotype. Frontiers in Cellular Infection Microbiology 5, 24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segura, A, Bertin, Y, Durand, A, Benbakkar, M and Forano, E (2021) Transcriptional analysis reveals specific niche factors and response to environmental stresses of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 in bovine digestive contents. BMC Microbiology 21, 284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanford, K, Bach, S, Baah, J and McAllister, T (2014) A mixture of Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus lactis, and Paenibacillus polymyxa reduces Escherichia coli O157:H7 in finishing feedlot cattle. Journal of Food Protection 77, 738–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taher, EM, Hemmatzadeh, F, Aly, SA, Elesswy, HA and Petrovski, KR (2020) Molecular characterization of antimicrobial resistance genes on farms and in commercial milk with emphasis on the effect of currently practiced heat treatments on viable but nonculturable formation. Journal of Dairy Science 103, 9936–9945.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, Z, Luo, Y, Soteyome, T, Lin, CW, Xu, X, Mao, Y, Su, J and Liu, J (2020) Rapid detection of food-borne Escherichia coli O157:H7 with visual inspection by crossing priming amplification (CPA). Food Analytical Methods 13, 474–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakubu, Y, Shuaibu, AB, Ibrahim, AM, Hassan, UL and Nwachukwu, RJ (2018) Risk of Shiga toxigenic Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection from raw and fermented milk in Sokoto Metropolis, Nigeria. Journal of Pathogens 2018, 8938597–8938597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yilma, Z, Loiseau, G and Faye, B (2015) Growth and survival of Eschericia coli O157: H7 during the manufacturing of Ergo and Ayib, Ethiopian traditional fermented milk products. Journal of Food and Dairy Technology, Special issue, an update on different dietary practices and recent trends in dairy industry S1, 31–36.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Fahim et al. supplementary material

Fahim et al. supplementary material

Download Fahim et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 61.9 KB