Effects of different oligosaccharides on growth of selected probiotic bacterial strains

Abstract Objective: To assess if prebiotics at different concentrations can accelerate the growth of selected probiotic bacterial strains. Materials and methods: Enterococcus (E.) faecium NCIMB 10415 E1707 was chosen as it is the most common probiotic strain used for small animals. In addition, E. faecium NCIMB 30183, Bifidobacterium (B.) longum NCIMB 30182 and B. infantis NCIMB 30181 were tested. They were grown in 96-well plates and growth was assessed by optic density at 600 nm, using a bacterial plate reader. The prebiotics used were Fructo-Oligosaccharides (FOS), mannan oligosaccharides (MOS) and Preplex® (a combination of FOS and gum Arabic available in a commercial synbiotic product for small animals). Initially, addition of inulin was also planned but not achieved due to technical difficulties. The prebiotics were used at 20 mg/ml, 10 mg/ml, 1 mg/ml and 0.1 mg/ml, respectively. Growth rates were calculated, technical and biological repeats averaged and compared between prebiotic treatments for each strain using ANOVA. Results: Growth of E. faecium NCIMB 10415 E1707 was not improved by any additive. E. faecium NCIMB 30183 grew significantly faster with the highest concentration of Preplex®. Both Bifidobacterium strains showed significant acceleration of growth with Preplex® and FOS, but only B. infantis showed a dose-effect. Conclusion and clinical significance: Prebiotic additives have to be chosen depending on the probiotic strain. The E. faecium strain most commonly used in small animals was not influenced by any of the prebiotics used, even though commercially available as a synbiotic. The growth of Bifidobacteria was accelerated with commonly used prebiotic oligosaccharides. Interestingly, the addition of gum Arabic seemed to have a stronger effect on growth acceleration than FOS alone. The information gained might have implications for the design and production of preand probiotic formulations for small animals in the future.

[1]  S. Salminen,et al.  A canine-specific probiotic product in treating acute or intermittent diarrhea in dogs: A double-blind placebo-controlled efficacy study. , 2016, Veterinary microbiology.

[2]  F. Bäckhed,et al.  From Dietary Fiber to Host Physiology: Short-Chain Fatty Acids as Key Bacterial Metabolites , 2016, Cell.

[3]  J. Delcour,et al.  A Critical Look at Prebiotics Within the Dietary Fiber Concept. , 2016, Annual review of food science and technology.

[4]  J. Suchodolski,et al.  Understanding the canine intestinal microbiota and its modification by pro‐, pre‐ and synbiotics – what is the evidence? , 2016, Veterinary medicine and science.

[5]  D. Werling,et al.  Effects of Ex-Vivo and In-Vivo Treatment with Probiotics on the Inflammasome in Dogs with Chronic Enteropathy , 2015, PloS one.

[6]  D. Werling,et al.  A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded, Placebo‐Controlled Pilot Study on the Effect of Enterococcus faecium on Clinical Activity and Intestinal Gene Expression in Canine Food‐Responsive Chronic Enteropathy , 2015, Journal of veterinary internal medicine.

[7]  S. Dowd,et al.  Modulation of the faecal microbiome of healthy adult dogs by inclusion of potato fibre in the diet. , 2015, The British journal of nutrition.

[8]  A. Lauková,et al.  Isolation and characterization of faecal bifidobacteria and lactobacilli isolated from dogs and primates. , 2014, Anaerobe.

[9]  D. Werling,et al.  Stimulation of Duodenal Biopsies and Whole Blood from Dogs with Food‐Responsive Chronic Enteropathy and Healthy Dogs with Toll‐Like Receptor Ligands and Probiotic Enterococcus faecium , 2014, Scandinavian journal of immunology.

[10]  S. Dowd,et al.  Effects of Dietary Cooked Navy Bean on the Fecal Microbiome of Healthy Companion Dogs , 2013, PloS one.

[11]  S. Dowd,et al.  Effect of a multi-species synbiotic formulation on fecal bacterial microbiota of healthy cats and dogs as evaluated by pyrosequencing. , 2011, FEMS microbiology ecology.

[12]  K. Swanson,et al.  Effects of feeding polydextrose on faecal characteristics, microbiota and fermentative end products in healthy adult dogs , 2011, British Journal of Nutrition.

[13]  M. Lappin,et al.  Effect of the Probiotic Enterococcus faecium SF68 on Presence of Diarrhea in Cats and Dogs Housed in an Animal Shelter , 2011, Journal of veterinary internal medicine.

[14]  G. Gibson,et al.  In vitro fermentation of rice bran combined with Lactobacillus acidophilus 14 150B or Bifidobacterium longum 05 by the canine faecal microbiota. , 2011, FEMS microbiology ecology.

[15]  P. Scully,et al.  Bifidobacterium animalis AHC7 protects against pathogen-induced NF-κB activation in vivo , 2010, BMC Immunology.

[16]  F. Shanahan,et al.  Portrait of a canine probiotic Bifidobacterium--from gut to gut. , 2009, Veterinary microbiology.

[17]  M. Baumgart,et al.  Influence of Enterococcus faecium SF68 probiotic on giardiasis in dogs. , 2009, Journal of veterinary internal medicine.

[18]  A. Siemensma,et al.  Gum arabic establishes prebiotic functionality in healthy human volunteers in a dose-dependent manner. , 2008, The British journal of nutrition.

[19]  W. F. Pellikaan,et al.  Comparative in vitro fermentation activity in the canine distal gastrointestinal tract and fermentation kinetics of fiber sources. , 2008, Journal of animal science.

[20]  S. Teichberg,et al.  Enhancement of Absorption by Gum Arabic in a Model of Gastrointestinal Dysfunction , 2006, Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

[21]  R. Wapnir,et al.  Modulation of Small Intestinal Nitric Oxide Synthase by Gum Arabic , 2004, Experimental biology and medicine.

[22]  R. Wapnir,et al.  Proabsorptive Action of Gum Arabic in Isotonic Solutions Orally Administered to Rats. II. Effects on Solutes Under Normal and Secretory Conditions , 2004, Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

[23]  C. Grieshop,et al.  Nutrient digestibilities, microbial populations, and protein catabolites as affected by fructan supplementation of dog diets. , 2003, Journal of animal science.

[24]  R. Harper,et al.  Proabsorptive Action of Gum Arabic: Regulation of Nitric Oxide Metabolism in the Basolateral Potassium Channel of the Small Intestine , 2001, Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition.

[25]  M. de Vrese,et al.  Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics--approaching a definition. , 2001, The American journal of clinical nutrition.

[26]  J. Turvill,et al.  Cholera Toxin-Induced Secretion in Rats Is Reduced by a Soluble Fiber, Gum Arabic , 2000, Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

[27]  G R Gibson,et al.  Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: introducing the concept of prebiotics. , 1995, The Journal of nutrition.

[28]  G. Fahey,et al.  In vitro fermentation characteristics of novel fibers, coconut endosperm fiber and chicory pulp, using canine fecal inoculum. , 2015, Journal of animal science.

[29]  K. Verbeke,et al.  The impact of pre- and/or probiotics on human colonic metabolism: does it affect human health? , 2011, Molecular nutrition & food research.

[30]  T. L’Abée-Lund,et al.  Effects of a probiotic intervention in acute canine gastroenteritis--a controlled clinical trial. , 2010, The Journal of small animal practice.

[31]  B. Kiely,et al.  Clinical benefits of probiotic canine-derived Bifidobacterium animalis strain AHC7 in dogs with acute idiopathic diarrhea. , 2009, Veterinary therapeutics : research in applied veterinary medicine.

[32]  B. Sherry,et al.  Modulation of rat intestinal nuclear factor NF-kappaB by gum arabic. , 2008, Digestive diseases and sciences.