Research Article

Screening, Antimicrobial Susceptibility and Gastrointestinal Tolerance of Phytase Producing Bacteria Strain for Potential Use as Probiotic Feed Supplement

Onawola O. O1*, Akande I. S.2, Okunowo W. O.1, Osuntoki A. A1
1 Department of Biochemistry, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
2 Department of Biotechnology, Federal Institute of Industrial Research Oshodi, Lagos, Nigeria.
* Corresponding author: toyeine@yahoo.com
Published: Jun, 2021
DOI: 10.67614/njm.2021.rftqna31
Pages: 5512-5520

Abstract

In order to utilize phosphorus and other nutrients efficiently, monogastric animals require an  exogenous supply of phytase to hydrolyze phytate present in feed. However, the stability and efficacy of  phytase may be grossly compromised in the event of non compliance by veterinary marts and farmers to  storage directives from manufacturers. To overcome this challenge, it is envisaged that live phytase producing microorganisms may be used as feed supplement. The aim of this study was to screen some  phytase-producing bacteria strains for pathogenicity, and thereafter evaluate the antimicrobial sensitivity  and gastrointestinal tract (GIT) tolerance of selected strain in vitro. Four phytase-producing bacteria strains  previously isolated from top soils from Lagos dumpsites, and identified as Enterobacter cloacae ODS 29,  Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ODS 33, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FDS 10 and Bacillus subtilis FDS 16  (MH879829, MH879830, MH879831 and MH879832 respectively) were screened for pathogenic ability  by microbiological methods. Pathogen-negative strain was evaluated for susceptibility against ten standard  antimicrobials over 24 h and thereafter evaluated for tolerance to GIT conditions (pH 1-4 over 2 h, bile  concentrations 0.1 to 2% (w/v) over 5 h, gastric juice over 6 h and simulated GIT condition over 4 h  respectively). Results of pathogen test revealed only Enterobacter cloacae ODS 29 as non pathogenic  strain of bacteria. Evaluation of its sensitivity to various antimicrobials revealed susceptibility to all ten  antimicrobials. Result of GIT tolerance showed E. cloacae ODS 29 to survive pH < 2, bile concentration  2% (w/v), gastric juice and simulated GIT conditions. As such, E. cloacae ODS 29 is considered safe and  having potential for probiotic use as feed supplement.

Keywords

Antimicrobial sensitivity E. cloacae GIT condition Hemolysin Phytase.

References

  1. Abd-Alhadi, R., Sumainah, G.and Albalaa, B. (2015). Production of extracellular phytase from Bacillus subtilis isolated from Syrian soil. International Journal of PharmTech Research, 8 (1):154-159.
  2. Ashraf, R. and Smith, S. C. (2016). Commercial lactic acid bacteria and probiotic strains tolerant to bile, pepsin and antibiotics. International Food Research Journal, 23 (2): 777-789.
  3. Burulaenu, L. (2012). Acid and bile tolerance of probiotic bacteria used for lactic acid fermentation of vegetable juices. Journal of Foods and Arts, 1 (18): 57-62.
  4. Blaabjerg, K., Jørgensen, H, Tauson, A. H. and Poulsen, H. D. (2011). The presence of inositol phosphates in gastric pig digest is affected by time after feeding a non fermented or fermented liquid wheat- and barley-based diet. Journal of Animal Science, 89:3153-3162.
  5. Chung, H. J., Bang, W. and Drake, M. A. (2006). Stress Response of Escherichia coli. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 5: 52 – 64.
  6. Davin-Regli, A. and Pagès, J. M. (2015). Enterobacter aerogens and Enterobacter cloacae: versatile bacterial pathogens confronting antibiotic treatment. Frontiers in Microbiology, 6:1-10. Doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.00392.
  7. Goyal, P., Belapurkar, P. and Kar, A. (2020). In vitro assessment of chromium, lead, cadmium and nickel tolerance of B. clausii, a prospective probiotic microorganism for in vivo bioremediation. Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia 17 (2): 255-266.
  8. Hassanzadazr, H., Ehsani, E. Mardani, K. and Hesari, J. (2012). Investigation of antibacterial acid and bile tolerance properties of lactobacillus isolated from Koozeh cheese. Veterinary Research Forum, 3 (3): 181-185.
  9. Huang, S., Dai, W., Sun, S., Zhang, X. and Zhang, L. (2012). Prevalence of plasmid-mediated quinolone resistance and aminoglycoside resistance determinants among carbapenem Enterobacter cloacae. PLOS ONE, 7:e47636. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047636.
  10. Kim, S. Y., Park, Y. J., Yu, J. K., Kim, Y. S. and Han, K. (2009). Prevalence and characteristics of aac(6')-Ib-cm AmpC-producing Enterobacter cloacae, Citrobacter freundii, and Serratia marcescens: a multicentre study from Korea. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 63: 314-318. Doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2008.11.016.
  11. Kumar V, Singh, D, Sangwan, P and Gill, P. K. (2014). Management of environmental phosphorus pollution using phytases: current challenges and future prospects. Applied Environmental Biotechnology: Preseni Scenario and Future Trend, Pp 97 – 114.
  12. Law, J. W., Ab Mutalib, N. S., Chan, K. G. and Lee, L. H. (2015). Rapid methods for the detection of food borne bacterial pathogens: principles, advantages and limitations. Frontiers in Microbiology, 5: 1-19. Doi:10.3389/fmicb.2014.00770.
  13. Madureira, A. R., Pereira, C. I., Truszkowska, K., Gomes, A. M., Pintado, M. E. and Malcata, F. X. (2005). Survival of probiotic bacteria in a whey cheese vector submitted to environmental conditions prevailing in the gastrointestinal tract. International Dairy Journal, 15 (6-9): 921-927. Do:org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2004.08.02
  14. Mathipa, M. G. and Thantsha, M. S. (2015). Cocktails of probiotics pre-adapted to multiple stress factors are more robust under simulated gastrointestinal conditions than their parental counterparts and exhibit enhanced antagonistic capabilities against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. Gut Pathogens, 7 (5): 1-14. Doi:10.1186/s13099-015-0053-5.
  15. Menconi, A., Morgan, M. J., Pumford, N. R., Hargis, B. M. and Tellez, G. (2013). Physiological properties of Salmonella growth inhibition of probiotic Bacillus strains isolated from environmental and poultry sources. International Journal of Bacteriology, 2013: 1-8.
  16. Mezzatesta, M. L., Gona, F and Stefani, S. (2012). Enterobacter cloacae: clinical impact and emerging antibiotic resistance. Future Microbiology, 7: 887-902. Doi:10.2217/fmb.12.61.
  17. Nair, A. S. and Dubhashi, A. V. (2016). In vitro tolerance of probiotic Bacillus species in human gastrointestinal tract. International Journal of Science and Food Research, 6 (2): 2319-7064.
  18. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. (2006). Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests: approved standards, 9th Ed. Villanova, Pa. : National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, p.183.
  19. Onawole, O.O., Akande, I. S., Okunowo, W. O. and Osuntoki, A. A. (2019). Isolation and identification of phytase-producing Bacillus and Enterobacter species from Nigerian soils. Nigerian Journal of Biotechnology, 36 (2): 127-138. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/njb.v36i2.13.
  20. Pisano, M. B., Viale, S., Conti, S., Fadda, M. E., Deplano, M., Melis, M. P., Deiana, M. and Cosentino, S. (2014). Preliminary evaluation of probiotic properties of Lactobacillus strains isolated from Sardinian dairy products. BioMed Research International, 2014: 1-9. Doi:10.1155/2014/286390.
  21. Ruiz, L., Ruas-Madiedo, P., Gueimonde, M., De los Reyes-Gavilan, C. G., Margolles, A. and Sanchez, B. (2011). How do Bifidobacteria counteract environmental challenges? Mechanisms involved and physiological consequences. Genes and Nutrion, 6 (3): 307-318.
  22. Salimiyan, R. K., Gharzvini, K. and Farsiani, H. (2019). Clinical and pathogenesis overview of Enterobacter infections Reviews in Clinical Medicine, 6 (4): 146-154.
  23. Sreedevi, S. and Reddy, B. N. (2013). Identification of phytase-producing bacteria C43 isolated from cattle shed soil samples of Hyderabad, A.P. Helix 1: 238-242
  24. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (2014). Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 4.0. http://www.eucast.org.
  25. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (2018). Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 8.1. http://www.eucast.org.
  26. Vohra, A., Kaur, P. and Satyanarayana, T. (2011). Production, characteristics and applications of the cell-bound phytase of Pichia anomala. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, 99 (1): 51-55. Doi:org/10.1007/s10482-010-9498-1.
  27. Zhao, X., Lin, C. W., Wang, J. and Oh, D. (2014). Advances in rapid detection methods for food borne pathogens. Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 24 (3): 297-312. Doi: 10.4014/jmb.1310.10013.
How to Cite

O, O. O., S., A. I., O., O. W., & A, O. A. (2021). Screening, Antimicrobial Susceptibility and Gastrointestinal Tolerance of Phytase Producing Bacteria Strain for Potential Use as Probiotic Feed Supplement. Nigerian Journal of Microbiology, 35(1), 5512-5520. https://doi.org/10.67614/njm.2021.rftqna31

O. O. O, A. I. S., O. W. O., and O. A. A, "Screening, Antimicrobial Susceptibility and Gastrointestinal Tolerance of Phytase Producing Bacteria Strain for Potential Use as Probiotic Feed Supplement," Nigerian Journal of Microbiology, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 5512-5520, June 2021. doi: 10.67614/njm.2021.rftqna31

Share this article:
Facebook X / Twitter LinkedIn
Download PDF View Full Text (PDF) Back to Articles