Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-02T08:00:21.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition for adhesion between probiotics and human gastrointestinal pathogens in the presence of carbohydrate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Y.-K. Lee  and
K.-Y. Puong
Y.-K. Lee*
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 5 Science Drive 2, Singapore117597
K.-Y. Puong
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 5 Science Drive 2, Singapore117597
*
*Corresponding author: Dr Y.-K. Lee, fax +65 6 7766872, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The adhesion of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG to human enterocyte-like Caco-2 cells was not inhibited by eight carbohydrates tested, namely N-acetyl-glucosamine, galactose, glucose, fructose, fucose, mannose, methyl-α-D-mannopyranoside and sucrose. The degree of hydrophobicity predicted the adhesion of L. rhamnosus GG to Caco-2 cells. L. rhamnosus GG, however, was able to compete with Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. of low hydrophobicity and high adhesin–receptor interaction for adhesion to Caco-2 cells. The interference of adhesion of these gastrointestinal (GI) bacteria by L. rhamnosus GG was probably through steric hindrance, and the degree of inhibition was related to the distribution of the adhesin receptors and hydrophobins on the Caco-2 surface. A Carbohydrate Index for Adhesion (CIA) was used to depict the binding property of adhesins on bacteria surfaces. CIA was defined as the sum of the fraction of adhesion in the presence of carbohydrates, with reference to the adhesion measured in the absence of any carbohydrate. The degree of competition for receptor sites between Lactobacillus casei Shirota and GI bacteria is a function of their CIA distance. There were at least two types of adhesins on the surface of L. casei Shirota. The study provides a scientific basis for the screening and selection of probiotics that compete with selective groups of pathogens for adhesion to intestinal surfaces. It also provides a model for the characterisation of adhesins and adhesin–receptor interactions.

Keywords

ProbioticsGastrointestinal pathogensCompetition for adhesion
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 88 , Issue S1 , September 2002 , pp. S101 - S108
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2002

References

Adlerberth, I, Ahrne, S, Johansson, M-L, Molin, G, Hanson, LA & Wold, AE (1996) A monose-specific adherence mechanism in Lactobacillus plantarum conferring binding to the human colonic cell line HT-29. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 62, 2244–2251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauviere, G, Coconnier, MH, Kerneis, S, Darfeuille-Michaud, A, Joly, B & Servin, AL (1992) Competitive exclusion of diarrheagenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) from human enterocyte-like Caco-2 cells by heat-killed Lactobacillus. FEMS Microbiology Letter 70, 213–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fogh, J, Fogh, JM & Orfeo, T (1977) One hundred and twenty-seven cultured human tumour cell lines producing tumours in nude mice. Journal of National Cancer Institute 59, 221–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, TJ (1984) Studies on the Epstein-Bar virus genome. PhD Thesis, Cambridge University, UK.Google Scholar
Gusils, C, Gonzalez, SN & Oliver, G (1999) Some probiotic properties of chicken lactobacilli. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 45, 981–987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, YK, Lim, CY, Teng, WL, Ouwehand, AC, Tuomola, EM & Salminen, S (2000) Quantitative approach in the study of adhesion of lactic acid bacteria to intestinal cells and their competition with enterobacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66, 3692–3697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, YK, Nomoto, K, Salminen, S & Gorbach, SJ (1999) Handbook of Probiotics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Neeser, J-R, Granato, D, Rouvet, M, Servin, A, Teneberg, S & Karlsson, K-A (2000) Lactobacillus johnsonii La1 shares carbohydrate-binding specificities with several enteropathogenic bacteria. Glycobiology 10, 1193–1199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ofek, I, Beachey, EH & Sharon, N (1978) Surface sugars of animal cells as determinants of recognition in bacterial adherence. Trends in Biochemical Science 3, 159–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ofek, I & Doyle, RJ (1994) Bacterial Adhesion to Cells and Tissues. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouwehand, AC, Isolauri, E, Kirjavainen, PV, Tolkko, S & Salminen, SJ (2000) The mucus binding of Bifidobacterium lactis Bb12 is enhanced in the presence of Lactobacillus GG and Lact delbruechii subsp. bulgaricus. Letters in Applied Microbiology 30, 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouwehand, AC, Tuomola, EM, Lee, YK & Salminen, S (2001) Microbial interaction to intestinal mucosal models. In Methods in Enzymology, Vol. 337, pp. 200–212 [Doyle, RJ, editor]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Salminen, S, Bouley, MC, Boutron-Rualt, MC, Cummings, J, Franck, A, Gibson, G, Isolauri, E, Moreau, MC, Roberfroid, M & Rowland, I (1998) Functional food science and gastrointestinal physiology and function. British Journal of Nutrition 80, Suppl. 1, S147–S171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sweet, SP, MacFarlane, TW & Samarayanake, LP (1987) Determination of the cell hydrophobicity of oral bacteria using a modified hydrocarbon adherence method. FEMS Microbiology Letters 48, 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomola, EM, Ouwehand, AC & Salminen, SJ (1999) The effect of probiotic bacteria on the adhesion of pathogens to human intestinal mucus. FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology 26, 137–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamamoto, K, Miwa, T, Taniguchi, H, Nagano, T, Shimamura, K, Tanaka, T & Kumagi, H (1996) Binding specificity of Lactobacillus to glycolopids. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 228, 148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar