|POSADAS, GABRIEL - Mississippi State University|
|THORNTON, JUSTIN - Mississippi State University|
|Carroll, Jeffery - Jeff Carroll|
|LAWRENCE, AMANDA - Mississippi State University|
|CORLEY, JIMMIE - Phileo Lesaffre Animal Care|
|THOMPSON, AMBER - Mississippi State University|
|DONALDSON, JANET - University Of Southern Mississippi|
Submitted to: Translational Animal Science
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 11/19/2016
Publication Date: 2/9/2017
Citation: Posadas, G.A., Broadway, P.R., Thornton, J.A., Carroll, J.A., Lawrence, A., Corley, J.R., Thompson, A., Donaldson, J.R. 2017. Yeast pro- and paraprobiotics have the capability to bind pathogenic bacteria associated with animal disease. Translational Animal Science. 1:60-68.
Interpretive Summary: With current and future regulations and challenges facing antibiotic use in the animal production industries, the utilization of antibiotic alternatives to control pathogens is gaining increasing interest. The objective of this study was to determine if live yeast and yeast cell wall products can bind pathogenic bacteria of interest to animal health and food safety. Bacteria were incubated with these yeast products, washed, and viewed under scanning electron microscopy. Secondly, bacteria were incubated with yeast products and run through a filter that would let individual components through, but if bacteria were bound to yeast, the combination would not filter through. Based on scanning electron microscopy, all products were able to bind Salmonella, E. Coli, Listeria, and Clostridium. Additionally, filtering the incubated products proved quantitatively that the yeast products bound bacteria and did not allow them to pass through the filter. The extent of binding varied between yeast products and the different bacteria, suggesting that different products may be more effective in binding certain bacteria. Overall, these results suggest that live yeast and yeast cell wall products have the capability to bind pathogenic microorganisms of interest to animal health and food safety and may serve as an alternative strategy to pathogen mitigiation for animal health, as well as a possible pre-harvest food safety intervention system.
Technical Abstract: Live yeast probiotics and yeast cell wall components (paraprobiotics) may serve as an alternative to the use of antibiotics in prevention and treatment of infections caused by pathogenic bacteria. Probiotics and paraprobiotics can bind directly to pathogens, which limits binding of the pathogens to the intestinal cells and also facilitates removal from the host. However, knowledge of bacterial binding, specificity, and/or capability is limited with regard to probiotics or paraprobiotics. The goal of this study was to characterize the qualitative and quantitative nature of two Saccharomyces cerevisiae probiotics and three paraprobiotics to adhere to pathogenic bacteria. Scanning electron microscopy was used to assess the qualitative nature of adherence of probiotics and paraprobiotics to pathogens. Results indicated that the two probiotics had an average of 38% of yeast adhered to bacteria. However, paraprobiotics only had an average of 22% of products adherence to the bacteria tested. Adhesion was also assessed by a filtration assay, where adherence was inferred based on the amount of bacteria that did not adhere to the product tested. Listeria monocytogenes adhered to all yeast products tested. Salmonella Typhimurium bound to both yeast probiotics analyzed, but only two of the three paraprobiotics. Esherichia coli only exhibited binding to the two yeast probiotics analyzed. To determine if variations in the viability of pathogens tested was due to the pathogens utilizing yeast components as a nutrient source, Salmonella and L. monocytogenes were cultured in media with limited carbon and supplemented with cell free extracts prepared from the probiotics and paraprobiotics. Salmonella exhibited growth, indicating these bacteria could utilize the yeast lysates as a carbon source. Listeria monocytogenes had limited growth in only one of the lysates tested. Together, these data indicate that the interaction between probiotics and paraprobiotics occurs in a strain dependent mechanism. Administration of probiotics and paraprobiotics as therapeutics therefore needs to be specific against the pathogen target.