Greener Journal of Biological Sciences Vol. 9(2), pp. 22-28, 2019 ISSN: 2276-7762 Copyright ©2019, the copyright of this article is retained by the
author(s) DOI Link: http://doi.org/10.15580/GJBS.2019.2.071719137 http://gjournals.org/GJBS |
|
Antagonistic
effect of developed probiotic yoghurt against some selected food-borne
pathogens during cold storage
* 1Aforijiku, S., 2Onilude,
A. A. and 3Wakil, S.M.
1 Department of Microbiology, University of Ibadan,
Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria.
2 Department of Microbiology,
University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria.
3 Department of Microbiology,
University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria.
INTRODUCTION
Lactic
acid bacteria are Gram positive rods or cocci, which
have the ability to produce lactic acid. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) could be
used successfully with limited or no negative effects, to control challenging
problems associated with some enterics.The substances
produced by the LAB, are kept in the foods which could help to inhibit
pathogens (Brant and Todd, 2014; Mohammed et al., 2016). The antimicrobial potential of LAB can be due
to ability in producing substances like lactic acid which has the tendency to
suppress pathogenic microbes (Brant and Todd, 2014; Tribe et al., 2014; Nikolic et al., 2008).
In addition to production of organic acids, the pH reduction of the
products or medium can have antagonistic effect on pathogens.
Some
studies have reported that strains of Salmonella
typhimurium, and other pathogens were suppressed
by substances produced by LAB ((Brant and Todd, 2014; Tribe et al., 2014; Evariste et al., 2017; Gopalakrishnan,
2018). Therefore, the probiotic LAB make the environment unfavourable
for pathogens to thrive during the manufacture of probiotic yoghurt, hence
limiting the viability of the pathogens (Mohammed et al., 2016; Ting and Xialian, 2019). Moreover, milk and milk products are
usually affected by pathogen like E. coli
and Salmonella typhimurium,
since some strains can survive acidic conditions (Bibbal et al.,
2014; Rebello et al., 2014; CDC, 2016; Evariste et al.,
2017). However, there is little attention on the survival of these
pathogens in yoghurt. Therefore, there is a need to assess the antagonistic
effect of probiotic yoghurt against food-borne pathogens during cold storage.
MATERIALS
& METHODS
Collection
of samples
Raw milk from white
Fulani cow was purchased from Dairy and Research Farm,
University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. It was brought into Physiology Laboratory,
at the Department of Microbiology in sterile bottles for production of yoghurt.
Collection of Indicator organisms
Indicator organisms such as Salmonella typhimurium ATCC13311, Proteus mirabilis ATCC25933, and Escherichia coli ATCC25922 were obtained from the culture collection unit of
Federal Institute of Industrial Research, Oshodi
(FIIRO).
Preparation of inoculum size of pathogens
Each strain of Salmonella typhimurium ATCC13311, Proteus mirabilis ATCC25933 and Escherichia
coli ATCC25922 were inoculated in 10
mL tryptic soya broth containing 0.6 % yeast extract,
and incubated at 370C for 24 hr. The serial dilutions
was made, and the inoculation level was determined by direct plating on
specific media of the pathogens from serial dilution of broth. Inoculum size of 105
CFU/mL was used (ISO, 2003).
Probiotic cultures
Potential probiotic starters such as Lactobacillus plantarumN24, Lactobacillus
plantarumN17, Lactobacillus brevis N10, and Lactobacillus
caseiN1 isolated from nono samples were used to produce yoghurt.
Antagonistic
effect of probiotic yoghurt against food-borne
pathogens
Yoghurt was prepared
in the laboratory using method described by Rahmann
et al. (1999). For each yoghurt
samples, 100 mL of the cow milk was heated to 85oC for 30 minutes,
and then cooled immediately in an ice bath to temperature of 370C.
This was then, inoculated with 106 CFU/mL probiotic starters, and
incubated at 42oC for 4 hr. After yoghurt formation, yoghurt was
inoculated with the pathogens at inoculation size of 105 CFU/mL. The yoghurt without inoculation of pathogens (control),
and the inoculated yoghurt were stored in the refrigerator. The yoghurt samples
were examined microbiologically for pathogens count during 2 days of storage,
using pour plate technique in Petri dishes. The viability of probiotic cultures
and pathogenic organisms was done every 24 hr during
2 days of storage according to methods of 1SO (2003) and (1SO, 2004),
respectively. One mL of appropriate dilutions of yoghurt samples were plated on
Mac Conkey agar (for Proteus), Eosin methylene blue agar (for E. coli), Salmonella Shigella agar for Salmonella,
and MRS agar for lactic acid bacteria, and incubated at 37oC for 48
hrs. Colony forming unit were then
estimated. The pH was determined using a pH meter, following the manufacturer’s
instructions (APHA, 2004). The experiments were done in duplicates.
Statistical
analysis
The values for each parameters
were calculated and presented as means of duplicates. Data was analysed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with Duncan
Multiple Range Test for significance at P≤0.05. Standard deviation was
not shown. Data were also presented in tables.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
The codes
of prepared probiotic yoghurt with pathogens and without pathogens are shown in
Table 1. Table
2 showed the effect of probiotics against Proteus
mirabilisATCC
25933, during storage period at 4oC for 2 days, when the initial
inoculum size of the pathogen was 105 CFU/mL. At first day of storage, the count of Proteus mirabilis reduced from 105 to103
and 102 CFU/mL, and their counts were significantly different
(P≤0.05) in probiotic yoghurt samples, when pH ranged from 4.40-4.45. By
the second day, the inoculated Proteus
mirabilis was not found in the probiotic yoghurt, when probiotic cultures
count was between 106 to 108 CFU/mL, and pH ranged
between 4.34- 4.42.
However,
similar studies also demonstrated that the pathogen was not detected after 48 hr of storage period as reported by Bachrouri
et al. (2006). This could be as a result of increased probiotic cultures count,
pH and probiotic strain used to produce yoghurt. Our findings are in accordance
with the work of Ting and Xialian. (2019) in terms of inhibition at 24 hr of cold storage. They studied antagonistic effect
on Proteus mirabilis, and some
spoilage organisms in yoghurt fermented with probiotic starters, these
pathogens were
inhibited completely within 24-48 hr. The inhibition of pathogens
could be as a result of probiotic starters strain used to produce yoghurt (Wang et al., 2004).
Table 3 showed the antagonistic effect of probiotic
cultures against Salmonella typhimurium ATCC13311 during the cold storage (4oC)
for 2
days with the initial inoculum size of Salmonella
typhmurium ATCC13311 at 105CFU/mL. At first day of storage, the initial count of the
pathogen decreased from 105 -102 CFU/mL, but not found in
sample YN24-N17, when the pH was 4.38. At second day, Salmonella typhimurium disappeared in
sampleYN17, with pH4.37, and probiotic count (2.0x107 CFU/mL), which
increased to 108 CFU/mL.
Table 1:
Codes of prepared probiotic yoghurt
Samples |
Prepared
probiotic yoghurt (inoculated with pathogens) |
Prepared
probiotic yoghurt (without pathogens) |
1 |
YN24 |
yn24 |
2 |
YN17 |
yn17 |
3 |
YN10 |
yn10 |
4 |
YN1 |
yn1 |
5 |
YN24-N17 |
yn24-n17 |
6 |
YN24-N10 |
yn24-n10 |
7 |
YN24-N1 |
yn24-n1 |
8 |
YN17-N10 |
yn17-n10 |
9 |
YN17-N1 |
yn17-n1` |
10 |
YN10-N1 |
yn10-n1 |
*Samples with Capital
letters codes (prepared probiotic yoghurt inoculated with pathogens)
*Samples with small
letters codes (prepared probiotic yoghurt without
pathogens)
The
experiment was done in duplicates
Keys:
1-Yoghurt
made from cow milk and Lactobacillus
plantarumN24
2-Yoghurt
made from cow milk and Lactobacillus
plantarumN17
3
-Yoghurt made from milk and Lactobacillus
brevisN10
4
-Yoghurt made from cow milk and Lactobacillus
caseiN1
5-Yoghurt made from cow milk and Lactobacillus plantarumN24 &Lactobacillus plantarumN17
6-Yoghurt
made from cow milk and Lactobacillus
plantarumN24&Lactobacillus brevisN10
7-Yoghurt
made from cow milk and Lactobacillus
plantarumN24 &Lactobacillus caseiN1
8-Yoghurt
made from cow milk and Lactobacillus
plantarumN24 &Lactobacillus
brevisN10
9-Yoghurt
made from cow milk and Lactobacillus
plantarumN17 &Lactobacillus caseiN1
10-Yoghurt made from cow milk and Lactobacillus brevisN10 &Lactobacillus caseiN1,
Table
2: Antagonistic effect of developed probiotic yoghurt against of Proteus mirabilis ATCC25933 stored under
cold storage (4oC)
|
1 |
Bacterial Count(CFU/mL) |
|
2 |
|
Samples
|
pH |
PMC |
pH |
PMC |
PCC |
YN24 |
4.42b |
2.1x103a |
4.40a |
- |
5.0 x106c |
yn24* |
4.40c |
- |
4.39ab |
- |
1.2x107b |
YN17 |
4.43ab |
2.3x103a |
4.42a |
- |
6.0 x106b |
yn17 |
4.40c |
- |
4.40a |
- |
6.9x106b |
YN10 |
4.45a |
3.5x103a |
4.39ab |
- |
1.2x107b |
yn10 |
4.43ab |
- |
4.39ab |
- |
6.4x106b |
YN1 |
4.44a |
1.7x103a |
4.40a |
- |
5.8x106b |
yn1 |
4.41c |
- |
4.38ab |
- |
6.7x106b |
YN24-N17 |
4.41c |
1.8x102b |
4.38ab |
- |
2.0x107b |
yn24-n17 |
4.40c |
- |
4.38ab |
- |
3.1x107b |
YN24-N10 |
4.40c |
1.2x102b |
4.36b |
- |
1.8x107b |
yn24-n10 |
4.39c |
- |
4.36b |
- |
3.7x107b |
YN24-N1 |
4.42b |
3.0x102ab |
4.38ab |
- |
1.5x107b |
yn24-n1 |
4.41c |
- |
4.36b |
- |
2.7x107b |
YN17-N10 |
4.40c |
1.2x102b |
4.35b |
- |
1.3x107b |
yn17-n10 |
4.40c |
- |
4.37ab |
- |
1.4x108a |
YN17-N1 |
4.42b |
1.2x102b |
4.39ab |
- |
2.0x107b |
yn17-n1 |
4.43ab |
- |
4.37ab |
- |
3.5x107b |
YN10-N1 |
4.40c |
1.3x102b |
4.34b |
- |
1.8x107b |
yn10-n1 |
4.42b |
- |
4.35b |
- |
2.8x107b |
Means
with the same alphabets within a column are not significantly different at
P≤0.05 using Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT). Data collected were
represented as “Means of duplicates. Standard
Deviation (SD)”not shown., - = Not viable,
initial and inoculum size of Proteus
mirabilis= 105 CFU/mL, PMC =Proteus
mirabilis count, PCC = Probiotic cultures count, inoculum size of
starters=106 CFU/mL, PCC for the first day= all were 106 CFU/mL.
*All
small letters (yoghurt without pathogen) Samples with capital letters (yoghurt
inoculated with Proteus mirabilisATCC25933)
This is in accordance with the work of Al-Delanmy and Hamamdeh (2013) that
reported the inhibition of Salmonella typhimurium during 48 hr of
cold storage. The reasons for suppression of pathogen could be low pH, and
inability to compete with the probiotic cultures for nutrients (Wang et al.,
2004; Tsegaye and Ashenafi,
2005; Donkor et al., 2006; Gopalakrishnan, 2018, Nassib et al.,
2006, Ting and Xialian, 2019). Probiotics LAB could prevent growth of
pathogens due to low pH. The variation observed by
various scientists might be due to difference in survival of strain to lowered
pH and temperature, type and strain of starter cultures being used, inoculum
size of starters, and the pathogens (Tsegaye and Ashenafi, 2005).The probiotic bacteria have the ability to
prevent the growth of pathogens due to low pH initiated by LAB. The
fermentation time and temperature, type of probiotic organisms, increased
probiotic cultures count, acid tolerance, and the strain of the pathogenic
organisms could play important role on the survival of food pathogens in
yoghurt. Donkor et
al. (2006) concluded that the ability of probiotic to survive in yoghurt was strain dependent.
Table
3: Antagonistic effect of developed
probiotic yoghurt against Salmonella typhimuriumATCC13311 during cold storage(4oC).
|
|
Bacterial count (CFU/mL) |
2 |
|
|
Codes |
pH |
STC |
pH |
STC |
PCC |
YN24 |
4.40ab |
3.3x103a |
4.39ab |
- |
1.0 x107b |
n24 * |
4.40a |
- |
4.38ab |
- |
1.9x107b |
YN17 |
4.42a |
2.3x103a |
4.37b |
- |
2.0 x107b |
yn17 |
4.40a |
- |
4.37b |
- |
2.5x107b |
YN10 |
4.41a |
1.9x103a |
4.38ab |
- |
3.0x107b |
yn10 |
4.41a |
- |
4.37ab |
- |
3.6x107ab |
YN1 |
4.41a |
1.4x103a |
4.40a |
- |
3.3x107b |
yn1 |
4.40a |
- |
4.38ab |
- |
3.8x107ab |
YN24-N17 |
4.38ab |
- |
4.36b |
- |
1.1x108a |
Yn24-n17 |
4.36b |
- |
4.36b |
- |
1.9x108a |
Y24-N10 |
4.36b |
- |
4.35b |
- |
1.3x108a |
yn24-n10 |
4.35b |
- |
4.35b |
- |
1.6x108a |
YN24-N1 |
4.40a |
1.2x102b |
4.39ab |
- |
2.5x107b |
yn24-n1 |
4.39ab |
- |
4.37b |
- |
2.7x107b |
YN17-N10 |
4.37ab |
- |
4.36b |
- |
1.1x108a |
yn17-n10 |
4.36b |
- |
4.36b |
- |
2.2x108a |
YN17-N1 |
4.41a |
1.5x102b |
4.39ab |
- |
3.2x107b |
yn17-n1 |
4.40a |
- |
4.38ab |
- |
3.7x107ab |
YN10-N1 |
4.37ab |
- |
4.35b |
- |
1.4x108a |
yn10-n1 |
4.36b |
- |
4.35b |
- |
1.9x108a |
Means with the same alphabets within a column
are not significantly different at P≤0.05 using Duncan Multiple Range
Test (DMRT). Data collected were represented as “Means of duplicates. Standard Deviation (SD)”not shown.
- = Not viable, initial and inoculum
size of Salmonella typhimurium=
105 CFU/mL, STC =Salmonella typhimurium count, PCC = Probiotic cultures count,
inoculum size of Probiotic starters and PCC at the first day=106 CFU/mL,
*All small letters (yoghurt without
pathogens),
*Samples with capital letters (yoghurt
inoculated with Salmonella typhimuriumATCC13311)
Table 4 showed that E coli ATCC29522 was suppressed
completely at the first day of storage in sample likeYN24-N17, with pH of 4.36, and inhibited from
105 to 102 CFU/mL in sampleYN24. The decrease of the
initial count of E.coli
ATCC25922 from 105-102CFU/mL illustrates the antagnostic effect of the probiotic cultures on the
pathogenic organisms which was due to pH and higher viable count of probiotics.
However, E.coli ATCC25922
completely disappeared at the second day of storage with increased probiotic counts of 108
CFU/mL, when pH of probiotic yoghurt samples were not significantly
different from each other at P≤0.05.
A similar study was reported by Kasimoglu and Akgun (2004), indicating that there was total suppression
of E. coli within 48 hr after storage of the milk inoculated with 106 CFU/mL
of probiotics. This could be due to the low pH below 4.39. The variable results
of most authors could be strain dependent. Moreover, acid survival of food
pathogens and their acid adaptation can enhance the survival of these organisms
in acidic foods like yoghurt during fermentation.
Table 4: Antagonistic
effect of probiotic yoghurt against Escherichia
coliATCC25922(105
CFU/mL) under cold storage (4oC)
|
|
Bacterial count(CFU/mL) |
2 |
|
|
Samples |
|
|
|
|
|
Codes |
pH |
ECC |
pH |
ECC |
PCC |
|
4.40a |
1.4x103a |
4.37a |
- |
2.4x107b |
yn24 * |
4.40a |
- |
4.36a |
- |
2.9x107b |
YN17 |
4.41a |
2.4x103a |
4.37a |
- |
1.4 x107b |
yn17 |
4.40a |
- |
4.37a |
- |
2.9x107b |
YN10 |
4.39ab |
1.8x102b |
4.37a |
- |
3.2x107b |
yn10 |
4.39ab |
- |
4.36a |
- |
3.8x107b |
YN1 |
4.40ab |
1.7x103a |
4.39a |
- |
3.6x107b |
yn1 |
4.38ab |
- |
4.38a |
- |
4.4x107b |
YN24-N17 |
4.37b |
- |
4.36a |
- |
2.1x108a |
yn24-n17 |
4.36b |
- |
4.36a |
- |
2.9x108a |
YN24-N10 |
4.36b |
- |
4.35a |
- |
1.8x108a |
yn24-n10 |
4.36b |
- |
4.36a |
- |
2.6x108a |
YN24-N1 |
4.37b |
- |
4.36a |
- |
1.5x108a |
yn24-n1 |
4.36b |
- |
4.35a |
- |
2.7x108a |
YN17-N10 |
4.37b |
- |
4.35a |
- |
2.4x108a |
yn17-n10 |
4.35b |
- |
4.35a |
- |
2.9x108a |
YN17-N1 |
4.36b |
- |
4.35a |
- |
1.6x108a |
yn17-n1 |
4.35b |
- |
4.34a |
- |
1.7x108a |
YN10-N1 |
4.36b |
- |
4.35a |
- |
3.2x107a |
yn10-n1 |
4.35b |
- |
4.35a |
- |
1.5x108a |
Means
with the same alphabets within a column are not significantly different at
P≤0.05 using Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT). Data collected were
represented as “Means of duplicates. Standard
Deviation (SD)”not shown.
- = Not viable, initial and inoculum size of E. coliATCC25922= 105 CFU/mL,
ECC =E
coli count, PCC=Probiotic cultures count, inoculum size of starters=106
CFU/mL,
*All small letters samples (yoghurt without
pathogen)
*Samples
with capital letters (yoghurt inoculated with E coliATCC25922).
CONCLUSIONS
The
probiotic starters in the yoghurt were able to inhibit the growth, and
suppressed selected food borne pathogens within a short period of 24 hr, suggesting that better ones could be useful to prevent
or treat illness caused by pathogenic organisms, and also as preservatives in
food and pharmaceutical industries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would
like to express my gratitude to Professor A. A. Onilude,
Department of Microbiology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan
for his valuable supervision, and Dr.S.M. Wakil for her technical assistance and guidance.
REFERENCES
Al-Delaimy, K. S. and Hamamdeh, Y.
M. (2013). Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus by lactic acid bacteria and /or Bifidobacterium
lactis during milk fermentation and storage. J. Microbio. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2(4): 2406-2419.
APHA,
(2004).
Standards Methods for the examination of dairy products.17thEdn.
American Public Health Association Inc, Washington,
DC,USA.
Bachrouri, M., Quinto, E. J. and Mora, M.T. (2006). Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 during storage
of yoghurt at different temperatures. J. Food Sci. 67 (5):1899-1903
Bibbal, D., Kerouredan,
M., Loukiadis,
E., Scheutz, F., Oswald, E. and Brugere,
H. (2014). Slaughterhouse effluent discharges into rivers not responsible for
environmental occurrence of enteroaggregative Escherichia coli. Veter. Microbio.168: 451-45.
Brant, R. J. and Todd, R. K. (2014). Impact of
genomics on the field of probiotic research: historical perspectives to modern
paradigms. Tot. Env. 106:141-156.
CDC, (2016)." Diarrhea:
Common Illness, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta, USA, Pp.4
Donkor,
O. N., Henriksson, A., Vasiljevic,
T. and Shah, N. P. (2006). Effect of acidification on
the activity of probiotics in yoghurt during cold storage. Internet. Dairy. J. 16: 1181-1189.
Evariste, B., Assèta, K., KuanAbdoulaye,
T., Touwendsida, S. B., Hadiza,
B. I., Soutongnooma, C. B., Isidore,
J., Ouindgueta, B., Saidou,
K., Cheikna, Z., Alfred, S. T. and Nicolas, B.
(2017). Characterization of Diarrheagenic Escherichiacoli Isolated in Organic Waste Products
(Cattle Fecal Matter, Manure and, Slurry)from Cattle’s Markets in
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health.14: 1100
Gopalakrishnan,V.
(2018).The influence of the gut microbiome on cancer,
immunity and cancer immunotherapy, and Cancer cell. Sci. Am. 33(4) 570-580
IS0.
(2003).Yoghurt: Enumeration of characteristics microorganisms by colony count
technique at 37 0C. IstEdn., International Standard Organisation,
Brussels, Belgium.
ISO. (2004).
Horizontal Method for Detection and Enumeration of L. monocytogenes. 2ndEdn,
International Standard Organisation, Brussels,
Belgium.
Kasimoglu,
A.
And Akgun, S. (2004).
Survival of E. coli O157:H7 in the
processing and post-processing stages of acidophilus yoghurt. Internet. J. Food Sci.Technol. 39: 563-568.
Mohammed,
S., Ahlgren, J. A. and Horne, D. (2016).
Structural characterization and biological activities of an exopolysaccharide
kefir produced by Lactobacillus kefiranofaciens
WT-2B(T). J. Agric. Food Chem. 52: 5533-5538.
Nassib, T. A., El- din, M.
Z. and El- Sharoud, W. M. (2006). Effect of thermophilic lactic acid bacteria on the viability of Salmonella serovartyphimurium
PT8 during milk fermentation and preparation of buffalo’s yoghurt. Internet. Dairy. Technol. 59:29-34.
Nikolic,
M., Terzic-Vidojevic, A., Jovcic,
B., Begovic, Golic, N. and Topisirovic, L. (2008). Characterization of
lactic acid bacteria isolated from Bukuljac, a
homemade goat’s milk cheese. Internet. J. Food
Microbio.122:162-170.
Rahmann,
M., Gul, S. and Farooqi, W.
(1999).
Selection of starter culture for yoghurt preparation and its
Antibacterial of Activity. Pak. J. Bio sci. 2: 131-133.
Rebello, R. C. and Regua-Mangia, A. H. (2014).
Potential enterovirulence and antimicrobial
resistance in Escherichia coli isolates
from aquatic environments in Rio de Janeiro, Brazilian Science. Tot. Env. 490 :19–27
Ting, T. L. and X, Z. (2019). Lactobacillus spp as probiotics for
prevention and treatments of enteritis in the lined seashore. Sci. Am.
503:16-25
Tribe,
I. G., Cowell, N. D., Cameron, Peter.and Cameron, S.
(2014). "An outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium phage type 135 infection linked to the
consumption of raw shell eggs in an aged care facility". Communi.
Dis. Intelli. 26 (1): 38–90.
Tsegaye,
M. and Ashenafi, M. (2005). Fate of Escherichia coli O157:H7 during the
processing and storage of Ergo and Ayib, traditional
Ethiopian dairy products. Internet. J. Food Microbio. 103: 325-334
Wang ,Y. K., Li., S. N, Lu, C. S, Peing, D. S., Su, Y. C, Wu, D. C., Jan, C. M., Lai, C. H.,
Wang, T. N. and Wang, W. M. (2004). Effect of injecting Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium containing
yoghurt in subjects with colonized Helicobacter pylori. Am. J. Clin.
Nutr. 80(3): 737-4.
Cite this Article: Aforijiku, S; Onilude, AA; Wakil, SM (2019).
Antagonistic effect of developed probiotic yoghurt against some selected
food-borne pathogens during cold storage.
Greener Journal of Biological Sciences, 9(2): 22-28, http://doi.org/10.15580/GJBS.2019.2.071719137. |