Antagonistic effect of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Saccharomyces boulardii and Escherichia coli combinations against experimental infections with Shigella flexneri and Salmonella enteritidis subsp typhimurium in gnotobiotic mice
Antagonistic effect of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Saccharomyces boulardii and Escherichia coli combinations against experimental infections with Shigella flexneri and Salmonella enteritidis subsp typhimurium in gnotobiotic mice
复制标题
DOI：
10.1046/j.1365-2672.2000.00973.x
复制
发表时间：
2000-03-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Nicoli, JR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Filho-Lima, JVM;Vieira, EC;Nicoli, JR
嗜酸乳杆菌、布拉酵母菌和大肠杆菌是单独使用的益生菌菌株，以防止肠道致病因子。为了确定通常归因于这些生物活性剂中的每一种的个体保护机制的协同效应是否可能，我们口服给予Lact。嗜酸乳杆菌H2 B20、S. boulardii和E. coli EMO（LSE）接种于无菌小鼠。在消化道定植后10天，用链霉素抗性（Sfr）或链霉素敏感（Sfs）福氏志贺菌菌株或沙门氏菌沙门氏菌沙门氏亚种（Sfs）经口攻击与LSE相关（实验）或不相关（对照）的动物组。鼠伤寒。实验鼠粪便细菌计数结果表明，Sfr株在攻毒后11 d即被消灭，而Sfs和S. enteritidis subsp.鼠伤寒杆菌定殖于消化道，并继续以高种群水平存在（10（8）CFU g（-1）粪便），这与在对照动物中观察到的相似。在用Sfr进行实验性口服感染之前，还进行了三种益生菌与gnotobiotic小鼠的所有可能的双关联和单关联。结果表明，只有当E. coli EMO的表达。不同的敏感性。flexneri Sfr和Sfs到E.大肠杆菌EMO拮抗作用可能是由于Sfr和Sfs的世代时间不同所致。
Lactobacillus acidophilus, Saccharomyces boulardii and Escherichia coli are probiotic strains used individually to protect against enteropathogenic agents. In order to determine if a synergistic effect of the individual protective mechanisms ordinarily attributed to each of these biotherapeutic agents is possible, we orally administered Lact. acidophilus H2B20, S. boulardii and E. coli EMO (LSE) to germfree mice. Ten days after colonization of the digestive tract, groups of animals associated (experimental) or not (control) with LSE were challenged orally with streptomycin resistant (Sfr) or streptomycin sensitive (Sfs) Shigella flexneri strains or Salmonella enteritidis subsp. typhimurium. Bacterial counts in faeces from experimental mice showed that the Sfr strain was eliminated 11 d after challenge while Sfs and S. enteritidis subsp. typhimurium colonized the digestive tract and continued to be present at high population levels (10(8) CFU g(-1) of faeces), which is similar to that observed in control animals. All possible di- and monoassociations of the three probiotics with gnotobiotic mice were also performed before experimental oral infection with Sfr. The data showed that antagonism was obtained only when E. coli EMO was present. Different sensitivity of Sh. flexneri Sfr and Sfs to E. coli EMO antagonism could be explained by the different generation times between Sfr and Sfs, as shown by colonization kinetic experiments in the digestive tract of gnotobiotic mice.