Submitted:
12 October 2023
Posted:
12 October 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Isolation of LAB and preliminary screening for antimicrobial activity
2.2. Molecular identification of selected isolates
2.3. Antimicrobial activity and partial-characterisation of the antimicrobial agent
2.4. Safety features: Antibiotic resistance and hemolytic activity
2.5. Autoaggregation and Co-aggregation assays
2.6. In vitro oro-gastro-intestinal transit tolerance assay
2.7. Biofilm formation assay
2.8. Cytotoxic effects of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strains
2.9. Adhesion to human enterocyte-like cells
2.10. Application in food model
2.10.1. Adhesion on tomatoes surface
2.10.2. Biocontrol/pathogen antagonism on tomatoes
2.11. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Isolation and characterization of LAB
3.2. Antimicrobial activity and some insights into the antibacterial agents
3.3. Auto-aggregation and co-aggregation assays
3.4. Safety features: Antibiotic resistance and hemolytic activity
3.5. In vitro oro-gastro-intestinal transit tolerance assay
3.6. Biofilm formation
3.7. Cytotoxic effects
3.8. Adhesion to human enterocyte-like cells
3.9. Application in food model
3.9.1. Adhesion on tomatoes surface
3.9.2. Biocontrol/pathogen antagonism on tomatoes
4. Discussion
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mokoena, M.P. Lactic Acid Bacteria and Their Bacteriocins: Classification, Biosynthesis and Applications against Uropathogens: A Mini-Review. Molecules 2017, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hazards, E.P.o.B.; et al. Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 11: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until September 2019. EFSA Journal 2020, 18, e05965. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, W.; et al. Evaluation of the fermentation potential of lactic acid bacteria isolated from herbs, fruits and vegetables as starter cultures in nut-based milk alternatives. Food Microbiol 2023, 112, 104243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Terefe, N.S. Food Fermentation. In Reference Module in Food Science; Elsevier, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Mokoena, M.P.; Omatola, C.A.; Olaniran, A.O. Applications of Lactic Acid Bacteria and Their Bacteriocins against Food Spoilage Microorganisms and Foodborne Pathogens. Molecules 2021, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sidhu, P.K.; Nehra, K. Bacteriocin-nanoconjugates as emerging compounds for enhancing antimicrobial activity of bacteriocins. Journal of King Saud University-Science 2019, 31, 758–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Touret, T.; Oliveira, M.; Semedo-Lemsaddek, T. Putative probiotic lactic acid bacteria isolated from sauerkraut fermentations. PLoS One 2018, 13, e0203501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Medina-Pradas, E.; et al. Chapter 9 - Review of Vegetable Fermentations With Particular Emphasis on Processing Modifications, Microbial Ecology, and Spoilage. In The Microbiological Quality of Food; Bevilacqua, A., Corbo, M.R., Sinigaglia, M., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing, 2017; pp. 211–236. [Google Scholar]
- Saidi, Y.; et al. Polyphasic Characterisation of Non-Starter Lactic Acid Bacteria from Algerian Raw Camel's Milk and Their Technological Aptitudes. Food Technol Biotechnol 2020, 58, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hill, C.; et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2014, 11, 506–514. [Google Scholar]
- Seddik, H.A.; et al. Lactobacillus plantarum and Its Probiotic and Food Potentialities. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 2017, 9, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karnwal, A.; Malik, T. Characterization and selection of probiotic lactic acid bacteria from different dietary sources for development of functional foods. Front Microbiol 2023, 14, 1170725. [Google Scholar]
- Cruz, P.O.D.; et al. Efficacy of Potentially Probiotic Fruit-Derived Lactobacillus fermentum, L. paracasei and L. plantarum to Remove Aflatoxin M(1) In Vitro. Toxins 2020, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čanak, I.; et al. Isolation and Characterisation of L. plantarum O1 Producer of Plantaricin as Potential Starter Culture for the Biopreservation of Aquatic Food Products. Food Technol Biotechnol 2018, 56, 581–589. [Google Scholar]
- Mao, B.; et al. Comparative Genomic Analysis of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Isolated from Different Niches. Genes 2021, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia-Gonzalez, N.; et al. Health-promoting role of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum isolated from fermented foods. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rocchetti, M.T.; et al. Bioprospecting Antimicrobials from Lactiplantibacillus plantarum: Key Factors Underlying Its Probiotic Action. Int J Mol Sci 2021, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwon, Y.J.; et al. Safety Assessment of Lactiplantibacillus (formerly Lactobacillus) plantarum Q180. J Microbiol Biotechnol 2021, 31, 1420–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ismael, M.; et al. Probiotic of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum NWAFU-BIO-BS29 Isolated from Chinese Traditional Fermented Milk and Its Potential Therapeutic Applications Based on Gut Microbiota Regulation. Foods 2022, 11, 3766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jeong, S.; et al. Lactobacillus plantarum Metabolites Elicit Anticancer Effects by Inhibiting Autophagy-Related Responses. Molecules 2023, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, G.; et al. Influence of encapsulated Lactobacillus plantarum and eugenol on the physicochemical properties and microbial community of fresh-cut apples. Food Chem X 2023, 17, 100563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashemi, S.M.B.; et al. Inactivation of Foodborne Pathogens by Lactiplantibacillus Strains during Meat Fermentation: Kinetics and Mathematical Modelling. Foods 2023, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bvenura, C.; Sivakumar, D. The role of wild fruits and vegetables in delivering a balanced and healthy diet. Food Research International 2017, 99, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quinet, M.; et al. Tomato fruit development and metabolism. Frontiers in plant science 2019, 10, 1554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- www.statista.com. Production of tomatoes in Tunisia from 2016 to 2021. 2023.
- Hwang, D.; et al. Cherry tomato supplementation increases the area of the intestinal mucosa and the number of muscle layers in rats. Food Res Int 2014, 64, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Swain, M.R.; et al. Fermented fruits and vegetables of Asia: a potential source of probiotics. Biotechnol Res Int 2014, 2014, 250424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, T.Z.; Fan, X.; Mukhopadhyay, S. Antimicrobial coating with organic acids and essential oil for the enhancement of safety and shelf life of grape tomatoes. Int J Food Microbiol 2022, 378, 109827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, J.A.; et al. Novel Biocontrol Methods for Listeria monocytogenes Biofilms in Food Production Facilities. Front Microbiol 2018, 9, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lavilla, M.; et al. Natural Killers: Opportunities and Challenges for the Use of Bacteriophages in Microbial Food Safety from the One Health Perspective. Foods 2023, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Özer, F.; et al. Comparison of antibacterial activity of two dentin bonding systems using agar well technique and tooth cavity model. Journal of Dentistry 2003, 31, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Angmo, K.; Kumari, A.; Bhalla, T.C. Probiotic characterization of lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented foods and beverage of Ladakh. LWT-food Science and Technology 2016, 66, 428–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Semedo, T.; et al. Comparative study using type strains and clinical and food isolates to examine hemolytic activity and occurrence of the cyl operon in enterococci. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2003, 41, 2569–2576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dommels, Y.E.; et al. Survival of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in the human gastrointestinal tract with daily consumption of a low-fat probiotic spread. Applied and environmental microbiology 2009, 75, 6198–6204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hancock, L.E.; Perego, M. The Enterococcus faecalis fsr two-component system controls biofilm development through production of gelatinase. Journal of bacteriology 2004, 186, 5629–5639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hancock, L.; Perego, M. Two-component signal transduction in Enterococcus faecalis. J Bacteriol 2002, 184, 5819–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahrne, S.; Hagslatt, M.-L.J. Effect of lactobacilli on paracellular permeability in the gut. Nutrients 2011, 3, 104–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mishra, V.; Prasad, D. Application of in vitro methods for selection of Lactobacillus casei strains as potential probiotics. International journal of food microbiology 2005, 103, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Russo, P.; et al. Lactobacillus plantarum with broad antifungal activity: A promising approach to increase safety and shelf-life of cereal-based products. Int J Food Microbiol 2017, 247, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pei, J.; et al. Purification and characterization of plantaricin SLG1, a novel bacteriocin produced by Lb. plantarum isolated from yak cheese. Food Control 2018, 84, 111–117. [Google Scholar]
- De Simone, N.; et al. Antimicrobial Properties, Functional Characterisation and Application of Fructobacillus fructosus and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Isolated from Artisanal Honey. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 2023, 15, 1406–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CLSI, Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 31st edition ed. 2021, CLSI supplement M100: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Insitute.
- Charteris, W.P.; et al. Antibiotic susceptibility of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus species. Journal of food protection 1998, 61, 1636–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reuben, R.; et al. Characterization and evaluation of lactic acid bacteria from indigenous raw milk for potential probiotic properties. Journal of dairy science 2020, 103, 1223–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armas, F.; Camperio, C.; Marianelli, C. In vitro assessment of the probiotic potential of Lactococcus lactis LMG 7930 against ruminant mastitis-causing pathogens. PLoS One 2017, 12, e0169543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gheziel, C.; et al. Evaluating the Probiotic Potential of Lactobacillus plantarum Strains from Algerian Infant Feces: Towards the Design of Probiotic Starter Cultures Tailored for Developing Countries. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 2019, 11, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gómez, N.C.; et al. Use of Potential Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) Biofilms for the Control of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella Typhimurium, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 Biofilms Formation. Front Microbiol 2016, 7, 863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cruz, C. D.; Shah, S.; Tammela, P. Defining conditions for biofilm inhibition and eradication assays for Gram-positive clinical reference strains. BMC Microbiol 2018, 18, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borges, S.; Silva, J.; Teixeira, P. Survival and biofilm formation by Group B streptococci in simulated vaginal fluid at different pHs. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2012, 101, 677–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuah, L.O.; et al. Postbiotic metabolites produced by Lactobacillus plantarum strains exert selective cytotoxicity effects on cancer cells. BMC Complement Altern Med 2019, 19, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández de Palencia, P.; et al. Probiotic strains: survival under simulated gastrointestinal conditions, in vitro adhesion to Caco-2 cells and effect on cytokine secretion. European Food Research and Technology 2008, 227, 1475–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukhopadhyay, S.; et al. Inactivation of Salmonella in grape tomato stem scars by organic acid wash and chitosan-allyl isothiocyanate coating. Int J Food Microbiol 2018, 266, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arellano-Ayala, K.; et al. Hydrophobic and adhesive patterns of lactic acid bacteria and their antagonism against foodborne pathogens on tomato surface (Solanum lycopersicum L.). J Appl Microbiol 2020, 129, 876–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sornplang, P.; Piyadeatsoontorn, S. Probiotic isolates from unconventional sources: a review. J Anim Sci Technol 2016, 58, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meradji, M.; et al. Characterization of Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains Isolated from Algerian Honeybee and Honey and Exploration of Their Potential Probiotic and Functional Features for Human Use. Foods 2023, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linares-Morales, J.R.; et al. Selection of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Based on Their Antimicrobial and Enzymatic Activities. Foods 2020, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SIREGAR, D.J.S.; et al. Selection of probiotic candidate of lactic acid bacteria from Hermetia illucens larvae fed with different feeding substrates. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity 2022, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siddiqui, R.; Elmashak, Y.; Khan, N. A. Cockroaches: a potential source of novel bioactive molecule(s) for the benefit of human health. Appl Entomol Zool 2023, 58, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alameri, F.; et al. Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Fresh Vegetable Products: Potential Probiotic and Postbiotic Characteristics Including Immunomodulatory Effects. Microorganisms 2022, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurtado, A.; et al. Lactic acid bacteria from fermented table olives. Food Microbiol 2012, 31, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ben Taheur, F.; et al. Anti-bacterial and anti-biofilm activity of probiotic bacteria against oral pathogens. Microb Pathog 2016, 97, 213–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fhoula, I.; et al. Diversity and antimicrobial properties of lactic acid bacteria isolated from rhizosphere of olive trees and desert truffles of Tunisia. Biomed Res Int 2013, 2013, 405708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klibi, N.; et al. Genotypic diversity, antibiotic resistance and bacteriocin production of enterococci isolated from rhizospheres. Microbes Environ 2012, 27, 533–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abouloifa, H.; et al. Characterization of probiotic properties of antifungal Lactobacillus strains isolated from traditional fermenting green olives. Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins 2020, 12, 683–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kachouri, F.; Hamdi, M. Use Lactobacillus plantarum in olive oil process and improvement of phenolic compounds content. Journal of Food Engineering 2006, 77, 746–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garofalo, C.; et al. The microbiota of marketed processed edible insects as revealed by high-throughput sequencing. Food Microbiol 2017, 62, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chiba, M.; et al. Lactobacillus metriopterae sp. nov., a novel lactic acid bacterium isolated from the gut of grasshopper Metrioptera engelhardti. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018, 68, 1484–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leska, A.; et al. Binding and Detoxification of Insecticides by Potentially Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) Environment-An In Vitro Study. Cells 2022, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vergalito, F.; et al. Potential Application of Apilactobacillus kunkeei for Human Use: Evaluation of Probiotic and Functional Properties. Foods 2020, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yuan, S.; et al. Complete Genome Sequence of Weissella confusa LM1 and Comparative Genomic Analysis. Front Microbiol 2021, 12, 749218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stoops, J.; et al. Microbial community assessment of mealworm larvae (Tenebrio molitor) and grasshoppers (Locusta migratoria migratorioides) sold for human consumption. Food Microbiology 2016, 53, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vieco-Saiz, N.; et al. Benefits and Inputs From Lactic Acid Bacteria and Their Bacteriocins as Alternatives to Antibiotic Growth Promoters During Food-Animal Production. Front Microbiol 2019, 10, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, J.; et al. Isolation and identification of new source of bacteriocin-producing Lactobacillus plantarum C010 and growth kinetics of its batch fermentation. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 2022, 38, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; et al. Probiotic Potential of Lactobacillus Strains Isolated From Fermented Vegetables in Shaanxi, China. Front Microbiol 2021, 12, 774903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kivanc, M.; Yilmaz, M.; Çakir, E. Isolation and identification of lactic acid bacteria from boza, and their microbial activity against several reporter strains. Turkish Journal of Biology 2011, 35, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, Y.; Zhang, X.; Xu, Z. Identification of antibacterial substances of Lactobacillus plantarum DY-6 for bacteriostatic action. Food Science & Nutrition 2020, 8, 2854–2863. [Google Scholar]
- Spaggiari, L.; et al. Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. plantarum, L. rhamnosus, and L. reuteri Cell-Free Supernatants Inhibit Candida parapsilosis Pathogenic Potential upon Infection of Vaginal Epithelial Cells Monolayer and in a Transwell Coculture System In Vitro. Microbiol Spectr 2022, 10, e0269621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chang, H.M.; et al. Comparative Studies of Inhibitory and Antioxidant Activities, and Organic Acids Compositions of Postbiotics Produced by Probiotic Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Strains Isolated From Malaysian Foods. Front Vet Sci 2020, 7, 602280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khani, N.; et al. Assessing the growth-inhibitory activity of postbiotics of Lactobacillus spp. against Staphylococcus aureus under in vitro circumstances and food model. Lett Appl Microbiol 2023, 76. [Google Scholar]
- Thorakkattu, P.; et al. Postbiotics: Current Trends in Food and Pharmaceutical Industry. Foods 2022, 11, 3094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Divyashree, S.; et al. Probiotic properties of Lactobacillus casei–MYSRD 108 and Lactobacillus plantarum-MYSRD 71 with potential antimicrobial activity against Salmonella paratyphi. Biotechnology Reports 2021, 32, e00672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, C.H.; et al. Characterization of antimicrobial activity of three Lactobacillus plantarum strains isolated from Chinese traditional dairy food. Food science & nutrition 2019, 7, 1997–2005. [Google Scholar]
- Mirzaei, E.Z.; Lashani, E.; Davoodabadi, A. Antimicrobial properties of lactic acid bacteria isolated from traditional yogurt and milk against Shigella strains. GMS hygiene and infection control 2018, 13. [Google Scholar]
- Sirisopapong, M.; et al. Assessment of lactic acid bacteria isolated from the chicken digestive tract for potential use as poultry probiotics. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abd Ellatif, S.A.; et al. Assessment of probiotic efficacy and anticancer activities of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ESSG1 (MZ683194.1) and Lactiplantibacillus pentosus ESSG2 (MZ683195.1) isolated from dairy products. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2022, 29, 39684–39701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Simone, N.; et al. Screening of Lactic Acid Bacteria for the Bio-Control of Botrytis cinerea and the Potential of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum for Eco-Friendly Preservation of Fresh-Cut Kiwifruit. Microorganisms 2021, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arsoy, E. S.; Gül, L. B.; Çon, A. H. Characterization and Selection of Potential Antifungal Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated From Turkish Spontaneous Sourdough. Curr Microbiol 2022, 79, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Simões, L.; et al. Brazilian Table Olives: A Source of Lactic Acid Bacteria with Antimycotoxigenic and Antifungal Activity. Toxins 2023, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, S.; et al. Antifungal Activity of Lactobacillus plantarum ZZUA493 and Its Application to Extend the Shelf Life of Chinese Steamed Buns. Foods 2022, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grujović, M.; et al. Advantages and disadvantages of non-starter lactic acid bacteria from traditional fermented foods: Potential use as starters or probiotics. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 2022, 21, 1537–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, Z.; et al. Screening and Identification of Goat-Milk-Derived Lactic Acid Bacteria with Bacteriocin-like Activity and Probiotic Potentials. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rabaoui, G.; et al. Potential Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria with Anti-Penicillium expansum Activity from Different Species of Tunisian Edible Snails. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chouikhi, A.; et al. A novel probiotic strain, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LC38, isolated from Tunisian camel milk promoting wound healing in Wistar diabetic rats. Arch Microbiol 2021, 204, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben Salah, R.; et al. A new Lactobacillus plantarum strain, TN8, from the gastro intestinal tract of poultry induces high cytokine production. Anaerobe 2012, 18, 436–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocchetti, M.T.; et al. Immunomodulatory Activity on Human Macrophages by Cell-Free Supernatants to Explore the Probiotic and Postbiotic Potential of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Strains of Plant Origin. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins 2023, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Del Re, B.; et al. Adhesion, autoaggregation and hydrophobicity of 13 strains of Bifidobacterium longum. Letters in applied microbiology 2000, 31, 438–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- das Neves Selis, N.; et al. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strains isolated from spontaneously fermented cocoa exhibit potential probiotic properties against Gardnerella vaginalis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae. BMC Microbiol 2021, 21, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gorreja, F.; Walker, W. A. The potential role of adherence factors in probiotic function in the gastrointestinal tract of adults and pediatrics: a narrative review of experimental and human studies. Gut Microbes 2022, 14, 2149214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mekky, A.F.; et al. Anti-biofilm potential of Lactobacillus plantarum Y3 culture and its cell-free supernatant against multidrug-resistant uropathogen Escherichia coli U12. Saudi J Biol Sci 2022, 29, 2989–2997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maunders, E.; Welch, M. Matrix exopolysaccharides; the sticky side of biofilm formation. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2017, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallis, J. K.; Krömker, V.; Paduch, J. H. Biofilm formation and adhesion to bovine udder epithelium of potentially probiotic lactic acid bacteria. AIMS Microbiol 2018, 4, 209–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Simone, N.; et al. Antimicrobial Properties, Functional Characterisation and Application of Fructobacillus fructosus and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Isolated from Artisanal Honey. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasika, D.; et al. Probiotic delivery through non-dairy plant-based food matrices. Agriculture 2021, 11, 599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín, I.; et al. Strategies for Biocontrol of Listeria monocytogenes Using Lactic Acid Bacteria and Their Metabolites in Ready-to-Eat Meat- and Dairy-Ripened Products. Foods 2022, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, H.B.; et al. Pre-harvest biocontrol of Listeria and Escherichia coli O157 on lettuce and spinach by lactic acid bacteria. Int J Food Microbiol 2023, 387, 110051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]







| Isolated LAB strain | Source/matrix | E. coli (mm) | L. monocytogenes (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3nm | Intestines of died Locust | 14.17±0.29 | 13.17±0.57 |
| 1nm | Intestines of died Locust | 15.00±0.00 | 14.57±2.32 |
| S4 | Fermented green olive brine | 15.00±1.00 | 11.23±0.68 |
| RSOLV | Fermented olive | 14.17±0.76 | 13.43±0.93 |
| pepp1 | Fermented pepper brine | 15.00±0.00 | 15.10±0.26 |
| pepp2 | Fermented green pepper brine | 15.00±0.00 | 14.50±0.50 |
| S5 | Horse sausage | 10.00±1.00 | 12.07±0.40 |
| S6 | Horse sausage | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 |
| N8 | Dried anchovy | 11.00±1.00 | 0.00±0.00 |
| N4c | Dried fermented anchovy | 12.00±1.00 | 8.03±0.25 |
| F1c | Infant feces | 9.13±0.71 | 0.00±0.00 |
| F5a | Infant feces | 12.90±0.17 | 9.97±0.15 |
| LM | Breast milk | 9.83±0.29 | 9.92±0.14 |
| F1 | Infant feces | 10.17±0.29 | 11.00±0.00 |
| Rg4a | Artisanal Tunisian Ricotta cheese | 10.17±0.29 | 11.17±1.26 |
| RL4 | Tunisian fermented milk Leben | 8.83±0.29 | 12.93±0.12 |
| K10 | Tunisian Artisanal Gueddid | 0.00±0.00 | 10.60±0.36 |
| LC4 | Goat milk | 0.00±0.00 | 10.50±0.50 |
| S1 | Fermented olive brine | 10.80±0.36 | 10.47±0.50 |
| AIB | Intestines of rabbit | 0.00±0.00 | 11.00±0.00 |
| S5 | Horse sausage | 11.00±1.00 | 11.00±0.87 |
| N8 | Dried anchovy | 9.90±0.10 | 9.00±0.00 |
| K10 | Tunisian Gueddid | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 |
| O3 | Brine fermented olive | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 |
| Isolate | Source | Closest species/strain | Percentage of identity | Accession number* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3nm | Died locust (intestines) | Lactiplantibacillus plantarum | 100% | OR431596 |
| 1nm | Died locust (intestines) | Lactiplantibacillus plantarum | 99.86% | OR431597 |
| S4 | Fermented Olive | Lactiplantibacillus plantarum | 99.91% | OR431698 |
| RSOLV | Fermented olive | Lactiplantibacillus plantarum | 99.93% | OR431599 |
| pepp1 | Fermented pepper | Lactiplantibacillus plantarum | 99.82% | OR431600 |
| pepp2 | Fermented pepper | Lactiplantibacillus plantarum | 100% | OR431601 |
| Experimental assay | 3nm | 1nm | S4 | RSOLV | pepp1 | Pepp2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mobility | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2% NaCl growth | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 4% NaCl growth | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 8% NaCl growth | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MRS.Glc 2% | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MRS.Glc 4% | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MRS.Fruc 2% | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MRS.Fruc 4% | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MRS.Sucr 2% | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MRS.Sucr 4% | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MRS pH 3 | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MRS pH 4 | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MRS pH 5 | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| MRS pH 9.2 | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| E. coli | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain | LAB culture |
Crude CFS |
CFS pH neutralized | CFS treated Temperature | Crude cells | Cells treated Temperature | |
| 3nm | ++ | ++ | - | ++ | - | - | |
| 1nm | ++ | ++ | - | ++ | - | - | |
| RSOLV | ++ | ++ | - | ++ | - | - | |
| S4 | ++ | ++ | - | ++ | - | - | |
| pepp1 | ++ | ++ | - | ++ | - | - | |
| pepp2 | ++ | ++ | - | ++ | - | - | |
| L. monocytogenes | |||||||
| Strain | LAB culture |
Crude CFS |
CFS pH neutralized | CFS treated Temperature | Crude cells | Cells treated Temperature | |
| 3nm | ++ | ++ | - | ++ | - | - | |
| 1nm | ++ | ++ | - | ++ | - | - | |
| RSOLV | ++ | ++ | - | ++ | - | - | |
| S4 | ++ | ++ | - | ++ | - | - | |
| pepp1 | ++ | ++ | - | ++ | - | - | |
| pepp2 | ++ | ++ | - | ++ | - | - | |
| Tartaric acid | Malic acid | Ascorbic acid | Lactic acid | Acetic acid | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MRS | 503.27±20.85 | 3 786.64±95.81 | 51.80±1.30 | 0.00±0.00 | 17 906.53±162.88 |
| 3nm | 1 202.55±30.22 | 1 326.48±176.26 | 100.09±42.11 | 14 931.50±133.44 | 16 421.03±2 236.89 |
| 1nm | 1 347.92±25.81 | 1 808.24±42.34 | 102.69±5.66 | 14 620±214.70 | 17 033.25±877.62 |
| S4 | 1 218.73±42.21 | 1 294.83±58.28 | 117.81±1.86 | 15 419.91±89.09 | 16 312.59±1 242.27 |
| RSOLV | 677.69±128.32 | 1 735.10±171.48 | 0.00±0.00 | 14 985.98±195.53 | 19 853.59±541.76 |
| pepp1 | 1 201.36±89.76 | 1 309.51±9.18 | 135.44±4.85 | 13 829.46±132.96 | 19 888.39±809.60 |
| pepp2 | 1 092.72±116.94 | 1 335.78±99.67 | 0.00±0.00 | 15 439.67±140.01 | 42 409.27±4 762.60 |
| Succinic acid | Fumaric acid | Citric acid | |||
| MRS | 1 066.96±27.55 | 0.00±0.00 | 1 206.78 | ||
| 3nm | 5 758.93±729.88 | 15.47±6.71 | 2 662.19±403.92 | ||
| 1nm | 11 693.70±708.58 | 0.00±0.00 | 1 833.64±134.04 | ||
| S4 | 9 009.26±1 374.46 | 0.00±0.00 | 2 224.48±19.15 | ||
| RSOLV | 10 193.35±562.11 | 0.00±0.00 | 1 050.29±200.52 | ||
| pepp1 | 6 897.52±781.84 | 0.00±0.00 | 446.71±45.63 | ||
| pepp2 | 7 336.16±473.52 | 0.00±0.00 | 894.15±25.05 | ||
| Strain | P. expansum | A. niger | B. cinerea CECT 20973 | F. culmorum | S. cerevisiae |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3nm | + | ++ | + | ++ | - |
| 1nm | + | ++ | + | + | - |
| RSOLV | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | - |
| S4 | ++ | ++ | + | + | - |
| pepp1 | ++ | ++ | + | + | - |
| pepp2 | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | - |
| T4 | T24 | |
|---|---|---|
| 3nm | 24.31%±6.84% | 53.46%±2.01% |
| 1nm | 16.82%±2.33% | 53.59%±12.61% |
| S4 | 18.19%±2.54% | 70.30%±4.73% |
| RSLOV | 28.87%±3.68% | 60.97%±5.67% |
| pepp1 | 21.50%±1.75% | 34.67%±0.99% |
| pepp2 | 16.70%±1.12% | 69.82%±2.20% |
| L. monocytogenes | E. coli | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain | T4 | T24 | T4 | T24 |
| 3nm | 7.94%±0.94% | 7.28%±0.47% | 17.41%±1.54% | 43.42%±6.08% |
| 1nm | 6.38%±1.21% | 5.52%±0.18% | 17.73% ±7.75% | 54.88%±6.98% |
| S4 | 7.47%±0.14% | 7.37%±0.46% | 15.05%±0.89% | 36.96%±5.72% |
| RSOLV | 7.169%±2.25% | 8.76%±1.16% | 18.27%±4.32% | 51.15%±4.69% |
| pepp1 | 5.38%±0.00% | 5.38%±1.34% | 20.72%±2.67% | 43.53%±0.00% |
| pepp2 | 4.99%±0.55% | 4.61%±0.79% | 28.30%±10.70% | 43.16%±1.65% |
| ATB/strain | 3nm | 1nm | S4 | RSOLV | pepp1 | pepp2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ampicillin | I | S | I | I | S | I |
| Vancomycin | R | R | S | R | R | R |
| Gentamycin | I | I | R | S | S | I |
| Kanamycin | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Streptomycin | R | S | R | R | R | R |
| Tetracyclin | R | R | R | R | R | R |
| Erythromycin | I | R | R | I | R | I |
| Clindamycin | I | R | R | I | I | I |
| Claromycin | I | R | R | R | S | I |
| Strain | IC50 (after 24h) mg/mL | IC50 ( after 72h) mg/mL |
|---|---|---|
| 3nm | 12.59 | 4.00 |
| 1nm | 10.21 | 2.40 |
| S4 | 9.91 | 3.21 |
| RSOLV | 11.11 | 3.66 |
| pepp1 | 18.26 | 3.19 |
| pepp2 | 14.88 | 3.69 |
| Number of tomato-attached bacteria (Log CFU/g tomato) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medium agar | 1 day | 3 days | 5 days | |
| Listeria (control) | PALCAM | 1.68±1.39 | 1.67±1.10 | 1.74±0.70$ |
| 3nm-Listeria | PALCAM | 1.73±0.87 | 1.44±0.74 | 1.52±1.48 |
| 1nm-Listeria | PALCAM | 1.70±1.23 | 1.02±0.62 | 0.00 |
| S4-Listeria | PALCAM | 1.46±0.22 | 1.00±0.67 | 0.00 |
| RSOLV-Listeria | PALCAM | 1.77±0.80 | 1.614±1.38 | 1.18 |
| pepp1-Listeria | PALCAM | 1.49±0.997 | 1.54±1.41 | 1.15±0.45 |
| pepp2-Listeria | PALCAM | 1.70±1.14 | 1.16±0.84 | 1.63±1.16 |
| E.coli (control) | SMAC | 1.92±1.61& | 1.72±0.99 | 1.63±1.54 |
| 3nm-E.coli | SMAC | 1.82±1.13 | 1.55±1.43 | 1.34±0.94 |
| 1nm-E.coli | SMAC | 1.87±1.24 | 1.70±0.97 | 1.38±0.31 |
| S4-E.coli | SMAC | 1.88±1.05 | 1.73±1.15 | 1.13±0.45 |
| RSOLV-E.coli | SMAC | 1.87±1.04 | 1.51±1.33 | 1.56±1.24 |
| pepper1-E.coli | SMAC | 1.81±1.22 | 1.45±1.11 | 1.24±0.45 |
| pepper2-E.coli | SMAC | 1.84±1.15 | 1.53±0.96 | 1.22±0.41 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).