Submitted:
08 April 2026
Posted:
09 April 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract

Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Ethical Approval
2.2. Sample Collection
2.3. Isolation of Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB)
2.4. Evaluation of Probiotic Properties
2.4.1. Acid Tolerance
2.4.2. Bile Salt Tolerance
2.4.3. Adhesion Ability to Intestinal Epithelium (Surface Hydrophobicity)
2.4.4. Hemolytic Activity
2.4.5. Antimicrobial Activity Against E. coli and S. aureus ATCC 6538
2.5. Data Interpretation Probiotic Properties
2.5.1. Acid Tolerance
2.5.2. Bile Salt Tolerance
2.5.3. Surface Adhesion Ability
2.5.4. Hemolytic Activity
2.5.5. Antimicrobial Activity Against E. coli and S. aureus ATCC 6538
2.6. Molecular Identification of Selected Isolates
2.7. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Isolation of Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) from Piglet Feces
3.2. Functional Properties of Selected Isolates
3.2.1. Acid Tolerance
3.2.2. Bile Salt Tolerance
3.2.3. Cell Surface Hydrophobicity (MATH Assay)
3.2.4. Hemolytic Activity (Safety Evaluation)
3.2.5. Antimicrobial Activity Against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus
3.3. Molecular Identification of Selected Isolates
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fairbrother, J.M.; Nadeau, E.; Gyles, C.L. Escherichia coli in postweaning diarrhea in pigs: An update on bacterial types, pathogenesis, and prevention strategies. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 2005, 6(1), 17–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luppi, A. Swine enteric colibacillosis: Diagnosis, therapy, and antimicrobial resistance. Porcine Health Manag. 2017, 3, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, M.E.; Maxwell, C.V.; Brown, D.C.; de Rodas, B.Z.; Johnson, Z.B.; Kegley, E.B.; Hellwig, D.H.; Dvorak, R.A. Effect of dietary mannan oligosaccharides and/or copper sulfate on growth and immunocompetence of pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 2887–2894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moredo, F.A.; Pineyro, P.E.; Marquez, G.C.; Sanz, M.; Colello, R.; Etcheverria, A.; Padola, N.L.; Quiroga, M.A.; Perfumo, C.J.; Galli, L.; Leotta, G.A. Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli subclinical infection in pigs: Bacteriological and genotypic characterization and antimicrobial resistance profiles. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2015, 12, 704–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bogere, P.; Choi, Y.J.; Heo, J. Probiotics as alternatives to antibiotics in treating post-weaning diarrhoea in pigs. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 49, 403–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laird, T.J.; Abraham, S.; Jordan, D.; Pluske, J.R.; Hampson, D.J.; Trott, D.J.; Dea, M.O. Porcine enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli: Antimicrobial resistance and development of microbial-based alternative control strategies. Vet. Microbiol. 2021, 258, 109117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fouhse, J.M.; Zijlstra, R.T.; Willing, B.P. The role of gut microbiota in the health and disease of pigs. Anim. Front. 2016, 6(3), 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petri, D.; Hill, J.E.; Van Kessel, A.G. Microbial succession in the gastrointestinal tract of pre-weaned pigs. Livest. Sci. 2010, 133, 107–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dowarah, R.; Verma, A.K.; Agarwal, N.; Singh, P.; Singh, B.R. Selection and characterization of probiotic lactic acid bacteria and its impact on growth, nutrient digestibility, and health in weaned piglets. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO/WHO. Probiotics in Food: Health and Nutritional Properties and Guidelines for Evaluation; World Health Organization: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP). Guidance on the assessment of the safety of feed additives for the target species. EFSA J. 2018, 16, e05206.
- Ozugul, F.; Hamed, I. The importance of lactic acid bacteria for prevention of bacterial growth and biogenic amine formation: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 58, 1660–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singhal, N.; Kumar, M.; Kanaujia, P.K.; Virdi, J.S. MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: An emerging technology for microbial identification and diagnosis. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, X.H.; Kim, J.M.; Nam, H.M.; Park, S.Y.; Kim, J.M. Screening lactic acid bacteria from swine origins for multistrain probiotics based on in vitro functional properties. Anaerobe 2010, 16, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, D.; Li, C.; Qin, Y.; Yin, R.; Du, S.; Ye, F.; Liu, C.; Liu, H.; Wang, M.; Li, Y.; Sun, Y.; Li, X.; Tian, M.; Jin, N. In vitro evalua-tion of the probiotic and functional potential of Lactobacillus strains isolated from fermented food and human intestine. Anaerobe 2014, 30, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekmekci, H. Characterization of vaginal lactobacilli coaggregation ability with Escherichia coli. Microbiol. Immunol. 2009, 53, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adimpong, D.B.; Nielsen, D.S.; Sørensen, K.I.; Derkx, P.M.F.; Jespersen, L. Genotypic characterization and safety assessment of lactic acid bacteria from indigenous African fermented food products. BMC Microbiol. 2012, 12, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sirichokchatchawan, W.; Pupa, P.; Praechansri, P.; Amin, N.; Tanasupawat, S.; Sonthayanon, P.; Prapasarakul, N. Autochthonous lactic acid bacteria isolated from pig feces in Thailand show probiotic properties and antibacterial activity against enteric pathogenic bacteria. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 119, 208–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Petsuriyawong, B.; Khunajakr, S. Screening of probiotic lactic acid bacteria from piglet feces. Kasetsart J. Nat. Sci. 2011, 45, 245–253. [Google Scholar]
- Buxton, R. Blood agar plates and hemolysis protocols. American Society for Microbiology. 2005. Available online: https://asm.org/getattachment/7ec0de2b-bb16-4f6e-ba07-2aea25a43e76/protocol-2885.pdf.
- Mustakim, M.; Sinawat, S.; Salleh, S.N.; Purwati, E.; Alias, R.; Mohamad, S.A.; Mat Issa, Z. Human milk as a potential source for isolation of probiotic lactic acid bacteria: A mini review. Food Res. 2019, 4, 274–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czerucka, D.; Piche, T.; Rampal, P. Yeast as probiotics-Saccharomyces boulardii. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2007, 26, 767–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elghandour, M.M.Y.; Tan, Z.L.; Abu Hafsa, S.H.; Adegbeye, M.J.; Greiner, R.; Ugbogu, E.A.; Cedillo Monroy, J.; Salem, A.Z.M. Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a probiotic feed additive to non- and pseudo-ruminants: A review. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 128, 658–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeo, S.; Lee, S.; Park, H.; Shin, H.; Holzapfel, W.; Huh, C.S. Development of putative probiotics as feed additives: Validation in a porcine-specific gastrointestinal tract model. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 10043–10054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gotcheva, V.; Hristozova, E.; Hristozova, T.; Guo, M.; Roshkova, Z.; Angelov, A. Assessment of potential probiotic properties of lactic acid bacteria and yeast strains. Food Biotechnol. 2002, 16, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Li, N.; Caicedo, R.; Neu, J. Probiotic Lactobacillus species and their role in gastrointestinal health. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 845678. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, A.E.; Kaleta, E.J.; Arora, A.; Wolk, D.M. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry: A fundamental shift in the routine practice of clinical microbiology. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 26, 547–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dušková, M.; Šedo, O.; Kšicová, K.; Zdráhal, Z.; Karpíšková, R. Identification of lactobacilli isolated from food by MALDI-TOF MS. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 159, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Xu, R.; Zhang, H.; Su, Y.; Zhu, W. Swine gut microbiota and its interaction with host nutrient metabolism. Anim. Nutr. 2020, 6, 410–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, M.; Zhou, X.; Birch Hansen, L.H.; Sheng, Y.; Yu, B.; He, J.; Yu, J.; Zheng, P. Complex probiotics reduce diarrhea by enhancing immunity and balancing gut microbiota in weaned piglets. Front. Immunol. 2025, 16, 1629044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, J.; Li, H.; Wang, Z.; Wang, W. Effects of Lactobacillus acidophilus dietary supplementation on performance, intestinal barrier function, rectal microflora, and serum immune function in weaned piglets challenged with Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2015, 107, 883–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia-Cayuela, T.; Korany, A.; Bustos, I.; Cadinanos, L.; Requena, T.; Pelaez, C.; Martinez-Cuesta, M.C. Adhesion abilities of dairy Lactobacillus plantarum strains showing an aggregation phenotype. Food Res. Int. 2014, 57, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anadón, A.; Martínez-Larrañaga, M.R.; Martínez, M.A. Probiotics for animal nutrition in the European Union: Regulation and safety assessment. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2006, 45, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zendeboodi, F.; Khorshidian, N.; Mortazavian, A.M. Probiotic: Conceptualization from a new approach. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020, 32, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| Symbol | Interpretation | Inhibition Zone Diameter (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| - | Non-inhibition | <5 |
| + | Weak inhibition | >5 |
| ++ | Intermediate inhibition | >10 |
| +++ | Strong inhibition | >15 |
| ++++ | Very strong inhibition | >20 |
| Isolate ID | log CFU/mL | |
| Initial Count (average) | pH 3.1 | |
| 212 | 6.37±0.5 | 5.60±0.5 |
| 318 | 5.56±0.6 | |
| Isolate ID | 0% (0 h) | 0% (24 h, Control) | 0.3% (24 h) | 0.5% (24 h) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 212 | 6.81 ± 0.4 | 9.66 ± 0.5 | 7.81 ± 0.3 | 6.56 ± 0.4 |
| 318 | 6.00 ± 0.6 | 9.08 ± 0.6 | 7.38 ± 0.5 | <3.00 |
| Isolate ID | OD600 (before mixing with xylene) | OD600 after mixing (0 min) | OD600 after phase separation (30 min) | %Hydrophobicity (mean±SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 212 | 0.871 ± 0.02 | 1.014 ± 0.02 | 0.924 ± 0.02 | 7.85 ± 0.02 |
| 318 | 0.935 ± 0.02 | 1.171 ± 0.03 | 1.010 ± 0.02 | 12.38 ± 0.03 |
| Isolate ID | Clear zone (mm) - E. coli | Clear zone (mm) - S. aureus |
|---|---|---|
| PMvet212 | 12.50 ± 0.4 | 11.75 ± 0.5 |
| PMvet318 | 11.50 ± 0.3 | 10.50 ± 0.4 |
| Control (2% lactic acid) | 18.50 ± 0.5 | 15.25 ± 0.4 |
| Isolate ID | Closest match | Score value | Identification level |
|---|---|---|---|
| PMvet212 | Lactobacillus brevis | 2.1–2.3 | Species level |
| PMvet318 | Lactobacillus sp. | 1.7–1.9 | Genus level |
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. |
© 2026 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/).