Next Article in Journal
Potential Control of Mycotoxigenic Fungi and Ochratoxin A in Stored Coffee Using Gaseous Ozone Treatment
Next Article in Special Issue
Update of Probiotics in Human World: A Nonstop Source of Benefactions till the End of Time
Previous Article in Journal
Interlaboratory Validation of a Detection Method for Hepatitis E Virus RNA in Pig Liver
Previous Article in Special Issue
Teff Type-I Sourdough to Produce Gluten-Free Muffin
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 8
Issue 10
10.3390/microorganisms8101461
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Probiotic and Antioxidant Potential of Lactobacillus reuteriLR12 and Lactobacillus lactisLL10 Isolated from Pineapple Puree and Quality Analysis of Pineapple-Flavored Goat Milk Yoghurt during Storage

by
Naif Abdullah Al-Dhabi
1,†,
Mariadhas Valan Arasu
1,†,
Ponnuswamy Vijayaraghavan
2,
Galal Ali Esmail
1,
Veeramuthu Duraipandiyan
1,
Young Ock Kim
3,
Hyungsuk Kim
4 and
Hak-Jae Kim
3,*
1
Department of Botany and Microbiology, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
2
Bioprocess Engineering Division, Smykon Biotech Pvt Ltd, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu 629 001, India
3
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University, Cheonan, Chungcheongnam 31151, Korea
4
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of Korean Medicine, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors equally contributed to this work.
Microorganisms 2020, 8(10), 1461; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8101461
Submission received: 7 September 2020 / Revised: 22 September 2020 / Accepted: 23 September 2020 / Published: 23 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Physiology of Lactic Acid Bacteria and Applications to Biotechnology)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In recent years, studies have focused on the therapeutic properties of probiotics to eliminate pathogenic microorganisms associated with various diseases. Lactobacilli are important probiotics groups that have been found to possess many health-promoting activities. This study was carried out to isolate LactobacillusreuteriLR12 and L. lactisLL10 from pineapple puree. The invitro analysis to evaluate probiotic characteristics of the isolated bacteria included survival in bile and acid tolerance. The cell-free supernatant of L. reuteri LR12 was effective against various pathogenic bacteria and fungi compared with L. lactisLL10. These two bacterial strains have strong anti-biofilm activity (100%) against Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Bacillus cereus. The bacterial strains exhibited adhesion properties to HT-29 cells (human colorectal adenocarcinoma). These bacteria showed DPPH- (2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl-hydrate) free radical scavenging activity, scavenging of hydroxyl radical activity, superoxide radical scavenging activity, and reducing power activity in the range of 72% ± 3%to 89.3% ± 1.7%, 64% ± 2.7%to 66.8% ± 1.5%, 59.8% ± 4.1% to 63.8% ± 2.1%, and 60.4% ± 1.8%to 66.1% ± 3.3%, respectively. Pineapple puree was used as the starter culture with milk for 2 days for yogurt preparation. Pineapple puree increased flavor and showed the physicochemical properties of yogurt. The finding of the sensory evaluation revealed no significant change compared with the control, except the appearance of yogurt. These findings show that Lactobacilli and pineapple puree have potential use in various probiotic preparations for the fermentation industry.

1. Introduction

Intestinal microbial flora intertwines metabolic and signaling capabilities to provide various health benefits. In recent years, studies have focused on investigating appropriate therapeutic agentsfor their antibiotic potential and ability to eliminate multidrug-resistant (MDR) microorganisms [1]. Biofilm-producing Enterobacteriaceae and carbapenemase producing Klebsiellapneumoniaea are prevalent in gastrointestinal tract infections. MDR bacteria cause intestinal sepsis, which is a serious health condition. In spite of prophylactic measures and appropriate antibiotic administration to the individuals, increases in antibiotic exposure pose serious risks to antibiotic resistance. Most of the bacteria of Gram-negative type are resistant to ampicillin, cloxacillin, and gentamicin [2]. Gastrointestinal infections are very common among infants [3]. Superoxide anion radicals, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radicals have been reported as reactive oxygen species (ROS), but hydrogen peroxide is only one of the hyperactive oxygen free radicals. These byproducts are involved in a number of events. In the human body, free radicals are involved in oxidative stress [4]. Many factors, namely nitrogen oxides, herbicides, ozonization, radiation, and some metals, induce oxidative stress. In phagocytosis, bacteria are invaded, which stimulates the production of reactive oxygen species due the activity of NADPH oxidase, and this enzyme is also involved in phagocytes [5]. In living organisms, enzyme defenses and non-enzymatic antioxidant defenses are reported. Enzymes like glutathione reductase (GR), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and superoxide dismutase (SOD) are involved in phagocytosis, whereas non-enzymatic substances like vitamin E, vitamin C, thioredoxin, and glutathione are involved in the antioxidant defense system [6]. Despite several known synthetic antioxidants, including butylatedhydroxyanisole and butylatedhydroxytoluene, involved in treating free radicals, investigating suitable, natural, and safer antioxidants from natural resources has received considerable attention [7]. In recent decades, several works have been carried out on the probiotic potential of microorganisms, because these microorganisms have numerous health benefits, including antimicrobial and antioxidant activities [8,9,10]. Probiotics are living microbial food supplements and produce various beneficial biomolecules, including bacteriocins [11]. Probiotics add critical value to certain functional foods. Lactobacilli are important probiotics strains found to possess many health-promoting activities, as well as a long, safe history of being consumed by human beings [12]. For example, Lactobacillus acidophilus ATCC 4356 shows strong antioxidant activity and the capability of inhibiting linoleic acid. These strains survive and colonize the gastrointestinal tract of the host organism. The survival ability of probiotic organisms in the gastrointestinal tract is mainly influenced by the buffering capacity of the supplemented food. Yogurt, cheese, and skimmed milk are formulated with pH ranging from 3.5 to 4.5 and high buffering capacity, which increase the pH of the gastrointestinal tract and thus enhance the stability of probiotic strains [13]. In recent years, research has focused on the isolation of new bacterial strains with beneficial effects that mainly constitute natural inhabitants in the gastrointestinal tract. For example, the beneficial effect of Akkermansiamuniciphila with respect to gut modulation and immune modulation has been analyzed [14]. The selected bacterial strains must survive food processing and food storage conditions and withstand various stress conditions encountered in the upper gastrointestinal tract of the host organism. Hence, the suitable selection of probiotic bacteria and their potential delivery remains a challenge, with the main focus on sustaining the viability of the probiotic bacteria in the final formulated food product. Food and food products are widely used for the isolation of Lactobacilli. The pineapple fruit is an edible fruit made of flesh, with simple sugars like fructose and sucrose. This fruit is rich in antioxidants (vitamin C), and consumption of this fruit is beneficial against various organisms and scavenging activity [15]. Fermentation of pineapple puree and the survival of probiotic bacteria in pineapple juice are not very clear. In this study, two Lactobacillus sp. were isolated from pineapple puree, and biological activities were studied. Then, pineapple puree was used as the starter culture for goat milk yogurt production for nutraceutical applications.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Pineapple Puree Preparation

A freshly collected pineapple was used for the preparation of pineapple puree. About 500 g of pineapple pulp was prepared by using 50 g fruit body ground with double-distilled water and was autoclaved. It was transferred into an Erlenmeyer flask containing 200 mL of raw milk. In this mix, gelatin (2%, w/v), sugar (2%, w/v), and salt (0.8%, v/w) were incorporated and stirred continuously. The mixture was then dispensed into a sterile container and kept at 37 °C for 72 h. The stability of the sample was analyzed continuously and was used for the isolation of Lactobacilli.

2.2. Isolation, Screening, and Characterization of Lactobacillus Strains

About 0.1 mL of pineapple puree sample was placed on MRS (Man, Rogosa, Sharpe) agar containing CaCO3 (Himedia, Mumbai, India) and further incubated at 30 ± 2 °C for 72 h under anaerobic state. The bacterial isolates were selected based on acid production (clear zone around the colony) on MRS medium containing CaCO3 [16]. Acid-producing organisms were sub-cultured prior to use in MRS liquid medium followed by incubation at 37 °C for 72 h. The growth of the bacterial strains was measured at 600 nm using a UV-visible spectrophotometer. The bacterial strains (LR12 and LL10), which showed maximum cell density (1.090 ± 0.1 and 1.048 ± 0.1 OD [optical density]) at 600 nm, were subjected to morphological, biochemical, and 16S rDNA sequencing.

2.3. LAB Strain and Resistance

The antibiotic resistance pattern of Lactobacillus (LAB) strains (LR12 and LL10) was evaluated using the disc diffusion method. In this method, about 100 µL of Lactobacillus strains (LR12 and LL10) were placed on MRS agar medium, and then the commercial antibiotic discs were placed. The culture plates were incubated for 24 h at 30 ± 2 °C, and antibiotic resistance was determined [17].

2.4. Probiotic Characterization of LAB

To analyze the acid tolerance of LAB strains (LR12 and LL10), MRS medium was preparedwith3% bile salts. Then, 100 μL of MRS broth (log phase) was inoculated and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h, and its tolerance level was evaluated. To evaluate acid tolerance, 3% oxgall acid was added to the MRS broth medium and inoculated at the log phase of the bacterial strain. The culture was incubated at 37 °C for 24 h, and the oxgallic acid tolerance (%) was evaluated. The viability of bacteria was calculated after serial dilution and growth on MRS agar medium. Acid and bile tolerance experiments were repeated three times, and an average value was considered for analysis [16]. The survival rate was determined using the given formula:
Survival rate (%) = (cell no. after reaction (CFU)/initial cell no. (CFU)) × 100

2.5. LAB Strains and Adhesion Properties

To evaluate the adhesion properties of Lactobacillus strains (LR12 and LL10) on HT-29 cells (intestinal epithelial cells), cells were added to a 24-well microtiter plate at 2 × 105 cell concentration and incubated for 24 h at 37 ± 2 °C. On the developed HT-29 monolayer, Lactobacillus strains (LR12 and LL10) were seeded at 1 × 108 CFU/well. The microtiter plate was incubated for about 2 h at 37 ± 2 °C with 5% CO2 using a CO2 incubator. Further, the non-adherent HT-29 cells were removed using PBS (Phosphate Buffer Saline) by repeat washing. Then, 0.1% Triton X-100 was used on each well, and bacterial cells were harvested. The cells were then serially diluted and spread on MRS agar plates [18]. The plates were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C, and adhesion properties were calculated as below:
Adhesion ability (%) = (adhered cell no. (CFU)/initial cell no. (CFU)) × 100

2.6. Test Organisms for Antimicrobial Assay

Escherichia coli (ATCC 8739), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 15442), Salmonella typhi (ATCC 13311), Bacillus cereus (ATCC 14579), Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 29212), and Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538) bacteria were used for analysis. Aspergillus niger (ATCC 16404), A. flavus (ATCC 9643), A. nidulans (ATCC 38163), and Penicillium expansum (ATCC 7861) fungal species were also tested. Bacterial strains were cultured in nutrient broth medium (Himedia, Mumbai, India) for 18 h at 37 °C. The fungal strains were cultured in potato dextrose broth for 72 h at 37 °C. The growth of culture was observed using a UV-visible spectrophotometer at 600 nm.

2.7. Preparation of Cell Free Supernatant

The Lactobacilli strains (LR12 and LL10) were cultured individually in MRS broth (Himedia, Mumbai, India) medium for 24 h at 37 °C. The culture was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 20 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was filter sterilized using a 0.22 μm filter, as described earlier [19].

2.8. Antibacterial Susceptibility Testing of LAB

To determine antagonistic activity, the disc diffusion method was followed. The discs were prepared with Whatman’s filter paper (no. 1) with a diameter of 6mm. The paper was sterilized, and the prepared disc was aseptically soaked into the cell-free supernatant of LAB. Sterile Mueller–Hinton agar (MHA) was aseptically poured into sterile Petri dishes, and the overnight culture of test organisms was inoculated. Then, sterile forceps were used to place the disc aseptically on the surface of MHA plates. Ciprofloxacin was used as a positive control, and the plates were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. To study the influence of organic acid of the cell-free extract on antimicrobial activity, the pH of the filter sterilized supernatant was adjusted to 6.5 by using 1 N NaOH [20]. The plates were observed for zones of inhibition (mm).

2.9. Antifungal Activity of Lactobacillus Strains

Antifungal activity was evaluated using the agar diffusion method, as suggested by Arasu et al. [21]. LAB strains were streaked on the plates containing 25 mL MRS agar, and the plates were incubated for three days at 37 °C. About 50 µL of fungal suspension with 108 CFU/mL was incorporated into the PDA medium. It was overlaid on MRS agar solid medium with the Lactobacillus strains LR12 and LL10. The culture plates were incubated for three days at 37 °C, and the zone of inhibition was analyzed.

2.10. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration

Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of both bacteria and fungi were evaluated separately by the tube dilution method. To determine the MIC of bacteria and fungi, one milliliter of cell-free extract of LAB was serially diluted up to a predetermined concentration. All tubes were inoculated with fungi (108 CFU/mL) and bacteria separately. The antifungal agent ketoconazole was used as standard. The MIC was analyzed as the lowest quantity of the cell-free extract that completely inhibited the growth of the organisms.

2.11. Determination of Minimum Bactericidal Concentration

To evaluate the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC), tubes without any sign of turbidity/growth in MIC samples were cultured on nutrient agar medium and incubated for 24 h at 37 ± 2 °C. The lowest concentration of cell-free extract of LAB that effectively inhibited growth was calculated as the MBC.

2.12. β-Glucuronidase Assay

The selected bacterial strains (LR12 and LL10) were cultured in MRS liquid medium at 37 °C. After 18 h of incubation, the bacterial cells were centrifuged at 5000× g for 10 min, washed three times with PBS, and mixed with lysis buffer (acetone/toluene, 9:1 v/v). Then, an 80 μL aqueous layer was separated and mixed with ρ-nitrophenyl-β-D-glucuronide (5 mM) and kept for 37 °C at 30 min. The enzymatic reaction was stopped by adding 0.5 M Na2CO3, and the released pNP was evaluated using a microtiter plate reader at 405 nm [22].

2.13. Biofilm Inhibition Assay

A biofilm inhibition assay was performed using biofilm forming E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. typhi, B. cereus, and E. faecalis, as described by Wu et al. [23]. These bacterial strains were prepared at 1 × 106 CFU/mL concentration and inoculated in brain–heart infusion (BHI) broth (Himedia, Mumbai, India), and culture extracts of the Lactobacillus strains (LR12 and LL10)were separately added at 35 mg/mL concentrations. The microtiter plate was incubated for about 18 h and, the non-adherent cells were removed using sterile double-distilled water. Then the adherent bacterial cells were fixed by using 250 µL methanol for 10 min, and the plates were air-dried. The fixed biofilms were stained by using crystal violet (0.2%, 300 µL) prepared in double-distilled water. The crystal violet stain of adherent cells was extracted using glacial acetic acid (33%, 200 µL). The absorbance of the sample was read at 540 nm, and biofilm inhibition efficiency was analyzed.
Biofilm inhibition rate (%) = (1 − (absorbance of sample)/(absorbance of control)) × 100

2.14. Inhibition of Glucan Synthesis

The bacterial test strain was inoculated in BHI broth and incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. It was further centrifuged (at 5000× g), and the aliquots were kept for 15 min at 4 °C. The sample was filtered using a membrane filtration unit (0.2 μm membrane filter). Then 20 μL of crude sample was transferred in a reaction mixture containing 180 μL of LAB supernatant and potassium phosphate buffer (62.5 mM, pH 6.5) containing 0.25 g of sodium azide and 12.5 g of sucrose, and incubated for 30 h at 37 °C. The adhered sample with tubes were collected and sonicated for complete dispersion. Finally, the amount of water-insoluble glucan was calculated by measuring the sample at 550 nm [24], and the glucosyltransferase (GTF) inhibition rate was determined as described below:
GTF inhibition rate (%) = (1 − (absorbance of treated sample)/(absorbance of control)) × 100

2.15. In Vitro Antioxidant Activity of LAB Strains

2.15.1. DPPH Free Radical Activity

Briefly, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 µL extracts of Lactobacillus isolates (LR12 and LL10) were added into DPPH radical solution (0.05 mM). The solutions were mixed and kept in the dark for 30 min [25]. The absorbance samples were measured at 517 nm. The scavenging ability was calculated as below:
Scavenging ability (%) = (1 − Asample − Ablank)/Acontrol) × 100

2.15.2. Scavenging of Hydroxyl Radicals

Scavenging activity of hydroxyl radicals by bacteria was measured according to the method of Guo [13]. Overnight, bacterial samples with different concentrations (12.5, 25, 50, and 100 µL) were inoculated into samples containing O-phenanthroline (0.1%, w/v), 2.5 mM FeSO4, and 20 mM H2O2. The samples were then incubated for 90 min at 37 °C. The absorbance samples were read at 536 nm, and free radical scavenging activity was determined as follows:
Scavenging activity (%) = [(A1 − A2)/(A1 − A0)] × 100%

2.15.3. Superoxide Radical Scavenging Activity

Samples were mixed at various concentrations (12.5, 25, 50, and 100 µL) with pyrogallic acid (0.05 M, 0.1 mL). The samples were incubated at 25 °C for 30 min in the dark. Absorbance samples was measured at 320 nm, and superoxide radical scavenging was analyzed [26] as follows:
Scavenging rate (%) = [1 − A320 nm sample − A320 nm blank] × 100%

2.15.4. Reducing Power Assay

Samples at various concentrations (12.5, 25, 50, and 100 µL) were mixed with 1% potassium ferricyanide solution. The reaction mixture was incubated for 20 min at 50 °C. The mixture was cooled, and 10% trichloroacetic acid was added. The mixture was centrifuged, the upper layer was gently mixed with ferric chloride solution (0.1%), and the absorbance of the sample was analyzed at 700 nm [27].

2.16. Yogurt Preparation

2.16.1. Yogurt Preparation Using Pineapple Puree

Goat milk was freshly collected and used for the preparation of yogurt. Yogurt preparation was based on the method suggested by Lee and Lucey [28], with few modifications. The collected milk was heated at 90 ± 2 °C for 5 min, and 5.0% (w/v) table sugar was added. The milk was then rapidly cooled to between 40 and 42 °C. Then, the starter culture (pineapple puree) was added at 1.0%, 2.0%, and 3.0% levels and incubated for two days for the process of forming yogurt. After 48 h of treatment, yoghurt was analyzed for various physicochemical factors and microbiological analyses.

2.16.2. Analysis of Physicochemical Parameters of Yogurt

The fat, ash content, acidity, pH, and dry matter of the yogurt were determined using the standard method [29]. Titratable acidic level and pH of the sample were determined after 2 days of yogurt preparation. The sugar content of yogurt was determined and expressed as % sucrose. The solid non-fat was also measured using the following formula:
Solid non-fat (%) = % dry matter − % fat content

2.16.3. Analysis of Microorganisms and Sensory Evaluation of Yogurt

One gram of the yogurt sample was transferred into 99 mL sterile, double-distilled water, and samples were prepared at various dilutions (10−1 to 10−7). Total plate count agar was used for the determination of total bacteria population in the sample, whereas potato dextrose agar was used for the determination of total fungi. An appropriately diluted sample was spread on MacConkey Agar medium for the determination of total coliforms. All plates were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h for bacteria and 72 h for fungi. A colony counter was used for the determination of developed bacterial and fungal colonies. Twenty people were selected to evaluate the taste and flavor of pineapple yogurt. About 20 mL of product was served to all participants, and the results were registered. Clear instructions were given to the participants to clean their palates. Sensory scales were given to the participants to give ratings ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest and 10 being the highest score in terms of taste. Sensory characteristics, such as appearance, texture, and flavor were improved in the puree-fermented yogurt [30].

2.17. Statistical Analysis

One-way analysis of variance was used to test the significance of variation in all experiments. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Isolation of Probiotic Lactobacillus Strains

Most probiotic products have been used as functional food. In this study, two probiotic organisms were isolated from pineapple for the preparation of functional food, because the presence of high sucrose and fructose is preferred for the growth of Lactobacillus sp. Two probiotic isolates, L. reuteri LR12 and L. lactisLL10, exhibited weak resistance towards the antibiotics ampicillin, tetracycline, chloramphenicol, and doxycycline, while showing strong resistance against gentamycin, kanamycin, streptomycin, and ciprofloxacin. The findings of antibiotic susceptibility are highly similar to previous reports that have also shown the absence of strong resistance against various antibiotics from natural fermented sources [31]. Recently, probiotic bacterial strains from the genus Enterococcus were isolated from an Argentinean cheese, and their application as a starter culture for the production of cheese was suggested [32]. Probiotic bacteria were isolated from unfermented and fermented products of animal origin, such as honey, fish, seafood, and raw cured cold meats [33]. Recently, the probiotic properties of bacteria, such as Lactobacillus fermentum R6, Lactobacillus curvatus R5, Lactobacillus brevis R4, and Pediococcuspentosaceus R1 have been characterized [34].

3.2. Probiotic Properties of the LAB Strains

The tolerance effects of both Lactobacillus species were compared. When the bacteria were grown under 3% bile and 3% oxgall acid conditions, the survival power of L. reuteriLR12 was 85.3%, and the log CFU/mL value was 9.12 ± 0.07. The survival rate of L. reuteriLR12 was improved (100%) in the presence of bile salts. In L. lactisLL10, the initial log CFU was 8.65 ± 0.31/mL, and this value increased to 9.07 ± 0.77 log CFU/mL (Table 1). Cell count was also increased in the presence of bile salts (9.29 ± 0.15 CFU/mL). Bile-salt hydrolases (BSHs) showed adaption to the organism to survive in a bile-containing environment [35]. BSHs are inducible enzymes in Lactobacillus, and in L. plantarum expression of the bsh gene enhanced enzyme production over six-fold after exposure of this organism to 2% bile. BSH activities varied based on the source of the sample and host species. Increased levels of BSHs in a human host are related to a higher cholesterol-removing ability [36]. The finding suggested that enzymes of Lactobacillus sp. play an important role for gut bacterial flora, mainly contributing to the ability of bile tolerance.

3.3. β-Glucuronidase Assay and Adhesion Ability

β-glucuronidase activity was analyzed, and it was found that the selected Lactobacillus strains (LR12 and LL10) did not produce this enzyme. β-glucuronidase activity is one of the important probiotic characteristics. In Lactobacillus species, β-glucuronidases liberate mutagens and toxins that are generally excreted with the bile juice. This process leads to elevated levels of carcinogenic compounds, thus enhancing the risk of cancer in the gut, as has been reported by Gill and Rowland [37]. In cancer patients, increased β-glucuronidase levels have been reported compared with normal individuals [38]. L. reuteriLR12 has a stronger adhesion ability (76.3 ± 1.93%) than L. lactisLL10 (71 ± 1.08%) (Table 1). Adhesion properties are an important characteristic of probiotics. Kos et al. [39] reported a correlation between hydrophobicity and adhesion ability in Lactobacillus strains. Colonization and adherence of Lactobacillus in the gut is a prerequisite for the isolates to exhibit various beneficial effects on humans [40]. Analysis of adhesions to the HT-29 intestinal epithelial cell line of Lactobacillus isolates has been considered as an effective in vitro method for screening isolates for probiotic potential [41]. Tuo et al. [42] reported adhesion properties and auto aggregation among various bacterial species, and positive correlations were observed between adhesion and auto aggregation.

3.4. Antimicrobial Activity of Lactobacillus Strains against Microbial Pathogens

The cell-free extract of the tested Lactobacillus strains (LR12 and LL10) showed potent antimicrobial activity. The zone of inhibition varied widely. Lactobacillus LR12 showed high potential activity against S. aureus (27 ± 1 and 26 ± 2 mm) and E. coli (28 ± 2 and 25 ± 1 mm) (Table 2). The selected Lactobacillus strains (LR12 and LL10) were analyzed to determine MIC against microbial pathogens, and the results are shown in Table 3. The cell free extract of L. reuteri (LR12) showed a very low MIC value against P. aeruginosa (6.25 µg/mL), E. fecalis (6.25 µg/mL) and P. expansum (6.25 µg/mL). The extract of L. lactisLL10 showed the lowest MIC value against P. aeruginosa (6.25 µg/mL) and B. cereus (6.25 µg/mL). The activities against bacterial pathogens were mainly due to the production of hydrogen peroxide, non-lactic acid molecules, and bacteriocin-like molecules [43]. Bacteriocins are enzymatic, degradable, proteinaceous compounds, and bacteriocins such as pediocin, nisin, and sakacin show potent antibacterial activity against bacterial pathogens [44]. The selected Lactobacillus sp. (LR12 and LL10) showed higher antifungal activities against Penicillium sp. than other fungal strains. This result is comparable with previous findings [21]. The antibacterial activity of Lactobacillus has been reported previously; for example, the reported Lactobacillus strains showed antibacterial activity against C. difficile [45], E. coli [46], Shigella spp. [47], P. aeruginosa [48], and S. aureus [49]. Recently, Wang et al. [50] isolated L. plantarum from Tibetan yaks and reported an inhibitory effect against Staphylococcus aureus and E. coli. The antibacterial activity of Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei was reported against Staphylococcus aureus involved in colonic and intestinal injury [51]. In this study, the sample showed high activity against S. aureus, and the neutralized cell-free extract did not show any antimicrobial properties. This revealed that the low pH value of cell-free extract due to the presence of organic acids, especially lactic acid produced by the selected Lactobacilli strains, is highly responsible for antimicrobial potential. Zhang et al. [52] also previously reported a loss of antimicrobial activity in the cell-free extract after neutralization.

3.5. Inhibition of Biofilm and Glucan Formation

The bacterial strains (LR12 and LL10) showed inhibitory properties against biofilm-forming bacterial pathogens. L reuteriLR12 showed s 53% ± 1.3% biofilm inhibition rate against E. coli and 68%± 3.2% against P. aeruginosa, whereas L. reuteri LR12 and L. lactis LL10 showed 68% ± 3.2% and 54% ± 1.5% activity against P. aeruginosa. These two LAB strains have strong biofilm activity (100%) against S. aureus, E. faecalis, and B. cereus (Table 4). The biofilm inhibition property of Lactobacillus has been previously reported by Melo et al. [53]. Some bacterial species have the ability to produce various substances with anti-adhesive properties. For example, Lactobacillus fermentum produced biosurfactant-like substances and inhibited biofilm formation of S. mutans [54]. In a study, a lipopeptide extracted from Bacillus subtilis showed anti-adhesive properties against Staphylococcus aureus [55]. According to the ionic characteristics of the hydrophilic region, the amphipathic molecules are classified as anionic, cationic, zwitterionic, and non-ionic substances. Among these, cationic amphiphilic molecules have the potential to inhibit bacterial biofilm. These amphiphilic molecules effectively prevent the aggregation of bacterial cells [56]. The present findings revealed the inhibitory effect of the biosynthesis of glucan from S. aureus. L. reuteriLR12 extract had an inhibition rate of 49.2% ± 1.7% and 33.5% ± 3.1% against S. aureus and E. coli, respectively. L. lactisLL10 extract showed the maximum inhibitory effect (40.2% ± 2.9%) against S. aureus (Table 5).

3.6. Antioxidant Activity of LAB

The selected Lactobacillus strains showed DPPH, hydroxyl radical, superoxide, and reducing power activities, and the results are described in Table 6 and Table 7. At 100 µL concentration, the sample from L. reuteri showed 89% ± 21% DPPH activity, 80% ± 3.2% hydroxyl radical antioxidant scavenging activity, 89 ± 3% superoxide radical antioxidant scavenging activity, and 90% ± 6.8% reducing activity. In L. lactisLL10, increased hydroxyl radical antioxidant activity was obtained for L. reuteri. In living organisms, an elevated level of oxygen radical byproducts can be obtained during the mitochondrial electron transport of aerobic respiration [57]. Many Lactobacillus strains show hydrogen peroxide antioxidant activity. Exopolysaccharides of L. lactis have exhibited promising antioxidant activity [58]. Certain Lactobacillus species have also degraded superoxide anions and hydrogen peroxidase [59]. The probiotic strains Lactobacillus fermentum E18 and Lactobacillus fermentum E3 have shown antioxidant properties [60]. A crude sample extracted from LAB strains showed antioxidant activities because of the presence of non-enzymatic substances and intracellular antioxidant enzymes [61]. In LAB, antioxidant enzymes, such as NADH oxidase, glutathione reductase, glutathione S-transferase, catalase, glutathione peroxidase, and feruloyl esterase, counteract oxidative stress [62,63]. The intracellular enzymes extracted from the bacterial cells by cell disruption showed antioxidant properties.

3.7. Changes inpH Value of Yogurt during Storage

The pH of the yogurt was analyzed for a period of 28 days, and a decrease of pH value was observed at 3% puree. However, this decreased level was not significant at 1% and 2% puree-inoculated yogurt (p > 0.05). Yoghurt with 3% puree-inoculated medium had a significantly reduced pH. The continuous decrease of pH value of the yoghurt indicated the activity of lactic acid bacteria at lower temperatures. However, the pH of the yoghurt changed based on the nutrient content and availability. The pH changes did not affect the quality and physical properties of yoghurt. The variations of pH value of yogurt for four weeks are shown in Figure 1. Nikoofar et al. [64] analyzed the pH value of yogurt prepared with quince seed mucilage. The pH value of the yoghurt decreased continuously during storage. The pH value decreased very little up to day 9, but a sudden decrease was observed at day 10. In the present study, the pH changes were similar to those observed in yogurts containing inulin [65] and waxy maize [66]. Thus, using pineapple puree in yogurt production had no significant negative impact on the bioprocess. In this study, the pH value of yogurt decreased at a higher percentage of puree-inoculated medium. Pineapple puree is rich in soluble carbohydrates, which support the growth of bacteria. LAB-synthesized lactic acid reduced the pH value of the yoghurt. The pH of the yoghurt declined based on the interactions between the nutrient composition of the pineapple puree and organic acid production. The decreased pH level under various storage conditions in relation to the starter culture and composition of fruit puree has been described previously [67]. Generally, addition of fruit pulp decreases the pH of yogurt, as reported previously [68].

3.8. Bacterial Population and Sensory Characteristics of Yogurt during Storage

Yogurt supplemented with 3% puree decreased the number of bacteria considerably compared with the 1% and 2% starter cultures. Supplementation of 1–3% puree reduced the total bacteria, and was mainly related to the antibacterial property of bromelain, an important component of pineapple. Yoghurt treated with 1% pineapple puree measured 15 × 102 CFU/mL, and decreased to 10 × 10−2 CFU/mL when the yogurt was prepared using 3% puree (Table 8). The decreasing bacterial population was mainly due to the antibacterial activity of bromelain. The antibacterial activity of bromelain has been described previously [69]. In the yogurt, fecal coliforms were not detected. The microbial populationof yogurt from South Africa, Argentina, Greece, Norway, France, Spain, Australia, and the United States was examined, and the bacteria such as L. delbrueckii subsp. Bulgaricus and S. thermophilus were determined in the range of <104 to 109 CFU/mL. The population of S. thermophilus was higher than L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. The level of Lactobacillus spp. was about 108 CFU/g [70]. In this study, the addition of puree did not affect the properties of yogurt. The evaluated sensory characteristics, such as appearance, texture, and flavor showed a moderate decreasing tend in all three treated yogurts (1%, 2%, and 3%). However, no significant difference was observed among experimental groups. During the post-fermentation storage or fermentation process, adjunct cultures or probiotics could mostly cause various complex chemical and physical changes, such as acidification and hydrolysis, as well as the formation of amino acids and other compounds. Within 28 days of storage in a refrigerator, the sensory properties were desirable for consumption. Recently, a Bifidobacterium monoculture was used to prepare yogurt from goat milk, and desired sensory characteristics were detected up to 21 days of storage [71]. Natural sources are rich in polyphenols and have antimicrobial and antioxidant activities [72]. Recently, Cheon et al. [73] reported probiotic and neuroprotective properties of Lactobacillus buchneri KU200793 isolated from Korean fermented foods. The inoculation of probiotics in food products requires specific techniques, as probiotic bacteria can experience stress during food processing and gastrointestinal transit [74]. Survival of bacteria in harsh environments is a prerequisite for the selection of probiotic bacteria. Most probiotic organisms show poor resistance to various technological processes, and this leads to limitations in the use of various food products. Improving bacterial resistance by adaptation or microencapsulation may allow these bacterial strains to be used to formulate varieties of functional food.

4. Conclusions

The present study investigates the effect of antioxidant and antimicrobial potential of Lactobacillus strains isolated from pineapple puree. Pineapple puree was used as the starter culture for the formation of yogurt from goat milk, and the properties of yogurt were investigated for 28 days of post-fermentation storage. Two Lactobacillus species, namely L. reuteri LR12 and L. lactis LL10, survived well in cold storage. The addition of pineapple puree up to 3% did not cause any physical and sensory changes compared to the control. The flavor and other physical properties were similar in yogurt inoculated with 1–2% pineapple puree. The flavor of pineapple puree mediated yogurt fermentation, and this process may have significant application in the dairy industry.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to this study. M.V.A., N.A.A.-D., G.A.E., V.D., Y.O.K., H.-J.K., H.K., and P.V. performed the experiment, analyzed the data, and edited the manuscript. Y.O.K., H.-J.K., H.K., and P.V. performed the antioxidant experiment and evaluated the draft. All authors have read and agree to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Soonchunhyang University Research Fund. The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for its funding of this research through the Research Group Project No. RG-1440-107.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lewis, K. The science of antibiotic discovery. Cell 2020, 182, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cepas, V.; López, Y.; Muñoz, E.; Rolo, D.; Ardanuy, C.; Martí, S.; Xercavins, M.; Horcajada, J.P.; Bosch, J.; Soto, S.M. Relationship between biofilm formation and antimicrobial resistance in gram-negative Bacteria. Microb. Drug Resist. 2019, 25, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Sosa-Moreno, A.; Comstock, S.S.; Sugino, K.Y.; Ma, T.F.; Paneth, N.; Davis, Y.; Olivero, R.; Schein, R.; Maurer, J.; Zhang, L. Perinatal risk factors for fecal antibiotic resistance gene patterns in pregnant women and their infants. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0234751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Patel, B.; Kumar, P.; Banerjee, R.; Basu, M.; Pal, A.; Samanta, M.; Das, S. Lactobacillus acidophilus attenuates Aeromonashydrophila induced cytotoxicity in catla thymus macrophages by modulating oxidative stress and inflammation. Mol. Immunol. 2016, 75, 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Yang, C.S.; Lee, J.S.; Rodgers, M.; Min, C.K.; Lee, J.Y.; Kim, H.J.; Lee, K.H.; Kim, C.J.; Oh, B.; Zandi, E.; et al. Autophagy protein Rubicon mediates phagocytic NADPH oxidase activation in response to microbial infection or TLR stimulation. Cell Host Microbe 2012, 11, 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Mu, G.; Gao, Y.; Tuo, Y.; Li, H.; Zhang, Y.; Qian, F.; Jiang, S. Assessing and comparing antioxidant activities of lactobacilli strains by using different chemical and cellular antioxidant methods. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 10792–10806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Mishra, V.; Shah, C.; Mokashe, N.; Chavan, R.; Yadav, H.; Prajapati, J. Probiotics as potential antioxidants: A systematic review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 3615–3626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dehkordi, S.S.; Alemzadeh, I.; Vaziri, A.S.; Vossoughi, A. Optimization of alginate-whey protein isolate microcapsules for survivability and release behavior of probiotic bacteria. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2020, 90, 182–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sivan, A.; Corrales, L.; Hubert, N.; Williams, J.B.; Aquino-Michaels, K.; Earley, Z.M.; Benyamin, F.W.; Lei, Y.M.; Jabri, B.; Alegre, M.L.; et al. Commensal Bifidobact-erium promotes antitumor immunity and facilitates anti–PD-L1 efficacy. Science 2015, 350, 1084–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Giraffa, G.; Chanishvili, N.; Widyastuti, Y. Importance of lactobacilli in food and feed biotechnology. Res. Microbiol. 2010, 161, 480–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Elyas, Y.Y.; Yousif, N.M.; Ahmed, I.A.M. Screening of lactic acid bacteria from Sudanese fermented foods for bacteriocin production. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2020, 9, 373–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kechagia, M.; Basoulis, D.; Konstantopoulou, S.; Dimitriadi, D.; Gyftopoulou, K.; Skarmoutsou, N.; Fakiri, E.M. Health benefits of probiotics: A review. ISRN Nutr. 2013, 2013, 481651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Guo, X.H. Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria: Molecular Biology and Biotechnology; Science and Technology Press: Beijing, China, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  14. Naito, Y.; Uchiyama, K.; Takagi, T. A next-generation beneficial microbe: Akkermansia muciniphila. J. Clin. Biochem. Nutr. 2018, 63, 33–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Mbye, M.; Baig, M.A.; AbuQamar, S.F.; El-Tarabily, K.A.; Obaid, R.S.; Osaili, T.M.; Al-Nabulsi, A.A.; Turner, M.S.; Shah, N.P.; Ayyash, M.M. Updates on understanding of probiotic lactic acid bacteria responses to environmental stresses and highlights on proteomic analyses. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 1110–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Lim, S.M.; Lee, N.K.; Paik, H.D. Antibacterial and anticavity activity of probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum 200661 isolated from fermented foods against Streptococcus mutans. LWT 2020, 118, 108840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hassan, M.; Kjos, M.; Nes, I.F.; Diep, D.B.; Lotfipour, F. Natural antimicrobial peptides from bacteria: Characteristics and potential applications to fight against antibiotic resistance. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 113, 723–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nitisinprasert, S.; Pungsungworn, N.; Wanchaitanawong, P.; Loiseau, G.; Montet, D. In vitro adhesion assay of lactic acid bacteria, Escherichia coli and Salmonella sp. by microbiological and PCR methods. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2006, 28 (Suppl. 1), 99–106. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chen, C.C.; Lai, C.C.; Huang, H.L.; Huang, W.Y.; Toh, H.S.; Weng, T.C.; Chuang, Y.C.; Lu, Y.C.; Tang, H.J. Antimicrobial activity of Lactobacillus species against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kaur, S.; Sharma, P.; Kalia, N.; Singh, J.; Kaur, S. Anti-biofilm Properties of the Fecal Probiotic Lactobacilli Against Vibrio spp. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2018, 8, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Arasu, M.V.; Jung, M.W.; Ilavenil, S.; Jane, M.; Kim, D.H.; Lee, K.D.; Park, H.S.; Hur, T.Y.; Choi, G.J.; Lim, Y.C.; et al. Isolation and characterization of antifungal compound from Lactobacillus plantarum KCC-10 from forage silage with potential beneficial properties. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 115, 1172–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. McConnell, M.A.; Tannock, G.W. A note on lactobacilli and β-glucuronidase activity in the intestinal contents of mice. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1993, 74, 649–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Wu, C.C.; Lin, C.T.; Wu, C.Y.; Peng, W.S.; Lee, M.J.; Tsai, Y.C. Inhibitory effect of Lactobacillus salivarius on Streptococcus mutans biofilm formation. Mol. Oral Microbiol. 2015, 30, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Koo, H.; Rosalen, P.L.; Cury, J.A.; Park, Y.K.; Bowen, W.H. Effects of compounds found in propolis on Streptococcus mutans growth and on glucosyltransferase activity. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2002, 46, 1302–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Wang, M.B.; Xu, H.; Xu, M.F.; Zeng, Z.; Wei, H. Efficacy of oral Bifidobacterium bifidum ATCC 29521 on microflora and antioxidant in mice. Can. J. Microbiol. 2016, 62, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Liu, W.; Wang, H.Y.; Pang, X.B.; Yao, W.B.; Gao, X.D. Characterization and antioxidant activity of two low-molecular-weight polysaccharides purified from the fruiting bodies of Ganoderma lucidum. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2010, 46, 451–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Oyaizu, M. Studies on products of browning reaction: Antioxidative activities of products of browning reaction prepared from glucosamine. Jap. J. Nut. 1986, 44, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Lee, W.J.; Lucey, J.A. Formation and Physical Properties of Yoghurt. Asian-Aust. J. An. Sci. 2010, 23, 1127–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed.; AOAC: Arlington, VI, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  30. Favaro Trindade, C.S.; Terzi, S.C.; Trugo, L.C.; Della Modesta, R.C.; Couri, S. Development and sensory evaluation of soy milk based yoghurt. Arch. Latinoam. Nut. 2001, 51, 100–104. [Google Scholar]
  31. Casado, C.; Benomar, N.; Lerma, L.L.; Gálvez, A.; Abriouel, H. Antibiotic resistance of Lactobacillus pentosus and Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides isolated from naturally-fermented Aloreña table olives throughout fermentation process. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 172, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Martino, G.P.; Espariz, M.; Nizo, G.G.; Esteban, L.; Blancato, V.S.; Magni, C. Safety assessment and functional properties of four enterococci strains isolated from regional Argentinean cheese. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 277, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zielińska, D.; Kolożyn-Krajewska, D. Food-origin lactic acid bacteria may exhibit probiotic properties. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 5063185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Han, Q.; Kong, B.; Chen, Q.; Sun, F.; Zhang, H. In Vitro comparison of probiotic properties of lactic acid bacteria isolated from Harbin dry sausages and selected probiotics. J. Fun. Food 2017, 32, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jones, B.V.; Begley, M.; Hill, C.; Gahan, C.G.; Marchesi, J.R. Functional and comparative metagenomic analysis of bile salt hydrolase activity in the human gut microbiome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 13580–13585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Dong, Z.; Zhang, J.; Lee, B.; Li, H.; Du, G.; Chen, J. A bile salt hydrolase gene of Lactobacillus plantarum BBE7 with high cholesterol-removing activity. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2012, 235, 419–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gill, C.I.R.; Rowland, I.R. Diet and cancer: Assessing the risk. Br. J. Nutr. 2002, 88, S73–S87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kim, D.H.; Jin, Y.H. Intestinal bacterial b-glucuronidase activity of patients with colon cancer. Arch. Pharm. Res. 2001, 24, 564–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kos, B.; Šušković, J.; Vuković, S.; Šimpraga, M.; Frece, J.; Matošić, S. Adhesion and aggregation ability of probiotic strain Lactobacillus acidophilus M92. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 94, 981–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Von Ossowski, I.; Reunanen, J.; Satokari, R.; Vesterlund, S.; Kankainen, M.; Huhtinen, H.; Tynkkynen, S.; Salminen, S.; de Vos, W.M.; Palva, A. Mucosal adhesion properties of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG SpaCBA and SpaFED pilin subunits. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 2049–2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Kirtzalidou, E.; Pramateftaki, P.; Kotsou, M.; Kyriacou, A. Screening for lactobacilli with probiotic properties in the infant gut microbiota. Anaerobe 2011, 17, 440–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tuo, Y.; Yu, H.; Ai, L.; Wu, Z.; Guo, B.; Chen, W. Aggregation and adhesion properties of 22 Lactobacillus strains. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 4252–4257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Servin, A.L. Antagonistic activities of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria against microbial pathogens. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2004, 28, 405–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Zacharof, M.P.; Lovitt, R.W. Bacteriocins produced by lactic acid bacteria a review article. APCBEE Procedia 2012, 2, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Jamalifar, H.; Rahimi, H.; Samadi, N.; Shahverdi, A.; Sharifian, Z.; Hosseini, F.; Eslahi, H.; Fazeli, M.R. Antimicrobial activity of different Lactobacillus species against multi-drug resistant clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Iran. J. Microbiol. 2011, 3, 21–25. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Mirnejad, R.; Vahdati, A.R.; Rashidiani, J.; Erfani, M.; Piranfar, V. The antimicrobial effect of Lactobacillus casei culture supernatant against multiple drug resistant clinical isolates of Shigella sonnei and Shigella flexneri in vitro. Iran. Red Crescent Med. J. 2013, 15, 122–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Kumar, M.; Dhaka, P.; Vijay, D.; Vergis, J.; Mohan, V.; Kumar, A.; Kurkure, N.V.; Barbuddhe, S.B.; Malik, S.V.S.; Rawool, D.B. Antimicrobial effects of Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus acidophilus against multidrug-resistant enteroaggregative Escherichia coli. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2016, 48, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kang, M.S.; Lim, H.S.; Oh, J.S.; Lim, Y.J.; Wuertz-Kozak, K.; Harro, J.M. Antimicrobial activity of Lactobacillus salivarius and Lactobacillus fermentum against Staphylococcus aureus. Pathog. Dis. 2017, 75, ftx009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ahn, K.B.; Baik, J.E.; Park, O.J.; Yun, C.H.; Han, S.H. Lactobacillus plantarum lipoteichoic acid inhibits biofilm formation of Streptococcus mutans. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Wang, L.; Zhang, H.; Rehman, M.U.; Mehmood, K.; Jiang, X.; Iqbal, M.; Tong, X.; Gao, X.; Li, J. Antibacterial activity of Lactobacillus plantarum isolated from Tibetan yaks. Microb. Pathogen. 2018, 115, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Du, M.; Yi, H.; Guo, C.; Tuo, Y.; Shirtliff, M.E.; Achermann, Y. Antimicrobial activity against Shigella sonnei and probiotic properties of wild lactobacilli from fermented food. Microbiol. Res. 2011, 167, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Farida, F.; Nassim, M.; Djamila, S. Beneficial effects of a strain of Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei in Staphylococcus aureus-induced intestinal and 318 colonic injury. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2011, 15, 787–794. [Google Scholar]
  53. Melo, T.A.; Dos Santos, T.F.; de Almeida, M.E.; Junior, L.A.G.F.; Andrade, E.F.; Rezende, R.P.; Marques, L.M.; Romano, C.C. Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm by Lactobacillus isolated from fine cocoa. BMC Microbiol. 2016, 16, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Tahmourespour, A.; Salehi, R.; Kermanshahi, R.K.; Eslami, G. The anti-biofouling effect of Lactobacillus fermentum-derived biosurfactant against Streptococcus mutans. Biofouling 2011, 27, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Rivardo, F.; Turner, R.J.; Allegrone, G.; Ceri, H.; Martinotti, M.G. Anti-adhesion activity of two biosurfactants produced by Bacillus spp. prevents biofilm formation of human bacterial pathogens. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 83, 541–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Anunthawan, T.; de la Fuente-Nunez, C.; Hancock, R.E.; Klaynongsruang, S. Cationic amphipathic peptides KT2 and RT2 are taken up into bacterial cells and kill planktonic and biofilm bacteria. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2015, 1848, 1352–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Thibessard, A.; Borges, F.; Fernandez, A.; Gintz, B.; Decaris, B.; Leblond-Bourget, N. Identification of Streptococcus thermophilus CNRZ368 genes involved in defense against superoxide stress. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 2220–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Almalki, M.A. Exopolysaccharide production by a new Lactobacillus lactis isolated from the fermented milk and its antioxidant properties. J. King Saud. Uni. Sci. 2020, 32, 1272–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liu, C.F.; Pam, T.M. In Vitro effects of lactic acid bacteria on cancer cell viability and antioxidant activity. J. Food Drug Anal. 2010, 18, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kullisaar, T.; Zilmer, M.; Mikelsaar, M.; Vihalemm, T.; Annuk, H.; Kairane, C.; Kilk, A. Two antioxidative lactobacilli strains as promising probiotics. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002, 72, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lin, M.Y.; Yen, C.L. Antioxidative ability of lactic acid bacteria. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1999, 47, 1460–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Wojcik, M.; Burzynska-Pedziwiatr, I.; Wozniak, L.A. A review of natural and synthetic antioxidants important for health and longevity. Curr. Med. Chem. 2010, 17, 3262–3288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Arasu, M.V.; Kim, D.H.; Kim, P.I.; Jung, M.W.; Ilavenil, S.; Jane, M.; Lee, K.D.; Al-Dhabi, N.A.; Choi, K.C. In vitro antifungal, probiotic and antioxidant properties of novel Lactobacillus plantarum K46 isolated from fermented sesame leaf. Ann. Microbiol. 2014, 64, 1333–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nikoofar, E.; Hojjatoleslami, M.; Shariaty, M.A. Surveying the effect of quince seed mucilage as a fat replacer on texture and physicochemical properties of semi fat set yoghurt. Int. J. Farm Alli. Sci. 2013, 2, 861–865. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ramchandran, L.; Shah, N.P. Characterization of functional, biochemical and textural properties of symbiotic low-fat yoghurts during refrigerated storage. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 43, 819–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Walter, T. New application specific fat replacers for the dairy industry. Int. Food Ingre. 1993, 4, 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  67. Yeganehzad, S.; Mazaheri-Tehrani, M.; Shahidi, F. Studying microbial, physiochemical and sensory properties of directly concentrated probiotic yoghurt. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2007, 2, 366–369. [Google Scholar]
  68. Frazier, W.C.; Westhhoff, D.C. Food Microbiology; Mc Graw-Hill Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  69. Dos Anjos, M.M.; da Silva, A.A.; de Pascoli, I.C.; Mikcha, J.M.G.; Machinski, M., Jr.; Peralta, R.M.; de Abreu Filho, B.A. Antibacterial activity of papain and bromelain on Alicyclobacillus spp. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016, 216, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rezac, S.; Kok, C.R.; Heermann, M.; Hutkins, R. Fermented Foods as a Dietary Source of Live Organisms. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mituniewicz-Małek, A.; Ziarno, M.; Dmytrów, I.; Balejko, J. Effect of the addition of Bifidobacterium monocultures on the physical, chemical, and sensory characteristics of fermented goat milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 6972–6979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Vamanu, E.; Gatea, F.; Pelinescu, D.R. Bioavailability and Bioactivities of Polyphenols Eco Extracts from Coffee Grounds after In Vitro Digestion. Foods 2020, 9, 1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cheon, M.J.; Lim, S.M.; Lee, N.K.; Paik, H.D. Probiotic Properties and Neuroprotective Effects of Lactobacillus buchneri KU200793 Isolated from Korean Fermented Foods. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Speranza, B.; Campaniello, D.; Petruzzi, L.; Altieri, C.; Sinigaglia, M.; Bevilacqua, A.; Rosaria Corbo, M. The Inoculation of Probiotics In Vivo Is a Challenge: Strategies to Improve Their Survival, to Avoid Unpleasant Changes, or to Enhance Their Performances in Beverages. Beverages 2020, 6, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Microorganisms 08 01461 g001 550
Figure 1. Influence of pineapple puree on goatmilk yogurt during storage.
Figure 1. Influence of pineapple puree on goatmilk yogurt during storage.
Microorganisms 08 01461 g001
Table
Table 1. Probiotic characteristics of Lactobacillus (LAB) isolated from pineapple fruit.
Table 1. Probiotic characteristics of Lactobacillus (LAB) isolated from pineapple fruit.
CharacteristicsL. reuteriL. lactis
Cell count at initial stage (log CFU/mL)9.27 ± 0.388.65 ± 0.31
Cell count at gastric conditions (log CFU/mL)9.12 ± 0.079.07 ± 0.77
Cell count in bile salts (log CFU/mL)9.32 ± 0.059.29 ± 0.15
β-glucuronidase activity (U/mL)Not detectedNot detected
Adhesion ability (%)71 ± 1.0876.3 ± 1.93
Data expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Table
Table 2. Antimicrobial activity of Lactobacillus strains against bacteria and fungi.
Table 2. Antimicrobial activity of Lactobacillus strains against bacteria and fungi.
Bacterial StrainZone of Inhibition (mm)
L. reuteriL. lactis
E. coli28 ± 225 ± 0
S. typhi24 ± 123 ± 2
P. aeruginosa26 ± 223 ± 1
B. cereus24 ± 322 ± 1
S. aureus27 ± 126 ± 2
A. niger13 ± 121 ± 2
A. flavus15 ± 016 ± 0
A. nidulans10 ± 0ND
P. expansumNDND
ND: No results detected.
Table
Table 3. Minimum inhibitory concentrations of the LAB cell-free supernatant against tested microbial strains.
Table 3. Minimum inhibitory concentrations of the LAB cell-free supernatant against tested microbial strains.
MicroorganismsMinimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) (µg/mL)
L. reuteriL. lactis
P. aeruginosa6.256.25
E. coli25.0012.50
S. typhi12.5025.00
S. aureus6.2525.00
E. faecalis12.5012.50
B. cereus12.506.25
A. niger>25.0012.50
A. flavus>25.0025.00
A. nidulans12.5025.00
P. expansum6.2512.50
Table
Table 4. Biofilm inhibitory properties of Lactobacillus strains against bacterial strains.
Table 4. Biofilm inhibitory properties of Lactobacillus strains against bacterial strains.
BacteriaBiofilm Inhibition Rate (%)
L. reuteriL. lactis
P. aeruginosa68 ± 3.254 ± 1.5
E. coli53 ± 1.373 ± 3.6
E. faecalis100 ± 0100 ± 0
S. aureus100 ± 0100 ± 0
B. cereus100 ± 0100 ± 0
Table
Table 5. Inhibitory property of LAB on glucan.
Table 5. Inhibitory property of LAB on glucan.
BacteriaInhibition (%)
L. reuteriL. lactis
P. aeruginosa28.2 ± 2.437.2 ± 2.6
E. coli33.5 ± 3.118.3 ± 3.8
S. aureus49.2 ± 1.740.2 ± 2.9
B. cereus21.8 ± 2.420.4 ± 1.5
Table
Table 6. Antioxidant activity of cell-free extract isolated from L. reuteriLR12.
Table 6. Antioxidant activity of cell-free extract isolated from L. reuteriLR12.
Sample (µg/mL)DPPH ScavengingHydroxyl RadicalSuperoxide RadicalReducing Power
12.528 ± 1.333 ± 2.36.2 ± 0.5614.2 ± 1.5
2533 ± 2.943 ± 2.438.4 ± 1.530.5 ± 1.1
5053 ± 3.851 ± 3.252.3 ± 4.356.4 ± 3.2
7587 ± 2.776 ± 1.979.6 ± 3.980.2 ± 2.8
10089 ± 2.180 ± 2.289.2 ± 2.190.4 ± 1.7
Table
Table 7. Antioxidant activity of cell free extract isolated from L. lactisLL10.
Table 7. Antioxidant activity of cell free extract isolated from L. lactisLL10.
Sample (µg/mL)DPPH ScavengingHydroxyl RadicalSuperoxide RadicalReducing Power
12.515 ± 1.520 ± 3.928 ± 3.412.4 ± 3.2
2569 ± 2.144 ± 2.831 ± 2.520.4 ± 1.9
5078 ± 5.353 ± 1.648 ± 3.349.2 ± 2.3
7581 ± 1.589 ± 2.778 ± 2.175.3 ± 3.4
10090 ± 3.790 ± 3.384 ± 1.686.5 ± 1.7
Table
Table 8. Microbial population in yogurt during storage.
Table 8. Microbial population in yogurt during storage.
MicroorganismsTreatment
1% Puree2% Puree3% Puree
Coliforms (CFU/mL)NDNDND
Total bacteria (×10−8 CFU/mL)2.811.321.03
Fungi (×10−2 CFU/mL)151310

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Al-Dhabi, N.A.; Valan Arasu, M.; Vijayaraghavan, P.; Esmail, G.A.; Duraipandiyan, V.; Kim, Y.O.; Kim, H.; Kim, H.-J. Probiotic and Antioxidant Potential of Lactobacillus reuteriLR12 and Lactobacillus lactisLL10 Isolated from Pineapple Puree and Quality Analysis of Pineapple-Flavored Goat Milk Yoghurt during Storage. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1461. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8101461

AMA Style

Al-Dhabi NA, Valan Arasu M, Vijayaraghavan P, Esmail GA, Duraipandiyan V, Kim YO, Kim H, Kim H-J. Probiotic and Antioxidant Potential of Lactobacillus reuteriLR12 and Lactobacillus lactisLL10 Isolated from Pineapple Puree and Quality Analysis of Pineapple-Flavored Goat Milk Yoghurt during Storage. Microorganisms. 2020; 8(10):1461. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8101461

Chicago/Turabian Style

Al-Dhabi, Naif Abdullah, Mariadhas Valan Arasu, Ponnuswamy Vijayaraghavan, Galal Ali Esmail, Veeramuthu Duraipandiyan, Young Ock Kim, Hyungsuk Kim, and Hak-Jae Kim. 2020. "Probiotic and Antioxidant Potential of Lactobacillus reuteriLR12 and Lactobacillus lactisLL10 Isolated from Pineapple Puree and Quality Analysis of Pineapple-Flavored Goat Milk Yoghurt during Storage" Microorganisms 8, no. 10: 1461. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8101461

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop