Screening and Evaluation In Vitro of Bacillus-Based Probiotics for Feed Additives
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Strains and Growth Conditions
2.2. Screening of Extracellular Digestion Enzyme-Producing Bacillus Strains
2.3. Screening of the Bacillus Strains with Antibacterial Activities Against Three Pathogens
2.4. Genome Sequencing and Analyses of FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563
2.5. Activity Determination of FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563 Antibacterial Compounds Enriched by Acid Precipitation
2.6. Determination of Aggregation Activities of FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563
2.7. Invasion and Cytotoxicity Assays of FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563 to Caco-2 Cells
2.8. Detection of Endospore-Forming Efficiencies of FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563
2.9. Simulated Gastrointestinal Tract Tolerance of FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563
2.10. Antibiotic Sensitivity Test of FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563
2.11. Hemolysis Activity Assay of FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563
2.12. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Extracellular-Enzyme-Producing Abilities of the 394 Bacillus Strains
3.2. Antibacterial Activities of the 394 Bacillus Strains Against E. coli, St. aureus and Sa. enterica
3.3. Genomic Evaluation of the Strains FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563
3.4. Preliminary Evaluation of the Antibacterial Compounds from FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563
3.5. Endospore-Forming Efficiencies of the Strains FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563
3.6. Acid and Bile Salt Tolerance of the Strains FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563
3.7. AutoAggregation and Co-Aggregation Abilities of the Strains FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563
3.8. Invasion and Cytotoxicity of FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563 to CACO-2 Cells
3.9. Antibiotic Susceptibilities of the Strains FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563
3.10. Hemolytic Activity of the Strains FJAT-10508 and FJAT-13563
4. Discussions
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Da, S.R.; Arenas, N.E.; Luiza, V.L.; Bermudez, J.; Clarke, S.E. Regulations on the use of antibiotics in livestock production in South America: A comparative literature analysis. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sung, J.Y.; Deng, Z.; Kim, S.W. Antibiotics and opportunities of their alternatives in pig production: Mechanisms through modulating intestinal microbiota on intestinal health and growth. Antibiotics 2025, 14, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aggarwal, R.; Mahajan, P.; Pandiya, S.; Bajaj, A.; Verma, S.K.; Yadav, P.; Kharat, A.S.; Khan, A.U.; Dua, M.; Johri, A.K. Antibiotic resistance: A global crisis, problems and solutions. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2024, 50, 896–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rahman, A.U.; Valentino, V.; Sequino, G.; Ercolini, D.; De Filippis, F. Comparative analysis of antibiotic-administered vs. antibiotic-free farming in meat production: Implications for health, environment, and antibiotic resistance. Food Microbiol. 2026, 133, 104877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelinas, A.; Sudan, S.; Patterson, R.; Li, J.L.; Huyben, D.; Barta, J.R.; Kiarie, E.G. Growth performance, organs weight, intestinal histomorphology, and oocyst shedding in broiler chickens offered novel single strain Bacillus subtilis isolated from camel dung and challenged with Eimeria. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 103519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muthamilselvan, T.; Kuo, T.F.; Wu, Y.C.; Yang, W.C. Herbal remedies for coccidiosis control: A review of plants, compounds, and anticoccidial actions. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2016, 2016, 2657981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hill, C.; Guarner, F.; Reid, G.; Gibson, G.R.; Merenstein, D.J.; Pot, B.; Morelli, L.; Canani, R.B.; Flint, H.J.; Salminen, S.; et al. Expert consensus document. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 11, 506–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, D.A.; Ren, T.; Yang, Y.M.; Li, Z.Y.; Du, X.; Zhang, C.Y.; Pu, Q.Q.; He, L.; Zhao, K.W.; Guo, R.F.; et al. Application and substitution of antibiotics in animal feeding. Med. Weter 2024, 80, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Otaibi, A.M.; Abd El-Hack, M.E.; Dmour, S.M.; Alsowayeh, N.; Khafaga, A.F.; Ashour, E.A.; Nour-Eldeen, M.A.; Swiatkiewicz, S. A narrative review on the beneficial impacts of probiotics on poultry: An updated knowledge. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2023, 23, 405–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Oliveira, F.J.; Duarte, L.; Bonfim, D.O.; Salgaco, M.K.; Mattoso, L.; Egea, M.B. Shaping the future of functional foods: Using 3D printing for the encapsulation and development of new probiotic foods. Probiot. Antimicrob. Proteins 2024, 17, 1295–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luise, D.; Bosi, P.; Raff, L.; Amatucci, L.; Virdis, S.; Trevisi, P. Bacillus spp. Probiotic strains as a potential tool for limiting the use of antibiotics, and improving the growth and health of pigs and chickens. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 801827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Phan, H.; Pham, H.; Ngo, L.; Tran, N.; Ho, D.; Nguyen, K.; Tran, L.; Nguyen, H. Isolation and selection of indigenous chicken-derived Bacillus subtilis strains as potential probiotic alternatives to antibiotics against Gram-negative enteropathogens. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2025, 12, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qin, S.; Xiao, X.; Dai, Z.; Zhao, G.; Cui, Z.; Wu, Y.; Yang, C. Effects of Bacillus licheniformis on growth performance, immune and antioxidant functions, and intestinal microbiota of broilers. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 103210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sampath, V.; Duk, H.B.; Kibria, S.; Kim, I.H. Effect of low-nutrient-density diet with probiotic mixture (Bacillus subtilis ms1, B. licheniformis SF5-1, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae) supplementation on performance of weaner pigs. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2022, 106, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernardeau, M.; Lehtinen, M.J.; Forssten, S.D.; Nurminen, P. Importance of the gastrointestinal life cycle of Bacillus for probiotic functionality. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 2570–2584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, S.; Na, K.; Li, Y.; Zhang, L.; Fang, Y.; Guo, X. Bacillus-derived probiotics: Metabolites and mechanisms involved in bacteria-host interactions. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2024, 64, 1701–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramlucken, U.; Lalloo, R.; Roets, Y.; Moonsamy, G.; van Rensburg, C.J.; Thantsha, M.S. Advantages of Bacillus-based probiotics in poultry production. Livest. Sci. 2020, 241, 104215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brutscher, L.M.; Gebrechristos, S.; Garvey, S.M.; Spears, J.L. Genetic and phenotypic characterization of Bacillus velezensis strain BV379 for human probiotic applications. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalid, F.; Khalid, A.; Fu, Y.; Hu, Q.; Zheng, Y.; Khan, S.; Wang, Z. Potential of Bacillus velezensis as a probiotic in animal feed: A review. J. Microbiol. 2021, 59, 627–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Javaid, A.; Younas, F.; Ullah, I.; Yasinzai, M. Impact of an indigenously produced multi-enzyme complex from Bacillus subtilis KT004404 on growth and blood parameters in broiler chicken. Public Libr. Sci. 2022, 17, e271445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, V.; Ndao, A.; Peterson, E.C.; Blais, J.F.; Adjallé, K. Bacillus species: Evolving roles in bio-based detergents. Processes 2025, 13, 1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres-Pitarch, A.; Gardiner, G.E.; Cormican, P.; Rea, M.; Crispie, F.; O’Doherty, J.; Cozannet, P.; Ryan, T.; Cullen, J.; Lawlor, P.G. Effect of cereal fermentation and carbohydrase supplementation on growth, nutrient digestibility and intestinal microbiota in liquid-fed grow-finishing pigs. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 13716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Long, C.; Rösch, C.; de Vries, S.; Schols, H.; Venema, K. Cellulase and alkaline treatment improve intestinal microbial degradation of recalcitrant fibers of rapeseed meal in pigs. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 11011–11025, Erratum in J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 15535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cho, H.M.; Hong, J.S.; Kim, Y.B.; Nawarathne, S.R.; Choi, I.; Yi, Y.J.; Wu, D.; Lee, H.; Han, S.E.; Nam, K.T.; et al. Responses in growth performance and nutrient digestibility to a multi-protease supplementation in amino acid-deficient broiler diets. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2020, 62, 840–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bassi, L.S.; Hejdysz, M.; Pruszynska-Oszmalek, E.; Wolc, A.; Cowieson, A.J.; Sorbara, J.; Svihus, B.; Kaczmarek, S.A. The effect of amylase supplementation on individual variation, growth performance, and starch digestibility in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2023, 102, 102563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sureshkumar, S.; Song, J.; Sampath, V.; Kim, I. Exogenous enzymes as zootechnical additives in monogastric animal feed: A review. Agriculture 2023, 13, 2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hmani, H.; Daoud, L.; Jlidi, M.; Jalleli, K.; Ben Ali, M.; Hadj Brahim, A.; Bargui, M.; Dammak, A.; Ben Ali, M. A Bacillus subtilis strain as probiotic in poultry: Selection based on in vitro functional properties and enzymatic potentialities. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 44, 1157–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathlouthi, N.; Saulnier, L.; Quemener, B.; Larbier, M. Xylanase, β-glucanase, and other side enzymatic activities have greater effects on the viscosity of several feedstuffs than xylanase and β-glucanase used alone or in combination. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 5121–5127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farhat-Khemakhem, A.; Blibech, M.; Boukhris, I.; Makni, M.; Chouayekh, H. Assessment of the potential of the multi-enzyme producer Bacillus amyloliquefaciens US573 as alternative feed additive. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 98, 1208–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latif, A.; Shehzad, A.; Niazi, S.; Zahid, A.; Ashraf, W.; Iqbal, M.W.; Rehman, A.; Riaz, T.; Aadil, R.M.; Khan, I.M.; et al. Probiotics: Mechanism of action, health benefits and their application in food industries. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1216674, Erratum in Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1378225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maione, A.; Imparato, M.; Buonanno, A.; Salvatore, M.M.; Carraturo, F.; de Alteriis, E.; Guida, M.; Galdiero, E. Evaluation of potential probiotic properties and in vivo safety of lactic acid bacteria and yeast strains isolated from traditional home-made kefir. Foods 2024, 13, 1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roselli, M.; Pieper, R.; Rogel-Gaillard, C.; de Vries, H.; Bailey, M.; Smidt, H.; Lauridsen, C. Immunomodulating effects of probiotics for microbiota modulation, gut health and disease resistance in pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017, 233, 104–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Tsai, T.; Wei, X.; Zuo, B.; Davis, E.; Rehberger, T.; Hernandez, S.; Jochems, E.; Maxwell, C.V.; Zhao, J. Effect of lactylate and Bacillus subtilis on growth performance, peripheral blood cell profile, and gut microbiota of nursery pigs. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Song, M.; Tang, Q.; Ding, Y.; Tan, P.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, T.; Zhou, C.; Xu, S.; Lyu, M.; Bai, Y.; et al. Staphylococcus aureus and biofilms: Transmission, threats, and promising strategies in animal husbandry. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2024, 15, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tran, C.; Cock, I.E.; Chen, X.; Feng, Y. Antimicrobial Bacillus: Metabolites and their mode of action. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, H.L.; Liao, Y.Y.; Lu, J.S.; Pei, Z.; Yin, Y.Y.; Ma, C.X.; Chen, Z.W.; Li, C.T.; Li, J.; Gong, Y.; et al. In vitro antibacterial efficacy of a novel chicken-derived Bacillus subtilis GX15 strain and its protective mechanisms in mice challenged by Salmonella enterica serovar typhymurium. BMC Microbiol. 2025, 25, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaeffer, P.; Millet, J.; Aubert, J.P. Catabolic repression of bacterial sporulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1965, 54, 704–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unban, K.; Kochasee, P.; Shetty, K.; Khanongnuch, C. Tannin-tolerant and extracellular tannase producing Bacillus isolated from traditional fermented tea leaves and their probiotic functional properties. Foods 2020, 9, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.; Zheng, D.; Zhou, S.; Chen, L.; Yang, J. VFDB 2022: A general classification scheme for bacterial virulence factors. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022, 50, D912–D917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alcock, B.P.; Huynh, W.; Chalil, R.; Smith, K.W.; Raphenya, A.R.; Wlodarski, M.A.; Edalatmand, A.; Petkau, A.; Syed, S.A.; Tsang, K.K.; et al. CARD 2023: Expanded curation, support for machine learning, and resistome prediction at the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023, 51, D690–D699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bu, C.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, F.; Liang, W.; Gao, H.; Zhao, J.; Lv, F.; Xue, R.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, Z.; et al. PGAP2: A comprehensive toolkit for prokaryotic pan-genome analysis based on fine-grained feature networks. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 9865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blin, K.; Shaw, S.; Augustijn, H.E.; Reitz, Z.L.; Biermann, F.; Alanjary, M.; Fetter, A.; Terlouw, B.R.; Metcalf, W.W.; Helfrich, E.J.N.; et al. antiSMASH 7.0: New and improved predictions for detection, regulation, chemical structures and visualisation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023, 51, W46–W50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yoon, S.; Ha, S.; Lim, J.; Kwon, S.; Chun, J. A large-scale evaluation of algorithms to calculate average nucleotide identity. Antonie Leeuwenhoek 2017, 110, 1281–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, M.; Oh, H.; Park, S.; Chun, J. Towards a taxonomic coherence between average nucleotide identity and 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity for species demarcation of prokaryotes. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2014, 64, 346–351, Erratum in Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2014, 64, 1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CLSI. Methods for Determining Bactericidal Activity of Antimicrobial Agents; Approved Guideline M26-Ed3; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 18–20. [Google Scholar]
- Reuben, R.C.; Roy, P.C.; Sarkar, S.L.; Rubayet, U.A.A.; Jahid, I.K. Characterization and evaluation of lactic acid bacteria from indigenous raw milk for potential probiotic properties. J. Dairy Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 103, 1223–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowan, N.J.; Deans, K.; Anderson, J.G.; Gemmell, C.G.; Hunter, I.S.; Chaithong, T. Putative virulence factor expression by clinical and food isolates of Bacillus spp. after growth in reconstituted infant milk formulae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67, 3873–3881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mingmongkolchai, S.; Panbangred, W. In vitro evaluation of candidate Bacillus spp. for animal feed. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 63, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Łubkowska, B.; Jeżewska-Frąckowiak, J.; Sroczyński, M.; Dzitkowska-Zabielska, M.; Bojarczuk, A.; Skowron, P.M.; Cięszczyk, P. Analysis of industrial Bacillus species as potential probiotics for dietary supplements. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 488, Erratum in Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russi, A.; Granada, C.E.; Schwambach, J. Optimization of Bacillus velezensis S26 sporulation for enhanced biocontrol of gray mold and anthracnose in postharvest strawberries. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2024, 210, 112737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Zhao, B.; Liu, Y.; Mao, L.; Zhang, X.; Meng, W.; Liu, K.; Chu, J. A novel trehalosamine isolated from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and its antibacterial activities. AMB Express 2020, 10, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogbuewu, I.P.; Mabelebele, M.; Sebola, N.A.; Mbajiorgu, C. Bacillus probiotics as alternatives to in-feed antibiotics and its influence on growth, serum chemistry, antioxidant status, intestinal histomorphology, and lesion scores in disease-challenged broiler chickens. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 876725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wasuwanich, P.; Fan, G.; Burke, B.; Furst, A.L. Metal-phenolic networks as tuneable spore coat mimetics. J. Mater. Chem. B 2022, 10, 7600–7606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kuebutornye, F.; Lu, Y.; Abarike, E.D.; Wang, Z.; Li, Y.; Sakyi, M.E. In vitro assessment of the probiotic characteristics of three Bacillus species from the gut of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Probiot. Antimicrob. Proteins 2020, 12, 412–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krausova, G.; Hyrslova, I.; Hynstova, I. In vitro evaluation of adhesion capacity, hydrophobicity, and auto-aggregation of newly isolated potential probiotic strains. Fermentation 2019, 5, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blibech, M.; Mouelhi, S.; Farhat-Khemakhem, A.; Boukhris, I.; El Ayeb, A.; Chouayekh, H. Selection of Bacillus subtilis US191 as a mannanase-producing probiotic candidate. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 2019, 66, 858–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dongre, D.S.; Saha, U.B.; Saroj, S.D. Exploring the role of gut microbiota in antibiotic resistance and prevention. Ann. Med. 2025, 57, 2478317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, M.; Yeu, J.; Hong, S. Safety evaluation of oral care probiotics Weissella cibaria CMU and CMS1 by phenotypic and genotypic analysis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amoah, K.; Dong, X.; Tan, B.; Zhang, S.; Kuebutornye, F.K.A.; Chi, S.; Yang, Q.; Liu, H.; Zhang, H.; Yang, Y. In vitro assessment of the safety and potential probiotic characteristics of three Bacillus strains isolated from the intestine of hybrid grouper (Epinephelus fuscoguttatus♀ × Epinephelus lanceolatus♂). Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 675962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, Z.; Cheng, M.; Hu, X.; Xue, M.; Jiang, N.; Liu, W.; Fan, Y.; Meng, Y.; Xu, C.; Zhou, Y. Pathological changes of highly pathogenic Bacillus cereus on Pelodiscus sinensis. Vet. Q. 2023, 43, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, H.A.; Huang, J.M.; Khaneja, R.; Hiep, L.V.; Urdaci, M.C.; Cutting, S.M. The safety of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus indicus as food probiotics. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 105, 510–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pournejati, R.; Karbalaei-Heidari, H.R. Optimization of fermentation conditions to enhance cytotoxic metabolites production by Bacillus velezensis strain RP137 from the Persian Gulf. Avicenna J. Med. Biotechnol. 2020, 12, 116–123. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Z.; Xu, T.; Wang, J.; Sun, G.; Chen, Q.; Sun, H.; Shi, B. Probiotic potential of Bacillus velezensis MZ-09: Assessing characteristics and safety through in vitro and in vivo analyses. Microbiol. Res. 2025, 301, 128321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]







| Strain | 24 h | 48 h | 72 h | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Viable Cells | Endospores | Yield | Total Viable Cells | Endospores | Yield | Total Viable Cells | Endospores | Yield | |
| FJAT-10508 | 7.29 ± 0.05 b | 6.58 ± 0.16 b | 13.00% | 7.75 ± 0.02 b | 7.46 ± 0.04 b | 52.07% | 8.27 ± 0.10 a | 8.14 ± 0.05 a | 72.41% |
| FJAT-13563 | 7.99 ± 0.16 b | 7.10 ± 0.16 a | 13.10% | 8.58 ± 1.08 a | 8.30 ± 0.32 b | 52.49% | 8.56 ± 0.25 a | 8.52 ± 0.06 c | 90.83% |
| Antibiotic | Content per disc/μg | Judgement Standard/mm 1 | FJAT-10508 | FJAT-13563 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drug Tolerance (R) | Inhibition (I) | High Sensitivity (S) | Inhibition Zone | Inhibition Zone | ||||
| Diameter/mm 2 | Sensitivity | Diameter/mm | Sensitivity | |||||
| Polymyxin B | 300 | ≤8 | 8–11 | ≥12 | 13.61 ± 0.33 | S | 11.21 ± 0.01 | I |
| Sulfanilamide | 300 | ≤12 | 13–16 | ≥17 | 16.81 ± 5.95 | S | 15.28 ± 2.14 | I |
| Enrofloxacin | 10 | ≤22 | 23–27 | ≥28 | 25.73 ± 0.86 | S | 26.12 ± 1.24 | S |
| Chloramphenicol | 30 | ≤12 | 13–17 | ≥18 | 27.02 ± 0.68 | S | 23.6 ± 2.45 | S |
| Erythromycin | 15 | ≤13 | 14–22 | ≥23 | 27.45 ± 0.61 | S | 28.22 ± 3.49 | S |
| Ampicillin | 10 | ≤13 | 14–16 | ≥17 | 9.81 ± 1.51 | R | 13.86 ± 0.05 | R |
| Gentamicin | 10 | ≤12 | 13–14 | ≥15 | 21.72 ± 0.51 | S | 17.2 ± 1.53 | S |
| Cefaclor | 30 | ≤14 | 15–17 | ≥18 | 38.11 ± 0.24 | S | 27.8 ± 6.99 | S |
| Tetracycline | 30 | ≤14 | 15–18 | ≥19 | 14.88 ± 0.44 | I | 22.73 ± 1.82 | S |
| Neomycin | 30 | ≤12 | 13–16 | ≥17 | 17.32 ± 3.87 | S | 17.6 ± 0.18 | S |
| Streptomycin | 10 | ≤11 | 12–14 | ≥15 | 11 ± 6.04 | R | 9.84 ± 0.62 | R |
| Kanamycin | 30 | ≤13 | 14–17 | ≥18 | 26.38 ± 1.42 | S | 23.14 ± 2.77 | S |
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.
Share and Cite
Mao, Y.; Lou, X.; Che, J.; Huang, X.; Chen, Y.; Lan, J.; Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Huang, Q.; Huang, X.; et al. Screening and Evaluation In Vitro of Bacillus-Based Probiotics for Feed Additives. Microorganisms 2026, 14, 834. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms14040834
Mao Y, Lou X, Che J, Huang X, Chen Y, Lan J, Chen M, Liu X, Huang Q, Huang X, et al. Screening and Evaluation In Vitro of Bacillus-Based Probiotics for Feed Additives. Microorganisms. 2026; 14(4):834. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms14040834
Chicago/Turabian StyleMao, Yujun, Xiaofang Lou, Jianmei Che, Xiaoyun Huang, Yanping Chen, Jianglin Lan, Meichun Chen, Xin Liu, Qinlou Huang, Xiusheng Huang, and et al. 2026. "Screening and Evaluation In Vitro of Bacillus-Based Probiotics for Feed Additives" Microorganisms 14, no. 4: 834. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms14040834
APA StyleMao, Y., Lou, X., Che, J., Huang, X., Chen, Y., Lan, J., Chen, M., Liu, X., Huang, Q., Huang, X., & Wang, J. (2026). Screening and Evaluation In Vitro of Bacillus-Based Probiotics for Feed Additives. Microorganisms, 14(4), 834. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms14040834
