Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research
  Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login  
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 2925    

   Table of Contents      
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 134  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 664-671

Assessing the adhesion of putative indigenous probiotic lactobacilli to human colonic epithelial cells

1 Department of Dairy Microbiology, National Dairy Research Institute (ICAR), Karnal, India
2 Animal Biochemistry Division, National Dairy Research Institute (ICAR), Karnal, India

Date of Submission15-Jul-2010
Date of Web Publication20-Dec-2011

Correspondence Address:
Sunita Grover
Molecular Biology Unit, Department of Dairy Microbiology, National Dairy Research Institute (ICAR), Karnal 132 001, Haryana
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0971-5916.90992

Rights and Permissions

Background & objectives: Adherence of bacteria to epithelial cells and mucosal surfaces is a key criterion for selection of probiotic. We assessed the adhesion property of selected indigenous probiotic Lactobacillus strains based on their hydrophobicity and ability to adhere to human epithelial cells.
Methods: Five human faecal Lactobacillus isolates, one from buffalo milk and one from cheese were assessed for hydrophobicity following the microbial adhesion to hydrocarbons (MATH) method and colonization potentials based on their adherence to Caco2 and HT-29 colonic adenocarcinomal human intestinal epithelial cell lines. Lactobacillus strains that adhered to Caco2 and HT-29 cell lines were quantified by plating after trypsinization and simultaneously the adhered bacteria were also examined microscopically after staining with Geimsa stain and counted in different fields.
Results: Among the tested faecal isolates, L. plantarum Lp91 showed maximum percentage hydrophobicity (35.73±0.40 for n-hexadecane and 34.26±0.63 for toluene) closely followed by L. plantarum Lp9 (35.53±0.29 for n-hexadecane and 33.00±0.57 for toluene). Based on direct adhesion to epithelial cells, L. plantarum Lp91 was the most adhesive strain to HT-29 and Caco2 cell lines with per cent adhesion values of 12.8 ± 1.56 and 10.2 ± 1.09, respectively. L. delbrukeii CH4, was the least adhesive with corresponding figures of 2.5 ± 0.37 and 2.6 ± 0.20 per cent on HT-29 and Caco2 cell lines. Adhesion of the six isolated Lactobacillus strain to HT-29 cell and Caco2 lines as recorded under microscope varied between 131.0 ± 13.9 (Lp75) to 342.7 ± 50.52 (Lp91) and 44.7 ± 9.29 (CH4) to 315.7± 35.4 (Lp91), respectively.
Interpretation & conclusions: Two Indigenous probiotic Lactobacillus strains (Lp9, Lp91) demonstrated their ability to adhere to epithelial cell and exhibited strong hydrophobicity under in vitro conditions, and thus could have better prospects to colonize the gut with extended transit

Keywords: Adhesion - Caco2 - HT-29 - hydrophobicity - Lactobacillus - probiotic

How to cite this article:
Duary RK, Rajput YS, Batish VK, Grover S. Assessing the adhesion of putative indigenous probiotic lactobacilli to human colonic epithelial cells. Indian J Med Res 2011;134:664-71

How to cite this URL:
Duary RK, Rajput YS, Batish VK, Grover S. Assessing the adhesion of putative indigenous probiotic lactobacilli to human colonic epithelial cells. Indian J Med Res [serial online] 2011 [cited 2021 Sep 24];134:664-71. Available from:

A complex microbiota of more than 1,000 different bacterial species with a density of about 10 14 bacterial cells inhabits the oral cavity, gastrointestinal tract (GIT), upper respiratory tract, vagina and skin, and the major part of this microflora resides in human gut [1] . However, there can be aberrations in the gut flora due to dietary interventions and oral drug based treatment which can be restored by application of probiotics conferring various health benefits [2] . Hence, for optimal expression of their general and specific physiological functions, their colonization with extended transit time is extremely crucial. In the context of their effective colonization, the ability to adhere to epithelial cells and mucosal surfaces has been suggested to be an important property of many bacterial strains used as probiotics [3] . Therefore, it is considered as a potential probiotic marker along with other desirable attributes for screening of novel probiotic lactobacilli that can adhere to human intestinal cells [4],[5] .

Cell adhesion is a complex process involving contact between the bacterial cell membrane and interacting surfaces. Difficulties experienced in studying bacterial adhesion in vivo, especially in humans, have stimulated interest in the development of in vitro models for preliminary screening of potentially adherent strains. The physical and chemical characteristics of the cell surface could be assessed critically based on bacterial cell surface hydrophobicity (depends on surface components of bacteria) [6] and electrical mobility/charge (rate of migration under electric field due to bacterial surface charges) [7] . Both the hydrophobicity and the electric charge are the consequences of the chemical composition of the bacterial surfaces. As microbial adhesion is a complicated interplay of long-range van der Waals and electrostatic forces and various other short-range interactions, strains adhering well to the hydrocarbons are considered to be hydrophobic and strains adhering poorly are considered hydrophilic.

HT-29 and Caco2 cells, the two colonic adenocarcinomas are human intestinal epithelium derived, expressing structural and functional features of normal human enterocytes have been extensively used as in vitro models in the study of human enterocytic function [8],[9],[10] . Chauviere et al[8] have reported previously that not all strains of Lactobacillus developed adhesiveness to enterocytes such as Caco2 cells, thereby, indicating that this property is highly strain specific. The present investigation was undertaken with the objective to elucidate the adherence potential of indigenous probiotic Lactobacillus strains isolated from faecal samples from human gut and other sources under in vitro conditions based on their cell surface hydrophobicity and ability to adhere Caco2 and HT-29 cells.

   Material & Methods Top

The study was conducted in the Department of Dairy Microbiology, National Diary Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana, India.

Bacterial strains and growth conditions
: Lactobacillus plantarum 9, 72, 75, 77, 90, 91 and L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus CH4 were the laboratory isolates recovered from human gut, buffalo milk and cheese were investigated for their adhesion potential on adeno-carcinomal Caco2 and HT-29 cell lines. The study also included L. plantarum CSCC5276 (also designated as NCDO82 or VTTE-71034) [11] (received from Dr N.P. Shah from Victoria University, Australia) which was used as a reference culture. All lactobacilli were grown in MRS broth (deMan, Rogosa and Sharp broth; HiMedia, Mumbai, India) at 37°C for 18-24 h and maintained as glycerol stocks until further use. All the bacterial cultures used in this study were activated by sub-culturing twice in fresh MRS broth prior to cell surface hydrophobicity and adhesion test.

Cell surface hydrophobicity: Cell surface hydrophobicity of isolates and standard culture was determined by microbial adhesion to hydrocarbons (MATH) method described by Geertsema-Doornbusch et al[12] using hexadecane and toluene as solvents. The isolates and standard cultures were grown in MRS broth for 16-18 h at 37°C. Cultures were harvested by centrifugation (2000 X g, 15 min, 4°C), washed twice in PUM buffer (K 2 HPO 4 : 22.2 g/l; KH 2 PO 4 : 7.26 g/l; urea: 1.8 g/l; MgSO 4 : 0.2g/l; pH 7.1±0.2) and finally suspended in the same buffer. The initial absorbance (A 0 ) at 600 nm of the suspension was adjusted to 0.70±0.02 units. Five ml of cell suspension in PUM buffer was dispensed in clean and dry round bottom test tubes followed by addition of one ml of hexadecane or toluene. The contents were vortexed for 2 min. The tubes were left undisturbed for 1 h at 37°C to allow the phase separation. The lower aqueous phase was carefully removed with a sterile pasteur pipette and absorbance (A 1 ) was recorded at 600 nm. Cell surface hydrophobicity in terms of per cent (H %) was calculated using the following formula:

H % = (1 - A1 /A0 ) X 100

Propagation and maintenance of cell lines : The human adenocarcinoma cell lines namely HT-29 (mucus secreting) and Caco2 (non-mucus secreting) for adhesion assay were procured from Dr Tapas Mukhopadhay, Punjab University; Chandigarh, India, and National Center of Cell Sciences, Pune, India respectively. Both cell lines were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's minimal essential medium (DMEM; Sigma, USA) supplemented with 10 per cent (v/v) heat-inactivated (30 min, 56°C) foetal bovine serum (Sigma, USA), 25 mM HEPES (Sigma, USA), 100 U/ml penicillin (Sigma, USA), and 100 μg/ml streptomycin (Sigma, USA) in 25 cm 2 culture flask at 37°C in an atmosphere of 5 per cent CO 2 /95 per cent air. The cultures were fed with fresh medium every alternate day. When reached about 80 per cent confluency, cells were harvested by incubating adhered cells with 3 ml of 0.25 per cent Trypsin-EDTA solution (Sigma, USA) at 37°C. The cells were occasionally observed between 5 and 15 min of trypsin addition under inverted microscope. When nearly 60 per cent cells detached from the surface, 7 ml of complete DMEM was added. The cell suspension was repeatedly but gently aspirated to make single cell suspension. The contents were centrifuged (1000 X g, 5 min at room temperature) and the pellet was resuspended in complete DMEM medium. The final cell counts in suspension were measured with the help of haemocytometer (MBG, Germany).

Adhesion assay: Adhesion assay was carried out after 60-90 passages for HT-29 and 40-70 for Caco2 cell lines. Adhesion of the Lactobacillus cultures was measured as per the method described by Jacobsen et al[13] . The cell suspension with 1 X 10 5 cells prepared in 4 ml complete DMEM medium was transferred to each well of six-well tissue culture plates. The medium was changed every alternate day. When cells reached 80 per cent confluency, the medium was replenished each day consecutively for 20 days for both the cell lines. The spent medium was completely removed 24 h before adhesion assay and cells were fed with DMEM medium lacking antibiotics. The cells were then washed twice with 3 ml phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4). An aliquot of two ml of DMEM (without serum and antibiotics) was added to each well and incubated at 37°C for 30 min. Different Lactobacillus cultures (at 1 X 10 9 cfu) suspended in 1 ml DMEM medium (without serum and antibiotics) were added to different wells. The plates were incubated at 37°C in 5 per cent CO 2 -95 per cent air for 2 h. The monolayers were washed five times with sterile PBS (pH 7.4). The adhesion score was measured by enumerating adhered bacteria per 20 different microscopic fields. Per cent adhesion was determined by plating method.

Adhesion score: Methanol was added to each well of six-well plate at the rate of 3 ml followed by incubation for 10 min at room temperature. Methanol was completely removed and fixed cells were stained with Giemsa stain (0.72% w/v; BDH, London) for 20 min at room temperature. The wells were washed with ethanol to remove excess stain. The plates were air dried and examined under oil immersion microscope (Leica, Germany). The number of bacteria was counted in 20 random microscopic fields and were grouped into non adhesive (≤40 bacteria), adhesive (41-100 bacteria) and strongly adhesive (>100 bacteria) [13] .

Per cent adhesion: Cells from monolayers were detached by trypsinization. One ml 0.25 per cent trypsin-EDTA solution (Sigma, USA) was added to each well of six-well plate and plate was incubated for 15 min at room temperature. The detached cells were repeatedly but gently aspirated to make homogenous suspension. The cell suspension was then serially diluted with saline solution and plated on MRS agar. The plates were incubated for 24-48 h at 37°C and colonies were counted (B 1 cfu/ml). Bacterial cells initially added to each well of six-well plates were also counted (B 0 cfu/ml). The adhesion percentage was then calculated as:

% adhesion= (B 1 / B 0 ) * 100

Statistical analysis : Statistical package SYSTAT (version 6.0.1 1996, SPSS INC., USA) software was used to analyze the data. ANOVA- Post-hoc test (Bonferroni) was used to compare the difference among the test strains.

   Results Top

All the five lactobacillus strains isolated from human faecal samples namely L. plantarum Lp72, L. plantarum Lp75, L. plantarum Lp77, L. plantarum Lp90, L. plantarum Lp91 along with one milk isolate L. plantarum Lp9 and one cheese isolate L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus CH4 were investigated for their adhesion potential based on in vitro cell surface hydrophobicity and adherence on Caco2 and HT-29 cell lines. L. plantarum Lp9 and Lp91 exhibited significantly (P<0.05, P<0.01, respectively) higher hydrophobicity compared to L. plantarum CSCC 5276 in n-hexadecane. However, when toluene was used in the assay, the hydrophobicity of these two isolates was found to be almost similar to the standard culture. Other isolates viz. L. plantarum Lp72, L. plantarum Lp75, L. plantarum Lp77, L. plantarum Lp90 and L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus CH4 had significantly (P<0.01) lower per cent hydrophobicity with n-hexadecane as compared to the standard culture [Table 1]. Hence, on comparative analysis, Lp91 was the most efficient culture expressing significantly higher per cent hydrophobicity in n-hexadecane versus the standard culture.
Table 1: Cell surface hydrophobicity (%) of Lactobacillus strains by MATH

Click here to view

The quantitative binding of the lactobacillus test cultures was also investigated on HT-29 and Caco-2 cell lines by two independent methods i.e. direct microscopic examination after Giemsa staining and enumeration by plating on MRS [Figure 1], [Figure 2]. All the test cultures adhered to HT-29 cell lines albeit at different levels. On comparative evaluation, L. plantarum Lp91 (342.7 ± 50.52), L. plantarum Lp9 (321.3 ± 20.50) and L. plantarum Lp77 (260.7 ± 16.07) were the most adhesive strains based on their respective adhesion score while there was no significant difference with that of control strain L. plantarum CSCC5276 (278.7 ± 16.50) [Figure 3]. Remaining four isolates Lp72 (188.7 ± 14.30), Lp75 (131.0 ± 13.89), Lp90 (144.0 ± 7.55) and CH4 (34.0 ± 7.55) differed significantly from positive control strain (P<0.01). L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus CH4 (34.0 ± 7.55) was the least adhesive strain. More or less, a similar trend in adhesion property of the test cultures was recorded with Caco-2 cell line [Figure 2] although relatively at a lower rate as indicated by their adhesion scores. In this case also, L. plantarum Lp91 was the most adhesive strain (315.7 ± 35.47) followed by L. plantarum Lp9 (256.7 ± 13.58), L. plantarum Lp77 (192.7 ± 16.50), L. plantarum Lp90 (172.0 ± 17.06), L. plantarum Lp72 (162.3 ± 19.22), and L. plantarum Lp75 (137.7 ± 8.33) respectively. In comparison to these, adhesion score of CSCC5276 was 264.7 ± 29.02. L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus CH4 (44.7 ± 9.29) again showed least adhesion property among the isolates. There was no significant difference in the adhesion score of L. plantarum Lp9 and L. plantarum Lp91 with that of L. plantarum CSCC5276 (positive control). However, the adhesion score of L. plantarum Lp77 was significantly lower (P<0.05). The remaining four strains demonstrated much lower level of adhesion score (P<0.01). All the lactobacilli isolates were categorized as strongly adhesive (>100 bacteria / 20 microscopic fields) except CH4 which was considered as non adhesive strain (≤ 40 bacteria / 20 microscopic fields) in both the cell lines.
Figure 1: Adhesion of Lactobacillus strains on HT-29 cell cultures observed under oil immersion microscope (100X) after staining with Geimsa strain. A-Blank HT-29 cell line, B- L. plantarum CSCC 5276, C- L. plantarum Lp91, D- L. plantarum Lp9, E- L. plantarum Lp72, F- L. plantarum Lp75, G- L. plantarum Lp77, H- L. plantarum Lp90, I- L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus CH4.

Click here to view
Figure 2: Adhesion of Lactobacillus strains on Caco2 cell cultures observed under oil immersion microscope (100X) after staining with Geimsa strain. A-Blank Caco2 cell line, B- L. plantarum CSCC 5276, C- L. plantarum Lp91, D- L. plantarum Lp9, E- L. plantarum Lp72, F- L. plantarum Lp75, G- L. plantarum Lp77, H- L. plantarum Lp90, I- L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus CH4.

Click here to view
Figure 3: (a & b): Adhesion of Lactobacillus strains to Caco2 and HT-29 cell lines. Lp5276 positive control. *There is no significant difference with positive control with in the cell line. **Significant difference from positive control (ANOVA pair-wise test, P<0.05). $Significant difference from positive control (ANOVA pair-wise test, P<0.01). #There is no significant difference when isolates were compared with two different cell lines. +Significant difference when isolates were compared with two different cell lines (ANOVA pairwise test, P<0.05).

Click here to view

The observations with regard to adhesion scores obtained using HT-29 can be further corroborated by the per cent adhesion values i.e. 12.8 ± 1.56, 11.5 ± 1.21 and 9.0 ± 1.30 in respect of Lp91, Lp9 and Lp77 vis a vis the standard culture CSCC5276 (9.8 ± 1.95). L. plantarum Lp72, Lp75 and Lp90 also exhibited moderate adhesion property with per cent adhesion values of 6.6 ±.0.81, 5.4 ± 1.37 and 5.6 ± 0.48 with HT-29 cells. L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus CH4, cheese isolate showed least adhesion property (2.5± 0.37 %) as compared to other isolates from human faecal samples. Lp75 and Lp90 showed significant difference in per cent adhesion (P<0.05) from the positive control. Per cent adhesion values like adhesion score obtained with Lactobacillus isolates on Caco2 cells were again relatively lower as compared to HT-29 cell lines [Figure 3]. Based on per cent adhesion, L. plantarum Lp91, L. plantarum Lp9 and L. plantarum Lp77 were the most adhesive strains (10.2 ± 1.09, 7.4 ± 1.34 and 7.3 ± 0.28%, respectively) as compared with other isolates viz. 6.1 ± 0.24, 4.4 ± 0.38 and 6.6 ± 0.47 per cent for L. plantarum Lp72, L. plantarum Lp75 and L. plantarum Lp90, respectively. No significant difference was recorded between L. plantarum Lp9 and L. plantarum CSCC5276 (positive control). L. plantarum Lp91 (P<0.05) and L. plantarum Lp72, L. plantarum Lp75, L. plantarum Lp77, L. plantarum Lp90 and L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus CH4 (2.6 ± 0.20%) showed significant difference (P<0.01) from that of control.

Irrespective of the methods and cell lines used for adhesion assay, there was no significant difference in per cent adhesion between all the isolates except L. plantarum Lp9 which showed significant difference (P<0.05) with both the methods in different cell lines. Binding of L. plantarum Lp9 and L. plantarum Lp77 was significantly higher (P<0.05) on HT-29 as compared to Caco2 cells [Figure 3]. The binding of cheese isolate L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus CH4 was lowest amongst all the isolates and significantly lower (P<0.01) to that of L. plantarum CSCC5276 with both the methods on both cell lines.

   Discussion Top

One of the important properties of probiotic bacteria including lactobacilli is their ability to adhere to the target sites for their colonization in the gut for expressing optimal functionality. Caco2 and HT-29 cell line in vitro models for probiotic adherence studies have been extensively used to screen putative probiotic cultures [8],[9],[14],[15],[16] . The organisms must adhere to mucosal epithelial cells lining the gut to be designated as probiotic [6],[7] which also depends on the number of bacteria added [17] . The level of adhesion of bacterial strains positively correlates with the number of bacteria added upon certain point when the saturation of potential binding sites on cell lines probably occurs [18] . Screening of isolates based on per cent adhesion to HT-29 and Caco2 cells is preferred as it simulates to in vivo situations.

Adhesion of bacteria is a complex process involving contact between both the bacterial cell membrane and interacting surfaces. One of the important properties of bacteria is cell surface hydrophobicity. Bacterial adherence has been suggested to be the result of two essentially different mechanisms: specific and nonspecific binding [19] . Non specific binding involves electrostatic or hydrophobic interactions of lower affinity than in specific binding. Piette and Idziak [19] have reported that cell-surface charge and hydrophobicity can considerably influence the strength of adhesion. The role of nonspecific hydrophobic interactions in bacterial adherence has led to the development of a wide variety of investigative methods such as microelectrophoresis, contact angle measurements [20] or MATH in a two-phase system [21] . In spite of several studies on the cell surface hydrophobicity and charges of lactobacilli, these physico-chemical aspects remain poorly understood. In the present investigation, MATH was used to determine the cell surface characteristics and the potential ability of Lactobacillus strains to adhere to a support. The results pertaining to hydrophobicity of the test cultures used in this study showed similar trends with both n-hexadecane and toluene indicating that either of the solvents can be employed in hydrophobicity assay. Based on the results emerging from this study, L. plantarum Lp9 and L. plantarum Lp91 can be explored as potentially putative probiotic strains as these both exhibited a strong hydrophobicity which was comparable or even better than that of CSCC5276 used as a positive control. Most of the lactobacilli tested in this study exhibited strong hydrophobicity both in hexadecane as well as in toluene. Our results in this regard are in agreement with those obtained from previous studies [22],[23] .

In the present investigation, the numbers of bacteria adhering to HT-29 and Caco2 cell lines were measured examining them directly under microscope after staining and also by colony count on agar after trypsinization. On comparative evaluation based on adhesion score, isolates L. plantarum Lp91 and L. plantarum Lp9 were the most adhesive strains while there was no significant difference with that of control strain L. plantarum CSCC5276 in both the cell lines. However, the remaining four isolates (Lp72, Lp75, Lp77 and Lp90) differed significantly (P<0.01) from positive control strain. L. delbrueckii CH4 showed least adhesion property among the isolates. Adhesion scores of all the isolates except L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus CH4 were more than 100 on both cell lines and therefore, L. plantarum Lp9, Lp72, Lp75, Lp77, Lp90 and Lp91 can be regarded as strongly adhesive to both cell lines as per classification suggested by Jacobson et al[13] . Tuomola and Salminen [17] studied adhesion of 12 different Lactobacillus strains using Caco2 cell line as an in vitro model for intestinal epithelium using flow cytometer of bacteria stained with LIVE/DEAD® Bac Light TM Bacterial Viability Kit to check viability of bacteria after adhesion, radiolabelled bacteria (incubating with methyl-1,2-[ 3 H]-thymidine) by liquid scintillation and Gram's staining of adhered bacteria under microscope and reported no significant difference in the adhesion of the strains by all the methods.

The adhesion assay especially microscopic enumeration is prone to error since Lactobacillus exits as in chains and these are not uniformly distributed in microscopic field. L. plantarum Lp75 and L. plantarum Lp77 were present in long chain and were similar to standard culture. In contrast, promising isolates L. plantarum Lp9 and L. plantarum Lp91 were present in short chains. The number of adhered bacteria to the cell lines was determined by colony count on agar after trypsinization, since it enables to enumerate all the bacteria attached to the cells, while a limited number of microscopic fields can be examined under microscope [24] . Percentage of adhesion to Caco2 and HT-29 cell lines was high among the strains isolated from the human feacal samples and buffalo milk than that has been isolated from cheese. This shows that adhesive Lactobacillus strains have host-residential characteristics specific to the population from which it has been isolated. Thus, our indigenous Lactobacillus strains will have more beneficial effect in the Indian population other than strains that are commercially available in the international market. This is also consistent with the earlier studies on the adhesion [8],[9],[25] . Adhesion of Lactobacillus isolates to HT-29 and Caco2 was strain specific and varied within the same species. This was in agreement with results obtained from previous studies [8] .

In conclusion, the Lactobacillus strains isolated from the human faecal samples showed better hydrophobicity and ability to adhere epithelial cells under in vitro conditions as compared to the one derived from a cheese sample. These indigenous strains hold great promise and could serve as the ideal candidate probiotics and can be targeted as the subject for more intensive in vivo studies to explore their novel health promoting functions due to better colonization in the gut. Although, the in vitro assays used for assessing the adherence potential of probiotic strains may not exactly mimic the gut environment, these can be valuable in short listing the promising probiotic strains for establishing their functional efficacy in human subjects in subsequent clinical studies.

   Acknowledgment Top

Authors acknowledge the Director, National Dairy Research Institute (NDRI), Karnal, India, for providing facilities to carry out this study, and thank Dr N.P. Shah (Australia) for providing the standard Lactobacillus culture, and Dr Tapas Mukhopadhay, Punjab University; Chandigarh, India, for providing HT-29 cell lines. The financial support from Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR, India) in terms of providing Senior Research Fellowship to the first author (RKD) is acknowledged.

   References Top

1.Neish AS. Microbes in gastrointestinal health and disease. Gastroenterology 2009; 136 : 65-80.  Back to cited text no. 1
2.Lebeer S, Vanderleyden J, De Keersmaecker SCJ. Genes and molecules of lactobacilli supporting probiotic action. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2008; 72 : 728-64.  Back to cited text no. 2
3.FAO/WHO. Evaluation of health and nutritional properties of powder milk and live lactic acid bacteria. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization Expert Consultation Report; 2001.  Back to cited text no. 3
4.Kleeman EG, Klaenhammer TR. Adherence of Lactobacillus species to human fetal intestinal cells. J Dairy Sci 1982; 65 : 2063-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
5.Conway PL, Gorbach SL, Goldin BR. Survival of lactic acid bacteria in the human stomach and adhesion to intestinal cells. J Dairy Sci 1987; 70 : 1-12.  Back to cited text no. 5
6.Boonaert CJP, Rouxhet PG. Surface of Lactic Acid Bacteria: relationships between chemical composition and physicochemical properties. Appl Environ Microbiol 2000; 66 : 2548-54.  Back to cited text no. 6
7.van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Electrophoretic mobility distributions of single-strain microbial populations. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001; 67 : 491-4.  Back to cited text no. 7
8.Chauviere G, Coconnier MH, Kerneis S, Fourniat J, Servin AL. Adhesion of Lactobacillus acidophilus strain LB to human enterocyte-like Caco-2 cells. J Gen Microbiol 1992; 138 : 1689-96.  Back to cited text no. 8
9.Wang B, Wei H, Yuan J, Li Q, Li Y, Li N, et al. Identification of a surface protein from Lactobacillus reuteri JCM1081 that adheres to porcine gastric mucin and human enterocyte-like HT-29 Cells. Curr Microbiol 2008; 57 : 33-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
10.Moussavi M, Adams MC. An in vitro study on bacterial growth interactions and intestinal epithelial cell adhesion characteristics of probiotic combinations. Curr Microbiol 2009; 60 : 327-35.  Back to cited text no. 10
11.Crittenden R, Karppinen S, Ojanen S, Tenkanen M, Fagerstrom R, Matto J, et al. In vitro fermentation of cereal dietary fibre carbohydrates by probiotic and intestinal bacteria. J Sci Food Agric 2002; 82 : 781-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
12.Geertsema-Doornbusch GI, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Microbial cell surface hydrophobicity: The involvement of electrostatic interactions in microbial adhesion to hydrocarbons (MATH). J Microbiol Methods 1993; 18 : 61-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
13.Jacobsen CN, Rosenfeldt Nielsen V, Hayford AE, Moller PL, Michaelsen KF, Paerregaard A, et al. Screening of probiotic activities of forty-seven strains of Lactobacillus spp. by in vitro techniques and evaluation of the colonization ability of five selected strains in humans. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999; 65: 4949-56.  Back to cited text no. 13
14.Bernet MF, Brassart D, Neeser JR, Servin AL. Lactobacillus acidophilus LA1 binds to cultured human intestinal cell lines and inhibits cell attachment and cell invasion by enterovirulent bacteria. Gut 1994; 35 : 483-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
15.Elo S, Saxelinm M, Salminen S. Attachment of Lactobacillus casei strain GG to human colon carcinoma cell line Caco-2: comparison with other dairy strains. Lett Appl Microbiol 1991; 13 : 154-6.  Back to cited text no. 15
16.Tuomola EM, Ouwehand AC, Salminen S. Human ileostomy glycoproteins as a model for small intestinal mucus to investigate adhesion of probiotics. Lett Appl Microbiol 1999; 28 : 159-63.  Back to cited text no. 16
17.Tuomola EM, Salminen SJ. Adhesion of some probiotic and dairy Lactobacillus strains to Caco-2 cell cultures. Int J Food Microbiol 1998; 41 : 45-51.  Back to cited text no. 17
18.Matijasic BB, Narat M, Zoric M. Adhesion of two Lactobacillus gasseri probiotic strains on Caco-2 cells. Food Technol Biotechnol 2003; 41 : 83-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
19.Piette JPG, Idziak ES. A model study of factors involved in adhesion of Pseudomonas fluorescens. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992; 58 : 2783-91.  Back to cited text no. 19
20.Cuperus PL, van der Mei HC, Reid G, Bruce AW, Khoury AH, Rouxhet PG, et al. Physicochemical surface characteristics of urogenital and poultry lactobacilli. J Colloid Interface Sci 1993; 156 : 319-24.   Back to cited text no. 20
21.Cuperus PL, van der Mei HC, Reid G, Bruce AW, Khoury AE, van der Kuijl-Booij, et al. Effect of ciprofloxacin and vancomycin on physicochemical surface properties of Staphylococcus epidermidis, Escherichia coli, Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus. Microbios 1995; 82 : 49-67.  Back to cited text no. 21
22.Andreu A, Stapleton AE, Fennell CL, Hillier SL, Stamm WE. Hemagglutination, adherence, and surface properties of vaginal Lactobacillus species. J Infect Dis 1995; 171 : 1237-43.  Back to cited text no. 22
23.Pretzer G, Snel J, Molenaar D, Wiersma A, Bron PA, Lambert J, et al. Biodiversity-based identification and functional characterization of the mannose-specific adhesion of Lactobacillus plantarum. J Bacteriol 2005; 187 : 6128-36.  Back to cited text no. 23
24.Ouwehand AC, Tuomola EM, Lee YK, Salminen S. Microbial interactions to intestinal mucosal models. Methods Enzymol 2001; 337 : 200-12.  Back to cited text no. 24
25.Sarem F, Sarem-Damerdji LO, Nicolas JP. Comparison of the adherence of three Lactobacillus strains to Caco-2 and Int-407 human intestional cell lines. Lett Appl Microbiol 1996; 22 : 439-42.  Back to cited text no. 25


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]

  [Table 1]

This article has been cited by
1 Probiotic Pediococcus acidilactici strain from tomato pickle displays anti-cancer activity and alleviates gut inflammation in-vitro
Anuradha Barigela,Bhima Bhukya
3 Biotech. 2021; 11(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Antibiotic Resistance Crisis: An Update on Antagonistic Interactions between Probiotics and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
Basavaprabhu H. Nataraj,Rashmi H. Mallappa
Current Microbiology. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Lactobacillus-Based Probiotics Reduce the Adverse Effects of Stress in Rodents: A Meta-analysis
Claire Mindus,Jennifer Ellis,Nienke van Staaveren,Alexandra Harlander-Matauschek
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2021; 15
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Effect of Silk Fibroin Biomaterial Coating on Cell Viability and Intestinal Adhesion of Probiotic Bacteria
Gicheol Kwon,Bohye Heo,Mi Jin Kwon,Insu Kim,Jaeryang Chu,Byung-Yong Kim,Byoung-Kook Kim,Sung Sun Park
Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2021; 31(4): 592
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Cell surface and extracellular proteins of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri as an effective mediator to regulate intestinal epithelial barrier function
Tejinder P. Singh,Nimisha Tehri,Gurpreet Kaur,Ravinder K. Malik
Archives of Microbiology. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Effect of graded levels of dietary Bacillus toyonensis and Bifidobacterium bifidum supplementation on growth, carcass traits and ileal histomorphometry and microbiota of growing quails
Mohamed A. Nour,Mohamed M. El-Hindawy,Shaza Y.A. Qattan,Diaa E. Abou-Kassem,Elwy A. Ashour,Salama M. Aboelenin,Mohamed M. Soliman,Abdel-Moneim E. Abdel-Moneim
Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Oral probiotic and its delivery carriers to improve oral health: A review
Yu-Hsuan How,Siok-Koon Yeo
Microbiology. 2021; 167(8)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Selection of probiotic Lactobacillus strains with antimicrobial activity to be used as biocontrol agents in food industry
S. Rodríguez-Sánchez,P. Fernández-Pacheco,S. Seseña,C. Pintado,M.Ll. Palop
LWT. 2021; : 111142
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Functional Pediococcus acidilactici BC1 for the revitalization of ethnic black carrot kanji of indian subcontinent
Mehak Manzoor,Vikrant Sharma,Deepti Singh,Jagdip Singh Sohal,Gajender Kumar Aseri,Neeraj Khare,Shilpa Vij,Jyoti Saroop,Deepansh Sharma
Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology. 2021; 31: 101921
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Antipathogenic and probiotic potential of Lactobacillus brevis strains newly isolated from Algerian artisanal cheeses
Yasmina Ait Chait,Aynur Gunenc,Farah Hosseinian,Farida Bendali
Folia Microbiologica. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 Validity and Reliability Assessments of a 16-item Food Frequency Questionnaire as a Probiotic and Prebiotic Consumption Scale in People Aged 20 to 40 Years in Tehran
Nazanin Parhizgar,Mehrnaz Azadyekta,Parynaz Parhizgar
Nutrition and Food Sciences Research. 2021; 8(2): 35
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 Lactobacillus plantarum J9, a potential probiotic isolated from cereal/pulses based fermented batter for traditional Indian food and its microencapsulation
B. Swetha Lavanya,V. Sreejit,R. Preetha
Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 Tarkhineh as a new microencapsulation matrix improves the quality and sensory characteristics of probiotic Lactococcus lactis KUMS-T18 enriched potato chips
Amir Kiani,Yousef Nami,Shahab Hedayati,Mehdi Jaymand,Hadi Samadian,Babak Haghshenas
Scientific Reports. 2021; 11(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
14 Screening of Bacteriocinogenic Lactic Acid Bacteria and Their Characterization as Potential Probiotics
Ana Pinto,Joana Barbosa,Helena Albano,Joana Isidro,Paula Teixeira
Microorganisms. 2020; 8(3): 393
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
15 Preliminary Evaluation of the Safety and Probiotic Potential of Akkermansia muciniphila DSM 22959 in Comparison with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG
Autilia Cozzolino,Franca Vergalito,Patrizio Tremonte,Massimo Iorizzo,Silvia J. Lombardi,Elena Sorrentino,Delia Luongo,Raffaele Coppola,Roberto Di Marco,Mariantonietta Succi
Microorganisms. 2020; 8(2): 189
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
16 Probiotic potentials of Pediococuss acidilactici isolated from wara; A Nigerian unripened soft cheese
Temidayo Emmanuel Olajugbagbe,Oluwatosin Esther Elugbadebo,Bridget Okiemute Omafuvbe
Heliyon. 2020; 6(9): e04889
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
17 Isolation, Identification, and Characterization of Phytase Producing Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria from Neonatal Fecal Samples Having Dephytinization Activity
Bhawna Sharma,Geeta Shukla
Food Biotechnology. 2020; 34(2): 151
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
18 The Ability of Riboflavin-Overproducing Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Strains to Survive Under Gastrointestinal Conditions
Annel M. Hernández-Alcántara,Sandra Pardo,Mari Luz Mohedano,Graciela M. Vignolo,Alejandra de Moreno de LeBlanc,Jean Guy LeBlanc,Rosa Aznar,Paloma López
Frontiers in Microbiology. 2020; 11
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
19 Identification and probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria from camel milk
Anjali Sharma,Meeta Lavania,Raghvendar Singh,Banwari Lal
Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
20 In vitro Evaluation of Antibacterial, Cytotoxic and Adherence Studies of Selected Commercial Probiotics
Kolli Guna Ranjan,Girija Sankar G.,D.V.V. Satyanarayana Raju
Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology. 2020; 14(3): 2085
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
21 Comprehensive analysis of Enterococcus strains isolated from human microbiome and evaluation of their benefits for digestive system
Vahid Lohrasbi,Samira Karimaei,Milad Abdi,Nasrin Noohi,Meysam Hassannejad,Malihe Talebi
Meta Gene. 2020; : 100726
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
22 Functional and safety assessment of Staphylococcus simulans PMRS35 with high lipase activity isolated from high salt-fermented fish (Budu) for starter development
Pochanart Kanjan,Phat Sakpetch
LWT. 2020; : 109183
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
23 Newly isolated lactic acid bacteria from silage targeting biofilms of foodborne pathogens during milk fermentation
Elizaveta Gavrilova,Elizaveta Anisimova,Alsu Gabdelkhadieva,Elena Nikitina,Adel Vafina,Dina Yarullina,Mikhail Bogachev,Airat Kayumov
BMC Microbiology. 2019; 19(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
24 In Vitro Evaluation of Probiotic Potential of Selected Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains
Alena I. Klimko,Tatiana A. Cherdyntseva,Andrei L. Brioukhanov,Alexander I. Netrusov
Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
25 Development of Bacterial Therapeutics against the Bovine Respiratory Pathogen Mannheimia haemolytica
Samat Amat,Edouard Timsit,Danica Baines,Jay Yanke,Trevor W. Alexander,Shuang-Jiang Liu
Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2019; 85(21)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
26 Probiotic and Triticale Silage Fermentation Potential of Pediococcus pentosaceus and Lactobacillus brevis and Their Impacts on Pathogenic Bacteria
Ilavenil Soundharrajan,Dahye Kim,Palaniselvam Kuppusamy,Karanan Muthusamy,Hyun Jeong Lee,Ki Choon Choi
Microorganisms. 2019; 7(9): 318
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
27 In vitro Assessment of Antioxidant, Antimicrobial and Anticancer Properties of Lactic Acid Bacteria
Mohamed Gamal Shehata,Marwa Muhammad Abu-Serie,Nourhan Mohammad Abd El-Azi,Sobhy Ahmed El-Sohaimy
International Journal of Pharmacology. 2019; 15(6): 651
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
28 Isolation, identification, and potential probiotic characterization of isolated lactic acid bacteria and in vitro investigation of the cytotoxicity, antioxidant, and antidiabetic activities in fermented sausage
Nadia S. AlKalbani,Mark S. Turner,Mutamed M. Ayyash
Microbial Cell Factories. 2019; 18(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
29 Isolation and in-vitro probiotic characterization of fructophilic lactic acid bacteria from Chinese fruits and flowers
Hafiz Arbab Sakandar,Stan Kubow,Faizan Ahmed Sadiq
LWT. 2019; 104: 70
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
30 Diversity and Succession of Microbiota during Fermentation of the Traditional Indian Food Idli
Madhvi H. Mandhania,Dhiraj Paul,Mangesh V. Suryavanshi,Lokesh Sharma,Somak Chowdhury,Sonal S. Diwanay,Sham S. Diwanay,Yogesh S. Shouche,Milind S. Patole,Edward G. Dudley
Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2019; 85(13)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
31 Assessing safety of Lactobacillus plantarum MTCC 5690 and Lactobacillus fermentum MTCC 5689 using in vitro approaches and an in vivo murine model
Diwas Pradhan,Rajbir Singh,Ashish Tyagi,Rashmi H.M.,V.K. Batish,Sunita Grover
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2019; 101: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
32 Effects of probiotics on the content and bioaccessibility of phenolic compounds in red pitaya pulp
Suênia Gabriela Gonçalves Morais,Graciele da Silva Campelo Borges,Marcos dos Santos Lima,Olga Martín-Belloso,Marciane Magnani
Food Research International. 2019; : 108681
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
33 Isolation and evaluation of putative probiotic strains from different teleost to prevent Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in Cyprinus carpio
Arun Chauhan,Rahul Singh
Aquaculture Research. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
34 Inhibition of Escherichia coli adhesion to human intestinal Caco-2?cells by probiotic candidate Lactobacillus plantarum strain L15
Behrooz Alizadeh Behbahani,Mohammad Noshad,Fereshteh Falah
Microbial Pathogenesis. 2019; 136: 103677
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
35 Lactobacillus casei expressing Internalins A and B reduces Listeria monocytogenes interaction with Caco-2 cells in vitro
Moloko G. Mathipa,Mapitsi S. Thantsha,Arun K. Bhunia
Microbial Biotechnology. 2019;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
36 Probiotic Properties of Enterococcus Isolated From Artisanal Dairy Products
Yousef Nami,Reza Vaseghi Bakhshayesh,Hossein Mohammadzadeh Jalaly,Hajie Lotfi,Solat Eslami,Mohammad Amin Hejazi
Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019; 10
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
37 Organic-nanoclay composite materials as removal agents for environmental decontamination
Giuseppe Cavallaro,Giuseppe Lazzara,Elvira Rozhina,Svetlana Konnova,Marina Kryuchkova,Nail Khaertdinov,Rawil Fakhrullin
RSC Advances. 2019; 9(69): 40553
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
38 Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of Lactobacillus plantarum MTCC 5690 and Lactobacillus fermentum MTCC 5689 in Colitis Mouse Model
Diwas Pradhan,Rajbir Singh,Ashish Tyagi,Rashmi H.M.,Virender K. Batish,Sunita Grover
Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
39 Lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented flour of finger millet, its probiotic attributes and bioactive properties
Divisekera Mudiyanselage Wasundara Divisekera,Jayanetti Koralalage Ramani Radhika Samarasekera,Chamari Hettiarachchi,Jaanaki Gooneratne,Muhammad Iqbal Choudhary,Subramaniam Gopalakrishnan,Atia-tul Wahab
Annals of Microbiology. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
40 Anti-adhesion of probiotic Enterococcus faecium WEFA23 against five pathogens and the beneficial effect of its S-layer proteins against Listeria monocytogenes
Yao He,Xiongpeng Xu,Fen Zhang,Di Xu,Zhengqi Liu,Xueying Tao,Hua Wei
Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 2018; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
41 Evaluation of Probiotic Properties and Safety of Enterococcus faecium Isolated From Artisanal Tunisian Meat “Dried Ossban”
Mohamed Zommiti,Mélyssa Cambronel,Olivier Maillot,Magalie Barreau,Khaled Sebei,Marc Feuilloley,Mounir Ferchichi,Nathalie Connil
Frontiers in Microbiology. 2018; 9
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
42 Mutation of the Surface Layer Protein SlpB Has Pleiotropic Effects in the Probiotic Propionibacterium freudenreichii CIRM-BIA 129
Fillipe L. R. do Carmo,Wanderson M. Silva,Guilherme C. Tavares,Izabela C. Ibraim,Barbara F. Cordeiro,Emiliano R. Oliveira,Houem Rabah,Chantal Cauty,Sara H. da Silva,Marcus V. Canário Viana,Ana C. B. Caetano,Roselane G. dos Santos,Rodrigo D. de Oliveira Carvalho,Julien Jardin,Felipe L. Pereira,Edson L. Folador,Yves Le Loir,Henrique C. P. Figueiredo,Gwénaël Jan,Vasco Azevedo
Frontiers in Microbiology. 2018; 9
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
43 Correlation of Biofilm Formation and Caco-2 Cell Attachment Properties in Colonization Ability of Acid-Bile Resistant Fecal Lactobacillus plantarum Isolates
Mahdi Rohani,Moslem Papizadeh,Mohammad Reza Pourshafie
Journal of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2018; 6(1): 13
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
44 Antagonistic effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae KTP and Issatchenkia occidentalis ApC on hyphal development and adhesion of Candida albicans
K Lohith,K A Anu-Appaiah
Medical Mycology. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
45 Interactions among yeast and probiotic bacteria enhance probiotic properties and metabolism offering augmented protection to Artemia franciscana against Vibrio anguillarum
V. Zoumpourtikoudi,N. Pyrgelis,M. Chatzigrigoriou,R.N. Tasakis,M. Touraki
Microbial Pathogenesis. 2018; 125: 497
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
46 Potential interactions among phenolic compounds and probiotics for mutual boosting of their health-promoting properties and food functionalities – A review
Evandro Leite de Souza,Thatyane Mariano Rodrigues de Albuquerque,Aldeir Sabino dos Santos,Nayara Moreira Lacerda Massa,José Luiz de Brito Alves
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2018; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
47 In vitro probiotic properties of vaginal Lactobacillus fermentum MG901 and Lactobacillus plantarum MG989 against Candida albicans
Chang-Ho Kang,YongGyeong Kim,Seul Hwa Han,Jin-Seong Kim,Nam-Soo Paek,Jae-Seong So
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2018; 228: 232
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
48 Screening of cell surface properties of potential probiotic lactobacilli isolated from human milk
Namita Rokana,Brij Pal Singh,Nishchal Thakur,Chetan Sharma,Rohini Devidas Gulhane,Harsh Panwar
Journal of Dairy Research. 2018; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
49 Strain-specific properties of Lactobacillus plantarum for prevention of Salmonella infection
Junsheng Liu,Diangeng Hu,Yingqi Chen,Hongxuan Huang,Hao Zhang,Jianxin Zhao,Zhennan Gu,Wei Chen
Food & Function. 2018; 9(7): 3673
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
50 Proteinaceous Secretory Metabolites of Probiotic Human Commensal Enterococcus hirae 20c, E. faecium 12a and L12b as Antiproliferative Agents Against Cancer Cell Lines
Preeti Sharma,Sumanpreet Kaur,Raminderjit Kaur,Manpreet Kaur,Sukhraj Kaur
Frontiers in Microbiology. 2018; 9
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
51 In vitro anti-inflammatory activity among probiotic Lactobacillus species isolated from fermented foods
Sundru Manjulata Devi,Nawneet K. Kurrey,Prakash M. Halami
Journal of Functional Foods. 2018; 47: 19
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
52 Multivariate Analysis of Increase in Life Span of Caenorhabditis elegans Through Intestinal Colonization by Indigenous Probiotic Strains
Kavita Sharma,Murugesan Pooranachithra,Krishnaswamy Balamurugan,Gunjan Goel
Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
53 In vitro adhesion and anti-inflammatory properties of native Lactobacillus fermentum and Lactobacillus delbrueckii spp.
A.C. Archer,N.K. Kurrey,P.M. Halami
Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
54 Adhesion Properties of Food-Associated Lactobacillus plantarum Strains on Human Intestinal Epithelial Cells and Modulation of IL-8 Release
Natalia Garcia-Gonzalez,Roberta Prete,Natalia Battista,Aldo Corsetti
Frontiers in Microbiology. 2018; 9
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
55 Evaluation of probiotic and prebiotic-like effects of Bacillus subtilis BN on growth of lactobacilli
Masanori Horie,Taisuke Koike,Sakiko Sugino,Aya Umeno,Yasukazu Yoshida
The Journal of General and Applied Microbiology. 2018; 64(1): 26
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
56 Mechanistic insights into the host-microbe interaction and pathogen exclusion mediated by the Mucus-binding protein of Lactobacillus plantarum
Kumar Siddharth Singh,Sudarshan Kumar,Ashok Kumar Mohanty,Sunita Grover,Jai Kumar Kaushik
Scientific Reports. 2018; 8(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
57 Antibacterial and anti-adhesive efficiency of Pediococcus acidilactici against foodborne biofilm producer Bacillus cereus attached on different food processing surfaces
Fifi M. Reda
Food Science and Biotechnology. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
58 Screening for potential probiotic bacteria from Korean fermented soybean paste: In vitro and Caenorhabditis elegans model testing
Ahram Oh,Eric Banan-Mwine Daliri,Deog H. Oh
LWT - Food Science and Technology. 2018; 88: 132
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
59 Possible correlation among osmophilic bacteria, levan yield, and the probiotic activity of three bacterial honey isolates
Walaa A. Abdel Wahab,Shireen A.A. Saleh,Eman A. Karam,Nahla M. Mansour,Mona A. Esawy
Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology. 2018; 14: 386
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
60 Effect of bacteriocin and exopolysaccharides isolated from probiotic on P. aeruginosa PAO1 biofilm
Vivek Sharma,Kusum Harjai,Geeta Shukla
Folia Microbiologica. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
61 Effect of prebiotics on growth behavior of Lactobacillus plantarum and their impact on adherence of strict anaerobic pathogens to intestinal cell lines
Sakshi Sharma,Sarbjit Singh Kanwar
Journal of Food Safety. 2017; : e12384
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
62 Adherence potential of indigenous lactic acid bacterial isolates obtained from fermented foods of Western Himalayas to intestinal epithelial Caco-2 and HT-29 cell lines
Sakshi Sharma,Sarbjit Singh Kanwar
Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2017; 54(11): 3504
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
63 Isolates of Lactobacillus plantarum and L. reuteri display greater antiproliferative and antipathogenic activity than other Lactobacillus isolates
Meysam Hasannejad Bibalan,Morteza Eshaghi,Mahdi Rohani,Maryam Esghaei,Davood Darban-Sarokhalil,Mohammad R. Pourshafie,Malihe Talebi
Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2017; 66(10): 1416
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
64 Variation of mucin adhesion, cell surface characteristics, and molecular mechanisms among Lactobacillus plantarum isolated from different habitats
Nirunya Buntin,Willem M. de Vos,Tipparat Hongpattarakere
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2017; 101(20): 7663
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
65 Functional properties of Lactobacillus plantarum S0/7 isolated fermented stinky bean (Sa Taw Dong) and its use as a starter culture
Kraiyot Saelim,Krittanon Jampaphaeng,Suppasil Maneerat
Journal of Functional Foods. 2017; 38: 370
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
66 In vitro assessment of Pediococcus acidilactici Kp10 for its potential use in the food industry
Sahar Abbasiliasi,Joo Shun Tan,Fatemeh Bashokouh,Tengku Azmi Tengku Ibrahim,Shuhaimi Mustafa,Faezeh Vakhshiteh,Subhashini Sivasamboo,Arbakariya B. Ariff
BMC Microbiology. 2017; 17(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
67 Food prospects of selenium enriched- Lactobacillus acidophilus CRL 636 and Lactobacillus reuteri CRL 1101
Micaela Pescuma,Beatríz Gomez-Gomez,Teresa Perez-Corona,Graciela Font,Yolanda Madrid,Fernanda Mozzi
Journal of Functional Foods. 2017; 35: 466
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
68 Effect of apple extracts and selective polyphenols on the adhesion of potential probiotic strains of Lactobacillus gasseri R and Lactobacillus casei FMP
Tereza Volstatova,Petr Marsik,Vojtech Rada,Martina Geigerova,Jaroslav Havlik
Journal of Functional Foods. 2017; 35: 391
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
69 Assessment of Resistance and Bioremediation Ability of Lactobacillus Strains to Lead and Cadmium
Anna V. Kirillova,Anna A. Danilushkina,Denis S. Irisov,Nataliya L. Bruslik,Rawil F. Fakhrullin,Yuri A. Zakharov,Vladimir S. Bukhmin,Dina R. Yarullina
International Journal of Microbiology. 2017; 2017: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
70 Effect of a novel potential probiotic Lactobacillus paracasei Jlus66 isolated from fermented milk on nonalcoholic fatty liver in rats
Haiqing Ye,Qian Li,Zhengzhe Zhang,Maocheng Sun,Changhui Zhao,Tiehua Zhang
Food & Function. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
71 In Vitro Activity of Lactobacilli with Probiotic Potential Isolated from Cocoa Fermentation against Gardnerella vaginalis
Wallace Felipe Blohem Pessoa,Ana Clara Correia Melgaço,Milena Evangelista de Almeida,Louise Pereira Ramos,Rachel Passos Rezende,Carla Cristina Romano
BioMed Research International. 2017; 2017: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
72 Characterization of probiotic potential of Bacillus species isolated from a traditional brine pickle
K. Ragul,Ibadondor Syiem,K. Sundar,Prathapkumar H. Shetty
Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
73 Autochthonous lactic acid bacteria with probiotic aptitudes as starter cultures for fish-based products
Barbara Speranza,Angela Racioppo,Luciano Beneduce,Antonio Bevilacqua,Milena Sinigaglia,Maria Rosaria Corbo
Food Microbiology. 2017; 65: 244
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
74 In vitro comparison of probiotic properties of lactic acid bacteria isolated from Harbin dry sausages and selected probiotics
Qi Han,Baohua Kong,Qian Chen,Fangda Sun,Huan Zhang
Journal of Functional Foods. 2017; 32: 391
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
75 Selection of promising strain of Lactobacillus for treating vaginal infections
Kanchan V. Mogha,Jashbhai B. Prajapati
Reviews in Medical Microbiology. 2017; 28(2): 49
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
76 Probiotic bacteria inhibit the bovine respiratory pathogen Mannheimia haemolytica serotype 1 in vitro
S. Amat,S. Subramanian,E. Timsit,T.W. Alexander
Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2017; 64(5): 343
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
77 Pediococcus acidilactici LAB4 and Lactobacillus plantarum LAB12 assimilate cholesterol and modulate ABCA1, CD36, NPC1L1 and SCARB1 in vitro
F.T. Lim,S.M. Lim,K. Ramasamy
Beneficial Microbes. 2017; 8(1): 97
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
78 Extraction of Lactobacillus acidophilus CICC 6074 S-Layer Proteins and Their Ability to Inhibit Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli
Jinye Zhang,Jinjin Gao,Yuxing Guo,Zhen Wu,Daodong Pan
Current Microbiology. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
79 In-vitro digestion of probiotic bacteria and omega-3 oil co-microencapsulated in whey protein isolate-gum Arabic complex coacervates
Divya Eratte,Kim Dowling,Colin J. Barrow,Benu P. Adhikari
Food Chemistry. 2017; 227: 129
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
80 Short communication: A study of Lactobacillus isolatesæ adherence to and influence on membrane integrity of human Caco-2 cells
Neethu M. Jose,Craig R. Bunt,Arlene McDowell,Jasper Z.S. Chiu,Malik A. Hussain
Journal of Dairy Science. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
81 Strain-specific probiotic properties of lactic acid bacteria and their interference with human intestinal pathogens invasion
Raffaella Campana,Saskia van Hemert,Wally Baffone
Gut Pathogens. 2017; 9(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
82 Antagonistic Activity of Lactobacillus reuteri Strains on the Adhesion Characteristics of Selected Pathogens
Tejinder P. Singh,Gurpreet Kaur,Suman Kapila,Ravinder K. Malik
Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017; 8
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
83 Dairy propionibacteria as probiotics: recent evidences
Clelia Altieri
World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2016; 32(10)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
84 Technological and safety properties of newly isolated GABA-producingLactobacillus futsaiistrains
C. Sanchart,O. Rattanaporn,D. Haltrich,P. Phukpattaranont,S. Maneerat
Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
85 Characterization of fructophilic lactic microbiota of Apis mellifera from the Caucasus Mountains
Irakli Janashia,Domenico Carminati,Lia Rossetti,Miriam Zago,Maria Emanuela Fornasari,Thomas Haertlé,Nina Chanishvili,Giorgio Giraffa
Annals of Microbiology. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
86 In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the probiotic attributes of Lactobacillus kefiranofaciens XL10 isolated from Tibetan kefir grain
Zhuqing Xing,Wei Tang,Weitao Geng,Yongna Zheng,Yanping Wang
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
87 Probiotic Lactobacillus fermentum UCO-979C biofilm formation on AGS and Caco-2 cells and Helicobacter pylori inhibition
M. J. Salas-Jara,E. A. Sanhueza,A. Retamal-Díaz,C. González,H. Urrutia,A. García
Biofouling. 2016; 32(10): 1245
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
88 Review on Bifidobacterium bifidum BGN4: Functionality and Nutraceutical Applications as a Probiotic Microorganism
Seockmo Ku,Myeong Park,Geun Ji,Hyun You
International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2016; 17(9): 1544
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
89 Improvement in glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity by probiotic strains of Indian gut origin in high-fat diet-fed C57BL/6J mice
Mahalingam Balakumar,Durai Prabhu,Chandrakumar Sathishkumar,Paramasivam Prabu,Namita Rokana,Ramesh Kumar,Srividhya Raghavan,Avinash Soundarajan,Sunita Grover,Virender Kumar Batish,Viswanathan Mohan,Muthuswamy Balasubramanyam
European Journal of Nutrition. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
90 Probiotic attributes of indigenous Lactobacillus spp. isolated from traditional fermented foods and beverages of north-western Himalayas using in vitro screening and principal component analysis
Anila Kumari,Kunzes Angmo,Kunzes Monika,Tek Chand Bhalla
Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
91 Probiotic supplementation can positively affect anxiety and depressive symptoms: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Meysam Pirbaglou,Joel Katz,Russell J. de Souza,Jennifer C. Stearns,Mehras Motamed,Paul Ritvo
Nutrition Research. 2016;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
92 Probiotic characterization of lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented foods and beverage of Ladakh
Kunzes Angmo,Anila Kumari,Anila Savitri,Tek Chand Bhalla
LWT - Food Science and Technology. 2016; 66: 428
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
93 Invitro study of riboflavin producing lactobacilli as potential probiotic
Kiran Thakur,Sudhir Kumar Tomar
LWT - Food Science and Technology. 2016; 68: 570
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
94 Probiotic potentials of yeasts isolated from some cereal-based Nigerian traditional fermented food products
O.R. Ogunremi,A.I. Sanni,R. Agrawal
Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2015; 119(3): 797
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
95 Screening, Characterization and In Vitro Evaluation of Probiotic Properties Among Lactic Acid Bacteria Through Comparative Analysis
Sundru Manjulata Devi,Ann Catherine Archer,Prakash M. Halami
Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2015; 7(3): 181
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
96 Screening and Characterization of Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains with Anti-inflammatory Activities through in vitro and Caenorhabditis elegans Model Testing
Hye Kyoung Lee,Sun-Hae Choi,Cho Rong Lee,Sun Hee Lee,Mi Ri Park,Younghoon Kim,Myung-Ki Lee,Geun-Bae Kim
Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources. 2015; 35(1): 91
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
97 Isolation and characterization of lactobacilli from human faeces and indigenous fermented foods for their potential application as probiotics
Hemanti Mandal,Ruchi Jariwala,Tamishraha Bagchi
Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 2015; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
98 Probiotic Potential of Lactobacillus Strains Isolated from Sorghum-Based Traditional Fermented Food
K. Poornachandra Rao,G. Chennappa,U. Suraj,H. Nagaraja,A. P. Charith Raj,M. Y. Sreenivasa
Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2015;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
99 In vitro screening of lactic acid bacteria for multi-strain probiotics
O. Pringsulaka,K. Rueangyotchanthana,N. Suwannasai,R. Watanapokasin,P. Amnueysit,S. Sunthornthummas,S. Sukkhum,S. Sarawaneeyaruk,A. Rangsiruji
Livestock Science. 2015;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
100 Adhesion ofLactobacilliand Their Anti-infectivity Potential
Ashok Kumar Yadav,Ashish Tyagi,Ashwani Kumar,Surbhi Panwar,Sunita Grover,Asha Chandola Saklani,Rajkumar Hemalatha,Virender Kumar Batish
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2015; : 00
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
101 Probiotic Potential ofLactobacillusStrains with Antifungal Activity Isolated from Animal Manure
Soundharrajan Ilavenil,Hyung Soo Park,Mayakrishnan Vijayakumar,Mariadhas Valan Arasu,Da Hye Kim,Sivanesan Ravikumar,Ki Choon Choi
The Scientific World Journal. 2015; 2015: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
102 In vitro study on the cell adhesion ability of immobilized lactobacilli on natural supports
Marianthi Sidira,Yiannis Kourkoutas,Maria Kanellaki,Dimitris Charalampopoulos
Food Research International. 2015; 76: 532
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
103 Impact of the exopolysaccharide layer on biofilms, adhesion and resistance to stress in Lactobacillus johnsonii FI9785
Enes Dertli,Melinda J Mayer,Arjan Narbad
BMC Microbiology. 2015; 15(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
104 Lactobacillus fermentum NCIMB 5221 and NCIMB 2797 as cholesterol-lowering probiotic biotherapeutics: in vitro analysis
C. Tomaro-Duchesneau,S. Saha,M. Malhotra,M.L. Jones,L. Rodes,S. Prakash
Beneficial Microbes. 2015; 6(6): 861
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
105 Adhesion of indigenous Lactobacillus plantarum to gut extracellular matrix and its physicochemical characterization
Ashok Kumar Yadav,Ashish Tyagi,Ashwani Kumar,Asha Chandola Saklani,Sunita Grover,Virender Kumar Batish
Archives of Microbiology. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
106 Short communication: Development of a direct in vivo screening model to identify potential probiotic bacteria using Caenorhabditis elegans
M.R. Park,H.S. Yun,S.J. Son,S. Oh,Y. Kim
Journal of Dairy Science. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
107 Expression, genetic localization and phylogenic analysis of NAPlr in Piscine Streptococcus dysgalactiae subspecies dysgalactiae isolates and their patterns of adherence
M. Abdelsalam,M. Fujino,A.E. Eissa,S.C. Chen,M. Warda
Journal of Advanced Research. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
108 Proteomic analysis of the interaction of Bifidobacterium longum NCC2705 with the intestine cells Caco-2 and identification of plasminogen receptors
Xiao Wei,Xiabei Yan,Xuannan Chen,Zhan Yang,Huan Li,Dayang Zou,Xiang He,Simiao Wang,Qian Cui,Wei Liu,Daria Zhurina,Xuesong Wang,Xiangna Zhao,Liuyu Huang,Ming Zeng,Qinong Ye,Christian U. Riedel,Jing Yuan
Journal of Proteomics. 2014; 108: 89
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
109 Epithelial cell adhesion and gastrointestinal colonization of Lactobacillus in poultry
M. A. Spivey,S. L. Dunn-Horrocks,T. Duong
Poultry Science. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
110 Adhesion Abilities of Dairy Lactobacillus Plantarum Strains Showing an Aggregation Phenotype
Tomás García-Cayuela,Ahmed M. Korany,Irene Bustos,Luz P. Gómez de Cadiñanos,Teresa Requena,Carmen Peláez,M. Carmen Martínez-Cuesta
Food Research International. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
111 Characterization of a noncytotoxic bacteriocin from probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum DM5 with potential as a food preservative
Deeplina Das,Arun Goyal
Food Funct.. 2014; 5(10): 2453
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
112 Effects of single- and multi-strain probiotics on biofilm formation and in vitro adhesion to bladder cells by urinary tract pathogens
C.M.C. Chapman,G.R. Gibson,I. Rowland
Anaerobe. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
113 In vitroAnti-Adherent Assessment of Selected Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolates AgainstSalmonellaTyphimurium andListeria monocytogenesto Caco-2 Cells
Supannikar Sribuathong,Janpen Saengprakai,Sudsai Trevanich
Journal of Food Safety. 2014; : n/a
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
114 Immunomodulatory activity of two potential probiotic strains in LPS-stimulated HT-29 cells
Raj Kumar Duary,Virender Kumar Batish,Sunita Grover
Genes & Nutrition. 2014; 9(3)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
115 Role of surface layer collagen binding protein from indigenous Lactobacillus plantarum 91 in adhesion and its anti-adhesion potential against gut pathogen
Ashok Kumar Yadav,Ashish Tyagi,Jai Kumar Kaushik,Asha Chandola Saklani,Sunita Grover,Virender Kumar Batish
Microbiological Research. 2013; 168(10): 639
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
116 Relative expression of bacterial and host specific genes associated with probiotic survival and viability in the mice gut fed with Lactobacillus plantarum Lp91
Archana Chandran,Raj Kumar Duary,Sunita Grover,Virender Kumar Batish
Microbiological Research. 2013; 168(9): 555
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
117 Determining potential probiotic properties of human originated Lactobacillus plantarum strains
Gülden Basyigit Kiliç,Hakan Kuleasan,V. Funda Sömer,Didem Akpinar
Biotechnology and Bioprocess Engineering. 2013; 18(3): 479
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
118 In vitro probiotic properties of Lactobacillus fermentum SK5 isolated from vagina of a healthy woman
Sanae Kaewnopparat,Nattakan Dangmanee,Nattha Kaewnopparat,Teerapol Srichana,Malyn Chulasiri,Sukanya Settharaksa
Anaerobe. 2013; 22: 6
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
119 Opportunities and challenges for gut microbiome studies in the Indian population
Sudarshan Shetty,Nachiket Marathe,Yogesh S Shouche
Microbiome. 2013; 1(1): 24
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
120 Modulation of anti-inflammatory response in lipopolysaccharide stimulated human THP-1 cell line and mouse model at gene expression level with indigenous putative probiotic lactobacilli
V. Aparna Sudhakaran,Harsh Panwar,Ritu Chauhan,Raj Kumar Duary,Rahul Kumar Rathore,Virender Kumar Batish,Sunita Grover
Genes & Nutrition. 2013; 8(6): 637
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
121 Draft Genome Sequence of Lactobacillus plantarum Strain Lp91, a Promising Indian Probiotic Isolate of Human Gut Origin
S. Grover,V. K. Sharma,R. H. Mallapa,V. K. Batish
Genome Announcements. 2013; 1(6): e00976-13
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
122 Probiotics for human health –new innovations and emerging trends
Sunita Grover,Hogarehalli Mallapa Rashmi,Anil Kumar Srivastava,Virender Kumar Batish
Gut Pathogens. 2012; 4(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
123 Effect of Flavan-3-ols on the Adhesion of Potential Probiotic Lactobacilli to Intestinal Cells
Irene Bustos,Tomás García-Cayuela,Blanca Hernández-Ledesma,Carmen Peláez,Teresa Requena,M. Carmen Martínez-Cuesta
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2012; 60(36): 9082
[Pubmed] | [DOI]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
   Material & Methods
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded1570    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 123    

Recommend this journal