Антагонистическая активность пробиотиков при кампилобактериозе

Abstract

Campylobacter species are globally recognized as the most common causative agents of acute intestinal infections. In recent years, Campylobacter spp. have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics, necessitating the search for new methods of treatment. Objective. To evaluate the antagonistic activity of different probiotics and autoprobiotic enterococci against Campylobacter spp. Materials and methods. Clinical isolates of Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni were obtained from the microbial culture collection in the Pediatric Research and Clinical Center for Infectious Diseases, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation. The collection included cryopreserved samples of Campylobacter spp. strains isolated from stool specimens of children with campylobacteriosis. Lactobacillus rhamnosus ATCC 53103, Bifidobacterium longum PXN 30, Enterococcus faecium L3, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Sacharomyces boulardii, Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG, Lactobacillus plantarum 8R-A3, Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis (BB-12) at the concentration of 108 CFU/mL were used as probiotic strains. Autoprobiotic (indigenous) strains of E. faecium at the concentration of 108 CFU/mL isolated from stool specimens of children with campylobacteriosis were used as autoprobiotics. Results. No strain of Campylobacter spp. was found to be resistant to the probiotics and autoprobiotics included in the study. Only one strain of C. jejuni 31 was susceptible to all probiotic and autoprobiotic strains. B. animalis subsp. lactis BB12 strains at the concentrations of 109 and 106 CFU showed the highest anti-Campylobacter activity, inhibiting the growth of 36 (85.71%) and 38 (90.48%) isolated Campylobacter species, respectively. High anti-Campylobacter activities were also seen in L. rhamnosus GG and L. reuteri DSM 17938, which inhibited the growth of 29 (69.05%) and 31 (73.81%), 28 (66.67%) and 29 (69.05%) clinical Campylobacter isolates, respectively. In terms of the effectiveness in inhibiting Campylobacter spp., autoprobiotics did not significantly differ from probiotic strains of B. longum + and/or E. faecium SF68, preventing the growth of 35–45% of the studied Campylobacter spp. strains. Conclusion. The use of specially selected probiotic and autoprobiotic strains by in vitro test in campylobacteriosis may contribute to the rapid elimination of pathogens due to the ability of some strains to inhibit the growth of Campylobacter spp. Key words: Campylobacter, probiotics, autoprobiotics, anti-Campylobacter activity