Bacillus Subtilis – Identification & Safety
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Issue 2 March 2009 Bacillus subtilis – Identifi cation & Safety From: Peter Cartwright BA (Hons) MA MSc Human Microbiota Specialist Probiotics International Ltd. Somerset, U.K. 3d rendered close up of Bacillus Subtilis bacteria by Sebastian Kaulitzki Bacillus subtilis is not an obscure or mysterious protection against the effects of antibiotics. B. subtilis. Anything over 99.0% is considered microbe. It is, instead, a very well-studied Such antibiotic-resistant genes are found a species match. Furthermore, every batch of bacterium. It is the ‘type’ (original) species naturally in bacteria, but the question is Bio-Kult is tested by an independent UKAS- of the Bacillus genus(1) and it is viewed by whether they are resistant to antibiotics that accredited laboratory to ensure that it meets microbiologists as a typical example of a are used in the treatment of humans and also the label claims. Every pot of Bio-Kult contains Gram-positive bacterium and an endospore- whether they are the type of genes that can be exactly what the label states. producer. Consequently, B. subtilis attracts transferred to other bacteria. a lot of research and this is why it was one References If such genes are transferrable to other 1. Logan, N.A. (2004) Safety of Aerobic Endospore- of the fi rst organisms to have its full genome bacteria, then they could be taken up Forming Bacteria. In Bacterial Spore Formers: Probiotics sequenced (more than ten years ago). by bacteria in the human gut fl ora and and Emerging Applications (Ricca E. et al., eds.). Horizon So what do research studies tell us about the subsequently passed onto pathogens creating Bioscience, Wymondham, Norfolk, UK.: 93-105. safety of B. subtilis as a probiotic? Last year, a new type of resistant pathogen. 2. Hong, H.A., Huang, J-M., Khaneja, R., Hiep, L.V., Urdaci, three studies(2,3,4) were published on the safety M.C. & Cutting, S.M. (2008) The Safety of Bacillus subtilis All three of the 2008 safety studies tested their of B. subtilis. Four strains were examined and and Bacillus indicus as food probiotics. Journal of Applied B. subtilis strains against a range of antibiotics. none of these strains were found to have any Microbiology 105: 510-520. All the strains were sensitive (not resistant) pathogenic indications. The three studies 3. Sorokulova, I.B., Pinchuk, I.V., Denayrolles, M, Osipova, to all the antibiotics important in medical involved researchers from Canada, France, I.G., Huang, J.M., Cutting, S.M. & Urdaci, M.C. (2008) The treatment, as listed in a report of the European Vietnam and the UK, including Dr Simon Safety of Two Bacillus Probiotic Strains for Human Use. Food Safety Authority(5). Cutting, Professor of Molecular Microbiology at Digestive Diseases and Sciences 53: 954-963. Royal Holloway College, University of London. Accuracy of microbe identifi cation 4. Tompkins, T.A., Hagen, K.E., Wallace, T.D. & Fillion-Forte, V. (2008) Safety evaluation of two bacterial strains used in Given such data confi rming the safety of Pathogenic genes asian probiotic products. Canadian Journal of Microbiology B. subtilis, the major remaining question is Specifi cally, the researchers tested for the 54: 391-400. whether a probiotic product contains the presence of genes responsible for the 5. EFSA (2005) Opinion of the Scientifi c Committee on a species it claims. Sanders et al.(6) reported on production of various toxins, and other harmful request from EFSA related to a generic approach to the safety three studies that examined a total of seven substances such as haemolysin (blood cell assessment by EFSA of microorganisms used in food/feed Bacillus products and found that all of them disruption) and lecithinase (cell membrane and the production of food/feed additives. EFSA Journal were mislabelled as to the species contained. disruption). No such genes were found. 226: 1-12. One product contained Bacillus cereus rather 6. Sanders, M.E., Morelli, L. & Tompkins, T.A. The strains were also added to gut epithelial than B. subtilis, and this is signifi cant because (2003) Sporeformers as Human Probiotics: Bacillus, cells without causing harm, and were fed to some strains of B. cereus can cause food Sporolactobacillus, and Brevibacillus. Comprehensive various laboratory animals (mice, rats, guinea poisoning. Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 2: 101-110. pigs, rabbits and piglets) with no adverse The B. subtilis of Bio-Kult has been assessed effects. independently by The National Collection of Next page: Antibiotic resistance Industrial, Marine and Food Bacteria (NCIMB) Another safety consideration for probiotic (www.ncimb.com) and found to be 99.7% Peter Cartwright BA (Hons) MA MSc examines microbes is the presence of DNA that provides identical to genetic database records of the case for multistrain probiotics. Published by: Protexin, Matts Lane, Stoke sub Hamdon, Somerset, TA14 6QE, UK. Tel: +44 (0) 8707 665108 Email: [email protected] Probiotic News Issue 2 March 2009 Single-strain or Multistrain Probiotics? Peter Cartwright BA (Hons), MA, MSc reviews the available studies to fi nd out which works best. probiotics, one was a multistrain (containing effect of milks fermented with different strains of three lactobacilli: L. rhamnosus, L. acidophilus L. casei, yoghurt, or a combination of both kinds and Lactobacillus bifi dus) and the other two were of ferment. More protection was provided by the multispecies. One of the multispecies contained mixture of L. casei LAB-1 plus yoghurt, than each two species (L. acidophilus and Bifi dobacterium of the three monostrains, or the yoghurt alone. bifi dum) and the other contained high numbers of 4. Lema et al(12) studied the effi cacy of fi ve nine species. species of lactic acid bacteria in reducing the A total of 51 children received either the antibiotic faecal shedding of the food-borne pathogen of alone (ceftriaxone) or in combination with one of humans, E. coli O157:H7. the probiotics mentioned above. The S. boulardii The two monostrain preparations contained left the microfl ora unchanged and the E. faecium L. acidophilus or E. faecium, and the two did not correct dysbiosis. The L. rhamnosus multispecies preparations contained either two “induced favourable alterations in the microfl ora, species (L. acidophilus and E. faecium) or fi ve but these were less marked than those induced species (L. acidophilus, E. faecium, L. casei, by the multistrain treatments”. Lactobacillus fermentum and Lactobacillus Of the multistrain/multispecies probiotics, only plantarum). the two multispecies preparations “signifi cantly L. acidophilus by itself did not affect the amount counteracted the increase in number of stools of E. coli O157:H7 shed. E. faecium did reduce per day” caused by the antibiotic. “Only two the shedding, but the fi ve species multistrain It has been generally accepted that probiotic probiotics, both multispecies preparations, preparation performed signifi cantly better. products intended for the benefi t of more were able to induce a statistically signifi cant pH 5. Van Es and Timmerman(13) compared the than one condition are likely to be more reduction”, which “can be interpreted as a positive protection given by probiotics to rats challenged effect because an acidic environment inhibits the effective as multiple strains than single- by Salmonella enteritidis. The salmonella growth of pathogenic bacteria”. strain products. “Different strains can be innoculation was a sublethal dose; none of the targeted toward different ailments and can 2. Perdigon et al(10) “tested the protective effect of rats died and no signs of disease were seen. be blended into one preparation” was the milk fermented with either L. acidophilus, One monostrain was tested, along with two L. casei or a combination of both strains in mice conclusion of a meeting of experts.(7) multistrains (one with two species of Lactobacilli challenged with Salmonella typhimurium”. “The and one with three species of Lactobacilli), plus There has, however, been little or no public monostrain fermented milks failed to enhance two multispecies probiotics. The multispecie research intended specifi cally to test this belief. resistance towards S. typhimurium”. Only the preparations consisted of one with four species This is due to two reasons: “multistrain fermented milk was effective in (three Lactobacillus and one Lactococcus) and preventing colonisation of S. typhimurium in liver a) Studying a multi-strain product is more one with fi ve species (the four species above, and spleen.” complicated and more expensive than studying plus L. plantarum). a single-strain Twenty-one days after the salmonella inoculation, The results showed that weight gain was highest all the multistrain-fed mice were alive, while b) Most clinical studies are funded by companies for the four-species multispecies probiotic only one-fi fth of the monostrain-fed mice were with an interest in one specifi c strain only. preparation. alive. Among the control mice that received no Timmerman et al(8) have overcome these probiotics, only one-fi fth were alive; the same limitations by carefully searching research proportion as the monostrain-fed mice. literature and fi nding studies that have compared 3. Paubert-Braquet et al(11) used mice orally mono- and multi-strain probiotics. infected with S. typhimurium to test the protective The three types of probiotic product used in the research were defi ned by Timmerman et al as follows: l Monostrain – containing one strain of a certain species l Multistrain – containing more than one strain of the same species or closely related species (e.g. Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus casei) l Multispecies – containing strains of different probiotic species that belong to one or preferentially more genera (e.g. L. acidophilus, Bifi dobacterium longum, Enterococcus faecium and Lactococcus lactis) The comparison studies 1. Zoppi et al (9) tested the effectiveness of six commercially available probiotic products for their effectiveness in reversing the adverse effects of an antibiotic on the gut microfl ora of children.