
تعداد نشریات | 20 |
تعداد شمارهها | 1,195 |
تعداد مقالات | 10,900 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 73,732,381 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 28,342,586 |
The Effects of Commercial Probiotics on Biological Properties of Enterococci in Colon Carcinoma Cell Culture | ||
Iranian Journal of Colorectal Research | ||
مقاله 1، دوره 12، شماره 3، آذر 2024، صفحه 63-69 اصل مقاله (1.75 M) | ||
نوع مقاله: Research/Original Article | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/acrr.2024.103345.1222 | ||
نویسندگان | ||
Defne Gümüş* ؛ Fatma Kalaycı-Yüksek؛ Aysun Uyanık-Öcal؛ Mine Anğ-Küçüker | ||
Istanbul Yeni Yuzyil University, Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Microbiology, Istanbul, Turkey | ||
چکیده | ||
The interactions between dysbiosis of gut microbiota and development of colorectal cancers are well known. The effects of three different commercial probiotics, purchased from pharmacies, on several biological properties of enterococci (vancomycin resistant “VRE” and vancomycin susceptible “VSE”) in colon adenocarcinoma cell culture (HT-29) were investigated. Cell-free supernatants (CFSs) were prepared after the isolation of probiotic strains (Bifidobacterium lactis, Saccharomyces boulardii and Bacillus clausii). Bacterial growth was detected spectrophotometrically after three, six and 24 hours incubation. Adhesion and invasion assays were performed via colony counting method. Biofilm formation was performed using microtiter plate assay. After 24 hours incubation in culture medium, all three probiotics increased the growth of VRE and VSE. Bacterial growth was also increased in cell culture in the presence of probiotics. Adhesion of both enterococci was shown to be reduced by all probiotics. The invasion and biofilm formation were shown to be varied according to strains and probiotics tested. As conclusion, all of these findings indicate the potential risk of enhanced pathogenicity under certain circumstances, especially in immune suppression. | ||
تازه های تحقیق | ||
Defne Gümüş (Google Scholar) | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
colorectal cancer؛ commercial probiotics؛ Enterococci؛ growth؛ adhesion؛ invasion؛ biofilm formation | ||
مراجع | ||
1. De Almeida CV, Lulli M, Di Pilato V, Schiavone N, Russo E, Nannini G, et al. Differential Responses of Colorectal Cancer Cell lines to Enterococcus Faecalis’ Strains Isolated from Healthy Donors and Colorectal Cancer Patients. J Clin Med. 2019;8(3). 2. Geravand M, Fallah P, Yaghoobi MH, Soleimanifar F, Farid M, Zinatizadeh N, et al. Investigation of enterococcus faecalis population in patients with polyp and colorectal cancer in comparison of healthy individuals. Arq Gastroenterol. 2019;56(2):141–5. 3. Pericàs JM, Ambrosioni J, Muñoz P, de Alarcón A, Kestler M, Mari-Hualde A, et al. Prevalence of Colorectal Neoplasms Among Patients With Enterococcus faecalis Endocarditis in the GAMES Cohort (2008–2017). Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96(1):132–46. 4. Sears CL, Garrett WS. Microbes, microbiota, and colon cancer. Cell Host Microbe [Internet]. 2014;15(3):317– 28. Available from: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.chom.2014.02.007 5. Huycke MM, Abrams V, Moore DR. Enterococcus faecalis produces extracellular superoxide and hydrogen peroxide that damages colonic epithelial cell DNA. Carcinogenesis. 2002;23(3):529–36. 6. Balamurugan R, Rajendiran E, George S, Samuel GV, Ramakrishna BS. Real-time polymerase chain reaction quantification of specific butyrateproducing bacteria, Desulfovibrio and Enterococcus faecalis in the feces of patients with colorectal cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23(8 PART1):1298–303. 7. Elahi Z, Shariati A, Bostanghadiri N, Dadgar-Zankbar L, Razavi S, Norzaee S, et al. Association of Lactobacillus, Firmicutes, Bifidobacterium, Clostridium, and Enterococcus with colorectal cancer in Iranian patients. Heliyon [Internet]. 2023;9(12):e22602. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023. e22602 8. Zamora Gonzales JA, Varadarajalu Y, Liu S, Milikowski C. Enterococcus Bacteremia A Manifestation ofColon Cancer? Infect Dis Clin Pract. 2018;26(6):e91–2. 9. De Almeida CV, Taddei A, Amedei A. The controversial role of Enterococcus faecalis in colorectal cancer. Ther Adv Gastroenterol Rev. 2018;11(6):1–11. 10. Wang X, Allen TD, May RJ, Lightfoot S, Houchen CW, Huycke MM. Enterococcus faecalis Induces A neuploidy and Tetraploidy in Colonic Epithelial Cells through a Bystander Effect. Cancer Res [Internet]. 2008;68(23):9909–17. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC3624763/pdf/ nihms412728.pdf 11. Zhang L, Liu J, Deng M, Chen X, Jiang L, Zhang J, et al. Enterococcus faecalis promotes the progression of colorectal cancer via its metabolite: biliverdin. J Transl Med [Internet]. 2023;21(1):1–14. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12967-023-03929-7 12. Sobhani I, Tap J, Roudot-Thoraval F, Roperch JP, Letulle S, Langella P, et al. Microbial dysbiosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. PLoS One. 2011;6(1). 13. Marchesi JR, Dutilh BE, Hall N, Peters WHM, Roelofs R, Boleij A, et al. Towards the human colorectal cancer microbiome. PLoS One. 2011;6(5). 14. Boleij A, Tjalsma H. Gut bacteria in health and disease: A survey on the interface between intestinal microbiology and colorectal cancer. Biol Rev. 2012;87(3):701–30. 15. Kostic AD, Chun E, Meyerson M, Garrett WS. Microbes and inflammation in colorectal cancer. Cancer Immunol Res. 2013;1(3):150–7. 16. Schwabe RF, Jobin C. The microbiome and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2013;13(11):800–12. 17. Viljoen KS, Dakshinamurthy A, Goldberg P, Blackburn JM. Quantitative profiling of colorectal cancer-associated bacteria reveals associations between Fusobacterium spp., enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis (ETBF) and clinicopathological features of colorectal cancer. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):1–21. 18. Tytgat HLP, Douillard FP, Reunanen J, Rasinkangas P, Hendrickx APA, Laine PK, et al. Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG Outcompetes Enterococcus faecium via Mucus-Binding Pili: Evidence for a Novel and Heterospecific Probiotic Mechanism. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82(19):5756–62. 19. Felipe EMM, Fanny MJ, Isabela A, Celia RG, Mariella VPL, Silvana SFDS. Relationship between the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus and Enterococcus faecalis during the biofilm formation. African J Microbiol Res. 2016;10(31):1182–6. 20. Safadi S, Maan H, Kolodkin-Gal I, Tsesis I, Rosen E. The Products of Probiotic Bacteria Effectively Treat Persistent Enterococcus faecalis Biofilms. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(4). 21. Crouzet L, Derrien M, Cherbuy C, Plancade S, Foulon M, Chalin B, et al. Lactobacillus paracasei CNCM I-3689 reduces vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus persistence and promotes Bacteroidetes resilience in the gut following antibiotic challenge. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1–11. 22. Kalaycı Yüksek F, Gümüş D, Gündoğan Gİ, Anğ Küçüker M. CellFree Lactobacillus sp Supernatants Modulate Staphylococcus aureus Growth, Adhesion and Invasion to Human Osteoblast (HOB) Cells. Curr Microbiol. 2021;78(1):125–32. 23. Yuksek FK, Gumus D, Gundogan GI, Ocal AU, Elagul N, Kucuker MA. Cross-interactions between Norepinephrine, MethicillinResistant Staphylococcus aureus and Human Osteoblast Cells in Culture Conditions. Experimed. 2022;12(2):85–93. 24. Castilho IG, Dantas STA, Langoni H, Araújo JP, Fernandes A, Alvarenga FCL, et al. Host-pathogen interactions in bovine mammary epithelial cells and HeLa cells by Staphylococcus aureus isolated from subclinical bovine mastitis. J Dairy Sci [Internet]. 2017;100(8):6414–21. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/ jds.2017-12700 25. Artini M, Scoarughi GL, Papa R, Cellini A, Carpentieri A, Pucci P, et al. A new anti-infective strategy to reduce adhesion-mediated virulence in Staphylococcus aureus affecting surface proteins. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2011;24(3):661–72. 26. Kalaycı-Yüksek F, Gümüş D, Güler V, Uyanık-Öcal A, Anğ-Küçüker M. Progesterone and Estradiol alter the growth, virulence and antibiotic susceptibilities of Staphylococcus aureus. New Microbiol. 2023;46(1):43–51. 27. Hu Y, Dun Y, Li S, Zhang D, Peng N, Zhao S, et al. Dietary enterococcus faecalis lab31 improves growth performance, reduces diarrhea, and increases fecal lactobacillus number of weaned piglets e0116635. PLoS One. 2015;10(1):1–16. 28. Shaaban S, Hamad GM, Genena S, Meheissen MA, Moussa S. Evaluation of the antibacterial activity of Lactobacilli probiotics supernatants against Enterococcus faecalis (in-vitro study). BMC Oral Health [Internet]. 2022;22(1):1–11. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02434-5 29. Plaza-Diaz J, Gomez-Llorente C, Fontana L, Gil A. Modulation of immunity and inflammatory gene expression in the gut, in inflammatory diseases of the gut and in the liver by probiotics. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(42):15632–49. 30. Zendeboodi F, Khorshidian N, Mortazavian AM, da Cruz AG. Probiotic: conceptualization from a new approach. Curr Opin Food Sci [Internet]. 2020;32(April):103– 23. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cofs.2020.03.009 31. Byappanahalli MN, Nevers MB, Korajkic A, Staley ZR, Harwood VJ. Enterococci in the Environment. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2012;76(4):685–706. 32. Fisher K, Phillips C. The ecology, epidemiology and virulence of Enterococcus. Microbiology. 2009;155(6):1749–57. 33. Rai P, Kochhar R, Kumari M. Antimicrobial activity of three different Probiotic strains and 5.25% Sodium hypochlorite against E.faecalis and C.albicans at two different time period: An in-vitro study. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2019;9(4):p8879. 34. Kalayci Yüksek F, Gümüş D, Bayirli Turan Dbt, Nakipoğlu Y, Adaleti R, Küçüker Am. Cell-free supernatants of lactobacilli inhibit methicilin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus and carbapenemresistant Klebsiella strains. Ege Tıp Derg. 2021;60(4):332–9. 35. Fateminasab ZS, Shayestehpour M, Zolfaghari MR. Evaluation of Anti-bacterial, Anti-adenoviral, and Apoptosis-inducing Activity of Bacillus clausii Supernatant. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2023;16(1):1–7. 36. Wong-Chew RM, de Castro JAA, Morelli L, Perez M, Ozen M. Gut immune homeostasis: the immunomodulatory role of Bacillus clausii, from basic to clinical evidence. Expert Rev Clin Immunol [Internet]. 2022;18(7):717–29. Available from: https://doi.org/10.10 80/1744666X.2022.2085559 | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 169 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 328 |