Please wait a minute...
 
 
食品与发酵工业  2020, Vol. 46 Issue (11): 38-45    DOI: 10.13995/j.cnki.11-1802/ts.023570
  研究报告 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
双歧杆菌生物膜形成规律及其表面性质相关性研究
朱如意1, 杭锋2, 张灏1,2, 李元昆3, 赵建新1, 陈卫1, 陆文伟1,2*
1(江南大学 食品学院,江苏 无锡,214122)
2(江南大学(扬州)食品生物技术研究所,江苏 扬州,225004)
3(新加坡国立大学 杨璐龄医学院微生物学系,新加坡,119077)
Biofilm-forming ability of Bifidobacterium and the correlation with cellsurface characteristics
ZHU Ruyi1, HANG Feng2, ZHANG Hao1,2, LI Yuankun3, ZHAO Jianxin1, CHEN Wei1, LU Wenwei1,2*
1(School of Food Science and Technology, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China)
2((Yangzhou) Institute of Food Biotechnology, Jiangnan University, Yangzhou 225004, China)
3(Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore,119077, Singapore)
下载:  HTML   PDF (5304KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 为了研究双歧杆菌生物膜的成膜规律及其特性,利用微孔板实验对长双歧杆菌、短双歧杆菌、动物双歧杆菌、青春双歧杆菌、两歧双歧杆菌、假小链双歧杆6个种114株双歧杆菌的成膜能力进行分析。结果显示,基于微孔板吸光值,双歧杆菌分为不成膜(OD600 nm≤1)、弱成膜(1<OD600 nm<3)及强成膜(OD600 nm≥3)3类菌株;其中两歧双歧杆菌所有菌株为强成膜菌株,长双歧杆菌的成膜能力较弱,其中57.90%为非成膜株;而其余双歧杆菌的成膜能力存在菌株差异性,包含不成膜、弱成膜及强成膜3类菌株。进一步通过扫描电子显微镜发现,动物双歧杆菌和两歧双歧杆菌形成蘑菇状生物膜结构,而其余双歧杆菌形成扁平状生物膜;激光共聚焦显微镜显示长双歧杆菌和两歧双歧杆菌生物膜活菌比例较高。利用细菌粘附溶剂法研究双歧杆菌表面性质对其成膜的影响,结果发现短双歧杆菌、假小链双歧杆菌的成膜能力只与其路易斯酸特性有关,动物双歧杆菌和青春双歧杆菌表面疏水性和路易斯酸特性与其成膜能力呈正相关,长双歧杆菌表面性质与其成膜无相关性,而表现为高疏水性和路易斯酸特性的强成膜性两歧双歧杆菌,其成膜能力也与表面性质无关。综上,双歧杆菌生物膜成膜特性存在菌种和菌株特异性,并与菌株表面性质相关。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
朱如意
杭锋
张灏
李元昆
赵建新
陈卫
陆文伟
关键词:  双歧杆菌  生物膜  表面性质  疏水性  路易斯酸碱特性    
Abstract: To explore the regularity and characteristics of biofilm formation of Bifidobacterium, the biofilm-forming ability of 114 strains distributing in six species of Bifidobacterium, including B. longum, B. breve, B. animalis, B. bifidum, B. adolescentis, and B. pseudocatenulatum, was analyzed by microplate assay. The results showed that according to the absorbance, Bifidobacterium was divided into three types: non-biofilm formers (OD600 nm≤1), weak biofilm formers (1<OD600 nm<3) and strong biofilm formers (OD600 nm≥ 3). All strains of B. bifidum were strong biofilm formers, while B.longum strains were not strong biofilm formers, 57.90% of which were non-biofilm formers. The biofilm-forming ability of other Bifidobacterium was different, including all three types of strains. It was found that the biofilm structures of B.animalis and B.bifidum were mushroom-shaped and all of other Bifidobacterium were flat using scanning electron microscopy, and the biofilms of B.longum and B.bifidum contained a higher proportion of viable bacteria using confocal laser scanning microscopy. The effect of surface properties of Bifidobacterium on the biofilm formation was performed using the adhesion of bacteria to the solvent. The results showed that the biofilm-forming ability of B. pseudocatenulatum was only related to the Lewis acid properties, B. breve, B. animalis and B. adolescentis were positively correlated with the surface hydrophobicity and Lewis acid properties, but there was no correlation between surface properties and biofilm formation for B. longum. The strains of B. bifidum with strong biofilm-forming ability, which exhibited high hydrophobicity and Lewis acid properties, had no relation between its surface properties to its biofilm-forming ability. In summary, the biofilm-forming characteristics of Bifidobacterium exerted species-specific and strain-specific effects and related to the surface characteristics.
Key words:  Bifidobacterium    biofilm    surface characteristics    hydrophobicity    Lewis acid-base
收稿日期:  2020-02-10                出版日期:  2020-06-15      发布日期:  2020-06-24      期的出版日期:  2020-06-15
基金资助: 国家自然基金面上项目(31871774);江苏省产业研究院国际合作项目资金池项目
作者简介:  硕士研究生(陆文伟副研究员为通讯作者,E-mail:luwenwei@jiangnan.edu.cn)
引用本文:    
朱如意,杭锋,张灏,等. 双歧杆菌生物膜形成规律及其表面性质相关性研究[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(11): 38-45.
ZHU Ruyi,HANG Feng,ZHANG Hao,et al. Biofilm-forming ability of Bifidobacterium and the correlation with cellsurface characteristics[J]. Food and Fermentation Industries, 2020, 46(11): 38-45.
链接本文:  
http://sf1970.cnif.cn/CN/10.13995/j.cnki.11-1802/ts.023570  或          http://sf1970.cnif.cn/CN/Y2020/V46/I11/38
[1] SIVAN A, CORRALES L, HUBERT N, et al. Commensal Bifidobacterium promotes antitumor immunity and facilitates anti-PD-L1 efficacy[J]. Science, 2015, 350(6 264): 1 084-1 089.
[2] CHEN H, TIAN M, CHEN L, et al. Optimization of composite cryoprotectant for freeze-drying Bifidobacterium bifidum BB01 by response surface methodology[J]. Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology, 2019, 47(1): 1 559-1 569.
[3] SHOKRI Z, FAZELI M R, ARDJMAND M, et al. Factors affecting viability of Bifidobacterium bifidum during spray drying[J]. Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy,2015, 23(1): 7.
[4] VERRUCK S, DE CARVALHO M W, DE LIZ G R, et al. Survival of Bifidobacterium BB-12 microencapsulated with full-fat goat’s milk and prebiotics when exposed to simulated gastrointestinal conditions and thermal treatments[J]. Small Ruminant Research, 2017, 153: 48-56.
[5] CHEOW W S, HADINOTO K. Biofilm-like Lactobacillus rhamnosus probiotics encapsulated in alginate and carrageenan microcapsules exhibiting enhanced thermotolerance and freeze-drying resistance[J]. Biomacromolecules, 2013, 14(9): 3 214-3 222.
[6] BUCHER T, KARTVELISHVILY E, KOLODKIN-GAL I. Methodologies for studying B. subtilis biofilms as a model for characterizing small molecule biofilm inhibitors[J]. Journal of Visualized Experiments: JoVE, 2016 (116): e54612.:
[7] 林炳谕. 双歧杆菌的生物膜样化及其应用[D]. 无锡:江南大学,2017.
[8] JAMAL M, AHMAD W, ANDLEEB S, et al. Bacterial biofilm and associated infections[J]. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association: JCMA, 2018, 81(1): 7-11.
[9] TOYOFUKU M, INABA T, KIYOKAWA T, et al. Environmental factors that shape biofilm formation[J]. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry, 2016, 80(1): 7-12.
[10] THEWES N, LOSKILL P, JUNG P, et al. Hydrophobic interaction governs unspecific adhesion of staphylococci: a single cell force spectroscopy study[J]. Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology, 2014, 5(1): 1 501-1 512.
[11] OLENA R, SHOGHIK H, ROHIT R, et al. The surface charge of anti-bacterial coatings alters motility and biofilm architecture[J]. Biomaterials Science, 2013, 1(6): 589-602.
[12] NGUYEN H D N, YANG Y S, YUK H G. Biofilm formation of Salmonella typhimurium on stainless steel and acrylic surfaces as affected by temperature and pH level[J]. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 2014,55(1): 383-388.
[13] OSS C J V, GOOD R J, CHAUDHURY M K. The role of van der Waals forces and hydrogen bonds in “hydrophobic interactions” between biopolymers and low energy surfaces[J]. Journal of Colloid & Interface Science, 1986, 111(2): 378-390.
[14] ABDALLAH M, BENOLIEL C, JAMA C, et al. Thermodynamic prediction of growth temperature dependence in the adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus to stainless steel and polycarbonate[J]. Journal of Food Protection, 2014, 77(7): 1 116-1 126.
[15] KHELISSA S O, JAMA C, ABDALLAH M, et al. Effect of incubation duration, growth temperature, and abiotic surface type on cell surface properties, adhesion and pathogenicity of biofilm-detached Staphylococcus aureus cells[J]. AMB Express, 2017,7(1): 191.
[16] KIELY L J, OLSONl N F, MORTENSEN G. The physicochemical surface characteristics of Brevibacterium linens[J]. Colloids and Surfaces. B: Biointerfaces, 1997, 9(6):297-304.
[17] STEPANOVIC S, VUKOVIC D, DAKIC I, et al. A modified microtiter-plate test for quantification of staphylococcal biofilm formation[J]. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 2000, 40(2): 175-179.
[18] LANDETA G, CURIEL J A, CARRASCOSA A V, et al. Technological and safety properties of lactic acid bacteria isolated from Spanish dry-cured sausages[J]. Meat Science, 2013, 95(2): 272-280.
[19] RODRIGUEZ-MELCON C, RIESCO-PELAEZ F, CARBALLO J, et al. Structure and viability of 24- and 72-h-old biofilms formed by four pathogenic bacteria on polystyrene and glass contact surfaces[J]. Food Microbiology, 2018, 76(5): 513-517.
[20] KOS B, ŠUŠKOVIC′ J, VUKOVIC′ S, et al. Adhesion and aggregation ability of probiotic strain Lactobacillus acidophilus M92[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2003, 94(6): 981-987.
[21] BASSON A, FLEMMING L A, CHENIA H Y. Evaluation of adherence, hydrophobicity, aggregation, and biofilm development of Flavobacterium johnsoniae-like isolates[J]. Microbial Ecology, 2008, 55(1): 1-14.
[22] COLLOCA M E, AHUMADA M C, LÓPEZ M E, et al. Surface properties of Lactobacilli isolated from healthy subjects[J]. Oral Diseases, 2000, 6(4): 227-233.
[23] BUJNAKOVA D, KMET V. Functional properties of Lactobacillus strains isolated from dairy products[J]. Folia Microbiologica, 2012, 57(4): 263-267.
[24] TOLKER-NIELSEN T, MOLIN S. Spatial organization of microbial biofilm communities[J]. Microbial Ecology, 2000, 40(2): 75-84.
[25] SUTHERLAND I W. Biofilm exopolysaccharides: a strong and sticky framework[J]. Microbiology, 2001, 147(1): 3-9.
[26] RZHEPISHEVSKA O, HAKOBYAN S, RUHAL R, et al. The surface charge of anti-bacterial coatings alters motility and biofilm architecture[J]. Biomaterials Science, 2013, 1(6): 589-602.
[27] HASSAN A N, FRANK J F. Attachment of Escherichia coli O157:H7 grown in tryptic soy broth and nutrient broth to apple and lettuce surfaces as related to cell hydrophobicity, surface charge, and capsule production[J]. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 2004, 96(1): 103-109.
[28] AMBALAM P, KONDEPUDI K K, NILSSONil I, et al. Bile enhances cell surface hydrophobicity and biofilm formation of bifidobacterial[J]. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 2014, 172(4): 1 970-1 981.
[29] MAZUMDER S, FALKINHAM III J O, DIETRICH A M, et al. Role of hydrophobicity in bacterial adherence to carbon nanostructures and biofilm formation[J]. Biofouling, 2010, 26(3): 333-339.
[30] SPERANZA G, GOTTARDI G, PEDERZOLLI C, et al. Role of chemical interactions in bacterial adhesion to polymer surfaces[J]. Biomaterials, 2003,25(11): 2 029-2 037.
[31] SAMOT J, LEBRETON J, BADET C. Adherence capacities of oral Lactobacilli for potential probiotic purposes[J]. Anaerobe, 2011, 17(2): 69-72.
[1] 胡丽丽, 董庆利, 夏阳, 张帅帅, 杨静远, 王真, 刘阳泰. 单增李斯特菌生物膜形成及其调控机制研究进展[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2021, 47(8): 276-282.
[2] 姜甜, 陆文伟, 崔树茂, 张灏, 赵建新. 静电喷雾干燥微囊化乳双歧杆菌BL03[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2021, 47(7): 27-33.
[3] 蒋文鑫, 崔树茂, 毛丙永, 唐鑫, 赵建新, 张灏, 陈卫. 短双歧杆菌冻干保护剂的优选及高密度冻干工艺优化[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(9): 31-36.
[4] 覃小丽, 杨溶, 钟金锋, 刘雄. 超声作用下乳蛋白-磷脂复合体系对人乳脂类似物乳液形成与稳定的影响[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(8): 20-26.
[5] 李作美, 许晓云, 刘琦. 双歧杆菌微胶囊的制备及其理化性能[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(6): 155-162.
[6] 冯静静, 杨自名, 吴静, 李伟, Sokhna Mbacke Gningue, 赵礼军, 周文豪, 薛正莲, 王洲, 刘艳. 培养条件及表面活性剂的添加对纳豆芽孢杆菌生物膜形成的影响[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(3): 90-96.
[7] 丁伯乐, 蔡为荣, 闻志莹, 岳丹伟, 朱樱, 李晶晶. 山药低聚糖制备分离及对五种益生菌的增殖作用[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(24): 74-79.
[8] 桑跃, 冯海红, 蒙璐, 刘力, 刘作文, 葛绍阳, 金君华. 充氮包装和储藏温度对益生菌粉储藏稳定性的影响[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(19): 143-147.
[9] 董世荣, 王丽, 高昂, 徐微. 脱酰胺对玉米醇溶蛋白乳化特性和结构的影响[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(17): 67-72.
[10] 赵芳, 赵建新, 张灏, 陈卫, 陆文伟. 长双歧杆菌抗生素初始微生物折点值制定及耐药机制探讨[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(13): 119-126.
[11] 秦苏佳, 徐晚晴, 张秋香, 赵建新, 张灏, 陈卫. 植物乳杆菌CCFM8724对致龋双菌生物膜的抑制作用[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2020, 46(13): 127-132.
[12] 查飞, 王洲, 薛正莲, 蒋雪彪, 纪国辉. 副溶血性弧菌生物膜形成及表面活性剂的影响[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2019, 45(9): 49-54.
[13] 姚沛琳, 王剑, 张新剑, 黄悦. 对大肠杆菌生物膜具有高抑制能力的乳酸菌的筛选[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2019, 45(6): 59-64.
[14] 谢莹, 蔡国林, 刘逸凡, 陆健. 双歧杆菌BB12胞外多糖发酵条件优化及抗氧化活性研究[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2019, 45(23): 55-59.
[15] 司倩, 焦婷, 杨树荣, 孙珊珊, 王刚, 赵建新, 张灏, 陈卫. 两歧双歧杆菌缓解Ⅱ型糖尿病的效果差异及机制分析[J]. 食品与发酵工业, 2019, 45(22): 12-19.
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《食品与发酵工业》编辑部
地址:北京朝阳区酒仙桥中路24号院6号楼111室
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn