通过体外生物膜模型研究乳酸菌抑制变异链球菌生物膜形成能力与其本身性能的关系。首先选取抑菌效果有差异的16株乳酸菌,通过激光共聚焦显微镜观察它们对变异链球菌生物膜形成的抑制情况,结果表明,乳酸菌抑制变异链球菌生物膜形成的效果差异较大,但是与乳酸菌的抑菌性之间并没有相关性。为进一步探究抑制效果与菌体性质之间的相关性,选取抑制变异链球菌生物膜形成效果有差异的10株乳酸菌,测定它们的自聚能力、自身生物膜形成能力、与浮游的变异链球菌的共聚能力、表面疏水性和表面酸碱电荷。结果表明,乳酸菌自身生物膜形成能力与抑制效果间呈明显的负相关,而自聚能力和共聚能力与抑制效果的关系受自身生物膜形成能力的影响,表面疏水性与抑制效果无规律性,表面较高的酸电荷和较低的碱电荷有助于发挥抑制作用。
The purpose of this study was to research the correlation between lactic acid bacteria (LAB) inhibiting S. mutans biofilm and LAB strains properties by means of in vitro biofilm model.16 LAB were selected based on the differentiation of bacteriostasis test, which researched their inhibitory effect on S. mutans biofilm by laser scanning confocal microscope. The results showed that some LAB strains could play inhibitory effects, but others played stimulative effects. However, it had no correlation between LAB antibacterial activity and inhibiting S. mutans biofilm. In order to furthermore explore the correlation between LAB strainproperties and inhibiting S. mutans biofilm, 10 LAB strains were selected to study based on there different results of inhibiting S. mutans biofilm, namely including auto-aggregation ability, biofilm formation ability, co-aggregation ability with pelagic S. mutans, surface hydrophobicity and surface acid-base charge. It showed a significantly negative correlation between LAB biofilm formation ability and inhibiting S. mutans biofilm. Auto-aggregation ability and co-aggregation ability were influenced by LAB biofilm formation ability. It had no correlation between LAB surface hydrophobicity and inhibiting S. mutans biofilm. The higher acid charge and lower alkali charge helped to improve the inhibitory effect.
[1] ISLAM B,KHAN S N,KHAN A U. Dental caries: from infection to prevention[J]. Medical Science Monitor,2007,13(11):196-203.
[2] SIMMONDS R S,TOMPKINS G R,GEORGE R J. Dental caries and the microbial ecology of dental plaque: a review of recent advances[J]. The New Zealand Dental Journal,2000,96(424): 44-19.
[3] READY D,ROBERTS A P,PRATTEN J,et al. Composition and antibiotic resistance profile of microcosm dental plaques before and after exposure to tetracycline[J]. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy,2002,49(5):769-775.
[4] 董维理,刘欢,李成章. 刷牙及精油漱口液作用牙菌斑生物膜的体外观察[J]. 口腔医学研究,2009,25(3):288-291.
[5] CHEN F,WANG D. Novel technologies for the prevention and treatment of dental caries: a patent survey[J]. Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents,2010,20(5):681-694.
[6] CAGLAR E,KARGUL B,TANBOGA I. Bacteriotherapy and probiotics' role on oral health[J]. Oral Diseases,2005,11(3):131-137.
[7] NASE L,HATAKKA K,SAVILAHTI E,et al. Effect of long-term consumption of a probiotic bacterium, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, in milk on dental caries and caries risk in children[J]. Caries Research,2001,35(6):412-420.
[8] AHOLA A J,YLI-KKNUUTTILA H,SUOMALAINET T,et al. Short-term consumption of probiotic-containing cheese and its effect on dental caries risk factors[J]. Archives of Oral Biology,2002,47(11):799-804.
[9] TANZER J M,THOMPSON A,LANG C,et al.Caries inhibition by and safety of Lactobacillus paracasei DSMZ16671[J]. Journal of Dental Research,2010,89(9): 921-926.
[10] KANG M S,CHUNG J,KIM S M,et al. Effect of weisselia cibaria isolates on the formation of Streptococcus mutans biofilm[J]. Caries Research,2006,40(5): 418-425.
[11] TAHMOURESPOUR A,SALEHI R,KERMANSHAHI R K,et al.The anti-biofouling effect of Lactobacillus fermentum-derived biosurfactant against Streptococcus mutans[J]. Biofouling,2011,27(4): 385-392.
[12] 刘冬梅,李理,杨晓泉,等. 用牛津杯法测定益生菌的抑菌活力[J]. 食品研究与开发,2006,27(3): 110-111.
[13] KHAN R,ZAKIR M,KHANAM Z,et al. Novel compound from Trachyspermum ammi (Ajowan caraway) seeds with antibiofilm and antiadherence activities against Streptococcus mutans: a potential chemotherapeutic agent against dental caries[J]. Journal of Applied Microbiology,2010,109(6): 2 151-2 159.
[14] WOOD S R,KIRKHAM J,MARSH P D,et al. Architecture of intact natural human plaque biofilms studied by confocal laser scanning microscopy[J]. Journal of Dental Research,2000,79(1): 21-27.
[15] KOS B,SUSKOVIC 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.
[16] 陈晓华.拮抗幽门螺杆菌益生菌的筛选及其干预机制的研究[D].无锡:江南大学,2011.
[17] SAMOT J,LEBRETON J,BADET C. Adherence capacities of oral lactobacilli for potential probiotic purposes[J]. Anaerobe,2011,17(2): 69-72.
[18] 杨颖,陈卫,田丰伟,等. 产抑菌物质乳杆菌的筛选及性质的研究[J]. 工业微生物,2006,36(3): 13-17.
[19] COLLADO M C,MERILUOTO J,SALMINEN S. Adhesion and aggregation properties of probiotic and pathogen strains[J]. European Food Research and Technology,2008,226(5): 1 065-1 073.
[20] LANG C,BOTTNER M,HOLZ C,et al.Specific Lactobacillus/Mutans Streptococcus co-aggregation[J]. Journal of Dental Research,2010,89(2): 175-179.
[21] 杨颖,陈卫,张灏,等.植物乳杆菌HO-69的口腔益生性质研究[J].华西口腔医学杂志,2008,26(5): 482-488.
[22] YLI-KNUUTTILA H,SNALL J,KARI K,et al. Colonization of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in the oral cavity[J]. Oral Microbiology and Immunology,2006,21(2): 129-131.
[23] BUSSCHER H J,COWAN M M,VAN DER MEI H C. On the relative importance of specific and non-specific approaches to oral microbial adhesion[J]. FEMS Microbiology Reviews,1992,8(3/4): 199-209.
[24] 杨娟.口腔益生乳酸杆菌的筛选及特性研究[D].无锡:江南大学,2013.
