Volume 15, Issue 5 (Sep-Oct 2021)
mljgoums 2021, 15(5): 19-26 |
Back to browse issues page
1- Department of Biology, Faculty of Basic science, rmia University, Urmia, Iran
2- Department of Biology, Faculty of Basic Science, University of Maragheh, Maragheh, East Azerbaijan Province, IR Iran ,Barzegaridoctora@gmail.com
3- Department of Biology, Faculty of Basic science, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
2- Department of Biology, Faculty of Basic Science, University of Maragheh, Maragheh, East Azerbaijan Province, IR Iran ,
3- Department of Biology, Faculty of Basic science, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
Abstract: (2396 Views)
Background and objectives: Safety is a key criterion for assessment of probiotics. The objective of this study was to evaluate safety of a new Iranian Lactobacillus paracasei IBRC-M 11110 strain as a candidate probiotic.
Methods: Eighteen male and 18 female Wistar rats were divided into two experimental and a control group. The experimental groups received the bacterium at two doses of 6 × 108 CFU/day and 6× 109 CFU/day for 28 days through oral gavage. The control groups received normal saline. On day 29, blood, serum and tissue samples were taken for analysis.
Results: Administration of the bacterium did not affect the general health and body weight of the rats during the study period. No significant change was observed in the blood parameters of rats in the experimental groups except for a significant decrease in mean corpuscular volume and mean corpuscular hemoglobin of male rats. Serum analysis showed a significant increase in the alanine transaminase and a significant decrease in aspartate transaminase in the experimental groups of male and female rats, respectively. In both male and female rats, a significant decrease in urea and a significant increase in creatinine were observed in the experimental groups. However, the above parameters were all within the normal range. Histopathological analysis of liver and kidney tissues also showed no abnormality.
Conclusion: The results confirm that L. paracasei IBRC-M 11110 was safe in the subacute toxicity test in Wistar rats.
Methods: Eighteen male and 18 female Wistar rats were divided into two experimental and a control group. The experimental groups received the bacterium at two doses of 6 × 108 CFU/day and 6× 109 CFU/day for 28 days through oral gavage. The control groups received normal saline. On day 29, blood, serum and tissue samples were taken for analysis.
Results: Administration of the bacterium did not affect the general health and body weight of the rats during the study period. No significant change was observed in the blood parameters of rats in the experimental groups except for a significant decrease in mean corpuscular volume and mean corpuscular hemoglobin of male rats. Serum analysis showed a significant increase in the alanine transaminase and a significant decrease in aspartate transaminase in the experimental groups of male and female rats, respectively. In both male and female rats, a significant decrease in urea and a significant increase in creatinine were observed in the experimental groups. However, the above parameters were all within the normal range. Histopathological analysis of liver and kidney tissues also showed no abnormality.
Conclusion: The results confirm that L. paracasei IBRC-M 11110 was safe in the subacute toxicity test in Wistar rats.
Research Article: Original Paper |
Subject:
Microbiology
Received: 2021/01/19 | Accepted: 2021/05/5 | Published: 2021/08/31 | ePublished: 2021/08/31
Received: 2021/01/19 | Accepted: 2021/05/5 | Published: 2021/08/31 | ePublished: 2021/08/31
References
1. Sanders ME, Akkermans LM, Haller D, Hammerman C, Heimbach J, Hörmannsperger G, et al. Safety assessment of probiotics for human use. Gut Microbes. 2010 ;1(3):164-85. [DOI:10.4161/gmic.1.3.12127] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Son HK, Chang HC, Lee JJ. Acute and Subacute Oral Toxicity Evaluation of Crude Antifungal Compounds Produced by Lactobacillus plantarum HD1 in Rats. Prev Nutr Food Sci. 2015 ;20(3):190-7. [DOI:10.3746/pnf.2015.20.3.190] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Tsai CC, Chen MH, Liu TH, Chau CG, Chang LT, Tsai CC, et al. Evaluation of the toxicity of Lactobacillus acidophilus LAP5 in a 28‐Day feeding study in Wistar rats. Journal of food safety. 2004;24(4):268-80. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1111/j.1745-4565.2004.00542.x] [Google Scholar]
4. Dodoo CC, Wang J, Basit AW, Stapleton P, Gaisford S. Targeted delivery of probiotics to enhance gastrointestinal stability and intestinal colonisation. Int J Pharm. 2017 15;530(1-2):224-229. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.07.068] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Honeycutt TC, El Khashab M, Wardrop RM 3rd, McNeal-Trice K, Honeycutt AL, Christy CG,et al. Probiotic administration and the incidence of nosocomial infection in pediatric intensive care: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2007 ;8(5):452-8; 464. [DOI:10.1097/01.PCC.0000282176.41134.E6] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Barzegari AA, Hashemzaei M, Alihemmati A-R, Soltani S, Naseri B. Effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus (ATCC 7469) ointment on second-degree burn wound in Wistar rat. Journal of Basic Research in Medical Sciences. 2018;5(1):1-9. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.29252/jbrms.5.1.1] [Google Scholar]
7. Barzegari AA, Hashemzaei M, Majdani R, Alihemmati A-R. Effects of topical treatment of second-degree burn wounds with Lactobacillus acidophilus on the wound healing process in male rats. Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Research. 2017;3(3):23-30. [DOI:10.29252/pbr.3.3.23] [Google Scholar]
8. Vitellio P, Celano G, Bonfrate L, Gobbetti M, Portincasa P, De Angelis M. Effects of Bifidobacterium longum and Lactobacillus rhamnosus on Gut Microbiota in Patients with Lactose Intolerance and Persisting Functional Gastrointestinal Symptoms: A Randomised, Double-Blind, Cross-Over Study. Nutrients. 2019 19;11(4):886. [DOI:10.3390/nu11040886] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Zagato E, Mileti E, Massimiliano L, Fasano F, Budelli A, Penna G, et al. Lactobacillus paracasei CBA L74 metabolic products and fermented milk for infant formula have anti-inflammatory activity on dendritic cells in vitro and protective effects against colitis and an enteric pathogen in vivo. PLoS One. 2014 10;9(2):e87615. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0087615] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Choi SS, Kim Y, Han KS, You S, Oh S, Kim SH. Effects of Lactobacillus strains on cancer cell proliferation and oxidative stress in vitro. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2006 ;42(5):452-8. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1111/j.1472-765X.2006.01913.x] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Gamallat Y, Meyiah A, Kuugbee ED, Hago AM, Chiwala G, Awadasseid A, et al. Lactobacillus rhamnosus induced epithelial cell apoptosis, ameliorates inflammation and prevents colon cancer development in an animal model. Biomed Pharmacother. 2016 ;83:536-541. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1016/j.biopha.2016.07.001] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Abatenh E, Gizaw B, Tsegay Z. Health benefits of probiotics. J Bacteriol Infec Dis 2018; 2 (1): 8. 2018;27. [Google Scholar]
13. Indian Council of Medical Research Task Force; Co-ordinating Unit ICMR; Co-ordinating Unit DBT. ICMR-DBT guidelines for evaluation of probiotics in food. Indian J Med Res. 2011 ;134(1):22-5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Ramiah K, Ten Doeschate K, Smith R, Dicks LM. Safety Assessment of Lactobacillus plantarum 423 and Enterococcus mundtii ST4SA Determined in Trials with Wistar Rats. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins. 2009 ;1(1):15-23. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1007/s12602-009-9010-2] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Salminen MK, Tynkkynen S, Rautelin H, Saxelin M, Vaara M, Ruutu P, et al. Lactobacillus bacteremia during a rapid increase in probiotic use of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in Finland. Clin Infect Dis. 2002 15;35(10):1155-60. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1086/342912] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Mackay AD, Taylor MB, Kibbler CC, Hamilton-Miller JM. Lactobacillus endocarditis caused by a probiotic organism. Clin Microbiol Infect. 1999 ;5(5):290-292. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1111/j.1469-0691.1999.tb00144.x] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Husni RN, Gordon SM, Washington JA, Longworth DL. Lactobacillus bacteremia and endocarditis: review of 45 cases. Clin Infect Dis. 1997 ;25(5):1048-55. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1086/516109] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Naqvi SSB, Nagendra V, Hofmeyr A. Probiotic related Lactobacillus rhamnosus endocarditis in a patient with liver cirrhosis. IDCases. 2018 18.13 [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1016/j.idcr.2018.e00439] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. YATZIDIS H. Measurement of transaminases in serum. Nature. 1960 2;186:79-80. [DOI:10.1038/186079a0] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Stevenson R, Woods Jr WA. Condition indices for conservation: new uses for evolving tools. Integrative and comparative biology. 2006;46(6):1169-90. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1093/icb/icl052] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Petterino C, Argentino-Storino A. Clinical chemistry and haematology historical data in control Sprague-Dawley rats from pre-clinical toxicity studies. Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology. 2006;57(3):213-9. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1016/j.etp.2005.10.002] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. PARK J-H, Lee Y, Moon E, SEOK S-H, BAEK M-W, LEE H-Y, et al. Safety assessment of Lactobacillus fermentum PL9005, a potential probiotic lactic acid bacterium, in mice. Journal of microbiology and biotechnology. 2005;15(3):603-8. [Google Scholar]
23. Haghayegh Zavareh BS, Madani M, Ghandehari F. The Effect of the Lactobacillus casei on Hematological Parameters in Rat Infected with Candida albicans. Qom Univ Med Sci J. 2019;13(6):38-46. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.29252/qums.13.6.38] [Google Scholar]
24. Panigrahi A, Kiron V, Puangkaew J, Kobayashi T, Satoh S, Sugita H. The viability of probiotic bacteria as a factor influencing the immune response in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture. 2005;243(1-4):241-54. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.09.032] [Google Scholar]
25. Subbarao V, Gupta M. Changes in serum transaminases due to hepatotoxicity and the role of an indigenous hepatotonic Liv. 52. Probe. 1978;17(2):175-8. [Google Scholar]
26. Giannini EG, Testa R, Savarino V. Liver enzyme alteration: a guide for clinicians. Cmaj. 2005;172(3):367-79. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1503/cmaj.1040752] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Adawi D, Ahrné S, Molin G. Effects of different probiotic strains of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium on bacterial translocation and liver injury in an acute liver injury model. International journal of food microbiology. 2001;70(3):213-20. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00550-5] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Seyedi B, Heidary R, Tukmechi A. Dietary effect of L. casei and L. paracasei as probiotic bacteria with Raftilose as peribiotic on the growth and liver enzymes in rat. Razi Journal of Medical Sciences. 2013;20(107):1-9. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
29. Corbett JV. Laboratory tests and diagnostic procedures: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Health; 2000. [View at Publisher]
30. Sharma P, Tomar SK, Goswami P, Sangwan V, Singh R. Antibiotic resistance among commercially available probiotics. Food Research International. 2014;57:176-95. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1016/j.foodres.2014.01.025] [Google Scholar]
31. Ranganathan N, Ranganathan P, Friedman EA, Joseph A, Delano B, Goldfarb DS, et al. Pilot study of probiotic dietary supplementation for promoting healthy kidney function in patients with chronic kidney disease. Advances in therapy. 2010;27(9):634-47. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1007/s12325-010-0059-9] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |