Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T01:46:16.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of intramammary inoculation of Lactobacillus perolens CRL1724 in lactating cows’ udders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2011

Ignacio D Frola ,
Matías S Pellegrino ,
María C Espeche ,
José A Giraudo ,
María EF Nader-Macias  and
Cristina I Bogni
Ignacio D Frola
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Cs. Ex. Fco-Qcas y Naturales, University of Río Cuarto, Ruta 36 Km 601, X5804ZAB Río Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina
Matías S Pellegrino
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Cs. Ex. Fco-Qcas y Naturales, University of Río Cuarto, Ruta 36 Km 601, X5804ZAB Río Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina
María C Espeche
Affiliation:
CERELA-CONICET (Centro de Referencia para Lactobacilos-Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientifícas y Técnicas de Argentina), Departament of Preventive Microbiology, Chacabuco 145, 4000 San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina
José A Giraudo
Affiliation:
Departament of Animal Pathology, Faculty of Agronomy and Veterinary, University of Río Cuarto, Ruta 36 Km 601, X5804ZAB Río Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina
María EF Nader-Macias
Affiliation:
CERELA-CONICET (Centro de Referencia para Lactobacilos-Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientifícas y Técnicas de Argentina), Departament of Preventive Microbiology, Chacabuco 145, 4000 San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina
Cristina I Bogni*
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Cs. Ex. Fco-Qcas y Naturales, University of Río Cuarto, Ruta 36 Km 601, X5804ZAB Río Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: cbogni@exa.unrc.edu.ar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bovine mastitis is the most important infectious disease on dairy farms. Conventional antibiotic therapy is often unsatisfactory and alternative treatments are continually under investigation. Lactobacillus (Lb.) perolens CRL 1724 and Lactobacillus plantarum CRL 1716 were previously isolated from milk of dairy cows and selected according to their potential probiotic properties. In the present work the in-vitro capacity of Lactobacillus strains to adhere to bovine teat canal epithelial cells (BTCEC) and to inhibit and co-aggregate 14 mastitis-causing pathogens (MCPs) was investigated. The effect of Lb. perolens CRL 1724 after intramammary inoculation in lactating cows was evaluated through determination of clinical signs of mastitis, milk appearance, somatic cell counts and Lb. perolens CRL 1724 recovery from milk. Lb. perolens CRL 1724 was able to inhibit 12 of 14 MCPs (85·7%) in vitro, especially those considered to be major pathogens. In addition, Lb. perolens CRL 1724 co-aggregated with all of them. Lb. plantarum CRL 1716 was able to inhibit 7 of 14 MCPs (50%) in vitro and showed co-aggregation ability similar to Lb. perolens CRL 1724. Lb. perolens CRL 1724 showed a higher efficacy of adhesion to BTCEC (values of percentage of adhesion and adhesion index of 75% and 14·4, respectively) than Lb. plantarum CRL 1716 (37% and 7·4, respectively). Lb. perolens CRL 1724 was recovered from all mammary quarters and no clinical signs or teat damage were observed after the inoculation of 106 cfu/ml. The udders presented a normal aspect and there were no changes in the appearance of the milk. The results obtained will serve as the basis for further trials to evaluate the potential of Lb. perolens CRL 1724 to be included in a non-antibiotic formulation for the prevention of bovine mastitis.

Keywords

Bovine mastitisprobioticLactobacillus perolensLactobacillus plantarummilk
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 84 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acuña, CN, Chertcoff, RE, Martínez, MB & Nimo, JM 2001 Udder pathogens prevalence in dairy cows from Argentina. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the National Mastitis Council, Reno, Nevada, pp. 177–178Google Scholar
Beecher, C, Daly, M, Berry, DP, Klostermann, K, Flynn, J & Meaney, W 2009 Administration of a live culture of Lactococcus lactis DPC 3147 into the bovine mammary gland stimulates the local host immune response, particularly IL-1 and IL-8 gene expression. Journal of Dairy Research 76 340–348CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergey, DH & Holt, JG 1994 Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology. Baltimore MD, USA: Lippincott Williams & WilkinsGoogle Scholar
Brooks, BW & Barnum, DA 1984 The susceptibility of bovine udder quarters colonized with Corynebacterium bovis to experimental infection with Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus agalactiae. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine 48 146–150Google ScholarPubMed
Burvenich, C, Paape, MJ, Hill, AW, Guidry, AJ, Miller, RH, Heyneman, R, Kremer, WDJ & Brand, A 1994 Role of the neutrophil leukocyte in the local and systemic reactions during experimentally induced Escherichia coli mastitis in cows immediately after calving. Veterinary Quarterly 16 45–49CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calvinho, LF, Delgado, AR, Vitulich, CA, Occhi, HL, Canavesio, VR, Zurbriggen, MA & Tarabla, HD 1991 [Susceptibility in vitro to antibiotics of microorganisms isolated from clinical mastitis in dairy farms of the dairy area in Santa Fe]. Veterinaria Argentina 8 677–680Google Scholar
Calvinho, LF & Tirante, L 2005 [Prevalence of pathogens of bovine mastitis and evolution of the state of health of the mammary gland in Argentina during the last 25 years]. Rev. FAVE, Sección Ciencias Veterinarias. Sitio Argentino de Producción Animal, pp. 1–8. http://www.produccion-animal.com.ar (accessed 20 April 2009)Google Scholar
Chaimanee, V, Sakulsingharoj, C, Deejing, S, Seetakoses, P & Niamsup, P 2009 Screening and characterisation of bacteriocin-producing bacteria capable of inhibiting the growth of bovine mastitis. Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology 3 43–52Google Scholar
Crispie, F, Alonso-Gómez, M, O'Loughlin, C, Klostermann, K, Flynn, J, Arkins, S, Meaney, W, Ross, RP & Hill, C 2008 Intramammary infusion of a live culture for treatment of bovine mastitis: effect of live lactococci on the mammary immune response. Journal of Dairy Research 75 374–384CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Espeche, MC, Otero, MC, Sesma, F & Nader-Macias, MEF 2009 Screening of surface properties and antagonistic substances production by lactic acid bacterial isolated from the mammary gland of healthy and mastitis cows. Veterinary Microbiology 135 346–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO, WHO 2008 Health and nutritional properties of probiotics in food, including powder milk with live lactic acid bacteria. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/fs_management/en/probiotics.pdf. (Accessed 22 November 2009)Google Scholar
Fetrow, J 2000 Mastitis: An economic consideration. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the National Mastitis Council, Atlanta, Georgia. National Mastitis Council, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 3–47Google Scholar
Frece, J, Kos, B, Svetec, IK, Zgaga, Z, Mrsa, V & Suskovic, J 2005 Importance of S-layer proteins in probiotic activity of Lactobacillus acidophilus M92. Journal of Applied Microbiology 98 285–292CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuller, R 1975 Nature of the determinant responsible for the adhesion of lactobacilli to chicken crop epithelial cells. Journal of General Microbiology 87 245–250CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, WA, Gano, AM, Smith, KL, Hogan, JS & Todhunter, DA 1991 Comparison of probiotic and antibiotic intramammary therapy of cattle with elevated somatic cell counts. Journal of Dairy Science 74 2976–2981CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Havenaar, R, Brink, BT & Huisin´t veld, JHJ 1992 Selection of strains for probiotics use. In: Probiotics: The Scientific Basis (Ed. Fuller, R) pp. 209–223. London, UK: Chapman and HallCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksson, A, Szewzyk, R & Conway, PL 1991 Characteristics of the adhesive determinants of Lactobacillus fermentum 104. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 57 499–502CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hütt, P, Shchepetova, J, Lõivukene, K & Mikelsaar, M 2006 Antagonistic activity of probiotic lactobacilli and bifidobacteria against entero- and uropathogens. Journal of Applied Microbiology 100 1324–1332CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
INFOSTAT 2004 InfoStat, versión 2004 Manual del Usuario. Grupo InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Primera Edición, Editorial Brujas ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
International Dairy Federation Laboratory 1995 Milk and milk products: detection of Salmonella. IDF Standard 93B:1005. Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals 1985 http://www.cioms.ch/publications/guidelines/1985_texts_of_guidelines.htm. (Accessed 2 September 2011)Google Scholar
Kotarsky, SF & Savage, DC 1979 Models for study of the specificity by which indigenous lactobacilli adhere to murine gastric epithelia. Infection and Immunity 26 966–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, S, Parker, KI, Heuer, C & Compton, CWR 2009 A review of prevention and control of heifer mastitis via non-antibiotic strategies. Veterinary Microbiology 154 177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meaney, WJ, Twomey, DP, Flynn, J, Hill, C & Ross, RP 2001 The use of a bismuth-based teat seal and the bacteriocin lacticin 3147 to prevent dry period mastitis in dairy cows. In: Proceedings of the British Mastitis Conference, Garstang, UK, pp. 24–32Google Scholar
Nader-Macias, MEF, Otero, MC, Espeche, MC & Maldonado, NC 2008 Advances in the design of probiotic products for the prevention of major diseases in dairy cattle. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 35 1387–1395CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Mastitis Council 2004 Microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of bovine udder infection and determination of milk quality, Fourth Edition. Arlington VA, USA, pp. 1–47Google Scholar
Otero, MC & Nader-Macías, ME 2007 Lactobacillus adhesion to epithelial cells from bovine vagina. In: Communicating Current Research and Educational Topics and Trends in Applied Microbiology. (Ed. Méndez-Vilas, A) pp. 749–757. Badajoz, Spain: FormatexGoogle Scholar
Pascual, LM, Daniele, MB, Ruiz, F, Giordano, W, Pájaro, C & Barberis, L 2008 Lactobacillus rhamnosus L60, a potential probiotic isolated from the human vagina. Journal of General and Applied Microbiology 54 141–148CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellegrino, M, Giraudo, J, Raspanti, C, Odierno, L & Bogni, C 2010 Efficacy of immunization against bovine mastitis using a Staphylococcus aureus avirulent mutant vaccine. Vaccine 28 4523–4528CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reid, G & McGroarty, JA 1988 Lactobacillus inhibitor production against Escherichia coli and coaggregation ability with uropathogens. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 34 344–351CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reid, G, McGroarty, JA, Gil Domingue, PA, Chow, AW, Bruce, AW, Eisen, A & Costerton, JW 1990 Coaggregation of urogenital bacteria in vitro and in vivo. Current Microbiology 20 47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, G, Sander, ME, Rex, G, Gibson, G, Mercenier, A, Rastall, R, Roberfroid, M, Rowland, L, Cherbut, C & Klaenhammer, T 2003 New scientific paradigms for probiotics and prebiotics. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 37 105–118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, MP, Flynn, J, Hill, C, Ross, RP & Meaney, WJ 1999 The natural food grade inhibitor lacticin 3147 can prevent mastitis in non-lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82 2625–2631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soleimani, NA, Kermanshahi, RK, Yakhchali, B & Sattari, TN 2010 Antagonistic activity of probiotic lactobacilli against Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis. African Journal of Microbiology Research 4 2169–2173Google Scholar
Sordillo, LM 2005 Factors affecting mammary gland immunity and mastitis susceptibility. Livestock Production Science 98 89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wadström, T, Andersson, K, Sydow, M, Axelsson, L, Lindgren, S & Gullmar, B 1987 Surface properties of lactobacilli isolated from the small intestine of pigs. Journal of Applied Microbiology 62 513–520Google ScholarPubMed
Walsh, MC, Gardiner, GE, Hart, OM, Lawlor, PG, Daly, M & Lynch, B 2008 Predominance of a bacteriocin-producing Lactobacillus salivarius component of a five-strain probiotic in the porcine ileum and effects on host immune phenotype. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 64 317–327CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed