Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T01:45:29.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Histological examination of non-lactating bovine udders inoculated with Lactobacillus perolens CRL 1724

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2012

Ignacio D Frola ,
Matías S Pellegrino ,
Gabriel Magnano ,
José A Giraudo ,
María C Espeche ,
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 8 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 8 Km 601, X5804ZAB Río Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina
Gabriel Magnano
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Pathology, Faculty of Agronomy and Veterinary, University of Río Cuarto, Ruta 8 Km 601, X5804ZAB Río Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina
José A Giraudo
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Pathology, Faculty of Agronomy and Veterinary, University of Río Cuarto, Ruta 8 Km 601, X5804ZAB Río Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina
María C Espeche
Affiliation:
Departament of Preventive Microbiology, CERELA-CONICET (Centro de Referencia para Lactobacilos-Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientifícas y Técnicas de Argentina), Chacabuco 145, 4000 San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina
María EF Nader-Macias
Affiliation:
Departament of Preventive Microbiology, CERELA-CONICET (Centro de Referencia para Lactobacilos-Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientifícas y Técnicas de Argentina), 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 8 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

The effect of intramammary inoculation of Lactobacillus perolens CRL 1724 on bovine udders at drying off was evaluated through histological examination of the canal and cistern tissues. The persistence of the strain in the udder 7 d post inoculation was also determined. Lb. perolens CRL 1724 was recovered from all mammary quarters and no clinical signs or teat damage were observed after inoculation of 106 cfu/ml. The udders showed a normal structural aspect and there were no modifications of the milk appearance. Lb. perolens CRL 1724 cells were evidenced on the surface of the epithelial cells of the cistern without causing any morphological modifications or cell alterations. Lb. perolens CRL 1724 produces a mild inflammatory reaction, characterized by recruitment of neutrophils to the epithelial zone and a slight hyperaemia into blood vessels. This preliminary study provides important information for further studies directed towards the inclusion of Lb. perolens CRL 1724 in the design of probiotic products for preventing bovine mastitis in non-lactating dairy cows.

Keywords

Bovine mastitisLactobacillus perolens CRL 1724adherencenon-lactating dairy cows
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 28 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2012

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

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
Bernet, MF, Brassart, D, Neeser, JR & Servin, AL 1994 Lactobacillus acidophilus LA1 binds to cultured human intestinal cell lines and inhibits cell attachment and cell invasion by enterovirulent bacteria. Gut 35 483–489Google Scholar
Both, E, Gyorgy, E, Kibédi-Szabó, CZ, Tamás, E, Ábrahám, B, Miklóssy, I & Lányi, S 2010 Acid and bile tolerance, adhesion to epithelial cells of probiotic microorganisms. U.P.B. Science Bulletin Series B 72 37–44Google Scholar
Browning, JW, Mein, GA, Barton, M, Nicholls, TJ & Brightling, P 1990 Effects of antibiotic therapy at drying off on mastitis in the dry period and in early lactation. Australian Veterinary Journal 67 440–442CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, LT, Wu, JQ, Xie, F, Hu, SH & Mo, Y 2007 Efficacy of nisin in treatment of clinical mastitis in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90 3980–3985Google Scholar
Chan, RCY, Reid, G, Irvin, RT, Bruce, AW & Costerton, JW 1985 Competitive exclusion of uropathogens from human uroepithelial cells by Lactobacillus whole cells and cell wall fragments. Infection and Immunity 47 84–89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coconnier, MH, Lievin, V, Lorrot, M & Servin, AL 2000 Antagonistic activity of Lactobacillus acidophilus LB against intracellular Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infecting human enterocyte-like Caco-2/TC-7 cells. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66 1152–1157Google Scholar
Crispie, F, Flynn, J, Ross, RP, Hill, C & Meaney, WJ 2004a Update on the development of a novel dry cow therapy using a bismuth-based intramammary teat seal in combination with the bacteriocin lacticin 3147. Irish Veterinary Journal 57 652–656CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crispie, F, Flynn, J, Ross, PR, Hill, C & Meaney, WJ 2004b Dry cow therapy with a non-antibiotic intramammary teat seal – a review. Irish Veterinary Journal 57 412–418CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crispie, F, Twomey, D, Flynn, J, Hill, C, Ross, P & Meaney, W 2005 The lantibiotic lacticin 3147 produced in a milk-based medium improves the efficacy of a bismuth-based teat seal in cattle deliberately infected with Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Dairy Research 72 159–167Google Scholar
Crispie, F, Alonso-Gómez, M, Collette, O'Loughlin, 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 75 374–384Google Scholar
Dallard, BE, Ortega, HH, Iguzquiza, IA, Salvetti, NR, Quaino, OA & Calvinho, LF 2010 The effect of a single intramammary infusion of a biological response modifier in cows at drying off. Veterinary Research Communications 34 519–532CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalton, JC 2006 Antibiotic residue prevention in milk and dairy beef. Western Dairy News 6 79Google Scholar
David, MZ & Daum, RS 2010 Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Epidemiology and clinical consequences of an emerging epidemic. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 23 616–687Google Scholar
Derong, SYZ & Zhao, HY 2010 Prevalence of bacterial infection responsible for bovine mastitis. African Journal of Microbiology Research 4 1110–1116Google Scholar
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 2002 Guidelines for the Evaluation of Probiotics in Food. Geneva, Switzerland: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization Working GroupGoogle Scholar
Fetrow, J 2000 Mastitis: an economic consideration. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the National Mastitis Council, Atlanta: Ga. National Mastitis Council. pp. 3–47. Madison, WisconsinGoogle 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 Microbiolgy 98 285–292CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frola, ID, Pellegrino, MS, Espeche, MC, Giraudo, JA, Nader-Macias, MEF & Bogni, CI 2011 Effects of intramammary inoculation of Lactobacillus perolens CRL1724 in lactating cows udders. Journal of Dairy Research 78 1–9Google Scholar
Giraudo, JA, Calzolari, A, Rampone, H, Rampone, A, Giraudo, AT & Bogni, C 1997 Field trials of a vaccine against bovine mastitis. 1. Evaluation in heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 80 845–853Google Scholar
González-Gracia, R 2011 La OMS y la FAO quieren mayor vigilancia de los antibióticos para el ganado. Un problema de seguridad alimentaria mundial. http://albeitar.portalveterinaria.com/noticia/10289/ACTUALIDAD/oms-fao-quieren-mayor-vigilancia-antibi%C3%B3ticos-ganado.html (Accessed 9 December 2011)Google Scholar
Greene, WA, Gano, AM, Smith, KL, Hogan, JS & Todhunter, A 1991 Comparison of probiotic and antibiotic intramammary therapy of cattle with elevated somatic cell counts. Journal of Dairy Science 74 2976–2981Google Scholar
Grignaschi, V, Diaz, N, Alonso, M, Lardo, M & Licero, G 1983 Citomorfología y Citoquímica Hemáticas. Edit. Britania. ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
Henriksson, A, Szewzyk, R & Conway, PL 1991 Characteristics of the adhesive determinants of Lactobacillus fermentum 104. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 57 499–502Google Scholar
Hudault, S, Lievin, V, Bernet-Camard, MF & Servin, AL 1997 Antagonistic activity exerted in vitro and in vivo by Lactobacillus casei (strain GG) against Salmonella typhimurium C5 infection. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63 513–518Google 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
International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) 2009 Probiotics: a consumer guide for making smart choices. http://www.isapp.net/docs/Consumer_Guidelines-probiotic.pdf. (Accessed 8 June 2009)Google Scholar
Klostermann, K, Crispie, F, Flynn, J, Ross, RP, Hill, C & Meaney, W 2008 Intramammary infusion of a live culture of Lactococcus lactis for treatment of bovine mastitis: comparison with antibiotic treatment in field trials. Journal of Dairy Research 75 365–373Google Scholar
Larsen, MW, Moser, C, Hoiby, N, Song, Z & Kharazmi, A 2004 Ginseng modulates the immune response by induction of interleukin-12 production. Acta Pathologica Microbiologica et Immunologica 112 369–373Google Scholar
Lebeer, S, Verhoeven, TLA, Perea-Vélez, M, Vanderleyden, J & De Keersmaecker, SCJ 2007 Impact of environmental and genetic factors on biofilm formation by the probiotic strain Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 73 6768–6775Google Scholar
Morelli, L 2000 In vitro selection of probiotic lactobacilli: a critical appraisal. Current Issues in Intestinal Microbiology 1 59–67Google ScholarPubMed
National Mastitis Council 2004 Microbiological procedures for the diagnosis of bovine udder infection and determination of milk quality. Fourth Edition. Inc., Arlington, VA, USA, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
Nader-Macías, MEF, Ocaña, VS, Juárez Tomás, MS & Silva de Ruiz, C 2007 In Fundamentos Biológicos, Procesos y Biotecnología de Bacterias Lácticas (Ed. Pérez Martinez, G). España: CSICGoogle Scholar
Ocaña, VS, Bru, E, Ruiz Holgado, A & Nader-Macías, ME 1999 Surface characteristics of lactobacilli isolated from human vagina. Journal of General and Applied Microbiology 45 203–212CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osset, J, García, E, Bartolomé, RM & Andreu, A 2001 Role of Lactobacillus as protector against vaginal candidiasis. Medicina Clínica 117 285–288Google Scholar
Otero, MC, Morelli, L & Nader-Macías, ME 2006 Probiotic properties of bovine vaginal lactic acid bacteria to prevent metritis. Letters in Applied Microbiology 43 91–97Google 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. pp. 749–757. (Ed. Méndez-Vilas, A). Badajoz, Spain: FormatexGoogle Scholar
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 4523–4528Google Scholar
Pereira, U, Oliveira, D, Mesquita, L, Costa, G & Pereira, L 2011 Efficacy of Staphylococcus aureus vaccines for bovine mastitis: A systematic review. Veterinary Microbiology 148 117–124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reid, G, Cook, R & Bruce, A 1987 Examination of strains of lactobacilli for properties that may influence bacterial interference in the urinary tract. Journal of Urology 138 330–335Google Scholar
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
Sandholm, M & Korhonen, H 1995 Infection of the udder-Udder inflammation. In The Bovine Udder and Mastitis. pp. 37–48. (Ed. Sandholm, M). Helsinki: University of Helsinki PressGoogle Scholar
Sordillo, LM & Streicher, KL 2002 Mammary gland immunity and mastitis susceptibility. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia 7 135–146Google Scholar
Twomey, DP, Wheelock, AI, Flynn, J, Meaney, WJ, Hill, C & Ross, RP 2000 Protection against Staphylococcus aureus mastitis in dairy cows using a bismuth-based teat seal containing the bacteriocin, Lacticin 3147. Journal of Dairy Science 83 1981–1988Google Scholar
Viguier, C, Arora, S & Gilmartin, N 2009 Mastitis detection: current trenes and future perspectives. Trends Biotechnology 27 486–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 64 317–327Google Scholar
Zárate, G & Nader-Macias, ME 2006 Influence of probiotic vaginal lactobacilli on in vitro adhesion of urogenital pathogens to vaginal epithelial cells. Letters in Applied Microbiology 43(2) 174–180Google Scholar
Zoetendal, EG, Vaughan, EE & de Vos, WM 2006 A microbial world within us. Molecular Microbiology 59 1639–1650Google Scholar