Journal of Dairy Science and Biotechnology

  • 제37권4호
  • /
  • Pages.223-236
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2733-4554(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-4562(eISSN)
한국낙농식품응용생물학회 (Korean Society of Dairy Science and Biotechnology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Lactobacillus plantarum KI69의 생리적 특성 및 항당뇨 효과

Physiological Characteristics and Anti-diabetic Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum KI69

  • 투고 : 2019.11.01
  • 심사 : 2019.11.11
  • 발행 : 2019.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 김치로부터 비만 억제능력이 있는 젖산균을 분리 및 동정하고, 이 균주의 생리적 특성을 규명하여 상업적으로의 이용가능성을 검토하고자 실시하였다. 이를 위해 Modified MRS 분별배지를 사용하여 노란색 집락을 형성하는 균주를 대상으로 각각 α-amylase inhibitory activity, α-glucosidase inhibitory activity와 단쇄지방산 생산이 우수한 균주를 선발한 결과, KI69 균주가 최종 선발되었다. KI69 균주는 α-amylase억제활성 91.17±2.23%, α-glucosidase 억제활성 98.71±4.23%, 단쇄지방산인 프로피온산, 에세트산, 브티르산이 MRS broth에서 각각 8.78±1.12 ppm, 1.34±0.07%(w/v), 0.876±0.003 g/kg이 나타났으며, 동정결과 L. plantarum으로 판명되었고, L. plantarum KI69로 명명하였다. L. plantarum KI69는 답즙산과 산성의 pH에서 모두 우수한 생존력을 나타내었고, 효소활성은 β-galactosidase, β-glucosidase와 N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase에 대해 높은 효소 활성을 나타내었다. 항생제 내성 실험 결과 vancomycin에 내성이 있는 반면 penicillin-G와rifampicin에 감수성을 나타냈으며, Escherichia coli, Salmonella Typhimurium, Listeria monocytogenes와 Staphyloccous aureus에 대해 각각 15.44%, 50.79%, 58.62%와 37.85%의 억제 효과를 지니고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 장 부착성은 대조구인 L. rhamnosus GG보다 우수하였다.

This study aimed to investigate the physiological characteristics and anti-diabetic effects of Lactobacillus plantarum KI69. The α-amylase and α-glucosidase inhibitory activity of L. plantarum KI69 was 91.17±2.23% and 98.71±4.23%, respectively. The propionic, acetic, and butyric acid contents of the MRS broth inoculated with L. plantarum KI69 were 8.78±1.12 ppm, 1.34±0.07% (w/v), and 0.876±0.003 g/kg, respectively. L. plantarum KI69 showed higher sensitivity to penicillin-G, oxacillin, and chloramphenicol among 16 different antibiotics and showed the highest resistance to ampicillin and vancomycin. The strain showed higher β-galactosidase, β-glucosidase, and N-acetyl-β-glucosaminidase activities than other enzymes. Additionally, it did not produce carcinogenic enzymes, such as β-glucuronidase. The survival rate of L. plantarum KI69 in 0.3% bile was 96.42%. Moreover, the strain showed a 91.45% survival rate at pH 2.0. It was resistant to Escherichia coli, Salmonella Typhimurium, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus with the rates of 15.44%, 50.79%, 58.62%, and 37.85%, respectively. L. plantarum (25.85%) showed higher adhesion ability than the positive control L. rhamnosus GG (20.87%). These results demonstrate that L. plantarum KI69 has a probiotic potential with anti-diabetic effects.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Choi BC. Type II diabetes mellitus: issue and trend. Seoul: Korea Phamaceutical Information Center; 2000. p. 1-26.
  2. Ali H, Houghton PJ, Soumyanath A. ${\alpha}$-Amylase inhibitory activity of some Malaysian plants used to treat diabetes; with particular reference to Phyllanthus amarus. J Ethnopharmacol. 2006;107:449-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2006.04.004
  3. Cummings JH. Short chain fatty acids in the human colon. Gut. 1981;22:763-779. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.22.9.763
  4. Schwiertz A, Taras D, Schafer K, Beijer S, Bos NA, Donus C, et al. Microbiota and SCFA in lean and overweight healthy subjects. Obesity. 2010;18:190-195. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2009.167
  5. Cook SI, Sellin JH. Short chain fatty acids in health and disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1998;12:499-507. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2036.1998.00337.x
  6. Hijova E, Chmelarova A. Short chain fatty acids and colonic health. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2007;108:354-358.
  7. Kumar M, Ghosh M, Ganguli A. Mitogenic response and probiotic characteristics of lactic acid bacteria isolated from indigenously pickled vegetables and fermented beverages. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012;28:703-711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-011-0866-4
  8. Karlsson FH, Tremaroli V, Nookaew I, Bergstrom G, Behre CJ, Fagerberg B, et al. Gut metagenome in European women with normal, impaired and diabetic glucose control. Nature 2013;498:99-103. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12198
  9. Qin J, Li Y, Cai Z, Li S, Zhu J, Zhang F, et al. A metagenome-wide association study of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes. Nature 2012;490:55-60. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11450
  10. Lin WH, Hwang CF, Chen LW, Tsen HY. Viable counts, characteristic evaluation for commercial lactic acid bacteria products. Food Microbiol. 2006;23:74-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2005.01.013
  11. Lonkar P, Harne SD, Kalorey D, Kurkure NV. Isolation, in vitro antibacterial activity, bacterial sensitivity and plasmid profile of Lactobacilli. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2005;18:1336-1342. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2005.1336
  12. Rial RD. The role of probiotic cultures in the control of gastrointestinal health. J Nutr. 2000;130:396-402. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/130.2.396S
  13. Lim SD, Kim KS, Do JR. Physiological characteristics and production of vitamin $K_2$ by Lactobacillus fermentum LC272 isolated from raw milk. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour. 2011;31:513-520. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2011.31.4.513
  14. Xiao Z, Storms R, Tsang A. A quantitative starch-iodine method for measuring alpha-amylase and glucoamylase activities. Anal Biochem. 2006;351:146-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2006.01.036
  15. Si MM, Lou JS, Zhou CX, Shen JN, Wu HH, Yang B, et al. Insulin releasing and alpha-glucosidase inhibitory activity of ethyl acetate fraction of Acorus calamus in vitro and in vivo. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010;128:154-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2009.12.044
  16. Hammes WP, Hertel C. The genera Lactobacilli and Carnobacterium. In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer KH, Stackebrandt E, editors. The Prokaryotes. 3nd ed. Vol. 4. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2006. p. 320-403.
  17. Gilliland SE, Walker DK. Factors to consider when selecting a culture of Lactobacillus acidophilus as a dietary adjunct to produce a hypocholesterolemic effect in humans. J Dairy Sci. 1990;73:905-911. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(90)78747-4
  18. Clark PA, Cotton LN, Martin JH. Selection of bifidobacteria for use as dietary adjuncts in cultured dairy foods: II-Tolerance to simulated pH of human stomachs. Cult Dairy Prod J. 1993;28:11-14.
  19. Gilliand SE, Speck ML. Deconjugation of bile acids by intestinal lactobacilli. Appl Environ Micobiol. 1977;33:15-18. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.33.1.15-18.1977
  20. Kim SJ, Cho SY, Kim SH, Song OJ, Shin IS, Cha DS, et al. Effect of microencapsulation on viability and other characteristics in Lactobacillus acidophilus ATCC 43121. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 2008;41:493-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2007.03.025
  21. Charteris WP, Kelly PM, Morelli L. Collins JK. Gradient diffusion antibiotic susceptibility testing of potentially probiotic lactobacilli. J Food Prot. 2001;64:2007-2014. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-64.12.2007
  22. Mathur S, Singh R. Antibiotic resistance in food lactic acid bacteria: a review. Int J Food Microbiol. 2005;105:281-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.03.008
  23. Borriello SP, Hammes WP, Holzapfel W, Marteau P, Schrezenmeir J, Vaara M, et al. Safety of probiotics that contain Lactobacillus or Bifidobacteria. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36:775-780. https://doi.org/10.1086/368080
  24. Kumar V, Sinha AK, Makkar HP, de Boeck G, Becker K. Dietary roles of non-starch polysaccharides in human nutrition: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2012;52:899-935. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2010.512671
  25. Saarela M, Mogensen G, Fonden R, Matto J, Mattila-Sandholm T. Probiotic bacteria: safety, functional and technological properties. J Biotechnol. 2000;84:197-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1656(00)00375-8
  26. Gilliland SE, Staley TE, Bush LJ. Importance of bile tolerance of Lactobacillus acidophilus used as a dietary adjunct. J Dairy Sci. 1984; 67:3045-3051. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(84)81670-7
  27. Booth IR. Regulation of cytoplasmic pH in bacteria. Microbiol Rev. 1985;49:359-378. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.49.4.359-378.1985
  28. Mcdonald LC, Fleming HP, Hassan HM. Acid tolerance of Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Lactobacillus plantarum. Appl Environ Microbial. 1990;56:2120-2124. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.56.7.2120-2124.1990
  29. Erkkila S, Petaja E. Screening of commercial meat starter cultures at low pH and in the presence of bile salts for potential probiotic use. Meat Sci. 2000;55:279-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(99)00152-7
  30. Pennacchia C, Ercolini D, Blaiotta G, Pepe O, Mauriello G, Villani F. Selection of Lactobacillus strains from fermented sausages for their potential use as probiotics. Meat Sci. 2004;67:309-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2003.11.003
  31. Jacobsen CN, Nielsen VR, Hayford AE, Moller PL, Michaelsen KF, Paerregaard A, et al. Screening of probiotic activities of forty-seven strains of Lactobacillus spp. by in vitro techniques and evaluation of the colonization ability of five selected strains in humans. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999;65:4949-4956. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.65.11.4949-4956.1999
  32. Larsen AG, Vogensen FK, Josephsen J. Antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria isolated from sour doughs: purification and characterization of bavaricin A, a bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus bavaricus MI401. J Appl Bacteriol. 1993;75: 113-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1993.tb02755.x
  33. Daeschel MA. Antimicrobial substances from lactic acid bacteria for use as food preservatives. J Food Technol. 1989;43:164-167.
  34. Havenaar R, Brink BT, Veld JHJI. Selection of strains for probiotic use. In: Fuller R. editor, Probiotics, London: Chapman & Hall; 1992. p. 209-224.
  35. O'Halloran S, Feeney M, Morrissey D, Murphy L, Thornton G, Shanahan F, et al. Adhesion of potential probiotic bacteria to human epithelial cell lines. In: Functional foods: Designer foods for the future; 1997; Cork, Ireland. p. 185-189.
  36. Gopal PK, Prasad J, Smart J, Gill HS. In vitro adherence properties of Lactobacillus rhamnosus DR20 and Bifidobacterium lactis DR10 strains and their antagonistic activity against an enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli. Int J Food Microbiol. 2001; 67:207-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00440-8