E. coli Nissle 1917 Affects Salmonella Adhesion to Porcine Intestinal Epithelial Cells

Schierack, Peter; Kleta, Sylvia; Tedin, Karsten; Babila, Julius T.; Oswald, Sibylle; Oelschlaeger, Tobias A.; Hiemann, Rico; Paetzold, Susanne; Wieler, Lothar H.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014712

Cited by 49 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, culture supernatants of EcN were also found to be very effective against aEPEC infection. This is consistent with the observations of Altenhoefer et al (29) and Schierack et al (42), which showed that supernatants are effective against invasion of enteropathogens. The bacterial supernatants appear to act directly on aEPEC bacteria and not on host epithelial cells, as aEPEC infection was not inhibited by preincubation of IPEC-J2 cells with bacterial supernatants; only coincubation resulted in reduced infection efficiencies of aEPEC.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The type 1 fimbriae do not appear to play a Recently, it was demonstrated that F1C fimbriae play an important role in EcN biofilm formation, adherence to intestinal epithelial cells in vitro, and intestinal colonization of mice and a probiotic effect against Salmonella invasion (42,48,49). In the present study, we showed that F1C fimbriae were expressed and appeared to play a prominent role in adhesion of EcN to IPEC-J2 epithelial cells and contributed to the inhibitory effects on aEPEC infection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 44%

“…EcN has been successfully applied against different porcine and human intestinal disorders, including infection by enterotoxigenic E. coli, acute nonspecific diarrhea, or chronic inflammatory bowel diseases (14)(15)(16)(17)(18). In vitro, EcN has been shown to inhibit the invasion of porcine and human intestinal epithelial cell lines by enteropathogens (29,30,42), although the underlying mechanisms have rarely been defined. As there is currently no information about probiotic effects of EcN and other probiotics against aEPEC infection-either in animals or in humans-we determined the effects of EcN on aEPEC infection using a porcine intestinal-epithelial in vitro model.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Role of F1C Fimbriae, Flagella, and Secreted Bacterial Components in the Inhibitory Effect of Probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 on Atypical Enteropathogenic E. coli Infection

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

e Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC) is recognized as an important intestinal pathogen that frequently causes acute and persistent diarrhea in humans and animals. The use of probiotic bacteria to prevent diarrhea is gaining increasing interest. The probiotic E. coli strain Nissle 1917 (EcN) is known to be effective in the treatment of several gastrointestinal disorders. While both in vitro and in vivo studies have described strong inhibitory effects of EcN on enteropathogenic bacteria, including pathogenic E. coli, the underlying molecular mechanisms remain largely unknown. In this study, we examined the inhibitory effect of EcN on infections of porcine intestinal epithelial cells with atypical enteropathogenic E. coli (aEPEC) with respect to single infection steps, including adhesion, microcolony formation, and the attaching and effacing phenotype. We show that EcN drastically reduced the infection efficiencies of aEPEC by inhibiting bacterial adhesion and growth of microcolonies, but not the attaching and effacing of adherent bacteria. The inhibitory effect correlated with EcN adhesion capacities and was predominantly mediated by F1C fimbriae, but also by H1 flagella, which served as bridges between EcN cells. Furthermore, EcN seemed to interfere with the initial adhesion of aEPEC to host cells by secretion of inhibitory components. These components do not appear to be specific to EcN, but we propose that the strong adhesion capacities enable EcN to secrete sufficient local concentrations of the inhibitory factors. The results of this study are consistent with a mode of action whereby EcN inhibits secretion of virulenceassociated proteins of EPEC, but not their expression.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 44%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Role of F1C Fimbriae, Flagella, and Secreted Bacterial Components in the Inhibitory Effect of Probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 on Atypical Enteropathogenic E. coli Infection

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The action of injected proteins leads to a dramatic reorganization of the host actin cytoskeleton and to a vigorous epithelial cell membrane protrusion, and as a result the bacterium is engulfed inside the host cell (Ly and Casanova, 2007). E. coli Nissle 1917 showed similar inhibitory effects against Salmonella as those described for EPEC, and this inhibitory activity always correlated with probiotic adhesion capacity (Schierack et al 2011). The Salmonella-induced inflammatory challenge was also used to evaluate the immunomodulatory activity of the two probiotic strains L.…”

Section: Probiotics Used In Pig Intestinal Cells Challenged With Entementioning

confidence: 92%

Immunomodulating effects of probiotics for microbiota modulation, gut health and disease resistance in pigs

Roselli

Pieper

Rogel–Gaillard

et al. 2017

Animal Feed Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms HIGHLIGHTS-Updated literature overview about probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics on pig gut health is provided -Both in vivo studies performed in pigs and in vitro studies conducted in pig intestinal cell lines are described -A critical outcome of the described results is provided -The concept of "proxy measurements" for pig gut health is widely discussed -The link between gut microbiota and mucsal immune system is described Abstract:Probiotics are live microorganisms that can confer a health benefit on the host, and amongst various mechanisms probiotics are believed to exert their effects by production of antimicrobial substances, competition with pathogens for adhesion sites and nutrients, enhancement of mucosal barrier integrity and immune modulation. Through these activities probiotics can support three core benefits for the host: supporting a healthy gut microbiota, a healthy digestive tract and a healthy immune system. More recently, the concept of combining probiotics and prebiotics, i.e. synbiotics, for the beneficial effect on gut health of pigs has attracted major interest, and examples of probiotic and prebiotic benefits for pigs are pathogen inhibition and immunomodulation. Yet, it remains to be defined in pigs, what exactly is a healthy gut. Because of the high level of variability in growth and feed conversion between individual pigs in commercial production systems, measuring the impact of probiotics on gut health defined by improvements in overall productivity requires large experiments. For this reason, many studies have concentrated on measuring the effects of the feed additives on proxies of gut health including many immunological measures, in more controlled experiments. With the major focus of studying the balance between gut microbiology, immunology and physiology, and the potential for prevention of intestinal disorders in pigs, we therefore performed a literature review of the immunomodulatory effects of probiotics, either alone or in combination with prebiotics, based on in vivo, in vitro and ex vivo porcine experiments. A 3 consistent number of studies showed the potential capacity in terms of immunomodulatory activities of these feed additives in pigs, but contrasting results can also be obtained from the literature.Reasons for this are not clear but could be related to differences with respect to the probiotic strain used, experimental settings, diets, initial microbiota colonization, administration route, time and frequency of administration of the probiotic strain and sampling for analysis. Hence, the use of proxy measurements of enteric health based on observable immunological parameters presents significant problems at the moment, and cannot be considered robust, reliable predictors of the probiotic activity in vivo, in relation to pig gut health. In c...

show abstract

“…Resident colonization mainly depends on the bacterium's ability to adhere to the mucosa as well as to its competing successfully with the established microbiota (1,2).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Adhesion of Human and Animal Escherichia coli Strains in Association with Their Virulence-Associated Genes and Phylogenetic Origins

Frömmel

Lehmann²,

Rödiger

et al. 2013

Appl Environ Microbiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intestinal colonization is influenced by the ability of the bacterium to inhabit a niche, which is based on the expression of colonization factors. Escherichia coli carries a broad range of virulence-associated genes (VAGs) which contribute to intestinal (inVAGs) and extraintestinal (exVAGs) infection. Moreover, initial evidence indicates that inVAGs and exVAGs support intestinal colonization. We developed new screening tools to genotypically and phenotypically characterize E. coli isolates originating in humans, domestic pigs, and 17 wild mammal and avian species. We analyzed 317 isolates for the occurrence of 44 VAGs using a novel multiplex PCR microbead assay (MPMA) and for adhesion to four epithelial cell lines using a new adhesion assay. We correlated data for the definition of new adhesion genes. inVAGs were identified only sporadically, particularly in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and the European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). The prevalence of exVAGs depended on isolation from a specific host. Human uropathogenic E. coli isolates carried exVAGs with the highest prevalence, followed by badger (Meles meles) and roe deer isolates. Adhesion was found to be very diverse. Adhesion was specific to cells, host, and tissue, though it was also unspecific. Occurrence of the following VAGs was associated with a higher rate of adhesion to one or more cell lines: afa-dra, daaD, tsh, vat, ibeA, fyuA, mat, sfa-foc, malX, pic, irp2, and papC. In summary, we established new screening methods which enabled us to characterize large numbers of E. coli isolates. We defined reservoirs for potential pathogenic E. coli. We also identified a very broad range of colonization strategies and defined potential new adhesion genes.

show abstract

E. coli Nissle 1917 Affects Salmonella Adhesion to Porcine Intestinal Epithelial Cells

Cited by 49 publications

References 33 publications

Role of F1C Fimbriae, Flagella, and Secreted Bacterial Components in the Inhibitory Effect of Probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 on Atypical Enteropathogenic E. coli Infection

Role of F1C Fimbriae, Flagella, and Secreted Bacterial Components in the Inhibitory Effect of Probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 on Atypical Enteropathogenic E. coli Infection

Immunomodulating effects of probiotics for microbiota modulation, gut health and disease resistance in pigs

Adhesion of Human and Animal Escherichia coli Strains in Association with Their Virulence-Associated Genes and Phylogenetic Origins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About