Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:40:37.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Viability and dose–response studies on the effects of the immunoenhancing lactic acid bacterium Lactobacillus rhamnosus in mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

H.S. Gill  and
K.J. Rutherfurd
H.S. Gill*
Affiliation:
Milk and Health Research Centre, Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
K.J. Rutherfurd
Affiliation:
Milk and Health Research Centre, Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
*
*Corresponding author: Professor Harsharnjit S. Gill, fax +64 6 350 5446, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Previous studies have indicated that the lactic acid bacterium Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001 can enhance immune function in mice, following oral delivery. However, the influence of bacterial cell viability on immunoenhancement, and the optimum dose of HN001 required for this effect, have not been determined. In the present study, both live and heat-killed preparations of L. rhamnosus HN001 were shown to enhance the phagocytic activity of blood and peritoneal leucocytes in mice, at a dose of 109 micro-organisms daily. In contrast, only live HN001 enhanced gut mucosal antibody responses to cholera toxin vaccine. Feeding mice with 107 viable HN001/d for 14 d was shown to enhance the phagocytic capacity of blood leucocytes, with incremental enhancement observed at 109 and 1011 daily doses. In contrast, a minimum dose of 109 viable HN001/d was required to enhance the phagocytic activity of peritoneal leucocytes, and no further increment was observed with 1011 daily. This study demonstrates that L. rhamnosus HN001 exhibits dose-dependent effects on the phagocytic defence system of mice, and suggests that while the innate cellular immune system is responsive to killed forms of food-borne bacteria, specific gut mucosal immunity may only be stimulated by live forms.

Keywords

LactobacillusImmune enhancementViabilityDose–responsePhagocytosisAntibodyMucosal immunity
Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 86 , Issue 2 , August 2001 , pp. 285 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2001

References

Davidkova, G, Popova, P, Guencheva, G, Bogdanov, A, Pacelli, E, Auteri, A & Mincheva, V (1992) Endogenous production of tumor necrosis factor in normal mice orally treated with Deodan – a preparation from Lactobacillus bulgaricus LB51. International Journal of Immunopharmacology 14, 1355–1362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Ambrosini, VM, Gonzalez, S, Perdigon, G, de Ruiz Holgado, AP & Oliver, G (1996) Chemical composition of the cell wall of lactic acid bacteria and related species. Chemical and Pharmaceutical Bulletin 44, 2263–2267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donnet-Hughes, A, Rochat, F, Serrant, P, Aeschlimann, JM & Schiffrin, EJ (1999) Modulation of nonspecific mechanisms of defense by lactic acid bacteria: effective dose. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 863–869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardiner, GE, O'Sullivan, E, Kelly, J, Auty, MAE, Fitzgerald, GF, Collins, JK, Ross, RP & Stanton, C (2000) Comparative survival rates of human-derived probiotic Lactobacillus paracasei and L. salvaricus strains during heat treatment and spray drying. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66, 2605–2612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, HS (1998) Stimulation of the immune system by lactic cultures. International Dairy Journal 8, 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, HS, Rutherfurd, KJ, Prasad, J & Gopal, PK (2000) Enhancement of natural and acquired immunity by Lactobacillus rhamnosus (HN001), Lactobacillus acidophilus, (HN017) and Bifidobacterium lactis (HN019). British Journal of Nutrition 83, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hudson, C & Hay, L (1992) Practical Immunology, London: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, GT & Cummings, JH (1999) Probiotics and prebiotics: can regulating the activities of intestinal bacteria benefit health? British Medical Journal 318, 999–1003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicaise, P, Gleizes, A, Sandre, C, Kergot, R, Lebrec, H, Forestier, F & Labarre, C (1999) The intestinal microflora regulates cytokine production positively in spleen-derived macrophages but negatively in bone marrow-derived macrophages. European Cytokine Network 10, 365–372.Google ScholarPubMed
Perdigon, G, de Marcias, MEN, Alvarez, S, Oliver, G & de Ruiz Holgado, AP (1986) Effect of perorally administered lactobacilli on macrophage activation in mice. Infection and Immunity 53, 404–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perdigon, G, de Macias, MEN, Alvarez, S, Oliver, G & de Ruiz Holgado, AP (1988) Systemic augmentation of the immune response in mice by feeding fermented milks with Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus. Immunology 63, 17–23.Google ScholarPubMed
Perdigon, G, Rachid, M, de Budeguer, MV & Valdez, JC (1994) Effect of yogurt feeding on the small and large intestine associated lymphoid cells in mice. Journal of Dairy Research 61, 553–562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perdigon, G, Vintini, E, Alvarez, S, Medina, M & Medici, M (1999) Studies of the possible mechanisms involved in the mucosal immune system activation by lactic acid bacteria. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 1108–1114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Portier, A, Boyaka, NP, Bougoudogo, F, Dubarry, M, Huneau, JF, Tome, D, Dodin, A & Coste, M (1993) Fermented milks and increased antibody responses against cholera in mice. International Journal of Immunotherapy 9, 217–224.Google Scholar
Prasad, J, Gill, HS, Smart, JB & Gopal, PK (1999) Selection and characterisation of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains for use as probiotics. International Dairy Journal 8, 993–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salminen, S, Bonley, C, Bourron-Ruanlt, M, Cummings, JH, Franck, A, Gibson, GR, Isolauri, E, Moreau, MC, Roberfroid, M & Rowland, I (1998a) Functional food science and gastrointestinal physiology and function. British Journal of Nutrition 80 Suppl. 1, S147–S171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salminen, S, Ouwehand, AC & Isolauri, E (1998b) Clinical applications of probiotic bacteria. International Dairy Journal 8, 563–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, T, Fukami, S & Namioka, S (1994) Enhancement of cytotoxic activity of lymphocytes in mice by oral administration of peptidoglycan derived from Bifidobacterium thermophilum. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 56, 1129–1133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solis-Pereyra, B, Aattouri, N & Lemonnier, D (1997) Role of food in the stimulation of cytokine production. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 66, 521S–525S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tannock, GW, Munro, K, Harmsen, HJ, Welling, GW, Smart, J & Gopal, PK (2000) Analysis of the fecal microflora of human subjects consuming a probiotic product containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus DR20. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66, 2578–2588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed