Effect of galactooligosaccharides and Bifidobacterium animalis Bb-12 on growth of Lactobacillus amylovorus DSM 16698, microbial community structure, and metabolite production in an in vitro colonic model set up with human or pig microbiota
de Melo Franco, B.D.G.
de Martinis, E.C.P.
A validated in vitro model of the large intestine (TIM-2), set up with human or pig faeces, was used to evaluate the impact of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus amylovorus DSM 16698, administered alone (i), in the presence of prebiotic galactooligosaccharides (GOS) (ii), and co-administered with probiotic Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis Bb-12 (Bb-12) (iii) on GOS degradation, microbial growth (L. amylovorus, lactobacilli, bifidobacteria and total bacteria) and metabolite production. High performance anion exchange chromatography revealed that GOS degradation was more pronounced in TIM-2 inoculated with pig faeces than with human faeces. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis profiling of PCR-amplified 16S rRNA genes detected a more complex Lactobacillus spp. community in pig faecal material than in human faecal inoculum. According to 16S rRNA gene-targeted qPCR, GOS stimulated the growth of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria in faecal material from both materials. The cumulative production of short chain fatty acids and ammonia was higher (P < 0.05) for pig than for human faeces. However, lactate accumulation was higher (P < 0.05) in the human model and increased after co-administration with GOS and Bb-12. This study reinforced the notion that differences in microbiota composition between target host organisms need to be considered when animal data are extrapolated to human, as is often done with pre- and probiotic intervention studies. © 2012 Federation of European Microbiological Societies. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.
To reference this document use:
PHS - Pharmacokinetics & Human Studies
EELS - Earth, Environmental and Life Sciences
Food and Nutrition
16S rRNA gene-targeted qPCR
FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 84 (1), 110-123