Lactic acid bacteria efficiently protect human and animal intestinal epithelial and immune cells from enteric virus infection.
Int J Food Microbiol. 2010 Jul 31 ;141 Suppl 1:S91-7. Epub 2010 Jan 4. PMID: 20106541
Petros A Maragkoudakis
This study aimed to examine the potential antiviral activity of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) using animal and human intestinal and macrophage cell line models of non tumor origin. To this end, LAB strains selected on the basis of previous in vitro trials were co-incubated with cell line monolayers, which were subsequently challenged with rotavirus (RV) and transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV). In order to elucidate the possible mechanism responsible for the antiviral activity, the induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) release as well as the attachment ability of LAB on the cell lines was investigated. Various strains were found to exhibit moderate to complete monolayer protection against viral RV or TGEV disruption. Highest protection effects were recorded with the known probiotics Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Lactobacillus casei Shirota against both RV and TGEV, while notable antiviral activity was also attributed to Enterococcus faecium PCK38, Lactobacillus fermentum ACA-DC179, Lactobacillus pentosus PCA227 and Lactobacillus plantarum PCA236 and PCS22, depending on the cell line and virus combination used. A variable increase (of up to 50%) on the release of NO(-) and H(2)O(2) (ROS) was obtained when LAB strains were co-incubated with the cell lines, but the results were found to be LAB strain and cell line specific, apart from a small number of strains which were able to induce strong ROS release in more than one cell line. In contrast, the ability of the examined LAB strains to attach to the cell line monolayers was LAB strain but not cell line specific. Highest attachment ability was observed with L. plantarum ACA-DC 146, L. paracasei subsp. tolerans ACA-DC 4037 and E. faecium PCD71. Clear indications on the nature of the antiviral effect were evident only in the case of the L. casei Shirota against TGEV and with L. plantarum PCA236 against both RV and TGEV. In the rest of the cases, each interaction was LAB-cell line-virus specific, barring general conclusions. However, it is probable that more than one mechanism is involved in the antiviral effect described here. Further investigations are required to elucidate the underlying mode of action and to develop a cell line model as a system for selection of probiotic strains suited for farm animal applications.