Kolodina EN, Dоvydenkova MV.

Animal Husbandry and Fodder Production. 2025. Vol. 108. No. 3. Р. 51-63.

doi:10.33284/2658-3135-108-3-51

Original article

Physiological and biochemical properties and probiotic potential of Enterococcus strains

isolated from natural biotopes 

Evgeniya N Kolodina 1, Maria V Dоvydenkova 2

1,2Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry named after Academy Member LK Ernst, Dubrovitsy, Russia

1kolodin77@mail.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4017-3390

2majra_2005@list.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3093-4117

Abstract. The object of the study was 12 strains of Enterococcus spp isolated from the gastrointestinal tract of animals and birds that were tested for probiotic properties. During the study of physiological and biochemical signs, it was found that the isolated strains are typical representatives of the genus Enterococcus. The studied strains had a wide range of fermentable substances. However, weak enzymatic activity was observed in relation to xylose, sorbitol and exulin. When assessing probiotic properties, the most intense growth was observed at neutral pH values (6.0-8.0), which corresponds to the conditions of the large intestine. The most acid–resistant isolates were Bdc101 and Tsc102, in which survival at pH 2.0-4.0 increased by 0.12 and 0.11 units of optical density, respectively. Increasing the pH of the medium to 9.0 had an inhibitory effect on the tested enterococcal strains, and their viability under these conditions ranged from 0.02 to 0.27 units of optical density difference. The study of the salt tolerance of the isolated cultures showed that most of them were able to grow in the presence of 7.0% NaCl, but their survival rates varied depending on the strain. The best cell survival of the studied strains at a bile concentration of 0.5% was observed in the strains Bdc101, Gd110, Cs85, Cs82, Cl76, S71, and Cs83, with an optical difference ranging from 0.44 to 0.74 units. Further, these same strains showed a decrease in the OD600 difference by 0.1 units when the bile concentration was increased to 20 % and 40 %.

Keywords: Enterococcus spp, feed additive, probiotics, biochemical and probiotic properties

Acknowledgments: the  work  was performed in accordance to the plan of research works for 2025 Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry named after Academy Member LK Ernst FGGN-2024-0016 (124020200032-4).

For citation: Kolodina EN, Dоvydenkova MV. Physiological and biochemical properties and probiotic potential of Enterococcus strains isolated from natural biotopes. Animal Husbandry and Fodder Production. 2025;108(3):51-63. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33284/2658-3135-108-3-51

References

  1. Yermolenko EI, Donets VN, Dmitrieva YuV, Ilyasov YuY, Suvorova MA, Gromova LV. Influence of probiotic enterococci on functional characteristics of rat bowel under disbiosis induced by antibiotics. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Medicine. 2009;1:157-167.
  2. Lebedev MN, Kovalev SP. Application of a probiotic based on the Enterococcus faecium L-3 for prevention of enteritis in calves. Fundamentals and prospects of organic biotechnology. 2020;3:17-22.
  3. Notova SV, Kazakova TV, Marshinskaya OV. The efficiency of probiotics in combination with biocoordination compounds on egg-production of birds. Animal Husbandry and Fodder Production. 2023;106 (1):156-166. doi:10.33284/2658-3135-106-1-156
  4. Amaral DMF, Silva LF,  Casarotti SN,  Nascimento LC,  Penna ALB.  Enterococcus  faecium  and  Enterococcus  durans  isolated  from  cheese:  Survival  in  the  presence  of medications under simulated gastrointestinal conditions and adhesion properties. J Dairy Sci. 2017;100(2):933-949. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11513
  5. Arias CA, Murray BE. The rise of the Enterococcus: beyond vancomycin resistance. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10:266- doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2761
  6. Baccouri O, Boukerb AM, Farhat LB, Zébré A, Zimmermann K, Domann E, Cambronel M, Barreau M, Maillot O, Rincé I, Muller C, Marzouki MN, Feuilloley M, Abidi F and Connil N. Probiotic potential and safety evaluation of Enterococcus faecalis OB14 and OB15, isolated from traditional tunisian testouri cheese and rigouta, using physiological and genomic analysis. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:881. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00881
  7. Banwo K, Sanni A, Tan H. Technological properties and probiotic potential of Enterococcus faecium strains isolated from cow milk. J Appl Microbiol. 2013;114(1):229- doi: 10.1111/jam.12031
  8. Chen Z, Niu C, Wei L, Huang Z, Ran S. Genome-wide analysis of acid tolerance genes of Enterococcus faecalis with RNA-seq and Tn-seq. BMC Genomics. 2024;8:25(1):261. doi: 10.1186/s12864-024-10162-z
  9. Dikbaş N, Orman YC, Alım Ş, Uçar S, Tülek A. Evaluating Enterococcus faecium9 N-2 as a probiotic candidate from traditional village white cheese. Food Sci Nutr. 2024;28:12(3):1847-1856. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.3878
  10. Foulquié Moreno MR, Sarantinopoulos P, Tsakalidou E, Vuyst LDe. The role and application of enterococci in food and health. Int J Food Microbiol. 2006;106(1):1-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.06.026
  11. Franz CMAP, Huch M, Abriouel H, Holzapfel W, Gálvez A. Enterococci as probiotics and their implications in food safety. Int J Food Microbiol. 2011;151(2):125-140. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.08.014
  12. Genci G, Trotta F, Galdini G. Tolerance to challenges miming gastrointestinal transit by spores and vegetative cells of Bacillus clausii. J Appl Microbiol. 2006;101(6):1208-1215. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03042.x
  13. Han KI, Shin H-D, Lee Y, Baek S, Moon E, Park YB, Cho J, Lee J-H, Kim T-J, Manoharan RK. Probiotic and postbiotic potentials of Enterococcus faecalis EF-2001: a safety assessment. Pharmaceuticals. 2024;17(10):1383. doi: 3390/ph17101383
  14. Hanchi H, Mottawea W,  Sebei K,  Hammami  R.  The  genus Enterococcus: between probiotic potential and safety concerns—an update. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1791. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01791
  15. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, Sanders ME, et al. Expert consensus document. The international scientific association for probiotics and prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2014;11(8):506-514. doi: 1038/nrgastro.2014.66
  16. Huys G, Botteldoorn N, Delvigne F, De Vuyst L, Heyndrickx M, Pot B, et al. Microbial characterization of probiotics–advisory report of the working group “8651 probiotics” of the Belgian superior health council (SHC). Mol Nutr Food Res. 2013;57(8):1479-1504. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201300065
  17. Liu SB, Liao XD, Lu L, Li SF, Wan L, Zhang LY, et al. Dietary non-phytate phosphorus requirement of broilers fed a conventional corn-soybean meal diet from 1 to 21 d of age. Poult Sci. 2017;96(1):151-159. doi: 10.3382/ps/pew212
  18. Liu ZL, Chen YJ, Meng QL, Zhang X, Wang XL. Progress in the application of Enterococcus faecium in animal husbandry. Front Cell Intestinal Microbiome. 2023;13:1168189. doi: 3389/fcimb.2023.1168189
  19. Lohans CT, Vederas JC. Development of Class IIa bacteriocins as therapeutic agents. Int J Microbiol. 2012:386410. doi: 10.1155/2012/386410
  20. Makioka Y, Tsukahara T, Ijichi T, Inoue R. Oral supplementation of Bifidobacterium longum strain BR-108 alters cecal microbiota by stimulating gut immune system in mice irrespectively of viability. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2018;82(7):1180-1187. doi: 10.1080/09168451.2018.1451738
  21. Ołdak A, Zielinska D. Bacteriocins from lactic acid bacteria as an alternative to antibiotics. Postepy Hig Med Dosw. 2017;71(0):328-338. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0010.3817
  22. Pereira CI, Matos D, Romão MVS, Crespo MTB. Dual role for the tyrosine decarboxylation pathway in Enterococcus faecium E17: response to an acid challenge and generation of a proton motive force. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75(2):345-352. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01958-08
  23. Popović N, Dinić M, Tolinački M, Mihajlović S, Terzić-Vidojević A, Bojić S, Djokić J, Golić N, Veljović K. New insight into biofilm formation ability, the presence of virulence genes and probiotic potential of Enterococcus sp. Dairy Isolates. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:78. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00078
  24. Suvorov A, Zhao S,  Leontieva G,  et    Evaluation  of  the  Efficacy  of  Enterococcus faecium  L3 as a feed probiotic additive in chicken. Probiotics and Antimicro Prot. 2023;15:1169-1179.  doi: 10.1007/s12602-022-09970-0
  25. Torres C, Alonso CA, Ruiz-Ripa L, León-Sampedro R, Del Campo R, Coque TM. Antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus spp. of animal origin. Microbiol Spectr. 2018;6(4):10.1128/microbiolspec.arba-0032-2018. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.ARBA-0032-2018
  26. Wang W, Cai H, Zhang A, Chen Z, Chan W, Liu G, et al. Enterococcus faecium modulates the gut microbiota of broilers and enhances phosphorus absorption and utilization. Anim. (Basel). 2020;10(7):1232. doi: 10.3390/ani10071232
  27. Xiao J, Chen C, Fu Z, Wang S, Luo F. Assessment of the safety and probiotic properties of Enterococcus faecium B13 isolated from fermented Chili. Microorganisms. 2024;12(5):994. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms12050994
  28. Zhang L, Yue HY, Zhang HJ, Xu L, Wu SG, Yan HJ, et al. Transport stress in broilers:I. Blood metabolism, glycolytic potential, and meat quality. Poult Sci. 2009;88(10):2033-2041. doi: 10.3382/ps.2009-00128

Information about the authors:

Evgeniya N Kolodina, Cand. Sci. (Biology), Senior Researcher at the Microbiology Laboratory, Federal Research Center of Animal Husbandry – VIZ named after Academician L.K. Ernst, 60 Dubrovitsy village, Podolsk City district, Moscow region, 142132, tel.: 8(4967)651133.

Maria V Dоvydenkova, Cand. Sci. (Agriculture), Researcher at the Microbiology Laboratory, Federal Research Center of Animal Husbandry – VIZ named after Academician L.K. Ernst, 60 Dubrovitsy village, Podolsk City district, Moscow region, 142132, tel.: 8(4967)651133.

The article was submitted 24.03.2025; approved after reviewing 22.05.2025; accepted for publication 15.09.2025.

Download