Skip to main content
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
letter
. 2012 Dec 26;110(1):E1. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1218418110

Occam’s razor and probiotics activity on Listeria monocytogenes

Matthieu Million 1,1, Emmanouil Angelakis 1,1, Fatima Drissi 1, Didier Raoult 1,2
PMCID: PMC3538255  PMID: 23271812

We read with interest the article by Archambaud et al. (1) on Lactobacillus casei BL23 and Lactobacillus paracasei CNCM I-3689, which were able to limit the Listeria monocytogenes dissemination in a gnotobiotic humanized mouse model. The authors suggested that changes in the expression of IFN-stimulated genes and of mi-RNA, together with the L. monocytogenes metabolism redirection by Lactobacillus strains, may explain the modulation of the infection. However, according to the Occam’s razor principle postulating that a simpler explanation is more likely to be true, we believe that the role of bacteriocins is critical in this instance.

Bacteriocins have been used as bio-preservatives, especially against L. monocytogenes contamination in vegetable food matrices, for ∼20 y. The ability of Lactobacillus to inhibit pathogens in vitro is well documented. In one study, all of the L. casei and L. paracasei strains inhibited L. monocytogenes growth (2). The Lactocin 705 produced by L. casei CRL705 is bacteriostatic on L. monocytogenes (3), whereas a strain of L. paracasei subsp. paracasei has been shown to produce another substance inhibiting L. monocytogenes growth and leading to cellular lysis (4). Using the Bagel and Bactibase bacteriocin databases to analyze the strains used in this study, we were able to find one prebacteriocin (GenBank ID: YP_001988475) in L. casei BL23, and one Lactocin-705 (GenBank: LC70_LACPA) among available L. paracasei genomes.

Taken together, these data suggest that the impact of a Lactobacillus strain on the microbiota flora is mainly determined by its direct antibiotic activities, including bacteriocins, as recently rediscovered (5).

Footnotes

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  • 1.Archambaud C, et al. Impact of lactobacilli on orally acquired listeriosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(41):16684–16689. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212809109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jacobsen CN, et al. Screening of probiotic activities of forty-seven strains of Lactobacillus spp. by in vitro techniques and evaluation of the colonization ability of five selected strains in humans. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999;65(11):4949–4956. doi: 10.1128/aem.65.11.4949-4956.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vignolo G, Fadda S, de Kairuz MN, de Ruiz Holgado AA, Oliver G. Control of Listeria monocytogenes in ground beef by ‘Lactocin 705’, a bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus casei CRL 705) Int J Food Microbiol. 1996;29(2-3):397–402. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(95)00038-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bendali F, Gaillard-Martinie B, Hebraud M, Sadoun D. Kinetic of production and mode of action of the Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei anti-listerial bacteriocin, an Algerian isolate. LWT–Food Science and Technology. 2008;41(10):1784–1792. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kim HB, et al. Microbial shifts in the swine distal gut in response to the treatment with antimicrobial growth promoter, tylosin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(38):15485–15490. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1205147109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES