Abstract
A variety of bacteriocins originate from lactic acid bacteria, which have recently been modified by scientists. Many strains of lactic acid bacteria related to food groups could produce bacteriocins or antibacterial proteins highly effective against foodborne pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas fluorescens, P. aeruginosa, Salmonella typhi, Shigella flexneri, Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Clostridium botulinum. A wide range of bacteria belonging primarily to the genera Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus have been characterized with different health‐promoting attributes. Extensive studies and in‐depth understanding of these antimicrobials mechanisms of action could enable scientists to determine their production in specific probiotic lactic acid bacteria, as they are potentially crucial for the final preservation of functional foods or for medicinal applications. In this review study, the structure, classification, mode of operation, safety, and antibacterial properties of bacteriocins as well as their effect on foodborne pathogens and antibiotic‐resistant bacteria were extensively studied.
Keywords: bacteriocin, foodborne pathogens, lactic acid bacteria
Antimicrobial potential of bacteiocins in food preservation.
1. INTRODUCTION
There are a variety of antimicrobial substances produced by living organisms as part of their immune reactions or defense mechanisms, which may enhance their ability to compete for space and resources. Especially, the production of antimicrobial substances such as hydrogen peroxide, fatty acids, organic acids, ethanol, lytic enzymes, antibiotics, and bacteriocins by living organisms is well evidence of their microbial antagonism. 1 , 2 , 3 Bacteriocins are a very heterogeneous class of bactericidal peptides or proteins produced by bacteria and archaea. 3 The vast majority of all bacterial species appear to be able to produce at least one bacteriocin, most of which are unknown. 4 Bacteriocins exhibit antibacterial activity and a specific immunity mechanism toward strains closely related to the producer bacteria. 3 , 4 This immunity is usually associated with a specific protein encoded in the bacterial genome (bacteriocin operon). 5 , 6 Almost all bacteriocins are small cationic molecules with hydrophobic or amphiphilic characteristics, which exhibit a narrow to broad inhibitory activity against closely related and non‐related species. 7 , 8 Bacteriocins may be secreted by both Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative bacteria. In particular, among Gram‐positive bacteria, bacteriocins derived from lactic acid bacteria are of great interest (LAB). 9 Lactic acid bacteria are a miscellaneous group of acid‐tolerant, facultative anaerobes, and fermentative organisms that possess generally regarded as safe (GRAS) and qualified presumption of safety (QPS) status. Therefore, their bacteriocins are regarded as safe by the USFDA (the U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 2 , 5 , 10 LAB‐secreted bacteriocins are heat‐stable, proteases‐sensitive, ribosomally synthesized, and antimicrobial peptides, which either undergo or do not undergo enzymatic post‐translational modification process. 2 , 4 , 6 , 9 , 11 They are very diverse in terms of length, genetic origin, biochemical features, molecular weight (MW), cellular receptors, and interaction with the immune system. 5 , 9 , 12 So far, many bacteriocins have been widely identified with various modes of action as follows: inducing cytoplasmic membrane permeability (by pore formation), inhibiting cell wall biosynthesis, and interfering with metabolic pathways. 1 , 6 Membrane pore formation as a common inhibitory mechanism, high inhibitory activity with low concentrations in the nanomolar range, and relatively narrow‐spectrum antimicrobial activity are the characteristics of many LAB‐derived bacteriocins. 1 During the last decade, LAB bacteriocins have received a great deal of attention due to their high potential, especially as natural food preservatives and novel therapeutic antibiotics, which have made them attractive for various applications. 13 In particular, numerous studies have been published in recent years, suggesting that bacteriocins may be used as an alternative to antibacterial agents in the prevention or treatment of bacterial infections. 10 Despite the long history of bacteriocins usage, there is no report about the development of bacterial resistance to bacteriocins. Some possible reasons may be as follows: having a fast pore‐formation mechanism, being easily degraded by proteolytic enzymes, and having a shorter biological half‐life in the human body or in natural environments; these factors minimize the possibility of interaction between bacteriocins and bacteria, as a starting point in the development of antibiotic resistance. 13 The most significant property that further enhances bacteriocins functional potential compared with conventional antibiotics is stability in a wide range of physicochemical conditions. In addition, due to their primary metabolite nature, bacteriocins also have other features such as genetic amenability through bioengineering to increase their activity/specificity against target bacterial pathogens and antibiotic‐resistant strains. 13 Lastly, bacteriocins modulate the host immune responses (as signaling peptides), and they have no destructive effect on commensal bacteria and low/no cytotoxicity against eukaryotic cells (more specifically to target cells). 3 , 14 Comparison of bacteriocins and antibiotics in terms of mode of action and physicochemical properties, especially the mechanism of resistance development (used by bacteria), provides evidence of the need for alternative antimicrobial compounds to combat bacterial infections. Bacteriocins have the potential to be used as ideal candidates. 10
In recent years, several studies have shown the protective effects of LAB bacteriocins on the gastrointestinal tract via eliminating pathogens or supporting the gut from bacterial colonization. 2 They have also demonstrated the inhibitory ability of bacteriocins against intestinal pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enteritidis, Clostridium difficile, Staphylococcus aureus, and vancomycin‐resistant enterococci (VRE). 14 Moreover, in clinical applications, some bacteriocins have been shown to be highly effective in treating infections, especially those caused by multidrug‐resistant (MDR) strains. 13 Given the harmful effect of antibiotics on intestinal microbiota and the importance of gastrointestinal infections in human health, it seems that LAB‐derived bacteriocins could be considered as a promising antibiotic in the treatment of intestinal infections. 2 This research aimed to review the literature regarding the properties of bacteriocins as a substitute for antibiotic therapy, their antibacterial effects on foodborne pathogens, their impact on antibiotic‐resistant bacteria, and the identification and extraction of new bacteriocins against intestinal pathogens.
2. THE BIOLOGY OF BACTERIOCINS
Bacteriocins were first identified almost 100 years ago as cationic, ribosomally synthesized, antimicrobial peptides, which act through forming pore and disrupting target cell membrane integrity, eventually leading to cell death. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB), in particular, are known to produce a variety of bacteriocins with characteristics that make them ideal for use in inactivating pathogens, including their broad antimicrobial activity spectrum, pH‐ and heat‐tolerance, and non‐toxic nature. In addition, LAB bacteriocins are sensitive to digestive proteases such as pancreatic complex, host proteases, trypsin, and chymotrypsin; thus, they do not adversely affect the gut microbiota. 15 According to Klaenhammer, 16 99% of all bacteria probably produce at least one bacteriocin, most of which have not yet been identified because few researchers have looked for them. Most bacteriocins have two main characteristics that distinguish them from traditional antibiotics: Bacteriocins are ribosomally synthesized and have a relatively narrow‐spectrum antimicrobial activity. 17 Bacteriocins are a family of proteins that could be classified into two classes based on their size, microbial target, mode of action, release, and immunity mechanisms, including bacteriocins of Gram‐negative and Gram‐positive bacteria. 18 Bacteriocins may represent a good potential for use as substitutes for antibiotics with no side effects. Bacteriocins may have different modes of action, including inhibition of cell wall synthesis, inhibition through DNase and RNase activities, and more commonly, formation of pores in the target cell membrane. Lactic acid bacteria are ideal candidates for bacteriocin production in order to biocontrol of some bacterial species as they have a long history of safe use in the food industry. 19 Inoculation of food with bacteriocin‐producing strains and addition of purified or semi‐purified bacteriocins, which promote either a bactericidal effect with/without cell lysis or a bacteriostatic effect inhibiting cell growth, are the most common approaches to using bacteriocins for food biopreservation. 20 Most LAB bacteriocins, especially those inhibiting Gram‐positive bacteria, exert their antimicrobial effects by targeting bacterial cell envelope. 21
3. WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF BACTERIOCINS?
Antimicrobial peptides are natural and unique antibiotic substances produced by different microorganisms, mammals, plants, and insects. 22 , 23 Bacteriocin‐producing bacteria could be extracted from various sources such as water, soil, animal intestines, and food products, which are defined as unconventional sources, while the human gastrointestinal tract is considered as the conventional source of bacteriocin producers. Understanding more about unconventional sources, especially food products 24 , 25 and animals, 26 has become interesting for researchers in recent years. Bacteriocin‐producing bacteria in the GIT include Lactobacillus, Enterococcus, Streptococcus, and Staphylococcus. 24 These bacteria could help the skin serve as the first line of body's defense against pathogens. In addition to inhibiting the growth of other bacteria, these bacteriocins as mediator molecules are able to help the immune system. 27 , 28 , 29 , 30
4. UNCONVENTIONAL SOURCES OF BACTERIA THAT PRODUCE BACTERIOCIN
-
4.1
In dairy products, the most common LAB strains include Lactococcus lactis and L. plantarum in camel and goat milk, L. plantarum in cheese, L. kefiranofaciens in kefir, and S. thermophilus, and L. brevis LSe in other dairy products. In dairies such as milk of different origins, L. brevis produces bacteriocin with antibacterial activity. Brevibacillus brevis and Bifidobacterium lactis are the most common LAB in raw milk, while L. acidophilus is the most common LAB in yogurt and fermented soy products. 31 Generally, Lactococcus, Lactobacillus, and Streptococcus are the predominant probiotic bacteria in milk products. 32
-
4.2
L. plantarum subsp. plantarum, Pediococcus pentosaceus, L. brevis, L. curvatus, and L. fermentum are the most widely used bacteriocin‐producing bacteria in fermented raw‐meat products (like sausage); E. faecium UAM1 is the most common LAB in cooked meat products, while L. plantarum, L. brevis, and P. pentosaceus strains are common in other fermented meat products. 25 , 33 These LAB strains exhibit inhibitory activity on L. monocytogenes, Aeromonas hydrophila, and S. aureus and prevent the growth of these foodborne pathogens. 34 , 35 , 36
-
4.3
The most common LAB strains in seafood are L. brevis LAP2, L. plantarum, and E. faecium HL7. 26 It has been proved that LAB strains in fish and shrimp show antibacterial activity against foodborne pathogens and other bacteria. 37 A. hydrophila as a common freshwater fish pathogen could be significantly inhibited by probiotic activity of bacteriocin‐producing pathogens in fish gut. 38 In a study, LAB isolated from the intestine of a fish named Mugil cephalus showed inhibitory function against fish and even human pathogens. 39
-
4.4
L. brevis, Lactiplantibacillus pentosus, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei. Lacticaseibacillus plantarum, Limosilactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus, Weissella, Pediococcus, and E. durans are the most important LAB in fruit and vegetables (raw fruits and vegetables, carrots, pineapple, and different fruits). 32
Some bacteria residing in the sea or ocean, such as Aeromonas, Alteromonas, and Vibrio, are capable of exhibiting a strong bactericidal effect on drug‐resistant bacteria and boosting the immune system by producing bacteriocin. 30
5. BACTERIOCINS PRODUCED BY LACTIC ACID BACTERIA
Bacteriocins, as a group of diverse antimicrobial peptides, are known as an inhibitory agent against closely related organisms such as Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative bacteria, they are produced by various bacterial species, specifically lactic acid bacteria (LAB). 5 , 40 , 41 It has also been well documented that LAB strains are commonly involved in a broad spectrum of ecological niches and include various genera, such as Pediococcus, Leuconostoc, Weissella, Lactococcus, Lactobacillus, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, Carnobacterium, Propionibacterium, Aerococcus, Tetragenococcus, Oenococcus, and Bifidobacterium. 40 , 42 Bacteriocins could be categorized into three major classes. Class I bacteriocins are small post‐translationally modified peptides, which are/could be further subdivided into Class Ia (lantibiotics), Class Ib (labyrinthopeptins), and Class Ic (sanctibiotics). 43 Nisin is a Class I bacteriocin. Class II bacteriocins are small, heat‐stable, non‐modified peptides described as unmodified bacteriocins, which could be further subdivided into Class IIa (pediocin‐like bacteriocins), Class IIb (two‐peptide unmodified bacteriocins), Class IIc (circular bacteriocins), and Class IId (unmodified, linear, non‐pediocin‐like bacteriocins). In addition, Class III bacteriocins as larger peptides (>10 kDa, heat‐labile) are subdivided into two subclasses, namely IIIa (lysostaphin and enterolysin A) or bacteriolysins and IIIb. 42 , 44 , 45 Bacteriocins are commonly named based on the genus or species of producer strain. For instance, lacticin and nisin are produced by Lactococcus spp., enterocin by Enterococcus spp., pediocin by Pediococcus spp., leucocin by Leuconostoc spp., etc. 40
6. BIOSYNTHESIS AND POTENTIAL APPLICATION OF LAB BACTERIOCINS
There are some factors affecting the production of bacteriocins, such as culture conditions and the type of microbial strain. Bacteriocins are post‐translationally modified and ribosomally synthesized peptides that are initially produced as inactive pre‐peptides and then converted into an active form. 5 , 46 After transport and cleavage of produced pre‐peptides, they are converted into mature (active) bacteriocins. Depending on the type of bacteriocins, genes responsible for pre‐peptides transport and modification are located close to the bacteriocin biosynthesis gene, and genes responsible for the immunity and active bacteriocin production are broadly located in operon clusters and might be harbored in plasmid, genome, or other mobile genetic factors. 47 In addition to inducible expression, these operons require auto‐inducer peptides to induce bacteriocin production. The regulation of expression is generally fulfilled by a two‐part regulatory system, but in some cases, this process is done by three‐element ones. The production of bacteriocins is fulfilled in the exponential growth phase by retaining a line‐to‐line connection to the biomass production. 44
7. ACTIVITY OF LAB AGAINST FOODBORNE PATHOGENS
According to the FDA, the most prevalent foodborne pathogenic bacteria are as follows: L. monocytogenes, S. enteritidis, Shigella, S. typhimurium, pathogenic Escherichia coli, Campylobacter jejuni, C. perfringes, and S. aureus. 41 Due to some restrictions on the use of therapeutic antibiotics in food production and processing as well as nontoxicity of treatment with LAB‐derived antimicrobial peptides, most research in recent years has been devoted to investigating these bacteriocins. Given the cleavage of bacteriocins by gastrointestinal proteases, reducing their activity level, they are generally safe and show a considerable capacity to constrain foodborne pathogens growth. 41 , 48 Also, considering bacteriocins ability to form pores in the cell membrane of sensitive bacteria, they are naturally bactericidal or bacteriostatic. For instance, BMP11 as a new bacteriocin produced by L. crustorum against L. monocytogenes, has been shown to destroy cell membrane integrity and increase membrane permeability. 49 Moreover, it has been well documented that P. acidilactici QC38 is able to inhibit L. monocytogenes, L. innocua, S. typhimurium, E. coli, V. cholerae NO 01, and V. cholerae O1 Ogawa. 50 The inhibitory activity of Pediococcus spp. (isolated from cheese) against Listeria species was reported by Cavicchioli et al. 51 They indicated that bacteriocins produced by E. hirae ST57ACC and P. pentosaceus ST65ACC inhibited 100% of L. monocytogenes strains and two L. innocua strains. Nisin, produced by L. lactis subsp. Lactis, has been reported to inhibit the growth of Gram‐positive bacteria as well as Clostridium and Bacillus spores. Considering its antimicrobial activity against Listeria spp., pediocin (P. acidilactici) has been shown to mitigate the growth of spoilage microorganisms during storage in the meat industry as well as to be efficient against L. monocytogenes in beef, turkey, and sliced jambon. 44 Similar to pediocin, the semi‐purified bacteriocin BacTN635 (produced by L. plantarum sp. TN635) has also been shown to be strongly active against spoilage microorganisms in chicken breast and beef. 52 Furthermore, the potency of combined application of various bacteriocins, including subclass IIa bacteriocins, L. fermentum ACA‐DC179, and bioprotective cultures of E. faecium PCD71, in inhibiting L. monocytogenes in various meat products has been documented. In addition to enterocins as broad‐spectrum antimicrobial bacteriocins against foodborne pathogens (Clostridium spp. and Listeria spp.), 45 purified bifidocin A has also been indicated to display a broad range of antimicrobial activity against spoilage and foodborne pathogenic bacteria, such as S. aureus, L. monocytogenes, E. coli, and some types of yeasts. 53
8. ARE BACTERIOCINS THE BEST SUBSTITUTE FOR ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY?
To the best of our knowledge, antibiotics play an important role in the disease prevention and treatment in animals and humans. In addition to adverse effects of some antibiotics, the emergence of antibiotic‐resistant, MDR (multidrug‐resistant), and XDR (extensively drug‐resistant) strains has recently become a major concern. 54 , 55 It is estimated that by 2060, at least 20 new antibiotics are needed to overcome the problem of antibiotic resistance, while the design of new antibiotics is a time‐consuming and slow procedure. 56 Therefore, it is necessary to develop new treatment strategies that could eliminate antibiotic‐resistant microorganisms. 57 One of the strategies is to use antimicrobial peptides to achieve this goal. Bacteriocin is considered as a suitable antimicrobial peptide due to its thermal stability and high efficacy with nano‐molecular size. 58 , 59 In addition to the immune system, bacteriocins are able to affect other bacteria through competition in colonization. 21 , 33 Researchers are looking for anti‐pathogenic bacteriocins that are as effective as antibiotic therapy. 60 Bacteriocins have been shown to possess advantages over antibiotics. 61 These antimicrobial peptides are considered to provide more protection with no side effects compared to antibiotics. A study examining the differences between bacteriocins and antibiotics found that oral administration of pediocin PA‐1 had no side effects on the gastrointestinal tract, while under the same conditions, the use of antibiotics such as penicillin and tetracycline exhibited different results. 62 Bacteriocins are synthesized ribosomally and considered as primary metabolites, while antibiotics are a type of secondary metabolites. This feature allows researchers to design novel bacteriocins with more effective capabilities using bioengineering techniques based on bacteriocins synthesis ways. 63 Unlike antibiotic‐producing bacteria, bacteriocins are not inhibited by antimicrobial agents. The activity of bacteriocins on drug‐resistant strains, hospital‐acquired infections, respiratory tract infections, skin diseases, dental infections, vaginosis, and tuberculosis has been proved. 62 Several antibiotics are not active against infections caused by S. aureus, enterococci, and pneumococci strains. Studies have shown that MRSA (methicillin‐resistant S. aureus) and VRE (vancomycin‐resistant enterococci) are affected by bacteriocins such as nisin A and lacticin 3147. 64 Nisin F and mersacidin were shown in a study to inhibit S. aureus growth as a respiratory pathogen without damaging the lungs and other respiratory organs such as bronchi and trachea in animal model. 65 Proteolytic digestion of bacteriocins in the gastrointestinal tract may affect bacteriocins activity; however, it is possible to overcome the problem by their encapsulation and insertion into liposomes. 63 Also, the use of synergistic function of bacteriocins is economically more cost effective than producing expensive antibiotics. 63 The inherent resistance of certain bacteria to these peptides with very strong antimicrobial activity at nanomolar concentrations is one of the most challenging aspects of bacteriocins usage. Although few studies have examined resistance to bacteriocins, some studies have shown a nearly 10‐fold increase in nisin MIC against L. monocytogenes, indicating a 10‐fold increase in resistance to nisin. Degradation of nisin by B. cereus‐synthesized nisinase leads to inactivation of this bacteriocin, while bacitracin, polymyxin, and gramicidin are resistant to these enzymes. 66 , 67 Unlike widespread studies on enzymes mediating extensive resistance to β‐lactam antibiotics, such as β‐lactamases and carbapenemases, resistance of bacteriocin‐degrading enzymes has not been properly investigated. 68 Therefore, there is controversy over whether bacteriocins could be considered as alternatives to antibiotics or not. Studies results describe bacteriocins as supplements for antibiotics due to their high stability, no side effects, and potential to induce a synergistic effect. 69 In combination with antibiotics, bacteriocins act synergistically; they not only increase the efficiency of antibiotics and prevent the emergence of antibiotic‐resistant species but also reduce the side effects of antibiotics by lowering the concentration of antibiotics needed to eliminate bacteria. 61 , 63 , 70 , 71 Nowadays, the therapeutic efficacy of bacteriocins could be enhanced by designing engineered bacteriocins; this requires biological and chemical modification methods and further investigations. 57
9. IMPACT OF BACTERIOCINS ON ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE PROFILE OF DRUG‐RESISTANT BACTERIA
The incidence of antibiotic resistance is attributed to several factors, including overuse of antibiotics, self‐medication at home, and improper antibiotic administration. When people consume contaminated food with such drug‐resistant bacteria, they lose sensitivity to the relevant antibiotics. 72 According to available information, many patients die due to antibiotic resistance with an annual rate of at least 700,000 cases, and this number is likely to increase by 2050. Some bacteriocins such as nisins A and F, mersacidin, mutacin 1140, lactacin 3147, and pediocin AcH/PA‐1 are active against MRSA and VRE strains. 65 , 73 , 74 Brand et al. 75 indicated that nisin F could inhibit S. aureus infection in mice and reported that the growth‐inhibition time lasted only 15 minutes. Another study by Fernández et al. (2008) demonstrated the antibacterial activity of nisin A in mastitis. They also described bacteriocins as efficient alternatives to antibiotics and showed that after two weeks, the number of bacteria in the milk of mothers with mastitis was significantly reduced and then followed by relief of symptoms. 76 It has been shown that Bacillus spp. are able to reduce MRSA infection in animal model by producing mersacidin. 73 Bacteriocin LipA is active against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and could eliminate resistant strains. Drug‐resistant S. aureus strains in goat milk are also affected by AS‐48 and nisin. These bacteriocins both individually and synergistically are able to eliminate S. aureus. 77 Researchers have shown that B. subtilis KIBGE IB‐17 produces a heat‐resistant bacteriocin called BAC‐IB‐17 which is very effective against MRSA strains. 78 Also, the effect of another bacteriocin called sonorensinon has been proven against various Gram‐positive bacteria, such as antibiotic‐resistant S. aureus biofilms and Gram‐negative bacteria. 79 In an animal study in the field of bacteriocin design, bacteriocin peptide Ω76 was introduced as an active substance against carbapenem‐ and tigecycline‐resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. However, in this study, the relevant bacteriocin showed toxic effects such as nephrotoxicity, which was resolved in combination with antibiotics. 80
10. IS IT POSSIBLE TO CONTROL FOODBORNE BACTERIA BY BACTERIOCINS?
Food pathogenic bacteria are present in both planktonic and biofilm forms as foodborne pathogens. In addition to being able to counteract with drug‐resistant bacteria, bacteriocins may also be used as food and dairy products preservatives. 81 According to studies, LAB‐derived bacteriocins such as nisin, pediocin PA‐1, pediocin, mersacidin, mutacin, and lacticin are mostly used in the food processing industry as preservatives that are capable of preventing the growth of C. botulinum, E. faecalis, VRE, L. monocytogenes, S. aureus, and other foodborne pathogens. 82 , 83 , 84 L. monocytogenes as the most common meat food pathogen could cause serious infections. Huang et al. 85 showed that enterocin RM6 and enterocin AS‐48 as cyclic peptides generated by E. faecalis (found in raw‐milk) were able to affect some foodborne bacteria, especially L. monocytogenes, B. cereus, and MRSA strains. Studies have shown the effects of various bacteriocins on L. monocytogenes. 82 , 86 , 87 , 88 B. cereus is another important foodborne pathogen causing different opportunistic infections in immunocompromised and immunocompetent individuals, such as food poisoning. Lauková et al indicated that lantibiotic bacteriocins, namely, gallidermin, and nisin, can be prevent from biofilm‐forming enterococci multiplication isolated by Slovak dry fermented meat. 89 Draper et al. 90 showed that lacticin 3147 as a lantibiotic in combination with polymyxin B could be active against B. cereus 8079 and B. cereus 5247. There are other bacteria known as foodborne pathogens that have been extensively studied by researchers to evaluate the effect of different bacteriocins on their growth and proliferation. For example, elimination of S. entrica serovar typhi following the use of nisin along with β‐lactam antibiotics was proven in a study by Rishi et al. 91 Although bacteriocins have become popular as an antimicrobial peptide in recent decades, 62 various studies have currently shown that bacteriocins in combination with conventional antibiotics could have a broader and stronger effect; however, the role of bacteria as an antimicrobial agent in the management of infections is still controversial.
11. CLASSIFICATION OF BACTERIOCINS
Up to now, four classes of LAB bacteriocins have been identified: Class I, known as lantibiotics, is composed of modified bacteriocins; Class II includes heat‐stable, minimally modified bacteriocins; Class III includes larger, heat‐labile bacteriocins; and Class IV is composed of complex bacteriocins with carbohydrate or lipid moieties. Classes I and II bacteriocins have been the focus of most probiotic research. 92 Lantibiotics are divided into three groups based on their structure and mode of action. Type A lantibiotics, such as nisin, are small (2–5 kDa) proteins with positively charged molecules, which kill bacteria via the formation of membrane pores, causing dissipation of membrane integrity and efflux of small metabolites from the sensitive cells. Mersacidin is a member of Type B lantibiotics that kill bacteria by interfering with cellular enzymatic reactions, such as cell wall synthesis. 93 Another subgroup, such as lacticin 3147, is two‐component lantibiotics that synergistically display antimicrobial activity. It has been shown that dual activities could be distributed across two peptides: While one resembles Type B lantibiotic mersacidin that depolarizes the membrane, the other one is more similar to Type A lantibiotic nisin that acts through pore formation. Class II LAB bacteriocins are also small non‐lanthionine‐containing peptides that kill bacteria by inducing membrane permeability and the subsequent leakage of molecules from target bacteria. These bacteriocins are organized into the following subgroups: Class IIa is the largest group, including pediocin (this group is also called pediocin‐like bacteriocins), sakacin A, and leucocin A. Like Type A lantibiotics, Class IIa bacteriocins act through the formation of pores in the cytoplasmic membrane. Class IIa bacteriocins are distinguished by shared activity against Listeria and a conserved amino‐terminal sequence (YGNGVXaaC) that is thought to facilitate nonspecific binding to the target surface. Class IIb bacteriocins, such as lacticin F and lactococcin G, are composed of two different proteins; they form pores in the cell membrane to inhibit or kill their target bacteria. Class IIc bacteriocins are sec‐dependent, such as acidocin 1B. 94 Class III bacteriocins are large, heat‐labile proteins such as helveticins J or lactacin B. Class IV bacteriocins such as leuconocin S and lactocin 27 require lipid or carbohydrate moieties for activity. 95
11.1. Bacteriocins of Gram‐positive bacteria
Bacteriocins of Gram‐positive bacteria are as abundant as and even more diverse than those found in Gram‐negative bacteria. Bacteriocins of Gram‐positive bacteria, in general, and lantibiotics, in particular, require more genes for their production than those of Gram‐negative bacteria. The nisin gene cluster, for example, includes genes for encoding the pre‐peptide (nisA), modifying amino acids (nisB, nisC), cleavage of the leader peptide (nisP), secretion (nisT), immunity (nisI, nisFEG), and regulation of expression (nisR, nisK). These gene clusters are most often encoded on plasmids but are occasionally found on chromosomes. In several Gram‐positive bacteria, bacteriocins synthesis genes, including nisin, are located on transposons. 96 Bacteriocins of Gram‐positive bacteria are restricted to eliminate other Gram‐positive bacteria. The range of their antimicrobial activity could vary significantly from relatively narrow spectrum, such as in lactococcins A, B, and M, which have been found to kill only Lactococcus, to extraordinarily broad spectrum, such as in some Type A lantibiotics including nisin A and mutacin B‐Ny266, which have been shown to kill a wide range of organisms, including Actinomyces, Bacillus, Clostridium, Corynebacterium, Enterococcus, Gardnerella, Lactococcus, Listeria, Micrococcus, Mycobacterium, Propionibacterium, Streptococcus, and Staphylococcus. Contrary to conventional wisdom, these particular bacteriocins are also active against a number of medically important Gram‐negative bacteria including Campylobacter, Haemophilus, Helicobacter, and Neisseria strains as well as methicillin‐resistant bacteria. 97
11.1.1. Bacteriocins of Lactobacillus
The growing emergence of antibiotic‐resistant bacteria in the food industry needs to be controlled with effective antimicrobials. Plantaricin is one of the most important known bacteriocins produced by Lactobacillus. Lacticaseibacillus plantarum could produce at least six different bacteriocins. Several bacteriocin‐producing strains of L. plantarum are used in the food production. 98 Zhang et al. (2018) in their study indicated that bacteriocin J23 produced by L. plantarum J23, isolated from Chinese traditional fermented milk products, showed thermal stability at temperatures below 100°C for 30 min, pH stability in the range of 2.0 to 12.0, and strong activity against L. monocytogenes. Their study results suggest that bacteriocin J23 have potential application prospects in the food industry. 99 Díaz et al. 100 demonstrated that plantaricin‐producing L. plantarum strain EC52 isolated from poto poto exhibited a strong inhibitory activity against L. monocytogenes and E. coli O157:H7 in meat. Omar et al. 101 indicated that bacteriocin‐producing L. plantarum C11 isolated from the Congolese fermented maize product poto poto exhibited inhibitory activity against S. enterica, E. coli, S. aureus, E. aerogenes, B. cereus, E. faecalis, and L. monocytogenes and could be used to improve the safety and storage stability of poto poto. Plantaricin JLA‐9 as a new bacteriocin was purified by Zhao et al. 102 and showed broad‐spectrum antibacterial activity against Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative bacteria, especially Bacillus spp. This bacteriocin could prevent the growth of B. cereus spores. ST28MS and ST26MS bacteriocins produced by two different strains of L. plantarum were purified in a study from molasses and showed inhibitory activity against Gram‐negative bacteria, including P. aeruginosa, E. coli, and A. baumannii. 103 Two bacteriocins JW3BZ and JW6BZ produced by L. plantarum (isolated from Bulgarian boza) were shown to be active against a wide range of Gram‐positive bacteria by Von Mollendorff et al. 104 Also, plantaricin C‐11, 105 plantaricin NA, 106 and bacteriocin AMA‐K have been shown to have a strong anti‐Listeria activity and therefore may be used in food preservation in the future. 107 , 108 Amortegui et al. 109 presented the characteristics of bacteriocins produced by L. plantarum LE5 and LE27 isolated from ensiled corn with antimicrobial activity against L. monocytogenes, L. innocua, and E. faecalis. L. plantarum strain LR/14 identified by Tiwari et al. 110 was characterized to produce a bacteriocin inhibiting L. monocytogenes, S. aureus, and urogenic E. coli. Song et al. 111 indicated that plantaricin ZJ5 (PZJ5) produced by L. plantarum ZJ5 with a molecular weight of 2572.9 Da had strong activity against S. aureus. The antimicrobial activity of nine bacteriocins (ET05, ET06, ET12, ET30, ET31, ET32, ET34, ET35, and ET88) of bacteriocin‐producing LAB isolated from vacuum‐packaged cold‐smoked salmon (CSS) was determined against S. aureus, E. faecalis, L. monocytogenes, and E. faecium in a study by Tome et al. 112 In their study, bacteriocin ET06 belonging to the Class IIa bacteriocins inhibited 84.2% of 19 Listeria strains. The highest anti‐Listeria activity was recorded for ET05, ET30, and nisin derived from L. lactis subsp. lactis ATCC 11454. 112 In another study in 2015, bacteriocins produced by L. curvatus MBSa2 (sakacin P) and L. curvatus MBSa3 (sakacin X) were shown to have inhibitory activity against L. monocytogenes strains. Bacteriocin produced by L. curvatus MBSa2 caused a 2 and 1.5 log reduction in the count of L. monocytogenes in the salami after 10 and 20 days, respectively, suggesting that application of these bacteriocins could be an additional measure to improve the safety of these ready‐to‐eat products with regards to L. monocytogenes. 113 In a study by Mokoena (2017), bacteriocins ST22Ch, ST153Ch, and ST154Ch, produced by L. sakei strains (ST22Ch, ST153Ch, and ST154Ch) isolated from Salpicao, were shown to have inhibitory activity against Listeria spp., Enterococcus spp., Klebsiella spp., E. coli, Pseudomonas spp., Staphylococcus spp., and Streptococcus spp. Maximum activity of these bacteriocins was recorded during the early stationary phase. All sakacins belonged to the Class IIa bacteriocins and possessed strong antilisterial activity. Bacteriocins ST22Ch, ST153Ch, and ST154Ch were produced at high levels during all phases of (fermented) meat processing. The spectrum of antibacterial activity of these strains (ST22Ch, ST153Ch, and ST154Ch) indicates their potential application in a mixed starter culture for the fermentation of meat products. 5 Sivakumar et al. 114 showed that bacteriocin of L. acidophilus (isolated from milk) inhibited the growth of foodborne pathogens, such as V. cholerae, S. typhi, Shigella spp., B. cereus, S. aureus, E. coli, and E. faecalis. In a study by Yi et al. (2016), bacteriocin MN047A (BMA) was found to have antibacterial activity against multidrug‐resistant bacteria and broad‐spectrum inhibitory activity against both Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative bacteria, such as E. coli and S. aureus. This bacteriocin was produced by L. crustorum MN047, which was first isolated from koumiss. 115 In another study by Jiang et al. (2017), a novel bacteriocin called pentocin JL‐1 was produced by L. pentosus; this bacteriocin showed a broad‐spectrum inhibitory activity against both Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative bacteria, especially multidrug‐resistant S. aureus. These results suggest that pentocin JL‐1 has the potential to be used as a biopreservative in the food industry. 116 Zhu et al. (2000) isolated bacteriocin‐producing L. gasseri strain KT7 from infant feces. The bacteriocin gassericin KT7 showed inhibitory activity against some pathogenic bacteria including Listeria, Clostridium, and Enterococcus. This bacteriocin was produced constitutively during exponential growth phase. 117 Another bacteriocin, produced by L. viridescence, was identified by Kp et al. 118 for use in the preservation of various food products with strong antibacterial properties. For the first time, Gautam et al. (2015) reported bacteriocin‐producing potential of L. spicheri strains. Bacteriocin of L. spicheri G2 showed strong activity against pathogenic bacteria such as S. aureus, L. monocytogenes, C. perfringens, S. mutans, L. mesenteroides, and B. cereus. Maximum activity of this bacteriocin (2000 AU/ml) was recorded in MRS broth at 35°C and pH 4.0 after 34 h. 119 L. acidophilus produces Class II acidocin CH5 with a restricted activity against Gram‐positive bacteria. Deraz et al. 120 identified another bacteriocin designated as acidocin D20079, produced by L. acidophilus DSM 20079, with a low molecular weight (6.6 kDa), extreme pH‐ and heat‐stability, and narrow‐spectrum inhibitory activity. Table 1 summarizes the classification of bacteriocins with few examples.
TABLE 1.
Bacteriocin | Species and strain | Source | Mol. wt. (kDa) | Heat‐stability range | Sensitivity | PH Stability range | Production phase | Optimal production | Inhibitory‐activity spectrum | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ET05, ET12, ET32, ET34, | L. delbrueckii | Cold‐smoked salmon | 3.5 | At 60°C for 60 min, and at 100°C for 20 min. | Proteolytic enzymes (pepsin A) | 2–8 |
MRS broth with 0.4% DL‐threonine at 30°C |
Heat: 37°C PH: 6.5 |
L. monocytogenes | 112 |
ET06, ET30, ET31, | L. curvatus | Cold‐smoked salmon | 2.8–4.5 | At 60°C for 60 min, and at 100°C for 20 min. | Proteolytic enzymes (pepsin A) | 2–8 |
MRS broth with 0.4% DL‐threonine at 30°C |
Heat: 37°C PH: 6.5 |
L. monocytogenes | 112 |
Bacteriocins MBSa2 and MBSa3 | L. curvatus | Salami | 2–4 | At 25 and 37°C for 8 h, at 30°C for 6 h, and at 121°C for 15 min |
Proteolytic enzymes: a‐chymotrypsin Streptomyces griseus protease type XIV Trypsin Pepsin Proteinase K |
2–10 | MRS agar at 37°C for 24 h |
Heat: 37°C PH: 6–8 |
L. monocytogenes | 113 |
Fermenticin HV6b | L. fermentum HV6b MTCC 10770 | Human vaginal ecosystem | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) | MRS supplemented with 0.1% w/v Tween 80, at pH 6.5 and 37°C | (−) |
B. fragilis B. ovatus B. vulgatus C. albicans C. sporogenes E. coli E. faecalis G. vaginalis K. pneumoniae L. mesenteroides L. monocytogenes M. flavus N. gonorrhoeae N. mucosa P. aeruginosa P. mirabilis Staphylococci Streptococci S. typhi V. cholerae |
121 |
Nisin | L. lactis subsp. lactis ATCC 11454 | Milk and traditional Sardinian cheese | At 121°C for 15 min | 2.5–9 |
L. monocytogenes C. difficile S. pneumoniae E. faecalis S. bovis S. aureus |
122 | ||||
ST22Ch, | L. sakei | Pork product | 3.0 | At 30–100°C for 2 h |
Proteolytic enzymes: Proteinase K Pronase Trypsin Pepsin Papain |
2–10 | MRS agar at 30°C for 24 h |
Enterococcus spp. Listeria spp. E. coli Klebsiella spp. Pseudomonas spp. Staphylococcus spp. Streptococcus spp. |
123 | |
Bacteriocin MN047 | L. crustorum MN047 | Koumiss from Xinjiang | 1.77 | Up to 121°C for 30 min | Protease | 2–11 | MRS agar at 37°C for 48 h |
S. aureus E. coli |
115 | |
Bacteriocin GM3 | L. sakei GM3 | Goat milk | 4.8 | At 75°C for15 min, at 85°C for 15 min, at 85°C for 30 min, and at 100°C for 20 min |
Pepsin Trypsin Papain Proteinase K |
2–10 | MRS medium at 37°C |
P. aeruginosa MTCC 741 S. aureus MTCC 3160 |
124 | |
Plantaricin | L. plantarum strain EC52 | Poto, an ethnic maize fermented food | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) | MRS Spain at 30°C | L. monocytogenes E. coli O157:H7 | 125 | |
Plantaricin JLA−9 |
L. plantarum JLA−9 |
Suan‐Tsai | 1.04 | At 121°C for 20 min |
α‐chymotrypsin Pepsin Alkaline protease Papain |
2–7 | MRS 92 medium at 37°C | Bacillus spp. | 102 | |
Gassericin KT7 | L. gasseri KT7 | Infant feces | 5 |
At 100 °C for 30 min, and at 121°C for 30 min |
Proteinase K Trypsin Chymotrypsin ®cin Papain |
2–10 | MRS broth at 35°C for 34 h |
Heat: 30–70°C PH: 4–7 |
C. perfringen C. botulinum S. aureus L. monocytogenes E. facecalis B. cereus |
117 |
Pentocin JL−1, | L. pentosus | Grey carpet shark | 2.9 | At 120°C for 15 min |
Proteinase K Trypsin Pepsin Alkaline protease |
5–7 |
MRS at 30 ∘C for 24 h |
Heat: 30°C PH: 5–6 |
Multidrug‐resistant S. aureus | 116 |
11.1.2. Bacteriocin of Enterococcus
Enterococcus is the third main genus of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) after Lactobacillus and Streptococcus. 126 They are ubiquitous bacteria of human and animal gastrointestinal tracts, which are also present in vegetables, meat, milk, and cheese. 127 Their ability to colonize such diverse ecological niches is related to their tolerance in harsh environmental conditions. 128 Despite concerns about their existence as important opportunistic pathogens causing a wide variety of infections, they could exhibit interesting functions. Purification and genetic characterization of many enterococci‐derived peptide bacteriocins have been reported, most of which have been obtained from E. faecalis and E. faecium (Table 2). Since some of these bacteriocins could not be grouped with typical LAB‐derived bacteriocins according to traditional classification, enterocins classification into four new classes has been proposed. 129 Cytolysin produced by E. faecalis is a two‐linear peptide lantibiotic with cytolytic (hemolytic) activity, and its encoding genes are found in both hospital and food isolates. It differs structurally from other linear lantibiotics including nisins A and Z. 130 , 131 Class II enterocins are two‐peptide bacteriocins of the pediocin family. 132 The most common antimicrobial peptides are pediocin‐like enterocins, also known as Class II‐1 bacteriocins, which are classified into two subgroups based on sequence similarity. 133 All of them have a conserved YGNGVXC “pediocin box” motif and a β‐sheet domain supported by a conserved disulfide bridge at the N‐terminus. 134 Enterocin A, mundticins, and enterocin CRL5 are among the first subgroup. 129 The second subgroup is represented by bacteriocin 31, bacteriocin T8, bacteriocin RC714, enterocin SEK4, enterocin P, and enterocin M. 129 Class II‐2 bacteriocins lack the YGNGVXC motif and are not synthesized with a leader peptide; however, they must have complementary actions of both peptides to be completely active. 13 A main subgroup includes enterocin Q, enterocin C, two‐peptide bacteriocin L50 (A, B), enterocin RJ‐11, and enterocin EJ97.8. Other linear non‐pediocin‐like enterocins with a leader peptide are classified as Class II‐3. The presence of a second peptide may reinforce their antimicrobial activity. Class III enterocins are cyclic peptides including enterocin AS‐48 produced by E. faecalis S‐48. Finally; Class IV includes a large and heat‐labile bacteriocin, named enterolysin A produced by E. faecalis. Enterocins have a wide range of antimicrobial activity, inhibiting not only the growth of closely associated bacteria but also Gram‐positive pathogens such as L. monocytogenes, S. aureus, and V. cholerae in food. This particularity has been observed for example in enterocin LD3, enterocin CV7, enterocin B, enterocin Gr17, enterocins A and B, and enterocin dP. 129 Besides, these bacteriocins show broad‐spectrum antimicrobial activity against Gram‐negative bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella sp., Psudomonas spp., and Vibrio sp. 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 Also, they are considered as one of the weapons against multidrug‐resistant pathogens and prevent biofilm formation. The main multidrug‐resistant organisms include ESBL‐producing Enterobacteriaceae, MRSA, and VRE. 60 , 139 Despite their potent activity against foodborne pathogens, enterococcal bacteriocins have not yet been approved for use in natural food preservation due to safety concerns. 126 Recently, E. faecium SF68® (NCIMB 10415, Cerbios‐Pharma SA, Barbengo, Switzerland) and E. faecalis Symbioflor 1 (SymbioPharm, Herborn, Germany) are commercially available on the market as two probiotic strains. 129 , 140
TABLE 2.
Bacteriocin | Production strain | Source | Molecular mass | Heat‐stability range | PH‐Stability range | Stability | Sensitivity | Production parameter | Inhibitory‐activity spectrum | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Enterocin LD3 | E. hirae LD3 | Dosa | 4.1 | At 121°C for 30 min | 2–6 | Amylase lipase |
Papain Proteinase K Pepsin Trypsin |
MRS |
S. aureus P. fluorescens P. aeruginosa S. typhi S. flexneri L. monocytogenes E. coli O157:H7 E. coli (urogenic, a clinical isolate) Vibrio sp. |
(135, 136) |
Unnamed |
E.mundtii QAUEM2808 |
Fermented milk product Dahi | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) | TSB |
E. coli ATCC 10536 S. aureus ATCC 6538 P. aeruginosa ATCC 9027 L. monocytogenes ATCC 13932 |
138 |
Enterocin B | E.faecium YT52 | Boza | 5.5 | At 100°C for 20 min | 5.0–10.0 |
Lipase Lysozyme Catalase |
Proteinase K Trypsin a‐chymotrypsin Pepsin |
GM17 (10 h) logarithmic growth phase (7 h) |
L. monocytogenes B. cereus | 141 |
Nisin |
E. hirae DF105Mi |
Goat milk | (−) | At 121°C for 20 min | 2.0–12.0 |
Detergents α‐amylase Catalase |
Proteinase K Pronase Trypsin Pepsin Papain |
MRS, exponential phase | L. monocytogenes | 142 |
Faerocin MK |
E.faecium M3K31 |
Vigna mungo |
N.D | At 100 °C for 30 min | 2–12 |
NaCL |
Proteinase K Papain |
MRS (18 h) |
L. monocytogenes S. aureus E. coli E. herbicola B. subtilis B. cereus P. aeruginosa |
143 |
TJUQ1 |
E.faecium | Pickled Chinese | (−) | 4–45°C | 6–9 | (−) | (−) |
MRS Overnight under static condition |
L. monocytogenes CMCC 1595 | 144 |
KT11” | E. faecalis KT11 | Cheese |
~3.5 |
At 121°C for 30 min | 2–11 |
Surfactants Solvents |
Proteinase K α‐chymotrypsin Protease Trypsin |
MRS (24 h) |
Vancomycin‐ and/or methicillin‐resistant bacteria L. monocytogenes S. aureus ATCC25923 B. subtilis S. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae, S. marcescens E. aerogenes |
60 |
Enterocin CV7 |
E. faecalis CV7 | Chicken | 4.5 | At 121°C for 10 min |
2–12 |
Solvents Detergents |
Pepsin Proteinase K Trypsin Chymotrypsin Catalase Lipase |
MRS (24 h) |
Gram‐positive bacteria: L. monocytogenes S. aureus Gram‐negative bacteria: Salmonella sp. S. thypi S. enterica E. coli V. fischeri |
137 |
EF478 | E. faecalis | Water | 45 | 2–8 |
At 60°C for 1 h, at 4°C for 6 months, at 25°C for 2 months, and at −20°C for one year |
Amylase Lipase |
Proteinase K Trypsin α‐chymotrypsin |
MRS (16 h) PH: 5–6 |
E. faecalis ATCC 51299 E. faecium ATCC 35667 |
145 |
Enterocin dP |
E. lactis Q1 |
Shrimp | (−) | 4.0–9.0 | At 100°C for 15 min | (−) |
Proteinase K Trypsin |
MRS Aerobic conditions |
L. monocytogenes P. aeruginosa L. garvieae Fungi (Aspergillus niger and Fusarium equiseti) |
146 |
B3A‐B3B | E. faecalis B3A‐B3B | Feces | 5.2 | 2–10 | (−) | CFS |
Proteinase K Trypsin Papain Lipase Catalase Lysozyme |
MRS (24 h) |
L. monocytogenes S. aureus Methicillin‐resistant S. aureus (MRSA) C. perfringens |
139 |
152A and L50B | E. durans 152 | Floor | 5 | 2–8 | At 121 ℃ for 15 min | (−) | Proteinase K |
TSB (24 h) |
L. monocytogenes |
147 |
DU10 |
E.faecalis DU10 |
Duck intestine | 6.3 | 2–12 | At 121°C for 10 min | Detergents Solvents |
Proteinase K Pepsin Trypsin α‐chymotrypsin |
MRS |
Gram‐positive bacteria: L. monocytogenes S. aureus Gram‐negative bacteria: S. typhi S. enterica Salmonella sp. E.coli |
148 |
Enterocin A, B | E.faecium GGN7 | Cow milk | 4.8 and 5.4 | 2–8 | At 121°C for 10 min | (−) | Proteinase K Trypsin |
MRS (16 h) |
L. ivanovii BUG 496 P. aeruginosa 27853 |
149 |
F4‐9 |
E.faecalis F4‐9 |
Red fish | 5.5 | 2 – 6 | At 100°C for 15 min | (−) |
Trypsin Chymotrypsin Proteinase K |
MRS (16 h) |
A Gram‐negative strain Enterococcus B. coagulans E. coli JM109 |
150 |
CRL 1826 |
E. gallinarm CRL 1826 |
Captive bullfrog |
(−) | 2–9 | At 80°C for 30 |
Solvents Lipase α‐amylase |
a‐chymotrypsin Trypsin Pepsin |
MRS Microaerophilic conditions |
Citrobacter freundii P. aeruginosa (bullfrog pathogens) L. monocytogenes |
151 |
LD3 | E. hirae strain LD3 | Dosa batter | Between 3.48 and 7.68 | 2 – 6 | At 121°C for 15 min |
Solvents Detergents Catalase Amylase Lipase |
Pepsin Trypsin Proteinase K Papain |
MRS (18 h) |
S. aureus P. fluorescens P. aeruginosa, S. typhi S. flexneri L. monocytogenes E. coli O157:H7 Vibrio sp. |
152 |
SH01 |
E.faecium SH01 |
Mukeunji | 3 | 2–12 | At 121°C for 15 min | α‐Amylase Catalase Detergents |
α‐chymotrypsin Pronase E Proteinase K Trypsin |
MRS Early stationary (24 h) |
L. monocytogenes KCTC 3569 L. curvatus KFRI 166 L. mesenteroides ATCC 10830 (agar‐well‐diffusion assay) |
153 |
FL31 | E.faecium | (−) | 3.5 | 2–9 | At 100°C for 90 min |
Surfactants Solvents |
Trypsin Pronase E Proteinase K |
MRS Early stationary |
L. monocytogenes ATCC19117 | 154 |
11.1.3. Bacteriocins of Streptococcus
The genus Streptococcus embraces a broad range of Gram‐positive bacteria, some of which are pathogenic species, while others are important for use in dairy products fermentation. S. thermophilus is the only streptococcal species that along with Lactobacillus spp. is used as an industrial dairy starter culture, especially for yogurt manufacturing. 155 It could improve the quality of fermented dairy products through various probiotic effects and the production of bacteriocins, flavor substances, and extracellular polysaccharides. 156 Renye et al. 157 demonstrated that S. thermophilus strain ST109 produced an antimicrobial peptide against lactobacilli, enterococci, and human pathogen S. pyogenes. Various studies have reported the ability of Streptococcus spp. against human pathogens and common foodborne bacterial pathogens 158 , 159 , 160 (Table 3). In another study by O'Connor et al., 161 S. hyointestinalis DPC6484 isolated from the porcine intestine was shown to produce a bacteriocin designated as nisin H with a molecular mass of 3,453 Da, exhibiting an antimicrobial activity against a wide range of Gram‐positive genera. The use of nisin variants as natural food preservatives has been reported in over 50 countries worldwide without inducing microbial resistance. 162
TABLE 3.
Bacteriocin | Production strain | Source | Molecular mass | Stability | Sensitivity | Production parameter | Inhibitory spectrum | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nisin H |
S. hyointestinalis DPC6484 |
Porcine intestine | 3.4 | (−) | (−) | TSB at 37°C |
E. coli DPC6912 B. cereus 9139 L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus LMG6901 L. lactis subsp. cremoris HP E. faecalis 6307 S. agalactiae ATCC 13813 S. agalactiae DPC5338 S. bovis DPC6491 S. gallolyticus DPC6501 L. innocua DPC3572 L. monocytogenes 1042 S. aureus ATCC 25923 S. aureus DPC5245 S. hyointestinalis DPC6484 S. uberis strain 42 |
161 |
Unknown | Streptococcus species (G3, G4) | Green gram | (−) | PH: 5 | (−) | MRS broth at 37°C for 48 h |
P. aeruginosa S. aureus E. coli Klebsiella |
160 |
Thermophilin 109 |
S. thermophilus ST109 |
Raw milk |
5–6 |
At 121°C for 17 min. |
B. subtilis protease Proteinase K Trypsin a‐amylase |
TYL broth for 18 h |
In TYL broth: Other S. thermophilus strains L. delbreuckii ssp. bulgaricus L. acidophilus S. pyogenes In M17G broth: E. faecalis E. faecium |
157 |
Suicin 65 | S. suis 65 | Pigs |
3.3 (SDS‐PAGE) |
Enzyme: trypsin, chymotrypsin, proteinase K/30 min PH: 2 and 11 Heat: 121°C for 15 min |
(−) | Todd Hewitt agar (THA) plates supplemented with 0.01% Tween 80 | S. suis strains from different countries | 158 |
Suicin 3908 |
S. suis serotype 2 | Pigs |
3.3 (SDS‐PAGE) |
Enzymes: trypsin, chymotrypsin, proteinase PH: 2 and 11 Heat: 121°C for 15 min |
(−) | 2 L of a culture medium containing 2% proteose‐peptone, 1% yeast extract, 0.25% glucose, 0.25% NaCl, 0.3% K2HPO4, 0.2% KH2PO4, 0.01% MgSO4 · 7 H2O, and 0.002% MnSO4 · 7 H2O (pH 7.0) | S. hyicus | 159 |
11.1.4. Bacteriocins of Pediococcus
Pediococcus is a type of lactic acid bacteria, which plays a major function in the preservation of fermented food products such as vegetables, meat, sausage products, and cheddar cheese. 163 Bacteriocins of Pediococcus species are designated as pediocins and produced by three species that play an important role in food biopreservation, including P. acidilactici, P. cerevisiae, and P. pentosaceus. They generally belong to the Class IIa bacteriocin family with a small molecular weight (<5 kDa); the identified N‐terminal region of all pediocins includes a pattern known as "pediocin box." They show a wide range of antimicrobial activity against other bacteria related to food spoiling and health jeopardies of food source. The biological and chemical characteristics of pediocins are shown in Table 4. Various species are stable in a broad span of pH and temperature, which makes them suitable for biopreservation of various food products. 164 Production of bacteriocin usually occurs during the stationary growth phase in MRS broth. Several studies have reported that both P. acidilactici and P. pentosaceus are associated with food fermentation and produce various pediocins which inhibit several food spoilage and human pathogenic bacteria. 32 Pediocins are Class IIa bacteriocins produced by Pediococcus spp., which are commercially accessible under the name Alta 2341TM or Microgard TM. These bacteriocins are more effective than nisin against certain foodborne pathogens, such as L. monocytogenes and S. aureus, and Gram‐negative organisms such as Pseudomonas and E. coli. The potential application of pediocins in dairy products is further enhanced by considering their stability in aqueous solutions over a wide pH range and in heating or freezing systems. Despite this high possibility, a few studies have examined the addition of pediocins to milk or dairy products. Pediocin PA1 was found to reduce L. monocytogenes numbers in cottage cheese, cream, and cheese sauce by Garsa et al. 165
TABLE 4.
Bacteriocin | Species | Source | Mol. wt. (kDa) | Heat stability range | Sensitivity | PH Stability range | Production phase | Optimal Production | Inhibitory activity spectrum | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VJ13B | P. pentosaceus VJ13 | Idli batter | 4.0 | At 100°C for 1 h | Protease | 2–8 | MRS broth (24 h) |
Heat: 37°C PH: 5.0–6.0 |
M. smegmatis K. pneumonia L.monocytogenes C. perfringens S. epidermidis |
172 |
NKSM1 |
P. pentosaceus NKSM1 |
Appam batter | 9–14 | At 110°C for 2 h |
Trypsin Papain |
4–7.5 |
MRS broth (48 h) |
Heat: 30°C PH: 6.0 |
L. monocytogenes MTCC 657 A. baumannii MTCC 1425 |
173 |
A11 and C12 | P. acidilactici A11 and C12 | Breast milk isolate (ASI) | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) |
MRS broth (24 h) |
Heat: 37°C | MRSA | 174 |
BLIS | P. pentosaceus ATCC 43200 | Shake flasks to bioreactor | 75 | At 121°C for 15 min | (−) | 3.8–6.5 | MRS broth (16 h) |
Heat: 37°C PH: 6.0 ± 0.2 Addition of 1.0 N HCl |
L. innocua L. seeligeri |
41 |
Pediocin L50 | P. acidilatici FS6 | Human breast milk | 2.7–17 | (−) | (−) | 2.5 | MRS broth (24 h) |
Heat: 37°C PH: 2.5 |
E. coli 0157:H7 L. monocytogenes ATCC 15313 B. cereus ATCC 14576 S aureus ATCC 19095 H. pylori |
175 |
PE‐ZYB1 | P. pentosaceus zy‐B | Intestine of Mimachlamys nobilis | 2.02 | At 121°C for 20 min | Trypsin | 2–10 | MRS broth (48 h) |
Heat: 37°C PH: 2–7 |
L.monocytogenes | 49 |
(−) | P. pentosaceus | Brazilian artisanal cheese | (−) | At 121°C for 15 min |
Proteinase K Trypsin Pepsin α‐Chymotrypsin Protease type XIV |
2–10 | MRS broth (24 h) | Heat: 37°C PH: 6.5 |
L. monocytogenes 211 L. monocytogenes 422 |
51 |
(−) | Pediococcus acidilactici K10 | Kimchi | (−) | (−) | (−) | 2.5–4 | MRS broth (24 h) |
Heat: 37°C PH: 3.0 |
S. typhimurium E. coli O157:H7 |
176 |
Pediocin | P. acidilactici CFR K7 | Pickles and dry‐cured meats | 5 | At 121°C for 20 min |
Pepsin Trypsin Proteinase K |
2–11 | MRS broth (48 h) | Heat: 30°C PH: 6.0 |
S. aureus E. coli |
177 |
P. acidilactici | Gappal |
Protease Pepsin Trypsin |
MRS broth (12 h) |
Heat: 30°C PH: 6.0 |
E. faecalis ATCC 19433 M. luteus ATCC 49732 S. aureus ATCC 2523 L. monocytogenes B. megaterium B. sphaericus B. cereus |
In a study, pediocin PA‐1 was derived from P. acidilactici PAC1 and shown to lyse a strain of L. monocytogenes. 166 Choi and Beuchat 167 isolated a bacteriocin from P. acidilactici, which had a deadly result on L. monocytogenes. Jamuna and Jeevaratnam 168 extracted a bacteriocin from P. cerevisae P18, which was composed of a combination of proteinaceous materials and was active against L. monocytogenes. Pediocin A was obtained in a study from P. pentosaceus with a molecular mass of 80 kDa, which had inhibitory activity against Lactobacillus, Leuconostoc, Pediococcus, Staphylococcus, Enterococcus, Listeria, and Clostridium species. 169 A new bacteriocin was obtained in a study from P. pentosaceus ACCEL with a molecular mass of 17.5 kDa and stability at pH 2.0–6.0; only Gram‐positive bacteria were inhibited by this bacteriocin. 165 A new proteinaceous compound with a molecular mass of 23 kDa has been derived from P. pentosaceus for the first time, which is active against S. dysenteriae; this bacteriocin could be supplemented into any food to make it safe against S. dysenteriae as a foodborne pathogen causing alarm in many developing countries. 170 A pediocin‐producing strain of P. acidilactici able to survive in the GI tract has been recently isolated and found to be an effectual inhibitor of various Gram‐positive bacterial pathogens, such as Enterococcus spp. and L. monocytogenes. It demos inhibitory activity against gastric adhesion of opportunistic pathogens, such as Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, and Shigella species. 171 Speelmans et al. (2006) isolated P. pentosaceus 05–10 from a traditionally fermented Sichuan pickle, which could produce a bacteriocin designated as pediocin 05–10 active against Listeria, Lactobacillus, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, Pediococcus, and Leuconostoc. The broad anti‐Listeria activity exhibited by pediocin 05–10 is the characteristic of Class IIa bacteriocins. Pediocin 05–10 was sensitive to proteolytic enzymes but stable at pH 2–10 and resistant to heat (15 min at 121°C). 171
11.1.5. Bacteriocins of Carnobacterium
Carnobacterium spp. isolated from poultry, fish, and vacuum‐packaged meat were initially accepted as non‐aciduric lactobacilli by Parada et al. 178 The carnobacterial bacteriocins belong to the Class I and II bacteriocins. 179 Many studies have reported bacteriocins associated with this genus, which inhibit the growth of spoilage microorganisms in foodstuffs. 180 , 181 MMF‐32 and KOPRI 25789 are produced by C. maltaromaticum KOPRI 25789 and C. maltaromaticum MMF‐32 and show antimicrobial activity against L. monocytogenes and Gram‐negative bacteria in smoked salemon. High bacteriocin production occurs at 30°C and optimal pH 5–7. Additional experiments have indicated that producer isolates effectively inhibit foodborne pathogens in vitro, presumably due to the effects of bacteriocins. 182 , 183 Their resistance and/or sensitivity to proteases, general pH, and heat confirm the presence of bacteriocins and their potential usage as biopreservatives in food products (Table 5).
TABLE 5.
Bacteriocin | Species and strain | Source | Mol. wt. (kDa) | Heat stability range | Sensitivity | PH Stability range | Production phase | Optimal production | Inhibitory activity spectrum | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MMF−32 and KOPRI 25789 |
C. maltaromaticum MMF−32 C. maltaromaticum KOPRI 25789 |
Smoked salmon | — | At 56°C for 30 min and at 100°C for 10 min |
Lysozyme Proteinase K Trypsin α‐Chymotrypsin |
3.5–6.5 | MRS broth (48 h) |
Heat: 30°C, PH: 6.5±0.2 |
Shewanella baltica OS185 L. monocytogenes ATCC 19114 Aeromonas HB−6 A. hydrophila HX201006‐3 S. baltica S. baltica OS678 Serratia I−113–31 A. salmonicida subsp. achromogenes |
184 |
‐ | Chromobacterium aquaticum | Zebrafish | — | At 100°C for 20 min | Protease Xylanase | 2–11 | TSB agar (30 h) |
Heat: 30°C PH: 5–7 |
A. hydrophila S. iniae |
182 |
Piscicolin 126, carnobacteriocin BM1, and carnocyclin A | C. maltaromaticum | Lean beef | — | At 100°C for 20 min | 2–11 | LB broth (48 h) |
Heat: 30°C PH: 5.4 |
E. coli AW1.7 S. enterica Typhimurium |
183 |
11.1.6. Bacteriocins of Leuconostoc
Leuconostoc spp. are lactic acid bacteria that are most commonly associated with fermented food products, such as fermented sausages, fermented vegetables, cereal products, and a wide variety of fermented milk products. 185 , 186 They are environmental organisms that are generally found in fresh plants, raw milk, or chilled food products. 185 Leuconostoc spp. have the ability to produce aroma compounds (diacetyl and acetoin) in dairy products by metabolizing citrate. 187 Antimicrobial activity of these organisms has long been recognized. 188 Several studies have identified bacteriocin‐producing strains of leuconostocs (Table 6). 189 , 190 , 191 Most Leuconostoc bacteriocins are classified as Class II, which are small (less than 10) and heat stable. They are non‐lanthionine‐containing bacteriocins without post‐translational modification. 16 Several strains of Leuconostoc spp. could produce bacteriocin (Table 6). According to Table 6, L. mesenteroides is the most common bacteriocin‐producing species. They mainly prevent the growth of Gram‐negative and Gram‐positive bacteria, including E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria spp, and S. aureus, which are foodborne pathogens. Therefore, this species is considered as a good candidate for the use in fermented food products in the food industry.
TABLE 6.
Bacteriocin | Production strain | Source | Mol. wt. (kDa) | Heat‐stability range | Stability | pH Stability range | Sensitivity | Production parameter | Inhibitory activity spectrum | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BacCHBY46 | L. mesenteroides CHBY 46 | Algerian dromedary milk | 3.5 (Tricine‐SDS‐PAGE) | 80–100°C | (−) | PH: 2–6 |
Protease α‐chymotrypsine Trypsine |
MRS broth |
S. aureus ATCC 29213 P. aeruginosa L. innocua ATCC 33090 E. coli ATCC 25922 S. aureus ATCC 29213 K. oxytoca ATCC 13182 E. cloacae ATCC 13047 E. faecalis ATCC 10541 B. cereus ATCC 10876 P. aeruginosa ATCC 27653 |
192 |
Unknown | Leuconostoc spp. | Stored meat | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) | MRS broth |
E. coli S. typhimurium S. aureus L. monocytogenes |
193 |
L. lactis SD501 |
L. lactis SD501 | Kimchi | 7 | At 121 ℃ for 15 min |
Catalase Amylase Lipase Pepsin |
1–10 |
Proteinase K α‐chymotrypsin |
Early stationary phase in MRS broth at 37°C |
L. monocytogenes E. faecalis |
190 |
Unknown | L. pseudomesenteroides | Tibetan yaks | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) | MRS broth for 24 |
E. coli S. aureus S. enteritidis S. aureus |
194 |
Unknown | L. lactis BT17 | Boza | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) | MRS broth |
E. coli ATCC 25922 Salmonella sp. K. pneumoniae |
195 |
Leucocin K7 | L. mesenteroides | Pickles | (−) | 0–100°C | (−) | 2–10 |
Pepsin Protease K Papain |
MRS at 30°C for 24 h |
L. monocytogenes strains CMCC54005 S. aureus ATCC 29213 P. aeruginosa ATCC 27653 |
196 |
BLIS 213M0 | L. mesenteroides subsp. dextranicum | Mongolian fermented mare milk and airag | 2.6–3. (SDS‐PAGE) |
25°C for 1 week 121°C for 15 min |
(−) |
2 −11 4.5 |
Pepsin Trypsin α‐Chymotrypsin Proteinase K |
MRS broth at 25°C exponential growth phase of the producer cells |
Listeria spp. E. faecalis L. mesenteroides P. pentosaceus S. thermophilus |
189 |
Unknown | L. mesentroides | Domestic goat | (−) | (−) | (−) | 4.2–9.2 | (−) |
MRS broth at 35°C for 24 h PH: 6.2 |
S.aureus ATCC25923 E.coli ATCC25422 P.aeruginosa ATCC27583 K.pneumonia ATCC700603 |
191 |
Mesentericin W3 |
L. mesenteroides subsp. cremoris |
Wine | 3.9 (MALDI‐TOF MS) | (−) |
Acetonitril 2‐propanol Methanol Acetone Chloroform Ethanol |
2 and 7 |
Proteinase K Trypsin |
MRS broth pH 6.5 at 30°C |
Lactobacillus Leuconostoc Carnobacterium Listeria Enterococcus |
197 |
Unknown |
L. mesenteroides strain P45 |
Pulque, a Mexican traditional alcoholic beverage | (−) | (−) |
Lysozyme Bile salts |
3.5 | (−) | MRS or APT (DIFCO) broth at 30°C |
L. monocytogenes Enteropathogenic E. coli S. enterica serovar Typhi S. enterica serovar Typhimurium |
198 |
Unknown |
L. mesenteroides Com−54 |
Kimchi | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) | Trypsin Lysozyme | MRS broth | Salmonella | 199 |
Homology with mesentericin Y105 (peak 1) and mesentericin B105 | L. mesenteroides subsp. mesenteroides SJRP55 strain |
Water Buffalo Mozzarella cheese |
3.9 and 3.4 (Mass Spectrometry (MS)) |
At 100°C for 2 h 121°C for 20 min |
Enzymes: α‐amylase Lipase Catalase Solvents: SDS Tween 20 Tween 80 Triton X−100 Na‐EDTA NaCl (1%) 1 M urea |
2–4 |
Pepsin Protease Trypsin α‐chymotrypsin |
MRS broth at 25°C Late log phase until the stationary phase |
Listeria spp. | 200 |
Unknown |
L. mesenteroides subsp. mesenteroides L. mesenteroides subsp. Dextranicum |
Traditional date product "Btana" | (−) | At 55°C for 15 min | (−) | 4.8–6.5 | (−) | MRS broth |
P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853 E. faecalis ATCC 29212 E. coli ATCC 25922 S. aureus ATCC 25923 |
201 |
11.1.7. Bacteriocin of Bifidobacterium
Intestinal microbial balance could be improved by suppressing the growth of different potentially pathogenic microorganisms. The production of organic acids and the secretion of antimicrobial compounds such as bacteriocins may be induced by antimicrobial activity of bifidobacteria. 202 Purified bifidocin A shows a wide span of antimicrobial activity against a great deal of food spoiling pathogenic bacteria such as E. coli, L. monocytogenes, S. aureus, and some yeasts 53 (Table 7). Bifidocin A is produced in the exponential growth phase with the maximal production in the midi‐stationary phase. This suggests that bifidocin A production depends on the cell number, and bifidocin A is a secondary metabolite. 203 The reduction in the activity of bifidocin A at the end of the stationary phase may be because of the activity of endogenous extracellular proteases, which peak pending this growth phase. 204 A sensitive strain (E. coli 1.90) was tested in a study to determine whether bifidocin A has a bactericidal or bacteriostatic mode of action. The outcome displayed that the inhibitory activity of bifidocin A against E. coli 1.90 was bactericidal with cell lysis, which is consistent with that of bifidocin B. 205 Antimicrobial activity of substances made by several Bifidobacterium strains (B. bifidum and B. lactis Bb‐12) is curbed to Gram‐negative pathogenic bacteria. 206 Yildirim et al. (1999) showed that their application could be beneficial in the food commercial enterprise in modelling HACCP plans to effectively delete Gram‐negative pathogenic bacteria in meat products, especially E. coli 0157:H7 xx. Bifidocin B was made in a study in the exponential growth phase and reached a peak activity of 3,200 AU/mL at the primary stationary phase. Bifidocin B had a molecular mass of 3.3 kDa as analyzed by tricine‐sodium dodecyl sulfate‐polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. 207 , 208
TABLE 7.
Bacteriocin | Species and strain | Source | Mol. wt. (kDa) | Heat stability range | Sensitivity | PH Stability range | Production phase | Optimal production | Inhibitory activity spectrum | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BB04 bifidocin A |
B.animals |
Healthy centenarians feces |
1.9 | At 100°C for 30 min |
Trypsin Pepsin Proteinase K Acid proteinase Neutral proteinase |
2–11 | MRS broth 32 |
Heat: 37°C PH: 8.0 |
E. coli L. monocytogenes S. aureus |
53 |
Bifidin or bifilact Bb−12 |
Bifidobacterium bifidum and B. lactis Bb−12 |
Cow meat (round cuts) and fat | — | At 121°C for 15 min | — | 4–10 | MRS broth 16 |
Heat:37°C PH: 5–7 |
A. hydrophilia A. caviae A. sobria P. flouresent P. aeruginosa P. fragi E. coli 0157:H7. |
206 |
Bifidin I | B.animalis subspLactis | Cheese Whey | — | — | Proteolytic enzymes | 6 | MRS broth (48 h) |
Heat:37°C PH: 6.0 |
L. monocytogenes ATCC 13932 E. coli ATCC 25922 L. sakei ATCC 15521 |
209 |
Bifidoadocin | B. adolescentis | Saliva of 18 volunteers postmenopausal women | 14.6 | At 121°C for 15 min |
Pepsin Lipase α‐amylase Papain Chymotrypsin |
2–10 | MRS broth (24 h) |
Heat:37°C PH: 6.0 |
E. coli American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) S. aureus ATCC |
210 |
Bifidin I |
B. infantis BCRC 14602 |
— | 3 | At 121°C for 15 min | — | 4–10 | MRS broth (18 h) |
Heat:37°C PH: 5–7 |
LAB strains Staphylococcus Bacillus Streptococcus Salmonella Shigella E. coli |
203 |
11.1.8. Bacteriocins of Lactococcus
Nisin is categorized as a Class‐Ia bacteriocin or lantibiotic. To date, eight types of nisin have been observed and characterized. Nisins A, Z, F, and Q are produced by L. lactis, and nisins U, U2, P, and H are made by some Streptococcus strains. 211 , 212 Nisins effectively belong to the Class I bacteriocins that contain lanthionine and have a double mode of action: (i) they attach to lipid II which is the chief transporter of peptidoglycan subunits from the cytoplasm to the cell wall, inhibit precise cell wall synthesis, and induce cell death, and (ii) they take lipid II as a docking molecule to start the process of membrane insertion and pore formation, leading to speedy cell death. 212 Nisin shows antimicrobial activity against some Gram‐positive bacteria, including LAB, pathogens such as Listeria and Staphylococcus, and spore‐forming bacteria such as Bacillus and Clostridium (Table 8). Nisin has been used extensively in cheese and pasteurized cheese spreads as an alternative to nitrate in order to hinder the outgrowth of clostridia spores. 211 Some research has been undertaken to show the efficacy of nisin (or other bacteriocins) against L. monocytogenes in fresh products. Some studies have focused on combination treatments, for example, nisin in combination with acids and EDTA. 213 The combined effect of nisin and bovicin HC5 against L. monocytogenes and S. aureus in fresh cheese was investigated by Pimentel‐Filho et al. (2014). They reported a significant diminution in L. monocytogenes count to an undiscernible level after 9 days of storage at 4°C; however, the combined effect of bacteriocins did not stop the growth of S. aureus. 214 Józefiak et al. 215 made use of a nisin‐supplemented bird diet to feed broiler chickens and found a decrease in the amount of Bacteroides and Enterobacteriaceae in ileal digesta of chickens fed by nisin‐supplemented diet. Nisin A and lacticin Q produced by L. lactis are more effective in reducing planktonic cells than methicillin‐resistant S. aureus biofilm cells. 216 In addition to LAB bacteriocins, a non‐LAB bacteriocin, named sonorensin, was purified by Chopra et al. 217 from B. sonorensis and displayed a significant anti‐biofilm activity against S. aureus. To date, only nisin (Nisaplin, Danisco) and pediocin PA1 (MicrogardTM, ALTA 2431, Quest) have been commercialized as food compounds. 218 However, some other LAB bacteriocins propose promising outlook for use as biopreservatives, such as enterocin AS‐48 219 or lacticin 3147 220 ; no other bacteriocin has been proposed for industrial application. Lacticins are made by specific strains of L. lactis and include lacticin 3147 and lacticin 481. Lacticin 3147 powder was analyzed by Morgan et al. 221 and found to be effective in controlling Listeria and Bacillus in infant milk formulation, natural yoghurt, and cottage cheese. Lacticin 481 is a single‐peptide lantibiotic with a moderate spectrum of inhibitory activity, which is primarily active against other LAB, C. tyrobutyricum, and L. monocytogenes. The utilization of semi‐purified lacticin 481 in fresh cheese stored at refrigeration temperatures was investigated by Ribeiro et al. (2016), leading to a 3‐log reduction in L. monocytogenes amount during 3–7 days. However, the use of lacticins in food products is unlikely to ensure full deletion of pathogens such as L. monocytogenes. 222 Lactococcin BZ is made by some strains of L. lactis spp. (lactis BZ) and shows broad antibacterial activity against Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative bacteria. This bacteriocin also demonstrations powerful antilisterial activity in milk. Partially purified lactococcin BZ (400–2500 AU/ml) was demonstrated in a review to decrease L. monocytogenes count to an undetectable level in both skim and full‐fat milk during the storage at 4 and 20°C. In addition, this antilisterial activity was stable until the end of the storage period 25 and was not adversely influenced by the milk fat content. 223
TABLE 8.
Bacteriocin | Species and strain | Source | Mol. wt. (kDa) | Heat Stability range | Sensitivity | PH Stability range | Production phase | Optimal production | Inhibitory activity spectrum | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BacL49 | L. lactis | Moribund sleepy cod | 5 and 54 | At 100°C for 1 h |
Proteinase K α‐chymotrypsin Trypsin Papain |
2.5–9.5 | Heart infusion broth (BHI) or agar (10–12 h) |
Heat: 28°C PH: 5.5 |
S. iniae | 224 |
LABW4 | L. lactis | Naturally fermented milk | — | — | Proteinase K | 5–7 | MRS broth (24 h) |
Heat:37°C PH: 6.5 |
L. monocytogenes MTCC657V | 225 |
A5 |
L. lactis A5 |
Gastro‐intestinal tissues of Broadhead catfish | 3.4 | At 121°C for 15 min | Proteinase K | — | MRS broth (18 h) | Heat: 37°C |
B. cereus S. aureus S. thyphimurium |
226 |
Gt28, Gt29, and Ella8 | L. lactis | Native fruits of Ecuador subtropical rainforest | — | At 121°C for 15 min |
Proteinase K Pepsin Lysozyme α‐chymotrypsin |
2–10 | MRS broth (20 h) |
Heat: 37°C PH: 6.0 |
S. enterica ATCC 51741 E. coli ATCC 25922 |
227 |
CJNU 3001 | L. lactis | Kimchi | — | At 100°C for 15 min | Protease | MRS or RCM broth (24 h) | Heat: 25, 30, and 37°C | S. aureus KCTC 3881 | 228 | |
Nisin Z‐producing | lactis subsp. lactis KT2W2L | Brackish water from a mangrove forest | — | At 100°C for 10 min | — | 7 | M17 medium (24 h) |
Heat: 25°C PH: 7.0 |
Brochothrix thermosphacta DSMZ 20171T S. aureus CIP 76.25 |
229 |
Nisin Z | L. lactis | Freshwater fish | 4.10 | At 80°C for 15 min |
Catalase Trypsin α‐Amylase Lipase |
2–10 | MRS broth (15 h) |
Heat: 30°C PH: 6.5 |
L. plantarum 5S E. faecalis ATCC 51299 S. aureus ATCC 25923 |
230 |
BGBU1‐4 | L. lactis | Cheese making | — | — | — | MRS broth (48 h) | Heat: 37°C |
L.monocytogenes ATCC19111 S. aureus LMM322 |
231 | |
Ent35‐MccV |
L. lactis NZ9000 |
Milk | 1.5–15 | At 100°C for 10 min | Protease | 7 | M17 broth (16 h) |
Heat: 30°C PH: 6.5 |
L. monocytogenes E. coli |
232 |
LABW4 | L. lactis | Home‐made buttermilk | ‐ | At 121°C for 15 min |
Trypsin Papain Proteinase K Lysozyme |
3–11 | MRS broth (48 h) |
Heat: 28°C PH: 5–7 |
S. aureus MTCC96 P.aeruginosa MTCC741 |
233 |
DF4Mi | L. lactis | Goat milk | ‐ |
At 100°C for 2 h, and at 121°C for 20 min |
Proteinase K Protease Pepsin α‐chymotrypsin |
2–10 | MRS broth (48 h) |
Heat: 30°C PH: 5–7 |
L. monocytogenes ATCC 7644 |
234 |
11.2. Bacteriocins of Gram‐negative bacteria
Bacteriocins of Gram‐negative bacteria could be classified into three groups: peptide bacteriocins, colicin‐like bacteriocins (CLBs), and tailocins. Recent studies on E. coli, S. enterica, Hafnia alvei, C. freundii, K. oxytoca, K. pneumoniae, and E. cloacae have revealed that bacteriocin production level varies from 3% to 26% among environmental isolates.
11.2.1. Colicin
Colicins produced by E. coli are present in 30–50% of strains isolated from human hosts. E. coli colicins have been the most widely studied Gram‐negative bacteriocins since their discovery; they are now used as a model system for studying bacteriocin structure/function, genetic organization, ecology, and evolution. 235 Nomura and Witten 236 showed that colicins E1 and K inhibited macromolecular synthesis without arrest of respiration, colicin E2 triggered DNA breakdown, and colicin E3 inhibited protein synthesis. According to recent evidence, the frequency of bacteriocin production in E. coli populations could vary from 10 to 80%, depending on the animal host from which they are isolated, the diet of the host, temporal changes, and the type of bacteriocin produced by the strain. When colicins enter the target cell, they could be divided into three categories based on their bactericidal mechanisms as follows: (i) pore‐forming colicins, including colicins A, B, E1, Ia, Ib, K, and N, are those colicins that act through the formation of pores or channels in the inner‐membrane to cause leakage of cytoplasmic compounds, destruction of electrochemical gradient, ion loss, and cell death; (ii) nuclease colicins, including colicins E2 to E9, are those colicins that contain DNase, 16S rRNase, and tRNase and act non‐specifically to digest cellular DNA and RNA of target bacteria; and (ii) peptidoglycanase colicins are proteins that could digest the peptidoglycan precursor, preventing the synthesis of peptidoglycan by bacteria and ultimately leading to bacterial death. 4 Bacteriocins have been reported to inhibit important animal and plant pathogens, such as Shiga toxin‐producing E. coli (STEC), enterotoxigenic E. coli (ETEC), MRSA, VRE, Agrobacterium, and Brenneria spp. 7 Studies have found that 20 different E. coli strains could produce colicin with inhibitory activity against five different Shiga toxin‐producing E. coli strains (O26, O111, O128, O145, and O157: H7). In humans, this E. coli strain (STEC) could cause diarrhea and hemolytic uremic syndrome. E. coli strains, producing colicins E1, E4, E8‐J, K, and S4, were shown in a study to significantly inhibit the growth of STEC in a simulated cattle rumen environment (…). Cutler et al. 237 examined purified colicins E1 and N in vitro against enterotoxigenic E. coli F4 (K88) and E. coli F18, inducing post‐weaning diarrhea in piglets. In addition, purified colicin E1 protein was mixed into the diet of young pigs.
11.2.2. Colicin‐like bacteriocins
CLBs (colicin‐like bacteriocins) target strains closely related to the producer bacteria usually of the same species and have species‐specific names; colicins, klebicins, and pesticins are derived from E. coli, Klebsiella, and Yersinia pestis, respectively. S‐type pyocins (named after the second part of the name P. pyocyanea) are formed by more than 70% of Pseudomonas strains. CLBs are modular proteins that are protease‐resistant and contain domains involved in receptor binding, translocation, and cytotoxicity. 238
11.2.3. Tailocins
Tailocins, also known as high molecular mass bacteriocins, are similar to the tail structures of Myoviridae and Siphoviridae bacteriophages. Most Gram‐negative and Gram‐positive bacteria have tailocin gene clusters in their genomes. The contractile tail of P2‐like temperate enterophages is morphologically and genetically similar to R‐type pyocins. Tailocins, unlike CLBs, are not protease‐resistant and are not classified as immunity proteins. The mechanisms of resistance to tailocins are unknown; however, it is thought to be mediated by a change in the cell surface receptors recognized by tailocins. 238
11.2.4. Microcin
In addition to colicins, E. coli strains could produce microcins, which are smaller than colicins and have more properties in common with bacteriocins produced by Gram‐positive bacteria, such as thermostability, protease resistance, relative hydrophobicity, and resistance to extreme pH. 239 So far, 14 microcins have been discovered, but only seven have been isolated and thoroughly characterized. Microcins are low molecular weight (10 kDa), ribosomally synthesized, hydrophobic, antimicrobial peptides that differ from high molecular weight colicin proteins (25–80 kDa). Microcins are made up of N‐terminal leader and core peptides and are formed as precursor peptides. Microcins are primarily produced by Enterobacteriaceae, which are highly resistant to heat, pH, and protease. Microcins have a variety of bactericidal mechanisms, including pore formation, nuclease functions such as DNase and RNase, and inhibition of protein synthesis or DNA replication. No microcin gene cluster has a corresponding lysis gene; microcins are secreted outside the bacteria through the Type I ABC (ATP‐binding cassette) transporter secretion system, which is made up of a variety of proteins. 240 According to their molecular masses, disulfide bonds in their structure, and post‐translational modifications, microcins are divided into two classes. Class I microcins, such as microcins B17, C7‐C51, D93, and J25, are post‐translationally modified peptides with a low molecular weight (less than 5 kDa). Class II microcins have a higher molecular weight (5–10 kDa) than Class I microcins. Class II microcins are further classified into two subclasses: Class IIa and Class IIb. To synthesize and assemble functional peptides, Class IIa microcins, such as microcins L, V, and N, require three separate genes. Microcins in class IIb, such as microcins E492, M, and H47, are linear peptides with/without C‐terminal post‐translational modifications. 241 Cursino et al. (2006) examined simultaneous administration of probiont and enteric pathogen S. flexneri to germ‐free mice, which resulted in a strong inhibition of the pathogen. The synthesis of microcin C7 as well as colicins E1 and Ib was responsible for the observed inhibition. Inhibition of S. flexneri was mediated by microcin C7 production, while colicins E1 and Ib acted as a stabilization mechanism. 242
11.3. New bacteriocin
Bacteriocins are ribosomally synthesized peptides produced by lactic acid bacteria (LAB), which have the potential to be used as food preservatives as well as antibiotics against multidrug‐resistant pathogens. 60 The discovery of new bacteriocins with different properties indicates that there is still a lot of information to be understood about these peptide antibiotics. In this review, articles entitled with new bacteriocins from 2014 to 2020 were investigated (Table 9). Newly identified bacteriocins may differ in many respects, including the type of classes and subgroups to which they belong, biosynthetic mechanisms, structural characteristics, modes of antimicrobial action, and sources of isolation. Ahmad et al. 243 investigated a new bacteriocin produced by Lysinibacillus with the potential to prevent the growth of foodborne bacterial and fungal pathogens, especially B. pumilus producing pumilacidins toxin. Given that 14 novel species of Lysinibacillus have been identified so far, none of which have been able to act against B. pumilus. It would be beneficial to look for new bacteriocin‐producing LAB in the gastrointestinal tracts of different marine animals because they have already been adapted to a seafood environment. 244 Zhang et al. 49 discovered PE‐ZYB1 as a new bacteriocin generated by P. pentosaceus zy‐B, isolated from Mimachlamys nobilis, with antimicrobial activity against L. monocytogenes. This bacteriocin could be used in the seafood industry as an important weapon against marine animal‐associated bacteria. 245 Some bacteriocins have a high specific activity, making them a good candidate for use in clinical cases against multidrug‐resistant species because they could function at low concentrations with high specificity. 246 They offer a possible solution to combat against MDR pathogens. Advances in science and technology to identify and purify bacteriocins make it possible to discover new bacteriocins that could control undesirable microorganisms (causing spoilage and pathogenesis).
TABLE 9.
Bacteriocin | Species and strain | Source | Mol. wt. (kDa) | Heat stability range | pH Stability range | Stability | Sensitivity | Production phase | Inhibitory activity spectrum | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PE‐ZYB1 | Pediococcus pentosaceus zy‐B | Intestine of Mimachlamys nobilis |
2.02 (LC‐MS/MS) |
At 121°C for 20 min | 2.0–7.0 |
Papain Pepsase |
Trypsin |
MRS (48 h) |
L. monocytogenes, S. hemolyticus S. aureus V. parahemolyticus, E. coli, E. aerogenes, P. aeruginosa B. subtilis B. cereus |
49 |
Bacteriocin SLG10 | Lactobacillus plantarum SLG10 | Kombucha | 1.4 (MALDI‐TOF‐MS) | (−) | 2.0–7.0 |
Trypsin Pepsin |
Proteinase K Chymotrypsin Pepsin |
MRS (30 h) |
B. subtilis B. cereus B. megaterium M. luteus B. thermosphacta C. butyricum S. aureus L.innocua L. monocytogenes E. coli |
247 |
Bacteriocin SF1 | S. flexneri serotype 2a |
Dysenteric diarrhea |
66 (glycine SDS‐PAGE) |
At 76–80°C for 30 min | 2 to 7 |
Trypsin α‐chymotrypsin Pepsin proteinase K papain |
Proteinase K Papain |
BHI (24 h) |
E. coli B. fragilis |
248 |
Un name | Lysinibacillus JX402121 | Spoiled fruits and vegetable waste |
51 (SDS‐PAGE) |
up to 80°C temperature |
4 to 9 |
Metal ion Amylase Lipase Surfactants Solvents |
Proteinase K Pepsin Trypsin |
MRS (48 h) aerobically |
B. pumilus B. pumilus B. subtilis S. epidermidis S. aureus L. monocytogenes M. luteus B. cereus P. aeruginosa A. niger A. fumigatus F.oxysporium A. flavus T. viridae |
243 |
BacBS2 | Bacillus velezensis BS2 | Meongge Jeotgal |
6.5 (Tricine‐SDS PAGE) |
At 80°C for 15 min |
4–9 |
Pepsin Trypsin |
Protease Proteinase K |
LB |
L. monocytogenes B. cereus |
249 |
Subtilin L‐Q11 |
Bacillus subtilis L‐Q11 |
Orchard Soil |
3.6 (MALDI‐TOF‐MS) |
At 60°C for 15 min or 80°C for 30 min |
2 to 7 | Detergents |
Trypsin Chymotrypsin Proteinase K Pepsin |
LB |
B.amyloliquefaciens L. lactis L. plantarum S. aureus E. faecalis S. aureus ATCC 29213 Bacillus spp |
250 |
Bacteriocin CAMT2 | Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ZJHD3‐06 | Epinephelus areolatus | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) | (−) | Modified tryptone glucose extract | L. monocytogenes ATCC 19111 | 251 |
Virgicin | Virgibacillus sp. strain AK90 | Saltpan | 2.4 (MALDI analysis) | At 100°C for 15 min | 4 to 8 | (−) |
Trypsin Proteinase K |
NB (24 h) Logarithmic phase |
M. luteus MTCC 106 S. aureusMTCC 1430 S. aureus MTCC 96 B. subtilis MTCC 121 biofilm formation of Enterococcus faecalis |
252 |
Gassericin S | L. gasseri LA327 | Large intestine tissue in humans | 5.4 | At 121°C for 15 min | 2–10 | (−) |
Proteinase K Trypsin a‐chymotrypsin |
MRS | (−) | 253 |
Plantaricin LPL−1 | Lactobacillus plantarum LPL−1 | Fermented fish |
4.4 (MALDI‐TOF‐MS) |
At 121∘C for 20 min | 2–10 |
EDTA Tween 20 Tween 80 Urea |
Pepsin Papain Proteinase K trypsin Chymotrypsin |
MRS broth for 32 h at 37°C (exponential growth phase at 4 h) |
S. aureus L. monocytogenes B. pumilus B. amyloliquefaciens E. faecalis L. plantarum L. delbrueckii, Lb. bulgaricus L. Salivarius, L. lactis |
48 |
Bacteriocin DY4‐2 | L. plantarum | Cutlass fish |
1.5 (MALDI‐TOF‐MS) |
At 121 °C for 30 min | 2.5–5.5 | (−) |
Pepsin Trypsin Papain |
MRS broth at stationary phase after 24 h incubation |
Gram‐negative bacteria: P. fluorescens P001 P. fluorescens PF−04 L. monocytogenes19115 P. aeruginosa 9027 Shewanella putrefaciens 8071 V. harveyi BB107 Psychrobacter sp. 00052 Gram‐positive bacteria: Bacillus cereus 63301 B.licheniformis 11091 |
254 |
Plantaricin JY22 | L.plantarum JY22 | Golden carp intestine | 4.1 | At 121 °C for 20 min | 2.5 to 5.5 | Amylase |
Nutrase Papain Pepsin |
MRS (24 h) |
Bacillus cereus | 255 |
Plantaricin ZJ316 | L.plantarum ZJ316 | 2.3 | At 121 °C for 30 min | 2.0 to 10.0 |
α‐chymotrypsin Trypsin Proteinase K |
MRS |
S.aureus E. faecalis M.luteus B. subtilis P. aeruginosa P. putida E. coli Acetobacter aceti, Salmonella enterica Vibrio parahaemolyticus L. monocytogenest Listeria welshimeri |
256 | ||
Plantaricin GZ1‐27 | L. plantarum WCFS1 | Kipper of Dong |
0.97 (MALDI‐TOF/MS) |
At 80°C for 30 min | 2.0–6.0 | (−) |
Proteinase K Papain Trypsin Pepsin |
MRS (36 h) |
Spoilage bacteria: B. thermosphacta P. fluorescens A. baumannii Pathogenic bacteria: B. cereus S. aureus S. typhimurium L. monocytogenes E. coli |
257 |
Bifidoadocin | B. adolescentis | (−) | 14.6 | At 90 °C for 15 min | 3–8 | (−) |
Chymotrypsin Pepsin Papain |
(−) |
K.pneumoniae A. baumanii Staphylococcus spp. Salmonella spp. P. aeruginosa A.hydrophila |
210 |
Fermencin SA715 | Lactobacillus fermentum GA715 | Goat milk origin |
1.8 (MALDI‐TOF) |
At 40–90°C for 30 min | 2–7 |
Lysozyme Lyticase Catalase |
Proteinase K Peptidase Trypsin α‐chymotrypsin Protease |
MRS (18 h) |
M.s luteus ATCC 10240 Corynebacterium spp. GH17 P.aeruginosa PA7 S. aureus RF122 L. monocytogenes NCTC10890 S. mutans GEJ11 S. equisimilis ATCC 12388, S. sanguinis ATCC 10556 B.cereus ATCC 14579 E.coli UT181 |
258 |
Salivaricin mmaye1 | Lactobacillus salivarius SPW1 | Human feces |
1.2 (MALDI‐TOF) |
At 121°C for 15 min | 2–10 | Detergents Protease |
Pepsin Trypsin α‐chymotrypsin Protease Proteinase |
MRS (18 h) |
Streptococcus Lactococcus Listeria Staphylococcus Corynebacterium Pseudomonas Escherichia Micrococci Lactobacillus Enterococci |
259 |
Pentocin MQ1 | Lactobacillus pentosus CS2 | Coconut |
2.1 (MALDI‐TOF) |
At 121°C for 15 min | 2–5 | Detergents Protease |
Proteinase K Pepsin Proteinase Trypsin α‐chymotrypsin Protease |
MRS broth at 37°C for 20 h |
L. monocytogenes NCTC 10890 M. luteus ATCC 10240 B. cereus ATCC 14579 S. pyogenes ATCC 12344 S. aureus RF122 P. aeruginosa PA7 E. faecium ATCC 19434 E. faecium ATCC 27270 E. faecium ATCC 27273 E. faecium ATCC BAA‐2318 E. faecium ATCC BAA‐2127 E. faecium ATCC 6569 E. faecium ATCC 25307 E. faecium ATCC 349 |
260 |
Plantaricyclin A (PlcA) | Lactobacillus plantarum NI326 | Olives |
5.5 (MALDI‐TOF) |
At 100°C for 10 min | 2–10 | Proteases |
Proteinase K Pronase |
MRS broth supplemented with 0.8% bacteriological agar |
A. acidoterrestris sp1 Lb. bulgaricus UCC Pediococcus inopinatus 1011 Lactococcus lactis HP UCC L. lactis KH UCC L. lactis MG1363 UCC L. lactis RT28 UCC L. lactis NZ9000 |
261 |
Bacteriocin SKI19 | Lactobacillus plantarum subsp. plantarum SKI19 | Sai krok e‐san mu” |
2.5 |
At 121°C for 15 min | 2–10 | (−) |
α‐chymotrypsin Trypsin Proteinase K Pronase E |
MRS (24 h) early stationary phase |
L. monocytogenes DMST 17303 E.coli DMST 4212 S. aureus DMST 8840 |
262 |
Leucocin C−607, 607A | Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides 607 | Persimmon fruit |
C−607 (4.6) 607A (3 and 3.1) |
At 121°C for 15 min (C−607) At 80/90°C for 30 min (607A) |
(−) | (−) |
Proteinase K Trypsin |
MRS (72 h) |
Multidrug‐resistant S. aureus L. casei ATCC 393 MRSA GIM 1.771 S. dysenteriae CGMCC 1.1869 E. coli O157:H7 GIM 1.707 B. subtilis CGMCC 1.1627 E. faecalis ATCC 51575, L.monocytogenes ATCC 19112 M. luteus CGMCC 1.2299 P. aeruginosa CGMCC 1.1785 |
263 |
Plantaricin DL3 | Lactobacillus plantarum DL3 | Chinese Suan‐Tsai | 4.1 | At 121°C for 15 min | 2.5–5.5 | α‐‐amylase |
Pepsin Trypsin Papain |
MRS (24 h) |
P. aeruginosa. L. monocytogenes P. aeruginosa S. putrefaciens Psychrobacter sp. Gram‐positive S. aureus B. cereus B.licheniformis P. fluorescens, S. putrefaciens |
264 |
Mejucin | Bacillus subtilis SN7 | Meju | (−) | (−) | (−) |
Enzymes (α‐amylase or lipase) solvent (Ethanol Acetonitrile, Acetone, Methanol) |
Proteinase K Protease α‐Chymotrypsin Pepsin Aminopeptidase I Carboxypeptidase Mercaptoethanol |
TSB at 37 C for 24 h |
B. cereus strains L.monocytogenes S. aureus ATCC 29213 M. luteus ATCC 15307 |
265 |
12. THE PROBIOTIC APPLICATION OF BACTERIOCINS
12.1. The GI tract
The human gastrointestinal tract is a complex environment in which the intestinal microflora and the host maintain a delicate balance. The microflora acts as a primary stimulus for the development of the mucosal immune system. The two main genera of lactic acid bacteria, including Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, dominate the intestinal flora with 56 Lactobacillus and various Bifidobacterium species. In in vitro, the majority of these organisms have been shown to produce bacteriocins. A compelling in vivo analysis demonstrated the activity of Ligilactobacillus salivarius strain UCC118 that produced a potent broad‐spectrum bacteriocin (Abp118) active against the foodborne pathogen L. monocytogenes. 266 In a study, an enterohemorrhagic strain of E. coli and a strain of L. monocytogenes were shown to significantly inhibit an enterohemorrhagic strain of E. coli and a strain of L. monocytogenes in mice, most likely due to bacteriocin activity. 267 The release of bacteriocins inhibiting H. pylori, as a human pathogen that causes severe gastroduodenal diseases, has been chiefly studied in lactobacilli strains. Anti‐H. pylori activity of probiotic strains L. johnsonii LA1 and L. acidophilus LB was identified by Gillor et al. (2008). According to the results, when H. pylori was attached to intestinal epithelial cells in both cases, inhibitory activity was retained. Also, oral administration of L. acidophilus LB in mice protected the animals from H. felis infection. This probiotic bacterium (LB) was also shown to inhibit gastric colonization and prevent gastric inflammation. Oral intake of live bacteria by H. pylori‐positive school children resulted in a significant decrease in urease production, while administration of L. johnsonii LA1 supernatant to adult patients colonized by H. pylori significantly decreased infection. 268
12.2. Treatment of pathogen‐associated diseases
Stern et al. (2006) purified Class II low molecule mass bacteriocin OR‐7 from L. salivarius strain NRRL B‐30514, which was potent in inhibiting C. jejuni causing human gastroenteritis. OR‐7 was resistant to lysozyme and lipase therapy, heat up to 90°C, and pH levels of 3.0 to 9.1. For chicken feed, purified OR‐7 was encapsulated in polyvinylpyrrolidone. In the cecal material of OR‐7‐treated chickens, the population of C. jejuni decreased by at least one million fold compared with chickens not given OR‐7 supplementation. These results suggest the high potential of nisin, OR‐7, and other bacteriocins for use as suitable alternatives to antibiotics in poultry and other animal feeds. 269 Only a few bacteriocins have been tested against C. difficile infection so far (CDI). The mode of delivery of bacteriocins to the colon must be carefully analyzed when using bacteriocins as an alternative/adjunctive therapeutic choice for CDI. Encapsulation of bacteriocins could be a way to avoid the protease effect.
12.2.1. Thuricin CD
Thuricin CD is a recently identified bacteriocin with effective narrow‐spectrum inhibitory activity against C. difficile. The primary advantage of thuricin CD is that its antimicrobial activity is mostly restricted to C. difficile and has little or no impact on other gut microorganisms. This was demonstrated in a study using a human distal colon model and a high‐throughput sequencing approach, which revealed that thuricin CD had minimal impact on the numbers of Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and Proteobacteria compared with vancomycin and metronidazole, eliciting a decrease in Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes numbers as well as an increase in Proteobacteria number. 270
12.2.2. Lacticin 3147
Lacticin 3147 is a 2‐peptide antibiotic produced by L. lactis DPC 3147. Lacticin 3147 was shown by Rea et al. (2007) to trigger fast lysis of log‐phase C. difficile cells, measured by quantifying the release of acetate kinase. The addition of lacticin 3147 at a high concentration of 6 mg/ml resulted in a decrease in C. difficile ATCC 43593 cell number from 106 cfu/ml to zero within 2 h. Subsequent studies displayed that the use of lacticin 3147 resulted in a decrease and increase in Firmicutes and Proteobacteria numbers, respectively. 271 Actagardine A is a 19‐amino acid lantibiotic with powerful antimicrobial activity against Gram‐positive bacteria, including C. difficile. NVB302 is a semi‐synthetic Type B lantibiotic extracted from actagardine, which is effective against C. difficile and performs better than vancomycin. 59
12.2.3. LFF571 (GE2270 derivative)
GE2270 is a thiopeptide bacteriocin that inhibits translation in bacteria. LFF571 is a semi‐synthetic derivative of thiopeptide GE2270, developed by Novartis Co., which displays antimicrobial activity against a range of Gram‐positive bacteria, including C. difficile. In vivo human activity of LFF571 against C. difficile was compared with vancomycin in a survey on gold Syrian hamster models. Only 2.2% of hamsters experienced recurrence in the case of treatment with 5 mg/kg of LFF571, whereas 37.8% of hamsters which survived at the termination of treatment with 20 mg/kg of vancomycin experienced recurrence. 272 Durancin 61A as a glycosylated bacteriocin produced by E. durans 61A was investigated in a study by Hanchi et al. (2017) and shown to be active against clinical drug‐resistant C. difficile, E. faecium, VRE, and MRSA. In their study, durancin 61A exhibited bactericidal activity and acted on the bacterial membrane with a pore‐formation mechanism, including pore and vesicle formation, cell disruption, and loss of membrane integrity and cytoplasm content. The observed increase in durancin 61A MIC for nisin‐ and pediocin‐resistant variants could be probably due to their similar mode of action on bacterial membrane. The absence of cross‐resistance in durancin‐resistant variant of E. faecalis ATCC 27275 suggests a different site of action for this bacteriocin. The susceptibility of vancomycin‐resistant variants to durancin 61A could be due to the altered cell wall physiology and metabolism of vancomycin‐resistant variants. 273
12.2.4. Pediocin PA‐1
One of the main subclasses of bacteriocins is the pediocin family, a title derived from pediocin PA‐1 as the first and extensively studied member of this family. The pediocin family members are small, heat‐stable, membrane‐active peptides that contain no lanthionine and possess a YGNGVXC consensus motif. Members of this class have several features in common, considering a very strong antimicrobial activity against L. sakacin P and L. sakacin G. 274 It has been shown that L. curvatus FS 47 produces curvaticin FS47 active against L. monocytogenes. Besides the strain L. plantarum C11 as the first strain isolated from a plant source, four other strains of L. plantarum, including WCFS1, NC8, 51, and J23, have been found to harbor YGNGVQCilar bacteriocin locus in their genomes, peculiarly plantaricin A (PlnA) as a cationic peptide pheromone with membrane permeabilizing activity. 275 The 2‐element Class II bacteriocins derived from L. salivarius isolated from mammals have been characterized as follows: ABP‐118 (produced by human intestinal probiotic strain L. salivarius UCC118), L. salivaricin CRL 1328 (produced by L. salivarius CRL 1328 strain isolated from the healthy human vagina), and salivaricin P (produced by porcine intestinal probiotic strain L. salivarius DPC6005). 276 FK22, OR7, L‐1077, and SMXD51 bacteriocins derived from L. salivarius isolated from chicken intestines or intestinal contents (L. salivarius K7, L. salivarius NRRL B‐30514, L. salivarius 1077 NRRL B‐50053, and L. salivarius SMXD51) have been defined as one‐factor Class II bacteriocins. 277 ABP‐118 is an appealing broad‐spectrum antimicrobial substance since it could inhibit several foodborne and medically notable pathogens, such as Bacillus, Listeria, Enterococcus, and Staphylococcus genera, without a clear antagonistic activity toward related LAB. ABP‐118 is a Class IIb two‐peptide bacteriocin consisting of Abp118α and Abp118β. The Abp118α peptide possesses inhibitory activity when concentrated, and the presence of the Abp118β peptide enhances this activity; ABP‐118 does not have the related bacteriocin activity on itself. 278 LS1 is a human bacteriocin, produced by L. salivarius BGHO1 as a human oral isolate, with antagonistic activity against S. mutans, S. pneumoniae, S. aureus, E. faecalis, M. flavus, and S. enteritides. 276 Wu et al. 251 conducted a study to investigate the mode of action of bacteriocin CAMT2, produced by B. amyloliquefaciens ZJHD3‐06, against highly pathogenic L. monocytogenes ATCC 19111; it exhibited inhibitory activity against important food spoilage and foodborne pathogens. As a member of acyldepsipeptide antibiotics, ADEP‐1 activity is through interrupting protein metabolism in the bacterial cell by eliciting over‐activation of intracellular caseinolytic ATP‐dependent proteases. Therefore, interruption of intracellular protein metabolism leads to cell division, differentiation, sporulation impairment, and finally bacterial cell death. Interestingly, it has been shown that CD proteases targeted by acyldepsipeptide antimicrobials are also related to the intracellular systems sigma factors σ (E) and MazEF, which play a key role in CD sporulation. Given the bactericidal activity of ADEP‐1 against Gram‐positive bacteria and caseinolytic proteases in CD, as the potential target of this compound, some authors have recently proposed the use of ADEP‐1 and other acyldepsipeptide antimicrobials to treat CDI, either alone or in combination with other antimicrobial classes. 279
13. FOOD TECHNOLOGY
In food technology, nisin as the first antibacterial peptide found in LAB is produced by L. lactis. It is also a commercial bacteriocin marketed as Nisaplin®, which is used as a food preservative against contamination with microorganisms. It is the only bacteriocin approved by USFDA for use as a preservative in many food products and licensed as a food additive in over 45 countries. Another commercially available bacteriocin is pediocin PA‐1 marketed as Alta® 2341, which inhibits the growth of L. monocytogenes in meat products. Enterocin AS‐48 is used in cider, fruit and vegetable juices, and canned vegetables for contamination inhibition. Enterocins CCM4231 and EJ97 are used in soy milk and zucchini purée to suppress contamination, respectively. 280 The use of bacteriocins as food preservatives may be beneficial in several aspects: (i) to decrease the risk of food poisoning, (ii) to decrease cross‐contamination in the food chain, (iii) to improve the shelf life of food products, (iv) to protect food during temperature‐abuse episodes, (v) to decrease economic losses due to food spoilage, (vi) to reduce the level of chemical preservatives added, (vii) to reduce the intensity of physical treatments in order to better preserve food nutritional value and decrease processing costs, and (viii) to provide alternative preservation methods for "novel food" in order to meet the demands of consumers for fresh‐tasting, lightly preserved, ready‐to‐eat food products. 281
14. CONCLUSION
Given their broad‐spectrum and potent inhibitory activity, this study results indicated that lactic acid bacteria are able to exert antagonistic activity against pathogenic bacteria in vitro and in vivo. This study provides a comprehensive overview of what is known about LAB bacteriocins, especially their properties, classification, biology, sources, biosynthesis, potential applications, activity against foodborne pathogens, impact on antibiotic‐resistant bacteria, mode of action, genetic determinants, range of activity, and factors affecting their production. Many strains of lactic acid bacteria related to food groups could produce bacteriocins or antibacterial proteins that are highly effective against foodborne pathogens, such as S. aureus, P. fluorescens, P. aeruginosa, S. typhi, S. flexneri, L. monocytogenes, E. coli O157:H7, K. pneumoniae, and C. botulinum. A wide range of bacteria belonging primarily to the genera Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus, even some gram‐negative bacteria like E. coli, have been characterized with different health‐promoting attributes. The frequency and variety of bacteriocin production vary greatly between populations of gram‐positive and gram‐negative bacteria. Extensive and in‐depth studies have been performed on gram‐positive bacteria and also relatively few on gram‐negative bacteria. Production of two or more bacteriocins by one cell in gram‐negative bacteria is a common phenomenon, at least in E. coli. More research is needed to understand the nature of the fitness benefits of producing multiple bacteriocins and how to optimally use bacteriocins in gram‐negative bacteria as alternatives to traditional antibiotics and to create and select bacterial strains for use as probiotics.
Studies results describe bacteriocins as supplements for antibiotics due to their high stability, no side effects, and potential to induce a synergistic effect. In combination with antibiotics, bacteriocins act synergistically; they not only increase the efficiency of antibiotics and prevent the emergence of antibiotic‐resistant species but also reduce the side effects of antibiotics by lowering the concentration of antibiotics needed to eliminate bacteria. The results of recent studies on this topic show that bacteriocin as being a versatile antimicrobial with appreciable potency for utilization as biopreservatives, antibiotic alternatives, health‐promoting gut modulators, and animal growth promoters. One of the reasons for the positive trend toward bacteriocins is the overuse of antibiotics, especially broad‐spectrum antibiotics in medicine and food production, which is known as a microbiome disorder and for the accumulation and transfer of resistance genes in the intestinal microbial population. Man has been chosen.
According to the present study results, the correct selection of bacteriocin‐producing strains suitable for use in the food industry is very important. Thus, this emphasizes the necessity of investigating LAB bacteriocins to prove their beneficial and nutritional properties as well as inhibitory activity against the growth of functional pathogens, as they are potentially crucial for the final preservation of functional foods and for medicinal applications.
According to the present study results, the correct selection of bacteriocin‐producing strains suitable for use in the food industry is very important. Thus, this emphasizes the necessity of investigating LAB bacteriocins to prove their beneficial and nutritional properties as well as inhibitory activity against the growth of functional pathogens, as they are potentially crucial for the final preservation of functional foods and for medicinal applications.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
RG and MK conceived, designed, and supervised the study. AD and AA contributed to data collection, interpretation, and final approval of data for the work. AD and MM developed the first and final draft of the manuscript. EO and MT developed the second draft of the manuscript. ADE and MH designed and checked all figures and tables. All authors reviewed, contributed to the revisions, and finalized the drafts.
Darbandi A, Asadi A, Mahdizade Ari M, et al. Bacteriocins: Properties and potential use as antimicrobials. J Clin Lab Anal.2022;36:e24093. doi: 10.1002/jcla.24093
Funding information
This study was supported by a grant from Behbahan Faculty of Medical Sciences [grant number 99052]
Contributor Information
Roya Ghanavati, Email: R.Ghanavati@behums.ac.ir, Email: Qanavati.r@gmail.com.
Maryam Kakanj, Email: Maryam_kakanj@yahoo.com.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All relevant data are included in the manuscript.
REFERENCES
- 1. Roces C, Rodríguez A, Martínez B. Cell wall‐active bacteriocins and their applications beyond antibiotic activity. Probiot Antimicrob Proteins. 2012;4(4):259‐272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Alvarez‐Sieiro P, Montalbán‐López M, Mu D, Kuipers OP. Bacteriocins of lactic acid bacteria: extending the family. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2016;100(7):2939‐2951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Dobson A, Cotter PD, Ross RP, Hill C. Bacteriocin production: a probiotic trait? Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78(1):1‐6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Yang S‐C, Lin C‐H, Sung CT, Fang J‐Y. Antibacterial activities of bacteriocins: application in foods and pharmaceuticals. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Mokoena MP. Lactic acid bacteria and their bacteriocins: classification, biosynthesis and applications against uropathogens: a mini‐review. Molecules. 2017;22(8):1255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Hols P, Ledesma‐García L, Gabant P, Mignolet J. Mobilization of microbiota commensals and their bacteriocins for therapeutics. Trends Microbiol. 2019;27(8):690‐702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Arqués JL, Rodríguez E, Langa S, Landete JM, Medina M. Antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria in dairy products and gut: effect on pathogens. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:1‐9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Eijsink VG, Axelsson L, Diep DB, Håvarstein LS, Holo H, Nes IF. Production of class II bacteriocins by lactic acid bacteria; an example of biological warfare and communication. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2002;81(1‐4):639‐654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Lopetuso LR, Giorgio ME, Saviano A, Scaldaferri F, Gasbarrini A, Cammarota G. Bacteriocins and bacteriophages: therapeutic weapons for gastrointestinal diseases? Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(1):183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Dicks LM, Dreyer L, Smith C, Van Staden AD. A review: the fate of bacteriocins in the human gastro‐intestinal tract: do they cross the gut–blood barrier? Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Noroozi E, Mojgani N, Motevaseli E, Modarressi MH, Tebianian M. Physico‐chemical and cytotoxic analysis of a novel large molecular weight bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus casei TA0021. Iran J Microbiol. 2019;11(5):397. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. De Giani A, Bovio F, Forcella M, Fusi P, Sello G, Di Gennaro P. Identification of a bacteriocin‐like compound from Lactobacillus plantarum with antimicrobial activity and effects on normal and cancerogenic human intestinal cells. AMB Exp. 2019;9(1):88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Perez RH, Zendo T, Sonomoto K. Novel bacteriocins from lactic acid bacteria (LAB): various structures and applications. Microb Cell Fact. 2014;13(Suppl 1):S3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Umu ÖC, Bäuerl C, Oostindjer M, et al. The potential of class II bacteriocins to modify gut microbiota to improve host health. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0164036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Egan K, Field D, Rea MC, Ross RP, Hill C, Cotter PD. Bacteriocins: novel solutions to age old spore‐related problems? Front Microbiol. 2016;7:461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Klaenhammer TR. Genetics of bacteriocins produced by lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 1993;12(1–3):39‐85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Riley MA, Wertz JE. Bacteriocin diversity: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Biochimie. 2002;84(5–6):357‐364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Gordon DM, Oliver E, Littlefield‐Wyer J. The diversity of bacteriocins in Gram‐negative bacteria. In: Riley MA, Chavan M (eds), Bacteriocins. Springer; 2007:5‐18. [Google Scholar]
- 19. Bourdichon F, Boyaval P, Casaregola S, et al. 3 The 2012 Inventory of Microbial Species with technological beneficial role in fermented food products. Bull Int Dairy Federation. 2012;455:22‐61. [Google Scholar]
- 20. da Silva SS, Vitolo M, González JMD, de Souza Oliveira RP. Overview of Lactobacillus plantarum as a promising bacteriocin producer among lactic acid bacteria. Food Res Int. 2014;64:527‐536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Cotter PD, Ross RP, Hill C. Bacteriocins—a viable alternative to antibiotics? Nat Rev Microbiol. 2013;11(2):95‐105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Collins FW, O’Connor PM, O'Sullivan O, Rea MC, Hill C, Ross RP. Formicin–a novel broad‐spectrum two‐component lantibiotic produced by Bacillus paralicheniformis APC 1576. Microbiology. 2016;162(9):1662‐1671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Ringø E, Hoseinifar SH, Ghosh K, Doan HV, Beck BR, Song SK. Lactic acid bacteria in finfish—an update. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1818. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Zielińska D, Kolożyn‐Krajewska D. Food‐origin lactic acid bacteria may exhibit probiotic properties. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:1–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Ryan KA, Jayaraman T, Daly P, et al. Isolation of lactobacilli with probiotic properties from the human stomach. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008;47(4):269‐274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Verso LL, Lessard M, Talbot G, Fernandez B, Fliss I. Isolation and selection of potential probiotic bacteria from the pig gastrointestinal tract. Probiot Antimicrob Proteins. 2018;10(2):299‐312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. O'Sullivan JN, Rea MC, O'Connor PM, Hill C, Ross RP. Human skin microbiota is a rich source of bacteriocin‐producing staphylococci that kill human pathogens. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2019;95(2):fiy241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Zipperer A, Konnerth MC, Laux C, et al. Human commensals producing a novel antibiotic impair pathogen colonization. Nature. 2016;535(7613):511‐516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Caufield JH, Zhou Y, Garlid AO, et al. A reference set of curated biomedical data and metadata from clinical case reports. Sci Data. 2018;5(1):1‐18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Rodrigues C, Machado E, Ramos H, Peixe L, Novais Â. Expansion of ESBL‐producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in hospitalized patients: a successful story of international clones (ST15, ST147, ST336) and epidemic plasmids (IncR, IncFIIK). Int J Med Microbiol. 2014;304(8):1100‐1108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Gautam N, Sharma N. Purification and characterization of bacteriocin produced by strain of Lactobacillus brevis MTCC 7539. Indian J Biochem Biophys. 2009;46(4):337‐341. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Knorr D. Technology aspects related to microorganisms in functional foods. Trends Food Sci Technol. 1998;9(8–9):295‐306. [Google Scholar]
- 33. Fraqueza MJ, Patarata L, Lauková A. Protective cultures and bacteriocins in fermented meats. Fermented Meat Prod Heal Asp. 2017;228‐269. [Google Scholar]
- 34. Lewus CB, Kaiser A, Montville TJ. Inhibition of food‐borne bacterial pathogens by bacteriocins from lactic acid bacteria isolated from meat. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1991;57(6):1683‐1688. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Winkowski K, Montville TJ. Use of meat isolate, Lactobacillus bavaricus MN, to inhibit Listeria monocytogenes growth in a model meat gravy system. J Food Saf. 1992;13(1):19‐31. [Google Scholar]
- 36. Khan I, Miskeen S, Khalil AT, Phull A‐R, Kim SJ, Oh D‐H. Foodborne pathogens: Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes an unsolved problem of the food industry. Pakistan J Nutr. 2016;15(6):505. [Google Scholar]
- 37. Gómez‐Sala B, Muñoz‐Atienza E, Sánchez J, et al. Bacteriocin production by lactic acid bacteria isolated from fish, seafood and fish products. Eur Food Res Technol. 2015;241(3):341‐356. [Google Scholar]
- 38. Vijayabaskar P, Somasundaram S. Isolation of bacteriocin producing lactic acid bacteria from fish gut and probiotic activity against common fresh water fish pathogen Aeromonas hydrophila. Biotechnology. 2008;7(1):124‐128. [Google Scholar]
- 39. Hatha A, Ghosh S, Einar R, et al. Gut associated lactic acid bacteria isolated from the estuarine fish Mugil cephalus: molecular diversity and antibacterial activities against pathogens. Int J Aquacult. 2014;1:1‐11. [Google Scholar]
- 40. Yusuf MA, Hamid T. Lactic acid bacteria: bacteriocin producer: a mini review. IOSR J Pharm. 2013;3(4):44‐50. [Google Scholar]
- 41. de Azevedo POS, Converti A, Gierus M, Oliveira RPS. Antimicrobial activity of bacteriocin‐like inhibitory substance produced by Pediococcus pentosaceus: from shake flasks to bioreactor. Mol Biol Rep. 2019;46(1):461‐469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Ansari A. Bacteriocin from LAB for medical and health applications. In: Liong MT, ed. Beneficial Microorganisms in Medical and Health Applications. Springer; 2015:199‐221. [Google Scholar]
- 43. Kazemipoor M, Radzi CW, Begum K, Yaze I. Screening of antibacterial activity of lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented vegetables against food borne pathogens. arXiv preprint arXiv:12066366. 2012.
- 44. da Costa RJ, Voloski FL, Mondadori RG, Duval EH, Fiorentini ÂM. Preservation of meat products with bacteriocins produced by lactic acid bacteria isolated from meat. J Food Qual. 2019;2019. [Google Scholar]
- 45. Silva CC, Silva SP, Ribeiro SC. Application of bacteriocins and protective cultures in dairy food preservation. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Zacharof M, Lovitt R. Bacteriocins produced by lactic acid bacteria a review article. APCBEE Proc. 2012;2:50‐56. [Google Scholar]
- 47. Kumariya R, Garsa AK, Rajput Y, Sood S, Akhtar N, Patel S. Bacteriocins: classification, synthesis, mechanism of action and resistance development in food spoilage causing bacteria. Microb Pathog. 2019;128:171‐177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Wang Y, Qin Y, Xie Q, Zhang Y, Hu J, Li P. Purification and characterization of plantaricin LPL‐1, a novel class IIa bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus plantarum LPL‐1 isolated from fermented fish. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Zhang Y, Yang J, Liu Y, et al. A novel bacteriocin PE‐ZYB1 produced by Pediococcus pentosaceus zy‐B isolated from intestine of Mimachlamys nobilis: purification, identification and its anti‐listerial action. LWT. 2020;118:108760. [Google Scholar]
- 50. Morales‐Estrada AI, Lopez‐Merino A, Gutierrez‐Mendez N, Ruiz EA, Contreras‐Rodriguez A. Partial characterization of bacteriocin produced by halotolerant Pediococcus acidilactici strain QC38 isolated from traditional Cotija Cheese. Polish J Microbiol. 2016;65(3):279‐285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Cavicchioli V, Camargo A, Todorov S, Nero L. Novel bacteriocinogenic Enterococcus hirae and Pediococcus pentosaceus strains with antilisterial activity isolated from Brazilian artisanal cheese. J Dairy Sci. 2017;100(4):2526‐2535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Smaoui S, Elleuch L, Ben Salah R, et al. Efficient role of BacTN635 on the safety properties, sensory attributes, and texture profile of raw minced meat beef and chicken breast. Food Addit Contamin A. 2014;31(2):218‐225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Liu G, Ren L, Song Z, Wang C, Sun B. Purification and characteristics of bifidocin A, a novel bacteriocin produced by Bifidobacterium animals BB04 from centenarians’ intestine. Food Control. 2015;50:889‐895. [Google Scholar]
- 54. Michael CA, Dominey‐Howes D, Labbate M. The antimicrobial resistance crisis: causes, consequences, and management. Front Public Health. 2014;2:145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Powell N, Franklin BD, Jacklin A, Wilcock M. Omitted doses as an unintended consequence of a hospital restricted antibacterial system: a retrospective observational study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70(12):3379‐3383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Li B, Webster TJ. Bacteria antibiotic resistance: New challenges and opportunities for implant‐associated orthopedic infections. J Orthop Res. 2018;36(1):22‐32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Bonhi KLR, Imran S. Role of bacteriocin in tackling the global problem of multi‐drug resistance: an updated review. Biosci Biotechnol Res Comm. 2019;12(3):601‐608. [Google Scholar]
- 58. Ming L, Zhang Q, Le Yang J‐AH. Comparison of antibacterial effects between antimicrobial peptide and bacteriocins isolated from Lactobacillus plantarum on three common pathogenic bacteria. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(4):5806. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Mathur H, O'Connor PM, Hill C, Cotter PD, Ross RP. Analysis of anti‐Clostridium difficile activity of thuricin CD, vancomycin, metronidazole, ramoplanin, and actagardine, both singly and in paired combinations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(6):2882‐2886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Abanoz HS, Kunduhoglu B. Antimicrobial activity of a bacteriocin produced by Enterococcus faecalis KT11 against some pathogens and antibiotic‐resistant bacteria. Korean J Food Sc Anim Resour. 2018;38(5):1064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Morisset D, Frère J. Heterologous expression of bacteriocins using the mesentericin Y105 dedicated transport system by Leuconostoc mesenteroides . Biochimie. 2002;84(5–6):569‐576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Ahmad V, Khan MS, Jamal QMS, Alzohairy MA, Al Karaawi MA, Siddiqui MU. Antimicrobial potential of bacteriocins: in therapy, agriculture and food preservation. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017;49(1):1‐11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Mathur H, Field D, Rea MC, Cotter PD, Hill C, Ross RP. Bacteriocin‐antimicrobial synergy: a medical and food perspective. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Aunpad R, Na‐Bangchang K. Pumilicin 4, a novel bacteriocin with anti‐MRSA and anti‐VRE activity produced by newly isolated bacteria Bacillus pumilus strain WAPB4. Curr Microbiol. 2007;55(4):308‐313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Piper C, Draper LA, Cotter PD, Ross RP, Hill C. A comparison of the activities of lacticin 3147 and nisin against drug‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus species. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;64(3):546‐551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Gravesen A, Ramnath M, Rechinger KB, et al. High‐level resistance to class IIa bacteriocins is associated with one general mechanism in Listeria monocytogenes. Microbiology. 2002;148(8):2361‐2369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Katla T, Naterstad K, Vancanneyt M, Swings J, Axelsson L. Differences in susceptibility of Listeria monocytogenes strains to sakacin P, sakacin A, pediocin PA‐1, and nisin. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69(8):4431‐4437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Tessema GT, Møretrø T, Kohler A, Axelsson L, Naterstad K. Complex phenotypic and genotypic responses of Listeria monocytogenes strains exposed to the class IIa bacteriocin sakacin P. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75(22):6973‐6980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Kim N‐N, Kim WJ, Kang S‐S. Anti‐biofilm effect of crude bacteriocin derived from Lactobacillus brevis DF01 on Escherichia coli and Salmonella Typhimurium. Food Control. 2019;98:274‐280. [Google Scholar]
- 70. Ramakrishnan V, Narayan B, Halami PM. Combined effect of enterocin and lipase from Enterococcus faecium NCIM5363 against food borne pathogens: mode of action studies. Curr Microbiol. 2012;65(2):162‐169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Naghmouchi K, Baah J, Hober D, et al. Synergistic effect between colistin and bacteriocins in controlling Gram‐negative pathogens and their potential to reduce antibiotic toxicity in mammalian epithelial cells. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(6):2719‐2725. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Carlet J, Rambaud C, Pulcini C. WAAR (World Alliance against Antibiotic Resistance): safeguarding antibiotics. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2012;1(1):25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Kruszewska D, Sahl H‐G, Bierbaum G, Pag U, Hynes SO, Ljungh Å. Mersacidin eradicates methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in a mouse rhinitis model. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;54(3):648‐653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Mathur H, Field D, Rea MC, Cotter PD, Hill C, Ross RP. Fighting biofilms with lantibiotics and other groups of bacteriocins. npj Biofilms Microbiomes. 2018;4(1):1‐13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Brand A, De Kwaadsteniet M, Dicks L. The ability of nisin F to control Staphylococcus aureus infection in the peritoneal cavity, as studied in mice. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2010;51(6):645‐649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Fernández L, Delgado S, Herrero H, Maldonado A, Rodriguez JM. The bacteriocin nisin, an effective agent for the treatment of staphylococcal mastitis during lactation. J Hum Lact. 2008;24(3):311‐316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Perales‐Adán J, Rubiño S, Martínez‐Bueno M, et al. LAB bacteriocins controlling the food isolated (drug‐resistant) staphylococci. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Ansari A, Zohra RR, Tarar OM, Qader SAU, Aman A. Screening, purification and characterization of thermostable, protease resistant Bacteriocin active against methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). BMC Microbiol. 2018;18(1):1‐10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Chopra L, Singh G, Jena KK, Sahoo DK. Sonorensin: a new bacteriocin with potential of an anti‐biofilm agent and a food biopreservative. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Nagarajan D, Roy N, Kulkarni O, et al. Ω76: A designed antimicrobial peptide to combat carbapenem‐and tigecycline‐resistant Acinetobacter baumannii . Sci Adv. 2019;5(7):eaax1946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Delves‐Brougthon J. Nisin and its uses as a food preservative. Food Technol. 1990;44(11):100‐117. [Google Scholar]
- 82. Field D, Daly K, O'Connor PM, Cotter PD, Hill C, Ross RP. Efficacies of nisin A and nisin V semipurified preparations alone and in combination with plant essential oils for controlling Listeria monocytogenes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81(8):2762‐2769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Jabés D, Brunati C, Candiani G, Riva S, Romanó G, Donadio S. Efficacy of the new lantibiotic NAI‐107 in experimental infections induced by multidrug‐resistant Gram‐positive pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(4):1671‐1676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Field D, O’Connor R, Cotter PD, Ross RP, Hill C. In vitro activities of nisin and nisin derivatives alone and in combination with antibiotics against Staphylococcus biofilms. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Huang E, Zhang L, Chung Y‐K, Zheng Z, Yousef AE. Characterization and application of enterocin RM6, a bacteriocin from Enterococcus faecalis . Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:206917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Sivarooban T, Hettiarachchy N, Johnson M. Transmission electron microscopy study of Listeria monocytogenes treated with nisin in combination with either grape seed or green tea extract. J Food Prot. 2008;71(10):2105‐2109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Ettayebi K, El Yamani J, Rossi‐Hassani B‐D. Synergistic effects of nisin and thymol on antimicrobial activities in Listeria monocytogenes and Bacillus subtilis . FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2000;183(1):191‐195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Ndoti‐Nembe A, Vu KD, Doucet N, Lacroix M. Effect of combination of essential oils and bacteriocins on the efficacy of gamma radiation against Salmonella Typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes. Int J Radiat Biol. 2013;89(10):794‐800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Lauková A, Kandričáková A, Bino E. Susceptibility to enterocins and lantibiotic bacteriocins of biofilm‐forming enterococci isolated from Slovak fermented meat products available on the market. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(24):9586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Draper LA, Cotter PD, Hill C, Ross RP. The two peptide lantibiotic lacticin 3147 acts synergistically with polymyxin to inhibit Gram negative bacteria. BMC Microbiol. 2013;13(1):1‐8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Rishi P, Singh AP, Garg N, Rishi M. Evaluation of nisin–β‐lactam antibiotics against clinical strains of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi. J Antibiot. 2014;67(12):807‐811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Heng BC. Reluctance of medical professionals in adopting natural‐cycle and minimal ovarian stimulation protocols in human clinical assisted reproduction. Reproduct Biomed Online. 2007;15(1):9‐11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Nagao J‐I, Asaduzzaman SM, Aso Y, Okuda K‐I, Nakayama J, Sonomoto K. Lantibiotics: insight and foresight for new paradigm. J Biosci Bioeng. 2006;102(3):139‐149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Han B, Yu Z, Liu B, Ma Q, Zhang R. Optimization of bacteriocin production by Lactobacillus plantarum YJG, isolated from the mucosa of the gut of healthy chickens. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2011;5(10):1147‐1155. [Google Scholar]
- 95. Vermeiren L, Devlieghere F, Vandekinderen I, Debevere J. The interaction of the non‐bacteriocinogenic Lactobacillus sakei 10A and lactocin S producing Lactobacillus sakei 148 towards Listeria monocytogenes on a model cooked ham. Food Microbiol. 2006;23(6):511‐518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Cheigh C‐I, Pyun Y‐R. Nisin biosynthesis and its properties. Biotech Lett. 2005;27(21):1641‐1648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Morency H, Mota‐Meira M, LaPointe G, Lacroix C, Lavoie MC. Comparison of the activity spectra against pathogens of bacterial strains producing a mutacin or a lantibiotic. Can J Microbiol. 2001;47(4):322‐331. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Todorov SD. Bacteriocins from Lactobacillus plantarum – production, genetic organization and mode of action: produção, organização genética e modo de ação. Braz J Microbiol. 2009;40(2):209‐221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Zhang J, Yang Y, Yang H, et al. Purification and partial characterization of bacteriocin Lac‐B23, a novel bacteriocin production by Lactobacillus plantarum J23, isolated from Chinese traditional fermented milk. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. Diaz‐Ruiz G, Omar NB, Abriouel H, Cantilde MM, Galvez A. Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli by bacteriocin‐producing Lactobacillus plantarum EC52 in a meat sausage model system. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2012;6(6):1103‐1108. [Google Scholar]
- 101. Omar NB, Abriouel H, Keleke S, et al. Bacteriocin‐producing Lactobacillus strains isolated from poto poto, a Congolese fermented maize product, and genetic fingerprinting of their plantaricin operons. Int J Food Microbiol. 2008;127(1‐2):18‐25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Zhao S, Han J, Bie X, Lu Z, Zhang C, Lv F. Purification and characterization of plantaricin JLA‐9: a novel bacteriocin against Bacillus spp. produced by Lactobacillus plantarum JLA‐9 from Suan‐Tsai, a traditional Chinese fermented cabbage. J Agricult Food Chem. 2016;64(13):2754‐2764. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Todorov S, Dicks L. Lactobacillus plantarum isolated from molasses produces bacteriocins active against Gram‐negative bacteria. Enzyme Microb Technol. 2005;36(2–3):318‐326. [Google Scholar]
- 104. Von Mollendorff J, Todorov S, Dicks L. Comparison of bacteriocins produced by lactic‐acid bacteria isolated from boza, a cereal‐based fermented beverage from the Balkan Peninsula. Curr Microbiol. 2006;53(3):209‐216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Atrih A, Rekhif N, Moir A, Lebrihi A, Lefebvre G. Mode of action, purification and amino acid sequence of plantaricin C19, an anti‐Listeria bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus plantarum C19. Int J Food Microbiol. 2001;68(1–2):93‐104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Olasupo N. Inhibition ofListeria monocytogenes by plantaricin NA, an antibacterial substance from Lactobacillus plantarum. Folia Microbiol. 1998;43(2):151‐155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Todorov S, Nyati H, Meincken M, Dicks L. Partial characterization of bacteriocin AMA‐K, produced by Lactobacillus plantarum AMA‐K isolated from naturally fermented milk from Zimbabwe. Food Control. 2007;18(6):656‐664. [Google Scholar]
- 108. Sahoo TK, Jena PK, Patel AK, Seshadri S. Purification and molecular characterization of the novel highly potent bacteriocin TSU4 produced by Lactobacillus animalis TSU4. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2015;177(1):90‐104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Amortegui J, Rodríguez‐López A, Rodríguez D, et al. Characterization of a new bacteriocin from Lactobacillus plantarum LE5 and LE27 isolated from ensiled corn. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2014;172(7):3374‐3389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Tiwari SK, Srivastava S. Characterization of a bacteriocin from Lactobacillus plantarum strain LR/14. Food Biotechnol. 2008;22(3):247‐261. [Google Scholar]
- 111. Song D‐F, Zhu M‐Y, Gu Q. Purification and characterization of plantaricin ZJ5, a new bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus plantarum ZJ5. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Tomé E, Todorov SD, Gibbs PA, Teixeira PC. Partial characterization of nine bacteriocins produced by lactic acid bacteria isolated from cold‐smoked salmon with activity against Listeria monocytogenes. Food Biotechnol. 2009;23(1):50‐73. [Google Scholar]
- 113. de Souza BM, Todorov SD, Ivanova I, Chobert J‐M, Haertlé T, de Melo Franco BDG. Improving safety of salami by application of bacteriocins produced by an autochthonous Lactobacillus curvatus isolate. Food Microbiol. 2015;46:254‐262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Sivakumar N, Saif A‐B. Partial characterization of bacteriocins produced by Lactobacillus acidophilus and Pediococcus acidilactici . Brazil Archiv Biol Technol. 2010;53(5):1177‐1184. [Google Scholar]
- 115. Yi L, Dang Y, Wu J, et al. Purification and characterization of a novel bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus crustorum MN047 isolated from koumiss from Xinjiang, China. J Dairy Sci. 2016;99(9):7002‐7015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116. Jiang H, Zou J, Cheng H, Fang J, Huang G. Purification, characterization, and mode of action of pentocin JL‐1, a novel bacteriocin isolated from Lactobacillus pentosus, against drug‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:7657190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117. Zhu W, Liu W, Wu D. Isolation and characterization of a new bacteriocin from Lactobacillus gasseri KT7. J Appl Microbiol. 2000;88(5):877‐886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118. Kp S, Pv K, Pk B, Rc R, Pb D, Ak S. Production and characterization of bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus viridescence (NICM 2167). Brazil Archiv Biol Technol. 2016;59:e16150518. [Google Scholar]
- 119. Gautam N, Sharma N. A study on characterization of new bacteriocin produced from a novel strain of Lactobacillus spicheri G2 isolated from Gundruk‐a fermented vegetable product of North East India. J Food Sci Technol. 2015;52(9):5808‐5816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120. Deraz SF, Karlsson EN, Hedström M, Andersson MM, Mattiasson B. Purification and characterisation of acidocin D20079, a bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus acidophilus DSM 20079. J Biotechnol. 2005;117(4):343‐354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121. Kaur B, Balgir PP, Mittu B, Kumar B, Garg N. Biomedical applications of fermenticin HV6b isolated from Lactobacillus fermentum HV6b MTCC10770. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:168438. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122. Pisano MB, Fadda ME, Melis R, et al. Molecular identification of bacteriocins produced by Lactococcus lactis dairy strains and their technological and genotypic characterization. Food Control. 2015;51:1‐8. [Google Scholar]
- 123. Todorov SD, Vaz‐Velho M, de Melo Franco BDG, Holzapfel WH. Partial characterization of bacteriocins produced by three strains of Lactobacillus sakei, isolated from salpicao, a fermented meat product from North‐West of Portugal. Food Control. 2013;30(1):111‐121. [Google Scholar]
- 124. Avaiyarasi ND, Ravindran AD, Venkatesh P, Arul V. In vitro selection, characterization and cytotoxic effect of bacteriocin of Lactobacillus sakei GM3 isolated from goat milk. Food Control. 2016;69:124‐133. [Google Scholar]
- 125. Díaz‐Ruiz G, Omar NB, Abriouel H, Cantilde M, Gálvez A. Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli by bacteriocin‐producing Lactobacillus plantarum EC52 in a meat sausage model system. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2012;6(6):1103‐1108. [Google Scholar]
- 126. Ben Braïek O, Smaoui S. Enterococci: between emerging pathogens and potential probiotics. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:1‐13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127. Giraffa G. Enterococci from foods. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2002;26(2):163‐171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128. Byappanahalli MN, Nevers MB, Korajkic A, Staley ZR, Harwood VJ. Enterococci in the environment. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2012;76(4):685‐706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129. Franz CM, Van Belkum MJ, Holzapfel WH, Abriouel H, Galvez A. Diversity of enterococcal bacteriocins and their grouping in a new classification scheme. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2007;31(3):293‐310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130. Coburn PS, Pillar CM, Jett BD, Haas W, Gilmore MS. Enterococcus faecalis senses target cells and in response expresses cytolysin. Science. 2004;306(5705):2270‐2272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131. Hyink O, Balakrishnan M, Tagg JR. Streptococcus rattus strain BHT produces both a class I two‐component lantibiotic and a class II bacteriocin. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2005;252(2):235‐241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132. Ennahar S, Sashihara T, Sonomoto K, Ishizaki A. Class IIa bacteriocins: biosynthesis, structure and activity. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2000;24(1):85‐106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133. Fimland G, Johnsen L, Dalhus B, Nissen‐Meyer J. Pediocin‐like antimicrobial peptides (class IIa bacteriocins) and their immunity proteins: biosynthesis, structure, and mode of action. J Peptide Sci. 2005;11(11):688‐696. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134. Chen Y, Ludescher RD, Montville TJ. Electrostatic interactions, but not the YGNGV consensus motif, govern the binding of pediocin PA‐1 and its fragments to phospholipid vesicles. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997;63(12):4770. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135. Gupta A, Tiwari SK, Netrebov V, Chikindas ML. Biochemical properties and mechanism of action of enterocin LD3 purified from Enterococcus hirae LD3. Probiot Antimicrob Proteins. 2016;8(3):161‐169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136. Sheoran P, Tiwari SK. Anti‐staphylococcal activity of bacteriocins of food isolates Enterococcus hirae LD3 and Lactobacillus plantarum LD4 in pasteurized milk. 3 Biotech. 2019;9(1):8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137. Perumal V, Venkatesan A. Antimicrobial, cytotoxic effect and purification of bacteriocin from vancomycin susceptible Enterococcus faecalis and its safety evaluation for probiotization. LWT. 2017;78:303‐310. [Google Scholar]
- 138. Nawaz F, Khan MN, Javed A, et al. Genomic and functional characterization of Enterococcus mundtii QAUEM2808, isolated from artisanal fermented milk product dahi. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139. Al‐Seraih A, Belguesmia Y, Baah J, Szunerits S, Boukherroub R, Drider D. Enterocin B3A–B3B produced by LAB collected from infant faeces: potential utilization in the food industry for Listeria monocytogenes biofilm management. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2017;110(2):205‐219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140. Bybee S, Scorza A, Lappin M. Effect of the probiotic Enterococcus faecium SF68 on presence of diarrhea in cats and dogs housed in an animal shelter. J Vet Intern Med. 2011;25(4):856‐860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141. Charyyev MG, Tuncer BÖ, Kankaya DA, Tuncer Y. Bacteriocinogenic properties and safety evaluation of Enterococcus faecium YT52 isolated from boza, a traditional cereal based fermented beverage. J Consum Protect Food Saf. 2019;14(1):41‐53. [Google Scholar]
- 142. Furtado DN, Favaro L, Nero LA, de Melo Franco BDG, Todorov SD. Nisin production by Enterococcus hirae DF105Mi isolated from Brazilian goat milk. Probiot Antimicrob Proteins. 2019;11(4):1391‐1402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143. Bagde P, Vigneshwaran N. Improving the stability of bacteriocin extracted from Enterococcus faecium by immobilization onto cellulose nanocrystals. Carbohyd Polym. 2019;209:172‐180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144. Qiao X, Du R, Wang Y, Han Y, Zhou Z. Isolation, characterisation and fermentation optimisation of bacteriocin‐producing Enterococcus faecium . Waste Biomass Valorization. 2020;11(7):3173‐3181. [Google Scholar]
- 145. Phumisantiphong U, Siripanichgon K, Reamtong O, Diraphat P. A novel bacteriocin from Enterococcus faecalis 478 exhibits a potent activity against vancomycin‐resistant enterococci. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0186415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146. Braïek OB, Ghomrassi H, Cremonesi P, et al. Isolation and characterisation of an enterocin P‐producing Enterococcus lactis strain from a fresh shrimp (Penaeus vannamei). Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2017;110(6):771‐786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147. Du L, Liu F, Zhao P, Zhao T, Doyle MP. Characterization of Enterococcus durans 152 bacteriocins and their inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes in ham. Food Microbiol. 2017;68:97‐103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148. Perumal V, Repally A, Dasari A, Venkatesan A. Partial purification and characterization of bacteriocin produced by Enterococcus faecalis DU10 and its probiotic attributes. Prep Biochem Biotechnol. 2016;46(7):686‐694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149. Gaaloul N, Ben Braiek O, Hani K, Volski A, Chikindas M, Ghrairi T. Isolation and characterization of large spectrum and multiple bacteriocin‐producing Enterococcus faecium strain from raw bovine milk. J Appl Microbiol. 2015;118(2):343‐355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150. Maky MA, Ishibashi N, Zendo T, et al. Enterocin F4–9, a novel O‐linked glycosylated bacteriocin. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81(14):4819‐4826. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151. Montel Mendoza MG, Ale CE, Nader MEF, Pasteris SE. Characterization of a bacteriocin produced by enterococcus gallinarum CRL 1826 Isolated from captive bullfrog: evaluation of its mode of action against Listeria monocytogenes and gram‐negatives. 2015.
- 152. Gupta A, Tiwari SK. Probiotic potential of bacteriocin‐producing Enterococcus hirae strain LD3 isolated from dosa batter. Ann Microbiol. 2015;65(4):2333‐2342. [Google Scholar]
- 153. Seo S‐H, Jung M, Kim WJ. Antilisterial and amylase‐sensitive bacteriocin producing Enterococcus faecium SH01 from Mukeunji, a Korean over‐ripened Kimchi. Food Sci Biotechnol. 2014;23(4):1177‐1184. [Google Scholar]
- 154. Chakchouk‐Mtibaa A, Elleuch L, Smaoui S, et al. An antilisterial bacteriocin BacFL31 produced by Enterococcus faecium FL31 with a novel structure containing hydroxyproline residues. Anaerobe. 2014;27:1‐6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155. Iyer R, Tomar S, Maheswari TU, Singh R. Streptococcus thermophilus strains: multifunctional lactic acid bacteria. Int Dairy J. 2010;20(3):133‐141. [Google Scholar]
- 156. Zotta T, Ricciardi A, Ciocia F, Rossano R, Parente E. Diversity of stress responses in dairy thermophilic streptococci. Int J Food Microbiol. 2008;124(1):34‐42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157. Renye JA, Somkuti GA, Steinberg DH. Thermophilin 109 is a naturally produced broad spectrum bacteriocin encoded within the blp gene cluster of Streptococcus thermophilus . Biotech Lett. 2019;41(2):283‐292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158. Vaillancourt K, LeBel G, Frenette M, Fittipaldi N, Gottschalk M, Grenier D. Purification and characterization of suicin 65, a novel class I type B lantibiotic produced by Streptococcus suis . PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0145854. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159. Vaillancourt K, LeBel G, Frenette M, Gottschalk M, Grenier D. Suicin 3908, a new lantibiotic produced by a strain of Streptococcus suis serotype 2 isolated from a healthy carrier pig. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0117245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160. Mondal R, Aruna B. Biopreservative activity of bacteriocin‐producing lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented green gram batter. Int J Food Ferment Technol. 2014;4(2):121‐128. [Google Scholar]
- 161. O'Connor PM, O'Shea EF, Guinane CM, et al. Nisin H is a new nisin variant produced by the gut‐derived strain Streptococcus hyointestinalis DPC6484. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81(12):3953‐3960. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162. Shin JM, Gwak JW, Kamarajan P, Fenno JC, Rickard AH, Kapila YL. Biomedical applications of nisin. J Appl Microbiol. 2016;120(6):1449‐1465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163. Osmanagaoğlu Ö, Gündüz U, Beyatli Y, Çökmüş C. Purification and characterization of pediocin F, A bacteriocin produced By Pediococcus acidilacticiF. Turk J Biol. 1998;22(2):217‐228. [Google Scholar]
- 164. Ray B. Pediocins of Pediococcus species. In: De Vuyst L, Vandamme E. J. (eds), Bacteriocins of Lactic Acid Bacteria. Springer; 1994:465‐495. [Google Scholar]
- 165. Garsa AK, Kumariya R, Sood S, Kumar A, Kapila S. Bacteriocin production and different strategies for their recovery and purification. Probiot Antimicrob Proteins. 2014;6(1):47‐58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166. Pucci MJ, Vedamuthu ER, Kunka BS, Vandenbergh PA. Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes by using bacteriocin PA‐1 produced by Pediococcus acidilactici PAC 1.0. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1988;54(10):2349‐2353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167. Choi S‐Y, Beuchat L. Growth inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes by a bacteriocin of Pediococcus acidilactici M during fermentation of kimchi. Food Microbiol. 1994;11(4):301‐307. [Google Scholar]
- 168. Jamuna M, Jeevaratnam K. Isolation and partial characterization of bacteriocins from Pediococcus species. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2004;65(4):433‐439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169. Elegado FB, Kim WJ, Kwon DY. Rapid purification, partial characterization, and antimicrobial spectrum of the bacteriocin, Pediocin AcM, from Pediococcus acidilactici M. Int J Food Microbiol. 1997;37(1):1‐11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170. Agrawal R, Dharmesh S. An anti‐Shigella dysenteriae bacteriocin from Pediococcus pentosaceus MTCC 5151 cheese isolate. Turk J Biol. 2012;36(2):177‐185. [Google Scholar]
- 171. Speelmans G, Vriesema A, Oolhorst S. Pediocin‐producing pediococci. Google Patents. 2006.
- 172. Vidhyasagar V, Jeevaratnam K. Bacteriocin activity against various pathogens produced by Pediococcus pentosaceus VJ13 isolated from Idly batter. Biomed Chromatogr. 2013;27(11):1497‐1502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173. Kumar KN, Devadas SM, Murugan S, Krishnan SG, Thayumanavan T. Production and characterization of bacteriocin by lactic acid bacterium‐Pediococcus pentosaceus NKSM1 isolated from fermented ‘appam’ batter. J Pure Appl Microbiol. 2018;12(3):1315‐1330. [Google Scholar]
- 174. Lestari S, Sadiq A, Safitri W, Dewi S, Prastiyanto M. The antibacterial activities of bacteriocin Pediococcus acidilactici of breast milk isolate to against methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus . J Phys: Conf Ser. 2019;1374:012021. [Google Scholar]
- 175. Chelliah R, Saravanakumar K, Daliri EB‐M, et al. Unveiling the potentials of bacteriocin (Pediocin L50) from Pediococcus acidilactici with antagonist spectrum in a Caenorhabditis elegans model. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;143:555‐572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176. Kim SH, Kim WJ, Kang S‐S. Inhibitory effect of bacteriocin‐producing Lactobacillus brevis DF01 and Pediococcus acidilactici K10 isolated from kimchi on enteropathogenic bacterial adhesion. Food Biosci. 2019;30:100425. [Google Scholar]
- 177. Yi L, Qi T, Hong Y, Deng L, Zeng K. Screening of bacteriocin‐producing lactic acid bacteria in Chinese homemade pickle and dry‐cured meat, and bacteriocin identification by genome sequencing. LWT. 2020;125:109177. [Google Scholar]
- 178. Parada JL, Caron CR, Medeiros ABP, Soccol CR. Bacteriocins from lactic acid bacteria: purification, properties and use as biopreservatives. Brazil Archiv Biol Technol. 2007;50(3):512‐542. [Google Scholar]
- 179. Drider D, Fimland G, Héchard Y, McMullen LM, Prévost H. The continuing story of class IIa bacteriocins. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2006;70(2):564‐582. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 180. Schöbitz RP, Bórquez PA, Costa ME, Ciampi LR, Brito CS. Bacteriocin like substance production by Carnobacterium piscicola in a continuous system with three culture broths. Study of antagonism against Listeria monocytogenes on vacuum packaged salmon. Brazil J Microbiol. 2006;37(1):52‐57. [Google Scholar]
- 181. Pilchova T, Pilet M‐F, Cappelier J‐M, Pazlarova J, Tresse O. Protective effect of Carnobacterium spp. against Listeria monocytogenes during host cell invasion using in vitro HT29 model. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2016;6:88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 182. Yi C‐C, Liu C‐H, Chuang K‐P, Chang Y‐T, Hu S‐Y. A potential probiotic Chromobacterium aquaticum with bacteriocin‐like activity enhances the expression of indicator genes associated with nutrient metabolism, growth performance and innate immunity against pathogen infections in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019;93:124‐134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 183. Hu ZY, Balay D, Hu Y, McMullen LM, Gänzle MG. Effect of chitosan, and bacteriocin–producing Carnobacterium maltaromaticum on survival of Escherichia coli and Salmonella Typhimurium on beef. Int J Food Microbiol. 2019;290:68‐75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 184. Izuchukwu N. Detection and characterization of bacteriocin‐like substances produced by Carnobacterium maltaromaticum MMF‐32 and KOPRI 25789. Am Sci Res J Eng Technol Sci. 2017;35(1):215‐235. [Google Scholar]
- 185. Ogier J‐C, Casalta E, Farrokh C, Saïhi A. Safety assessment of dairy microorganisms: the Leuconostoc genus. Int J Food Microbiol. 2008;126(3):286‐290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 186. Steinkraus KH. Fermentations in world food processing. Comprehens Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2002;1(1):23‐32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 187. Bintsis T. Lactic acid bacteria as starter cultures: an update in their metabolism and genetics. AIMS Microbiol. 2018;4(4):665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 188. Nettles CG, Barefoot SF. Biochemical and genetic characteristics of bacteriocins of food‐associated lactic acid bacteria. J Food Prot. 1993;56(4):338‐356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 189. Arakawa K, Yoshida S, Aikawa H, et al. Production of a bacteriocin‐like inhibitory substance by Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. dextranicum 213M0 isolated from Mongolian fermented mare milk, airag. Anim Sci J. 2016;87(3):449‐456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 190. Hwang I‐C, Oh JK, Kim SH, Oh S, Kang D‐K. Isolation and Characterization of an anti‐listerial bacteriocin from Leuconostoc lactis SD501. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour. 2018;38(5):1008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 191. Danial EN, Al‐Zahrani SHM, Al‐Mahmoudi ZA‐HM. Enhancement of novel extracellular bacteriocin production by media optimization using LAB isolate from meat. J Appl Pharm Sci. 2016;6(12):20‐27. [Google Scholar]
- 192. Bellil Y, Benmechernene Z, Chahrour W, Mebrouk K. Antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of the bacteriocin‐producing strain Leuconostoc mesenteroides CHBY46 isolated from Algerian dromedary milk against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Eur J Exp Biol. 2019;8:120‐131. [Google Scholar]
- 193. Thangavel G, Thiruvengadam S. Microorganisms isolated from stored meat in India, with potential antimicrobial activity against food pathogens. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2019;20(5):401‐409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 194. Wang Y, Li A, Jiang X, et al. Probiotic potential of Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides and Lactobacillus strains isolated from yaks. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 195. Cholakov R, Tumbarski Y, Yanakieva V, Dobrev I, Salim Y, Denkova Z. Antimicrobial activity of Leuconostoc lactis strain BT17, isolated from a spontaneously fermented cereal beverage (Boza). J Microbiol Biotechnol Food Sci. 2017;7(1):47. [Google Scholar]
- 196. Shi F, Wang Y, Li Y, Wang X. Mode of action of leucocin K7 produced by Leuconostoc mesenteroides K7 against Listeria monocytogenes and its potential in milk preservation. Biotech Lett. 2016;38(9):1551‐1557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 197. Dündar H, Salih B, Bozoğlu F. Purification and characterization of a bacteriocin from an oenological strain of Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. cremoris. Prep Biochem Biotechnol. 2016;46(4):354‐359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 198. Giles‐Gómez M, García JGS, Matus V, Quintana IC, Bolívar F, Escalante A. In vitro and in vivo probiotic assessment of Leuconostoc mesenteroides P45 isolated from pulque, a Mexican traditional alcoholic beverage. SpringerPlus. 2016;5(1):708. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 199. Kim JY, Young JA, Gunther NW IV, Lee JL. Inhibition of S almonella by bacteriocin‐producing lactic acid bacteria derived from US Kimchi and broiler chicken. J Food Saf. 2015;35(1):1‐12. [Google Scholar]
- 200. de Paula AT, Jeronymo‐Ceneviva AB, Silva LF, et al. Leuconostoc mesenteroides SJRP55: a bacteriocinogenic strain isolated from Brazilian water buffalo mozzarella cheese. Probiot Antimicrob Proteins. 2014;6(3‐4):186‐197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 201. Abdelkader A, Daube G, Mebrouk K. Isolation and identification of dominant osmophilic Leuconostoc strains from traditional date product “Btana”. Int Food Res J. 2014;21:1297‐1304. [Google Scholar]
- 202. Bevilacqua L, Ovidi M, Di Mattia E, Trovatelli LD, Canganella F. Screening of Bifidobacterium strains isolated from human faeces for antagonistic activities against potentially bacterial pathogens. Microbiol Res. 2003;158(2):179‐185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 203. Cheikhyoussef A, Cheikhyoussef N, Chen H, et al. Bifidin I‐A new bacteriocin produced by Bifidobacterium infantis BCRC 14602: Purification and partial amino acid sequence. Food Control. 2010;21(5):746‐753. [Google Scholar]
- 204. Todorov SD, Wachsman M, Tomé E, et al. Characterisation of an antiviral pediocin‐like bacteriocin produced by Enterococcus faecium . Food Microbiol. 2010;27(7):869‐879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 205. Yildirim Z, Winters D, Johnson M. Purification, amino acid sequence and mode of action of bifidocin B produced by Bifidobacterium bifidum NCFB 1454. J Appl Microbiol. 1999;86(1):45‐54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 206. Mostafa GA, Mokhtar SM, Eldeeb GS, Taha RA. Bacteriocins (from Bifidobacterium spp) biopreservative against gram‐negative pathogenic bacteria in minced meat as point. Am J Food Sci Nutr. 2015;2(4):55‐67. [Google Scholar]
- 207. Yildirim Z, Johnson MG. Characterization and antimicrobial spectrum of bifidocin B, a bacteriocin produced by Bifidobacterium bifidum NCFB 1454. J Food Prot. 1998;61(1):47‐51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 208. Cheikhyoussef A, Pogori N, Chen H, et al. Antimicrobial activity and partial characterization of bacteriocin‐like inhibitory substances (BLIS) produced by Bifidobacterium infantis BCRC 14602. Food Control. 2009;20(6):553‐559. [Google Scholar]
- 209. Balciunas EM, Al Arni S, Converti A, Leblanc JG, Oliveira RPdS. Production of bacteriocin‐like inhibitory substances (BLIS) by Bifidobacterium lactis using whey as a substrate. Int J Dairy Technol. 2016;69(2):236‐242. [Google Scholar]
- 210. Mahdi LH, Auda IG, Ali IM, Alsaadi LG, Zwain LA. Antibacterial activity of a novel characterized and purified bacteriocin extracted from Bifidobacterium adolescentis. Rev Med Microbiol. 2018;29(2):73‐80. [Google Scholar]
- 211. Khan I, Oh D‐H. Integration of nisin into nanoparticles for application in foods. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. 2016;34:376‐384. [Google Scholar]
- 212. Wiedemann I, Breukink E, van Kraaij C, et al. Specific binding of nisin to the peptidoglycan precursor lipid II combines pore formation and inhibition of cell wall biosynthesis for potent antibiotic activity. J Biol Chem. 2001;276(3):1772‐1779. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 213. Bari M, Ukuku D, Kawasaki T, Inatsu Y, Isshiki K, Kawamoto S. Combined efficacy of nisin and pediocin with sodium lactate, citric acid, phytic acid, and potassium sorbate and EDTA in reducing the Listeria monocytogenes population of inoculated fresh‐cut produce. J Food Prot. 2005;68(7):1381‐1387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 214. Pimentel‐Filho NDJ, Mantovani HC, de Carvalho AF, Dias RS, Vanetti MCD. Efficacy of bovicin HC 5 and nisin combination against Listeria monocytogenes and Staphylococcus aureus in fresh cheese. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2014;49(2):416‐422. [Google Scholar]
- 215. Józefiak D, Kierończyk B, Juśkiewicz J, et al. Dietary nisin modulates the gastrointestinal microbial ecology and enhances growth performance of the broiler chickens. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e85347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 216. Abu‐Zayyad T, Aida R, Allen M, et al. The cosmic‐ray energy spectrum observed with the surface detector of the telescope array experiment. Astrophys J Lett. 2013;768(1):L1. [Google Scholar]
- 217. Chopra S, Harjai K, Chhibber S. Potential of sequential treatment with minocycline and S. aureus specific phage lysin in eradication of MRSA biofilms: an in vitro study. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015;99(7):3201‐3210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 218. Simha BV, Sood S, Kumariya R, Garsa AK. Simple and rapid purification of pediocin PA‐1 from Pediococcus pentosaceous NCDC 273 suitable for industrial application. Microbiol Res. 2012;167(9):544‐549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 219. Montalban‐Lopez M, Sanchez‐Hidalgo M, Valdivia E, Martinez‐Bueno M, Maqueda M. Are bacteriocins underexploited? Novel applications for old antimicrobials. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2011;12(8):1205‐1220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 220. García‐Cayuela T, Requena T, Martínez‐Cuesta MC, Peláez C. Rapid detection of Lactococcus lactis isolates producing the lantibiotics nisin, lacticin 481 and lacticin 3147 using MALDI‐TOF MS. J Microbiol Methods. 2017;139:138‐142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 221. Morgan S, Ross R, Beresford T, Hill C. Combination of hydrostatic pressure and lacticin 3147 causes increased killing of Staphylococcus and Listeria. J Appl Microbiol. 2000;88(3):414‐420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 222. Ribeiro SC, O'Connor PM, Ross RP, Stanton C, Silva CC. An anti‐listerial Lactococcus lactis strain isolated from Azorean Pico cheese produces lacticin 481. Int Dairy J. 2016;63:18‐28. [Google Scholar]
- 223. Yildirim Z, Öncül N, Yildirim M, Karabiyikli Ş. Application of lactococcin BZ and enterocin KP against Listeria monocytogenes in milk as biopreservation agents. Acta Aliment. 2016;45(4):486‐492. [Google Scholar]
- 224. Wright EE, Nguyen HU, Owens L. Preliminary characterization of a Nisin Z bacteriocin with activity against the fish pathogen Streptococcus iniae . Oceanogr Fish. 2017;3:1‐13. [Google Scholar]
- 225. Barman S, Ghosh R, Mandal NC. Use of bacteriocin producing Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis LABW4 to prevent Listeria monocytogenes induced spoilage of meat. Food Nutr Sci. 2014;5(22):2115. [Google Scholar]
- 226. Azhar NS, Zin NHM, Hamid THTA. Lactococcus lactis strain A5 producing nisin‐like bacteriocin active against gram positive and negative bacteria. Trop Life Sci Res. 2017;28(2):107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 227. Tenea GN, Hurtado P, Ortega C. Inhibitory effect of substances produced by native Lactococcus lactis strains of tropical fruits towards food pathogens. Prevent Nutr Food Sci. 2018;23(3):260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 228. Yang J‐M, Moon G‐S. Isolation of a Lactococcus lactis strain producing anti‐staphylococcal bacteriocin. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour. 2018;38(6):1315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 229. Hwanhlem N, Ivanova T, Haertlé T, Jaffrès E, Dousset X. Inhibition of food‐spoilage and foodborne pathogenic bacteria by a nisin Z‐producing Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis KT2W2L. LWT – Food Sci Technol. 2017;82:170‐175. [Google Scholar]
- 230. Kaktcham PM, Kouam EMF, Tientcheu MLT, et al. Nisin‐producing Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis 2MT isolated from freshwater Nile tilapia in Cameroon: Bacteriocin screening, characterization, and optimization in a low‐cost medium. LWT. 2019;107:272‐279. [Google Scholar]
- 231. Mirkovic N, Kulas J, Miloradovic Z, et al. Lactolisterin BU‐producer Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis BGBU1‐4: Bio‐control of Listeria monocytogenes and Staphylocococcus aureus in fresh soft cheese and effect on immunological response of rats. Food Control. 2020;111:107076. [Google Scholar]
- 232. Acuña L, Corbalán N, Quintela‐Baluja M, Barros‐Velázquez J, Bellomio A. Expression of the hybrid bacteriocin Ent35‐MccV in Lactococcus lactis and its use for controlling Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli in milk. Int Dairy J. 2020;104:104650. [Google Scholar]
- 233. Barman S, Ghosh R, Mandal NC. Production optimization of broad spectrum bacteriocin of three strains of Lactococcus lactis isolated from homemade buttermilk. Ann Agrarian Sci. 2018;16(3):286‐296. [Google Scholar]
- 234. Furtado DN, Todorov SD, Landgraf M, Destro MT, Franco BDGM. Bacteriocinogenic Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis DF04Mi isolated from goat milk: characterization of the bacteriocin. Braz J Microbiol. 2015;45(4):1541‐1550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 235. Cascales E, Buchanan SK, Duché D, et al. Colicin biology. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2007;71(1):158‐229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 236. Nomura M, Witten C. Interaction of colicins with bacterial cells III. Colicin‐tolerant mutations in Escherichia coli . J Bacteriol. 1967;94(4):1093‐1111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 237. Cutler SA, Lonergan SM, Cornick N, Johnson AK, Stahl CH. Dietary inclusion of colicin e1 is effective in preventing postweaning diarrhea caused by F18‐positive Escherichia coli in pigs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51(11):3830‐3835. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 238. Behrens HM, Six A, Walker D, Kleanthous C. The therapeutic potential of bacteriocins as protein antibiotics. Emerg Topics Life Sci. 2017;1(1):65‐74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 239. Gillor O, Kirkup BC, Riley MA. Colicins and microcins: the next generation antimicrobials. Adv Appl Microbiol. 2004;54:129‐146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 240. Rebuffat S. Microcins in action: amazing defence strategies of Enterobacteria. Biochem Soc Trans. 2012;40(6):1456‐1462. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 241. Severinov K, Semenova E, Kazakov A, Kazakov T, Gelfand MS. Low‐molecular‐weight post‐translationally modified microcins. Mol Microbiol. 2007;65(6):1380‐1394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 242. Cursino L, Šmajs D, Šmarda J, et al. Exoproducts of the Escherichia coli strain H22 inhibiting some enteric pathogens both in vitro and in vivo. J Appl Microbiol. 2006;100(4):821‐829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 243. Ahmad V, Ahmad K, Baig MH, et al. Efficacy of a novel bacteriocin isolated from Lysinibacillus sp. against Bacillus pumilus . LWT. 2019;102:260‐267. [Google Scholar]
- 244. Čanak I, Markov K, Melvan E, et al. Isolation and characterisation of L. plantarum O1 producer of plantaricin as potential starter culture for the biopreservation of aquatic food products. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2018;56(4):581‐589. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 245. Desriac F, Defer D, Bourgougnon N, Brillet B, Le Chevalier P, Fleury Y. Bacteriocin as weapons in the marine animal‐associated bacteria warfare: inventory and potential applications as an aquaculture probiotic. Marine Drugs. 2010;8(4):1153‐1177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 246. Meade E, Slattery MA, Garvey M. Bacteriocins, potent antimicrobial peptides and the fight against multi drug resistant species: resistance is futile? Antibiotics. 2020;9(1):32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 247. Pei J, Jin W, El‐Aty AA, et al. Isolation, purification, and structural identification of a new bacteriocin made by Lactobacillus plantarum found in conventional kombucha. Food Control. 2020;110:106923. [Google Scholar]
- 248. Padilla C, Carrasco‐Sánchez V, Padilla A, Lobos O. Partial characterization of novel bacteriocin SF1 produced by Shigella flexneri and their lethal activity on members of gut microbiota. Int J Microbiol. 2019;2019:1–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 249. Perumal V, Yao Z, Kim JA, Kim H‐J, Kim JH. Purification and characterization of a bacteriocin, BacBS2, produced by Bacillus velezensis BS2 Isolated from meongge jeotgal. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019;29(7):1033‐1042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 250. Qin Y, Wang Y, He Y, et al. Characterization of subtilin L‐Q11, a novel class I bacteriocin synthesized by Bacillus subtilis L‐Q11 isolated from orchard soil. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 251. Wu Y, An J, Liu Y, et al. Mode of action of a novel anti‐Listeria bacteriocin (CAMT2) produced by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ZJHD3‐06 from Epinephelus areolatus. Arch Microbiol. 2019;201(1):61‐66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 252. Gupta V, Singh SS, Sidhu C, Grover V, Pinnaka AK, Korpole S. Virgicin, a novel lanthipeptide from Virgibacillus sp. strain AK90 exhibits inhibitory activity against Gram‐positive bacteria. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019;35(9):133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 253. Kasuga G, Tanaka M, Harada Y, et al. Homologous expression and characterization of gassericin T and gassericin S, a novel class IIb bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus gasseri LA327. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85(6):e02815‐e2818. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 254. Lv X, Ma H, Sun M, et al. A novel bacteriocin DY4‐2 produced by Lactobacillus plantarum from cutlassfish and its application as bio‐preservative for the control of Pseudomonas fluorescens in fresh turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) fillets. Food Control. 2018;89:22‐31. [Google Scholar]
- 255. Lv X, Miao L, Ma H, et al. Purification, characterization and action mechanism of plantaricin JY22, a novel bacteriocin against Bacillus cereus produced by Lactobacillus plantarum JY22 from golden carp intestine. Food Sci Biotechnol. 2018;27(3):695‐703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 256. Chen L, Gu Q, Li P, Li Y, Song D, Yang J. Purification and Characterization of Plantaricin ZJ316, a Novel Bacteriocin against Listeria monocytogenes from Lactobacillus plantarum ZJ316. J Food Prot. 2018;81(12):1929‐1935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 257. Du H, Yang J, Lu X, et al. Purification, characterization, and mode of action of plantaricin GZ1‐27, a novel bacteriocin against Bacillus cereus . J Agricult Food Chem. 2018;66(18):4716‐4724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 258. Wayah SB, Philip K. Characterization, yield optimization, scale up and biopreservative potential of fermencin SA715, a novel bacteriocin from Lactobacillus fermentum GA715 of goat milk origin. Microb Cell Fact. 2018;17(1):125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 259. Wayah SB, Philip K. Purification, characterization, mode of action, and enhanced production of Salivaricin mmaye1, a novel bacteriocin from Lactobacillus salivarius SPW1 of human gut origin. Electron J Biotechnol. 2018;35:39‐47. [Google Scholar]
- 260. Wayah SB, Philip K. Pentocin MQ1: a novel, broad‐spectrum, pore‐forming bacteriocin from Lactobacillus pentosus CS2 with quorum sensing regulatory mechanism and biopreservative potential. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 261. Borrero J, Kelly E, O'Connor PM, et al. Plantaricyclin A, a novel circular bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus plantarum NI326: purification, characterization, and heterologous production. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018;84(1):e01801‐17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 262. Botthoulath V, Upaichit A, Thumarat U. Characterization of Listeria‐active bacteriocin produced by a new strain Lactobacillus plantarum subsp. plantarum SKI19 isolated from" sai krok e‐san mu". Int Food Res J. 2018;25(6):2362‐2371. [Google Scholar]
- 263. Chen Y‐S, Wu H‐C, Kuo C‐Y, Chen Y‐W, Ho S, Yanagida F. Leucocin C‐607, a novel bacteriocin from the multiple‐bacteriocin‐producing Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides 607 isolated from persimmon. Probiot Antimicrob Proteins. 2018;10(2):148‐156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 264. Lv X, Lin Y, Jie Y, et al. Purification, characterization, and action mechanism of plantaricin DL3, a novel bacteriocin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa produced by Lactobacillus plantarum DL3 from Chinese Suan‐Tsai. Eur Food Res Technol. 2018;244(2):323‐331. [Google Scholar]
- 265. Lee SG, Chang HC. Purification and characterization of mejucin, a new bacteriocin produced by Bacillus subtilis SN7. LWT. 2018;87:8‐15. [Google Scholar]
- 266. Canchaya C, Claesson MJ, Fitzgerald GF, Van Sinderen D, O'Toole PW. Diversity of the genus Lactobacillus revealed by comparative genomics of five species. Microbiology. 2006;152(11):3185‐3196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 267. Pidcock K, Heard G, Henriksson A. Application of nontraditional meat starter cultures in production of Hungarian salami. Int J Food Microbiol. 2002;76(1–2):75‐81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 268. Gillor O, Etzion A, Riley M. The dual role of bacteriocins as anti‐and probiotics. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2008;81(4):591‐606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 269. Stern N, Svetoch E, Eruslanov B, et al. Isolation of a Lactobacillus salivarius strain and purification of its bacteriocin, which is inhibitory to Campylobacter jejuni in the chicken gastrointestinal system. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50(9):3111‐3116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 270. Sit CS, McKay RT, Hill C, Ross RP, Vederas JC. The 3D structure of thuricin CD, a two‐component bacteriocin with cysteine sulfur to α‐carbon cross‐links. J Am Chem Soc. 2011;133(20):7680‐7683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 271. Rea MC, Clayton E, O'Connor PM, et al. Antimicrobial activity of lacticin 3,147 against clinical Clostridium difficile strains. J Med Microbiol. 2007;56(Pt 7):940‐946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 272. Mathur H, Rea MC, Cotter PD, Ross RP, Hill C. The potential for emerging therapeutic options for Clostridium difficile infection. Gut Microbes. 2014;5(6):696‐710. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 273. Hanchi H, Hammami R, Gingras H, et al. Inhibition of MRSA and of Clostridium difficile by durancin 61A: synergy with bacteriocins and antibiotics. Future Microbiol. 2017;12:205‐212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 274. Müller J, Hart CM, Francis NJ, et al. Histone methyltransferase activity of a Drosophila Polycomb group repressor complex. Cell. 2002;111(2):197‐208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 275. Diep DB, Nes IF. Ribosomally synthesized antibacterial peptides in Gram positive bacteria. Curr Drug Targets. 2002;3(2):107‐122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 276. Messaoudi S, Manai M, Kergourlay G, et al. Lactobacillus salivarius: bacteriocin and probiotic activity. Food Microbiol. 2013;36(2):296‐304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 277. Messaoudi S, Kergourlay G, Dalgalarrondo M, et al. Purification and characterization of a new bacteriocin active against Campylobacter produced by Lactobacillus salivarius SMXD51. Food Microbiol. 2012;32(1):129‐134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 278. Flynn S, Van Sinderen D, Thornton GM, Holo H, Nes IF, Collins JK. Characterization of the genetic locus responsible for the production of ABP‐118, a novel bacteriocin produced by the probiotic bacterium Lactobacillus salivarius subsp. salivarius UCC118The GenBank accession number for the sequence reported in this paper is AF408405. Microbiology. 2002;148(4):973‐984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 279. Petrosillo N, Granata G, Cataldo MA. Novel antimicrobials for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. Front Med. 2018;5:96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 280. Settanni L, Corsetti A. Application of bacteriocins in vegetable food biopreservation. Int J Food Microbiol. 2008;121(2):123‐138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 281. Hu X, Mao R, Zhang Y, et al. Biotechnical paving of recombinant enterocin A as the candidate of anti‐Listeriaagent. BMC Microbiol. 2014;14(1):220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All relevant data are included in the manuscript.