Skip to main content
PMC home page
Microorganisms logoLink to Microorganisms
. 2022 Feb 17;10(2):463. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10020463

Probiotic Potentiality from Versatile Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Strains as Resource to Enhance Freshwater Fish Health

Massimo Iorizzo 1, Gianluca Albanese 1, Francesco Letizia 1,*, Bruno Testa 1, Patrizio Tremonte 1, Franca Vergalito 1, Silvia Jane Lombardi 1, Mariantonietta Succi 1, Raffaele Coppola 1, Elena Sorrentino 1,*
Editor: Jorge Barros-Velázquez1
PMCID: PMC8877946  PMID: 35208917

Abstract

Dietary probiotic supplementation has the potential to enhance the health of fish and their disease resistance. In this study, some properties of ten Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strains have been evaluated, for their potential use as probiotics in freshwater fish diet. In particular, antimicrobial activity, antioxidant activity, the potentiality to survive the gastrointestinal transit and persist in the intestine, were evaluated in vitro. The experimental tests were carried out at 15 °C and 30 °C to determine the suitability of these lactic acid bacteria to be used as probiotics in the diet of fish grown at different temperatures. The results demonstrated that the evaluated Lp. plantarum strains, which often have significant differences among themselves, are characterized by important functional characteristics such as cell surface properties (auto-aggregation and hydrophobicity), ability to produce antioxidant substances, capacity to survive in the presence of 0.3% bile salts and acidic environment (2.5 pH), antagonistic activity against some fish opportunistic pathogens (A. salmonicida, Ps. aeruginosa, E. coli and C. freundii) and other unwanted bacteria present in fish products (S. aureus and L. innocua). The outcomes suggest that these Lp. plantarum strains may be candidates as probiotics in warm- and cold-water aquaculture.

Keywords: aquaculture, probiotic, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, fish health

1. Introduction

Aquaculture has become an important economic activity in many countries [1]. The current intensification of aquaculture has led to the promotion of conditions that favor the development of infection and disease-related problems [2]. Bacterial diseases in fish farming can cause high mortality, with subsequent economic losses [3]. The conventional approach so far applied in the mitigation, or cure, of bacterial diseases has been mainly based on the use of antibiotics [4].

The misuse of these compounds, however, is known to have several ancillary complications, such as negative effects on the gut microbiota [5,6] and antibiotic accumulation in edible products [7,8,9]. In addition, there is a general concern over the increased numbers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the environment [10,11].

As such, there is a growing concern to have other safe, non-antibiotic-based and eco-friendly alternatives for the treatment of the diseases [12]. In response to the reduction in antibiotic use in fish farming, vaccination has been playing a pivotal role in the control of infectious diseases in aquaculture for decades [13]. The wide acceptance of vaccines stems from the fact that there is no risk of drug resistance development in vaccinated animals and for the resulting protection of unvaccinated animals due to herd immunity. Conversely, the role of every vaccine is limited to the control and prevention of a single infectious disease [14]. Subsequently, a single approach is not sufficient to maintain the health status of fish in aquaculture, but rather a combination of different strategies is required.

In recent years, the use of probiotics as agents of biological control is a promising alternative approach for the control of infectious agents and treatment of diseases [15,16]. Although probiotics were initially used for disease control, their use in aquaculture has now extended for further reasons: improvement of fish growth and reproduction, enzymatic contribution to digestion, modulation of the gut microbiota, enhancement of hematological parameters and immune response [15,16,17,18,19]. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) have gained considerable attention as probiotics in aquaculture, and over the last two decades, numerous investigations were carried out to evaluate the probiotic properties of different genera and species [20,21,22,23]. Based on these studies, it is evident that LABs along with other bacteria that belong to the indigenous microbiota play an important role in improving the health and welfare of fish. Among several probiotic bacterial species, several reports have been published on the beneficial role of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (previously Lactobacillus plantarum) and its use as a probiotic in aquaculture [24,25,26,27]. Lp. plantarum is a bacterium capable of colonizing several ecological niches, including the intestinal tract of mammals, insects, and fishes [28,29,30]. Many studies have shown that some Lp. plantarum strains that inhabit our intestinal tract must have intrinsic resistance mechanisms to resist the gastrointestinal transit [31,32]. Recently, several studies have suggested that Lp. plantarum is a versatile LAB, among the most important due to its distinctive probiotic properties, as it can tolerate acid and bile conditions as well as exhibit antioxidant and antimicrobial activities [33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. Therefore, some strains of Lp. plantarum are proposed or used as probiotics in aquaculture practices [40,41,42]. Considering the positive impact of probiotics, it is important to select new specific strains to be used in freshwater fish aquaculture [20,43].

This study focused on some functional and probiotic activities of ten Lp. plantarum strains, to assess their suitability to be used as probiotics in aquaculture. In particular, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities, cell surface properties (auto-aggregation and hydrophobicity) and capability to survive at low pH and in the presence of bile salts were studied. Our tests were conducted at temperatures of 15 °C and 30 °C degrees.

The reason for this experimental choice was to evaluate the versatility of the selected Lp. plantarum strains and their possible use as probiotics in the diet of farmed fish grown at different temperatures.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. LAB Strains

Ten Lp. plantarum strains (23V, 33V, 36V, 37V, 64V, 65V, 66V, 67V, 68V, 73V) isolated from the intestinal tract of the Mediterranean trout (Salmo macrostigma) were used [30]. Their 16S rRNA sequences have been deposited in GenBank under accession numbers from MZ452092 to MZ452095 and from MZ452098 to MZ452103.

2.2. Antimicrobial Activity

The antimicrobial activity of the Lp. plantarum strains (producers) was evaluated against the following indicator bacteria: Escherichia coli ATCC 11775, Listeria innocua ATCC 33090, Proteus mirabilis ATCC 29906, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, Citrobacter freundii ATCC 8090, and Aeromonas salmonicida ATCC 33658 belonging to the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC Manassas, VA, USA).

The Lp. plantarum strains were grown in MRS broth (Oxoid Ltd., Hampshire, UK). After 16 h at 30 °C, the broth culture of every single strain was centrifugated (8000× g rpm for 10 min at 4 °C) to separate the cell pellet from the cell-free supernatant (CFS). Before being used, the CFS was mechanically sterilized by means of filtration (cellulose acetate membrane, pore size 0.22 μm (Sigma-Aldrich; St. Louis, M0, USA).

The antimicrobial activity of CFSs were tested in accordance with the Kaewchomphunuch et al. protocol [44]. As a negative control, 50 μL of MRS, adjusted to pH 3.8 with hydrochloric acid 1N (Sigma-Aldrich), was used. Antibacterial activity has been evaluated after 72 h, at 15 °C and 30 °C, measuring the diameter (mm) of the clear zone of inhibition (ZOI) around the inoculated wells [44]. The tests were conducted in triplicate.

2.3. Evaluation of Acid and Bile Tolerance

The Lp. plantarum strains were anaerobically grown in MRS for 18 h at 30 °C. The cells were collected by centrifugation, washed twice with physiological solution (NaCl 0.9%), and suspended in MRS broth. In order to assess the ability of bacteria to survive acidic environments, 100 µL of bacterial suspension were transferred in test tubes containing 10 mL of MRS adjusted to pH 2.5 with 1 M HCl (Sigma-Aldrich; St. Louis, MO, USA). Similarly, to determine the bile tolerance, 100 µL of bacterial suspension were transferred in test tubes containing 10 mL of MRS enriched with 0.3% (w/v) of bile salts (cholic acid sodium salt, 50%; deoxycholic acid sodium salt, 50% Sigma-Aldrich) [44].

Finally, the test tubes were incubated at 15 °C and 30 °C in anaerobiosis. Viable cell counts were performed at the beginning of the trial and after 3 and 24 h by plate counting on MRS agar incubated anaerobically at 30 °C for 48 h. The experiments were performed in triplicate and expressed as mean values.

2.4. Cell Surface Properties

2.4.1. Bacterial Cultures

The bacterial strains were grown in MRS broth at 30 °C. After 12 h, the cultures were centrifugated (8000× g rpm for 15 min at 4 °C), washed twice and resuspended in a sterile phosphate buffer saline (PBS, pH 7) to an optical density of 0.5 MacFarland scale (OD580) to standardize the bacterial density at 108 CFU/mL [45]. The OD580 of bacterial suspension (BS) was measured using a spectrophotometer (Multilabel Counter–PerkinElmer 1420, San Jose, CA, USA). The tests were then conducted in triplicate.

2.4.2. Auto-Aggregation

The auto-aggregation (AA) assay was performed according to Iorizzo et al. [31]. The absorbance measurements (OD580) of the BSs were carried out after 1, 2, 5, and 24 h at 15 °C and 30 °C. The AA (%) was obtained using the following formula: AA% = (1 − ODt/OD0) × 100 [46], where OD0 is the initial absorbance and ODt is the absorbance detected after 1, 2, 5, and 24 h.

2.4.3. Hydrophobicity

The percentage hydrophobicity has been determined considering the capacity of Lp. plantarum strains to adhere to hydrocarbons (BATH) using xylene and toluene [47]. The BS was added with 50% of every single hydrocarbon and the two-phase system was vortexed for 5 min. After 15, 30, and 60 min of stationary phase at 15 °C and 30 °C, the aqueous phase was carefully removed and spectrophotometric readings were carried out using the wavelength control set to 580 nm. Hydrophobicity (H) was calculated as a percentage decrease in optical density and was expressed using the following formula: H% = (1 − ODt/OD0) × 100) [46], where ODt represents the absorbance after 15, 30, and 60 min, while OD0 represents the optical density value before adding the hydrocarbon.

2.5. Antioxidant Activity

The overnight cultures (107 CFU/mL) of the Lp. plantarum strains in 10 mL of MRS medium were centrifuged at 8000× g rpm for 5 min at 4 °C.

Cell pellets (CP) were fractionated into two aliquots for the protein contents and antioxidant activity. Total cell protein extraction was carried out resuspending the CP in 1 mL of NaOH 0.1 M, treated with heat at 95 °C for 20 min and stored at 4 °C. After 24 h, samples were centrifugated at 13,000× g rpm for 15 min at 4 °C and the supernatants were used for protein quantification according to Di Martino et al. [48]. The cell protein was expressed as mg/mL, using bovine serum albumin (BSA) as the standard.

For the antioxidant activity, the cell pellet was washed twice with sterile water and resuspended in 500 µL of cold pure methanol, and after 12 h of storage at −20 °C, centrifuged at 13,000× g rpm for 15 min at 4 °C. The supernatants of cell extract (CES) were used for the evaluation of the antioxidant activity.

Antioxidant activity of the CES was evaluated using the 2,2 azino-bis 3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS·+) radical cation method according to Re et al. [49] and scavenging of 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical according to the method described by Aarti et al. [50], with some modifications. ABTS radical cations (ABTS·+) were produced by reacting the ABTS methanol solution 7 mM with 2.45 mM potassium persulfate, storing it in the dark at room temperature for 24 h before use. The ABTS·+ solution was diluted with cold pure methanol to an optical density (OD) of 0.700 at 745 nm. Then, 100 µL of CES were mixed with 900 µL of the ABTS·+ solution. The OD was measured at 745 nm after 6 min in the dark at room temperature using a BioSpectrometer (Eppendorf).

For the DPPH radical-scavenging capacity, 100 µL of CES were mixed with 900 µL of DPPH radical solution (0.05 mM) and diluted with cold pure methanol to OD of 0.700 at 515 nm after 15 min.

For ABTS and DPPH assays, Trolox was used as the standard for the calibration curve.

The antioxidant activity was expressed as the ratio (w/w) between μg/mL Trolox and mg/mL of total cell protein (BSA equivalents). All the reagents used for this experiment were from Sigma-Aldrich.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

All the data obtained from the three independent experiments are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Statistical analysis was performed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test. Statistical significance was attributed to p-values < 0.05 using SPSS software (IBM SPSS Statistics 21) for the analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Antimicrobial Activity

The results of the antagonistic activity of the Lp. plantarum strains against indicator bacteria at 15 °C and 30 °C are presented in Table 1 and Table 2 as the mean diameter (mm) of the growth inhibition zone (ZOI). Tests using the acidified MRS pH 3.8 showed no inhibitory effect. At 30 °C, all the CFSs of the Lp. plantarum strains inhibited the growth of indicator bacteria causing ZOI between 5 and 14 mm, in some cases with statistically significant differences. At 15 °C, the overall results show there was a greater diversification of antagonistic activity than that caused at 30 °C. The results of the antimicrobial activity conducted at 30 °C showed the ability of the ten Lp. plantarum to inhibit all indicator strains. The specific data at 15 °C showed an inhibitory effect of all tested Lp. plantarum strains against A. salmonicida, Ps. aeruginosa, E. coli, and C. freundii, while only Lp. plantarum 66V, 67V, 68V, and 73V were able to partially inhibit the development of S. aureus and L. innocua.

Table 1.

Antimicrobial activity at 15 °C by cell-free supernatant (CFS) of the tested Lp. plantarum strains against different indicator bacteria. The data (mean ± SD; n = 3) are expressed as zone of inhibition-ZOI (mm). Different lowercase letters (a–d) in each row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).

Indicator Strains Lp. plantarum Strains
23V 33V 36V 37V 64V 65V 66V 67V 68V 73V
L. innocua 0 ± 0 d 0 ± 0 d 0 ± 0 d 0 ± 0 d 0 ± 0 d 0 ± 0 d 7.1 ± 0.2 a 5.0 ± 0.3 c 5.5 ± 0.4 b 5.9 ± 0.5 b
A. salmonicida 7.0 ± 0.6 b 7.0 ± 0.5 b 7.7 ± 0.6 a 7.5 ± 0.6 a 8.5 ± 0.3 a 7.3 ± 0.3 a 6.6 ± 0.6 b 7.5 ± 0.3 a 8.0 ± 0.2 a 7.7 ± 0.6 a
C. freundii 7.2 ± 0.7 c 7.2 ± 0.6 c 8.0 ± 0.4 b 6.4 ± 0.6 c 9.9 ± 0.4 a 7.0 ± 0.4 c 10.5 ± 0.4 a 9.0 ± 0.6 b 10.2 ± 0.3 a 10.3 ± 0.5 a
P. mirabilis 9.2 ± 0.6 a 7.4 ± 0.6 b 8.3 ± 0.5 b 9.7 ± 0.4 a 9.5 ± 0.5 a 9.0 ± 0.2 a 9.6 ± 0.4 a 10.1 ± 0.2 a 9.5 ± 0.4 a 7.3 ± 0.6 b
S. aureus 0 ± 0 c 0 ± 0 c 0 ± 0 c 0 ± 0 c 0 ± 0 c 0 ± 0 c 6.5 ± 0.4 b 7.1 ± 0.5 b 8.9 ± 0.3 a 6.9 ± 0.4 b
Ps. aeruginosa 7.0 ± 0.3 a 8.0 ± 0.3 a 7.9 ± 0.6 a 8.0 ± 0.7 a 7.9 ± 0.6 a 6.8 ± 0.3 a 6.0 ± 0.1 b 7.3 ± 0.4 a 7.8 ± 0.4 a 5.8 ± 0.2 b
E. coli 8.8 ± 0.6 b 9.9 ± 0.6 a 9.6 ± 0.5 a 10.1 ± 0.1 a 9.8 ± 0.2 a 6.9 ± 0.4 c 7.0 ± 0.3 c 7.8 ± 0.3 b 8.9 ± 0.6 a 7.1 ± 0.1 c
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Antimicrobial activity at 30 °C by cell-free supernatant (CFS) of the tested Lp. plantarum strains against different indicator bacteria. The data (mean ± SD; n = 3) are expressed as zone of inhibition-ZOI (mm). Different lowercase letters (a–c) in each row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).

Indicator Strains Lp. plantarum Strains
23V 33V 36V 37V 64V 65V 66V 67V 68V 73V
L. innocua 7.9 ± 0.3 b 7.9 ± 0.2 b 7.0 ± 0.4 c 8.0 ± 0.3 b 9.0 ± 0.3 a 9.0 ± 0.3 a 5.9 ± 0.4 c 10.0 ± 0.5 a 8.2 ± 0.8 b 9.0 ± 0.2 a
A. salmonicida 7.8 ±0.6 a 8.2 ± 0.6 a 8.5 ± 0.5 a 8.9 ± 0.3 a 8.4 ± 0.5 a 7.2 ± 0.8 b 7.4 ± 1.0 a 7.7 ± 0.5 a 7.2 ± 0.4 b 7.9 ± 0.2 a
C. freundii 7.9 ± 0.7 b 8.7 ± 0.8 b 8.8 ± 0.9 b 9.8 ± 1.2 b 14.0 ± 0.8 a 9.1 ± 0.8 b 7.9 ± 0.3 b 7.9 ± 0.4 b 8.9 ± 0.6 b 6.7 ± 0.8 c
P. mirabilis 7.0 ± 0.5 a 8.0 ± 0.3 a 8.0 ± 0.4 a 7.1 ± 0.6 a 6.1 ± 0.8 b 6.9 ± 0.6 a 5.2 ± 0.5 b 5.8 ± 0.4 b 6.4 ± 0.5 b 7.0 ± 0.6 a
S. aureus 5.9 ± 0.7 b 5.9 ± 0.6 b 7.0 ± 0.4 a 6.8 ± 0.2 a 6.8 ± 0.6 a 6.7 ± 0.2 a 7.0 ± 0.6 a 7.9 ± 0.6 a 7.2 ± 0.4 a 6.2 ± 0.6 b
Ps. aeruginosa 7.2 ± 0.9 a 7.0 ± 0.9 a 6.4 ± 0.5 a 6.8 ± 0.6 a 6.9 ± 0.5 a 6.0 ± 0.6 a 5.8 ± 0.5 a 7.4 ± 0.4 a 7.0 ± 0.3 a 6.0 ± 0.5 a
E. coli 9.0 ± 0.5 a 9.0 ± 0.6 a 8.6 ± 0.4 a 9.9 ± 1.0 a 9.9 ± 1.0 a 10.2 ± 1.0 a 8.0 ± 0.8 b 7.9 ± 0.5 b 8.0 ± 0.7 b 7.0 ± 0.6 b
Open in a new tab

3.2. pH and Bile Resistance

To survive and persist in the gastrointestinal tract, probiotic candidates must be able to survive in an acidic environment and in the presence of bile salts. The results of the effect of acid and bile stress on the survival of the Lp. plantarum strains are reported in Tables S1 and S2 (Supplementary Materials). All the examined strains exhibited high resistance in an acidic environment (pH 2.5) and the presence of bile salts (0.3%) with significant differences between them.

The viability of lactobacilli, in MRS at pH 2.5 after 2 h of incubation, from the initial number of 8.00 log CFU/mL decreases approximately only 1 log cycle at 15 °C and 30 °C. The general comparison of all strains examined, for significant differences in the cell viability, indicated similar pH tolerance. The bile salts present in bacterial cultures were much less effective on bacterial viability than the effect of pH 2.5. The selected Lp. plantarum strains were able to survive in the presence of 0.3% bile salts. In fact, over 24 h, they maintained almost entirely the initial viability (8 log CFU/mL) both at 15 °C and at 30 °C.

3.3. Cell Surface Properties: Hydrophobicity and Auto-Aggregation

The hydrophobicity was investigated using the ability of the bacteria to adhere at 15 °C and 30 °C to toluene and xylene hydrocarbons. The hydrophobicity (%) of the Lp. plantarum strains is reported graphically in Figure 1 and numerically in Table S3 (Supplementary Materials). In all tests, we have detected significant differences among the tested Lp. plantarum strains. For all strains, the adhesion to hydrocarbons increased gradually during the test period (60 min). Lp. plantarum 33V and 67V strains, already after 15 min both at 15 °C and 30 °C, showed a high adherence to toluene and xylene with a hydrophobicity percentage greater than 66%, and after 60 min, the percentage was greater than 90%. After 60 min at 15 °C, Lp. plantarum 23V and 36V adhered to toluene with a hydrophobicity percentage of 41.4% and 54%, respectively, while for the other strains we found a hydrophobicity of less than 30%. At 30 °C, Lp. plantarum 23V and 36V adhered to toluene with percentages of 49.5% and 67.5%, respectively; the other strains did not show a percentage of hydrophobicity greater than 37%. In the test with xylene after 60 min, except for Lp. plantarum 33V and 67V, the other strains did not exceed the hydrophobicity percentages obtained from Lp. plantarum 36V: 49.5% at 30 °C and 48.1% at 15 °C.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Adhesion of the Lp. plantarum strains to toluene and xylene expressed as hydrophobicity (%) after 15, 30, and 60 min contact time (CT) at 15 °C (A) and 30 °C (B).

The AA results are depicted in Figure 2, and the relative numeric data are presented in Table S4 (Supplementary Materials). The data highlighted significant differences among the tested Lp. plantarum strains. The tests showed that the ability to aggregate and sediment increased progressively, until reaching, after 24 h, range values between 20% and 50% at 15 °C and between 36% and 57% at 30 °C.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Auto-aggregation (AA%) of the Lp. plantarum strains at 15 °C (A) and 30 °C (B).

3.4. Antioxidant Activity

The antioxidant activities, expressed as the ratio between μg Trolox/mL and mg/mL of cell protein (BSA equivalents), are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Antioxidant activity of the Lp. plantarum strains. All values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different lowercase letters (a–d) in each row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).

Antioxidant
Assay		 Lp. plantarum Strains
23V 33V 36V 37V 64V 65V 66V 67V 68V 73V
ABTS 24.1 ± 0.3 d 30.9 ± 0.7 b 31.5 ± 1.1 b 22.6 ± 0.2 d 31.0 ± 1.1 b 38.0 ± 0.7 a 29.1 ± 0.9 b 31.2 ± 1.4 b 27.4 ± 2.3 c 25.9 ± 0.6 c
DPPH 1.0 ± 0.7 b 1.3 ± 0.3 a 1.6 ± 0.1 a 0.8 ± 0.4 b 1.3 ± 0.1 a 1.5 ± 0.6 a 1.0 ± 0.4 b 2.2 ± 0.1 a 2.1 ± 0.3 a 1.2 ± 0.1 a
Open in a new tab

μg Trolox/mg cell proteins (BSA eq.).

The values obtained in ABTS assays were between 22.6 (37V strain) and 38.0 (65V strain), while the values obtained in DPPH assays were between 1.0 (23V strain) and 2.2 (67V strain).

4. Discussion

Fish’s digestive tract is colonized by a wide microbial community that has important influences on the immune system, nutrient assimilation, and a wide range of other host activities. The gut microbiota can positively or negatively interact with each other. The interactions established among the components of the microbiota can significantly affect fish health. Fish become more susceptible to pathogens due to their stressful environment, which eventually suppresses their immune system, causing dysbiosis, which can lead to opportunistic infections that would be otherwise suppressed. Among all pathogens, bacteria are the most prominent disease-causing agents in fish and cause major problems and economic losses in commercial farming of a large number of cultivated fish species [51].

Conversely, an aggressive pathogen producing powerful virulence factors may be able to disrupt the normal microbial balance and lead to dysbiosis. Most surveys on probiotic applications in aquaculture consider the ability to inhibit pathogenic bacteria [52].

In this field, we evaluated the antagonistic activity of ten Lp. plantarum strains against some opportunistic fish pathogens (C. freundii, A. salmonicida, P. mirabilis, Ps. aeruginosa) and other unwanted bacteria present in fish products [6,53,54,55,56]. It is well known that some LAB strains may protect fish from intestinal pathogens by several possible mechanisms, including the production of inhibitory substances, such as organic acids, hydrogen peroxide, bacteriocins, and carbon peroxide [20,57].

Our results on the antimicrobial activity indicated that at 15 and 30 °C, the MRS pH 3.8 did not inhibit the growth of indicator bacteria. The data obtained in our study seem to exclude that antibacterial activity is due to the acidic environment. Therefore, the antagonistic activity highlighted in our tests is probably due to substances produced by lactobacilli during the growth phase in the native CFS [58]. The nature of these substances needs to be investigated in the future. The ability to inhibit pathogens is a desirable property for probiotics and a sustainable alternative to antibiotics; dietary supplementation with these LABs may provide effective prophylaxis against infections in fish [59,60]. The fish, like other living organisms, developed an enzymatic antioxidant system including different enzymes (e.g., superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, glutathione reductase, and catalase) and a non-enzyme antioxidant system based on the production of different compounds as glutathione, thioredoxin, vitamin C, and vitamin E [61,62]. This complex system is capable of providing the balance between production and removal of reactive oxygen species (ROS) under normal physiological conditions. In fish, like other organisms, the lack of balance between the production of ROS and the antioxidant defense system can cause the oxidation of biological macromolecules, inducing cell damage [63]. Excessive production of ROS in fish can be caused by changes in environmental O2 (hyperoxia and hypoxia), temperature (hyper or hypothermia), and malnutrition [64]. In addition, the presence in the aquatic environment of heavy metals, pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides), along with oil products, induces oxidative stress on fish [65]. In fact, various research studies proposed the use of new and safe natural antioxidants as an alternative for synthetic antioxidants [66]. Other studies in aquaculture have shown promising antioxidative effects of beneficial additives, such as probiotics, on different fish species [67,68]. Recently, LAB have been considered for their antioxidant activity [66,68,69]. Based on this evidence, in our research, we examined the antioxidant activity of selected Lp. plantarum strains using the ABTS and DPPH methods. These two techniques may be utilized in aqueous and non-polar organic solvents to examine both hydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidants [70,71,72,73]. The obtained results showed that the selected Lp. plantarum strains possess antioxidant activity, confirming what has been reported in other studies conducted on this species [74,75,76,77].

The DPPH method provided lower values than the ABTS test. This difference is probably because it has a different sensitivity to the different antioxidant substances present in the CES, which needs to be investigated in further detail.

Consumption of probiotics alone, or foods supplemented with probiotics, may reduce oxidative damage in fish cells. The health-benefiting properties of probiotics are largely dependent on their prolonged residence in the GIT and are dictated by adherence to the intestinal mucosa. The ability of probiotic bacteria to adhere to intestinal epithelial cells involves various surface properties, including hydrophobicity and auto-aggregation [15,16,78]. These characteristics promote the colonization and permanence of probiotics in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). Moreover, the examined Lp. plantarum strains had values of auto-aggregation and hydrophobicity in line with previous studies [47,79]. In particular, Lp. plantarum 33V and 67V strains stood out for their performances. Our data confirm that some Lp. plantarum strains have the potential to survive in the gastrointestinal tract and adhere to its epithelial cells [80,81]. An effective probiotic should be viable, safe, bile- and gastric-juices-tolerant, able to survive through the gastrointestinal tract, adhere and colonize gut epithelial cells. Our study showed a high survival of the 10 strains of Lp. plantarum in an acidic environment (pH 2.5) and the presence of 0.3% of bile salts. These results showed that some Lp. plantarum strains had a high likelihood to survive stress in the gastrointestinal tract like low pH and bile presence, as highlighted in a previous study by Bucio et al. [82]. Gut transit time in fish depends on numerous factors including species, fish age/size, water temperature, food quality, meal size and feeding frequency [83,84]; water temperature influences gut transit time and nutrient digestibility as it can correlate to feed intake and enzyme activity [85,86]. This evidence motivated us to conduct bile tolerance tests for 24 h. In addition, our tests were conducted at temperatures of 15 °C and 30 °C degrees. Fish are poikilotherms, they do not have a thermoregulatory system and their body temperature fluctuates in response to the temperature of the surrounding environment. Certain fish species are classified as cold-water fish, while others as warm-water or tropical fish; while cold-water fish are rarely exposed to temperatures greater than 20 °C, tropical fish are frequently exposed to temperatures well above 30 °C [87].

Our results showed that the selected Lp. plantarum strains have high adaptability to temperature, confirming the versatility of this species to adapt to different environmental conditions [88]. This characteristic would make it possible to use them in the diet of different fish species as well as make them tolerant to the different annual climatic seasons. The seasonal changes in water temperature can be extremely different for cold-water and warm-water species, they can range from below 5 °C to 19 °C and 16 °C to 39 °C, respectively [89,90].

5. Conclusions

The supplementation of fish diet with specific probiotic microorganisms can contribute to improving the welfare and disease resistance, which is a widespread problem in aquaculture. The present study improves the application knowledge for the implementation of Lp. plantarum as probiotic in freshwater fish diet. Our results demonstrated that the examined Lp. plantarum strains are characterized by important features such as antioxidant activity, ability to survive in the presence of bile, tolerance to low pH, cell surface properties and antagonism activity against some fish pathogens. Therefore, these LABs meet some important criteria to be candidates as probiotics.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms10020463/s1, Table S1: Resistance to pH 2.5 at 15 °C and 30 °C, Table S2: Resistance to 0.3% bile salts at 15 °C and 30 °C, Table S3: Adhesion to toluene and xylene of Lp. plantarum strains after different contact times; Table S4: Auto-aggregation (AA) at 15 °C and 30 °C of the Lp. plantarum strains.

Click here for additional data file. (557KB, zip)

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.I. and E.S.; data curation, G.A., F.L. and M.I.; formal analysis, F.V., G.A. and S.J.L.; funding acquisition, R.C. and M.S.; investigation, B.T. and P.T.; methodology, G.A. and B.T.; software, F.L. and B.T.; supervision, R.C. and E.S.; validation, P.T. and M.S.; writing—original draft, M.I.; writing—review and editing, M.I., G.A. and F.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the Supplementary Materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.FAO . The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in Action. FAO; Rome, Italy: 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rodger H.D. Fish Disease Causing Economic Impact in Global Aquaculture. In: Adams A., editor. Fish Vaccines. Springer; Basel, Switzerland: 2016. pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Raja R.A., Jithendran K.P. Aquaculture Disease Diagnosis and Health Management. In: Perumal S., Thirunavukkarasu A.R., Pachiappan P., editors. Advances in Marine and Brackishwater Aquaculture. Springer; New Delhi, India: 2015. pp. 247–255. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sharma M., Pandey G. Overviews of the Treatment and Control of Common Fish Diseases. Int. Res. J. Pharm. 2012;3:123–127. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Romero J., Feijoó C.G., Navarrete P. Antibiotics in Aquaculture–Use, Abuse and Alternatives. Health Environ. Aquac. 2012;159 [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Reith M.E., Singh R.K., Curtis B., Boyd J.M., Bouevitch A., Kimball J., Munholland J., Murphy C., Sarty D., Williams J., et al. The Genome of Aeromonas Salmonicida Subsp. Salmonicida A449: Insights into the Evolution of a Fish Pathogen. BMC Genom. 2008;9:427. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cabello F.C. Heavy Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Aquaculture: A Growing Problem for Human and Animal Health and for the Environment. Environ. Microbiol. 2006;8:1137–1144. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01054.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Okocha R.C., Olatoye I.O., Adedeji O.B. Food Safety Impacts of Antimicrobial Use and Their Residues in Aquaculture. Public Health Rev. 2018;39:21. doi: 10.1186/s40985-018-0099-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lulijwa R., Rupia E.J., Alfaro A.C. Antibiotic Use in Aquaculture, Policies and Regulation, Health and Environmental Risks: A Review of the Top 15 Major Producers. Rev. Aquac. 2020;12:640–663. doi: 10.1111/raq.12344. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Huang Y., Zhang L., Tiu L., Wang H.H. Characterization of Antibiotic Resistance in Commensal Bacteria from an Aquaculture Ecosystem. Front. Microbiol. 2015;6:914. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kraemer S.A., Ramachandran A., Perron G.G. Antibiotic Pollution in the Environment: From Microbial Ecology to Public Policy. Microorganisms. 2019;7:180. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms7060180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pérez-Sánchez T., Mora-Sánchez B., Balcázar J.L. Biological Approaches for Disease Control in Aquaculture: Advantages, Limitations and Challenges. Trends Microbiol. 2018;26:896–903. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2018.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gudding R., Van Muiswinkel W.B. A History of Fish Vaccination: Science-Based Disease Prevention in Aquaculture. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2013;35:1683–1688. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2013.09.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Assefa A., Abunna F. Maintenance of Fish Health in Aquaculture: Review of Epidemiological Approaches for Prevention and Control of Infectious Disease of Fish. Vet. Med. Int. 2018;2018:5432497. doi: 10.1155/2018/5432497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ringø E. Probiotics in Shellfish Aquaculture. Aquac. Fish. 2020;5:1–27. doi: 10.1016/j.aaf.2019.12.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chauhan A., Singh R. Probiotics in Aquaculture: A Promising Emerging Alternative Approach. Symbiosis. 2019;77:99–113. doi: 10.1007/s13199-018-0580-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Merrifield D., Bradley G., Baker R., Davies S. Probiotic Applications for Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss Walbaum) II. Effects on Growth Performance, Feed Utilization, Intestinal Microbiota and Related Health Criteria Postantibiotic Treatment. Aquac. Nutr. 2010;16:496–503. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2095.2009.00688.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Akhter N., Wu B., Memon A.M., Mohsin M. Probiotics and Prebiotics Associated with Aquaculture: A Review. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2015;45:733–741. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2015.05.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hoseinifar S.H., Sun Y.-Z., Wang A., Zhou Z. Probiotics as Means of Diseases Control in Aquaculture, a Review of Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives. Front. Microbiol. 2018;9:2429. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ringø E., Van Doan H., Lee S.H., Soltani M., Hoseinifar S.H., Harikrishnan R., Song S.K. Probiotics, Lactic Acid Bacteria and Bacilli: Interesting Supplementation for Aquaculture. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2020;129:116–136. doi: 10.1111/jam.14628. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Merrifield D.L., Carnevali O. Aquaculture Nutrition. Wiley; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2014. Probiotic Modulation of the Gut Microbiota of Fish; pp. 185–222. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Li X., Ringø E., Hoseinifar S.H., Lauzon H.L., Birkbeck H., Yang D. The Adherence and Colonization of Microorganisms in Fish Gastrointestinal Tract. Rev. Aquac. 2019;11:603–618. doi: 10.1111/raq.12248. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ringø E., Doan H.V., Lee S., Song S.K. Lactic Acid Bacteria in Shellfish: Possibilities and Challenges. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2020;28:139–169. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2019.1683151. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Piccolo G., Bovera F., Lombardi P., Mastellone V., Nizza S., Di Meo C., Marono S., Nizza A. Effect of Lactobacillus Plantarum on Growth Performance and Hematological Traits of European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus Labrax) Aquac. Int. 2015;23:1025–1032. doi: 10.1007/s10499-014-9861-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dash G., Raman R.P., Pani Prasad K., Makesh M., Pradeep M.A., Sen S. Evaluation of Paraprobiotic Applicability of Lactobacillus Plantarum in Improving the Immune Response and Disease Protection in Giant Freshwater Prawn, Macrobrachium Rosenbergii (de Man, 1879) Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2015;43:167–174. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2014.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wang L., Zhou H., He R., Xu W., Mai K., He G. Effects of Soybean Meal Fermentation by Lactobacillus Plantarum P8 on Growth, Immune Responses, and Intestinal Morphology in Juvenile Turbot (Scophthalmus Maximus L.) Aquaculture. 2016;464:87–94. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.06.026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Van Nguyen N., Onoda S., Van Khanh T., Hai P.D., Trung N.T., Hoang L., Koshio S. Evaluation of Dietary Heat-Killed Lactobacillus Plantarum Strain L-137 Supplementation on Growth Performance, Immunity and Stress Resistance of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis Niloticus) Aquaculture. 2019;498:371–379. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.08.081. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Siezen R.J., Tzeneva V.A., Castioni A., Wels M., Phan H.T., Rademaker J.L., Starrenburg M.J., Kleerebezem M., Molenaar D., van Hylckama Vlieg J.E. Phenotypic and Genomic Diversity of Lactobacillus Plantarum Strains Isolated from Various Environmental Niches. Environ. Microbiol. 2010;12:758–773. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02119.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Iorizzo M., Pannella G., Lombardi S.J., Ganassi S., Testa B., Succi M., Sorrentino E., Petrarca S., De Cristofaro A., Coppola R. Inter-and Intra-Species Diversity of Lactic Acid Bacteria in Apis Mellifera Ligustica Colonies. Microorganisms. 2020;8:1578. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8101578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Iorizzo M., Albanese G., Testa B., Ianiro M., Letizia F., Succi M., Tremonte P., D’Andrea M., Iaffaldano N., Coppola R. Presence of Lactic Acid Bacteria in the Intestinal Tract of the Mediterranean Trout (Salmo Macrostigma) in Its Natural Environment. Life. 2021;11:667. doi: 10.3390/life11070667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ruiz L., Margolles A., Sánchez B. Bile Resistance Mechanisms in Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. Front. Microbiol. 2013;4:396. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wang C., Cui Y., Qu X. Mechanisms and Improvement of Acid Resistance in Lactic Acid Bacteria. Arch. Microbiol. 2018;200:195–201. doi: 10.1007/s00203-017-1446-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chang M.-H., Hong S.-F., Chen J.-H., Lin M.-F., Chen C.-S., Wang S.-C. Antibacterial Activity Lactobacillus Plantarum Isolated from Fermented Vegetables and Investigation of the Plantaricin Genes. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2016;10:796–803. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yadav R., Puniya A.K., Shukla P. Probiotic Properties of Lactobacillus Plantarum RYPR1 from an Indigenous Fermented Beverage Raabadi. Front. Microbiol. 2016;7:1683. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Tremonte P., Pannella G., Succi M., Tipaldi L., Sturchio M., Coppola R., Luongo D., Sorrentino E. Antimicrobial Activity of Lactobacillus Plantarum Strains Isolated from Different Environments: A Preliminary Study. Int. Food Res. J. 2017;24:852. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kaktcham P.M., Temgoua J.-B., Zambou F.N., Diaz-Ruiz G., Wacher C., de Lourdes Pérez-Chabela M. In Vitro Evaluation of the Probiotic and Safety Properties of Bacteriocinogenic and Non-Bacteriocinogenic Lactic Acid Bacteria from the Intestines of Nile Tilapia and Common Carp for Their Use as Probiotics in Aquaculture. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins. 2018;10:98–109. doi: 10.1007/s12602-017-9312-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kazuń B., Kazuń K., Żylińska J., Siwicki A.K. In Vitro Study of Lactobacillus Plantarum Properties as a Potential Probiotic Strain and an Alternative Method to Antibiotic Treatment of Fish. Fish. Aquat. Life. 2018;26:47–55. doi: 10.2478/aopf-2018-0006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Foysal M.J., Fotedar R., Siddik M.A., Tay A. Lactobacillus Acidophilus and L. Plantarum Improve Health Status, Modulate Gut Microbiota and Innate Immune Response of Marron (Cherax Cainii) Sci. Rep. 2020;10:5916. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-62655-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mohamad N., Manan H., Sallehhuddin M., Musa N., Ikhwanuddin M. Screening of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Giant Freshwater Prawn (Macrobrachium Rosenbergii) as Potential Probiotics. Aquac. Rep. 2020;18:100523. doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2020.100523. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Maji U., Mohanty S. Genotypic Characterization of Lactic Acid Bacteria in Gut Microbiome of Freshwater Fish. Microbiology. 2017;86:276–285. doi: 10.1134/S0026261717020138. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kumaree K.K., Akbar A., Anal A.K. Bioencapsulation and Application of Lactobacillus Plantarum Isolated from Catfish Gut as an Antimicrobial Agent and Additive in Fish Feed Pellets. Ann. Microbiol. 2015;65:1439–1445. doi: 10.1007/s13213-014-0982-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bucio Galindo A., Hartemink R., Schrama J., Verreth J., Bucio G.L., Zwietering M. Kinetics of Lactobacillus Plantarum 44a in the Faeces of Tilapia (Oreochromis Niloticus) after Its Intake in Feed. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2009;107:1967–1975. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04382.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Nathanailides C., Kolygas M., Choremi K., Mavraganis T., Gouva E., Vidalis K., Athanassopoulou F. Probiotics Have the Potential to Significantly Mitigate the Environmental Impact of Freshwater Fish Farms. Fishes. 2021;6:76. doi: 10.3390/fishes6040076. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kaewchomphunuch T., Charoenpichitnunt T., Thongbaiyai V., Ngamwongsatit N., Kaeoket K. Cell-Free Culture Supernatants of Lactobacillus Spp. and Pediococcus Spp. Inhibit Growth of Pathogenic Escherichia Coli Isolated from Pigs in Thailand. BMC Vet. Res. 2022;18:60. doi: 10.1186/s12917-022-03140-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zapata A., Ramirez-Arcos S. A Comparative Study of McFarland Turbidity Standards and the Densimat Photometer to Determine Bacterial Cell Density. Curr. Microbiol. 2015;70:907–909. doi: 10.1007/s00284-015-0801-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kariyawasam K.M.G.M.M., Yang S.J., Lee N.-K., Paik H.-D. Probiotic Properties of Lactobacillus Brevis KU200019 and Synergistic Activity with Fructooligosaccharides in Antagonistic Activity against Foodborne Pathogens. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2020;40:297. doi: 10.5851/kosfa.2020.e15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Iorizzo M., Testa B., Lombardi S.J., Ganassi S., Ianiro M., Letizia F., Succi M., Tremonte P., Vergalito F., Cozzolino A. Antimicrobial Activity against Paenibacillus Larvae and Functional Properties of Lactiplantibacillus Plantarum Strains: Potential Benefits for Honeybee Health. Antibiotics. 2020;9:442. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics9080442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Di Martino C., Testa B., Letizia F., Iorizzo M., Lombardi S.J., Ianiro M., Di Renzo M., Strollo D., Coppola R. Effect of Exogenous Proline on the Ethanolic Tolerance and Malolactic Performance of Oenococcus Oeni. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020;57:3973–3979. doi: 10.1007/s13197-020-04426-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Re R., Pellegrini N., Proteggente A., Pannala A., Yang M., Rice-Evans C. Antioxidant Activity Applying an Improved ABTS Radical Cation Decolorization Assay. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 1999;26:1231–1237. doi: 10.1016/S0891-5849(98)00315-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Aarti C., Khusro A., Varghese R., Arasu M.V., Agastian P., Al-Dhabi N.A., Ilavenil S., Choi K.C. In Vitro Studies on Probiotic and Antioxidant Properties of Lactobacillus Brevis Strain LAP2 Isolated from Hentak, a Fermented Fish Product of North-East India. LWT. 2017;86:438–446. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.07.055. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Austin B., Austin D.A. Bacterial Fish Pathogens: Disease of Farmed and Wild Fish. Volume 26 Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Wuertz S., Schroeder A., Wanka K.M. Probiotics in Fish Nutrition—Long-Standing Household Remedy or Native Nutraceuticals? Water. 2021;13:1348. doi: 10.3390/w13101348. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Novoslavskij A., Terentjeva M., Eizenberga I., Valciņa O., Bartkevičs V., Bērziņš A. Major Foodborne Pathogens in Fish and Fish Products: A Review. Ann. Microbiol. 2016;66:1–15. doi: 10.1007/s13213-015-1102-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Tripathy S., Kumar N., Mohanty S., Samanta M., Mandal R., Maiti N. Characterisation of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Isolated from Freshwater Culture Systems. Microbiol. Res. 2007;162:391–396. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2006.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Arfatahery N., Mirshafiey A., Abedimohtasab T.P., Zeinolabedinizamani M. Study of the Prevalence of Staphylococcus Aureus in Marine and Farmed Shrimps in Iran Aiming the Future Development of a Prophylactic Vaccine. Procedia Vaccinol. 2015;9:44–49. doi: 10.1016/j.provac.2015.05.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Austin B., Stobie M., Robertson P. Citrobacter Freundii: The Cause of Gastro-Enteritis Leading to Progressive Low Level Mortalities in Farmed Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus Mykiss Walbaum, in Scotland. Bull. Eur. Assoc. Fish Pathol. UK. 1992;12:166–167. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Muñoz-Atienza E., Gómez-Sala B., Araújo C., Campanero C., del Campo R., Hernández P.E., Herranz C., Cintas L.M. Antimicrobial Activity, Antibiotic Susceptibility and Virulence Factors of Lactic Acid Bacteria of Aquatic Origin Intended for Use as Probiotics in Aquaculture. BMC Microbiol. 2013;13:15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-13-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Danilova T., Adzhieva A., Danilina G., Polyakov N., Soloviev A., Zhukhovitsky V. Antimicrobial Activity of Supernatant of Lactobacillus Plantarum against Pathogenic Microorganisms. Bull. Exp. Biol. Med. 2019;167:751–754. doi: 10.1007/s10517-019-04615-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Defoirdt T., Sorgeloos P., Bossier P. Alternatives to Antibiotics for the Control of Bacterial Disease in Aquaculture. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2011;14:251–258. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2011.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Sharifuzzaman S., Austin B. Probiotics for Disease Control in Aquaculture. Front. Microbiol. 2017:189–222. doi: 10.1002/9781119152125.ch8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Martínez-Álvarez R.M., Morales A.E., Sanz A. Antioxidant Defenses in Fish: Biotic and Abiotic Factors. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2005;15:75–88. doi: 10.1007/s11160-005-7846-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Wilhelm Filho D. Reactive Oxygen Species, Antioxidants and Fish Mitochondria. Front Biosci. 2007;12:1229–1237. doi: 10.2741/2141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Hoseinifar S.H., Yousefi S., Van Doan H., Ashouri G., Gioacchini G., Maradonna F., Carnevali O. Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Defense in Fish: The Implications of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotics. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2021;29:198–217. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2020.1795616. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Chowdhury S., Saikia S. Oxidative Stress in Fish: A Review. J. Sci. Res. 2020;12:145–160. doi: 10.3329/jsr.v12i1.41716. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Lushchak V.I. Environmentally Induced Oxidative Stress in Aquatic Animals. Aquat. Toxicol. 2011;101:13–30. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2010.10.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Mishra V., Shah C., Mokashe N., Chavan R., Yadav H., Prajapati J. Probiotics as Potential Antioxidants: A Systematic Review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015;63:3615–3626. doi: 10.1021/jf506326t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Dawood M.A., Koshio S., Esteban M.Á. Beneficial Roles of Feed Additives as Immunostimulants in Aquaculture: A Review. Rev. Aquac. 2018;10:950–974. doi: 10.1111/raq.12209. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Van Doan H., Hoseinifar S.H., Ringø E., Ángeles Esteban M., Dadar M., Dawood M.A., Faggio C. Host-Associated Probiotics: A Key Factor in Sustainable Aquaculture. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2020;28:16–42. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2019.1643288. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Feng T., Wang J. Oxidative Stress Tolerance and Antioxidant Capacity of Lactic Acid Bacteria as Probiotic: A Systematic Review. Gut Microbes. 2020;12:1801944. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2020.1801944. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Prior R.L., Wu X., Schaich K. Standardized Methods for the Determination of Antioxidant Capacity and Phenolics in Foods and Dietary Supplements. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005;53:4290–4302. doi: 10.1021/jf0502698. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Kedare S.B., Singh R.P. Genesis and Development of DPPH Method of Antioxidant Assay. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2011;48:412–422. doi: 10.1007/s13197-011-0251-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Chanput W., Krueyos N., Ritthiruangdej P. Anti-Oxidative Assays as Markers for Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Flavonoids. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2016;40:170–175. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2016.08.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Arnao M.B., Cano A., Acosta M. The Hydrophilic and Lipophilic Contribution to Total Antioxidant Activity. Food Chem. 2001;73:239–244. doi: 10.1016/S0308-8146(00)00324-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Izuddin W.I., Humam A.M., Loh T.C., Foo H.L., Samsudin A.A. Dietary Postbiotic Lactobacillus Plantarum Improves Serum and Ruminal Antioxidant Activity and Upregulates Hepatic Antioxidant Enzymes and Ruminal Barrier Function in Post-Weaning Lambs. Antioxidants. 2020;9:250. doi: 10.3390/antiox9030250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Tang W., Li C., He Z., Pan F., Pan S., Wang Y. Probiotic Properties and Cellular Antioxidant Activity of Lactobacillus Plantarum MA2 Isolated from Tibetan Kefir Grains. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins. 2018;10:523–533. doi: 10.1007/s12602-017-9349-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Li S., Zhao Y., Zhang L., Zhang X., Huang L., Li D., Niu C., Yang Z., Wang Q. Antioxidant Activity of Lactobacillus Plantarum Strains Isolated from Traditional Chinese Fermented Foods. Food Chem. 2012;135:1914–1919. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.06.048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Das D., Goyal A. Antioxidant Activity and γ-Aminobutyric Acid (GABA) Producing Ability of Probiotic Lactobacillus Plantarum DM5 Isolated from Marcha of Sikkim. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2015;61:263–268. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2014.11.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Grajek K., Sip A., Foksowicz-Flaczyk J., Dobrowolska A., Wita A. Adhesive and Hydrophobic Properties of the Selected LAB Isolated from Gastrointestinal Tract of Farming Animals. Acta Biochim. Pol. 2016;63:311–314. doi: 10.18388/abp.2015_1128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Kos B., Šušković J., Vuković S., Šimpraga M., Frece J., Matošić S. Adhesion and Aggregation Ability of Probiotic Strain Lactobacillus Acidophilus M92. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003;94:981–987. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.01915.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Darmastuti A., Hasan P.N., Wikandari R., Utami T., Rahayu E.S., Suroto D.A. Adhesion Properties of Lactobacillus Plantarum Dad-13 and Lactobacillus Plantarum Mut-7 on Sprague Dawley Rat Intestine. Microorganisms. 2021;9:2336. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9112336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Saboktakin-Rizi M., Behbahani B.A., Hojjati M., Noshad M. Identification of Lactobacillus Plantarum TW29-1 Isolated from Iranian Fermented Cereal-Dairy Product (Yellow Zabol Kashk): Probiotic Characteristics, Antimicrobial Activity and Safety Evaluation. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2021;15:2615–2624. doi: 10.1007/s11694-021-00846-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Bucio A., Hartemink R., Schrama J.W., Verreth J., Rombouts F.M. Survival of Lactobacillus Plantarum 44a after Spraying and Drying in Feed and during Exposure to Gastrointestinal Tract Fluids in Vitro. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 2005;51:221–227. doi: 10.2323/jgam.51.221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.He E., Wurtsbaugh W.A. An Empirical Model of Gastric Evacuation Rates for Fish and an Analysis of Digestion in Piscivorous Brown Trout. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 1993;122:717–730. doi: 10.1577/1548-8659(1993)122&#x0003c;0717:AEMOGE&#x0003e;2.3.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Handeland S.O., Imsland A.K., Stefansson S.O. The Effect of Temperature and Fish Size on Growth, Feed Intake, Food Conversion Efficiency and Stomach Evacuation Rate of Atlantic Salmon Post-Smolts. Aquaculture. 2008;283:36–42. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.06.042. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Miegel R.P., Pain S.J., van Wettere W.H.E.J., Howarth G.S., Stone D.A.J. Effect of Water Temperature on Gut Transit Time, Digestive Enzyme Activity and Nutrient Digestibility in Yellowtail Kingfish (Seriola Lalandi) Aquaculture. 2010;308:145–151. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.07.036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Volkoff H., Rønnestad I. Effects of Temperature on Feeding and Digestive Processes in Fish. Temperature. 2020;7:307–320. doi: 10.1080/23328940.2020.1765950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Little A.G., Loughland I., Seebacher F. What Do Warming Waters Mean for Fish Physiology and Fisheries? J. Fish Biol. 2020;97:328–340. doi: 10.1111/jfb.14402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Siezen R.J., van Hylckama Vlieg J.E. Genomic Diversity and Versatility of Lactobacillus Plantarum, a Natural Metabolic Engineer. Microb. Cell Factories. 2011;10:S3. doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-10-S1-S3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Jain K.E., Farrell A.P. Influence of Seasonal Temperature on the Repeat Swimming Performance of Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus Mykiss. J. Exp. Biol. 2003;206:3569–3579. doi: 10.1242/jeb.00588. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.López-Olmeda J., Sánchez-Vázquez F. Thermal Biology of Zebrafish (Danio Rerio) J. Therm. Biol. 2011;36:91–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2010.12.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Click here for additional data file. (557KB, zip)

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the Supplementary Materials.

Articles from Microorganisms are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES