Skip to main content
PMC home page
Food Science & Nutrition logoLink to Food Science & Nutrition
. 2022 Apr 15;10(9):2896–2910. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.2885

Antimicrobial activity and safety features assessment of Weissella spp. from environmental sources

Imene Fhoula 1,✉, Mohamed Boumaiza 1, Ghassan Tayh 1,2, Amel Rehaiem 3,4, Naouel Klibi 1, Imene‐Hadda Ouzari 1
PMCID: PMC9469857  PMID: 36171785

Abstract

Weissella strains have been reported to be useful in biotechnological and probiotic determinations, and some of them are considered opportunistic pathogens. Given the widespread interest about antimicrobial susceptibilities, transmission of resistances, and virulence factors, there is little research available on such topics for Weissella. The aim of this study was to assess the safety aspects and antimicrobial potential of 54 Weissella spp. strains from different environmental sources. Antibiotic susceptibility, hemolytic activity, horizontal transfer, and antibacterial activity were studied, as well as the detection of biogenic amine BA production on decarboxylase medium and PCR was performed. All the strains were nonhemolytic and sensitive to chloramphenicol and ampicillin. Several strains were classified as resistant to fusidic acid, and very low resistance rates were detected to ciprofloxacin, tetracycline, streptomycin, lincomycin, erythromycin, and rifampicin, although all strains had intrinsic resistance to vancomycin, nalidixic acid, kanamycin, and teicoplanin. Two BA‐producing strains (W. halotolerans FAS30 and FAS29) exhibited tyrosine decarboxylase activity, and just one W. confusa FS077 produced both tyramine and histamine, and their genetic determinants were identified. Ornithine decarboxylase/odc gene was found in 16 of the Weissella strains, although 3 of them synthesize putrescine. Interestingly, eight strains with good properties displayed antibacterial activity. Conjugation frequencies of erythromycin from Bacillus to Weissella spp. varied in the average of 3 × 10−9 transconjugants/recipient. However, no tetracycline‐resistant transconjugant was obtained with Enterococcus faecalis JH2‐2 as recipient. The obtained results support the safe status of Weissella strains, derived from environmental sources, when used as probiotics in animal feed.

Keywords: antibacterial, antibiotic resistance, biogenic amines, environment, safety, Weissella

Some Weissella strains presented acquired resistance, biogenic amines production, and their genetic determinants were identified. No tetracycline transconjugants were obtained with Enterococcus as recipient strain, whereas few erythromycin transconjugants were observed using Bacillus as donor. Eight strains belonging to W. confusa and W. halotolerans displayed antibacterial activity and good safety features.

graphic file with name FSN3-10-2896-g001.jpg

1. INTRODUCTION

The genus Weissella includes Gram‐positive heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria LAB, asporogenous short bacilli, or coccoid bacilli that can be found in pairs or short chains. Phylogenetically, bacteria within this genus belonging to the Leuconostocaceae family were previously grouped along with the Leuconostoc and Lactobacillus (Björkroth et al., 2009; Collins et al., 1993). Currently, 24 distinct species of Weissella were validated (Fusco et al., 2015; Heo et al.2019; Hyun et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020; Praet et al., 2015). Weissella spp. are broadly disturbed in a range of ecological niches where they are hypothesized to have a probiotic effect (Fusco et al., 2015), such as plants, vegetables, soil, water, and fermented foods of both plant or animal origin, as well as in feces, breast milk, animal skin and milk, and mucous membranes of humans and animals (oral, gastrointestinal tract, and vagina). Despite the fact that Weissella is a fairly recent genus in comparison to other LAB, it has been the subject of many studies during the past few years and has attracted the interest for use in the pharmaceutical, food, and medical sectors. It has been shown that some Weissella spp., specially W. confusa and W. cibaria, are able to produce exopolysaccharides EPS, mainly dextran, as natural food thickeners, and nondigestible oligosaccharides, or as prebiotics. These polymers make it of high interest for the development of applications combining EPS technological and nutritional benefits, predominantly for bakeries and the production of functional beverages (Baruah & Goyal, 2015; Juvonen et al., 2015; Korcz & Varga, 2021; Patel et al., 2012). Furthermore, the antimicrobial activity of several Weissella spp. has been observed against a wide range of pathogens via secondary compound production, and their potential use as probiotics has been investigated (Fhoula et al., 2018; Fusco et al., 2015; Kariyawasam et al., 2019; Trias &Bañeras, 2008; Yu et al., 2019). In relation to the health‐promoting benefits of putative probiotic Weissella, soe strains, primordially those belonging to W. cibaria, have been shown to have antiviral, immune‐modulating, antiobesity, anticancer, anticholesterol, and antioxidant properties (Oh & Lee, 2021; Kang et al., 2011; Park et al., 2012; Kwak et al., 2014; Fhoula et al., 2018, and Yu et al., 2019).

Despite these characteristics, the utilization of Weissella spp. as commercial starters or probiotics has not yet been explored. Until now, Weissella spp. are not generally recognized as safe (GRAS) nor as qualified presumption of safety (QPS) (Fessard & Remize, 2017). Kang et al. (2019) reported that two W. cibaria (CMU and CMS1) are commercially available as oral care probiotics in Korea, and registered as safe raw materials by the Korea Food and Drug Administration, although they have not yet been determined to be GRAS. This missing can be explained in part by the antibiotic resistance profile, biogenic amine synthesis, or infection risk (Fessard & Remize, 2017). In fact, scientists are opposed on whether or not to use Weissella spp., which are generally categorized as opportunistic pathogens, and occasionally linked with illnesses in people, who had weakened immune system (Fairfax et al., 2014; Fessard & Remize, 2017; Kamboj et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2011; Teixeira, Fusieger, et al., 2021). More investigation into the safety of these strains' usage as probiotics in feed/food is required. Weissella spp. would have to get the safety proof to obtain GRAS accreditation through safety investigations (Fessard & Remize, 2017). Controversially, Weissella strains are still being used in the food and pharmaceutical industries, according to a vast number of scientific investigations (Teixeira, da Silva, et al., 2021).

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and determine the antibacterial activity of 54 Weissella spp. strains from distinct environmental sources in order to identify novel probiotic in foods or animal feeds. It could be used as an alternative to antibiotics, and to improve our knowledge about its safety and probiotic properties that may lead to its future use. To check in Weissella strains, the antibiotic resistance patterns, toxic compounds production, and any harmful genetic traits that may be transferred to other bacteria contributed to the selection of potential safety strains from novel origin.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Bacterial strains and culture conditions

Fifty‐four Weissella strains were analyzed in this study, from different environmental origins, had previously been isolated, and molecular identified as W. confusa (n = 27), W. halotolerans (19), W. cibaria (03), W. paramesenteroides (03), W. soli (01) and W. hellenica (01) (Fhoula et al., 2013, 2018; Fhoula et al., 2022 (unpublished work)). W. confusa DSM‐20196 and W. cibaria DSM‐15878 were involved as type strains. Weissella strains were maintained on de Man Rogosa and Sharpe (MRS) broth (Fluka, Milan, Italy) at 30 or 37°C for 24h. The strains were then used for the safety assessment. The following were used as indicators strains, including Escherichia coli DH5α, Listeria monocytogenes L15, Salmonella typhimurium IPT13, Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29,212, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27,853, Paenibacillus larvae, and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538, and were grown in brain–heart infusion (BHI) broth (Biolife) at 37°C. Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki, gram‐positive model plasmid, harboring conjugative pAW63 (Erm B), resistant to streptomycin and erythromycin (STRr ERYr), was chosen as donor to tested Weissella strains, and inoculated in Elliker medium, containing 2% glucose as sugar, with corresponding antibiotics. E. faecalis JH2–2, plasmid‐free recipient, resistant to rifampicin and fusidic acid (RIF r, FUSr, and VANs), was used as a standard recipient with selected Weissella strains, and was grown in BHI medium containing the appropriate antibiotics for 24h at 37°C. Transconjugant (TCs) strains of Weissella (NALr ERYr) were selected on Elliker agar medium supplemented with nalidixic acid and erythromycin for 48 h at 30°C. TCs of E. faecalis JH2‐2(tet) and JH2‐2(van) were detected on BHI agar supplemented with fusidic acid and rifampicin, and tetracycline or vancomycin, respectively, for 48 hr at 30°C or 37°C. Antibiotics (Sigma, Aldrich) were used at the following concentrations per ml: nalidixic 15 µg, fusidic acid 25 µg, rifampicin 50 µg, erythromycin 5 µg, tetracycline 10 µg, and vancomycin 30 µg.

2.2. Antibiotic susceptibility testing and MIC Determination

Susceptibility to 13 antibiotics was performed by disk diffusion method as recommended by the standard criteria Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI, 2018) and Comite de l’Antibiogramme de la Societe Francaise de Microbiologie (CA‐SFM, 2013). The analysis was carried out on modified Muller Hinton MH agar (with 2% glucose and 0.4% yeast extract) plates to assure accurate growth of all the Weissella strains. The used antibiotic discs (Bio‐Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA) were ampicillin (10 µg), chloramphenicol (30 µg), rifampicin (5 μg), erythromycin (15 μg), lincomycin (2 μg), tetracycline (30 μg), ciprofloxacin (5 µg), fusidic acid (10 µg), vancomycin (30μg), nalidixic acid (30 µg), kanamycin (30 µg), teicoplanin (30 µg), and streptomycin (10 µg). High‐level of aminoglycoside resistance was detected using high‐charge disk of streptomycin (300 μg). A 0.5 McFarland turbidity standard inoculum from overnight strains was inoculated onto the surface of modified MH agar plates. After incubation at 37°C for 24 h, the inhibition zone size was interpreted as sensitive (S), intermediate (I), and resistant (R) to the antimicrobial agent.

Minimum inhibitory concentration MIC for tetracycline, chloramphenicol, and erythromycin (range: 0.5–512 μg/ml) was determined for Weissella strains exhibiting intermediate sensitivity or resistance to the three antibiotics described above by broth microdilution method according to the International Standard ISO10932/IDF 223 (ISO, 2010), using modified MHB. The microplates with different antimicrobial agents were added with bacterial inoculum to a turbidity of 0.5 McFarland scale, and then incubated anaerobically at 37°C for 24 h. The experiment was performed twice, each in triplicate. For Weissella, there are currently no EFSA’s cut‐off values. MICs were compared to the epidemiological cut‐off (ECOFF) values adopted for Leuconostoc spp. from the European Food Safety Authority EFSA (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) et al., 2018), and for Weissella spp. by Suhonen (2019), to distinguish between susceptible and resistant strains. All MIC testing was performed in duplicates. E. faecalis ATCC29212 was used as quality control for antibiotic susceptibility testing by disc diffusion and MIC. All antimicrobial agent powders were obtained from Sigma‐Aldrich.

2.3. Hemolytic activity

Hemolytic activity was determined by streaking bacterial cultures on Columbia agar plates supplemented with 5% of horse blood (bioMérieux) and then hemolysis zones around the colonies were checked (Maragkoudakis et al., 2006). All experiment was performed in three replicates.

2.4. Antibacterial activity against pathogen and food‐borne bacteria

The antibacterial activity was determined using the agar well‐diffusion method described by Tagg and McGiven (1971). Seven indicator strains were used to assess the growth inhibition activity of Weissella strains, involving S. aureus ATCC 6538, L. monocytogenes L15, Pa. larvae, P. aeruginosa ATCC 27,853, E. faecalis ATCC 29,212, S. typhimurium IPT,13, and E. coli DH5α. The cell‐free supernatants (CFS) derived from broth cultures (48h) of all Weissella strains were tested. To remove the effects of organic acid and hydrogen peroxide, the supernatants were treated with catalase (300 IU/ml, 37°C, 1 h, Sigma Aldrich) and neutralized with 1 M NaOH. These catalase‐treated cell‐free neutralized supernatants were then examined for antimicrobial activities, including as those due to bacteriocins. All indicator strains were grown in BHI broth at 37°C. Trypticase soy agar plates were overlaid with 5 ml of soft agar (0.75%) containing 50 μl of freshly grown culture. The wells were made in agar and filled with 100 μl of CSF of tested strain. After incubation at 37°C for 18 h, the diameter of the inhibition zones was measured. All antibacterial tests were performed in triplicate.

2.5. Detection of potential biogenic amine producer

The amino acid decarboxylase activity of Weissella strains was assessed in the decarboxylase agar medium, as described by Bover‐Cid and Holzapfel (1999), containing 1% of the appropriate precursor amino acids l‐tyrosine, l‐histidine, and l‐ornithine hydrochloride (Sigma). The tested strains were spotted on the decarboxylase agar medium and incubated anaerobically at 37°C for 72 h. The presence of a purple color in the medium around the colonies indicated a positive reaction; however, a yellow color indicated a negative reaction.

2.6. DNA extraction

Genomic DNA extraction of Weissella strains was performed enzymatically using a kit InstaGeneTM Matrix (BioRad) according to the manufacturer's instructions.

2.7. PCR detection of decarboxylase‐related genes

PCR reactions were performed to detect the occurrence of tyrosine (tdc), histidine (hdc), and ornithine (odc) decarboxylase genes with the respective primers Tdc1/Tdc2, JV16HC/JV17HC, and ODC1F/ODC2R and conditions as previously described (Costantini et al., 2006; Fernández et al., 2004; Le Jeune et al., 1995). Reaction mixture (25 µl) contained 200 ng of bacterial DNA, 0.2 mM of each dNTP, 1 µM of each primer, 1.5 mM of MgCl2, 1× Buffer, and 1 U Taq DNA polymerase (Fermentas). W. confusa DSM‐20196 was used as a positive control for odc gene, and En. faecium MMRA (Rehaiem et al., 2012) for the hdc and tdc genes. PCR products were resolved in 2% (w/v) agarose gel and visualized under UV transillumination.

2.8. Detection of antibiotic resistance genes

The strains displaying acquired antibiotic resistance(s) to erythromycin, tetracycline, and chloramphenicol were inspected by PCR for resistance genes [erm(B)], [cat], and [tet(M), tet(O), tet(L), tet(S), and tet(k)], respectively (Aarestrup et al., 2000; Sutcliffe et al., 1996). PCR amplification was performed as previously described (Rizzotti et al., 2005, 2009).

2.9. Transfer of antibiotic resistance

The transferability of erythromycin resistance of the B. thuringiensis sv kurstaki strain (SmR Eryr), potential donor, was evaluated using three recipient strains (W. halotolerans V10, W. paramesenteroides FS45, and W. confusa FS53) that are sensitive to erythromycin but resistant to nalidixic acid. To assess the transferability of tetracycline resistance of the two W. confusa (FS44 and FS63) obtained from olive rhizosphere soil, E. faecalis JH2‐2 (FUSr, RIFr, and TETs), free from plasmids, was chosen as the recipient strain. The filter mating procedure was used to investigate antibiotic resistance transfer, as reported by Gevers et al. (2003). Briefly, donor and recipient cell cultures (V/V of 1 ml), at exponential growth, were mixed and deposited onto a sterile nitrocellulose membrane filter (0.45 µm pore size, Milli‐pore, USA), and the filter was incubated on nonselective medium agar based on the ideal growth conditions of the recipient strain. The bacteria were rinsed off the filters and suitable dilutions were seeded onto donor‐, recipient‐, and TC‐selective agar plates. Three replicates of all matings were conducted.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Antimicrobial‐resistant profiles and genetic determinants

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the prevalence and antibiotic resistance phenotypes perceived among tested Weissella strains based on the disk diffusion method. We recorded a high prevalence of resistance to fusidic acid in 48.1% of Weissella strains while a low resistance rate was observed to ciprofloxacin 14.8%, tetracycline 11.1%, streptomycin (high‐level resistance) 7.4%, lincomycin 7.4%, and rifampicin 7.4%. All the tested strains were susceptible to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, and erythromycin, while resistant to vancomycin, teicoplanin, nalidixic acid, kanamycin, and streptomycin (low‐level resistance). Intermediate resistance to rifampicin was seen in seven strains (13%), for lincomycin and erythromycin in three strains (5.6%), and for chloramphenicol in two strains (3.7%). W. confusa LV30 and LV20 (from plants) and FS44 (from rhizosphere soil) were the only strains that displayed intermediate resistance to erythromycin; among them the last two strains cited showed moderate resistance to chloramphenicol. W. soli F96, W. halotolerans (FAS27 and FS058), and W. confusa (FS044, FS063, and LV20) demonstrated resistance to tetracycline. None of the 54 Weissella spp. strains showed hemolytic activity.

TABLE 1.

Prevalence of antibiotic resistance in Weissella isolates from environmental sources using disk diffusion assay

Antibiotics used No. of resistance No. of intermediate No. of sensitive
Teicoplanin 30 μg 54 (100%) I.R ‐ –
Kanamycin 30 μg 54 (100%) I.R ‐ –
Nalidixic acid 30 μg 54 (100%) I.R – –
Vancomycin 30 μg 52 (98%) I.R – –
Streptomycin 10 μg 46 (85.2%) I.R – 8 (14.8%)
Fusidic acid 10 μg 26 (48.1%) – 28 (51.8%)
Ciprofloxacin 5 μg 8 (14.8%) – 46 (85.2%)
Tetracyclin 30 μg 6 (11.1%) – 48 (88.9%)
Streptomycin 300 μg 4 (7.4%) – 50 (92.6%)
Lincomycin 2 μg 4 (7.4%) 3 (5.6%) 47 (87%)
Erythromycin 15 μg – 3 (5.6%) 51 (94.4%)
Ampicillin 10 μg – – 54(100%)
Rifampicin 5 μg 4 (7.4%) 7(13%) 43(79.6%)
Chloramphenicol 30 μg – 2(3.7%) 52 (98%)
Open in a new tab

The numbers in parentheses represent the proportion of resistant strains among the tested strains.

Abbreviations: I.R, intrinsic resistance. No, number.

TABLE 2.

Preliminary safety evaluation of Weissella spp. strains

Species Strains a Origin Antibiotic resistance phenotype b Virulence factors Hemolytic activity
Phenotype c Genotype
W. confusa FS066, FS004 Rhizospheric soil CIP, FUS, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− ‐ –
FS052 CIP, FUS, LIN, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc+ odc+ –
FS053 CIP, STR, LIN f , RIF f Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc+ odc+ –
FS063 CIP, FUS, STR, TET, RIF f Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
FS076 FUS, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
FS077 FUS, STR Hdc+, Tdc+,Odc − hdc +, tdc+ , odc + –
FS036, FS061 FUS, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc − odc+ –
FS054 FUS, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
FS044 STR, TET, ERY f , CHL f Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
LV30 Desert plants CIP, FUS, STR, RIF, TET, ERY f Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
LV9 FUS, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
LV2 Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
LV11 STRd Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc − odc+ –
LV29 Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc − odc+ –
LV20 STRd, TET, ERY f , CHL f Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
LV28 STR, RIF Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
LV31 CIP, STR, RIF f Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
LF42 Camel feces FUS, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
LF77 FUS, LIN, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
LF7 STR, RIF f Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
LF9 STRd, RIF Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc − odc+ –
LF80 STR, RIF f Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
FJ2 Ants' gut FUS, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc+ odc+ –
FAS5 FUS, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
FAS23 e STR, RIF f Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
W. halotolerans FAS17 Ants' gut LIN, CIP, FUS, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
FAS42;FAS16; FAS18 FUS, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
FAS3 FUS, STR, LIN f Hdc −, Tdc−, Odc − hdc+ , odc+ –
FAS22 FUS, STR Hdc −, Tdc−, Odc− hdc+ –
FAS28 FUS, STR, Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc − odc+ –
FAS31 STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
FAS65 FUS, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
FAS15; FAS24 STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc − odc+ –
FAS29 STR, LIN Hdc−, Tdc+, Odc − tdc+ , odc + –
FAS30 Hdc−, Tdc+, Odc− tdc+ –
FAS27 STR, TET, RIF f Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc − odc+ –
V5; LV10 Desert plants STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
LV27 Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
LF99 Camel feces FUS, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
FS058 Rhizospheric soil STRd Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
W. paramesenteroides FS045 e STR, RIF Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
FS060 Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc − odc+ –
FS064 FUS, STR Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
W. cibaria FAS7 Ants' gut FUS Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
LF81 Camel feces Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc − odc+ –
LF67 Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
W. hellenica LF4 Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc− – –
W. soli LF96 STR, TET, LIN f Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc − odc+ –
W. confusa DSM−20196 Sugar cane STR, RIF Hdc−, Tdc−, Odc − odc+ –
W. cibaria DSM−15878 Chili bo RIF f , TET f , ERY f Hdc−, Tdc+, Odc− tdc+ –
Open in a new tab
a

All the tested Weissella strains are resistant to vancomycin (VAN), nalidixic acid (NAL), kanamycin (KAN), and teicoplanin (TEC).

b

Abbreviation of antibiotics: TET, tetracycline; LIN, lincomycin; CHL, chloramphenicol; RIF, rifampicin; CIP, ciprofloxacin; ERY, erythromycin; FUS, fusidic acid.

c

Hdc, Tdc, and Odc refer to histidine, tyrosine, and ornithine decarboxylase activity, respectively.

d

High level of resistance to streptomycin (300 µg).

e

Vancomycin sensitive.

f

Intermediate resistance.

MIC ranges of three selected antibiotics were performed for six strains resistant or intermediate resistance to tetracycline, erythromycin, and chloramphenicol. The results obtained are presented in Table 3. The breakpoint values were not described for Weissella, heterofermentative Leuconostoc‐like LAB (Collins et al., 1993); hence, it was categorized as resistant to a specific antibiotic if the MIC value (mg/L) was higher than the breakpoints given for Leuconostoc by EFSA (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) et al., 2018), according to the cut‐off levels proposed by Jeong and Lee (2015) and Suhonen (2019) for Weissella. To elucidate the mechanism responsible for the resistance phenotypes perceived, genes encoding those phenotypes were checked by PCR as described above (Table 2).

TABLE 3.

Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) distributions of tetracycline, erythromycin, and chloramphenicol for selected Weissella strains from different origins, determined by the broth microdilution method

Tested strain Source of isolation Susceptibility to the following antibiotic MIC (mg/L) Resistance gene(s)
VAN TET ERY CHL
ECOFF (µg/ml) Leuconostoc a IR 8 1 4
Weissella b IR 8 4 12/16
W. confusa FS44 Rhizospheric soil n.r. 256 16 32 tet(K), tet(S)
FS63 n.r. >256 tet(M)
V20 Desert plants n.r. >256 16 32 tet(K)
V30 n.r. 32 16 tet(M), tet(O)
W. halotolerans FAS27 Ants' gut n.r. 256 tet(K), tet(S)
W. soli F96 Camel feces n.r. 256 tet(K)
Open in a new tab

TET = tetracycline; ERY = erythromycin; CHL = Chloramphenicol.

a

For Weissella strains, epidemiological cut‐off (ECOFF) values were not described, the breakpoint values suggested by EFSA (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) et al., 2018) for the genus Leuconostoc were considered.

b

The breakpoint values according to Suhonen (2019) are given. LAB with a MIC value higher than the ECOFF or breakpoints of diverse recommendations reported are considered resistant strains; IR, intrinsically resistant; n.r., not required.

The chloramphenicol MIC values (32 mg/L) obtained for the two W. confusa (FS44 and V20) were higher than the recommended breakpoint value (4–12/16 mg/L). No cat gene encoding chloramphenicol acetyltransferase has been detected in these strains (Table 3). Erythromycin‐resistant W. confusa (FS44, V20, and V30), isolated from environment or rhizosphere soil and desert plants, displayed MIC value of 16 mg/L; however, no resistance determining gene (ermB) was detected (Table 3). All the six strains were found to be resistant to tetracycline with MICs≥256 mg/L, except W. confusa V30 (32 mg/L). In this study, we similarly verified the presence of tetracycline resistance genes tet(K), tet(L), tet(M), and tet(S). Resistance genes were detected in 100% of tetracycline‐resistant strains. It was associated with the presence of the resistance genes tet(K), tet(S), tet(M), and tet(O) (Table 3). Combinations of tetracycline resistance genes were not common, with two tetracycline‐resistant strains carrying more than one resistance gene. Four tetracycline‐resistant strains harbored the tetracycline efflux gene tet(K), among them W. confusa FS63 and W. halotolerans FAS27 stains contained also the tet(S) gene encoding a ribosomal protection protein. Besides, other genes encoding ribosomal protection proteins [tet(M) and tet(O)] were detected in W. confusa FS44 and W.confusa V30.

3.2. Biogenic amine production of Weissella

The presence of BA‐producing Weissella was qualitatively investigated by assessing color variations in the decarboxylase medium. Histidine decarboxylase, ornithine decarboxylase, and tyrosine decarboxylase were screened. Decarboxylase‐positive bacteria produce alkaline amines, inducing pH change rounding colonies (Bover‐Cid & Holzapfel, 1999). Table 2 showed the phenotypic expression of tyramine, histamine, and putrescine via tyrosine, histidine, and ornithine decarboxylase activities, respectively, by six Weissella strains. We detected putrescine production via odc pathway in three W. confusa (FS52 and FS53) from rhizosphere soil, and (FJ2) from ant's gut. Tyramine was generated by three strains (5.6%) and histamine production by one strain (1.9%). Two BA‐producing W. halotolerans strains (FAS30 and FAS29) exhibited tyrosine decarboxylase activity. However, one W. confusa (FS77) produced two types of BA, tyramine and histamine.

3.3. Detection of genes encoding histidine, tyrosine, and ornithine decarboxylases

To examine the presence of genes hdc, tydc, and odc in the 54 Weissella strains, which could reveal or not the BA production ability in the decarboxylase medium, we performed PCR amplification investigation. The results showed that decarboxylase‐related gene odc was determined in 16 strains (29.6%), of which only three strains expressed phenotypically putrescine production. On the other hand, BA gene tydc was proved in three initially tyramine‐producing strains W. halotolerans (FAS30 and FAS29) and W. confusa FS77. Besides, BA gene hdc was determined only in histamine‐producing W. confusa FS77.

3.4. Antagonistic activity

Antibacterial screening of 54 Weissella strains was characterized by high, medium, and no significant inhibition activity against the indicator pathogens, including Pa. larvae, L. monocytogenes, E. faecalis, S. aureus, E. coli, S. typhimurium, and P. aeruginosa (Table 4). The sensitivity of the indicator strains was assessed based on the diameter (mm) of growth inhibition zones. The majority of the tested strains were able to inhibit the growth of Gram‐positive and ‐negative indicator strains (p < .05), with the greatest zones of inhibition for P. aeruginosa (36 ± 1.8 mm) followed by S. aureus (34 ± 1.6 mm), E. coli (26 ± 0.9 mm), E. faecalis (26 ± 1 mm), Pa. larvae and S. typhimurium (24 mm), and L. monocytogenes (20 ± 1.6 mm).

TABLE 4.

Antibacterial activity of Weissella spp. strains

Weissella spp. Strains Paenibacillus larvae Listeria monocytogenes LM15 Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29,212 Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27,853 Escherichia coli DH5α Salmonella typhimurium IPT13
W. confusa FS066 + ++ + + + + +
FS004 ++ − − − +++ +++ +++
FS052 + ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ +++
FS053 +++ − − − + ++ +
FS063 − + − − +++ + +++
FS076 ++ + − + +++ ++ +++
FS077 ++ − ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
FS036 ++ + +++ − +++ − +++
FS054 ++ + +++ − +++ +++ +++
FS061 − + − − +++ + +++
FS044 ++ ++ ++ − ++ +++ −
LV30 + + − + + + +
LV9 − − ++ − − +++ −
LV2 +++ − ++ + + + +
LV5 + + +++ ++ − ++ ++
LV11 − + ++ ++ − ++ −
LV20 +++ − + + ++ + ++
LV27 + ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++
LV29 ++ + + ++ + ++ ++
LV28 ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ +++ ++
LV31 − + +++ − ++ +++ ++
LF42 + − ++ +++ − − −
LF77 +++ ++ +++ − +++ +++ ++
LF7 − − − + − − −
LF9 − ++ ++ + − − −
LF80 − − − + ++ − ++
W. confusa FJ2 − − − − − − +++
FAS5 − − − +++ − − ++
FAS23 − + − + − − ++
W. halotolerans FAS17 +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ +++ +
FAS42 + − − − + − −
FAS3 − − − − − − −
FAS16 ++ − − − + − −
FAS18 ++ + ++ − ++ +++ ++
FAS22 − − − − ++ − −
FAS28 ++ − +++ ++ + ++ +
FAS30 − − − ++ + + −
FAS65 − − + − − − −
FAS15 − − − − − − −
FAS24 − − − − ++ − −
FAS29 ++ − ++ ++ + − −
FAS31 +++ ++ +++ ++++ ++++ + +++
FAS27 − − ++ ++ +++ +++ +++
LV10 + +++ +++ +++ ++ ++ +
LF99 − + + + +++ +++ +++
FS058 + − − +++ − − −
W. paramesenteroides FS045 ++ + + + + − +
FS060 + − − ++ − − −
FS064 ++ ++ + ++ + ++ +
W. cibaria FAS7 − − − + − ++ ++
LF81 − − − ++ − − −
LF67 − − ++ +++ − − −
W. hellenica LF4 ++ − + ++ − − −
W. soli LF96 ++ − − − − − −
Open in a new tab

(d) Inhibition zone diameter: (+), weak (8 ≤ d <13); (++), medium (13 ≤ d <18); (+++), and high (18 ≤ d) antibacterial activity.

The results showed that 28 strains (51.9%) have significant inhibition against one or more pathogens, with high inhibitory activity. The highest inhibitory effect of Weissellas was observed against each of the three gram‐negative pathogens (around 20% and 22%), after that in the case of S. aureus (17%), followed by Pa. larvae (11%), E. faecalis (9%), and L. monocytogenes (6%). This activity was recorded for the species of W. confusa, then in W. halotolerans. W. confusa (FS66, FS52, F77, and V28) and W. halotolerans (FAS17, FAS31, and V10) demonstrated inhibitory activity against all the tested pathogens. W. confusa FS076 had top growth inhibitory activity against P. aeruginosa. W. halotolerans FAS27 had the highest inhibitory activity against S. aureus, S. Typhimurium, and E. coli; W. cibaria F67 showed also strong inhibitory activity toward E. faecalis. W. confusa F77 had strong activity against Pa. larvae with ZI 24 ± 0.6 mm. Anti‐Listeria activity was shown to be really high for W. halotolerans (FAS17 and V10) and W. confusa V28. The very anti‐Staphylococcus activity was recorded for W. confusa (FS52, FS36, FS54, V5, V31, and F77) and W. halotolerans (FAS28, FAS31, and V10).

3.5. Transferability of antibiotic resistance genes ARGs

The ability of donors to transmit antibiotic resistance to the recipients was tested by filter mating approach. As shown in Table 5, no colonies of presumptive transconjugants (RIFr and TETr) were observed after mating of the two tetracycline‐resistant W. confusa (FS44 and FS63) donor strains with Enterococcus JH2‐2 as a recipient on the selective agar plates. However, Bacillus thuringiensis could transfer their conjugal plasmid pAW63 (erythromycin resistance) to three tested Weissella spp. as recipients, at frequencies around 3 × 10−9 transconjugants per recipient (Table 5).

TABLE 5.

Frequency of pAW63 (erythromycin resistance) and tetracycline transfer from donors Bacillus thuringiensis and two Weissella confusa strains, respectively, to the corresponding recipients (CFU/ml)

Donors Recipients Transfer frequency (no. of transconjugants/recipient) a
B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki W. paramesenteroides FS45 1.8 × 10−9
W. halotolerans V10 7 × 10−9
W. confusa FS53 1.2 × 10−10
W. confusa FS44 En. faecalis JH2−2 –
W. confusa FS63 En. faecalis JH2−2 –
Open in a new tab
a

Transfer frequency is expressed as the number of transconjugants/number of recipient cells; results represent the mean of three experiments.

4. DISCUSSION

Until today, the investigation of antibacterial resistance profiles of the genus Weissella is limited to few published reports (Akpınar Kankaya & Tuncer, 2020; Ayeni et al., 2011; Fhoula et al., 2018; Jeong & Lee, 2015; Lee et al., 2012; Muñoz‐Atienza et al., 2013; Patel et al., 2014). In this context, antimicrobial susceptibility testing can be used as required selection criterion for probiotic cultures as well as a useful guide for precise antibiotic therapy. Our study highlights for the first time the antibiotic resistance for W. halotolerans, W. paramesenteroides, W. soli, and W. hellenica in addition to W. confusa and W. cibaria. All of the resistance that has been found is strain dependent. Similarly, to the findings of Jeong and Lee (2015), Weissella strains have been shown to be susceptible to ampicillin (inhibitor of cell wall synthesis) and chloramphenicol (inhibitor of proteins synthesis), but not to erythromycin or tetracycline.

As a result, we deduced resistance to nalidixic acid, kanamycin, streptomycin, and teicoplanin, as well as vancomycin, which can be attributed to intrinsic resistance in the Weissella genus. Nevertheless, susceptibility seems to be species and strain dependent. According to Abriouel et al. (2015), resistance to high concentrations of vancomycin appears to be a widespread trait in the genera Weissella and Leuconostoc. Weissellas are recognized as intrinsically resistant to antibiotics inhibiting cell wall biosynthesis (glycopeptides) like vancomycin, comparable to other Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, and Leuconostoc species (Akpınar Kankaya & Tuncer, 2020; Ammor et al., 2007; Danielsen & Wind, 2003; Gueimonde et al., 2013; Muñoz‐Atienza et al., 2013). Therefore, this resistance cannot be associated with acquired resistance genes (Abriouel et al., 2015). On the other hand, resistance to teicoplanin, one of the glycopeptides, was also revealed in the genome of some Weissellas due to the presence of the vanZ resistance gene as it is with W. confusa LBAE C39‐2, W. cibaria KACC 11,862, and W. paramesenteroides ATCC 33,313 (Abriouel et al., 2015). However, in our study, this resistance was detected in all the tested Weissella strains for six different species (W. confusa, W. cibaria, W. paramesenteroides, W. halotolerans, W. soli, and W. hellenica). Additionally, kanamycin resistance in Weissella strains was observed, correlating with prior findings in food‐associated Weissellas (W. confusa and W. cibaria) (Lee et al., 2012; Muñoz‐Atienza et al., 2013; Patel et al., 2012). According to earlier research, the possibility of high natural resistance of Weissella species to quinolones (nalidixic acid), glycopeptides (vancomycin and teicoplanin), and aminoglycosides (except high‐level resistance encoded by aminoglycosides plasmidic modifying enzymes) can be found in different LAB species with a restricted horizontal transfer to other bacterial species (Ammor et al., 2007; Danielsen & Wind, 2003; Flórez et al., 2016; Imperial & Ibana, 2016; Jeong & Lee, 2015; Mathur & Singh, 2005; Toomey et al., 2010). Results of susceptibility and resistance for the tested antibiotics on the Weissella strains were consistent with previous studies (Akpınar Kankaya & Tuncer, 2020; Lee et al., 2012; Patel et al., 2012). The disk diffusion method can be applied for fast screening of strains, whereas the MIC assessment is the commonly accepted antibiotic resistance determination method for LAB.

Our results revealed that the incidences of chloramphenicol, tetracycline, and erythromycin resistance in the six strains were very low using the disc diffusion method. These findings were in line with studies declaring Weissella to be commonly susceptible to tetracycline, erythromycin, chloramphenicol, and ampicillin (Abriouel et al., 2015; Jeong & Lee, 2015). Remarkably, we noted very high MIC values of potential acquired resistance to erythromycin, tetracycline, and chloramphenicol, wherein we can find strains fully resistant to one or more clinically relevant antibiotics.

The antimicrobial‐resistant Weissella strains are belonging to W. halotolerans, W. soli, and W. confusa. In line with a recent study (Patrone et al., 2021), in W. cibaria strains we looked at, there was no indication of phenotypic antibiotic resistance. We noted that the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) et al. (2018) breakpoints for the genus Leuconostoc can be applied to the genus Weissella in the case of tetracycline.

The presence of antibiotic‐resistant LAB species is well documented for Lactobacillus and Enterococcus (Álvarez‐Cisneros & Ponce‐Alquicira, 2019; Hummel et al., 2007; Stefańska et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2019). Contrarily, there are limited data related to antimicrobial resistance for Weissella species and genetic determinants associated with antibiotic resistance (Muñoz‐Atienza et al., 2013; Basbülbül et al., 2015; Abriouel et al., 2015). In the present study, the susceptibility level of the strains to tetracycline is species and strain dependent. The most common tetracycline resistance mechanism is mediated by the tet(K) gene, encoding tetracycline efflux pump responsible for removing antibiotics to the outside of the cell, and followed by tet(S) and tet(M) genes, coding for ribosomal protection proteins, from tetracycline‐resistant Weissella strains. The Tetr genes provided various levels of resistance to the Weissella strains. The tet(O) gene was detected only in a W. confusa V30 isolate, from plant, with MIC value of 32 mg/L. For the first time, our results revealed that the tet(K) gene for W. soli F96, as well as the tet(K) and tet(S) genes for W. halotolerans (FAS27), except for tet(M), were detected for tetracycline‐resistant W. confusa strains. A rare research revealed the tet(M) gene in W. confusa WCo‐1 (Abriouel et al., 2015). In most cases, enterococci carry frequently the tet(M) gene (Aarestrup et al., 2000). The tet(S) gene was initially discovered in L. monocytogenes strain BM4210 on a self‐transferable plasmid (Charpentier et al., 1993); however, it has been also reported on the chromosome of L. mesenteroides LbE16 strain (Flórez et al., 2016).

The cat and ermB genes were selected as they are the deeply studied and the most common spread resistance genes among LAB (Hummel et al., 2007; Thumu & Halami, 2012). The two Weissella strains that are resistant to chloramphenicol have high MICs (32 mg/L). There is a prospect that Weissella species have intrinsic resistance to chloramphenicol, which would limit the horizontal transfer of resistance to other bacteria. As regards the genetic basis of chloramphenicol (cat) and erythromycin (ermB) resistances could not be defined from the genomic DNA of the resistant strains, possibly due to the high variance of resistance genes. So, more investigations are requested to reveal the causal resistance mechanism. Muñoz‐Atienza et al. (2013) reported only Mef (A/E) drug efflux pump genes involved in the active efflux of macrolides in W. cibaria of aquatic origin. Nevertheless, ermB gene has been recently stated in W. cibaria DYE12 (Akpınar Kankaya & Tuncer, 2020). According to Abriouel et al. (2015), the lack of reports on the molecular identification of antibiotic resistance genes in Weissellas may be related to the significant variability in resistance genes.

The unsuccessful transfer of tetracycline resistance from W. confusa FS44 and FS63 to E. faecalis JH2‐2 as well as the vancomycin (data not shown) resistance might be attributed to a multitude of variables, including the use of inappropriate recipient strains and/or improper mating procedures. As a result, the tetracycline resistance of the two W. confusa was not transferred to the recipient strain in our investigation. Like Leuconostoc, no transconjugants were found when trying to transfer tetracycline resistance from L. mesenteroides to other bacteria (Toomey et al. (2010).

On the other side, the conjugation of Bacillus thuringiensis with the recipients W. paramesenteroides FS45, W. confusa (FS44 and FS63) strains, transconjugants was produced. With an average frequency of 3 × 10−9 transconjugants per receiver, transfer was low but detectable. This finding can be explained by the fact that pAW63 shares homology of Gram‐positive conjugation genes from Enterococcus, Lactococcus, Listeria, Streptococcus, and Staphylococcus species (Van der Auwera et al., 2005).

This is the first report to involve the antibiotic resistance determinants transfer of pAW63 (ermB) from Bacillus thurigiensis, which is ubiquitous in the environment, and closely associated with the food‐borne pathogen Bacillus cereus, potentially enterotoxigenic (Frederiksen et al., 2006).

These results led to suggest that Weissella is not a good vector to transfer antibiotic resistance genes, which can occur at a low frequency under laboratory conditions. It is a weak candidate to receive virulent determinants from closest gram‐positive pathogens. Consequently, further study incorporating mating settings is needed to assess the potential of Weissella spp. strains to spread antibiotic resistance.

As β‐hemolysis is linked to pathogenicity, in our investigation, tested Weissella strains did not exhibit hemolysis activity which is essential criteria for the selection of potential good strains.

Biogenic amines (BA) can be found in a variety of protein‐rich foods and fermented foods, and eating foods with excessive levels of these amines can generate toxicological consequences and health concerns (Durak‐Dados et al., 2020; Ruiz‐Capillas & Herrero, 2019; Santos, 1996). A variety of factors affect BA production, including the raw materials used, processing conditions, and microbes (Barbieri et al., 2019; Santos, 1996). The BA production in food by lactic acid bacteria has attracted a great interest and become the subject of considerable research because of their putative role in food poisoning (Barbieri et al., 2019; Ruiz‐Capillas & Herrero, 2019). Besides, the advantages of utilizing Weissella spp. as starter cultures and probiotics have recently received lots of interest (Gomathi et al., 2014; Kariyawasam et al., 2019). Interestingly, LAB belonging to Leuconostoc and Weissella genus are recognized as minor BA producers (Barbieri et al., 2019).

In this regard, phenotypic and molecular techniques should be used to investigate the occurrence of histidine, tyrosine, and ornithine decarboxylase activity in Weissella isolated from environment and animal sources. Strain‐level data concerning the ability for biogenic amine formation is requested to choose safe Weissella as starter for further food applications.

Up to now, there have only been a few reports on the role of some Weissella strains in the formation of biogenic amines. In this study, based on phenotypic analysis, 6 of 54 strains from environmental and animal origins produced one or more types of biogenic amines. Contrary to what Jeong and Lee (2015) reported, 44% of Weissella strains from Kimchi produced biogenic amines. For the first time, we reported tyramine production in two W. halotolerans (FAS29 and FAS30). W. confusa strains, from rhizosphere soil, have been found to generate putrescine, tyramine, and histamine. Regarding the production of biogenic amines in this species, these findings are consistent with earlier studies (Jeong & Lee, 2015; Takebe et al., 2016). Our study indicates that bacteria's main ability to decarboxylate amino acids is linked to their ecological niche from whence it originated as fermented foods, as well as strain specificity and amino acid decarboxylase gene diversity (Barbieri et al., 2019; Benkerroum, 2016; Jeong & Lee, 2015). Generally, these findings led us to suggest that the strains from environment and animal sources do not produce biogenic amines. In line with Garai et al. (2007) and Jeong and Lee (2015), we could suggest that this capability is strain dependent rather than species specific.

In this study, the level of inhibitory activity was greatly varied, depending on the tested Weissella strains. It was shown that the antagonistic activity against E. faecalis was found to be two times lower. This might be related to the fact that this species has a higher tolerance for pH and organic acids. The organic acids and other secondary metabolites of LAB were known to have inhibitory effect on growth. The neutralization of cell‐free supernatants and catalase treatment removed the antagonistic action against indicator bacteria. This demonstrates that a low pH environment and the presence of peroxide of hydrogen are the most important factors in preventing the growth of pathogenic bacteria.

The selected W. confusa (FS66, F77, and V28) and W. halotolerans (FAS17, FAS31, and V10) with good functional features and broad‐spectrum antibacterial activity throw up interesting perceptions as probiotic feed supplement in farm animals, notably in poultry, to prevent salmonellosis and colibacillosis. W. confusa (V5 and V31) and W. halotolerans V10, from desert plant, demonstrating the greatest anti‐Staphylococcus activity could be probiotic candidates on human and animal health.

Interestingly, W. confusa F77, from camel feces, was able to inhibit the growth of Pa. larvae, the causative agent of American Foulbrood of honeybees, a notifiable bacterial disease that destroys larvae of honeybees in many countries (Ebeling et al., 2016). Then, F77 showed suitable properties that make it good for its use as a probiotic in the honeybee diet. LAB has been shown to be important in controlling this disease by several studies (Daisley et al., 2020; Lamei et al., 2020; Mudroňová et al., 2011).

Therefore, the selection and availability of Weissella with good functional characteristics (such as antibacterial activity, lack of phenotypic and genetic virulence determinants, and no horizontal gene transfer) make them more attractive for potential applications as probiotics or technological candidates in food, feed complement, and agriculture. More research is needed to increase our understanding of enzymatic activities, metabolic systems in Weissella spp., suggesting the potential use of these strains as novel probiotics to reduce infection and limit antibiotic utilization, such as the prevention of intestinal infections in cattle production (Patrone et al., 2021). To our knowledge, this is the first large‐scale investigation detailing the antibacterial activity against numerous pathogens and the safety evaluation of Weissella spp. from diverse sources beyond the QPS procedure of LAB.

This is one of the few publications describing the characterization and probiotic potential of Weissella spp. from original sources. In this study, the in vitro assessment was performed to investigate the antibacterial activity against pathogens, the antibiotic susceptibility, the lack of transferable antibiotic resistance determinants, and the prevalence of virulence factors, which resulted in the selection of eight strains (five W. confusa and three W. halotolerans). This approach is a useful strategy for preliminary large‐scale selection of putatively safe Weissella strain for use as probiotics or supplements, as well as preventing the spread of bacterial cultures with harmful traits into the environment. Before the Weissellas can be considered recognizably safe probiotics, a full in vivo examination of their absence of cytotoxicity and undesirable effects must be carried out utilizing cell lines, raw food, and farm animals. Future investigations will be able to sustain the gained knowledge and assess the advantages.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.

ETHICAL APPROVAL

This study does not involve any human or animal testing.

INFORMED CONSENT

Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Tunisian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research in the ambit of the laboratory project LR03ES03. The authors would like to thank Pr. Jacques Mahillon who offered B. thuringiensis for conjugation. The authors would also like to thank the assistance of Mrs. Mounira Msahli.

Fhoula, I. , Boumaiza, M. , Tayh, G. , Rehaiem, A. , Klibi, N. , & Ouzari, I.‐H. (2022). Antimicrobial activity and safety features assessment of Weissella spp. from environmental sources. Food Science & Nutrition, 10, 2896–2910. 10.1002/fsn3.2885

REFERENCES

  1. Aarestrup, F. M. , Agerso, Y. , Gerner‐Smidt, P. , Madsen, M. , & Jensen, L. B. (2000). Comparison of antimicrobial resistance phenotypes and resistance genes in Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium from humans in the community, broilers, and pigs in Denmark. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 37(2), 127–137. 10.1016/S0732-8893(00)00130-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abriouel, H. , Lerma, L. L. , del Casado Muñoz, M. C. , Montoro, B. P. , Kabisch, J. , Pichner, R. , Cho, G.‐S. , Neve, H. , Fusco, V. , Franz, C. M. A. P. , Gálvez, A. , & Benomar, N. (2015). The controversial nature of the Weissella genus: Technological and functional aspects versus whole genome analysis‐based pathogenic potential for their application in food and health. Frontiers in Microbiology, 6, 1197. 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Akpınar Kankaya, D. , & Tuncer, Y. (2020). Antibiotic resistance in vancomycin‐resistant lactic acid bacteria (VRLAB) isolated from foods of animal origin. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 44(6), 14468. 10.1111/jfpp.14468 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Álvarez‐Cisneros, M. Y. , & Ponce‐Alquicira, E. (2019). Antibiotic resistance in lactic acid bacteria. In Kumar Y. (Éd.), Antimicrobial resistance—a global threat. IntechOpen. 10.5772/intechopen.80624 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ammor, M. S. , Belén Flórez, A. , & Mayo, B. (2007). Antibiotic resistance in non‐enterococcal lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria. Food Microbiology, 24(6), 559–570. 10.1016/j.fm.2006.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ayeni, F. A. , Sánchez, B. , Adeniyi, B. A. , de Los Reyes‐Gavilán, C. G. , Margolles, A. , & Ruas‐Madiedo, P. (2011). Evaluation of the functional potential of Weissella and Lactobacillus isolates obtained from Nigerian traditional fermented foods and cow’s intestine. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 147(2), 97–104. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.03.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Barbieri, F. , Montanari, C. , Gardini, F. , & Tabanelli, G. (2019). Biogenic amine production by lactic acid bacteria: A review. Foods, 8(1), 17. 10.3390/foods8010017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Baruah, R. , & Goyal, A. (2015). Hyper glucansucrase, glucan and oligosaccharide producing novel Weissella cibaria RBA12 isolated from Pummelo (Citrus maxima). Annals of Microbiology, 65(4), 2301–2310. 10.1007/s13213-015-1072-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Basbülbül, G. , Özteber, M. , & Biyik, H. H. (2015). Antibiotic resistance in lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented dairy products and boza. Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences, 4(06), 513–517. 10.15414/jmbfs.2015.4.6.513-517 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Benkerroum, N. (2016). Biogenic amines in dairy products: Origin, incidence, and control means: Biogenic amines in dairy products. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 15(4), 801–826. 10.1111/1541-4337.12212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Björkroth, J. A. , Dicks, L. , & Holzapfel, W. (2009). Genus III. Weissella Collins, Samelis, Metaxopoulos and Wallbanks 1994, 370VP. Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 3, 643–654. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bover‐Cid, S. , & Holzapfel, W. H. (1999). Improved screening procedure for biogenic amine production by lactic acid bacteria. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 53(1), 33–41. 10.1016/S0168-1605(99)00152-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Charpentier, E. , Gerbaud, G. , & Courvalin, P. (1993). Characterization of a new class of tetracycline‐resistance gene tet(S) in Listeria monocytogenes BM4210. Gene, 131(1), 27–34. 10.1016/0378-1119(93)90665-P [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) . (2018). Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. M100 28th edition. Wayne, PA. https://file.qums.ac.ir/repository/mmrc/CLSI‐2018‐M100‐S28.pdf [Google Scholar]
  15. Collins, M. D. , Samelis, J. , Metaxopoulos, J. , & Wallbanks, S. (1993). Taxonomic studies on some leuconostoc‐like organisms from fermented sausages : Description of a new genus Weissella for the Leuconostoc paramesenteroides group of species. Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 75(6), 595–603. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1993.tb01600.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Comité de l’Antibiogramme de la Société Française de Microbiologie (CA‐SFM) . (2013). Recommandations 2013. http://www.sfm‐microbiologie.org/ [Google Scholar]
  17. Costantini, A. , Cersosimo, M. , Prete, V. D. , & Garcia‐Moruno, E. (2006). Production of biogenic amines by lactic acid bacteria: screening by PCR, thin‐layer chromatography, and high‐performance liquid chromatography of strains isolated from wine and must. Journal of Food Protection, 69(2), 391–396. 10.4315/0362-028X-69.2.391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Daisley, B. A. , Pitek, A. P. , Chmiel, J. A. , Al, K. F. , Chernyshova, A. M. , Faragalla, K. M. , Burton, J. P. , Thompson, G. J. , & Reid, G. (2020). Novel probiotic approach to counter Paenibacillus larvae infection in honey bees. The ISME Journal, 14(2), 476–491. 10.1038/s41396-019-0541-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Danielsen, M. , & Wind, A. (2003). Susceptibility of Lactobacillus spp. To antimicrobial agents. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 82(1), 1–11. 10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00254-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Durak‐Dados, A. , Michalski, M. , & Osek, J. (2020). Histamine and other biogenic amines in food. Journal of Veterinary Research, 64(2), 281–288. 10.2478/jvetres-2020-0029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ebeling, J. , Knispel, H. , Hertlein, G. , Fünfhaus, A. , & Genersch, E. (2016). Biology of Paenibacillus larvae, a deadly pathogen of honey bee larvae. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 100(17), 7387–7395. 10.1007/s00253-016-7716-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) , Rychen, G. , Aquilina, G. , Azimonti, G. , Bampidis, V. , Bastos, M. L. , Bories, G. , Chesson, A. , Cocconcelli, P. S. , Flachowsky, G. , Gropp, J. , Kolar, B. , Kouba, M. , Lopez‐Alonso, M. , Lopez‐Puente, S. , Mantovani, A. , Mayo, B. , Ramos, F. , Saarela, M. , & Galobart, J. (2018). Guidance on the characterisation of microorganisms used as feed additives or as production organisms. EFSA Journal, 16(3), 5206. 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fairfax, M. R. , Lephart, P. R. , & Salimnia, H. (2014). Weissella confusa: Problems with identification of an opportunistic pathogen that has been found in fermented foods and proposed as a probiotic. Frontiers in Microbiology, 5, 254. 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00254 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fernández, M. , Linares, D. M. , & Alvarez, M. A. (2004). Sequencing of the tyrosine decarboxylase cluster of Lactococcus lactis IPLA 655 and the development of a PCR method for detecting tyrosine decarboxylating lactic acid bacteria. Journal of Food Protection, 67(11), 2521–2529. 10.4315/0362-028X-67.11.2521 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Fessard, A. , & Remize, F. (2017). Why are Weissella spp. not used as commercial starter cultures for food fermentation? Fermentation, 3(3), 38. 10.3390/fermentation3030038 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Fhoula, I. , Najjari, A. , Turki, Y. , Jaballah, S. , Boudabous, A. , & Ouzari, H. (2013). Diversity and antimicrobial properties of lactic acid bacteria isolated from rhizosphere of olive trees and desert truffles of Tunisia. BioMed Research International, 2013, 1–14. 10.1155/2013/405708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Fhoula, I. , Rehaiem, A. , Najjari, A. , Usai, D. , Boudabous, A. , Sechi, L. A. , & Hadda‐Imene, O. (2018). Functional probiotic assessment and in vivo cholesterol‐lowering efficacy of Weissella sp. associated with arid lands living‐hosts. BioMed Research International, 2018, 1–11. 10.1155/2018/1654151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Flórez, A. B. , Campedelli, I. , Delgado, S. , Alegría, Á. , Salvetti, E. , Felis, G. E. , Mayo, B. , & Torriani, S. (2016). Antibiotic susceptibility profiles of dairy leuconostoc, analysis of the genetic basis of atypical resistances and transfer of genes in vitro and in a food matrix. PLoS One, 11(1), e0145203. 10.1371/journal.pone.0145203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Frederiksen, K. , Rosenquist, H. , Jørgensen, K. , & Wilcks, A. (2006). Occurrence of natural Bacillus thuringiensis contaminants and residues of Bacillus thuringiensis ‐based insecticides on fresh fruits and vegetables. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 72(5), 3435–3440. 10.1128/AEM.72.5.3435-3440.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fusco, V. , Quero, G. M. , Cho, G.‐S. , Kabisch, J. , Meske, D. , Neve, H. , Bockelmann, W. , & Franz, C. M. A. P. (2015). The genus Weissella: Taxonomy, ecology and biotechnological potential. Frontiers in Microbiology, 6, 155. 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Garai, G. , Dueñas, M. T. , Irastorza, A. , & Moreno‐Arribas, M. V. (2007). Biogenic amine production by lactic acid bacteria isolated from cider. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 45(5), 473–478. 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2007.02207.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Gevers, D. , Huys, G. , & Swings, J. (2003). In vitro conjugal transfer of tetracycline resistance from Lactobacillus isolates to other Gram‐positive bacteria. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 225(1), 125–130. 10.1016/S0378-1097(03)00505-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gomathi, S. , Sasikumar, P. , Anbazhagan, K. , Sasikumar, S. , Kavitha, M. , Selvi, M. S. , & Selvam, G. S. (2014). Screening of indigenous oxalate degrading lactic acid bacteria from human faeces and SOUTH Indian fermented foods: Assessment of probiotic potential. The Scientific World Journal, 2014, 1–11. 10.1155/2014/648059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gueimonde, M. , Sánchez, B. , G. de los Reyes‐Gavilán, C. , & Margolles, A. (2013). Antibiotic resistance in probiotic bacteria. Frontiers in Microbiology, 4, 202 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Heo, J. , Hamada, M. , Cho, H. , Weon, H.‐Y. , Kim, J.‐S. , Hong, S.‐B. , Kim, S.‐J. , & Kwon, S.‐W. (2019). Weissella cryptocerci sp. Nov., isolated from gut of the insect Cryptocercus kyebangensis. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 69(9), 2801–2806. 10.1099/ijsem.0.003564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hummel, A. , Holzapfel, W. H. , & Franz, C. M. A. P. (2007). Characterisation and transfer of antibiotic resistance genes from enterococci isolated from food. Systematic and Applied Microbiology, 30(1), 1–7. 10.1016/j.syapm.2006.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hyun, D.‐W. , Lee, J.‐Y. , Sung, H. , Kim, P. S. , Jeong, Y.‐S. , Lee, J.‐Y. , Yun, J.‐H. , Choi, J.‐W. , Han, J. E. , Lee, S.‐Y. , Tak, E. J. , Kim, H. S. , & Bae, J.‐W. (2021). Brevilactibacter coleopterorum sp. Nov., isolated from the intestine of the dark diving beetle Hydrophilus acuminatus, and Weissella coleopterorum sp. Nov., isolated from the intestine of the diving beetle Cybister lewisianus . International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 71(4), 4779. 10.1099/ijsem.0.004779 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Imperial, I. C. V. J. , & Ibana, J. A. (2016). Addressing the antibiotic resistance problem with probiotics: Reducing the risk of its double‐edged sword effect. Frontiers in Microbiology, 07, 1983. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. International Standard ISO 10932/IDF 223 (2010). Milk and Milk Products – Determination of the Minimal Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of Antibiotics Applicable to Bifidobacteria and non‐enterococcal Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB), 10932/IDF, 223. https://www.iso.org/standard/46434.html [Google Scholar]
  40. Jeong, D.‐W. , & Lee, J.‐H. (2015). Antibiotic resistance, hemolysis and biogenic amine production assessments of Leuconostoc and Weissella isolates for kimchi starter development. LWT ‐ Food Science and Technology, 64(2), 1078–1084. 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.07.031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Juvonen, R. , Honkapää, K. , Maina, N. H. , Shi, Q. , Viljanen, K. , Maaheimo, H. , Virkki, L. , Tenkanen, M. , & Lantto, R. (2015). The impact of fermentation with exopolysaccharide producing lactic acid bacteria on rheological, chemical and sensory properties of pureed carrots (Daucus carota L.). International Journal of Food Microbiology, 207, 109–118. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.04.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kamboj, K. , Vasquez, A. , & Balada‐Llasat, J.‐M. (2015). Identification and significance of Weissella species infections. Frontiers in Microbiology, 6, 1204 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kang, M.‐S. , Lim, H.‐S. , Kim, S.‐M. , Lee, H.‐C. , & Oh, J.‐S. (2011). Effect of Weissella cibaria on Fusobacterium nucleatum ‐induced Interleukin‐6 and interleukin‐8 production in KB cells. Journal of Bacteriology and Virology, 41(1), 9. 10.4167/jbv.2011.41.1.9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kang, M.‐S. , Yeu, J.‐E. , & Hong, S.‐P. (2019). Safety evaluation of oral care probiotics Weissella cibaria CMU and CMS1 by phenotypic and genotypic analysis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 20(11), 2693. 10.3390/ijms20112693 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Kariyawasam, K. M. G. M. M. , Jeewanthi, R. K. C. , Lee, N.‐K. , & Paik, H.‐D. (2019). Characterization of cottage cheese using Weissella cibaria D30: Physicochemical, antioxidant, and antilisterial properties. Journal of Dairy Science, 102(5), 3887–3893. 10.3168/jds.2018-15360 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Korcz, E. , & Varga, L. (2021). Exopolysaccharides from lactic acid bacteria: Techno‐functional application in the food industry. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 110, 375–384. 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.02.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Kumar, A. , Augustine, D. , Sudhindran, S. , Kurian, M. A. , Dinesh, K. , Karim, S. , & Philip, R. (2011). Weissella confusa: A rare cause of vancomycinresistant Gram‐positive bacteraemia. Journal of Medical Microbiology, 60, 1539–1541. 10.1099/jmm.0.027169-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Kwak, S.‐H. , Cho, Y.‐M. , Noh, G.‐M. , & Om, A.‐S. (2014). Cancer preventive potential of kimchi lactic acid bacteria (Weissella cibaria, Lactobacillus plantarum). Journal of Cancer Prevention, 19(4), 253–258. 10.15430/JCP.2014.19.4.253 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Lamei, S. , Stephan, J. G. , Nilson, B. , Sieuwerts, S. , Riesbeck, K. , de Miranda, J. R. , & Forsgren, E. (2020). Feeding honeybee colonies with honeybee‐specific lactic acid bacteria (Hbs‐LAB) does not affect colony‐level Hbs‐LAB composition or Paenibacillus larvae spore levels, although american foulbrood affected colonies harbor a more diverse Hbs‐LAB community. Microbial Ecology, 79(3), 743–755. 10.1007/s00248-019-01434-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Le Jeune, C. , Lonvaud‐Funel, A. , ten Brink, B. , Hofstra, H. , & van der Vossen, J. M. B. M. (1995). Development of a detection system for histidine decarboxylating lactic acid bacteria based on DNA probes, PCR and activity test. Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 78(3), 316–326. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1995.tb05032.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Lee, K. W. , Park, J. Y. , Jeong, H. R. , Heo, H. J. , Han, N. S. , & Kim, J. H. (2012). Probiotic properties of Weissella strains isolated from human faeces. Anaerobe, 18(1), 96–102. 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2011.12.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Li, Y. Q. , Tian, W. L. , & Gu, C. T. (2020). Weissella sagaensis sp. Nov., isolated from traditional Chinese yogurt. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 70(4), 2485–2492. 10.1099/ijsem.0.004062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Lin, S.‐T. , Wang, L.‐T. , Wu, Y.‐C. , Guu, J.‐R.‐J. , Tamura, T. , Mori, K. , Huang, L. , & Watanabe, K. (2020). Weissella muntiaci sp. Nov., isolated from faeces of Formosan barking deer (Muntiacus reevesi). International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 70(3), 1578–1584. 10.1099/ijsem.0.003937 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Maragkoudakis, P. A. , Zoumpopoulou, G. , Miaris, C. , Kalantzopoulos, G. , Pot, B. , & Tsakalidou, E. (2006). Probiotic potential of Lactobacillus strains isolated from dairy products. International Dairy Journal, 16(3), 189–199. 10.1016/j.idairyj.2005.02.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Mathur, S. , & Singh, R. (2005). Antibiotic resistance in food lactic acid bacteria—A review. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 105(3), 281–295. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Mudroňová, D., Toporčák, J., Nemcová, R., Gancarčíková, S., Hajdučková, V., & Rumanovská,K. (2011). Lactobacillus sp. as a potential probiotic for the prevention of Paenibacillus larvae infection in honey bees. Journal of Apicultural Research, 50(4), 323–324. 10.3896/ibra.1.50.4.11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Muñoz‐Atienza, E. , Gómez‐Sala, B. , Araújo, C. , Campanero, C. , del Campo, R. , Hernández, P. E. , Herranz, C. , & Cintas, L. M. (2013). Antimicrobial activity, antibiotic susceptibility and virulence factors of Lactic Acid Bacteria of aquatic origin intended for use as probiotics in aquaculture. BMC Microbiology, 13, 15. 10.1186/1471-2180-13-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Oh, E. Y. , & Lee, S.‐M. (2021). Natural killer cell activation by Weissella cibaria JW15 isolated from kimchi. Journal of Bacteriology and Virology, 51(2), 62–73. 10.4167/jbv.2021.51.2.062 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Park, J.‐A. , Tirupathi Pichiah, P. B. , Yu, J.‐J. , Oh, S.‐H. , Daily, J. W. , & Cha, Y.‐S. (2012). Anti‐obesity effect of kimchi fermented with Weissella koreensis OK1‐6 as starter in high‐fat diet‐induced obese C57BL/6J mice. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 113(6), 1507–1516. 10.1111/jam.12017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Patel, A. , Prajapati, J. B. , Holst, O. , & Ljungh, A. (2014). Determining probiotic potential of exopolysaccharide producing lactic acid bacteria isolated from vegetables and traditional Indian fermented food products. Food Bioscience, 5, 27–33. 10.1016/j.fbio.2013.10.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Patel, S. , Majumder, A. , & Goyal, A. (2012). Potentials of exopolysaccharides from lactic acid bacteria. Indian Journal of Microbiology, 52(1), 3–12. 10.1007/s12088-011-0148-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Patrone, V. , Al‐Surrayai, T. , Romaniello, F. , Fontana, A. , Milani, G. , Sagheddu, V. , Puglisi, E. , Callegari, M. L. , Al‐Mansour, H. , Kishk, M. W. , & Morelli, L. (2021). Integrated phenotypic‐genotypic analysis of candidate probiotic Weissella Cibaria strains isolated from dairy cows in Kuwait. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, 13(3), 809–823. 10.1007/s12602-020-09715-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Praet, J. , Meeus, I. , Cnockaert, M. , Houf, K. , Smagghe, G. , & Vandamme, P. (2015). Novel lactic acid bacteria isolated from the bumble bee gut: Convivina intestini gen. nov., sp. nov., Lactobacillus bombicola sp. nov., and Weissella bombi sp. nov. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 107(5), 1337–1349. 10.1007/s10482-015-0429-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Rehaiem, A. , Martínez, B. , Manai, M. , & Rodriguez, A. (2012). Technological performance of the enterocin a producer enterococcus faecium mmra as a protective adjunct culture to enhance hygienic and sensory attributes of traditional fermented milk ‘rayeb’. Food Bioprocess Technology, 5(6), 2140–2150. 10.1007/s11947-010-0501-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Rizzotti, L. , La Gioia, F. , Dellaglio, F. , & Torriani, S. (2009). Molecular diversity and transferability of the tetracycline resistance gene tet(M), carried on Tn916‐1545 family transposons, in enterococci from a total food chain. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 96(1), 43–52. 10.1007/s10482-009-9334-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Rizzotti, L. , Simeoni, D. , Cocconcelli, P. , Gazzola, S. , Dellaglio, F. , & Torriani, S. (2005). Contribution of enterococci to the spread of antibiotic resistance in the production chain of swine meat commodities. Journal of Food Protection, 68(5), 955–965. 10.4315/0362-028X-68.5.955 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Ruiz‐Capillas, C. , & Herrero, A. (2019). Impact of biogenic amines on food quality and safety. Foods, 8(2), 62. 10.3390/foods8020062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Santos, M. H. S. (1996). Biogenic amines: Their importance in foods. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 29(2–3), 213–231. 10.1016/0168-1605(95)00032-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Stefańska, I. , Kwiecień, E. , Jóźwiak‐Piasecka, K. , Garbowska, M. , Binek, M. , & Rzewuska, M. (2021). Antimicrobial susceptibility of lactic acid bacteria strains of potential use as feed additives—the basic safety and usefulness criterion. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 687071. 10.3389/fvets.2021.687071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Suhonen, A. (2019). Antibiotic susceptibility of lactic acid bacteria. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:hulib‐201905081914 [Google Scholar]
  71. Sutcliffe, J. , Grebe, T. , Tait‐Kamradt, A. , & Wondrack, L. (1996). Detection of erythromycin‐resistant determinants by PCR. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 40(11), 2562–2566. 10.1128/AAC.40.11.2562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Tagg, J. R. , & McGiven, A. R. (1971). Assay system for bacteriocins. Applied Microbiology, 21(5), 943. 10.1128/am.21.5.943-943.1971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Takebe, Y. , Takizaki, M. , Tanaka, H. , Ohta, H. , Niidome, T. , & Morimura, S. (2016). Evaluation of the biogenic amine‐production ability of lactic acid bacteria isolated from tofu‐misozuke. Food Science and Technology Research, 22(5), 673–678. 10.3136/fstr.22.673 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Teixeira, C. G., da Silva, R. R., Fusieger, A., Martins, E., Freitas, R. de, & de Carvalho, A. F. (2021). O gênero Weissella na indústria de alimentos: Uma revisão. Research, Society and Development, 10(5), e8310514557. 10.33448/rsd-v10i5.14557 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Teixeira, C. G. , Fusieger, A. , Milião, G. L. , Martins, E. , Drider, D. , Nero, L. A. , & de Carvalho, A. F. (2021). Weissella: An emerging bacterium with promising health benefits. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, 13(4), 915–925. 10.1007/s12602-021-09751-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Thumu, S. C. R. , & Halami, P. M. (2012). Presence of erythromycin and tetracycline resistance genes in lactic acid bacteria from fermented foods of Indian origin. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 102(4), 541–551. 10.1007/s10482-012-9749-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Toomey, N. , Bolton, D. , & Fanning, S. (2010). Characterisation and transferability of antibiotic resistance genes from lactic acid bacteria isolated from Irish pork and beef abattoirs. Research in Microbiology, 161(2), 127–135. 10.1016/j.resmic.2009.12.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Trias, R. , & Bañeras, L. (2008). Lactic acid bacteria from fresh fruit and vegetables as biocontrol agents of phytopathogenic bacteria and fungi. International Microbiology, 11, 231–236. 10.2436/20.1501.01.66 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Van der Auwera, G. A. , Andrup, L. , & Mahillon, J. (2005). Conjugative plasmid pAW63 brings new insights into the genesis of the Bacillus anthracis virulence plasmid pXO2 and of the Bacillus thuringiensis plasmid pBT9727. BMC Genomics, 6(1), 103. 10.1186/1471-2164-6-103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Wang, K., Zhang, H., Feng, J., Ma, L., de la Fuente‐Núñez, C., Wang, S., & Lu, X. (2019). Antibiotic resistance of lactic acid bacteria isolated from dairy products in Tianjin, China. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 1, 100006. 10.1016/j.jafr.2019.100006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Yu, H.‐S. , Lee, N.‐K. , Choi, A.‐J. , Choe, J.‐S. , Bae, C. H. , & Paik, H.‐D. (2019). Antagonistic and antioxidant effect of probiotic Weissella cibaria JW15. Food Science and Biotechnology, 28(3), 851–855. 10.1007/s10068-018-0519-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Food Science & Nutrition are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES