Pseudomonas putida as a potential biocontrol agent against Salmonella Java biofilm formation in the drinking water system of broiler houses.
Biocontrol
Biofilm model
Drinking water system
Pseudomonas putida
Salmonella Java
Social interactions
Journal
BMC microbiology
ISSN: 1471-2180
Titre abrégé: BMC Microbiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100966981
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 12 2020
11 12 2020
Historique:
received:
08
06
2020
accepted:
19
11
2020
entrez:
14
12
2020
pubmed:
15
12
2020
medline:
4
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Environmental biofilms can induce attachment and protection of other microorganisms including pathogens, but can also prevent them from invasion and colonization. This opens the possibility for so-called biocontrol strategies, wherein microorganisms are applied to control the presence of other microbes. The potential for both positive and negative interactions between microbes, however, raises the need for in depth characterization of the sociobiology of candidate biocontrol agents (BCAs). The inside of the drinking water system (DWS) of broiler houses is an interesting niche to apply BCAs, because contamination of these systems with pathogens plays an important role in the infection of broiler chickens and consequently humans. In this study, Pseudomonas putida, which is part of the natural microbiota in the DWS of broiler houses, was evaluated as BCA against the broiler pathogen Salmonella Java. To study the interaction between these species, an in vitro model was developed simulating biofilm formation in the drinking water system of broilers. Dual-species biofilms of P. putida strains P1, P2, and P3 with S. Java were characterized by competitive interactions, independent of P. putida strain, S. Java inoculum density and application order. When equal inocula of S. Java and P. putida strains P1 or P3 were simultaneously applied, the interaction was characterized by mutual inhibition, whereas P. putida strain P2 showed an exploitation of S. Java. Lowering the inoculum density of S. Java changed the interaction with P. putida strain P3 also into an exploitation of S. Java. A further increase in S. Java inhibition was established by P. putida strain P3 forming a mature biofilm before applying S. Java. This study provides the first results showing the potential of P. putida as BCA against S. Java in the broiler environment. Future work should include more complex microbial communities residing in the DWS, additional Salmonella strains as well as chemicals typically used to clean and disinfect the system.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Environmental biofilms can induce attachment and protection of other microorganisms including pathogens, but can also prevent them from invasion and colonization. This opens the possibility for so-called biocontrol strategies, wherein microorganisms are applied to control the presence of other microbes. The potential for both positive and negative interactions between microbes, however, raises the need for in depth characterization of the sociobiology of candidate biocontrol agents (BCAs). The inside of the drinking water system (DWS) of broiler houses is an interesting niche to apply BCAs, because contamination of these systems with pathogens plays an important role in the infection of broiler chickens and consequently humans. In this study, Pseudomonas putida, which is part of the natural microbiota in the DWS of broiler houses, was evaluated as BCA against the broiler pathogen Salmonella Java.
RESULTS
To study the interaction between these species, an in vitro model was developed simulating biofilm formation in the drinking water system of broilers. Dual-species biofilms of P. putida strains P1, P2, and P3 with S. Java were characterized by competitive interactions, independent of P. putida strain, S. Java inoculum density and application order. When equal inocula of S. Java and P. putida strains P1 or P3 were simultaneously applied, the interaction was characterized by mutual inhibition, whereas P. putida strain P2 showed an exploitation of S. Java. Lowering the inoculum density of S. Java changed the interaction with P. putida strain P3 also into an exploitation of S. Java. A further increase in S. Java inhibition was established by P. putida strain P3 forming a mature biofilm before applying S. Java.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides the first results showing the potential of P. putida as BCA against S. Java in the broiler environment. Future work should include more complex microbial communities residing in the DWS, additional Salmonella strains as well as chemicals typically used to clean and disinfect the system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33308162
doi: 10.1186/s12866-020-02046-5
pii: 10.1186/s12866-020-02046-5
pmc: PMC7731557
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biological Control Agents
0
Drinking Water
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
373Subventions
Organisme : Onderzoeksraad, KU Leuven
ID : CELSA/18/031
Organisme : Onderzoeksraad, KU Leuven
ID : C24/18/046
Références
Syst Appl Microbiol. 2005 Mar;28(2):87-114
pubmed: 15830802
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Apr 22;111(16):E1639-47
pubmed: 24715732
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 08;9(9):e107186
pubmed: 25198725
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Aug 6;116(32):15979-15984
pubmed: 31270235
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013 Jul;79(13):4106-14
pubmed: 23624481
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2012 Sep;36(5):972-89
pubmed: 22273363
J Appl Microbiol. 2017 Dec;123(6):1614-1627
pubmed: 28960713
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 Feb;22(2):110-121
pubmed: 26708671
Mol Microbiol. 2004 Jan;51(1):97-113
pubmed: 14651614
BMC Microbiol. 2019 Apr 15;19(1):77
pubmed: 30987581
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2016 Jul;363(13):
pubmed: 27190143
J Food Prot. 2011 Dec;74(12):2024-30
pubmed: 22186041
ISME J. 2017 Apr;11(4):972-987
pubmed: 28045455
Epidemiol Infect. 2004 Apr;132(2):239-43
pubmed: 15061498
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 26;9(9):e108598
pubmed: 25259528
J Appl Microbiol. 2017 Sep;123(3):651-660
pubmed: 28644912
FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2012 Jul;65(2):360-5
pubmed: 22448648
J Appl Microbiol. 2008 Jun;104(6):1586-96
pubmed: 18217930
BMC Vet Res. 2016 Sep 06;12(1):189
pubmed: 27600833
Trends Microbiol. 2016 Oct;24(10):833-845
pubmed: 27546832
J Bacteriol. 2015 Jul;197(13):2122-2128
pubmed: 25733620
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Dec;69(12):7336-42
pubmed: 14660383
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1993 Jul;59(7):2197-203
pubmed: 8357253
J Food Prot. 2002 Jul;65(7):1110-6
pubmed: 12117243
Science. 2001 Apr 20;292(5516):504-7
pubmed: 11283355
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998 Feb;64(2):733-41
pubmed: 9464415
J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011 Jan;38(1):133-40
pubmed: 20811926
Poult Sci. 2009 Dec;88(12):2695-701
pubmed: 19903970
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010 Apr;35(4):322-32
pubmed: 20149602
ISME J. 2018 Aug;12(8):2061-2075
pubmed: 29858577
Nature. 2001 Jul 5;412(6842):72-6
pubmed: 11452308
J Food Prot. 1995 Nov;58(11):1186-1191
pubmed: 31137317
J Microbiol Methods. 2000 Apr;40(2):175-9
pubmed: 10699673
PLoS Genet. 2015 Dec 08;11(12):e1005715
pubmed: 26647077
Front Microbiol. 2019 Apr 16;10:807
pubmed: 31057514
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002 Jan;49(1):11-2
pubmed: 11751760
Nature. 2016 Apr 25;533(7602):255-9
pubmed: 27111508
Biofouling. 2013;29(7):829-40
pubmed: 23837894
Crit Care Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):2433-40
pubmed: 18596628
J Food Prot. 1995 Dec;58(12):1340-1344
pubmed: 31159034
BMC Vet Res. 2009 May 27;5:20
pubmed: 19473515
Food Microbiol. 2009 Dec;26(8):853-9
pubmed: 19835771
Int J Food Microbiol. 2013 Nov 1;167(3):310-21
pubmed: 24184609
Environ Sci Technol. 2014 May 20;48(10):5467-76
pubmed: 24766451
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015 Dec 28;60(3):1676-86
pubmed: 26711774
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006 Oct;12(10):1034-6
pubmed: 16961644
Front Microbiol. 2017 Mar 22;8:447
pubmed: 28382027
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 May;72(5):3314-20
pubmed: 16672472
Annu Rev Genet. 2013;47:247-73
pubmed: 24016192
Epidemiol Infect. 2002 Oct;129(2):253-65
pubmed: 12403101
Food Res Int. 2017 Oct;100(Pt 1):63-73
pubmed: 28873730
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016 Sep;14(9):589-600
pubmed: 27452230
BMC Vet Res. 2010 Nov 02;6:48
pubmed: 21044298
Tijdschr Diergeneeskd. 2013 Feb 1;138(2):86-97, 99
pubmed: 23457917