The effects of supplementation of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus coagulans spores on the intestinal microflora and growth performance in rat (2024)

Journal List
Iran J Microbiol
v.11(3); 2019 Jun
PMC6711872

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice

Iran J Microbiol. 2019 Jun; 11(3): 260–266.

PMCID: PMC6711872

PMID: 31523411

Somaye Mazkour, Seyed Shahram Shekarforoush,^* and Sara Basiri

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

Abstract

Background and Objectives:

The intestinal microflora has an important role in the health status. Since probiotics can balance the intestinal microflora, they have a lot of health beneficial effects. So the appropriate selection of probiotics can cause health-promoting effects. In this study, the combined effects of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus coagulans on the intestinal microflora and growth performance in rats were investigated.

Materials and Methods:

80 male rats were divided into the treatment (receiving 5×10⁷ spores/ml of B. subtilis and 5×10⁷ spores/ml of B. coagulans for three weeks in daily water) and control (tap water without probiotics) groups. The total aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), coliforms and spores were weekly counted in the fecal samples. Additionally, the water and feed consumption, the weight gain and Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) were calculated for each week.

Results:

The probiotics significantly increased the total aerobic, LAB and spore counts and caused significant reduction in the anaerobe and coliform counts. Following three weeks of probiotic administration, the number of anaerobic bacteria, and coliforms were reduced by up to 0.7 and 1.18 log and the number of aerobic bacteria, LAB and spores were increased by 1.29, 1.15 and 7.2 log respectively. Also, the results showed the feed consumption reduction, weight gain and FCR enhancement in the probiotic group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion:

Supplementation the spores of B. subtilis and B. coagulans improved the growth performance and was beneficial to the intestinal microbiota in rats.

Keywords: Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus coagulans, Intestinal microflora, Feed conversion ratio

INTRODUCTION

The intestinal microflora and their productions are effective in the health (1). They make a primary barrier that protects the body from pathogens (2, 3), but various diseases disrupt the balance of the normal intestine microflora (3). Probiotics, mostly lactic acid bacteria such as lactobacilli and bifidobacteria reduce intestinal infectious diseases (4, 5). Probiotics are living microorganisms that at specific concentrations have beneficial effects on human health by improving the intestinal microbial balance (6, 7). They also prevent the colonization of pathogenic bacteria in the digestive tract, compete for nutrients and adhesion receptors, and stimulate host immunity (4, 6, 8, 9). Various species of Bacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus, Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, Streptococcus as well as some yeasts such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been used as probiotics. These are very useful even in comparison with antibiotics (10–13). Spores of Bacillus spp. commercially used as probiotics, and unlike Lactobacillus spp., they are dormant (13). Spore former probiotics, as compared to non-spore formers, have some advantages such as resistance to gastric acid. Accordingly, they will be able to pass through the stomach, and in a concentration similar to the initial concentration will enter the intestine. But active probiotics are susceptible to gastric acid and bile salts, and their numbers decrease in the gastrointestinal tract (14–17). Therefore, spore species are of great importance due to the high vitality of spores (18). Some researchers have evaluated the effects of spore forming and non-spore forming probiotics on intestinal microbiota. Most of them have shown that probiotics enhance the beneficial bacteria such as lactic acid bacteria and reduce the harmful ones such as coliforms in the intestine by more than 1 log cycle (17, 19). The Bacillus genus has potentially useful metabolic substances and enzymatic ability. As endospore formers, they are also resistant microorganisms and survive in a variety of food products compared to the more typical probiotic species (20). The most comprehensively investigated species of spore-forming Bacillus include B. licheniformis, B. clausii, B. coagulans, B. cereus and B. subtilis (21). Of hundreds of known Bacillus spp., only B. coagulans and B. subtilis var. natto have generally been accepted as admissible probiotics for human consumption. Some of the beneficial effects of these species are individually examined. B. subtilis var. natto is believed to stimulate the immune system, pose anti-cancer properties and produce vitamin K2 and B. coagulans was described as an aid for the absorption and utilization of proteins (22–24). Also, B. subtilis improved the feed conversion ratio (FCR) and average weight gain in the broiler chicken (25, 26). However, combination effects of Bacillus spp. spores have not been investigated enough before. Haldar and Gandhi examined the effect of oral administration of B. coagulans and B. pumilus on intestinal microflora (17). So, we conducted this study to evaluate the in vivo effects of spores of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus coagulans in combination on the normal intestinal microflora and growth performance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Preparation of probiotic bacteria.

Spray dried dextrose powder containing 10¹⁰ spores per gram of B. subtilis (PRM102) and B. coagulans (PRM101) were donated by the Pardis Roshd Mehregan Company, Iran. To confirm the spore concentrations of the probiotics, one gram of each powder was dissolved in 100 ml tap water (10⁸ spores/ ml) and heated at 80°C for 15 min, to kill the vegetative cells, and surface plating after tenfold serial dilution was prepared on the Plate Count Agar (Merck, Germany). Fresh spore suspensions at the concentration of 5×10⁷ of each spores/ml was prepared daily in 200 ml tap water.

Experimental design.

In this experimental study, 80 male Spargue-Dawley rats weightening 170–190 gr were procured from Department of Animal Lab, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran. They were housed in plastic cages and kept under 12-hour light/ dark condition, temperature of 20–25°C, humidity of 50–60%, and free access to food and water in order to adaptation to the new environment. The animals were fed with commercially standard pellet.

After an acclimatization period of 1 week, they were randomly divided into two groups (each group consists of 10 subgroups- 4 rats in each subgroup). Control group: Received water containing 1% dextrose for 3 weeks. Probiotic group: Receiving water containing 5×10⁷ spores/ml of B. subtilis and 5×10⁷ spore/ml of B. coagulans for 3 weeks.

Growth and diet indexes.

The rats were weighted every week and water and feed consumption was measured every week for each cage to evaluate the effect of B. subtilis and B. coagulans in combination on growth performance. Finally the feed conversion ratio (FCR) was calculated for each subgroup weekly by using the following equation (27):

$\begin{array}{l} FCR = Average feed intake per subgroup per week \\ (g) / Average weight gain per subgroup per week (g) \end{array}$

Intestinal microflora analysis.

On days 0, 7, 14 and 21, a pooled fecal sample from the rats in each subgroup was taken. Just after collection, each subgroup’s fecal sample was weighed and hom*ogenized in sterile phosphate buffer saline (PBS), and then, tenfold serial dilution was made in PBS. Aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms were cultured in Plate Count Agar (Merck, Germany). Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) were cultured in MRS (de Man, Rogosa, Sharpe) agar (Merck, Germany). Coliforms were cultured in VRBL (Violet Red Bile Lactose) agar (Merck, Germany). LAB and anaerobic bacteria were incubated at anaerobic condition. All plates were incubated at 37°C for 48 h. The microflora enumeration was expressed as CFU/gr of feces. In order to count bacterial spores in fecal samples, the hom*ogenized samples in PBS were put into a water bath at 80°C for 10 min, and then cooled immediately to help the spore germination. Then the samples were serially diluted in PBS and cultured in Plate Count Agar (Merck, Germany). The plates were incubated at 37°C for 48 h. The spore enumeration was expressed as spores/gr. All the samples were cultured in duplicate (17, 19).

Ethical approval.

The trial was permitted by the commission on animal ethics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran (Ethical approved number: 1395/9234308).

Statistical analysis.

The results were analyzed using analysis of variance and the statistical significance of differences between mean values was analyzed by Duncan’s multiple range tests. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analysis was performed using the statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software (SPSS 16 for windows, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA).

RESULTS

Growth and diet indexes.

The rats were weighted every week and water and feed consumption was measured for each cage and the FCR for each cage was calculated. The results are shown in Table 1. Consumption of B. subtilis and B. coagulans caused a significant enhancement in the weight gain in rats after two weeks. At the 3^rd week it was 58.5 in control group versus 64.7 in probiotic group. The amount of feed intake decreased after one week of consumption. The difference between goups was about 14.5 gr for each rat per week. After three weeks of treatment, FCR in the probiotic group was significantly lower than the control group (p < 0.05). Although, the administration of B. subtilis and B. coagulans did not have a significant effect on the amount of water intake (p > 0.05), it was significantly reduced the food intake in the second and third weeks of the study (p < 0.05).

Table 1.

The amount (mean±SD) of feed intake, weight gain, feed conversion ratio (FCR) and water consumption per subgroup (4 rats) in control and probiotic groups during three weeks of treatment.

Factors	Weeks	Groups

		Control	Probiotic
Feed intake (gr/week)	1	534.8±33.4^a	500.6±41.3^a
	2	563.0±23.3^a	518.4±29.0^b
	3	593.4±45.1^a	520.6±27.0^b
Weight gain (gr/week)	1	46.2±4.0^a	48.7±2.5^a
	2	54.4±5.1^a	54.5±3.7^a
	3	58.5±3.7^a	64.7±2.8^b
FCR	1	11.7±1.4^a	10.3±1.1^b
	2	10.4±1.0^a	9.5±0.7^a
	3	10.2±1.0^a	8.2±0.7^b
Water consumption (ml/week)	1	1282.0±148.5^a	1283.3±93.5^a
	2	1302.0±176.7^a	1277.8±106.4^a
	3	1261.0±214.1^a	1288.9±105.4^a

Open in a separate window

Control: Received water for 3 weeks. Probiotic: Receiving water containing 5×10⁷ spores/ml of B. subtilis and 5×10⁷ spores/ml of B. coagulans for 3 weeks; The different letters indicate significant differences between groups (p < 0.05)

Intestinal microflora analysis.

At days 0, 7, 14 and 21 of treatment, total aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms, LAB, coliforms and spores in the fecal samples were counted. The results are shown in Figs. 1–5. Spore of B. subtilis and B. coagulans as probiotics, led to increase the total aerobic, LAB and spore counts significantly (p < 0.05). As the logarithm of total count of aerobic, LAB and spore in the last week were 9.76±0.83, 10.36±0.45 and 12.31±0.46 in order in probiotic group while they were respectively 8.47±0.42, 9.21±0.46, 5.11±0.23 in control group. Also, these probiotics caused decrease in anaerobe and coliform counts (p < 0.05). As the logarithms of total count of anaerobic and coliform were 8.06±0.33 and 5.1±0.17 in probiotic group while they were 8.76±0.35 and 6.28±0.33 in control group, respectively (p < 0.05).

Open in a separate window

Fig. 1.

The logarithm of aerobic bacterial count in fecal samples of rat in control (○) and probiotic (●) groups. Different letters indicate significant differences between groups in each day (p < 0.05). Control: Received water for 3 weeks. Probiotic: Receiving water containing 5×10⁷ spores/ml of B. subtilis and 5×10⁷ spores/ml of B. coagulans for 3 weeks

Open in a separate window

Fig. 5.

DISCUSSION

In the present study, addition of probiotics B. subtilis and B. coagulans in daily water caused significant enhancement of weight gain and decrease the feed intake. The FCR reduction which observed in this study suggests an improved intestinal balance of microbial population. Probiotics, improve the absorbtion of nutrients by stimulating the growth of beneficial bacteria and producing a healthier intestinal system (28, 29). Jager et al. showed that B. coagulans enhanced the absorption and utilization of proteins (24). In agreement with our findings, many studies showed that probiotics improve the FCR. For instance B. subtilis improve the FCR and average weight gain in the broiler chicken (25, 26). Also, B. coagulans improve the FCR in broiler chicken (19). Moreover, a mixture of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, Aspergillus and Candida in broiler chicken increased the weight gain (30). B. cereus var. toyoi also increased average daily gain and body weight (31). Abdel Hamid et al. (2013) showed that Lactobacillus spp. enhanced the performance and decrease the mortality in contrast of antibiotics (32).

As mentioned before, spore of probiotics are resistance to gastric acid, so they will be able to pass through the stomach, and in a concentration similar to the initial concentration will enter the intestine (14). In the current study, B. subtilis and B. coagulans as probiotics, leaded to increase the total aerobic, lactic acid bacteria and spore counts and they decreased the anaerobe and coliform count. The Bacillus spores germinate in the gut (particularly in jejunum and ileum), proliferate, able to grow and resporulate (13, 33), and this cause the enhancement in aerobic and spore enumeration. The mechanisms by which probiotics exert biological effects are still poorly understood, but the nonspecific terms such as colonization resistance or competitive exclusion, antimicrobial substances, immunostimulatory effect, prevention of intestinal inflammation, and stimulation of growth of intestinal normal flora explain their mode of action (34, 35). Jin et al. (1996) showed that consumption of B. subtilis in feed as probiotic significantly increase the LAB and decrease the E. coli counts after 2 weeks of consumption and in 2011, Lin et al. resulted these changes for B. coagulans (19, 36). In contrast, another study showed that B. subtilis has no effect on the LAB and coliform numbers in turkey poults (37). While another study showed that B. coagulans and B. pumilusi are acid and bile tolerant, and as probiotics they reduced the fecal coliforms and enhanced the Lactobacillus spp. and spores of Bacillus spp. (17). LAB send signals to activate immune cells, so they induce good mucosal immunostimulation without inducing side effects such as bacterial translocation or a strong inflammatory immune response (38). Our findings showed that B. subtilis and B. coagulans as probiotic enhances LAB counts which is present in the intestinal tract of many animals and they have positive effect on protecting against intestinal pathophysiology (39). The intestinal microbiota limits the pathogens such as Salmonella infection, mechanism referred to as colonization resistance (40).

CONCLUSION

B. subtilis and B. coagulans as probiotic cause beneficial effects on the intestinal microflora. As they increase the count of beneficial bacteria such as lactic acid bacteria and decrease the harmful ones such as coliforms, it can be recommended to use in food products as prevention way to reduce the foodborne disease.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was financially supported by Shiraz University which is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to thank the staff of the Department of Food Hygiene and Public Health, School of Veterinary Medicine, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. Also, the authors very much appreciate the help of Dr. Javad Sajedianfard, Department of Basic Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran for supporting this study.

REFERENCES

1. Bengmark S, Jeppson B.Gastrointestinal surface protection and mucosa reconditioning. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr1995; 19: 410–415. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Cumming J, Macfarlane G.The control and consequences of bacterial fermentation in the human colon. J Appl Bacteriol1991; 70: 443–459. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Salminen S, Isolauri E, Onnela T.Gut flora in normal and disordered state. Chemotherapy1995; 41 Suppl 1:5–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Elmer G, Surawicz C, McFarland L.Biotherapeutic agents, A neglected modality for the treatment and prevention of selected intestinal and vagin*l infections. JAMA1996; 275: 870–876. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Salminen S, Isolauri E, Salminen E.Clinical uses of probiotics for stabilizing the gut mucosal barrier: Successful strains and future challenges. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek1996; 70: 347–358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Fuller R.Probiotics in man and animals. J Appl Bacteriol1989; 66: 365–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Araya M, Morelli L, Reid G, Sanders ME, Stanton C.Joint FAO/WHO Working Group Report on Guidelines for the Evaluation of Probiotics in Food London, Ontario, 2002. [Google Scholar]

8. Fuller R, Gibson GR.Modification of the intestinal microflora using probiotics and prebiotics. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl1997; 222: 28–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Tannock GW. (1999). Probiotics: a critical review. Horizon Scientific Press, Norfolk, United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]

10. Endo T, Nakano M.Influence of a probiotic on productivity, meat components, lipid metabolism, caecal flora and metabolites, and raising environment in broiler production. Animal Sci J1999; 70: 207–218. [Google Scholar]

11. Mahajan V, Muller E, Wind J. (2000). New product diffusion models, New York. [Google Scholar]

12. Simon O, Jadamu A, Vahjen W.Probiotics feed additives-effectiveness and expected modes of action. J Anim Feed Sci2001; 10: S51–SS67. [Google Scholar]

13. Casula G, Cutting SM.Bacillus probiotics: Spore germination in the gastrointestinal tract. Appl Environ Microbiol2002; 68: 2344–2352. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Spinosa MR, Braccini T, Ricca E, De Felice M, Morelli L, Pozzi G, et al.On the fate of ingested Bacillus spores. Res Microbiol2000; 151: 361–368. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Barbosa TM, Serra CR, La Ragione RM, Woodward MJ, Henriques AO.Screening for Bacillus isolates in the broiler gastrointestinal tract. Appl Environ Microbiol2005; 71: 968–978. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Cutting SM.Bacillus probiotics. Food Microbiol2011; 28: 214–220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Haldar L, Gandhi DN.Effect of oral administration of Bacillus coagulans B37 and Bacillus pumilus B9 strains on fecal coliforms, Lactobacillus and Bacillus spp. in rat animal model. Vet World2016; 9: 766–772. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Farmer S. (2008). Inhibition of pathogens by probiotic bacteria. US, Patent No 6849256 B1.

19. Lin SY, Hung ATY, Lu JJ.Effect of supplement with different level of Bacillus coagulans as probiotics on growth performance and intestinal microflora population of broiler chickens. J Anim Vet Adv2011; 10: 111–114. [Google Scholar]

20. Schultz M, Burton JP, Chanyi RM. (2017). Chapter 11-Use of Bacillus in human intestinal probiotic applications. In: Floch MH, Rngel Y, Walker WA. (ed) The Microbiota in Gastrointestinal Pathophysiology, 1st ednElsevier, Amsterdam, pp 119–123. [Google Scholar]

21. Shahcheraghi SH, Ayatollahi J, Lotfi M.Applications of Bacillus subtilis as an important bacterium in medical sciences and human life. Trop J Med Res2015; 18: 1–4. [Google Scholar]

22. Inooka S, Uehara S, Kimura M.The effect of Bacillus natto on the T and B. lymphocytes from spleens of feeding chickens. Poult Sci1986; 65: 1217–1219. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Tsukamoto Y, Kasai M, Kakuda H.Construction of a Bacillus subtilis (natto) with high productivity of vitamin K2 (menaquinone-7) by analog resistance. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem2001; 65: 2007–2015. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Jager R, Purpura M, Farmer S, Cash HA, Keller D.Probiotic Bacillus coagulans GBI-30, 6086 improves protein absorption and utilization. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins2018; 10: 611–615. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Fritis CA, Kersey JH, Motl MA, Kroger EC, Yan F, Si J, et al.Bacillus subtilis C-3102 (Calsporin) Improves Live Performance and Microbiological Status of Broiler Chickens. J Appl Poultry Res2000; 9: 149–155. [Google Scholar]

26. Knap I, Kehlet AB, Bennedsen M, Mathis GF, Hofacre CL, Lumpkins BS, et al.Bacillus subtilis (DSM17299) significantly reduces Salmonella in broilers. Poult Sci2011; 90: 1690–1694. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Wolfenden RE, Pumford NR, Morgan MJ, Shivaramaiah S, Wolfenden AD, Pixley CM, et al.Evaluation of selected direct-fed microbial candidates on live performance and Salmonella reduction in commercial turkey brooding houses. Poult Sci2011; 90: 2627–2631. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Rada V, Rychly I.The effect of Lactobacillus salivarius administration on coliform bacteria and enterococci in the crop and cecum of broiler chickens. Vet Med (Praha)1995; 40: 311–315. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Salminen S, Bouley C, Boutron-Ruault MC, Cummings JH, Franck A, Gibson GR, et al.Functional food science and gastrointestinal physiology and function. Br J Nutr1998; 80: S147–S171. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Okuneye OJ, Ogunfolabo LA, Fasanmi OG, Adekunle OF, Oloso NO.Performance and physiological responses of Salmonella Enteritidis challenged broilers fed diets containing antibiotic, probiotic and aromabiotic. JDVAR2016; 3: 1–6. [Google Scholar]

31. Vila B, Fontgibell A, Badiola I, Esteve-Garcia E, Jimenez G, Castillo M, et al.Reduction of Salmonella enterica var. Enteritidis colonization and invasion by Bacillus cereus var. toyoi inclusion in poultry feeds. Poult Sci2009; 88: 975–979. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Abdel Hamid FMM, El-Gohary FA, Risha EF.Incorporation efficacy comparison of probiotic and antibiotic on growth performance, some immunological and biochemical parameters in salmonella entertidis challenged chicks. Life Sci2013; 10: 3549–3558. [Google Scholar]

33. Tam NK, Uyen NQ, Hong HA, Duc le H, Hoa TT, Serra CR, et al.The intestinal life cycle of Bacillus subtilis and close relatives. J Bacteriol2006; 188: 2692–2700. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Elo M, Saxelin S, Salminen S.Attachment of Lactobacillus casei strain GG to human colon carcinoma cell line Caco-2: Comparison with other dairy strains. Lett Appl Microbiol2008; 13: 154–156. [Google Scholar]

35. Leser TD, Knarreborg A, Worm J.Germination and outgrowth of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus licheniformis spores in the gastrointestinal tract of pigs. J Appl Microbiol2008; 104: 1025–1033. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Jin LZ, Ho YW, Abdullah N, Jalaludin S.Influence of dried Bacillus subtilis and lactobacilli culture on intestinal microflora and performance in broilers. AJAS1996; 9: 397–404. [Google Scholar]

37. Wolfenden RE, Pumford NR, Morgan MJ, Shivaramaiah AD, Wolfenden AD, Pixley CM, et al.Evaluation of selected direct-fed microbial candidates on live performance and Salmonella reduction in commercial turkey brooding houses. Poult Sci2011; 90: 2627–2631. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Perdigon G, Fuller R, Raya R.Lactic acid bacteria and their effect on the immune system. Curr Issues Intest Microbiol2001; 2: 27–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Damaskos D, Kolios G.Probiotics and prebiotics in inflammatory bowel disease: microflora ‘on the scope. Br J Clin Pharmacol2008; 65: 453–467. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Wijburg OLC, Uren TK, Simpfendorfer K, Johansen FE, Brandtzaeg P, Strugnell RA.Innate secretory antibodies protect against natural Salmonella typhimurium infection. J Exp Med2006; 203: 21–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Iranian Journal of Microbiology are provided here courtesy of Tehran University of Medical Sciences