Protective effects of Enterococcus faecium strain R30 supplementation on decreased muscle endurance under disuse in rats

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minoru Tanaka ◽  
Takuya Ikeji ◽  
Ryosuke Nakanishi ◽  
Takumi Hirabayashi ◽  
Kohei Ono ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takuya Ikeji ◽  
Yusuke Hirayama ◽  
Tomohiro Matsumoto ◽  
Kohei Ono ◽  
Miho Takuwa ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takashi Matono ◽  
Kayoko Hayakawa ◽  
Risen Hirai ◽  
Akira Tanimura ◽  
Kei Yamamoto ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alena Karaseva ◽  
Anna Tsapieva ◽  
Justin Pachebat ◽  
Alexander Suvorov

We report here the draft genome sequence of the bacteriocin producer Enterococcus faecium strain L-3, isolated from a probiotic preparation, Laminolact, which is widely used in the Russian Federation. The draft genome sequence is composed of 74 contigs for a total of 2,643,001 bp, with 2,646 coding genes. Five clusters for bacteriocin production were found.


2018 ◽  
Vol 203 ◽  
pp. 78-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henriette Loss ◽  
Jörg R. Aschenbach ◽  
Friederike Ebner ◽  
Karsten Tedin ◽  
Ulrike Lodemann

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joran E. Michiels ◽  
Bram Van den Bergh ◽  
Maarten Fauvart ◽  
Jan Michiels

2019 ◽  
Vol 366 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Line Skjøt-Rasmussen ◽  
Dorthe Sandvang ◽  
Alfred Blanch ◽  
Jette Mundus Nielsen ◽  
Tina Styrishave ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 346 (17) ◽  
pp. 2816-2819 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Bychowska ◽  
Christian Theilacker ◽  
Małgorzata Czerwicka ◽  
Kinga Marszewska ◽  
Johannes Huebner ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 345-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
I.C. Starke ◽  
R. Pieper ◽  
K. Neumann ◽  
J. Zentek ◽  
W. Vahjen

Pregnant gilts were fed the probiotic Enterococcus faecium NCIMB10415 (SF68) one month before birth of piglets. DNA extracts of sow faeces taken in weekly intervals as well as extracts from the intestine of their offspring during the suckling period at 12 and 26 days of life were analysed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and quantitative PCR. DGGE profiles of faecal bacterial communities from three out of six probiotic-fed sows were distinctly different from the control and other probiotic-fed sows at all time points after probiotic supplementation. The probiotic-fed sows and their offspring were therefore divided into non-responder (n=3) and responder (n=3) groups. The probiotic strain significantly increased faecal lactobacilli cell numbers in mother sows, which could be assigned to a significant increase of Lactobacillus amylovorus and Lactobacillus acidophilus. Responding sows showed a more pronounced increase than non-responding sows. Similarly, suckling piglets from non-responding and responding sows showed numeric and significant differences for different bacterial groups and species. DGGE profiles of suckling piglets from responding sows also grouped more closely than profiles from control animals. Non-metric multiscaling of suckling piglets showed the same tendency for suckling piglets, but not for post-weaning piglets. This study showed that the probiotic E. faecium strain modified the faecal microbiota of sows. This modification is carried over to their offspring, but leads to changes that do not mirror the quantitative composition in the mother sow. Individual variations in the bacterial composition of mother sows before probiotic feed intake may influence the impact of a probiotic in sows and their offspring.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document