ARTICLE

Antimicrobial Efficacy of Leuconostoc spp. Isolated from Indian Meat against Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes in Spinach Leaves

Gokila Thangavel1,*https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3059-9347, Thiruvengadam Subramaniyam2https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0275-1767
Author Information & Copyright
1Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641046, India
2Rajalakshmi Engineering College, Chennai, India
*Corresponding author : Gokila Thangavel Bharathiar, University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641046, India. Tel: +91 9791011845 E-mail: Gokila.t@gmail.com

© Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Mar 14, 2019 ; Revised: Jul 03, 2019 ; Accepted: Aug 07, 2019

Published Online: Aug 31, 2019

Abstract

Five Leuconostoc strains (CM17, CM19, PM30, PM32, and PM36) previously isolated from Indian meat showed promising antimicrobial activity against food pathogens in screening assay. This study evaluates the efficacy of these isolates against Escherichia coli Microbial Type Culture Collection and Gene Bank (MTCC) 443 and Listeria monocytogenes (MTCC 657) in spinach leaves. Challenge studies were conducted by inoculating E. coli and L. monocytogenes at 6 to 7 Log10 CFU/g of the leaves respectively and treating them with cell free supernatant (CFS) of 48 h cultures of the isolates. The samples were stored at 4°C and analyzed over a period of 5 d. The study was conducted in triplicates and statistical analysis was carried out using one-way Anova. The counts of the pathogens did not increase over the 5 d period in the control samples, without any treatment. Whereas in the case of CFS treatments, significant reduction (p<0.05) was observed in both E. coli and L. monocytogenes from 1 to 5 d with all the 5 strains as compared to the control. The counts of Listeria dropped by 0.5 to 1 log by 5 d, with PM 36 showing the highest reduction (1 log). In the case of E. coli, 1.1 to 1.5 log reduction was observed by 5 d, with again PM 36 showing the highest reduction (1.5). The overall results indicate that the isolates (specifically PM36) not only showed efficacy in in vitro studies but are also proved to be effective in food matrix making them potential clean label antimicrobial alternatives for food application.

Keywords: Leuconostoc; Escherichia coli; Listeria; meat; antimicrobial

Introduction

Several interventions are being used in food processing and production industry to control food contamination by pathogens. Food pathogens pose a serious problem to the health of the human kind. World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that 420,000 people die every year due to contamination food (WHO fact sheet 2017). Bacteria contribute to 90% of the deaths due to food poisoning under which Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli are responsible for 31% of the cases. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported 21 recalls due to L. monocytogenes and 9 recalls for Shiga-toxin producing E. coli (STEC) in 2018 in the US which has led to 4, 415, 454 pounds of product being recalled (USDA recall summary, 2018). There has been an increase in the number of contamination and prevalence of these pathogens in fresh produce including spinach. Recall of organic spinach and spring mix in 2012 due to STEC contamination in the US (CDC report, 2012) and recall of baby spinach in Canada due to L. monocytogenes in 2018 (Canadian Food Inspection Agency report, 2018) has caused significant loss and health issues to people.

Current measures to eliminate contamination of food by pathogens including heating, refrigeration, freezing, modified packaging, antimicrobial washes and addition of antimicrobials in the finished product. Most of the antimicrobials being used to control food contamination are synthetic and have limitations on efficacy. Also, as consumers are becoming aware of the ingredients, they seek for safe products with clean label antimicrobials.

Several strategies and approaches are being followed to develop clean label antimicrobial for food application including use of plant extracts (Hintz et al., 2015), essential oils for plants and plant products (Pandey et al., 2017) and use of beneficial microbes (Cleveland et al., 2001; Yang et al., 2014). Use of normal commensals and beneficial microbes from the environment and food sources have been studied and evaluated extensively. Food has been a good source of these beneficial microbes with activity against food pathogens (Zaid, 2018). A major portion of the beneficial microbes isolated from food belong to the class lactic acid bacteria which produce multiple antimicrobial compounds including organic acid and bacteriocins. Lactic acid bacteria isolated from food are reported to possess antimicrobial activity against E. coli and L. monocytogenes (Arques et al., 2015). Leuconostoc spp. which falls under the lactic acid bacteria groups are also known to be effective against E. coli, L. monocytogenes, Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi and S. enterica serovar Typhimurium (Giles-Golmez et al., 2016; Benmechernene et al., 2013). Leuconostoc spp. have been isolated from several foods including such as chill-stored and fermented meats, vegetables, and dairy products (Liu et al., 2016). They have also been isolated from meat processing plants (Goto et al., 2003; Nissen et al., 1994).

Previously, Leuconostoc spp. have been isolated from chicken and pork samples from Indian (Thangavel et al., 2019) which showed promising results against E. coli, L. monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus and S. Typhimurium. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of the Leuconostoc isolates in controlling E. coli and L. monocytogenes in spinach stored at 4°C for a period of 5 d.

Materials and Methods

Experimental brief

Two challenge studies were conducted in spinach leaves with E. coli and L. monocytogenes. Spinach leaves were treated with cell free supernatants (CFSs) of the Leuconostoc isolates, then inoculated with the pathogen (E. coli and L. monocytogenes) and enumerated at regular intervals while stored at 4°C for 5 d. Each of the challenge study was conducted in triplicates with 2 sampling at each time point/replicate. The groups for the study included inoculated control with no antimicrobial treatment and 5 groups inoculated with pathogen and treated with CFS of the isolated. Detailed description of each of the step of the study, materials and methods are provided below.

Pathogens

The food-borne pathogens that were selected for the study were E. coli MTCC 443, and L. monocytogenes MTCC 657. The strains were procured from MTCC, India. The samples were received as freeze-dried cultured in glass vials. Upon receiving the samples, the cultures were sub-cultured by inoculating the samples into 10 mL of sterile Tryptone Soya Broth (TSB, HiMedia M641, Chennai, India) and incubating for 24 h at 37°C. After the incubation period, sterile 50% glycerol on deionized water was added with the cultures at 1:1 ratio to make a final concentration of 25% glycerol (Sigma Aldrich, G9012) in the glycerol culture stocks. The samples were transferred to cryovials and were frozen at −80°C until further use.

Inoculum preparation

The glycerol stock of the cultures (E. coli and L. monocytogenes) were thawed to room temperatures and 100 μL of strain from the stock were aseptically transferred to 10 mL of TSB broth and incubated at 37°C for 18–20 h. One hundred μL of the overnight culture was transferred again to 10 mL of TSB broth and incubated at 25°C for 18–20 h. After the incubation period, the cells were harvested by centrifugation (2,500×g, 20 min) and suspended in 10 mL of phosphate buffered saline pH 7.2 (PBS, HiMedia, M1452, Chennai, India). The working inoculum of the pathogens was prepared by diluting the cultures to achieve ~6 to 7 Log10 CFU/mL respectively. The counts of the working inoculum were verified by plating on to their selective media.

Leuconostoc isolates and cell-free supernatant (CFS) preparation

The Leuconostoc isolates designated as CM17, CM19, PM30, PM32, and PM36 were identified earlier as Lc. mesenteroides subsp. mesenteroides J18; CP003101, Lc. mesenteroides LM2, Lc. mesenteroides (T); ATCC 8293; CP000414, Lc. gelidum subsp. gasicomitatum LMG 18811; type strain: LMG 18811; FN822744 and Lc. mesenteroides; LM2; AY675249 respectively. Glycerol stocks of these isolates were passaged twice in De Man, Rogosa and Sharpe (MRS) broth (HiMedia, M369) and incubated for 24°C for 48 h. The samples were centrifuged at 2,500×g for 20 min to remove all cells and the CFSs were used for the antimicrobial treatment. The CFSs were stored in the refrigerator until use within the same day.

Spinach samples

Spinach leave samples (Semi-savoy type) were procured from the local vegetable market, they were cleaned with water to remove dirt, air drier to remove excess moisture. The leaves were packed in 25 g into Ziploc pouches and stored in refrigerator until use. The samples were inoculated with the pathogen on the same day.

Inoculation and treatment of the spinach samples

Twenty-five gram of the spinach leaves in the Ziploc pouches were inoculated with 250 μL of the working inoculum of either E. coli or Listeria. The pouches were hand massage gently to help with distribution of the inoculum over the leaves. The samples were allowed to stand for 60 min at room temperature to enable the attachment of the pathogens to the leaves. After 60 min, each of the groups was treated with 1 mL of one of Leuconostoc CFS. Control samples treated with only MRS broth was maintained to compare with the treatment groups.

Storage of the samples

Ziploc pouches containing the spinach leaves were stored at 4°C for 5 d and enumerated for the counts of pathogens at regular intervals. The samples were spread out in the refrigerator to enable uniformity in the temperature. This storage condition and duration was followed to mimic the typical consumers practice.

Enumeration of the spinach leaves for pathogens

The samples were enumerated for the counts of pathogens on 0, 1, 2, and 5 d of storage. Twenty-five milliliters of PBS was added to each of the pouch, hand massaged to facilitate the detachment of the cells and aliquots were serially diluted and plated using selective media for the pathogens. In the case of Listeria, Listeria Identification Agar Base (PALCAM, HiMedia M1064, Chennai, India) supplemented with Listeria Selective Supplement (PALCAM) (FD061) was used as the plating media whereas in the case of E. coli, Levine Eosin-Methylene Blue Agar Medium (EMB agar, Himedia MU022). Both PALCAM and EMB were incubated at 37°C for 24 to 48 h. After the incubation period, the colonies were counted and represented as Log10 colony forming unit CFU/mL of the rinse. Control samples of the leaves with no microbial inoculation were enumerated on 0 d to rule out any background contamination from the leaves. Two samples per group were tested per time period and the study was conducted in three replicates.

Statistical analysis

The data from the enumeration studies are reported as average Log10 CFU/mL of rinse±SD for three separate studies (n=3) conducted for each of challenge studies with E. coli and L. monocytogenes. Differences between the treatments and the untreated control were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the STATGRAPHICS© Centurion XV. All statistically significant differences in the study were reported at p<0.05 level.

Results and Discussion

Antimicrobial activity of the CFS against L. monocytogenes

Uninoculated control spinach leaves were plated on 0 d onto PALCAM agar to rule out any background Listeria contamination in the samples and the leaves were found to be free of Listeria. The study showed that L. monocytogenes did not grow significantly (p=0.4406) in the inoculated control samples when stored at 4°C for 5 d (Table 1). Despite the fact that Listeria can survive and thrive at refrigerated condition, there was no growth observed within the 5 d of testing period. This is in alignment with the previous observations (Carrasco et al., 2008) wherein a 5.6 d lag phase was observed with L.monocytogenes in ready-to-eat iceberg lettuce stored at 5°C. The longer time period would have witnessed growth of Listeria in the leaves, however, 5 d was chosen as it is the traditional shelf life of spinach. In the case of the leaves treated with the CFS of the Leuconostoc isolates, they did not show any difference (p=0.8621) in the counts of Listeria at 0 d as compared to the control. However, at 1, 2, and 5 d all the groups treated with the CFS showed significant reduction (p<0.05) in the Log10 CFU/mL of the rinse as compared to the control (Fig. 1, Table 1). The % of reduction in the counts ranged from 30.75% to 73.28% on 1 d reaching up to 64.16% to 89.95% on 5 d (Table 1). CFS of Leuconostoc isolate CM19 (Lc. mesenteroides LM2) showed the least reduction by the end of 5 d (64.19%) whereas isolates PM 30 (Lc. mesenteroides (T); ATCC 8293; CP000414) and PM32 (Lc. mesenteroides; LM2; AY675249) showed the highest reduction throughput the study period, with 85.75% and 89.95% respectively on 5 d. Earlier study by Nakamura et al. (2012) showed the inhibitory effect of Leuconostoc isolated from a fermented fish dish on L. monocytogenes infection in A/J mice and in Caco-2 cells. Similarly, Leuconostoc isolated from fresh fruits and vegetables were found to efficient in controlling Listeria in wounds of Golden Delicious apples and iceberg lettuce leaf cuts (Trias et al., 2008). One of the strain CM 160 was most effective resulting in a ten-fold reduction of the viable pathogen concentration (ED90) which is close to the efficacy observed with PM 36 (90% reduction).

kosfa-39-4-677-g1
Fig. 1. Antimicrobial activity of the cell free supernatant (CFS) of the Leuconostoc isolates against Listeria monocytogenes MTCC 657 and Escherichia coli MTTC 443 in spinach stored at 4°C for a period of 5 d. Values represented are average CFU/mL of the rinse±SD. n=3. EC in the graph refers to E. coli and LM to L. monocytogenes. MTCC, microbial type culture collection and gene bank.
Download Original Figure
Table 1. Antimicrobial activity of the cell free supernatant (CFS) of the Leuconostoc isolates against Listeria monocytogenes MTCC 657 in spinach stored at 4°C for a period of 5 days represented as average Log10 CFU/mL of rinse of the different groups at different time points
Groups Log10 CFU/mL of rinse1) % of reduction over control2)
0 d 1 d 2 d 5 d 0 d (%) 1 d (%) 2 d (%) 5 d (%)
Control 5.81± 0.08a,x 5.91±0.04a,x 5.89±0.08a,x 5.85±0.09a,x N/A N/A N/A N/A
CM17 CFS 5.7± 0.24a,x 5.38±0.16c,xy 5.42±0.04b,y 5.35±0.12bc,y 22.3 71.0 65.8 68.7
CM19 CFS 5.73±0.07a,x 5.75±0.13b,x 5.42±0.08b,y 5.41±0.03b,y 18.0 30.8 66.3 64.2
PM30 CFS 5.79±0.06a,x 5.35±0.10c,y 5.09±0.07bc,yz 5.01±0.014cd,z 6.2 72.9 84.1 85.8
PM32 CFS 5.76±0.11a,x 5.46±0.10c,y 5.39±0.07bc,y 5.28±0.06bcd,y 11.3 65.0 68.4 73.2
PM36 CFS 5.78±0.09a,x 5.34±0.29c,y 5.24±0.24c,y 4.86±0.07d,y 7.2 73.3 77.8 90.0

n=3, p<0.05.

1) Cells with different alphabets represent statistical difference.

a–d represents statistical difference between the groups at a specific testing period whereas

x–z represents statistical difference within a group over time.

2) The % of reduction represented for the antimicrobial treatment groups indicate % reduction over the control at a specific testing time point.

MTCC, microbial type culture collection and gene bank.

Download Excel Table

Statistical analysis of the counts of Listeria within the group over the testing period showed significant reduction from 1 d in all the groups treated with CFS except for CM 17 which showed reduction from 2 d. Within the groups that showed the efficacy from 1 d, no statistically significant difference was observed beyond 1 d expect from PM 30 which showed a gradual reduction over the entire testing period to reach 85.75% reduction by the end (Table 1).

Antimicrobial activity of the CFS against E. coli

Plating of the uninoculated control spinach leaves on 0 d for E. coli showed that the sample was free of the E. coli that could picked in the EMB agar. No statistically significant difference (p=0.2857) were observed in the count of E. coli in the inoculated control samples when stored at 4°C, over the 5 d testing period (Table 2). Leaves treated with the Leuconostoc CFSs, they did not show any difference (p=0.4037) in the counts of E. coli at 0 d as compared to the control. However, from 1 d all the antimicrobial treated groups showed significant reduction (p<0.05) in the Log10 CFU/mL of the rinse as compared to the control (Fig. 1, Table 2). The percentage of reduction in the counts ranged from 61.70% to 88.37% on 1 d reaching up to 79.69% to 97.35% on 5 d (Table 2). As observed with Listeria, CFS of Leuconostoc isolate CM19 showed the least reduction by the end of 5 d (79.69%) and isolates PM 30 and PM32 showed the highest reduction throughput the study period, with 95.21% and 97.35% respectively on day 5. Leuconostoc isolated from ground beef was found to inhibit E. coli O157 H7, S. aureus, Salmonella spp., L. monocytogenes, and spoilage bacteria Brochothrix thermosphacta in beef (Koo et al., 2015). The activity of the CFS of the isolate was attributed to organic acids produced by the isolates. Similarly, Lc. mesenteroides KCCM35046 fermented aged garlic extract were found to be effective in controlling E. coli in the excreta of chicken (Hossain et al., 2016).

Table 2. Antimicrobial activity of the cell free supernatant (CFS) of the Leuconostoc isolates against Escherichia coli MTTC 443 in spinach stored at 4°C for a period of 5 days represented as average Log10 CFU/mL of rinse of the different groups at different time points
Groups Log10 CFU/mL of rinse1) % of reduction over control2)
0 d 1 d 2 d 5 d 0 d (%) 1 d (%) 2 d (%) 5 d (%)
Control 7.29±0.10a,x 7.32±0.15a,x 7.41±0.13a,x 7.51±0.19a,x N/A N/A N/A N/A
CM17 CFS 7.16±0.05a,x 6.79±0.14bc,y 6.61±0.15b,y 6.52±0.16b,y 26.4 70.5 84.0 89.9
CM19 CFS 7.03±0.06a,x 6.90±0.08b,y 6.79±0.07b,y 6.82±0.04b,y 44.9 61.7 76.2 79.7
PM30 CFS 7.18±0.34a,x 6.67±0.17bc,y 6.45±0.62b,y 6.19±0.15b,y 23.5 77.7 89.0 95.2
PM32 CFS 6.97±0.06a,x 6.79±0.07bc,y 6.82±0.05b,y 6.56±0.09b,y 52.9 70.3 74.4 88.9
PM36 CFS 7.12±0.32a,x 6.38±0.01c,y 6.04±0.07b,y 5.94±0.04b,y 33.5 88.4 95.7 97.4

n=3, p<0.05.

1) Cells with different alphabets represent statistical difference.

a–c represents statistical difference between the groups at a specific testing period whereas

x,y represents statistical difference within a group over time.

2) The % of reduction represented for the antimicrobial treatment group indicates % reduction over the control at a specific testing time point.

Download Excel Table

The counts of Listeria within the group over the testing period showed significant reduction from 1 d in all the groups treated with CFS except for the control. No significant difference was observed in the counts in any of the groups beyond 1 d indicating that the inhibition was achieved with 24 h and no further statistical reduction was observed. However, numerical difference was observed after 1 d in all groups except for CM 19 (Table 2).

Over all, the study showed that the CFSs of the Leuconostoc isolates from Indian meat were able to reduce the counts of L. monocytogenes and E. coli in spinach leaves. PM 36 isolate (Lc. mesenteroides; LM2; AY675249) was found to be the most potent of all the isolates with 90 and 95% reduction in the pathogens at the end of 5 d. PM 32 (Lc. gelidum subsp. gasicomitatum LMG 18811) also showed high reduction in the pathogens.

Leuconostoc spp. isolated from different sources has been reported to possess antimicrobial activity by several researchers (Borges et al., 2019; Bellil et al., 2014). The antimicrobial activity of Leuconostoc have been attributed to production of organic acid (Koo et al., 2015) and bacteriocins (Hechard et al., 1992; Martinez et al., 2006). Several bacteriocins are being produced by Lc. mesenteroides, including Leucocin A-VAL 187, Leucocin A, Mesentericin YlOS, Bacteriocin ST33LD, Leucocyclicin Q (Masuda et al., 2011; Stiles et al.; 1994, Todorov et al., 2005). Use of Leuconostoc in food applications has been studied by Shi et al. (2016), where in the Leucocin K7 produced by Leuconostoc mesenteroides K7 isolated from fermented pickle was found to be effective in controlling L monocytogenes for a period of 7 d in milk. Similarly, novel bacteriocins isolated from Lc. mesenteroides spp. mesenteroides IMAU:10231 were found to be effective in Listeria control in Serbian Sremska sausages (Moracanin et al., 2013). Harding et al. (1990) demonstrated the efficacy of Leuconostoc gelidum against closely related species and L. monocytogenes. However, no efficacy was found against spore forming and other gram-positive bacteria like S. aureus. This is contrary to the promising results that we have obtained with our strain.

Leuconostoc spp. has been isolated from multiple and different habitats and they play an integral role in the fermentation of food. Leuconostocs are generally considered as GRAS (generally regarded as safe) organisms (Bjorkroth et al., 2014) as they are associated with food fermentation. However, some species of Leuconostoc have been associated with opportunistic infection (Kumudhan et al., 2004) in immune compromised patients and this microorganism can cause spoilage in some types of food matrices (de Paula et al., 2015).

Although these microbial strains may have a negative impact in food application due to their ability to cause food spoilage by slime, rope formation and imparting sourness, the CFSs can be a potential biopreservative to control food pathogens in food. This would be a potential clean label antimicrobial to replace existing synthetic antimicrobials in the food.

References

1.

Arques JL, Rodriguez E, Langa S, Landete JM, Medina M. 2015; Antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria in dairy products and gut: Effect on pathogens. BioMed Res Int. 2015:584183

2.

Bellil Y, Benmechernene Z, Chahrour W, Naoui N, Kihal M. 2014; Selection and evaluation of anti-listerial activity of Leuconostoc mesenteroides wild strains isolated from algerian raw dromedary milk. J Food Process Technol. 5:12

3.

Benmechernene Z, Chentouf HF, Yahia B, Fatima G, Quintela-Baluja M, Calo-Mata P, Barros-Velazquez J. 2013; Technological aptitude and applications of Leuconostoc mesenteroides bioactive strains isolated from Algerian raw camel milk. BioMed Res Int. 2013:418132

4.

Bjorkroth J, Dicks MTL, Endo A, Holzapfel AH. 2014; The genus Leuconostoc. In Lactic acid bacteria: Biodiversity and taxonomy. 1st ed. In: Holzapfel WH, Wood BJB, editors.(ed)John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken, NJ, USA: p. 351-404

5.

Borges DA, Matsuo MM, Bogsan CSB, da Silva TF, Casarotti SN, Penna ALB. 2019; Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. mesenteroides SJRP55 reduces Listeria monocytogenes growth and impacts on fatty acids profile and conjugated linoleic acid content in fermented cream. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 107:264-271

6.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Food safety warning - Dole brand baby spinach with tender reds recalled due to Listeria monocytogenes. Available fromhttp://www.inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/newsroom/food-recall-warnings/complete-listing/2018-08-08/eng/1533739123858/1533739125149 Accessed at Dec 21, 2018.

7.

Carrasco E, Perez-Rodriguez F, Valero A, Garcia-Gimeno RM, Zurera G. 2008; Growth of Listeria monocytogenes on shredded, ready-to-eat iceberg lettuce. Food Control. 19:487-494

8.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2012 Multistate outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections linked to organic spinach and spring mix blend (Final Update). Available fromhttps://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2012/o157h7-11-12/index.html Assessed at Mar 21, 2018.

9.

Cleveland J, Montville TJ, Nes IF, Chikindas ML. 2001; Bacteriocins: Safe, natural antimicrobials for food preservation. Int J Food Microbiol. 71:1-20

10.

De Paula AT, Jeronymo-Ceneviva AB, Todorov SD, Penna ALB. 2015; The two faces of Leuconostoc mesenteroides in food systems. Food Rev Int. 31:147-171

11.

Giles-Gomez M, Sandoval Garcia JG, Matus V, Campos Quintana I, Bolivar F, Escalante A. 2016; In vitro and in vivo probiotic assessment of Leuconostoc mesenteroides P45 isolated from pulque, a Mexican traditional alcoholic beverage. SpringerPlus. 5:708

12.

Goto S, Takahashi H, Kawasaki S, Kimura B, Fujii T, Nakatsuji M, Watanabe I. 2003; Detection of Leuconostoc strains at a meat processing plant using polymerase chain Reaction. J Food Hyg Soc. 45:25-28

13.

Harding CD, Shaw BG. 1990; Antimicrobial activity of Leuconostoc gelidum against closely related species and Listeria monocytogenes. J Appl Bacteriol. 69:648-654

14.

Hechard Y, Derijard B, Letellier F, Cenatiempo Y. 1992; Characterization and purification of mesentericin Y105, an anti-listeria bacteriocin from Leuconostoc mesenteroides. J Gen Microbiol. 138:2725-2731

15.

Hintz T, Matthews KK, Di R. 2015; The use of plant antimicrobial compounds for food preservation. BioMed Res Int. 2015:246264

16.

Hossain MM, Begum M, Kim IH. 2016; Effect of Leuconostoc mesenteroides KCCM35046 fermented aged garlic extract on egg production, egg quality, odour gas emissions, targeted E. coli colony, haematological characteristics and fatty acids composition of egg yolk in laying hens.. J Appl Anim Res. 44:458-465

17.

Koo OK, Kim SM, Kang SH. 2015; Antimicrobial potential of Leuconostoc species against E. coli O157:H7 in ground meat. J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem. 58:831-838

18.

Kumudhan D, Mars S. 2004; Leuconostoc mesenteroids as a cause of post-operative endophthalmitis: A case report. Eye. 18:1023-1024

19.

Liu SQ. 2016 Lactic acid bacteria: Leuconostoc spp. In Reference module in food science. ElsevierAmsterdam, The Netherlands

20.

Martinez RCR, de Martinis ECP. 2006; Effect of Leuconostoc mesenteroides 11 bacteriocin in the multiplication control of Listeria monocytogenes 4b. Cienc Tecnol Aliment. 26:52-55

21.

Masuda Y, Ono H, Kitagawa H, Ito H, Mu F, Sawa N, Zendo T, Sonomoto K. 2011; Identification and characterization of Leucocyclicin Q, a novel cyclic bacteriocin produced by Leuconostoc mesenteroides TK41401. Appl Environ Microbiol. 77:8164-8170

22.

Moracanin SV, Turubatovic L, Skrinjar M, Obradovic D. 2013; Antilisterial activity of bacteriocin isolated from Leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp. mesenteroides IMAU:10231 in the production of Sremska sausages: Lactic acid bacteria isolation, bacteriocin identification and meat application experiments. Food Technol Biotechnol. 51:247-256.

23.

Nakamura S, Kuda T, An C, Kanno T, Takahashi H, Kimura B. 2012; Inhibitory effects of Leuconostoc mesenteroides 1RM3 isolated from narezushi, a fermented fish with rice, on Listeria monocytogenes infection to Caco-2 cells and A/J mice. Anaerobe. 18:19-24

24.

Nissen H, Holck A, Dainty RH. 1994; Identification of Carnobacterium spp. and Leuconostoc spp. in meat by genus-specific 16S rRNA probes. Lett Appl Microbiol. 19:165-168

25.

Pandey AK, Kumar P, Singh P, Tripathi NN, Bajpai VK. 2017; Essential oils: Sources of antimicrobials and food preservatives. Front Microbiol. 7:2161

26.

Shi F, Wang Y, Li Y, Wang X. 2016; Mode of action of leucocin K7 produced by Leuconostoc mesenteroides K7 against Listeria monocytogenes and its potential in milk preservation. Biotechnol Lett. 38:1551-1557

27.

Stiles ME. 1994; Bacteriocins produced by Leuconostoc species. J Dairy Sci. 77:2718-2724

28.

Thangavel G, Thiruvengadam S. 2019; Microorganisms isolated from stored meat in India, with potential antimicrobial activity against food pathogens. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 20:401-409

29.

Todorov SD, Dicks LMT. 2005; Production of Bacteriocin ST33LD, Produced by Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. mesenteroides, as recorded in the presence of different medium components. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 21:1585-1590

30.

Trias R, Badosa E, Montesinos E, Baneras L. 2008; Bioprotective Leuconostoc strains against Listeria monocytogenes in fresh fruits and vegetables. Int J Food Microbiol. 127:91-98

31.

United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. Summary of recall cases in calendar year 2018. Available fromhttps://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/recalls-and-public-health-alerts/recall-summaries Accessed at Jan 5, 2019.

32.

WHO. Fact sheet: Food safety 2017. Available fromhttps://www.who.int/topics/food_safety/factsheets/en/ Accessed at April 2, 2018.

33.

Yang SC, Lin CH, Sung CT, Fang JY. 2014; Antibacterial activities of bacteriocins: Application in foods and pharmaceuticals. Front Microbiol. 5:241

34.

Zaid AB. 2018; Study the effect of probiotic bacteria isolated from foods on pathogens. Biomed Res. 21:2509-2515

Journal Title Change

We announce that the title of our journal and related information were changed as below from January, 2019.

 

Before (~2018.12)

After (2019.01~)

Journal Title

Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources

Food Science of Animal Resources

Journal Abbreviation

Korean J. Food Sci. An.

Food Sci. Anim. Resour.

eISSN

2234-246X

2636-0780

pISSN

1225-8563

2636-0772

Journal Homepage

http://www.kosfaj.org

Same

JCR Citation Indexing

SCIE

SCIE


I don't want to open this window for a day.