Successive bacterial desulfurization and regeneration of liquid fuel over Ni-doped carbon beads using a single Enterococcus faecium strain isolated from an industrial wastewater

Fuel ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 309 ◽  
pp. 122209
Author(s):  
Rishabh Anand Omar ◽  
Nishith Verma ◽  
Pankaj Kumar Arora
Keyword(s):  
Enterococcus Faecium ◽  
Industrial Wastewater ◽  
Liquid Fuel ◽  
Faecium Strain

scholarly journals Emergence of a daptomycin-non-susceptible Enterococcus faecium strain that encodes mutations in DNA repair genes after high-dose daptomycin therapy

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takashi Matono ◽  
Kayoko Hayakawa ◽  
Risen Hirai ◽  
Akira Tanimura ◽  
Kei Yamamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dna Repair ◽  
Enterococcus Faecium ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Dna Repair Genes ◽  
Repair Genes ◽  
Faecium Strain

scholarly journals Draft Genome Sequence of Probiotic Enterococcus faecium Strain L-3

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alena Karaseva ◽  
Anna Tsapieva ◽  
Justin Pachebat ◽  
Alexander Suvorov
Keyword(s):  
Genome Sequence ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Enterococcus Faecium ◽  
Draft Genome ◽  
Bacteriocin Production ◽  
Draft Genome Sequence ◽  
Bacteriocin Producer ◽  
Probiotic Preparation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Faecium Strain

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.

Effects of a pathogenic ETEC strain and a probiotic Enterococcus faecium strain on the inflammasome response in porcine dendritic cells

2018 ◽  
Vol 203 ◽  
pp. 78-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henriette Loss ◽  
Jörg R. Aschenbach ◽  
Friederike Ebner ◽  
Karsten Tedin ◽  
Ulrike Lodemann
Keyword(s):  
Dendritic Cells ◽  
Enterococcus Faecium ◽  
Etec Strain ◽  
Faecium Strain

scholarly journals Draft genome sequence of Enterococcus faecium strain LMG 8148

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joran E. Michiels ◽  
Bram Van den Bergh ◽  
Maarten Fauvart ◽  
Jan Michiels
Keyword(s):  
Genome Sequence ◽  
Enterococcus Faecium ◽  
Draft Genome ◽  
Draft Genome Sequence ◽  
Faecium Strain

Post hatch recovery of a probiotic Enterococcus faecium strain in the yolk sac and intestinal tract of broiler chickens after in ovo injection

2019 ◽  
Vol 366 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Line Skjøt-Rasmussen ◽  
Dorthe Sandvang ◽  
Alfred Blanch ◽  
Jette Mundus Nielsen ◽  
Tina Styrishave ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Enterococcus Faecium ◽  
Broiler Chickens ◽  
Intestinal Tract ◽  
Yolk Sac ◽  
In Ovo ◽  
In Ovo Injection ◽  
Faecium Strain

Chemical structure of wall teichoic acid isolated from Enterococcus faecium strain U0317

2011 ◽  
Vol 346 (17) ◽  
pp. 2816-2819 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Bychowska ◽  
Christian Theilacker ◽  
Małgorzata Czerwicka ◽  
Kinga Marszewska ◽  
Johannes Huebner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Enterococcus Faecium ◽  
Chemical Structure ◽  
Teichoic Acid ◽  
Wall Teichoic Acid ◽  
Faecium Strain

Individual responses of mother sows to a probiotic Enterococcus faecium strain lead to different microbiota composition in their offspring

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 345-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
I.C. Starke ◽  
R. Pieper ◽  
K. Neumann ◽  
J. Zentek ◽  
W. Vahjen
Keyword(s):  
Enterococcus Faecium ◽  
Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis ◽  
Probiotic Strain ◽  
Quantitative Composition ◽  
Pronounced Increase ◽  
Gradient Gel Electrophoresis ◽  
Suckling Piglets ◽  
Weaning Piglets ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Faecium Strain

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.

Effects of the probiotic Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 10415 on selected lactic acid bacteria and enterobacteria in co-culture

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
I.C. Starke ◽  
J. Zentek ◽  
W. Vahjen
Keyword(s):  
Intestinal Microbiota ◽  
Enterococcus Faecium ◽  
Lactobacillus Reuteri ◽  
Specific Growth ◽  
Probiotic Strain ◽  
Lactobacillus Mucosae ◽  
Vitro Effect ◽  
Reference Strains ◽  
Faecium Strain

Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 10415 is used as a probiotic for piglets and has been shown to modify the porcine intestinal microbiota. However, the mode of action of this probiotic modification is still unclear. One possible explanation is the direct growth inhibiting or stimulating effect of the probiotic on other indigenous bacteria. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to examine the growth interactions of the probiotic with different indigenous porcine bacteria in vitro. Reference strains were cultivated with the probiotic E. faecium strain NCIMB10415 (SF68) in a checkerboard assay with 102 to 105 cells/ml inoculum per strain. Growth kinetics were recorded for 8 h and used to determine specific growth of the co-cultures. Additionally, total DNA was extracted from the co-cultures at the end of the incubation to verify which strain in the co-culture was affected. Co-cultivation with eight Enterococcus spp. tester strains showed strain-specific growth differences. Three of four E. faecium strains were not influenced by the probiotic strain. PCR results showed reduced growth of the probiotic strain in co-culture with E. faecium DSM 6177. Three of four Enterococcus faecalis strains showed reduced specific growth in co-culture with the probiotic strain. However, E. faecalis DSM 20478 impaired growth of the probiotic E. faecium strain. The growth of Lactobacillus johnsonii DSM 10533 and Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 20016 was enhanced in co-culture with the probiotic strain, but co-cultivations with Lactobacillus mucosae DSM13345 or Lactobacillus amylovorus DSM10533 showed no differences. Co-cultures with the probiotic E. faecium showed no impact on the growth rate of four different enterobacterial reference strains (2 strains of Salmonella enterica and 2 strains of Escherichia coli), but PCR results showed reduced cell numbers for a pathogenic E. coli isolate at higher concentration of the probiotic strain. As the in vitro effect of the probiotic E. faecium on enterococci was strain specific and the growth of certain Lactobacillus spp. was enhanced by the probiotic, these results indicate a direct effect of the probiotic on certain members of the porcine gastro intestinal microbiota.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document