4.7 Article

Oxalate-degrading capacities of lactic acid bacteria in canine feces

期刊

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
卷 152, 期 3-4, 页码 368-373

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.05.003

关键词

Canine; Urolithiasis; Lactic acid bacteria; Oxalate degradation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30871892, 31011130155]
  2. Graduate Education Innovation Project of Jiangsu Province [CX10B_319Z]
  3. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, lactic acid bacteria in canine feces were isolated and identified, and their oxalate-degrading capacities were evaluated. The oxalate-degrading capacities were determined for 24 of 47 (51.06%) lactic acid bacteria isolates. Of these, 8 isolates [Leuconostoc mesenteroides (RL75), Lactococcus garvieae (CD2), Lactococcus subsp. lactis (CS21), Enterococcus faecium (CL71 and CL72), and Enterococcus faecalis (CD14, CS62, and CD12)] degraded more than 5% of the oxalate present, while the others degraded less than 5% of the oxalate in vitro. Isolates that degraded more than 5% of the oxalate present were selected for further examination. The oxalate-degrading capacities of individual isolates, a mixture of Enterococcus, a mixture of Lactococcus, and a mixture of the eight isolates were evaluated in media containing different concentrations of glucose (sufficient, insufficient, or no glucose). In comparison with the control medium, all of the individual isolates and mixtures of isolates could degrade oxalate in all three groups (P < 0.05). In most cases, the isolates growing in medium with 20 g/L of glucose had higher oxalate-degrading capacities than those growing in medium with 2.5 g/L of glucose or no glucose. The mixture of all isolates showed higher oxalate-degrading capacity than the individual isolates and other mixtures. The oxalate-degrading capacities of the isolates were isolate dependent. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据