DETERMINATION ANTAGONISTIC ACTIVITY OF THE PROBIOTIC DRUG “BIOZAPIN“
Abstract
According to the modern development of poultry farming, organic management of the industry is a priority. Therefore, the issue of ensuring the epizootic well-being of poultry requires in-depth study and correction in new farming conditions. According to scientists, this became especially relevant after the introduction of the latest energy-saving technologies and the adoption of innovative decisions regarding the maintenance and feeding of poultry, the most priority of which is the correction of biocenoses of the gastrointestinal tract (GI) of poultry. The most economically beneficial is the use of preparations based on substances of natural origin, which are the latest probiotics, obtained on the basis of representatives of normal commensal microflora. Interest in probiotics, incl. on the basis of Bacillus subtilis, associated with the possibility of influencing the formation of the normal flora of the gastrointestinal tract of the bird, maintaining its stable balance and biosafety of the environment in which it is located. Therefore, interest in probiotics, including on the basis of Bacillus subtilis, associated with the possibility of influencing the formation of the normal flora of the gastrointestinal tract of the bird, maintaining its stable balance and the biosafety of the environment in which it is located. The new probiotic «Biozapin» developed by us, the components of which are the bacteria Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus amiljliquefaciens, is able to meet the specified requirements. The aim of the work was to investigate the antagonistic activity of the new probiotic «Biozapin» in its interaction with gram-negative and gram-positive test bacteria «in vitro». Testing of the probiotic «Biozapin» was carried out by the method of delayed antagonism and the method of blocks with three times repetition of experiments. When performing both methods, the test microorganisms Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442, Escherichia coli ATCC 25922, Salmonella typhimurium ATCC 29630, and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 were used as indicators. The analysis of the results of tests of the probiotic «Bozapin», using the specified methods, showed the effective antagonistic activity of the drug in its interaction with test cultures of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. The method of delayed antagonism and the method of blocks proved very high and high levels of antagonistic activity of the probiotic drug «Biozapin» in relation to the action on test bacteria, in particular on Escherichia coli ATSS 25922 with the diameters of the growth inhibition zones of 39.1±0.13 and 35.8±0.13 mm, respectively to the method; Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442 – 30.1±0.07 and 31.5±0.87; Salmonella typhimurium ATCC 29630 – 37.3±0.27 and 36.7±0.13 and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 – 38.9±0.07 and 37.7±0.13 mm similarly. The perspective of using the probiotic «Biozapin» in modern poultry farming is to support a stable epizootic situation with regard to bacterial infections among birds and the correct formation of the microbiocenosis in the gastrointestinal tract of birds from birth, especially with floor-keeping technologies.
References
2. Ashraf R. & Shah, N P. (2014). Immune system stimulation by probiotic icroorganisms. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr.; 54 (7), 938–56. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2011.619671.
3. Balasubramanian, B., Li, T. & Kim, In Ho (2016). Effects of supplementing growing-finishing pig diets with Bacillus spp. probiotic on growth performance and meat-carcass grade quality traits. R. Bras. Zootec; 2016, 3 (45), 93–100.
4. Cash, B. D. (2014). Emerging Role of Probiotics and Antimicrobials in the Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Curr Med Res Opin; 30 (7), 1405–1415. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2014.908278.
5. Chiu, Y. H., Lin, S. L., Tsai, J. J. & Lin, M. Y. (2014). Probiotic actions on diseases: implications for therapeutic treatments. Food Funct; 2014, 5 (4), 625–634.
6. Donaldson, G. P., Lee, S. M. & Mazmanian, S. K. (2016). Gut biogeography of the bacterial microbiota. Nature Reviews Microbiology; 2016, 14 (1), 20–32.
7. Iehorov V., Kananykhina O. & Turpurova T. (2022). Probiotychni kormovi dobavky v rokakh silskohospodarskykh tvaryn. [Probiotic feed additives in the years of farm animals] Zernovi produkty ta kombikormy; 21 (4), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.15673/gpmf.v21i4.2250. (in Ukrainian).
8. Yermolina K. O. (2012). Zahalni vlastyvosti probiotychnykh preparativ. [General properties of probiotic preparations]. Tezy dopovidei IV Vseukrainskoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii. (Kyiv, 5 kvitnia 2012 r). − Natsionalnyi tekhnichnyi universytet «Kyivskyi politekhnichnyi instytut»; 2012, 42–43. (in Ukrainian).
9. Huyghebaert G. & Ducatelle R. (2014). An up-date on alternatives to antimicrobial growth promoters for broil-ers. Vet. J.; 2014, (187), 182–188. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.03.003.1.
10. Hudzenko T. V., Konup I. P., Voliuvach O. V., Horshkova O. H., Beliaieva T. O. & Chaban M. M. (2019). Vyluchennia fenolu z vody bakteriiamy Bacilus subtilis ONU551, adhezovanymy na nosiiakh riznoi pryrody. [Extraction of phenol from water by bacteria Bacilus subtilis ONU551, adhered to supports of different nature]. Mikrobiolohiia i biotekhnolohiia; 2019, 1, 36–47. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18524/23074663.2019.1(45).160071. (in Ukrainian).
11. Ivchenko V. M. (2004). Dovidnyk sanitarno-mikrobiolohichnykh metodiv doslidzhennia kharchovykh produktiv ta obiektiv dovkillia. [Handbook of sanitary and microbiological methods of research of food products and environmental objects]. Bila Tserkva, 2004; 242 s. (in Ukrainian).
12. Klaenhammer, T R, Kleerebezem M, Kopp M V. & Rescigno M. (2012). The impact of probiotics and prebiotics on the immune system. Nat. Rev. Immunol.; 2012, 12, 728–734. doi: 10.1038/nri3312.
13. Konopelko A. V. & Liasota V. P. (2022). Zabiini umovy, bezpeka ta yakist produktiv zaboiu indychok miasnoi produktyvnosti pry zastosuvanni prebiotychnoho preparatu Aktyhen. [Slaughter conditions, safety and quality of slaughter products of meat-yielding turkeys with the use of the prebiotic drug Aktygen]. Naukovyi visnyk LNUVMBT imeni S.Z. Hzhytskoho; 24 (106), 119–127. https:doi.org/10.32718/nvlvet10619. (in Ukrainian).
14. Kryvtsova M. V. & Nikolaichuk M. V. (2011). Ekolohiia mikroorhanizmiv. [Ecology of microorganisms]. Navchalnyi posibnyk. Uzhhorod: 2011; 184 s. (in Ukrainian). 15. Kucheruk M. D., Zasiekin D. A. & Dymko R. O. (2018). Mikrobiolohichne ta sanitarno-hihiienichne znachennia eubiozu kyshechnyka produktyvnykh tvaryn. [Microbiological and sanitary-hygienic significance of intestinal eubiosis of productive animals]. Ukrainskyi ekolohichnyi zhurnal; 2018, 8 (2), 287–293. doi: 10.15421/2018_340. (in Ukrainian).
16. Khariv M., Hutyi B., Ohorodnyk N., Vishchur O., Khariv I., Solovodzinska I., Mudrak D., Hrymak Ch. & Bodnar P. (2017). Diialnist T- ta V-systemy klitynnoho imunitetu tvaryn v umovakh okysnoho stresu ta dii liposomalnoho preparatu. [Activity of the T- and B-systems of cellular immunity of animals under conditions of oxidative stress and the action of the liposomal drug]. Ukrainskyi ekolohichnyi zhurnal; 2017, 7 (4), 536–541. doi: 10.15421/2017_157. (in Ukrainian).
17. Krysenko O. V., Skliar T. V., Vinnikov A. I., Slipetska A. V. & Kudenko S. S. (2010). Mikrobiolohichni aspekty probiotychnykh preparativ. [Microbiological aspects of probiotic preparations]. Visnyk Dnipropetrovskoho universytetu. Biolohiia. Ekolohiia; 2010, 18 (2), 19–24. Rezhym dostupu: https://www.dnu.dp.ua/docs/visnik/fbem/program_5e54270f63d26. pdf. (in Ukrainian).
18. Klaenhammer T R, Kleerebezem M, Kopp M V. & Rescigno M. (2012). The impact of probiotics and prebiotics on the immune system. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2012, 12, 728–734. doi: 10.1038/nri3312.
19. Kotsiumbas H., Kostyniuk A., Mysiv O. & Fedyk Yu. (2017). Histolohichna, histokhimichna kharakterystyka dvanadtsiatypaloi kyshky kurei-broileriv dlia zghodovuvannia kombikormu z vysokym vmistom probiotychnykh dobavok. [Histological, histochemical characteristics of the duodenum of broiler chickens for feeding compound feed with a high content of probiotic additives]. Naukovyi visnyk LNUVMBT imeni S.Z. Hzhytskoho; 19 (77), 71–75. doi:10.15421/nvlvet7717. (in Ukrainian).
20. Lutgendorff F, Nijmeijer, R M, Sandström, P A, Trulsson, L M, Magnusson, K E, Timmerman, H M, van Minnen, L P, Rijkers, G T, Gooszen, H G. & Akkermans, L M. (2009). Probiotics prevent intestinal barrier dysfunction in acute pancreatitis in rats via induction of ileal mucosal glutathione biosynthesis. PLoS ONE; 2009, 4, 4512. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004512.
21. Medvid S. M., Hunchak A. V., Stefanishyn O. M. & Pashchenko A. H. (2017). Stan mikrobiotsenozu kurchat-broileriv za dii tsytrativ mikroelementiv. [The state of microbiocenosis of broiler chickens under the action of trace element citrates]. Naukovyi visnyk LNUVMBT im. S. Z. Hzhytskoho; 2017, 19 (74), 224–228. (in Ukrainian).
22. Markowiak P. & Śliżewska K. (2018). The role of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in animal nutrition. Gut. Pathog.; 2018, 10 (21), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-018-0250-0.
23. Mehta R, Dedina L. & O’Brien P J. (2011). Rescuing hepatocytes from iron-catalyzed oxidative stress using vitamins B1 and B6.Toxicol. In Vitro. 2011, 25, 1114–1122. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2011.03.015.
24. Oivyn Y. A. (1960). Statystycheskaia obrabotka rezultatov эksperymentalnыkh yssledovanyi. [Statistical processing of the results of experimental studies]. Patolohycheskaia fyzyolohyia y эksperymentalnaia terapyia. 1960; 396–401. (in Ukrainian).
25. Potemska O. I., Kihel N. F., Danylenko S. H. & Kopylova K. V. (2017). β- halaktozydazna aktyvnist yak kryterii vidboru shtamiv do skladu bakterialnykh preparativ. [β-galactosidase activity as a criterion for selection of strains for the composition of bacterial preparations]. Kharchova nauka i tekhnolohiia; 2017, 11 (3), 35–41. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15673/ fst.v11i3.604. (in Ukrainian).
26. Petrov I. V., Vysekantsev I. P., Cherkashyna Ya. O. & Nardid E. O. (2022). Antahonistychna aktyvnist immobilizovanykh probiotykiv pislia zberihannia za nyzkykh temperatur. [Antagonistic activity of immobilized probiotics after storage at low temperatures]. Aktualni problemy suchasnoi medytsyny; 2022, 22, 1 (77), 111–116. doi:10.31718/2077-1096 .22.1.111. (in Ukrainian).
27. Palma, M L, Zamith-Miranda, D, Martins, F S, Bozza, F A, Nimrichter, L, Montero-Lomeli, M, Marques, E T Jr. & Douradinha, B. (2015). Probiotic Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains as biotherapeutic tools: is there room for improvement. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015, 99 (16), 6563–6570. doi: 10.1007/s00253–015–6776–x. Epub 2015 Jul 4).
28. Romanovych M. M. (2018). Dynamika humoralnykh faktoriv zakhystu kurchat-broileriv za umov zastosuvannia pro biotychnykh preparativ. [Dynamics of humoral factors in the infection of chicken broilers for the minds of stosuvanya about biotic preparations]. Naukovyi visnyk LNUVMBT im. S. Z. Hzhytskoho; 2018, 20 (83), 264–267. doi: 10.15421/nvlvet8352 http://nvlvet.com.ua/. (in Ukrainian).
29. Stoianovskyi, V. H., Kolomiiets I. A., Kolotnytskyi V. A. & Kamratska O. I. (2013). Mikroekolohichna systema kyshechnyku broileriv ta sposoby yii bionormalizatsii. [Microecological system of intestines of broilers and methods of its bionormalization]. Naukovyi visnyk LNUVMBT im. S. Z. Hzhytskoho; 2013, 15, 3 (57), 319–322. (in Ukrainian).
30. Solodka L. O., Rybachuk Zh. V. & Klishevych V. I. (2021). Identyfikatsiia mikroorhanizmiv pevnykh vydiv u batsyliarnykh probiotychnykh preparatakh. [Identification of microorganisms of certain species in bacillary probiotic preparations]. Zbirnyk tez mizhn. nauk.-prakt. konf. «Biobezpeka, zakhyst ta blahopoluchchia tvaryn» (21 travnia 2021 r.); Kyiv, 2021; 27–31. (in Ukrainian).
31. Syal P. & Vohra A. (2013). Probiotic potential of yasts isolated from traditional indian fermented foods. Intl J Microbiol Res.; 2013, 5 (2), 390–398. doi: 10.9735/0975-5276.5.2.
32. Xiang-Li, Si-Chen, Z.-T. Zhao, Meng-Zhao, Yi-Han & Xi-Mei Ye (2020). Effects of polysaccharides from Yingshan Yunwu tea on meat quality, immune status and intestinal microflora in chickens. International Journal of Biological Macromole; 2020, 15, 155, 61–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.03.198.
ISSN 
ISSN 
