Next Article in Journal
An Alternative In Vitro Propagation Protocol of Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae) Presenting Efficient Rooting, for Commercial Production
Next Article in Special Issue
Sugarcane Genotypes with Contrasting Biological Nitrogen Fixation Efficiencies Differentially Modulate Nitrogen Metabolism, Auxin Signaling, and Microorganism Perception Pathways
Previous Article in Journal
Variability in Functional Traits along an Environmental Gradient in the South African Resurrection Plant Myrothamnus flabellifolia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Contribution of Ascorbate and Glutathione in Endobacteria Bacillus subtilis-Mediated Drought Tolerance in Two Triticum aestivum L. Genotypes Contrasting in Drought Sensitivity
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

One Health Probiotics as Biocontrol Agents: One Health Tomato Probiotics

by
Natalya Harutyunyan
1,
Almagul Kushugulova
2,
Narine Hovhannisyan
3 and
Astghik Pepoyan
1,*
1
Food Safety and Biotechnology Department, Armenian National Agrarian University, 74 Teryan St., Yerevan 0009, Armenia
2
Laboratory of Human Microbiome and Longevity, Center for Life Sciences, National Laboratory Astana, Nazarbayev University, 53 Kabanbay Batyr Ave., Nur-Sultan 010000, Kazakhstan
3
Plant Origin Raw Material Processing Technology Department, Armenian National Agrarian University, 74 Teryan St., Yerevan 0009, Armenia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(10), 1334; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11101334
Submission received: 24 March 2022 / Revised: 8 May 2022 / Accepted: 8 May 2022 / Published: 18 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genetic Control of Plant Interaction with Beneficial Microbes)

Abstract

:
Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) is one of the most popular and valuable vegetables in the world. The most common products of its industrial processing in the food industry are juice, tomato paste, various sauces, canned or sun-dried fruits and powdered products. Tomato fruits are susceptible to bacterial diseases, and bacterial contamination can be a risk factor for the safety of processed tomato products. Developments in bioinformatics allow researchers to discuss target probiotic strains from an existing large number of probiotic strains for any link in the soil–plant–animal-human chain. Based on the literature and knowledge on the “One Health” concept, this study relates to the suggestion of a new term for probiotics: “One Health probiotics”, beneficial for the unity of people, animals, and the environment. Strains of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, having an ability to ferment a broad spectrum of plant carbohydrates, probiotic effects in human, and animal health, as well as being found in dairy products, vegetables, sauerkraut, pickles, some cheeses, fermented sausages, fish products, and rhizospheric soil, might be suggested as one of the probable candidates for “One Health” probiotics (also, for “One Health—tomato” probiotics) for the utilization in agriculture, food processing, and healthcare.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) is one of the leaders in the classification of useful products. It is also one of the most popular and valuable vegetables in the world [1]. It contains many useful compounds, such as ascorbic acid [2], lycopene, β-carotene, anthocyanin, and others [3,4]. The content of trace elements and the above-mentioned compounds in tomatoes also create prerequisites for their use as components in various diets, and they can be used to reduce the risk factors of many diseases (cancer, osteoporosis, cardiovascular diseases) [1,5]. Wild tomato species and varieties have a rich potential for genetic diversity and greatly contribute to the selection of new, valuable genotypes with high productivity and an ability to adapt to stress. Despite researchers’ ongoing interest in transgenic crops [6,7], genetically modified crops, including tomatoes, can cause unpredictable environmental problems [8]. Currently, the selection of tomato varieties with valuable properties is a primary task for the researchers. Analysis in the field of breeding allows us to conclude that the genomic potential of tomato species is not fully used and there is a possibility of a wide choice of varieties. During recent years, tomato species have been supplemented with new, high-yielding varieties and hybrids, which are not only more resistant to diseases and pests, but also contain more vitamin C, total sugar, dry matter and acidity.
The most common products from the industrial processing of tomato fruit in the food industry are juice, tomato paste, various sauces, canned or sun-dried fruits and powdered products. Methods for obtaining various concentrates containing biologically active compounds (including carotenoids and lycopene) from tomatoes, as well as from the byproducts of their processing (pulp, skin and seeds), are well known [9]. Tomatoes are also a subject of interest for the cosmetic and perfumery industries when developing organic cosmetics line [10]. If a cosmetic contains individual components of tomatoes (lycopene, quercetin, salicylic acid, vitamin C, β-carotene), it will have a protective effect on skin from ultraviolet radiation and will slow down the aging of the skin by reducing the number of free radicals [11]. Due to the presence of sterols and vitamin E, tomato seed oil allows us to restore the protective barrier of the skin, thereby increasing its overall level of moisturization. Salicylic acid is effective in the treatment of inflammatory processes of the skin (acne). It has an antibacterial, keratolytic effect. In addition, lycopene stimulates the production of antioxidant enzymes that prevent the development of inflammation [12]. However, tomato fruits are susceptible to bacterial diseases, the intensity of the development of which depends both on the characteristics of the processing of the plant and on their general condition. In addition, bacterial contamination is a risk factor for the safety of processed tomato products, such as tomato juice and tomato paste.
One Health is the concept of the interconnection of human, animal and environmental wellbeing [13,14]. The concept focuses on interactions between humans and their environment as a trigger for health and disease mainly through the cycling of environmental microbial communities [15]. Here, we hope to draw the attention of researchers to tomato-probiotics/“One Health” probiotics to protect both fruits and tomato products from bacterial infections.

2. Soil—Tomato Rhizosphere Bacteria

Soil has a significant impact on the promotion of plant growth and productivity, mainly through plant–rhizosphere microbiome interaction [16,17]. Rhizobacteria, having a direct effect on the modulation of phytohormone levels, ammonia production and phosphate solubilization, may also have antibiotic, siderophore and hydrogen cyanide production effects [18]. Overall, the plant growth-promoting bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi participate in nutrients, mobilizing and stimulating growth and increasing the yield of plants. According to Lee and coauthors, changes in rhizosphere soil microbiota are revealed in association with the healthy or diseased state of the rhizosphere [19]. In addition, host genetics affect human [20,21], animal [22] and plant microbiomes [23,24]. The tomato genotype influences the potential functions of soil bacterial communities. In general, wild tomatoes differ from modern cultivars and tomato landraces [25]. The subgroups of Rhizobiales, Xanthomonadales, Burkholderiales, Nitrosomona-dales, Myxococcales, Sphingobacteriales, Cytophagales and Acidobacteria from the Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Acidobacteriaare are the dominant tomato rhizosphere bacteria [26]. The strains Pseudomonas fluorescens, Bacillus sp., Azotobacter, Serratia, and Micromonospora are involved in tomato disease management and tomato growth promotion [27]. However, the bacteria from the plant rhizosphere microbiome might also compete with other soil rhizobia—the ‘’rhizobial competition problem’’ [28]—and compete with plants for nutrients, or they might act as soilborne plant pathogens [29,30].
Different methods, including spectral [31] and molecular: classical and nested, multiplex, quantitative, bio- and magnetic-capture hybridization polymerase chain reaction, as well as amplification and sequencing methods/tools [32] are currently used for the early detection of bacterial and fungal plant diseases. The main treatment methods for most tomato diseases, for example anthracnose (causative agent: Colletotrichum spp.), bacterial canker (causative agent: Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis), bacterial speck (causative agent: Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato), bacterial spot (causative agent: Xanthomonas spp.), fusarium wilt disease (causative agent: Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici), bacterial wilt (causative agent: Ralstonia solanacearum) and others are fungicides, which might face complications in association with bacterial resistance, which is more related to bacterial spot than to bacterial speck because of the absence of any important problem in the Pto gene. In the case of bacterial canker, two genes for resistance have identified the need for additional investigations on bacterial resistance (http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/05-069.htm) (accessed on 11 May 2020). To avoid major bacterial diseases and to neutralize causative bacteria as reservoirs of diseases, it is also necessary to protect weeds in/around the field (http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/05-069.htm) (accessed on 11 May 2020). Researchers are looking for low-toxicity, high-selectivity, high-activity fungicides to limit the use of several fungicides because of the toxicity of their residues and/or the resistance of plant pathogens to these fungicides [33]. Some of the technologies being examined are: bacteriophages, systemic acquired resistance, bacteriocins and microbial control agents. In comparison with synthetic or chemical fungicides, the “natural” ones (bio fungicides from natural sources), mostly with a plant or microbial origin, are preferable and are widely used as agricultural bioweapons [34]. The investigations of Chanthini and coauthors on the antifungal activity of bacterial cultures against Alternaria solani have shown that the spraying bacterial cultures on diseased tomato plants might reduce the severity of blight disease in tomato from 86% to 5.33% [35]. Other studies on the selection of bacterial candidates that are capable of not only preventing the growth of plant pathogens, such as Botrytis spp., Colletotrichum spp., Phytophthora spp. and Verticillium spp., but that also are metabolically efficient, revealed effective strains from the genera Arthrobacter, Bacillus, Pseudomonas and Rhodococcus, which are also resistant to chemical stress [36].
At the same time, it is known that the applications of bacterial cultures are used for the preservation of tomato products. In vitro screening of 55 strains by antagonistic activity against crop pathogens (Pseudomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae from the kiwifruit, Xanthomonas arboricola pv. Pruni from the prunus and Xanthomonas fragariae from the strawberry) revealed high activity of the strains Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) CC100, PM411 and TC92, and of Leuconostoc mesenteroides CM160 and CM209 against pathogens [37].
Biotechnological processes related to bacteria make it possible to obtain many valuable chemical compounds. For example, bacterial metabolites may be a potential source of bioactive molecules, such as tripyrrolic, red-colored prodiginines, which not only have antimicrobial activity against plant pathogens but also have antinematodal activities [38]. The combined use of modern molecular genetic methods and toolsets, enzyme engineering, as well as biocatalysts and bioinformatics, make it possible to obtain many natural plant antimicrobial compounds [39]. Genome editing (GE) tools such as the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas-mediated GE have been recently used to study plant–microbe interactions for agronomic trait improvement [40]. However, understanding how plants manipulate their microbiome is important both for the design of next-generation microbial inoculants–probiotics [41] and for GE designs for targeted disease suppression and enhanced plant growth.

3. Farm to Fork Strategy

The European Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy (European Commission, Eur-lex, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0381) (accessed on 20 May 2020), a key element of Green Europe, relates to challenges facing European agriculture and proposes measures for creating a more resilient and sustainable food system [42] based on reducing its impact on the environment while increasing its resilience and ensuring food security. Agricultural systems are complex, so “social innovation”/“technical innovation”, or any other solution, will need a tradeoff requiring public choice. For example, the goal of reducing the number of pesticides requires farmers to develop new knowledge to find other ways of controlling pests [43] and pathogenic bacteria.

4. Probiotics

The use of fermented milk is associated with the history of mankind, the earliest records of which date back to BC 6000 [44,45]. Even different communities in the same region, due to their cultural peculiarities (e.g., availability of raw materials of plant and animal origin), have their own unique fermented products [46]. For example, fermented products include airag (Mongolia), kefir (Russia), chhurpi (India, Nepal, Bhutan, China), dadih (Indonesia) [46], miso, shoyu, natto (Japan) [47], choratan and matsuni (Armenia) [48].
Despite the aforementioned facts, a scientific basis for the process of fermentation was discovered rather late. It was described for the first time by the founder of contemporary chemistry, A. Lavoisier, in the 1700s. Nevertheless, it was Louis Pasteur who finally proved that microorganisms are what cause lactic fermentation [49]. In 1899, Henry Tissier announced that faecal bifidobacteria are prevalent representatives of a healthy person’s gut microbiota. He offered to feed newborn babies suffering from diarrhea with bifidobacteria collected from a breastfed infant [50].
According to Krawczyk and Banaszkiewicz, the Polish doctor Józef Brudziński applied a Bacillus lactis aërogenes suspension in the treatment of infants with acute infectious diarrhea [51]. In 1908, a Russian microbiologist, Nobel Prize award winner Élie Metchnikoff, and Paul Ehrlich, one of the commonly acknowledged founders of probiotics [52,53,54] showed that harmful bacteria can be replaced with beneficiary ones extracted from fermented milk to treat intestinal diseases [55]. Metchnikoff linked the longevity of people’s lives with the high intake of fermented milk products [56]. Studies on probiotics were only revived by Levon Erzinkian in 1940 after Metchnikoff’s death [54]. He was the first scientist in the former USSR who recognized the probiotic era in the 1940s. Starting at the end of 1940s, L. Erzinkian, the founder of technical microbiology (biotechnology) in Armenia [52], created a new method of acidophilotherapy and provided norms for feeding acidophilic milk to babies, children and adults [52,57,58]. He isolated more than 1640 strains of acidophilic bacteria [57]. Out of them, he selected more than ten of the most active strains and used those for the treatment of bacterial dysentery at the end of 1940s and at the beginning of 1950s in infection clinics and in a military hospital in Yerevan, Armenia [58]. These strains, widely studied and used in Armenia, were unknown to the Western world until the collapse of the Soviet Union. The study of the Lactobacillus acidophilus n.v. ep 317/402 strain “Narine”, began in Japan in the late 1980s (https://hwpartners.co.jp/en/about-narine/ (accessed on 15 March 2014); https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/milk/53/2/53_37/_article/-char/en) (accessed on 15 March 2014). In 2017, Narine expertise originating from Armenia expanded to the USA, Japan, Korea, Eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus), the Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania) and Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan) (https://hwpartners.co.jp/en/about-narine/) (accessed on 15 March 2014). Nowadays, Effective microorganisms (or EM technology) are well known in more than 140 countries around the world, developed by Professor Teruo Higa in Japan in 1982 (https://www.emrojapan.com/what/). This technology is based on more than 80 bacterial strains that are safe for humans and animals. According to the manufacturers, one of the strengths of EM is that the combination of different bacteria provides a wide range of applications for the product. EMs are used in many systems related to agriculture and environmental management (https://www.emnz.com/research/tomatos) (accessed on 15 March 2014). EM “tomato” technology is partly aimed at influencing the photosynthesis of the host, the fruit yield and the quality of the tomato plant with the help of a bacteriological vaccine [1].
The term “probiotics” as “active substances that are essential for a healthy development of life” was described by Werner Kollath in 1953 and by Ferdinand Vergin in 1954 [59,60]. Probiotics are alive bacterial cells that, when administered in adequate amounts, benefit the host’s health [61] and can have a substantial impact on the functionality of human and animal [48,62,63,64,65,66,67] organisms, as well as on plants [68]. Plant probiotics are used to increase resistance to pathogens [69] and improve yields by reducing or even eliminating chemical fertilizers [68]. There is a lot of information about the mechanisms of the action of probiotics [70,71,72,73]. A set of mechanisms that sometimes overlap relate to both the direct effects of probiotics/postbiotics and the effects of probiotics’ metabolites (Table 1).
According to Table 1, probiotics might be potential producers of water-soluble riboflavin, biotin, folate, pyridoxine and other micronutrients [48]. The results indicate that the intake of certain probiotics, probably the producers of micronutrients, is associated with a positive impact on the status of these substances (in particular, vitamin B12, calcium, folate, iron and zinc) in healthy voluntaries [76]. On the other hand, the impact of probiotics on other metabolites (hydrogen peroxide [77], lactic acid and certain short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) [74]) against the growth of competing species is also known [84]. It is also well known that the effect of probiotics can be mediated by their metabolites, such as SCFA, in particular, propionate, acetate, and butyrate, which may exercise anti-inflammatory effects [74].
Thus, the main mechanisms that determine the beneficial effects of human/animal probiotics relate to the production of antimicrobial substances; to interactions between the probiotics and the intestinal commensal and pathogenic bacteria, as well as with the host epithelium; to their impact on a pathogen’s toxin production/utilization; to immunomodulation of the innate immune response to both anti-inflammatory and pro-inflammatory directions; and to effects of probiotic bacteria on the development of the adaptive immune response (Table 1). Vertebrate immune cells provide the host with potent antigenic activity and memory; probiotic bacteria might be involved in antibody formation and development of the adaptive immune response [85,86]. Modulation of mucosal barrier function [87], as well as inhibition of neutrophil migration [88], may also be important mechanisms where probiotics can affect intestinal diseases. The direct effect of probiotics/postbiotics on gastric Helicobacter pylori is not excluded either [89].
Haas and Keel first used the term “Plant Probiotic Bacteria” referring to “a group of microorganisms benefiting plants, which fulfils three essential criteria that combined result in better plant protection: (i) effectiveness and competitiveness in niche colonization, (ii) the ability to create induced systemic resistance in their hosts and (iii) presence of direct antagonistic traits on pathogens” [68]. These probiotics might also be effective in alleviating stresses from salinity/heavy-metal accumulation [68]. Plants do not have specialized immune cells, although it is believed that plant cells can carry out an effective immune response based on their plant-innate immune system, including self-monitoring, system signals and chromosomal changes [90]. Plant probiotic bacteria, being promoters of vegetable food quality, also realize their beneficial role through different direct and indirect mechanisms [91]. The main supposed mechanisms of tomato probiotic bacteria are related to the biocontrol of tomato pathogens [92], phytostimulation [93,94] and nutrient mobilization [93]. Investigations on the phytostimulation effects of Trichoderma harzianum, Bacillus subtilis and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, through their ability to induce pathogenesis-related-proteins (chitinase, β-1,3-glucanase, peroxidase, phenylalanine ammonia-lyase as well as phenolics), in tomato plants described the effectiveness of these bacteria against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici infection [94]. Another study on approximately 400 tomato root-associated bacterial isolates (the majority belonging to Bacillales, Enterobacteriales, and Pseudomonadales) revealed that about 33% of these isolates produced siderophores and were able to solubilize phosphates and also revealed that about 30% of these bacteria (the majority belonging to Bacillus spp.) had antimicrobial activities against all the tomato pathogens tested [93]. The strains Pseudomonas sp. 19Fv1T [95], Bacillus megaterium and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens [96] not only are able to enhance tomato yield, but also increase the concentration of vitamin C in tomato fruits [97]. However, if Bacillus, Paraburkholderia, Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Alcaligenes, Arthrobacter and Serratia plant probiotic strains are mostly known for promoting plant growth [98], the lactobacilli probiotics might suppress several diseases in Chinese lettuce, onion, potato, and tomato [99]. At the same time, several studies have shown that the addition of probiotic lactobacilli, particularly L. rhamnosus strains, to human/animal/apiary food may reduce the negative effects of organophosphate pesticides used in agriculture [100].
In the modern world, it is advisable to use natural ingredients instead of chemicals and food additives not only to preserve plant biodiversity, but also to increase food storage capacity. For example, the use of probiotic strains of lactic acid bacteria (LAB)-producing bacteriocins is of great interest, since they are generally recognized as harmless microorganisms and their antimicrobial products are effective bio-preservatives. A wide variety of secondary metabolites of probiotics (pigments, vitamins, antibiotics, etc.) have important applications in human and animal health [101]. The cancer-preventive [101,102,103], antidiabetic [104,105], anti-depressive [67,106] and antihypertensive [107] effects of probiotics/their metabolites as functional ingredients have been reported previously. Moreover, the impact of probiotics on viral and respiratory tract infections has also been described [108]. It is also possible to “regulate” probiotic antagonistic activities through the use of different technologies [62]. In food technologies that use tomatoes or their processed products, it is advisable to use plant-specific probiotic strains that have previously been assessed for efficacy and safety in model food systems, as well as in adequate biological test systems [109,110]. Unlike the potential negative effects of antibiotic use [111], the use of probiotics in healthcare [112], as well as in food production, is effective in combating pathogens and has no negative consequences [113,114,115].

“One Health” Probiotics

Soil ecosystems contain and support the largest amount of biodiversity on the planet, which mostly consists of microorganisms that are beneficial to humans and animals. The One Health concept allows us to consider some infectious diseases from three sides: harm to the environment, their impact on human health, and their impact on animal health. In general, soil and the human gut contain approximately the same number of active microorganisms [116]. However, the diversity of the human gut microbiome is only 10% of soil biodiversity [116]. Based on this knowledge and the probiotic formulation [61], “One Health” or “universal” functional probiotics were previously suggested by Malkhasyan and Pepoyan as next-generation probiotics, beneficial to both humans and their environment [117]. EM technologies mainly refer to microorganisms that are effective in soil and aquatic environments. EMs do not apply, for example, to plant and animal-origin raw material technologies or product processing. EM technologies do not oblige us to use plant probiotics for food processing (both of plant and animal origin) or for veterinary and health purposes. For example, effective microorganisms used for growing tomatoes are not ready to immediately ensure the safety of receiving and storing tomato juice, tomato paste, various sauces, canned or sun-dried fruits or powdered products. It is assumed that “One Health” probiotic microorganisms belong to 10% of microorganisms common to the human gut and soil microbiome. It is likely that, first of all, “One Health” probiotics might be the result of the screening of a new generation soil/plant/animal probiotics from “human” probiotics.
Table 2 presents the effects of lactobacilli probiotics (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, L. acidophilus, Lacticaseibacillus casei and Lacticaseibacillus paracasei, Lactobacillus delbrueckii, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus and Leuconostoc mesenteroides) on human, animal and plant health.
LABs, the representatives of different ecosystems on Earth, exhibiting dynamic interactions within the animal and plant kingdoms in relation to other microbes, evolved along with plants, invertebrates and vertebrates, establishing either mutualism, symbiosis, commensalism or even parasitic behavior with their hosts [146]. LAB strains, also one of the main probiotic candidates [147], have been used in the production of fermented food around the world since ancient times [148]. Lactobacillus species, having colonizing abilities in the phyllosphere, endosphere and rhizosphere, are also able to colonize the fruits and flowers of different plants, including tomato plants [149]. Moreover, the presence of Lpb. plantarum in raw fruits indicates the fact that the plant is highly nutritious and bacteriologically healthy [145]. According to Table 2, the food-related probiotic strain Lpb. plantarum [120], showing great adaptability and adhesion in the gastrointestinal tract of host organisms, may contribute to the improvement of host gut health [120].
Studies on tomato juice containing such bacteria have shown that this product can serve as a healthy drink for vegetarians or consumers who are allergic to dairy products [122]. The beneficial effects of the L. acidophilus [120,128,129], Lcb. casei and Lcb. paracasei [134,135,136], L. delbrueckii [45,138], Lcb. rhamnosus [45,140] and Leuconostoc mesenteroides [142,143] strains on human and animal health are known as well (Table 2). As with Lpb. plantarum, L. mesenteroides determines a fruit’s “health” [145]. Furthermore, strains of L. acidophilus might be usable as plant growth promoting agents [131]. Regarding lactobacilli comparative viability and folate production in apple, grape and orange juice, after 48 h, viable bacterial cells are highest in fermented apple juice, which is not only the best substrate for the growth of lactobacilli, but also for the production of folic acid by Lpb. plantarum and Lcb. rhamnosus [141]. Very little is known about the effects of L. acidophilus, Lcb. casei and Lcb. paracasei, L. delbrueckii and Lcb. rhamnosus strains on soil or the modulation of bioaccessibility of soil heavy metals (Table 2).
Thus, Lpb. plantarum is a Gram-positive bacterium with a fairly large genome. It produces two isomers of lactic acid (D and L) during growth at 15 °C and 4% NaCl. Strains of Lpb. plantarum (and/or its bioactive products), having an ability to ferment a broad spectrum of plant carbohydrates [119], probiotic effects on human [67,150,151] and animal health [48,120,152], as well as being found in dairy products [152,153], vegetables [154], sauerkraut, pickles, some cheeses, fermented sausages, fish products [155] and rhizospheric soil [156], are probably the best candidates for “One Health” probiotics (and for “One Health—tomato” probiotics). According to Table 2, the strains of L. acidophilus, L. delbrueckii, Lcb. casei, Lcb. paracasei, Lcb. rhamnosus and Leuconostoc mesenteroides can also be considered sources of “One Health” probiotics (Table 2). It is likely to find “ready-to-use one health probiotics” in a range of probiotic strains, such as those found by Drs Erzinkian and Teruo Higa and other investigators.
Despite the vital and useful features of this bacterium, a high concentration of Lpb. plantarum in food can be the cause of its spoilage. It can also cause the production of mucus, sourness and green coloring even in reprocessed goods. The formation of a moderate amount of mucus is also typical of Lactobacillus sakei [157]. L. lactis is a Gram-positive bacterium used in the dairy industry, which has homofermentative metabolism and generally produces L-(+)—lactic acid [158]. Nevertheless, in cases of low pH, D-(-)—lactic acid can be produced as well. On the other hand, L. lactis subsp. lactis, previous Streptococcus lactis [159], is used in the early stages of the production of various cheese types, including Brie, Camembert, Cheddar, Colby, Gruyere, Parmesan and Roquefort [160]. A high concentration of these microorganisms infuses milk and other dairy products with apricot flavoring [161]. Leuconostoc spp is a Gram-positive, heterofermentative lactic acid bacterium which is capable of producing dextran out of sucrose. Leuconostoc carnosum was first isolated from meat kept in a refrigerator. It affects vacuumed and cooked meat by causing rotting, changes in acidity and the formation of gas and/or mucus [162]. The influence of lactobacilli on the spoilage of wine is also well known. Furthermore, this bacterium can be the reason for the decomposition of cookies, the cause of which is the heterofermentative feature of malonic acid.

5. Conclusions

Despite the presence of sufficient information on the processing of tomato, this data is fragmented; there is no comprehensive approach to considering the entire chain, starting from the selection of the variety and the conditions for growing raw materials, the parameters of preparing it for processing and technological methods for extracting functional ingredients. The situation is similar to the production of probiotic preparations based on cultures of commensal microorganisms for those strains that are capable of producing bacteriocins. Conducting complex scientific research in these areas is an extremely important and urgent task. On the other hand, the amount of research being conducted concerning the plant probiotics of the tomato is continuously growing. Moreover, there are investigations from ancient times that also certify the growth of both lactic acid bacteria and probiotics in tomato juice and its technological processes. Nevertheless, up until now, there have been no studies that propose the use of lactic acid bacteria from tomato fruit as stimulators of technological production.
Discussions about the “necessity” of the use of probiotics, isolated from human gut microbiota in different levels of the food chain, are also missing. It has been suggested that these probiotics should be called “One Health” probiotics. The minimal requirement for these probiotics (its concentration) is to be safe for use in different levels of the food chain and, meanwhile, to contain useful features for human health. Analysis of the literature states that lactobacilli, particularly Lpb. plantarum strains, can be used to ensure the biosafety of “One Health” probiotics, e.g., tomato fruit and the biotechnological processes of its production. However, upcoming developments in bioinformatics studies, based on investigations of “probiotic” genes [67,68,69,70], will contribute to the detection and use of “One-Health” probiotics from tomatoes.

Author Contributions

N.H. (Natalya Harutyunyan) performed the formal analysis and participated in data collection; A.K. and N.H. (Narine Hovhannisyan) participated in data collection; and A.P. designed, supervised and wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by State Committee of Science, Armenia, grant numbers 10-15/I-5 and 21AG-4D065; the authors did not receive funds to cover publication costs.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Xu, X.; Li, S.; Zhu, Y. Dietary intake of tomato and lycopene and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality: Results from a prospective study. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 684859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ntagkas, N.; Woltering, E.; Bouras, S.; de Vos, R.C.H.; Dieleman, J.A.; Nicole, C.C.S.; Labrie, C.; Marcelis, L.F.M. Light-induced vitamin C accumulation in tomato fruits is independent of carbohydrate availability. Plants 2019, 8, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Quinet, M.; Angosto, T.; Yuste-Lisbona, F.J.; Blanchard-Gros, R.; Bigot, S.; Martinez, J.-P.; Lutts, S. Tomato fruit development and metabolism. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Abdelgawad, K.F.; El-Mogy, M.M.; Mohamed, M.I.A.; Garchery, C.; Stevens, R.G. Increasing ascorbic acid content and salinity tolerance of cherry tomato plants by suppressed expression of the ascorbate oxidase gene. Agronomy 2019, 9, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bhowmik, D.; Kumar, K.P.S.; Paswan, S.; Srivastava, S. Tomato- a natural medicine and its health benefits. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2012, 1, 33–43. [Google Scholar]
  6. Yu, W.; Wang, L.; Zhao, R.; Sheng, J.; Zhang, S.; Li, R.; Shen, L. Knockout of SlMAPK3 enhances tolerance to heat stress involving ROS homeostasis in tomato plants. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Askari, A.; Pepoyan, A.; Parsaeimehr, A. Salt tolerance of genetic modified potato (Solanum tuberosum) cv. Agria by expression of a bacterial mtlD gene. Adv. Agric. Bot. 2012, 4, 10–16. [Google Scholar]
  8. Pepoyan, A.Z.; Chikindas, M.L. Plant-associated and soil Microbiota composition as an important criterion for the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. GM Crops Food 2019, 11, 47–53. [Google Scholar]
  9. Machmudah, I.; Winardi, S.; Sasaki, M.; Goto, M.; Kusumoto, N.; Hayakawa, K. Lycopene extraction from tomato peel by-product containing tomato seed using supercritical carbon dioxide. J. Food Eng. 2011, 108, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Papaioannou, E.H.; Karabelas, A.J. Lycopene recovery from tomato peel under mild conditions assisted by enzymatic pre-treatment and non-ionic surfactants. Acta Biochim. Pol. 2012, 59, 71–74. [Google Scholar]
  11. Tommonaro, G.; De Prisco, R.; Abbamondi, G.R.; Nicolaus, B. Bioactivity of tomato hybrid powder: Antioxidant compounds and their biological activities. J. Med. Food 2013, 16, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Szabo, K.; Dulf, F.V.; Teleky, B.E.; Eleni, P.; Boukouvalas, C.; Krokida, M.; Kapsalis, N.; Rusu, A.V.; Socol, C.T.; Vodnar, D.C. Evaluation of the bioactive compounds found in tomato seed oil and tomato peels influenced by industrial heat treatments. Foods 2021, 10, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kahn, L. Perspective: The one-health way. Nature 2017, 543, S47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Winding, A.; Bach, E.; Mele, P.; Turetta, A.P.D.; Robertson, A.; Auclerc, A.; Pepoyan, A.; Cienfuegos, B.C.G.; Robb, C.; Janion-Scheepers, C.; et al. Chapter 3. Contributions of soil biodiversity to ecosystem functions and services. In State of Knowledge of Soil Biodiversity—Status, Challenges and Potentialities; Report; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; pp. 115–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Van Bruggen, A.H.C.; Goss, E.M.; Havelaar, A.; van Diepeningen, A.D.; Finckh, M.R.; Morris, J.G., Jr. One Health—Cycling of diverse microbial communities as a connecting force for soil, plant, animal, human and ecosystem health. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 664, 927–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lopes, M.J.S.; Dias-Filho, M.B.; Gurgel, E.S.C. Successful plant growth-promoting microbes: Inoculation methods and abiotic factors. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 606454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Guo, D.; Fan, Z.; Lu, S.; Ma, Y.; Nie, X.; Tong, F.; Peng, X. Changes in rhizosphere bacterial communities during remediation of heavy metal-accumulating plants around the Xikuangshan mine in southern China. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Kumar, A.; Vandana, R.S.; Singh, M.; Pandey, K.D. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). A promising approach for disease management. In Microbes and Environmental Management; Singh, J.S., Singh, D.P., Eds.; Studium Press: New Delhi, India, 2015; pp. 195–209. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292617010_Plant_growth_promoting_rhizobacteria_PGPR_A_promising_approach_for_disease_management (accessed on 10 November 2015).
  19. Lee, S.M.; Kong, H.G.; Song, G.C.; Ryu, C.M. Disruption of Firmicutes and Actinobacteria abundance in tomato rhizosphere causes the incidence of bacterial wilt disease. ISME J. 2021, 15, 330–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tavalire, H.F.; Christie, D.M.; Leve, L.D.; Ting, N.; Cresko, W.A.; Bohannan, B.J.M. Shared environment and genetics shape the gut microbiome after infant adoption. mBio 2021, 12, e00548-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pepoyan, A.; Balayan, M.; Manvelyan, A.; Galstyan, L.; Pepoyan, S.; Petrosyan, S.; Tsaturyan, V.; Kamiya, S.; Torok, T.; Chikindas, M. Probiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus strain INMIA 9602 Er 317/402 administration reduces the numbers of Candida albicans and abundance of enterobacteria in the gut microbiota of Familial Mediterranean fever patients. Front. Immunol. 2018, 26, 1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Fan, P.; Bian, B.; Teng, L.; Nelson, C.D.; Driver, J.; Elzo, M.A.; Jeong, K.C. Host genetic effects upon the early gut microbiota in a bovine model with graduated spectrum of genetic variation. ISME J. 2020, 14, 302–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Fitzpatrick, C.R.; Mustafa, Z.; Viliunas, J. Soil microbes alter plant fitness under competition and drought. J. Evol. Biol. 2019, 32, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Compant, S.; Samad, A.; Faist, H.; Sessitsch, A. A review on the plant microbiome: Ecology, functions, and emerging trends in microbial application. J. Adv. Res. 2019, 19, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Smulders, L.; Benitez, E.; Moreno, B.; Lopez-Garcia, A.; Pozo, M.J.; Ferrero, V.; de la Pena, E.; Alcala Herrera, R. Tomato domestication affects potential functional molecular pathways of root-associated soil bacteria. Plants 2021, 10, 1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cheng, Z.; Lei, S.; Li, Y.; Huang, W.; Ma, R.; Xiong, J.; Zhang, T.; Jin, L.; ul Haq, H.; Xu, X.; et al. Revealing the variation and stability of bacterial communities in tomato rhizosphere microbiota. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Singh, V.K.; Singh, A.K.; Kumar, A. Disease management of tomato through PGPB: Current trends and future perspective. 3 Biotech 2017, 7, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Quides, K.W.; Atamian, H.S. A microbiome engineering framework to evaluate rhizobial symbionts of legumes. Plant Soil 2021, 463, 631–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pardo-Diaz, S.; Romero-Perdomo, F.; Mendoza-Labrador, J.; Delgadillo-Duran, D.; Castro-Rincon, E.; Silva, A.M.; Rojas-Tapias, D.F.; Cardoso, E.J.B.N.; Estrada-Bonilla, G.A. Endophytic PGPB improves plant growth and quality, and modulates the bacterial community of an intercropping system. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 715270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Smith, S.E.; Smith, F.A. Roles of arbuscular mycorrhizas in plant nutrition and growth: New paradigms from cellular to ecosystem scales. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2011, 62, 227–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Cordon, G.; Andrade, C.; Barbara, L.; Romero, A.M. Early detection of tomato bacterial canker by reflectance indices. Inf. Processing Agric. 2021, 9, 184–194. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214317321000536 (accessed on 12 June 2021).
  32. Hariharan, G.; Prasannath, K. Recent advances in molecular diagnostics of fungal plant pathogens: A mini review. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 600234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, F.; Han, P.; Liu, P.; Si, N.; Liu, J.; Liu, X. Activity of the novel fungicide SYP-Z048 against plant pathogens. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 6473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Santra, H.K.; Banerjee, D. Natural products as fungicide and their role in crop protection. In Natural Bioactive Products in Sustainable Agriculture; Singh, J., Yadav, A., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 131–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chanthini, K.M.-P.; Senthil-Nathan, S.; Soranam, R.; Thanigaivel, A.; Karthi, S.; Kumar, C.S.; Kingsley, S.J.; Murali-Baskaran, R.K. Bacterial compounds, as biocontrol agent against early blight (Alternaria solani) and tobacco cut worm (Spodoptera litura Fab.) of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2018, 51, 729–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Oszust, K.; Pylak, M.; Frac, M. Trichoderma-based biopreparation with prebiotics supplementation for the naturalization of raspberry plant rhizosphere. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 6356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Daranas, N.; Rosello, G.; Cabrefiga, J.; Donati, I.; Frances, J.; Badosa, E.; Spinelli, F.; Montesinos, E.; Bonaterra, A. Biological control of bacterial plant diseases with Lactobacillus plantarum strains selected for their broad-spectrum activity. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2019, 174, 92–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Habash, S.S.; Brass, H.U.C.; Klein, A.S.; Klebl, D.P.; Weber, T.M.; Classen, T.; Pietruszka, J.; Grundler, F.M.W.; Schleker, A.S.S. Novel prodiginine derivatives demonstrate bioactivities on plants, nematodes, and fungi. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 16, 579807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bitzenhofer, N.L.; Kruse, L.; Thies, S.; Wynands, B.; Lechtenberg, T.; Rönitz, J.; Kozaeva, E.; Wirth, N.T.; Eberlein, C.; Jaeger, K.E.; et al. Towards robust Pseudomonas cell factories to harbour novel biosynthetic pathways. Essays Biochem. 2021, 65, 319–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shelake, R.M.; Pramanik, D.; Kim, J.Y. Exploration of Plant-Microbe Interactions for Sustainable Agriculture in CRISPR Era. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Pascale, A.; Proietti, S.; Pantelides, I.S.; Stringlis, I.A. Modulation of the root microbiome by plant molecules: The basis for targeted disease suppression and plant growth promotion. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 10, 1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Narciso, A.; Fonte, M. Making farm-to-fork front-of-the-pack: Labelling a sustainable European diet. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 2021, 27, 54–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Purnhagen, K.P.; Clemens, S.; Eriksson, D.; Fresco, L.O.; Tosun, J.; Qaim, M.; Visser, R.G.F.; Weber, A.P.M.; Wesseler, J.H.H.; Zilberman, D. Europe’s farm to fork strategy and its commitment to biotechnology and organic farming: Conflicting or complementary goals? Trends Plant Sci. 2021, 26, 600–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Perles, C. Le strategie alimentari nella preistoria. In Storia Dell’alimentazione; Flandrin, J.-L., Montanari, M., Eds.; Laterza: Roma-Bari, Italy, 1977; pp. 12–25. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kenneth, F.K.; Kriemhild, C.O. Cambridge World History of Food, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; Volume 1, p. 2153. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tamang, J.P.; Cotter, P.D.; Endo, A.; Han, N.S.; Kort, R.; Liu, S.Q.; Mayo, B.; Westerik, N.; Hutkins, R. Fermented foods in a global age: East meets West. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 184–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Kitamura, Y.; Kusumoto, K.I.; Oguma, T.; Nagai, T.; Furukawa, S.; Suzuki, C.; Satomi, M.; Magariyama, Y.; Takamine, K.; Tamaki, H. Ethnic fermented foods and alcoholic beverages of Japan. In Ethnic Fermented Foods and Alcoholic Beverages of Asia; Tamang, J.P., Ed.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 193–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pepoyan, A.Z.; Manvelyan, A.M.; Balayan, M.H.; McCabe, G.; Tsaturyan, V.V.; Melnikov, V.G.; Chikindas, M.L.; Weeks, R.; Karlyshev, A.V. The effectiveness of potential probiotics Lactobacillus rhamnosus Vahe and Lactobacillus delbrueckii IAHAHI in irradiated rats depends on the nutritional stage of the host. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2020, 12, 1439–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pasteur, L. Mèmoire sur la fermentation appeleé lactique. In Annales de Chimie et de Physique, 3rd ed.; Victor Masson: Paris, France, 1858; pp. 404–418. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tissier, H. Tratement des infections intestinales par la méthode de la flore bactérienne de l’intestin. Crit. Rev. Soc. Biol. 1906, 60, 359–361. [Google Scholar]
  51. Krawczyk, R.T.; Banaszkiewicz, A. Dr. Jozef Brudzinski—The true ‘Father of probiotics’. Benef. Microbes 2021, 12, 211–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Erzinkyan, L.H. Acidophilic Milk; National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia: Yerevan, Armenia, 1948; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sherman, M.P. Historical Perspectives: Perinatal profiles: Elie Metchnikoff: Probiotic pioneer. Neoreviews 2011, 12, 495–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Anukam, K.C.; Reid, G. Probiotics: 100 Years (1907–2007) after Elie Metchnikoff’s Observation. In Communicating Current Research and Educational Topics and Trends in Applied Microbiology; Mendez-Vilas, A., Ed.; FORMATEX: Badajoz, Spain, 2007; Volume 2, pp. 466–474. [Google Scholar]
  55. Metchnikoff, E. Should we try to prolong human life? In The Prolongation of Life: Optimistic Studies; Mitchell, P.C., Ed.; G. P. Putnam’s Sons, Knickerbocker Press: New York, NY, USA, 1908; pp. 161–183. Available online: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51521/51521-h/51521-h.htm#Page_73 (accessed on 21 March 2016).
  56. Holzapfel, W.H.; Haberer, P.; Geisen, R.; Björkroth, J.; Schillinger, U. Taxonomy and important features of probiotic microorganisms in food and nutrition. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2001, 73, 365s–373s. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Erzinkyan, L.H. Methodology of Preparation and Application of Acidophilic Milk, Used in Medicine; National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia: Yerevan, Armenia, 1954; p. 38. [Google Scholar]
  58. Hambardzumyan, V. (Ed.) Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia; Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia Publishing House: Yerevan, Armenia, 1977; Volume 3, p. 584. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hamilton-Miller, J.; Gibson, G.; Bruck, W. Some insights into the derivation and early uses of the word ‘probiotic’. Br. J. Nutr. 2003, 90, 845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Ebner, S.; Smug, L.N.; Kneifel, W.; Salminen, S.J.; Sanders, M.E. Probiotics in dietary guidelines and clinical recommendations outside the European Union. World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 16095–16100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Reid, G. The importance of guidelines in the development and application of probiotics. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2005, 11, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Balayan, M.; Pepoyan, A.; Manvelyan, A.; Tsaturyan, V.V.; Grigoryan, B.; Abrahamyan, A.; Chikindas, M.L. Combined use of eBeam irradiation and the potential probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus Vahe for control of foodborne pathogen Klebsiella pneumoniae. Ann. Microbiol. 2019, 69, 1579–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fenster, K.; Freeburg, B.; Hollard, C.; Wong, C.; Laursen, R.R.; Ouwehand, A.C. The production and delivery of probiotics: Review of a practical approach. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Pepoyan, A.; Balayan, M.; Manvelyan, A.; Pepoyan, S.; Malkhasyan, L.; Bezhanyan, T.; Paronikyan, R.; Kamiya, S.; Chikindas, M. Radioprotective effects of lactobacilli with antagonistic activities against human pathogens. Biophys. J. 2018, 114, 665a. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pepoyan, A.Z.; Manvelyan, A.M.; Balayan, M.H.; Galstyan, S.; Tsaturyan, V.V.; Grigoryan, B.; Chikindas, M.L. Low-dose electron-beam irradiation for the improvement of biofilm formation by probiotic lactobacilli. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2020, 12, 667–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pepoyan, A.Z.; Tsaturyan, V.V.; Badalyan, M.; Weeks, R.; Kamiya, S.; Chikindas, M.L. Blood protein polymorphisms and the gut bacteria: Impact of probiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus Narine on Salmonella carriage in sheep. Benef. Microbes 2020, 11, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pepoyan, A.Z.; Pepoyan, E.S.; Harutyunyan, N.A.; Galstyan, L.; Tsaturyan, V.V.; Torok, T.; Ermakov, A.M.; Popov, I.V.; Weeks, R.; Chikindas, M.L. The role of immonobiotic/psychobiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus strain INMIA 9602 Er 317/402 Narine on gut Prevotella in familial Mediterranean fever: Gender-associated effects. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2021, 13, 1306–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Menendez, E.; Garcia-Fraile, P. Plant probiotic bacteria: Solutions to feed the world. AIMS Microbiol. 2017, 3, 502–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. York, A. Plant probiotic supresses bacterial wilt. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2018, 16, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lebeer, S.; Vanderleyden, J.; De Keersmaecker, S.C.J. Genes and molecules of Lactobacilli supporting probiotic action. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2008, 7, 728–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Siezen, R.J.; Wilson, G. Probiotics genomics. Microb. Biotechnol. 2010, 3, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Carro, L.; Nouioui, I. Taxonomy and systematics of plant probiotic bacteria in the genomic era. AIMS Microbiol. 2017, 3, 383–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ghattargi, V.C.; Gaikwad, M.A.; Meti, B.S.; Nimonkar, Y.S.; Dixit, K.; Prakash, O.; Shouche, Y.S.; Pawar, S.P.; Dhotre, D.P. Comparative genome analysis reveals key genetic factors associated with probiotic property in Enterococcus faecium strains. BMC Genom. 2018, 19, 652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Cristofori, F.; Dargenio, V.N.; Dargenio, C.; Miniello, V.L.; Barone, M.; Francavilla, R. Anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of probiotics in gut inflammation: A door to the body. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 578386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rocchetti, M.T.; Russo, P.; Capozzi, V.; Drider, D.; Spano, G.; Fiocco, D. Bioprospecting antimicrobials from Lactiplantibacillus plantarum: Key factors underlying its probiotic action. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 12076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Barkhidarian, B.; Roldos, L.; Iskandar, M.M.; Saedisomeolia, A.; Kubow, S. Probiotic supplementation and micronutrient status in healthy subjects: A systematic review of clinical trials. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Eschenbach, D.A.; Davick, P.R.; Williams, B.L.; Klebanoff, S.J.; Young-Smith, K.; Critchlow, C.M.; Holmes, K.K. Prevalence of hydrogen peroxide-producing Lactobacillus species in normal women and women with bacterial vaginosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1989, 27, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Mathipa, M.G.; Thantsha, M.S. Probiotic engineering: Towards development of robust probiotic strains with enhanced functional properties and for targeted control of enteric pathogens. Gut Pathog. 2017, 9, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Siedler, S.; Rau, M.H.; Bidstrup, S.; Vento, J.M.; Aunsbjerg, S.D.; Bosma, E.F.; McNair, L.M.; Beisel, C.L.; Neves, A.R. Competitive exclusion is a major bioprotective mechanism of Lactobacilli against fungal spoilage in fermented milk products. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2020, 86, e02312-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Al Kassaa, I. Antiviral probiotics: A new concept in medical sciences. In New Insights on Antiviral Probiotics: From Research to Applications; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Amalaradjou, M.A.; Bhunia, A.K. Modern approaches in probiotics research to control foodborne pathogens. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2012, 67, 185–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yan, F.; Polk, D.B. Probiotics and immune health. Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol. 2011, 27, 496–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Underwood, M.A. Probiotics and innate and adaptive immune responses in premature infants. Forum Immunopathol. Dis. Ther. 2016, 7, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Pepoyan, A.; Trchounian, A. Biophysics, molecular and cellular biology of probiotic activity by bacteria. In Bacterial Membranes; Trchounian, A., Ed.; Res. Signpost: Kerala, India, 2009; pp. 275–287. [Google Scholar]
  85. Cross, M.L. Microbes versus microbes: Immune signals generated by probiotic lactobacilli and their role in protection against microbial pathogens. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2002, 34, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Vaarala, O. Immunological effects of probiotics with special reference to lactobacilli. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2003, 33, 1634–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mack, D.R.; Ahrne, S.; Hyde, L.; Wei, S.; Hollingsworth, M.A. Extracellular MUC3 mucin secretion follows adherence of Lactobacillus strains to intestinal epithelial cells in vitro. Gut 2003, 52, 827–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Michail, S.; Abernathy, F.W. Lactobacillus plantarum inhibits the intestinal epithelial migration of neutrophils induced by enteropathogenic Escherichia coli. J. Pediatric Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2003, 36, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Asgari, B.; Kermanian, F.; Hedayat Yaghoobi, M.; Vaezi, A.; Soleimanifar, F.; Yaslianifard, S. The Anti-Helicobacter pylori effects of Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. plantarum, and L. rhamnosus in stomach tissue of C57BL/6 Mice. Visc. Med. 2020, 36, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Spoel, S.; Dong, X. How do plants achieve immunity? Defence without specialized immune cells. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2012, 12, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Garcia-Fraile, P.; Menendez, E.; Rivas, R. Role of bacterial biofertilizers in agriculture and forestry. AIMS Bioeng. 2015, 2, 183–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kumar, A.; Prakash, G.; Kumar, G. Does environmentally responsible purchase intention matter for consumers? A predictive sustainable model developed through an empirical study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Anzalone, A.; Di Guardo, M.; Bella, P.; Ghadamgahi, F.; Dimaria, G.; Zago, R.; Cirvilleri, G.; Catara, V. Bioprospecting of beneficial bacteria traits associated with tomato root in greenhouse environment reveals that sampling sites impact more than the root compartment. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 637582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Attia, M.; Hoda, H.A. Induction of defense responses in tomato plants inoculated with phytostimulation microorganisms against Fusarium oxysporum. Arab Univ. J. Agric. Sci. 2005, 13, 689–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bona, E.; Cantamessa, S.; Massa, N.; Manassero, P.; Marsano, F.; Copetta, A.; Lingua, G.; D’Agostino, G.; Gamalero, E.; Berta, G. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting pseudomonads improve yield, quality and nutritional value of tomato: A field study. Mycorrhiza 2017, 27, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Shen, F.; Zhu, T.B.; Teng, M.J.; Chen, Y.; Liu, M.Q.; Hu, F.; Li, H.X. Effects of interaction between vermicompost and probiotics on soil nronerty, yield and quality of tomato. Yingyong Shengtai Xuebao 2016, 27, 484–490. [Google Scholar]
  97. Jimenez-Gomez, A.; Celador-Lera, L.; Fradejas-Bayon, M.; Rivas, R. Plant probiotic bacteria enhance the quality of fruit and horticultural crops. AIMS Microbiol. 2017, 3, 483–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Rahman, M.; Sabir, A.A.; Mukta, J.A.; Khan, M.d.M.A.; Mohi-Ud-Din, M.; Miah, M.G.; Rahman, M.; Islam, M.T. Plant probiotic bacteria Bacillus and Paraburkholderia improve growth, yield and content of antioxidants in strawberry fruit. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 2504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Tsuda, K.; Tsuji, G.; Higashiyama, M.; Ogiyama, H.; Umemura, K.; Mitomi, M.; Kubo, Y.; Kosaka, Y. Biological control of bacterial soft rot in Chinese cabbage by Lactobacillus plantarum strain BY under field conditions. Biol. Control 2016, 100, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Trinder, M.; McDowell, T.W.; Daisley, B.A.; Ali, S.N.; Leong, H.S.; Sumarah, M.W.; Reid, G. Probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus reduces organophosphate pesticide absorption and toxicity to Drosophila melanogaster. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 6204–6213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Abdelghani, Z.; Hourani, N.; Zaidan, Z.; Dbaibo, G.; Mrad, M.; Hage-Sleiman, R. Therapeutic applications and biological activities of bacterial bioactive extracts. Arch. Microbiol. 2021, 203, 4755–4776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Shahinyan, A.; Garibyan, J.; Pepoyan, A.; Karapetyan, O. Cancerolytic action of E. coli. New Electron. J. Nat. Sci. 2003, 1, 53–58. [Google Scholar]
  103. Mirzoyan, N.; Pepoyan, A.; Trchounian, A. Modification of the biophysical characteristics of membranes in commensal Escherichia coli strains from breast cancer patients. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2006, 254, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Yan, F.; Li, N.; Yue, Y.; Wang, C.; Zhao, L.; Evivie, S.E.; Li, B.; Huo, G. Screening for potential novel probiotics with dipeptidyl peptidase IV-inhibiting activity for type 2 diabetes attenuation in vitro and in vivo. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 2855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Choi, W.J.; Dong, H.J.; Jeong, H.U.; Ryu, D.W.; Song, S.M.; Kim, Y.R.; Jung, H.H.; Kim, T.H.; Kim, Y.H. Lactobacillus plantarum LMT1-48 exerts anti-obesity effect in high-fat diet-induced obese mice by regulating expression of lipogenic genes. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Yong, S.J.; Tong, T.; Chew, J.; Lim, W.L. Antidepressive mechanisms of probiotics and their therapeutic potential. Front. Neurosci. 2020, 13, 1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Robles-Vera, I.; Toral, M.; Romero, M.; Jimenez, R.; Sanchez, M.; Perez-Vizcaino, F.; Duarte, J. Antihypertensive effects of probiotics. Curr. Hypertens. Rep. 2017, 19, 26. [Google Scholar]
  108. Lehtoranta, L.; Latvala, S.; Lehtinen, M.J. Role of probiotics in stimulating the immune system in viral respiratory tract infections: A narrative review. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zharkova, I.M.; Safonova, Y.A.; Grebenshchikov, A.V.; Trufanova, Y.N.; Kazimirova, Y.K.; Slepokurova, Y.I. Application of paramecium caudatum for the assessment of energy costs for food raw materials and products digestibility. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 640, 062006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Zharkova, I.M.; Harutyunyan, N.A.; Pepoyan, A.Z.; Pochitskaya, I.M. Tomatoes: A modern view on processing and possibility of cooperation of the Eurasian Economic Union member countries. In Proceedings of the III International Congress “Science, Nutrition and Health”, Minsk, Belarus, 24–25 June 2021; Lovkis, Z.V., Ed.; Belarusian Science: Minsk, Belarus, 2021; Part 2; pp. 83–87. [Google Scholar]
  111. Khaneghaha, A.M.; Abhari, K.; Es, I.; Soares, M.B.; Oliveira, R.B.A.; Hosseini, H.; Rezaei, M.; Balthazar, C.F.; Silva, R.; Cruz, A.G.; et al. Interactions between probiotics and pathogenic microorganisms in hosts and foods: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 95, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Pepoyan, A.Z.; Balayan, M.A.; Arutyunyan, N.A.; Grigoryan, A.G.; Tsaturyan, V.V.; Manvelyan, A.M.; Dilanyan, E.; Pitseno, I.; Torok, T. Antibiotic resistance of Escherichia coli of the intestinal microbiota in patients with familial mediterranean fever. Klin. Med. 2015, 93, 37–39. [Google Scholar]
  113. Bah, A.; Ferjani, R.; Fhoula, I.; Gharbi, Y.; Najjari, A.; Boudabous, A.; Ouzari, H.I. Microbial community dynamic in tomato fruit during spontaneous fermentation and biotechnological characterization of indigenous lactic acid bacteria. Ann. Microbiol. 2019, 69, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Bah, A.; Albano, H.; Barbosa, J.B.; Fhoula, I.; Gharbi, Y.; Najjari, A.; Boudabous, A.; Teixeira, P.; Ouzari, H.I. Inhibitory effect of Lactobacillus plantarum FL75 and Leuconostoc mesenteroides FL14 against foodborne pathogens in artificially contaminated fermented tomato juices. Biomed. Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 6937837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Terpou, A.; Papadaki, A.; Lappa, I.K.; Kachrimanidou, V.; Bosnea, L.A.; Kopsahelis, N. Probiotics in food systems: Significance and emerging strategies towards improved viability and delivery of enhanced beneficial value. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Blum, W.; Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S.; Keiblinger, K.M. Does soil contribute to the human gut microbiome? Microorganisms 2019, 7, 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Malkhasyan, L.; Pepoyan, A. Antibacterial effect of the probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum strain ZPZ on the growth of Klebsiella preumoniae. Artsakh State Univ. Proc. Nat. Sci. 2021, 2, 209–215. [Google Scholar]
  118. Garcia-Gonzalez, N.; Battista, N.; Prete, R.; Corsetti, A. Health-promoting role of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum isolated from fermented foods. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Suo, C.; Yin, Y.; Wang, X.; Lou, X.; Song, D.; Wang, X.; Gu, Q. Effects of lactobacillus plantarum ZJ316 on pig growth and pork quality. BMC Vet. Res. 2012, 8, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Foysal, M.J.; Fotedar, R.; Siddik, M.A.B.; Tay, A. Lactobacillus acidophilus and L. plantarum improve health status, modulate gut microbiota and innate immune response of marron (Cherax cainii). Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 5916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Landete, J.M.; Rodriguez, H.; Curiel, J.A.; de las Rivas, B.; de Felipe, F.L.; Munoz, R. Chapter 12—Degradation of phenolic compounds found in olive products by Lactobacillus plantarum strains. In Olives and Olive Oil in Health and Disease Prevention, 2nd ed.; Preedy, V.R., Watson, R.R., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Yoon, K.Y.; Woodams, E.E.; Hang, Y.D. Probiotication of tomato juice by lactic acid bacteria. J. Microbiol. 2004, 42, 315–318. [Google Scholar]
  123. Kostinek, M.; Specht, I.; Edward, V.A.; Pinto, C.; Egounlety, M.; Sossa, C.; Mbugua, S.; Dortu, C.; Thonart, P.; Taljaard, L.; et al. Characterization and biochemical properties of predominant lactic acid bacteria from fermenting cassava for selection as starter cultures. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 114, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Escalante-Minakata, P.; Blaschek, H.P.; Barba de la Rosa, A.P.; Santos, L.; De Leon-Rodriguez, A. Identification of yeast and bacteria involved in the mezcal fermentation of Agave salmiana. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 46, 626–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Trias, R.; Baneras, L.; Montesinos, E.; Badosa, E. Lactic acid bacteria from fresh fruit and vegetables as biocontrol agents of phytopathogenic bacteria and fungi. Int. Microbiol. 2008, 11, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Limanska, N.; Ivanytsia, T.; Basiul, O.; Krylova, K.; Biscola, V.; Chobert, G.M.; Ivanytsia, V.; Haertle, T. Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum on germination and growth of tomato seedlings. Acta Physiol. Plant 2013, 35, 1587–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Pepoyan, A.; Balayan, M.; Manvelyan, A.; Mamikonyan, V.; Isajanyan, M.; Tsaturyan, V.V.; Kamiya, S.; Netrebov, V.; Chikindas, M.L. Lactobacillus acidophilus INMIA 9602 Er-2 strain 317/402 probiotic regulates growth of commensal Escherichia coli in gut microbiota of familial Mediterranean fever disease subjects. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 64, 254–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Kerry, R.G.; Patra, J.K.; Gouda, S.; Park, Y.; Shin, H.-S.; Das, G. Benefaction of probiotics for human health: A review. J. Food Drug Anal. 2018, 26, 927–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. El-Abd, S.B.H.; Abu-Shady, H.M.; Elshebiny, H.A.F.M.; Ebrahim, M.A.A.; Sayed, H.A. Malathion biodegradation by L. casei (NRRL1922) and L. acidophilus (NRRL 23431) in fermented skimmed milk. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2021, 15, 1617–1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Pepoyan, A.; Balayan, M.; Malkasyan, L.; Manvelyan, A.; Bezhanyan, T.; Paronikyan, R.; Tsaturyan, V.; Tatikyan, S.; Kamiya, S.; Chikindas, M. Effects of probiotic Lactobacillus acidophilus strain INMIA 9602 Er 317/402 and putative probiotic lactobacilli on DNA damages in small intestine of Wistar rats in vivo. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2019, 11, 905–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Lamont, J. Characterization of The Relationship Between Tomato and Lactobacillus. Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. De Oliveira, K.A.R.; Fernandes, K.F.D.; de Souza, E.L. Current advances on the development and application of probiotic-loaded edible films and coatings for the bioprotection of fresh and minimally processed fruit and vegetables. Foods 2021, 10, 2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Bolan, S.; Seshadri, B.; Grainge, I.; Talley, N.J.; Naidu, R. Gut microbes modulate bioaccessibility of lead in soil. Chemosphere 2021, 270, 128657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Alves, E.; Gregório, J.; Baby, A.R.; Rijo, P.; Rodrigues, L.M.; Rosado, C. Homemade kefir consumption improves skin condition-A study conducted in healthy and atopic volunteers. Foods 2021, 10, 2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Corpuz, H.M.; Ichikawa, S.; Arimura, M.; Mihara, T.; Kumagai, T.; Mitani, T.; Nakamura, S.; Katayama, S. Long-term diet supplementation with Lactobacillus paracasei K71 prevents age-related cognitive decline in senescence-accelerated mouse Prone 8. Nutrients 2018, 10, 762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Lazarenko, L.M.; Babenko, L.P.; Gichka, S.G.; Sakhno, L.O.; Demchenko, O.M.; Bubnov, R.V.; Sichel, L.M.; Spivak, M.Y. Assessment of the safety of Lactobacillus casei IMV B-7280 probiotic strain on a mouse model. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2021, 13, 1644–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Khalil, O.A.A.; Mounir, A.M.; Hassanien, R.A. Effect of gamma irradiated Lactobacillus bacteria as an edible coating on enhancing the storage of tomato under cold storage conditions. J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 2020, 13, 318–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Moro-Garcia, M.A.; Alonso-Arias, R.; Baltadjieva, M.; Benitez, C.F.; Barrial, M.A.F.; Ruisanchez, E.D.; Santos, R.A.; Sanchez, M.A.; Mijan, J.S.; Lopez-Larrea, C. Oral supplementation with Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus 8481 enhances systemic immunity in elderly subjects. Age 2013, 35, 1311–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Michaylova, M.; Minkova, S.; Kimura, K.; Sasaki, T.; Isawa, K. Isolation and characterization of Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus from plants in Bulgaria. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2007, 269, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Toscano, M.; De Grandi, R.; Stronati, L.; De Vecchi, E.; Drago, L. Effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001 and Bifidobacterium longum BB536 on the healthy gut microbiota composition at phyla and species level: A preliminary study. World J. Gastroenterol. 2017, 23, 2696–2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Espirito-Santo, A.P.; Carlin, F.; Renard, C.M.G.C. Apple, grape or orange juice: Which one offers the best substrate for lactobacilli growth?—A screening study on bacteria viability, superoxide dismutase activity, folates production and hedonic characteristics. Food Res. Int. 2015, 78, 352–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Kuroda, R.; Higuchi, H.; Yoshida, K.; Yonejima, Y.; Hisa, K.; Utsuyama, M.; Osawa, K.; Hirokawa, K. Effects of chocolate containing Leuconostoc mesenteroides strain NTM048 on immune function: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Immun. Ageing 2018, 15, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Huang, Y.H.; Chen, Y.H.; Chen, J.H.; Hsu, P.S.; Wu, T.H.; Lin, C.F.; Peng, C.C.; Wu, M.C. A potential probiotic Leuconostoc mesenteroides TBE-8 for honey bee. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 18466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Sajur, S.A.; Saguir, F.M.; Manca de Nadra, M.C. Effect of dominant specie of lactic acid bacteria from tomato on natural microflora development in tomato puree. Food Control 2007, 18, 594–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Naeem, M.; Ilyas, M.; Haider, S.; Baig, S.; Saleem, M. Isolation characterization and identification of lactic acid bacteria from fruit juices and their efficacy against antibiotics. Pak. J. Bot. 2012, 44, 323–328. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283803349_Isolation_characterization_and_identification_of_lactic_acid_bacteria_from_fruit_juices_and_their_efficacy_against_antibiotics (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  146. George, F.; Daniel, C.; Thomas, M.; Singer, E.; Guilbaud, A.; Tessier, F.J.; Revol-Junelles, A.M.; Borges, F.; Foligne, B. Occurrence and dynamism of lactic acid bacteria in distinct ecological niches: A multifaceted functional health perspective. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. De Filippis, F.; Pasolli, E.; Ercolini, D. The food-gut axis: Lactic acid bacteria and their link to food, the gut microbiome and human health. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2020, 44, 454–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Amamoto, R.; Shimamoto, K.; Park, S.; Matsumoto, H.; Shimizu, K.; Katto, M.; Tsuji, H.; Matsubara, S.; Shephard, R.J.; Aoyagi, Y. Yearly changes in the composition of gut microbiota in the elderly, and the effect of lactobacilli intake on these changes. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 12765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Konappa, N.M.; Maria, M.; Uzma, F.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Nayaka, S.C.; Niranjana, S.R.; Chowdappa, S. Lactic acid bacteria mediated induction of defense enzymes to enhance the resistance in tomato against Ralstonia solanacearum causing bacterial wilt. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 207, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Wang, J.; Ji, H.; Zhang, D.; Liu, H.; Wang, S.; Shan, D.; Wang, Y. Assessment of probiotic properties of Lactobacillus plantarum ZLP001 isolated from gastrointestinal tract of weaning pigs. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 11303–11308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Nami, Y.; Abdullah, N.; Haghshenas, B.; Radiah, D.; Rosli, R.; Khosroushahi, A.Y. Assessment of probiotic potential and anticancer activity of newly isolated vaginal bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum 5BL. Microbiol. Immunol. 2014, 58, 492–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Jose, N.M.; Bunt, C.R.; Hussain, M.A. Comparison of microbiological and probiotic characteristics of lactobacilli isolates from dairy food products and animal rumen contents. Microorganisms 2015, 3, 198–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Agaliya, P.J.; Jeevaratnam, K. Screening of Lactobacillus plantarum isolated from fermented idli batter for probiotic properties. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2012, 11, 12856–12864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Chang, M.H.; Hong, S.F.; Chen, J.H.; Lin, M.F.; Chen, C.S.; Wang, S.C. Antibacterial activity Lactobacillus plantarum isolated from fermented vegetables and investigation of the plantaricin genes. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2016, 10, 796–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Vanderzant, C.; Savell, J.V.; Hanna, M.O.; Potluri, V. A comparison of growth of individual meat bacteria on the lean and fatty tissue of beef, pork and lamb. J. Food Sci. 1986, 51, 5–8. [Google Scholar]
  156. Singhal, N.; Singh, N.S.; Mohanty, S.; Kumar, M.; Virdi, J.S. Rhizospheric Lactobacillus plantarum (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum) strains exhibit bile salt hydrolysis, hypocholestrolemic and probiotic capabilities in vitro. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 15288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Marshall, D.L.; Bal’a, M.F.A. Microbiology of Meats. In Meat Science and Applications; Hui, Y.H., Ed.; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 159–163. [Google Scholar]
  158. Roissart, H.; Luquet, F.M. Bacteries lactiques: Aspects fondamentaux et technologiques. In Viability of Lactic Acid Microflora in Different Types of Yoghurt; Grenoble: Lorica, France, 1994; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  159. Chopin, M.C.; Chopin, A.; Rouault, A.; Galleron, N. Insertion and amplification of foreign genes in the Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis chromosome. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1989, 55, 1769–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  160. Coffey, A.; Ross, R.P. Bacteriophage-resistance systems in dairy starter strains: Molecular analysis to application. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2002, 82, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Morgan, M.E. The chemistry of sorne microbially-induced Ilavor defects in milk and dairy foods. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1976, 18, 953–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Björkroth, K.J.; Vandamme, P.; Korkeala, H.J. Identification and characterization of Leuconostoc carnosum, associated with production and spoilage of vacuum-packaged, sliced, cooked ham. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998, 64, 3313–3319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table 1. Main mechanisms that determine the beneficial effects of human/animal probiotics.
Table 1. Main mechanisms that determine the beneficial effects of human/animal probiotics.
MechanismEffect
Production of antimicrobial substancesProbiotic strains might secrete substances that may participate in the formation of endosomes [74].The effects of probiotic bacteriocins on the exhibition of selective as well as target-specific antagonistic activities in host organisms are known [75].Despite varying degrees of efficacy, the intake of certain probiotics in healthy voluntaries is associated with a positive impact on the status of certain micronutrients: vitamin B12, calcium, folate, iron and zinc [48,76]. In addition, probiotics might also be potential producers of biotin and pyridoxine [48], and the impact of lactobacilli metabolites through their chemical nature (hydrogen peroxide [77], lactic acid, folic acid, vitamins) against the growth of competing species is also known. The effect of probiotics can be mediated by their metabolites, such as short-chain fatty acid (SCFA), in particular, propionate, acetate and butyrate, which may exercise anti-inflammatory effects [74], too.
Interactions of probiotics with intestinal commensal bacteria and with pathogens Probiotics are used to prevent/alleviate enteric infections [78]. Through the manganese transporter (MntH1), probiotics might also influence the depletion of manganese, an essential trace element, inhibiting the growth of spoilage-bacteria in dairy products [79].
Interactions of probiotics with the host epiteliumProbiotics can regulate intestinal permeability as well as compete with, for example, viruses (viral receptors) to bind receptors on epithelial cells [80].
Impact on a pathogen’s toxin production/utilizationProbiotics may have beneficial outcomes through their effect on the production of pathogen toxins [81].
Immunomodulation of the innate immune response to anti-inflammatory directionThe anti-inflammatory effects of probiotics through in vitro and ex vivo studies as well as in animal experiments is known [82].
Immunomodulation of the innate immune response to pro-inflammatory directionImmunomodulation of the innate immune response to pro-inflammatory direction by the probiotics is known [82,83].
Adaptive immune responseProbiotic bacteria are involved in the development of adaptive immune responses [83].
Antibody formation Probiotic bacteria are involved in antibody formation [81].
Table 2. Effects of lactobacilli species.
Table 2. Effects of lactobacilli species.
ProbioticHumanAnimalPlant (Tomato) Products PlantSoil
Lactiplantibacillus plantarumFood-associated Lpb. plantarum shows a good adaptation and adhesion ability in the gastrointestinal tract and the potential to affect host health through various beneficial activities [118].Lpb. plantarum supplementation can modulate overall health and immunity [119] as well as gut microbial composition and the interaction network between gut microbiota and the immune system [120].The anti-Helicobacter pylori effects of the probiotic in the stomach tissue of C57BL/6 mice has also been described [89].The use of this probiotic in the creation of fermented tomato juice products might be quite effective [113,114]. Lpb. plantarum is the main bacterial species associated with olive processing [121]. Probiotic tomato juice could serve as a health beverage for vegetarians/consumers who are allergic to dairy products [122]. This probiotic has been frequently found in environments associated with plants [123,124,125].Significant stimulation of germination in tomatoes with poor initial germination capacity was achieved by soaking their seeds for 6 h in suspensions of nine out of ten Lpb. plantarum strains tested [126]. This probiotic has highly antagonistic activities against most soil pathogens [37].
Lactobacillus acidophilusThe beneficial role of this probiotic in regulating imbalances in human intestinal microbiota [127], as well as in improving overall human health, is well- known [128]. The probiotic participates in the biodegradation processes [129].L. acidophilus supplementation can modulate overall health, immunity, and gut microbial composition [130] as well as the interaction network between gut microbiota and animal immune system [120].Probiotic tomato juice, containing this probiotic could serve as a health beverage for vegetarians or consumers who are allergic to dairy products [122].The probiotic might be used as a plant growth promoting agent [131].Probiotic-loaded edible films/coatings are known for maintaining safety, quality, nutritional and functional characteristics in fruits and vegetables for longer storage periods [132].Gut lactobacilli modulate bioaccessibility in soil lead [133].
Lacticaseibacillus casei and Lacticaseibacillus paracaseiThe effects of these probiotics on skin [134] and the prevention of age-dependent cognitive decline by upregulating brain-derived neurotrophic factor expression in the hippocampus, as well as cAMP response element binding protein, were revealed in [135].The Lcb. casei IMV B-7280 strain has a positive effect on the gut microbiota composition of mice [136].Probiotic tomato juice could serve as a health beverage for vegetarians/consumers who are allergic to dairy products [122].The effects of probiotic-loaded edible films/coatings on the maintainance of safety, quality and nutritional and functional characteristics of fruits and vegetables for long storage periods are known [132]. Furthermore, the effect of gamma-irradiated probiotics as an edible coating to enhance the storage of tomato under cold storage conditions is known [137].
Lactobacillus delbrueckiiThe effects of this probiotic on immune responses in the elderly were described in [138].The efficiency of this probiotic’s applications on pre- and post-radiation nutrition for rats were described in [48].Probiotic tomato juice could serve as a health beverage for vegetarians or consumers who are allergic to dairy products [122].Plant-originated L. bulgaricus was described by Michaylova and coauthors [139].
Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosusThe effects of this probiotic on the modulation gut microbiota were described in [140]. The efficiency of this probiotic on pre- and post-radiation nutrition for rats were described in [48].Fermented apple juice was the best substrate for the production of folic acid via Lpb. plantarum and Lcb. rhamnosus [141].The effects of probiotic-loaded edible films/coatings on the maintainance of the safety, quality and nutritional and functional characteristics of fruit and vegetables for long storage periods are known [132].
LeuconostocmesenteroidesThe effects of this probiotic on the age-related decline in T cell-related immune functions were shown in [142].This bacteria has great potential as a bee probiotic and could enhance the health of bee colonies [143]. This bacteria, being one of the predominant in the tomato surface microbiome, helps to control contaminate proliferation on tomato purée during storage at abusive temperatures [144]. The presence of this bacteria in raw fruits indicates the fact that the fruit is highly nutritionally and bacteriologically healthy [145].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Harutyunyan, N.; Kushugulova, A.; Hovhannisyan, N.; Pepoyan, A. One Health Probiotics as Biocontrol Agents: One Health Tomato Probiotics. Plants 2022, 11, 1334. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11101334

AMA Style

Harutyunyan N, Kushugulova A, Hovhannisyan N, Pepoyan A. One Health Probiotics as Biocontrol Agents: One Health Tomato Probiotics. Plants. 2022; 11(10):1334. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11101334

Chicago/Turabian Style

Harutyunyan, Natalya, Almagul Kushugulova, Narine Hovhannisyan, and Astghik Pepoyan. 2022. "One Health Probiotics as Biocontrol Agents: One Health Tomato Probiotics" Plants 11, no. 10: 1334. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11101334

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop