Next Article in Journal
Optimization of Medium Components for Fed-Batch Fermentation Using Central Composite Design to Enhance Lichenysin Production by Bacillus licheniformis Ali5
Next Article in Special Issue
Development of Cost-Effective, Ecofriendly Selenium Nanoparticle-Functionalized Cotton Fabric for Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Activity
Previous Article in Journal
A Comprehensive Mechanistic Yeast Model Able to Switch Metabolism According to Growth Conditions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Synthesis, Characterization, Antibacterial, Antifungal, Antioxidant, and Anticancer Activities of Nickel-Doped Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fermentation
Volume 8
Issue 12
10.3390/fermentation8120711
fermentation-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Quorum-Sensing Inhibitors from Probiotics as a Strategy to Combat Bacterial Cell-to-Cell Communication Involved in Food Spoilage and Food Safety

by
Anyutoulou K. L. Davares
1,
Mbarga M. J. Arsene
1,2,*,
Podoprigora I. Viktorovna
1,2,
Yashina N. Vyacheslavovna
1,
Zhigunova A. Vladimirovna
1,
Vasilyeva E. Aleksandrovna
1,
Senyagin A. Nikolayevich
1,2,
Sachivkina Nadezhda
1,
Gizinger O. Anatolievna
1,
Sharova I. Nikolaevna
1 and
Das M. Sergueïevna
1
1
Department of Microbiology Named after V.S. Kiktenko, Peoples Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 117198 Moscow, Russia
2
Research Institute of Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 6 Miklukho-Maklaya Street, 117198 Moscow, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2022, 8(12), 711; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8120711
Submission received: 31 October 2022 / Revised: 2 December 2022 / Accepted: 5 December 2022 / Published: 6 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biofilms from Fermentative Perspective: Structures, Functions and Control)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Experience-based knowledge has shown that bacteria can communicate with each other through a cell-density-dependent mechanism called quorum sensing (QS). QS controls specific bacterial phenotypes, such as sporulation, virulence and pathogenesis, the production of degrading enzymes, bioluminescence, swarming motility, and biofilm formation. The expression of these phenotypes in food spoiling and pathogenic bacteria, which may occur in food, can have dramatic consequences on food production, the economy, and health. Due to the many reports showing that the use of conventional methods (i.e., antibiotics and sanitizers) to inhibit bacterial growth leads to the emergence of antibiotic resistance, it is necessary to research and exploit new strategies. Several studies have already demonstrated positive results in this direction by inhibiting autoinducers (low-molecular-weight signaling compounds controlling QS) and by other means, leading to QS inhibition via a mechanism called quorum quenching (QQ). Thus far, several QS inhibitors (QSIs) have been isolated from various sources, such as plants, some animals from aqueous ecosystems, fungi, and bacteria. The present study aims to discuss the involvement of QS in food spoilage and to review the potential role of probiotics as QSIs.

1. Introduction

A few decades after the discovery of bacteria, the idea that bacteria were individualized organisms, and therefore did not communicate with each other, was accepted and established. However, after early research by Kenneth H. Nealson et al. [1] on the luminescence of the Gram-negative bacterium Vibrio fischeri (newly named Aliivibrio fischeri) [2], it became clear that bacteria communicate with each other [1]. Indeed, this research shows that bioluminescence in A. fischeri is induced and closely linked to bacterial density [1]. Later, it was found that this luminescence in A. fischeri is caused by the LuxI/LuxR transcriptional activator and autoinducer system mediating the cell-density-dependent control of Lux gene expression [3]. This communicational regulation, which has since taken the name of quorum sensing, is generally defined as a mechanism of microbial communication owing to a genetic regulation that involves the exchange and sensing of low-molecular-weight signaling compounds called autoinducers (AIs) [4,5]. Over the last few years, there have been a significant number of studies on the role of QS systems in the formation of various cellular patterns and their behavioral response [6,7]. Thus, to date, several other bacteria have demonstrated their ability to communicate through QS, and some inter-species communications have even been brought to light [8]. QS can have serious consequences, as it is involved in many important biological processes that can have a detrimental impact on the economy and health, such as sporulation, virulence and pathogenesis, and biofilm formation [9,10]. The consequences on human health are not discussed here, but economically speaking, phenomena such as biofilm formation can cause enormous losses in the agriculture and food industry [11,12]. It is well known that biofilms are largely responsible for the contamination of processed products within the food industry [12]. These microbial consortia embedded in self-produced exopolymer matrices [13] adhere to food processing, packaging, and equipment surfaces, and can negatively affect food safety [8,14]. Recent studies have demonstrated that QS molecules play a major role in the biofilm formation of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [8]. Although this correlation was not found when studying in vitro biofilms of strains isolated from a raw vegetable processing line, other foodborne bacterial pathogens, such as Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Bacillus cereus, can attach to various surfaces within the food industry and develop biofilms, leading to concerning hygienic disorders and a severe public health risk [14].
Studies conducted in recent years have suggested that QS inhibition could be an attractive alternative strategy for current bacterial control practices employed in industrial settings [8,14,15]. Unlike conventional antibacterials and sanitizers, instead of killing bacteria, a strategy using QS inhibitors consists of blocking intercellular communication and significantly limiting the expression of phenotypes, such as the formation of biofilms, while reducing the likelihood of resistance development [15,16]. Several products with important biological functions (e.g., phytochemicals, nanoparticles, halogenated natural furanones, and synthesized derivatives) have already demonstrated their ability to delay the microbial deterioration of foods and defeat important bacterial strains involved in spoilage [8,17]. However, although several studies have shown that certain strains of probiotics can interfere with the QS system [18,19,20], reports or evidence of their use as QS inhibitors (QSIs) in food preservation are scarce.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), probiotics are living microorganisms that provide health benefits to their hosts in appropriate doses [21]. Probiotics have applications in a variety of fields, including food processing, animal breeding, and human health [21]. The fact that probiotics are “generally recognized as safe” means that these food additives and their by-products can be used in different processes, including food preservation and the maintenance of industrial food surfaces, since their addition will not have side effects on food safety [22].
This review focuses on microbial communication, the role of QS in food spoilage, and the potential role of probiotics as QSIs in food preservation.

2. Microbial Communication

Microbial communication was first demonstrated in bacteria by Kenneth H. Nealson et al. [1], and the term quorum sensing (QS) was first introduced by Fuqua and Winans [23]. Skandamis and Nychas [17] described QS as the mechanism used by bacteria to understand changes in their environment and, consequently, to apply specific strategies for adapting to environmental stress in space and time [17]. QS expression depends on the concentration of low-molecular-weight signaling compounds called autoinducers (AIs), and the amount of these AIs increases with the increase in bacterial density. In a simplified way, as bacteria reproduce, there are progressively more individual cells producing autoinducers, and the extracellular concentration of the autoinducers increases, eventually reaching a “critical mass” [24]. This threshold makes the outflow of intracellular AIs difficult or impossible, resulting in an increase in their intracellular concentration [24]. Once the intracellular concentration reaches a certain level, AIs bind to their receptors, triggering signaling cascades that alter transcription factor activity and, therefore, gene expression [24]. It is this gene expression that, depending on the microorganism, can lead to sporulation, bioluminescence, the secretion of virulence factors, conjugation, competence, and biofilm formation [25,26,27]. It was recently reported that QS mechanisms present similarities among different bacteria (Gram-positive or Gram-negative) but that the exact AI involved in each mechanism may differ from one organism to another [8]. However, it was reported that some QS systems, such as DPD (dihydroxy pentanedione)/AI-2, can be found in both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria (Figure 1). DPD/AI-2 has been detected in more than 50% of QS-competent bacteria whose genomes have been sequenced and is known as the most ubiquitous signaling system employed by both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [6]. AI-2 is reported to be involved in several bacterial phenotypes, such as bioluminescence in Vibrio harveyi [28] and biofilm formation in Bacillus subtilis [28], Lactobacillus rhamnosus [29], Streptococcus intermedius [30], and Campylobacter jejuni [31]. In C. jejuni, AI-2 also plays an important role in stress response, motility, the expression of virulence factors, and colonization [32]. Since AI-2 is present and can be recognized/interpreted by different bacterial species, it is often involved in interspecies communication and, consequently, several authors have attributed the nickname of “universal autoinducer” to AI-2 [8,32,33,34,35]. However, some differences exist between specific autoinducers in Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. In general, the QS system most encountered in Gram-negative bacteria is the acylated homoserine lactone (HSL), or LuxI/LuxR-type QS (AI-1), which essentially uses N-acyl homoserine lactones (AHLs: AHL-mediated QS) (Figure 1) [8]. AHLs and derivatives passively diffuse through the bacterial membrane and accumulate both intra- and extra-cellularly in proportion to cell density [8]. To our knowledge, to date, no Gram-positive bacteria have been reported to produce AHLs. In Gram-positive bacteria, the QS system uses oligopeptides called autoinducer peptides (AIPs: AIP-mediated QS), and these molecules are transported out of the cell using ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters. The molecules necessary for effective communication in Gram-positive bacteria are usually AIPs used as signaling molecules and a two-component type of histidine kinase (HK) used as a signal-sensing and transduction module (Figure 1) [8]. The QS system mechanism is not developed in depth here since it has been extensively analyzed elsewhere for both Gram-positive [36,37,38] and Gram-negative bacteria [39,40]. In addition to bacterial communication, fungal communication has also been highlighted [3,41,42], though it has scarcely been investigated. Indeed, the QS system, similar to that of bacteria, has been reported in several fungi, such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae [43,44,45], Histoplasma capsulatum [3], Cryptococcus neoformanss [41,46,47], Ceratocystis ulmi [45], Ustilago maydis [3,48], Aspergillus species (A. fumigates and A. niger) [49,50], and Candida species (C. albicans, C. krusei, C. utilis, C. zeylanoides, C. stellata, C. intermedia, C. solani, C. tenuis) [3,51]. Padder et al. [3] reported that the discovery of the QS molecule (QSM) farnesol in C. albicans constituted a major turning point in the knowledge of cell-to-cell communication in eukaryotes. Since then, other molecules, such as tyrosol [52], tryptophol [53], 1-phenylethanol [54], oxylipins [49], pheromones [55], and acetaldehydes [56], have been recognized as actively involved in fungal QS. The mechanism of QS in fungi is almost similar to that of bacteria and regulates various key functions, such as pathogenesis, morphogenesis, and filamentation [3].

3. Quorum Sensing in Food Spoilage

Food spoilage can be defined as the deterioration of food manifested by the degradation of organoleptic and nutritional properties, which makes the food unacceptable to the consumer [57]. The causes of food spoilage can be physical (drying, changes in texture), chemical (oxidation, color changes), and microbiological. Meanwhile, it was recently reported that microbial-induced spoilage is by far the most common cause of spoilage [8]. Microorganisms involved in food spoilage can cause changes that manifest as visible growth (biofilm), textural changes (degradation of polymers), off-odors, and off-flavors [8]. In recent years, the involvement of cell-to-cell communication in food spoilage has caught the attention of several researchers, and QS molecules have been detected in several foodstuffs, such as vegetables, poultry, meat, fish, and milk [58]. Researchers reported that several phenotypes, such as enzymatic activities (pectinolytic, lipolytic, proteolytic, and chitinolytic), sporulation, and biofilm formation, are linked to food spoilage [8]. Microorganisms expressing food-spoilage-related phenotypes can be classified into three groups: (1) those that are food-specific (specific spoilage organisms: SSOs), (2) those that become dominant through selection during food storage (ephemeral spoilage organism: ESOs), and (3) those coming from the external environment (contaminant) [8,58]. Regardless of the type of microorganism, the microbial spoilage mechanism strongly depends on the ecosystem and, consequently, on the type of food.
For example, in milk, Bai and Rai [59] reported that pseudomonads and other psychrotrophic Gram-negative bacteria are involved in spoilage through the production of extracellular proteinases, lipases, lecithinases, and glycosidases. Gram-positive psychrotrophic aerobic Bacillus spp. were also reported to produce phospholipases that are responsible for spoilage in some dairy products [60]. In a study by Pinto et al. that aimed to detect AHL production in Gram-negative psychrotrophic bacteria isolated from raw milk, it was found that 84.9% of the bacteria were AHL producers, suggesting that quorum sensing may play an important role in the spoilage of this product [61]. The production of extracellular lipolytic and proteolytic enzymes, which is known to be regulated by AHL-based QS in Serratia proteamaculans strain B5a, confirmed the involvement of the QS of this strain in milk spoilage. Indeed, the inoculation of pasteurized milk with wild-type S. proteamaculans in the study by Christensen et al. [62] led to a degradation of the milk, whereas the inoculation of a mutant strain (with an inactivated sprI gene) under the same conditions did not result in degradation. However, the involvement of signaling molecules in milk spoilage was confirmed when spoilage was observed after the addition of 3-oxo-C6-HSL to milk inoculated with the sprI mutant [62].
In addition, in fish and other aquatic products, studies have observed that microorganisms are the most common causes of spoilage [63]. Storage conditions play a major role in changing the microbiological profile in fish and, therefore, in its spoilage [63]. For example, it has been reported that the psychrotolerant Gram-negative Shewanella spp. and Pseudomonas spp. cause chilled fish spoilage [64], whereas in the absence of effective preservation conditions, the Vibrionaceae family is known to cause food degradation [65]. Although certain phenotypic factors are found to be associated with the production of proteases, siderophores, and toxins in some fish-pathogenic bacteria that produce AHLs (e.g., Yersinia ruckeri, Aeromonas salmonicida, A. anguillarum, Vibrio salmonicida, and V. harveyi), very few studies have demonstrated the involvement of their AHLs in spoilage. However, some researchers have concluded that the AHLs produced by other bacteria may be involved in fish spoilage, such as refrigerated shrimp spoiled by Shewanella baltica [66]. Later, Zhu et al. [67] found that the AHLs responsible for spoilage by S. baltica were produced by Acinetobacter strains. In the same vein, the production of AHLs (mainly 3-hydroxy-C8-HSL) was reported by Flodgaard et al. [68] in Photobacterium phosphoreum and Aeromonas spp. strains isolated as the dominant cultivable spoilage flora of packed cod fillets, thus suggesting the possible role of an AHL-based system in the regulation of the chitinase activity, which enhances the degradation of crustaceans [58].
In addition, QS may also be involved in spoilage in fruits and vegetables [8,58]. Spoilage microorganisms can enter fruits and vegetables via the farm environment and post-harvest handling and processing [69]. This spoilage is manifested by visual defects, such as enzymatic browning, off-odors, off-flavors, and/or texture breakdown [58]. Pectinolytic (such as pectin lyases, pectate lyase, polygalacturonase, and pectin methyl esterases), proteolytic, lipolytic, and chitinolytic enzymes produced by certain microorganisms are directly involved in the deterioration of fruits and vegetables [58]. Erwinia and Pseudomonas strains, which are pectinolytic and proteolytic, are known to produce AHLs (mainly 3-oxo-C6-HSL and C6-HSL) [70], and are very often involved in fruit spoilage, suggesting an involvement of AHL-based QS systems in the modulation of vegetables [58].
Biofilm formation, which is already known to be governed by QS [8], constitutes a major problem for the safety of several foodstuffs and for meats in particular [14]. The attachment of potential spoilage and pathogenic bacteria to food contact surfaces and subsequent biofilm formation represent serious challenges to the meat industry, since they may lead to cross-contamination of the products, resulting in a lowered shelf life and the transmission of diseases [14]. To date, the involvement of several bacteria (including foodborne pathogens, such as Salmonella enterica, L. monocytogenes, and E. coli, together with common meat spoilage bacteria, such as Pseudomonas spp., Brochothrix thermosphacta, and Lactobacillus spp.) in the formation of biofilms and food spoilage has been well documented, and detailed information can be found in the review by [14].

4. Quorum Quenching and QS Inhibitors from Probiotics

QS inhibition is due to quorum quenching (QQ) enzymes or, more generally, to other chemicals known as QS inhibitors (QSIs). Whether due to enzymes or other chemicals, the disruption of the QS system commonly takes the name of QQ [22]. QQ has been suggested as a strategy for disrupting a pathogen’s ability to sense its cell density and to modulate the production of virulence factors [22]. Some data suggest that QQ is increasingly recognized as a new strategy used to control specific bacterial phenotypes, such as sporulation, virulence and pathogenesis, bioluminescence, swarming motility, and biofilm formation [15]. As shown in Figure 2 (taken from the review by [8] with the permission of Elsevier), there are several putative ways to inhibit QS (Figure 2): (a) the interruption of AHL signal synthesis by blocking the LuxI-type synthase; (b) the degradation of AHL signal dissemination by enzymes (AHL-acylase and AHL-lactonase), which will impair AHL accumulation; and (c) interference with signal receptors or the blockage of the AHL/LuxR complex [8]. Natural and synthetic QSIs have been intensively studied and are produced by a wide range of organisms, such as plants, some animals from aqueous ecosystems, fungi, and bacteria [71].
To our knowledge, the first QSI discovered was an enzyme called AiiA [72]. This enzyme, which was isolated from Bacillus sp. 240B1, is able to inactivate the AI (acylhomoserine lactone (AH2)) of Erwinia carotovora (Pectobacterium carotovorum), significantly decrease extracellular pectolytic enzyme activities, and attenuate the pathogenicity of this strain in potato, eggplant, Chinese cabbage, carrot, celery, cauliflower, and tobacco [72]. Later, other microorganisms, including probiotic bacteria, have been reported for their QQ activity [22]. Probiotics are shown to be effective for a variety of diseases, and their various bio-functional effects and potential for industrial application have been characterized and proven in vitro [73]. Most QS-inhibiting probiotics belong to the genera Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Bacillus. Table 1 presents some probiotics that are shown to have QQ activity and that could potentially have industrial applications; in particular, limiting food spoilage by interfering with QS in food-spoiling bacteria.
Bacteria of the lactobacillus genus are among the most widely used as probiotics [74]. Lactobacilli and other probiotics belonging to the genera Lactococcus, Enterococcus, Pediococcus, Leuconostoc, Streptococcus, Carnobacterium, Fructobacillus, Oenococcus, and Weissella are included in the group of lactic acid bacteria (LAB), which means that they can produce lactic acid and other substances (bacteriocins, hydrogen peroxide, diacyls, and others) that may inhibit the growth of other bacteria [75]. LAB and bifidobacteria, or other probiotics for food preservation, have been used since ancient times due to their beneficial properties [75,76]; however, evidence based on experience reveals that their immunomodulating and antagonistic properties make them applicable in both the clinical field and animal breeding [77]. For example, regarding the clinical area, Lactobacillus acidophilus was reported to reduce the duration of diarrhea in children with acute gastroenteritis when administered at a dosage of more than 109 CFU [78]. Another strain, L. fermentum, can attenuate the inflammatory process and improve the production of some of the mediators involved in colitis (PGE2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17, TNF- α, IFN-γ, NO) [79]. Several other immunomodulatory effects of L. fermentum in vitro, in cell and animal models, and in human trials were extensively reviewed by Zhao et al. [80]. Gomi et al. [81] conducted a preliminary open trial and a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial to examine how fermented milk containing the probiotic Bifidobacterium bifidum YIT 10347 affects gastric and lower abdominal symptoms in adults taking no medication. The authors concluded that B. bifidum YIT 10347 could provide health benefits by alleviating gastric symptoms in these subjects [81]. Several other clinical benefits of probiotics are well documented in the review by Sánchez et al. [82]. In addition, regarding animal breeding, our recent review entitled “The use of probiotics in animal feeding for safe production and as potential alternatives to antibiotics” extensively documented evidence for the effective use of probiotics in animals [77].
Probiotics appear to have multiple properties and, although evidence is scarce, their involvement in the regulation of quorum sensing (QS) may bring new solutions in several areas, including food preservation. From our point of view, probiotics inhibiting the growth of other bacteria (including putrefying bacteria) in a medium is not necessarily caused by the inhibition of QS (QSI), but rather by antagonist activity linked to the acidification of the medium and the production of other bacteriocins [75,83]. However, there is evidence that some probiotics can potentially affect QS mediated by acylated homoserine lactones (AHLs, HSLs) and autoinducer 2 (furanosyl borate diester) [75]. As shown in Table 1, several species of lactobacillus (L. plantarum, L. fermentum, L. acidophilus, L. casei, L. brevis, L. reuteri, and L. curvatus), Bifidobacterium (B. longum and B. licheniformis), Bacillus (B. cereus, B. subtilis, and B. pumilus) and Streptococcus (S. salivarius and S. oralis) have already been reported at least once as quorum-quenching (QQ) agents. Although the results reported in Table 1 on the QQ activity of these probiotics are not related to food products, extrapolations in food preservation can be made because most of the pathogens affected by QQ are also known as foodborne pathogens (Table 1). For example, the fact that L. plantarum M.2 and L. curvatus B.67 demonstrated the ability to inhibit swimming motility, biofilm formation, and QS molecules related to biofilms in Listeria monocytogenes [84], a foodborne pathogen, could indicate that QSI molecules can be used to solve problems related to this bacterium in the food industry. As a reminder, L. monocytogenes is capable of adhering to food contact surfaces and forming matured biofilms, which are not easy to remove during the cleaning process and may therefore persist during food processing [85]. The physical means (for example, pulsed ultraviolet, ozone, and atmospheric cold plasma) employed to reduce the risks of contamination are very often effective but might affect food quality by changing sensory characteristics, such as appearance, color, flavor, and texture [22]. In the same way, the persistence of chemical agents (chlorinated disinfectants and oxidant fungicides) used during cleaning with chemical methods to minimize the growth of L. monocytogenes can have consequences on metabolism and the consumer’s health [75]. Therefore, in this context, it is important to seek alternative cleaning routes, subject to additional studies. The results obtained by Hossain et al. on the QQ activity of L. plantarum M.2 and L. curvatus B.67 against QS in L. monocytogenes can be used to suggest and develop new cleaning methods using biological means that are safe for the consumer [84]. A similar suggestion was made by Wu et al., who effectively documented the properties of probiotics (other than QSI potential) that can be employed in the search for alternative cleansing methods [22]. In general, with regard to the potential use of QSIs in the cleaning of industrial food surfaces, it can be concluded that the search for alternative cleaning solutions using QSI molecules from probiotics will need to pass through the extrapolation of existing data by considering the pathogen inhibited by QS.
Table
Table 1. Some probiotic strains with QQ activity and the mechanism involved.
Table 1. Some probiotic strains with QQ activity and the mechanism involved.
ProbioticsBacteria InhibitedQSI MechanismReferences
GenusSpecies
BacillusB. subtilisL. monocytogenes
E. coli
Gardnerella vaginalis		Inhibits AI-2 activity and biofilm formation[86]
B. cereus RC1Lelliottia amnigena
seudomonas aeruginosa MTCC2297		Inhibits pyocyanin production in P. aeruginosa and modulates the pathogenicity in L. amnigena[87]
B. subtilis R-18Serratia marcescensThe bacterial extract inhibits biofilm formation, protease, lipase, and hemolysin production[88]
B. subtilis BR4P. aeruginosaInhibits biofilm formation[89]
B. pumilusP. aeruginosa PAO1 (las, rhl)
S. marcescens (shl).		Reduces the accumulation of N-acyl homoserine lactone (AHL) and shows significant inhibition of LasA protease, LasB elastase, caseinase, pyocyanin, pyoverdin, and biofilm formation.[90]
BifidobacteriumB. licheniformis DAHB1,Vibrio parahaemolyticusInhibits biofilm formation in vitro and reduces shrimp intestinal colonization and mortality[91]
B. licheniformis T-1Aeromonas hydrophilaQuorum-quenching gene ytnP encodes an acyl-homoserine lactone metallo-β-lactamase[92]
B. longum ATCC15707Escherichia coli 0157:H7Inhibits AI-2 and reduces biofilm formation[18]
LactobacillusL. acidophilus 30SCE. coli O157:H7Inhibits AI-2[93]
L. plantarum M.2,
L. curvatus B.67		L. monocytogenesInhibits swimming motility, biofilm formation, and expression levels of target genes related to biofilm formation[85]
L. plantarum SBR04MAMicrobiota of activated sludgeInhibits N-Hexanoyl-L-homoserine lactone (6-HSL)[94]
L. plantarum,S. aureusReduces expression of some genes involved in biofilm formation[95]
L. acidophilus GP1BClostridium difficileReduces production of AI-2 molecules[20]
L. acidophilus La-5Escherichia coli 0157:H7Interferes with QS molecules and reduces adherence and colonization[19]
L. acidophilus NCFM-Not in pathogenic bacteria, but increases adherence of probiotic to intestinal cells by increasing AI-2 in LuxS system[96]
L. brevis 3M004P. aeruginosaInhibits biofilm formation[97]
L. caseiStreptococcus mutansInhibits QS genes vicKR and comCD[98]
L. casei ATCC 393,
L. reuteri ATCC23272,
L. plantarum ATCC14917
L. salivarius ATCC11741		Streptococcus mutansInhibits acyl-homoserine lactone activity and blocks their synthesis[98]
L. fermentum Lim2Clostridium difficileReduces the AI-2 in QS gene luxS[99]
L. plantarum PA 100P. aeruginosaInhibits acyl-homoserine lactone activity and blocks their synthesis[100]
StreptococcusS. salivariusS. mutansInhibits biofilm formation in vitro when cultured with S. mutans[101]
S. salivarius K12C. albicansInhibits C. albicans aggregation, biofilm formation, and dimorphism.[102]
S. salivarius 24SMB and S. oralis 89aS. aureus, S. epidermidis, S. pyogenes, S. pneumoniae, M. catarrhalis and P. acnesInhibits biofilm formation in pathogens of the upper respiratory tract[103]

5. Concluding Remarks and Perspectives

Food spoilage and foodborne diseases associated with quorum sensing in microorganisms cause huge economic losses and health issues in food production and food-processing industries. Although the use of antibiotics is the traditional method used to inhibit bacteria, it has also been reported to enhance antibiotic resistance. For this reason, safer, ecologically friendly, and cheaper methods have been employed, and QQ using probiotics is one of these methods. Extensive research has been conducted in this direction, and the results demonstrate the effectiveness of probiotics as QQ agents. Unfortunately, these bio-functional activities were mostly reported and proven in vitro, and reports showing industrial applications are scarce. Therefore, the most important recommendation that can be given here is to promote more industrial applications to exploit the well-known QQ aptitudes of probiotics to reduce food spoilage.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.J.A. and A.K.L.D.; methodology, M.M.J.A. and P.I.V.; validation M.M.J.A. and P.I.V.; formal analysis, Y.N.V.; investigation, M.M.J.A.; resources, P.I.V.; data curation, Z.A.V.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.J.A.; writing—review and editing, A.K.L.D.; M.M.J.A.; S.A.N., S.N., V.E.A., G.O.A., S.I.N. and D.M.S.; visualization, M.M.J.A.; supervision, P.I.V.; project administration, P.I.V.; funding acquisition, P.I.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are within the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This study has been supported by the RUDN University strategic Academic Leadership Program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nealson, K.H.; Platt, T.; Hastings, J.W. Cellular Control of the Synthesis and Activity of the Bacterial Luminescent System. J. Bacteriol. 1970, 104, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Verma, S.C.; Miyashiro, T. Quorum Sensing in the Squid-Vibrio Symbiosis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 16386–16401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Padder, S.A.; Prasad, R.; Shah, A.H. Quorum sensing: A less known mode of communication among fungi. Microbiol. Res. 2018, 210, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sahreen, S.; Mukhtar, H.; Imre, K.; Morar, A.; Herman, V.; Sharif, S. Exploring the Function of Quorum Sensing Regulated Biofilms in Biological Wastewater Treatment: A Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 9751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Qian, X.; Tian, P.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Wang, G.; Chen, W. Quorum Sensing of Lactic Acid Bacteria: Progress and Insights. Food Rev. Int. 2022, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Abisado, R.G.; Benomar, S.; Klaus, J.R.; Dandekar, A.A.; Chandler, J.R. Bacterial Quorum Sensing and Microbial Community Interactions. mBio 2018, 9, e02331-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Xiong, L.; Cooper, R.; Tsimring, L.S. Coexistence and Pattern Formation in Bacterial Mixtures with Contact-Dependent Killing. Biophys. J. 2018, 114, 1741–1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Machado, I.; Silva, L.R.; Giaouris, E.; Melo, L.; Simões, M. Quorum sensing in food spoilage and natural-based strategies for its inhibition. Food Res. Int. 2019, 127, 108754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mizan, F.R.; Jahid, I.K.; Kim, M.; Lee, K.-H.; Kim, T.J.; Ha, S.-D. Variability in biofilm formation correlates with hydrophobicity and quorum sensing among Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolates from food contact surfaces and the distribution of the genes involved in biofilm formation. Biofouling 2016, 32, 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yuan, L.; Sadiq, F.A.; Burmølle, M.; Liu, T.; He, G. Insights into Bacterial Milk Spoilage with Particular Emphasis on the Roles of Heat-Stable Enzymes, Biofilms, and Quorum Sensing. J. Food Prot. 2018, 81, 1651–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Faille, C.; Bénézech, T.; Midelet-Bourdin, G.; Lequette, Y.; Clarisse, M.; Ronse, G.; Ronse, A.; Slomianny, C. Sporulation of Bacillus spp. within biofilms: A potential source of contamination in food processing environments. Food Microbiol. 2014, 40, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ryu, J.-H.; Beuchat, L.R. Biofilm Formation and Sporulation by Bacillus cereus on a Stainless Steel Surface and Subsequent Resistance of Vegetative Cells and Spores to Chlorine, Chlorine Dioxide, and a Peroxyacetic Acid–Based Sanitizer. J. Food Prot. 2005, 68, 2614–2622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Arsene, M.M.J.; Viktorovna, P.I.; Alla, M.V.; Mariya, M.A.; Sergei, G.V.; Cesar, E.; Davares, A.K.L.; Parfait, K.; Wilfrid, K.N.; Nikolay, T.S.; et al. Optimization of Ethanolic Extraction of Enantia chloranta Bark, Phytochemical Composition, Green Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles, and Antimicrobial Activity. Fermentation 2022, 8, 530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Giaouris, E.; Heir, E.; Hébraud, M.; Chorianopoulos, N.; Langsrud, S.; Møretrø, T.; Habimana, O.; Desvaux, M.; Renier, S.; Nychas, G.-J. Attachment and biofilm formation by foodborne bacteria in meat processing environments: Causes, implications, role of bacterial interactions and control by alternative novel methods. Meat Sci. 2014, 97, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Borges, A.; Sousa, P.; Gaspar, A.; Vilar, S.; Borges, F.; Simões, M. Furvina inhibits the 3-oxo-C12-HSL-based quorum sensing system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and QS-dependent phenotypes. Biofouling 2017, 33, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ta, C.A.K.; Arnason, J.T. Mini Review of Phytochemicals and Plant Taxa with Activity as Microbial Biofilm and Quorum Sensing Inhibitors. Molecules 2015, 21, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Skandamis, P.N.; Nychas, G.-J.E. Quorum Sensing in the Context of Food Microbiology. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 5473–5482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Kim, Y.; Lee, J.W.; Kang, S.-G.; Oh, S.; Griffiths, M.W. Bifidobacterium spp. influences the production of autoinducer-2 and biofilm formation by Escherichia coli O157:H7. Anaerobe 2012, 18, 539–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Medellin-Peña, M.J.; Griffiths, M.W. Effect of Molecules Secreted by Lactobacillus acidophilus Strain La-5 on Escherichia coli O157:H7 Colonization. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 1165–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Yun, B.; Oh, S.; Griffiths, M. Lactobacillus acidophilus modulates the virulence of Clostridium difficile. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 4745–4758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization). Probiotics in Food. In Health and Nutritional Properties and Guidelines for Evaluation; FAO Food and Nutrition Paper No. 85; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization: Rome, Italy, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wu, M.; Dong, Q.; Ma, Y.; Yang, S.; Aslam, M.Z.; Liu, Y.; Li, Z. Potential antimicrobial activities of probiotics and their derivatives against Listeria monocytogenes in food field: A review. Food Res. Int. 2022, 160, 111733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gunaratnam, S.; Millette, M.; McFarland, L.V.; DuPont, H.L.; Lacroix, M. Potential role of probiotics in reducing Clostridioides difficile virulence: Interference with quorum sensing systems. Microb. Pathog. 2021, 153, 104798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Fuqua, W.C.; Winans, S.C. A LuxR-LuxI type regulatory system activates Agrobacterium Ti plasmid conjugal transfer in the presence of a plant tumor metabolite. J. Bacteriol. 1994, 176, 2796–2806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Jon Windsor, J.W. How Quorum Sensing Works. 2020. Available online: https://asm.org/Articles/2020/June/How-Quorum-Sensing-Works (accessed on 22 October 2022).
  26. Jaafar, F.N.; Al-Bayati, M.A.; Musafer, H.K.; Azeez, M.A.; Raheem, Z.K. Quorum Sensing and its Correlation with Virulence Factors. South Asian Res. J. Pharm. Sci. 2022, 4, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sionov, R.V.; Steinberg, D. Targeting the Holy Triangle of Quorum Sensing, Biofilm Formation, and Antibiotic Resistance in Pathogenic Bacteria. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ghosh, S.; Lahiri, D.; Nag, M.; Dey, A.; Pandit, S.; Sarkar, T.; Pati, S.; Kari, Z.A.; Ishak, A.R.; Edinur, H.A.; et al. Phytocompound Mediated Blockage of Quorum Sensing Cascade in ESKAPE Pathogens. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Eduanis-Assaf, D.; Esteinberg, D.; Echai, Y.; Eshemesh, M. The LuxS Based Quorum Sensing Governs Lactose Induced Biofilm Formation by Bacillus subtilis. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 6, 1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Deng, Z.; Hou, K.; Valencak, T.G.; Luo, X.M.; Liu, J.; Wang, H. AI-2/LuxS Quorum Sensing System Promotes Biofilm Formation of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Enhances the Resistance to Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli in Germ-Free Zebrafish. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e0061022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ahmed, N.A.; Petersen, F.C.; Scheie, A.A. AI-2/LuxS Is Involved in Increased Biofilm Formation by Streptococcus intermedius in the Presence of Antibiotics. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009, 53, 4258–4263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Teren, M.; Michova, H.T.; Vondrakova, L.; Demnerova, K. Molecules Autoinducer 2 and cjA and Their Impact on Gene Expression in Campylobacter jejuni. J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 28, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xavier, K.B.; Bassler, B.L. Interference with AI-2-mediated bacterial cell–cell communication. Nature 2005, 437, 750–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Khera, R.; Mehdipour, A.R.; Bolla, J.R.; Kahnt, J.; Welsch, S.; Ermler, U.; Muenke, C.; Robinson, C.V.; Hummer, G.; Xie, H.; et al. Cryo-EM structures of pentameric autoinducer-2 exporter from Escherichia coli reveal its transport mechanism. EMBO J. 2022, 41, e109990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sabidi, S.; Hoshiko, Y.; Maeda, T. Quorum quenching of autoinducer 2 increases methane production in anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022, 106, 4763–4774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Keizers, M.; Dobrindt, U.; Berger, M. A Simple Biosensor-Based Assay for Quantitative Autoinducer-2 Analysis. ACS Synth. Biol. 2022, 11, 747–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ziemichód, A.; Skotarczak, B. QS—systems communication of Gram-positive bacterial cells. Acta Biol. 2017, 24, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Heilmann, C.; Götz, F. Cell–cell communication and biofilm formation in gram-positive bacteria. In Bacterial Signaling; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 1, pp. 7–22. [Google Scholar]
  39. Bhatt, V.S. Quorum sensing mechanisms in gram positive bacteria. In Implication of Quorum Sensing System in Biofilm Formation and Virulence; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 297–311. [Google Scholar]
  40. Whitehead, N.A.; Barnard, A.M.; Slater, H.; Simpson, N.J.; Salmond, G.P. Quorum-sensing in Gram-negative bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2001, 25, 365–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Banerjee, G.; Ray, A.K. The talking language in some major Gram-negative bacteria. Arch. Microbiol. 2016, 198, 489–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Tian, X.; Ding, H.; Ke, W.; Wang, L. Quorum Sensing in Fungal Species. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 75, 449–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ruiz, A.; Herráez, M.; Costa-Gutierrez, S.B.; Molina-Henares, M.A.; Martínez, M.J.; Espinosa-Urgel, M.; Barriuso, J. The architecture of a mixed fungal–bacterial biofilm is modulated by quorum-sensing signals. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 23, 2433–2447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Williams, T.; Averesch, N.; Winter, G.; Plan, M.; Vickers, C.; Nielsen, L.; Krömer, J. Quorum-sensing linked RNA interference for dynamic metabolic pathway control in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metab. Eng. 2015, 29, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Albuquerque, P.; Casadevall, A. Quorum sensing in fungi—A review. Med. Mycol. 2012, 50, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Zhang, Q.; Xiang, J.; Lv, W.; Liu, Y.; Sun, J.; Wan, P.; Jiang, L. Quorum sensing molecules in yeast wastewater treatment and their regulation of yeast cell morphology. J. Water Process Eng. 2022, 49, 103191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Albuquerque, P.; Nicola, A.M.; Nieves, E.; Paes, H.C.; Williamson, P.R.; Silva-Pereira, I.; Casadevall, A. Quorum Sensing-Mediated, Cell Density-Dependent Regulation of Growth and Virulence in Cryptococcus neoformans. mBio 2014, 5, e00986-13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Lee, H.; Chang, Y.C.; Nardone, G.; Kwon-Chung, K.J. TUP1 disruption in Cryptococcus neoformans uncovers a peptide-mediated density-dependent growth phenomenon that mimics quorum sensing. Mol. Microbiol. 2007, 64, 591–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hewald, S.; Josephs, K.; Bölker, M. Genetic Analysis of Biosurfactant Production in Ustilago maydis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 3033–3040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Affeldt, K.J.; Brodhagen, M.; Keller, N.P. Aspergillus Oxylipin Signaling and Quorum Sensing Pathways Depend on G Protein-Coupled Receptors. Toxins 2012, 4, 695–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Amare, M.G.; Keller, N.P. Molecular mechanisms of Aspergillus flavus secondary metabolism and development. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2014, 66, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kruppa, M. Quorum sensing and Candida albicans. Mycoses 2009, 52, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chen, H.; Fujita, M.; Feng, Q.; Clardy, J.; Fink, G.R. Tyrosol is a quorum-sensing molecule in Candida albicans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 5048–5052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Singkum, P.; Muangkaew, W.; Suwanmanee, S.; Pumeesat, P.; Wongsuk, T.; Luplertlop, N. Suppression of the pathogenicity of Candida albicans by the quorum-sensing molecules farnesol and tryptophol. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 65, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Rosero-Hernández, E.D.; Moraga, J.; Collado, I.G.; Echeverri, F. Natural Compounds That Modulate the Development of the Fungus Botrytis cinerea and Protect Solanum lycopersicum. Plants 2019, 8, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Hogan, D.A. Talking to Themselves: Autoregulation and Quorum Sensing in Fungi. Eukaryot. Cell 2006, 5, 613–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Majumdar, S.; Mondal, S. Perspectives on Quorum sensing in Fungi. bioRxiv 2015, 019034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gram, L.; Ravn, L.; Rasch, M.; Bruhn, J.B.; Christensen, A.B.; Givskov, M. Food spoilage—Interactions between food spoilage bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002, 78, 79–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Ammor, M.S.; Michailidis, C.; Nychas, G.-J. Insights into the Role of Quorum Sensing in Food Spoilage. J. Food Prot. 2008, 71, 1510–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bai, A.J.; Rai, V.R. Bacterial quorum sensing and food industry. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2011, 10, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Stepaniak, L. Dairy enzymology. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2004, 57, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pinto, U.; Viana, E.D.S.; Martins, M.; Vanetti, M.C.D. Detection of acylated homoserine lactones in gram-negative proteolytic psychrotrophic bacteria isolated from cooled raw milk. Food Control 2007, 18, 1322–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Christensen, A.B.; Riedel, K.; Eberl, L.; Flodgaard, L.R.; Molin, S.; Gram, L.; Givskov, M. Quorum-sensing-directed protein expression in Serratia proteamaculans B5a. Microbiology 2003, 149, 471–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fu, L.; Wang, C.; Liu, N.; Ma, A.; Wang, Y. Quorum sensing system-regulated genes affect the spoilage potential of Shewanella baltica. Food Res. Int. 2018, 107, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gram, L.; Huss, H.H. The Microbiological Safety and Quality of Food; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 472–506. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ghaly, A.E.; Dave, D.; Budge, S.; Brooks, M.S. Fish Spoilage Mechanisms and Preservation Techniques: Review. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 2010, 7, 859–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Jie, J.; Yu, H.; Han, Y.; Liu, Z.; Zeng, M. Acyl-homoserine-lactones receptor LuxR of Shewanella baltica involved in the development of microbiota and spoilage of refrigerated shrimp. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 55, 2795–2800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Zhu, S.; Wu, H.; Zhang, C.; Jie, J.; Liu, Z.; Zeng, M.; Wang, C. Spoilage of refrigerated Litopenaeus vannamei: Eavesdropping on Acinetobacter acyl-homoserine lactones promotes the spoilage potential of Shewanella baltica. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 55, 1903–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Flodgaard, L.R.; Dalgaard, P.; Andersen, J.B.; Nielsen, K.F.; Givskov, M.; Gram, L. Nonbioluminescent Strains of Photobacterium phosphoreum Produce the Cell-to-Cell Communication Signal N-(3-Hydroxyoctanoyl)homoserine Lactone. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 2113–2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Alegbeleye, O.; Odeyemi, O.A.; Strateva, M.; Stratev, D. Microbial spoilage of vegetables, fruits and cereals. Appl. Food Res. 2022, 2, 100122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rasch, M.; Andersen, J.B.; Nielsen, K.F.; Flodgaard, L.R.; Christensen, H.; Givskov, M.; Gram, L. Involvement of Bacterial Quorum-Sensing Signals in Spoilage of Bean Sprouts. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 3321–3330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Grandclément, C.; Tannières, M.; Moréra, S.; Dessaux, Y.; Faure, D. Quorum quenching: Role in nature and applied developments. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2016, 40, 86–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Dong, Y.H.; Xu, J.L.; Li, X.Z.; Zhang, L.H. AiiA, an enzyme that inactivates the acylhomoserine lactone quorum-sensing signal and attenuates the virulence of Erwinia carotovora. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 3526–3531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Butel, M.J. Probiotics, gut microbiota and health. Médecine Mal. Infect. 2014, 44, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Prazdnova, E.V.; Gorovtsov, A.V.; Vasilchenko, N.G.; Kulikov, M.P.; Statsenko, V.N.; Bogdanova, A.A.; Refeld, A.G.; Brislavskiy, Y.A.; Chistyakov, V.A.; Chikindas, M.L. Quorum-Sensing Inhibition by Gram-Positive Bacteria. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Selhub, E.M.; Logan, A.C.; Bested, A.C. Fermented foods, microbiota, and mental health: Ancient practice meets nutritional psychiatry. J. Physiol. Anthr. 2014, 33, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Arsène, M.M.J.; Davares, A.K.L.; Andreevna, S.L.; Vladimirovich, E.A.; Carime, B.Z.; Marouf, R.; Khelifi, I. The use of probiotics in animal feeding for safe production and as potential alternatives to antibiotics. Veter.-World 2021, 14, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Cheng, H.; Ma, Y.; Liu, X.; Tian, C.; Zhong, X.; Zhao, L. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Lactobacillus acidophilus for Treating Acute Gastroenteritis in Children. Nutrients 2022, 14, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Rodríguez-Nogales, A.; Algieri, F.; Garrido-Mesa, J.; Vezza, T.; Utrilla, M.P.; Chueca, N.; Garcia, F.; Olivares, M.; Rodríguez-Cabezas, M.E.; Gálvez, J. Differential intestinal anti-inflammatory effects of Lactobacillus fermentum and Lactobacillus salivarius in DSS mouse colitis: Impact on microRNAs expression and microbiota composition. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2017, 61, 1700144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Zhao, Y.; Hong, K.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhai, Q.; Chen, W. Lactobacillus fermentum and its potential immunomodulatory properties. J. Funct. Foods 2019, 56, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gomi, A.; Iino, T.; Nonaka, C.; Miyazaki, K.; Ishikawa, F. Health benefits of fermented milk containing Bifidobacterium bifidum YIT 10347 on gastric symptoms in adults. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 2277–2283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Sánchez, B.; Delgado, S.; Blanco-Míguez, A.; Lourenço, A.; Gueimonde, M.; Margolles, A. Probiotics, gut microbiota, and their influence on host health and disease. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2017, 61, 1600240. [Google Scholar]
  83. Mbarga, M.J.A.; Zangue DS, C.; Ngoune, T.L.; Nyasha, K.; Louis, K. Antagonistic effects of raffia sap with probiotics against pathogenic microorganisms. Foods Raw Mater. 2021, 9, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hossain, I.; Mizan, F.R.; Roy, P.K.; Nahar, S.; Toushik, S.H.; Ashrafudoulla, M.; Jahid, I.K.; Lee, J.; Ha, S.-D. Listeria monocytogenes biofilm inhibition on food contact surfaces by application of postbiotics from Lactobacillus curvatus B.67 and Lactobacillus plantarum M.2. Food Res. Int. 2021, 148, 110595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Reis-Teixeira, F.B.D.; Alves, V.F.; Martinis, E.C.P.D. Growth, viability and architecture of biofilms of Listeria monocytogenes formed on abiotic surfaces. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2017, 48, 587–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Meroni, G. Probiotics in Treating Pathogenic Biofilms. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/17732 (accessed on 31 October 2022).
  87. Kachhadia, R.; Kapadia, C.; Singh, S.; Gandhi, K.; Jajda, H.; Alfarraj, S.; Ansari, M.J.; Danish, S.; Datta, R. Quorum Sensing Inhibitory and Quenching Activity of Bacillus cereus RC1 Extracts on Soft Rot-Causing Bacteria Lelliottia amnigena. ACS Omega 2022, 7, 25291–25308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Devi, K.R.; Srinivasan, S.; Ravi, A.V. Inhibition of quorum sensing-mediated virulence in Serratia marcescens by Bacillus subtilis R-18. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 120, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Boopathi, S.; Vashisth, R.; Mohanty, A.K.; Jia, A.; Sivakumar, N.; Arockiaraj, J. Bacillus subtilis BR4 derived stigmatellin Y interferes Pqs-PqsR mediated quorum sensing system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Basic Microbiol. 2022, 62, 801–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Nithya, C.; Aravindraja, C.; Pandian, S.K. Bacillus pumilus of Palk Bay origin inhibits quorum-sensing-mediated virulence factors in Gram-negative bacteria. Res. Microbiol. 2010, 161, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Algburi, A.; Zehm, S.; Netrebov, V.; Bren, A.B.; Chistyakov, V.; Chikindas, M.L. Subtilosin Prevents Biofilm Formation by Inhibiting Bacterial Quorum Sensing. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2016, 9, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Vinoj, G.; Vaseeharan, B.; Thomas, S.; Spiers, A.; Shanthi, S. Quorum-Quenching Activity of the AHL-Lactonase from Bacillus licheniformis DAHB1 Inhibits Vibrio Biofilm Formation In Vitro and Reduces Shrimp Intestinal Colonisation and Mortality. Mar. Biotechnol. 2014, 16, 707–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Chen, B.; Peng, M.; Tong, W.; Zhang, Q.; Song, Z. The Quorum Quenching Bacterium Bacillus licheniformis T-1 Protects Zebrafish against Aeromonas hydrophila Infection. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2019, 12, 160–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kim, J.; Kim, J.; Kim, Y.; Oh, S.; Song, M.; Choe, J.H.; Whang, K.Y.; Kim, K.H.; Oh, S. Influences of quorum-quenching probiotic bacteria on the gut microbial community and immune function in weaning pigs. Anim. Sci. J. 2018, 89, 412–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kampouris, I.D.; Karayannakidis, P.D.; Banti, D.C.; Sakoula, D.; Konstantinidis, D.; Yiangou, M.; Samaras, P.E. Evaluation of a novel quorum quenching strain for MBR biofouling mitigation. Water Res. 2018, 143, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Buck, B.; Azcarate-Peril, M.; Klaenhammer, T. Role of autoinducer-2 on the adhesion ability of Lactobacillus acidophilus. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 107, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Liang, Y.; Pan, Y.; Li, Q.; Wu, B.; Hu, M. RNA-seq-based transcriptomic analysis of AHL-induced biofilm and pyocyanin inhibition in Pseudomonas aeruginosa by Lactobacillus brevis. Int. Microbiol. 2022, 25, 447–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Wasfi, R.; Abd El-Rahman, O.A.; Zafer, M.M.; Ashour, H.M. Probiotic Lactobacillus sp. inhibit growth, biofilm formation and gene expression of caries-inducing Streptococcus mutans. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2018, 22, 1972–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Yong, C.; Lim, J.; Kim, B.; Park, D.; Oh, S. Suppressive effect of Lactobacillus fermentum Lim2 on Clostridioides difficile 027 toxin production. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 68, 386–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Valdéz, J.C.; Peral, M.C.; Rachid, M.; Santana, M.; Perdigón, G. Interference of Lactobacillus plantarum with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vitro and in infected burns: The potential use of probiotics in wound treatment. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2005, 11, 472–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Tamura, S.; Yonezawa, H.; Motegi, M.; Nakao, R.; Yoneda, S.; Watanabe, H.; Yamazaki, T.; Senpuku, H. Inhibiting effects of Streptococcus salivarius on competence-stimulating peptide-dependent biofilm formation by Streptococcus mutans. Oral Microbiol. Immunol. 2009, 24, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Mokhtar, M.; Rismayuddin, N.A.R.; Mat Yassim, A.S.; Ahmad, H.; Abdul Wahab, R.; Dashper, S.; Arzmi, M.H. Streptococcus salivarius K12 inhibits Candida albicans aggregation, biofilm formation and dimorphism. Biofouling 2021, 37, 767–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bidossi, A.; De Grandi, R.; Toscano, M.; Bottagisio, M.; De Vecchi, E.; Gelardi, M.; Drago, L. Probiotics Streptococcus salivarius 24SMB and Streptococcus oralis 89a interfere with biofilm formation of pathogens of the upper respiratory tract. BMC Infect. Dis. 2018, 18, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fermentation 08 00711 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the main QS mechanisms (from [8] with permission from Elsevier; license number: 5433491396764).
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the main QS mechanisms (from [8] with permission from Elsevier; license number: 5433491396764).
Fermentation 08 00711 g001
Fermentation 08 00711 g002 550
Figure 2. Inhibition of quorum sensing in Gram-negative bacteria: (a) inhibition of AHL synthesis; (b) degradation of AI using enzymes; (c) interference with signal receptors (From [8] with permission from Elsevier; license number: 5433491396764).
Figure 2. Inhibition of quorum sensing in Gram-negative bacteria: (a) inhibition of AHL synthesis; (b) degradation of AI using enzymes; (c) interference with signal receptors (From [8] with permission from Elsevier; license number: 5433491396764).
Fermentation 08 00711 g002
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Davares, A.K.L.; Arsene, M.M.J.; Viktorovna, P.I.; Vyacheslavovna, Y.N.; Vladimirovna, Z.A.; Aleksandrovna, V.E.; Nikolayevich, S.A.; Nadezhda, S.; Anatolievna, G.O.; Nikolaevna, S.I.; et al. Quorum-Sensing Inhibitors from Probiotics as a Strategy to Combat Bacterial Cell-to-Cell Communication Involved in Food Spoilage and Food Safety. Fermentation 2022, 8, 711. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8120711

AMA Style

Davares AKL, Arsene MMJ, Viktorovna PI, Vyacheslavovna YN, Vladimirovna ZA, Aleksandrovna VE, Nikolayevich SA, Nadezhda S, Anatolievna GO, Nikolaevna SI, et al. Quorum-Sensing Inhibitors from Probiotics as a Strategy to Combat Bacterial Cell-to-Cell Communication Involved in Food Spoilage and Food Safety. Fermentation. 2022; 8(12):711. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8120711

Chicago/Turabian Style

Davares, Anyutoulou K. L., Mbarga M. J. Arsene, Podoprigora I. Viktorovna, Yashina N. Vyacheslavovna, Zhigunova A. Vladimirovna, Vasilyeva E. Aleksandrovna, Senyagin A. Nikolayevich, Sachivkina Nadezhda, Gizinger O. Anatolievna, Sharova I. Nikolaevna, and et al. 2022. "Quorum-Sensing Inhibitors from Probiotics as a Strategy to Combat Bacterial Cell-to-Cell Communication Involved in Food Spoilage and Food Safety" Fermentation 8, no. 12: 711. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8120711

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