Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Exploring Enterococcus Species for their Next-Generation Probiotics Potential

Written By

Abrar Hussain and Syed Abid Ali

Submitted: 13 August 2024 Reviewed: 16 September 2024 Published: 25 November 2024

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1007306

Chapter metrics overview

322 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

The genus Enterococcus is the third largest genus in the group lactic acid bacteria and has ubiquitous distributions with plenty of biomedical as well as other industrial applications. Tolerance to harsh conditions, genome plasticity, antimicrobial potential, enterocins production, and greater survivability are the key properties of enterococcal species that make them a suitable probiotic agent. Likewise, the presence of dozens of virulence traits, antibiotic resistance, and opportunistic pathogenic nature raises a serious concern regarding their safety. Still, it is a debate whether enterococcal species are used as probiotics or not, but their current industrial applications and preliminary positive attributes indicate their next-generation probiotic potential. Recent advancements in molecular techniques and genomic elucidation studies have increased the number of enterococcal species to more than 80, dominated by Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis. A greater number of enterococcal species are identified in the twenty-first century, and thus, their next-generation probiotic potential is not defined yet. Many of the recently identified species are targeted for different applications and they showed promising results indicating the need to investigate their NGP potential. Hence, this chapter aims to provide the recent and updated literature about the common enterococcal species, their distinguishing characteristics, and the available data that revealed or directed their next-generation probiotic potential.

Keywords

  • enterococcus
  • probiotics
  • next-generation probiotics
  • enterocins
  • E. faecium

1. Introduction

The term probiotic is derived from a Greek word that means for life, and this concept was developed by Elie Metchnikoff (a Nobel laureate) in the early twentieth century. He proposed that changing gut microbiota with friendly bacteria can help to extend the organism’s life. Since then, researchers around the globe have been dedicated to establishing their scientific basis and trying to identify new probiotic strains. Back in the 1960s, Lilly and Stillwell coined the term probiotics and defined that probiotics have the immunomodulatory potential, restoring gut microbiota and enhancing intestinal functions [1]. At the beginning of the twenty-first century (2001), the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) proposed a concise definition of probiotics that was then updated by the panel of the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP). According to the ISAPP probiotics are live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit to the host [2, 3]. Probiotics have certain selection criteria that must be followed, while claiming the strain’s probiotic potential. These selection properties include a safe origin, free from virulence factors, pathogen-killing potential, no antibiotic resistance, adherence properties, survivability in the gut conditions, potential to produce antimicrobial substances, tolerance to harsh conditions, and the ability to be viable after getting consumed [1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. The pathogenicity, virulence factors and antibiotic resistance, toxicity, and the strain’s intrinsic properties are considered during the probiotic safety [11]. Additionally, various health benefits and different functional properties are also considered during probiotic strain selection. The probiotic mechanism of action largely depends on their effectiveness in gut conditions, the expression of surface molecules, and their potential to compete with pathogenic microbes while producing antimicrobial substances [6, 7, 12, 13, 14]. Probiotics have a vast spectrum of health benefits that include the strengthening of the immune system and intestinal functions, reducing allergic reactions and metabolic disorders, enhancing food digestion, and restoring the gut microbiota [3, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17]. Probiotics also help in the prevention and treatment of psychological disorders, combating the aging process, and have good therapeutic potential [18, 19, 20, 21].

Currently, seven genera of microorganisms are used as probiotics. Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Enterococcus are widely used probiotic microorganisms [22, 23], despite there are unaccountable microbes (approximately 1159,000 species) in our environment that affect our life activities in different ways [24]. To explore the probiotic potential of microorganisms, they are divided into safe strains, doubtful strains, and risky strains indicating their wide usage, usage with extensive investigation, and not recommended for usage, respectively [1]. The genus Enterococcus, which is the third largest genus of LAB, falls into the doubtful categories as they have an opportunistic pathogenic nature. Additionally, this genus is still not included in the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) and Qualified Presumptions of Safety (QPS) status microorganisms [2]. Their pathogenic nature is attributed to the presence of both intrinsic and acquired antibiotic resistances and more than a dozen virulence traits. These virulence factors, that is, hemolysin production, aggregation substances, gelatinase and DNAse production, are the causative agents of multiple diseases [1]. These enterococcal diseases include bacteremia, endocarditis, abdominal pain, urinary tract infection, etc. and thus enhance the pathogenic nature of the genus [22, 25, 26, 27]. Besides its pathogenic nature, the genus also has various applications in different industries and also has proven probiotic strains. It is used in the pharmaceutical, food, and cheese industries, has a role in medicine (human and veterinary medicines), and can be applied as co-cultures, starter cultures, protective cultures, etc. [1, 27, 28, 29, 30]. Thus, a controversial debate still exists whether enterococcal species are used as probiotics or not [31, 32, 33, 34]. It is important that the current available enterococcal probiotics have not been associated with any kind of complications or side reactions, since using them for decades. For instance, Enterococcus faecium NCIMB 10415 and Symbioflor® 1 are used without any adverse reactions [2, 30, 35]. The main player in their probiotic potential is the production of enterocins, ubiquitous distribution, tolerance to harsh conditions, genome plasticity, and other positive potential [2, 36].

The genus Enterococcus has ubiquitous distribution and is found in different environments, representing the third largest genus of LAB with more than 80 well-identified species [2, 37, 38]. Genus Enterococcus is one of the most primitive Gram-positive bacteria that originated approximately 500 million years ago and is found in plenty of environments, including the guts of humans and other animals [39, 40]. Phenotypically, it is ovoid in shape, Gram-positive, catalase and oxidase-negative, aero-tolerant, homofermentative, and non-motile microbes that have the potential to be used in different industries [25, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44]. Due to its excellent survivability in different environmental niches, it is also considered fecal-indicating bacteria (FIB) [37]. Its genome ranges from 2.3 to 5.4 Mbp with 34–45% GC contents and approximately 2154–5107 prescribed genes [27, 42]. The general spectrum properties of the genus Enterococcus are summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The general aspects of genus Enterococcus indicate environmental distribution, group classification (each group contains different species), distinguishing properties, health profile (antibiotic resistance and virulence traits), and important applications.

Among the enterococcal species, E. faecium, E. faecalis, E. hirae, E. casseliflavus, E. mundtii, etc., have more prevalence. Both E. faecium and E. faecalis constitute a high percentage of the total species prevalence, while E. faecium is considered more virulent and E. faecalis is highly resistant [37]. Being isolated from hospital settings and foodstuffs, it was observed that high-virulent species are mostly present in hospital sources, while safe species or industrially used species are greatly isolated from food sources [22, 26, 45]. The potential of enterococci to be used as probiotics is currently being investigated, predominated by E. faecium, among other investigated species. Recently, the concept of next-generation probiotics was developed, which aims to identify novel bacterial species with probiotic properties despite not being used for this potential. This NGP concept is applied to many species, including those of the genus Enterococcus. The common enterococcal species are well-studied for their probiotic potential, but with more than 80 well-identified species, it is worth exploring the remaining species with similar potential.

Hence, this chapter aimed to provide recent, up-to-date, and relevant literature about the potential use of enterococcal species as next-generation probiotics. This will also shed light briefly on probiotics, the genus Enterococcus, and next-generation probiotics. In this chapter, the less common enterococcal species are explored and documented for their NGP potential, either already described in the literature or anticipated after the species’ properties exploration. Thus, approximately 30 enterococcal species are explored, highlighting their NGP potential.

Advertisement

2. Next-generation probiotics

The commonly used probiotics belong to the genus Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, followed by the genus Enterococcus. Species of these genera are explored and commercialized as probiotics. The Lactobacilli species are even more studied for their different potentials, including their potential as anti-aging anti-depressant and anti-neurodegenerative disorders. Over the period of time and with the advancement of technologies, the scientists have tried to elucidate other microbes that are not commonly used as probiotics. This switch to identify new species was vastly based on the strain-dependent phenomena of the probiotics and their intrinsic properties. Thus, the identification and use of probiotics with enhanced functions, greater potency, and disease-specific potential in the area of next-generation probiotics is considered a potential and emerging area of research [46, 47, 48].

Next-generation probiotics (NGP), or live biotherapeutics products, denote those microorganisms and species that have never been used before. NGPs are beneficial microbes that are not purely proposed, like traditional probiotics as foods or dietary supplements, but have pharmaceutical applications [49]. Many previously unrecognized probiotic strains have been isolated and identified from the intestinal microbiota using modern next-generation sequencing techniques, and these next-generation probiotics have become potential sources for novel drugs as therapeutics for different diseases [48]. Currently, candidates have been identified from the gut microbiota that are associated with health benefits, like species of the genera Bacteroides, Clostridium, Faecalibacterium, and Akkermansia, as well as some genetically modified (GM) strains [49]. All the investigated or experimentally validated strains have advanced properties compared to conventional probiotics, and numerous metabolites like folate, indoles, serotonin, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), etc. have been identified, which play an important role in the host physiology [46]. The human GIT contains approximately 100 trillion microorganisms (including bacteria, fungi, archaea, viruses, and protozoa), as elucidated during the human microbiome project. Each species has its own nutritional requirements, which makes it difficult to properly recognize them. It is the glory of genome sequence that allows to identify such a large number of microbes with detailed properties. The presence of such a large number of microbes in the human gut can be targeted as probiotics if identified properly in terms of their nutrition, growth properties, and genomic construct [47]. Fortunately, with the advancement of technologies, different species are identified and targeted for next-generation probiotic potential. The general properties of NGPs are illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

The general characteristics of next-generation probiotics.

To ensure the safety and ethical consideration of NGPs or other biotherapeutics are guaranteed, while following different guidelines, different countries developed their own safety assessment measures, which helped them properly regulate and ensure the safety of NGPs. For instance, in the EU, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is responsible for the safety assessment of novel foods, including NGPs. The species taxonomic classification, complete genome sequencing, probiogenomic analysis, and investigation of virulence and antibiotic resistance traits, etc. are the prime elements that should be properly documented for NGPs [50].

2.1 Prospects of next-generation probiotics as biotherapeutics

Probiotics have been used as fermented foods by humans for a long time, but the beneficial effects of these bacteria were not well understood until the development of new and emerging techniques. Probiotics of the current generation are demonstrated to have a role in the maintenance of the gut microbiota and can reduce inflammatory responses, allergic illnesses, and autoimmune diseases [51]. New NGPs with potential beneficial characteristics for human health expand this traditional probiotic spectrum and contribute to the development and elaboration of new food products that respond to the population’s growing interest in health and quality of life, again making the NGPs an important area in the food industry. The biotherapeutics potential of NGPs should be stated after passing the three phases of clinical trials, that is, preclinical, toxicological studies, and pharmacodynamics [46, 52, 53, 54].

The availability of microbe-free animal models will aid in the identification of safe NGPs that meet regulatory parameters such as the US-LBP FDA’s program (US Live Biotherapeutic Products, Food and Drug Administration). The efficacy and safety of the next generation of probiotics and the technological elements of using these microbes in food preparation are considered the most important concerns in processing. The majority of these microorganisms have metabolic properties that make them challenging to utilize as sustainable methods in the development of novel products, particularly in large-scale food production [53]. However, limited studies have been conducted to establish the effectiveness and safety of these microorganisms, necessitating more research in in vivo systems and clinical trials. In the food industry, there must be studies that analyze the potential applications of next-generation probiotics in food matrices and their impacts on the intrinsic technical and sensory properties of food. In the future, these microbes may be employed as bio-therapeutic items and sold mostly as nutritional supplements [46].

2.2 The next-generation probiotics microorganisms

As described, the NGPs have advanced functions over traditional probiotics and are used in a specific application. A number of species, mostly from the gut microbiota, are targeted to be screened for their next-generation probiotic potential. These include Akkermansia muciniphila, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Bacteroides fragilis, Eubacterium hallii, Bifidobacterium spp., Prevotella copri, Christensenella minuta, and Roseburia spp. [48, 55, 56]. It is important to mention here that the NGPs include commensal species that have no previous history of safe use. Likewise, the conventional probiotics, with the beneficial effects of NGP, are also strain-dependent [47]. The NGPs of various bacterial species are previously documented [46, 57, 58].

Advertisement

3. The next-generation probiotic potential of enterococcal species

The NGPs potential of enterococcal species is also evaluated, along with that of other microbes. This potential is solely dependent on the genus intrinsic, chemical, biochemical, and genomic properties. Currently, well-defined and characterized enterococcal species such as E. faecium, E. faecalis, E. mundtii, E. hirae, and E. lactis are targeted for their next-generation probiotic potential and have been identified in a good number of strains. At the same time, both the newly identified and less explored species of enterococci can also be targeted for this NGPs potential in this advanced period. The development of advanced molecular techniques, like genome sequencing, can even make this potential easier. The genus properties, such as tolerance, aggregation, environmental prevalence, metabolite production, give additional attraction to the researchers to be targeted for NGPs. Likewise, the disease treatment potential, industrial applications, and as fecal indicator bacteria, the enterococcal species provide an excellent opportunity to be targeted. The presence of general NGP properties, the proposed enterococcal species, and the potential of next-generation probiotics are summarized in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

The next-generation probiotic properties of Enterococcus, the proposed species of enterococci for NGPs, the properties of NGPs, and their potential applications.

The genus Enterococcus has unique features that make it a suitable agent to be targeted for next-generation probiotic potential. Although more than 80 species are identified so far as enterococcal species, very few are investigated for their probiotic potential. Certain species such as E. faecium, E. faecalis, and E. mundtii have been used for a long time, while strains from other species such as E. italic, E. hirae, and E. gallinarum are also elucidated as having good probiotic properties. The different enterococcal species and their next-generation probiotic potential are described below.

3.1 Enterococcus faecium

E. faecium is one of the most prevalent enterococcal species in the environment and has received exceptional attention for its probiotic potential. It is generally considered a safe species and is hence widely used in different industries. It has a small genome size (2.23 to 3.72 Mbp) and a short generation time, which make it suitable for its NGP potential. The production of multiple enterocins also aids in their NGP potential [1, 39]. E. faecium also showed greater environmental persistence and became dormant under stress conditions [39]. Currently, a good number of probiotic strains from E. faecium have been identified and developed commercially, indicating its excellent NGP potential. These developed probiotics have good potential to treat different diseases and aid in intestinal microflora restoration probably due to their short lag phase and generation time. Its strains can hinder the growth of E. coli, Salmonella Serovars, Shigella spp., and Enterobacter spp. in vitro, while also showing resistance to low pH and bile. Some strains showed anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory potential, which is because of their inhibition of nuclear factor-κB [59, 60, 61].

There are vast areas in which E. faecium probiotics are used. For instance, they are used in the treatment of diseases, the restoration of gut flora, and as food and feed supplements for pets [29]. Some strains also decrease cholesterol and help in the production of cheese as starter culture [62]. E. faecium probiotics are taken via different routes, like oral and inhalation, depending on the specific applications [63]. The commercially available E. faecium probiotics, such as E. faecium SF-68 and ECOFLOR, have proven benefits and are not associated with any potential side effects [62]. E. faecium M74 strains in boilers increase serum calcium contents and antioxidant status [64]. Likewise, the heat-killed E. faecium NHRD IHARA is suggested to be used as feed additives [65]. Its potential in veterinary medicine is also elucidated and found to have promising results [66]. Thus, highlighting these probiotics, it is concluded that E. faecium has excellent NGP potential and can be explored for more applications.

3.2 Enterococcus faecalis

E. faecalis has the highest prevalence in hospital settings and is considered one of the virulent enterococcal species. Generally, E. faecalis causes 75–80% of the enterococcal infections. Due to its widespread distribution and the ability to tolerate harsh conditions, it is often isolated from medical settings, while a low proportion is also collected from other environmental niches. It has a larger genome size (2.7 Mb) than E. faecium and generally shows more virulence characters instead of resistance [1, 37].

Unlike E. faecium, the NGP potential of E. faecalis is less investigated due to its apparent virulence profile, but still, few strains of it are commercialized as probiotics. For example, Symbioflor® 1 is a leading E. faecalis probiotic that has the properties of immune regulation and combats chronic sinusitis and bronchitis [40]. In combinatorial treatment, the effectiveness of Symbioflor® 1 was found to enhance the treatment potential of respiratory diseases [67, 68]. Upon extensive investigation, the E. faecalis strains can be used in different applications, including medicinal aspects and food supplements. E. faecalis strains are generally considered in that category, which requires extensive characterization, particularly their genomic analysis.

3.3 Enterococcus hirae

E. hirae is a non-motile enterococcal species that was identified in 1985 and has lower environmental prevalence. It is frequently isolated from the intestinal flora of different domestic animals [69]. It is associated with different diseases, like septicemia and focal necrosis. E. hirae has the potential to produce acid from melibiose and sucrose and shows close resemblance to E. durans [69]. Its NGP potential is explored due to its anti-inflammatory and antibacterial potential. E. hirae strains also have tolerance potential, good hydrophobicity, and no antibiotic resistance. The ability to produce enterocins and their antibacterial activity against Micrococcus luteus, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella Typhi, Staphylococcus aureus, Shigella flexneri, Pseudomonas fluorescens, E. coli O157:H7, etc., can aid in their NGP potential [70]. Its major enterocin is Hiracin JM79, which belongs to Class IIa antilisteria-pediocin-like bacteriocins [71].

The currently available E. hirae probiotics not only confirmed their NGP potential but can also indicate their widespread applications. These NGPs show the therapeutic potential and have immunomodulatory effects without any documented side effects [72]. Adnan et al. documented the NGP potential of E. hirae F2 strain and identified its antimicrobial and antioxidant activities, while suggesting its promising probiotic potential [73].

3.4 Enterococcus durans

E. durans has close similarities with E. hirae and has a low environmental prevalence [74]. It is found in the gut in rare cases and is responsible for different animals’ diseases like enteritis [69]. Characteristically, it is positive for the arginine test and shows negative tests against arabinose, raffinose, pyruvate, and sorbose [74]. Like other enterococcal probiotics, E. durans also has the tolerance potential, adherence capacity, and ability to colonize mucosal surfaces, have no virulence traits, show antibacterial potential, and have immune modulatory effects. It also has an effect on cytokine production and enhances IgA secretion [75]. These properties enable E. durans strains to be targeted as NGP and, hence, play a role in wide applications.

Different E. durans strains are identified as having good NGP potential. For instance, E. durans M4 was found to have anti-inflammatory effects and preserve intestinal epithelial integrity, indicating its prophylactic potential [76]. Another strain, E. durans VJI19, was found to have antifungal and pro-apoptotic activities based on its palmitic acid and 2,3-dihydro-3,5-dihydroxy-6-methyl 4H pyran-4-one. Additional properties such as the presence of hydrophobicity, tolerance, and colonization potential suggest its NGP potential [77]. Likewise, the potential of E. durans 6H and E. durans LAB18s was also screened and identified its NGP potential [60, 78]. Human serum cholesterol lowering strain E. durans KLDS 6.0930 is also documented as a potential probiotic strain [8].

3.5 Enterococcus lactis

E. lactis has a close resemblance to E. faecium and was first isolated in 2012 from milk. It has distinct genomic and carbohydrate metabolism properties and is thus considered a separate species [79, 80]. The absence of antibiotic resistance genes and virulence traits makes the species more suitable for NGP potential even than E. faecium with applications in the food and health industries [80]. The disease-causing potential of E. lactis is much less than that of E. faecium. Due to their close resemblance with E. faecium some probiotics that are claimed to contain E. faecium actually contain E. lactis [81]. E. lactis shows gelatinase negative potential and carries enterocin-producing genes [79]. The existing E. lactis probiotic strains mostly have the cholesterol-lowering potential and susceptibility to antibiotics, besides other probiotic properties [79].

Once the E. lactis is recognized as a separate species, it attracts researchers to identify its NGP potential because of its apparent safe profile and enterocins production capacity [79]. The NGP potential of E. lactis makes it a suitable candidate to prevent and help in the treatment of different human diseases, like malignant tumors. It prevents the tumor in different ways, such as reducing the expression of pro-carcinogenic enzymes, improving normal cell proliferation, and hindering inflammation-associated cell apoptosis. For instance, E. lactis BT 16 and E. lactis MTCC 25438 strains, which are isolated from cheese and goat milk, respectively, have the cholesterol-lowering potential and thus indicate their NGP potential [68, 82]. Other strains, such as E. lactis YHC20, E. lactis FM11-1, and E. lactis IW5, showed good cellular hydrophobicity and carbohydrate and bile salt hydrolase (BSH) activity [83, 84, 85]. The NGP potential of strain E. lactis PMD74 was investigated, and it was observed that, besides other probiotic properties, this strain shows greater survivability in fermented milk [86].

3.6 Enterococcus gallinarum

E. gallinarum, a motile microbe, besides other enterococcal species, is part of the normal stool flora of chickens and cattle but was also isolated from clinical samples. It is considered less pathogenic than other clinically isolated species [87, 88, 89, 90]. It shows 99.8% homology in 16S rDNA similarities with E. casseliflavus, making it difficult to distinguish [91]. It causes common enterococcal infections such as bacteremia, endocarditis, and meningitis. A rare effect on the central nervous system is also identified [92, 93]. It is separated from its close partner, E. casseliflavus, as it does not produce the yellow pigment [89].

The next-generation probiotic potential of E. gallinarum, though it is not authorized for probiotics, is still established and some strains have been found that have the NGP potential [94]. The NGP potential is mostly dependent on the strains antimicrobial potential; for example, E. gallinarum T71 and W21 were found to have broad-spectrum activity and hence can be investigated for use as starter cultures in foods [95]. Another strain, E. gallinarum L-1, was evaluated on the cellular immune systems of four different fish species and found to stimulate the leucocytes of the tested fishes [96].

3.7 Enterococcus casseliflavus

E. casseliflavus is the second motile specie of the genus Enterococcus that has the capacity to produce a yellow pigment, and hence, it is separated from other motile specie, that is, E. gallinarum [89, 97]. This species shows an environmental adaptation to aquatic vegetation [97]. Its inulin fermentation property makes it a distinguishing species and has the potential of environmental persistence, facilitated by cell-associated carotenoid pigments that also protect it against photooxidation [89]. Another unique feature of this specie is the presence of acetoin dehydrogenase genes (ECAG_02019 to ECAG_02022), which helps in the conversion of acetoin to acetaldehyde and acetyl coenzyme A [89]. Despite enterococcal species, it is considered a less virulent species [94].

Unlike other enterococcal species, E. casseliflavus and E. gallinarum are not authorized for probiotic potential, but recently they were found in two probiotic products indicating their NGP potential [94]. This potential is mostly because of its antimicrobial potential, bacteriocins production, improving growth performance, immune modulation, and resistance against pathogens [98]. Studies also showed the tolerance potential of E. casseliflavus, particularly in its fermentation profile [99]. Deng et al. [94], identifying the new insight of antibiotic resistance in enterococcal probiotics, declared that both E. casseliflavus and E. gallinarum are free from antibiotic resistance genes but can carry low-level vancomycin resistance genes (i.e., vanC), thus influencing the host immunity [23, 94, 100]. Recently, a study was conducted to identify the response of cancer patients to chemotherapy treatment, and it was identified that E. casseliflavus is more abundant in responding compared to non-responding patients, thus indicating its potential to be used as a biological biomarker for chemotherapy response in lung cancer patients [101].

3.8 Enterococcus avium

E. avium is a member of the genus Enterococcus that is commonly isolated from bird droppings [87] and was previously included in group Q Streptococcus [74]. It is also isolated from hospital settings and identified as showing similar resistance to E. raffinosus [74], but being negative to raffinose metabolism, it is considered a separate species [102]. The pathogenic nature of this specie is less understood but still involved in different enterococcal infections, including peritonitis [74]. E. avium also has the potential to produce enterocins like Avicin A, a double-glycine lead bacteriocin belonging to the class IIa anti-listeria-pediocin-like bacteriocins [71].

The next-generation probiotic potential of E. avium is rare, but there are some positive attributes that might be helpful in its NGP status. For instance, the production of Avicin A, which is isolated from babies’ feces, indicates its distribution in the GIT and helps in the maintenance of normal commensal flora [71]. The results of another study showed that E. avium has no virulence factors, antibiotic resistance, inhibits the growth of L. monocytogenes, shows adhesion to epithelial cells, and has greater cholesterol assimilation potential. These properties indicate the NGPs of E. avium and could be used in functional foods, particularly in broiler chicks [103, 104]. In contrast, a sample isolated from animals in Tunisia indicated the presence of vancomycin resistance in E. avium isolate [105].

3.9 Enterococcus mundtii

E. mundtii belongs to the group E. faecium, has ubiquitous distribution, and is found in plants, the gut of animals, and raw milk with low GC contents of 38–39% [106]. Functionally, E. mundtii lacks catalase and cytochrome C oxidase enzymes but can perform carbohydrate fermentations. It has the potential to produce enterocins, that is, Bacteriocin ST15, and thus has antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas, Clostridium, Klebsiella, Lactobacillus, Acinetobacter [106].

The NGP potential of E. mundtii is greatly investigated and identified, as many strains have the NGP potential. Tolerance, hydrophobicity, higher auto-aggregation, and no hemolytic activity, besides no antibiotic resistance genes, are the major probiotic attributes [107]. The NGPs potential is mostly because of its bacteriocin and enzyme production abilities, anti-pathogenic capacity, and tolerance potential. Nawaz et al. documented the different enzymatic activities (i.e., proteolytic, lipolytic, amylolytic, and cellulolytic) of E. mundtii QAUEM2808, suggesting its role in aroma and flavor development in food [106]. Likewise, another strain, E. mundtii ST4SA, is also documented as a potential probiotic strain [8]. Grau et al. documented that administration of the E. mundtii strain in Tribolium castaneum (the red flour beetle) indicated the desired probiotic properties, increasing the researcher’s interest in using this microbe for in vitro probiotic characterization [107]. Similarly, experiments conducted to check the strain’s survivability in the presence of antibiotics indicated that E. mundtii ST4V has the potential to survive in the presence of most of the administered antibiotics, thus, suggesting its potential to be used as a probiotic in those individuals who are receiving medical treatment [108].

3.10 Enterococcus raffinosus

E. raffinosus is a non-motile, enterococcal species, first identified in 1989, and shows negative tests for tellurite and arginine but positive tests for mannitol, sorbose, arabinose, raffinose, and pyruvate [74, 109, 110, 111]. In recent years, the pathogenesis in humans has been identified but it is considered a less pathogenic species, causing infections with heterogenicity like sinusitis, urinary tract infection, vaginal infection, and decubital ulcer [74, 102, 109]. This bacterium also harbors the VanA genes, thus creating the glycopeptide resistance [74]. The complete genome of E. raffinosus CX012922 was conducted by Zhao et al., which showed a close relationship with E. gilvus and E. avium, and had pathogenicity-encoding genes in its genome. The presence of giant mega-plasmids (~1 Mb) in its genome is the key feature of this species, which provides it with different functions including host adaptation [110]. The E. raffinosus less pathogenic nature and good sugar metabolic potential can be targeted for its next-generation probiotic potential. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no current reports showing the NGP of this species.

3.11 Enterococcus villorum

E. villorum belongs to the E. faecium group and is mostly isolated from domestic animals [69]. It is separated from other enterococcal species using methyl-β-D-glucopyranoside and sucrose tests, while a positive D-xylose test is used occasionally [69]. Due to the limited information, it is difficult to determine the exact nature, different potentials, and applications of this species. The sequence of E. villorum strain LMG 12287 T was found identical to E. porcinus strain ATCC 700913 T, hence creating confusion but the name E. villorum was used earlier than E. porcinus, and hence, the latter is considered a junior synonym of E. villorum [112]. A study conducted on the comparative genomics of enterococcal species showed tetracycline resistance genes in E. villorum [113]. Likewise, prophages from the Phycodnaviridae family and type II CRISPR-Cas system genes were also identified in E. villorum [113].

Due to the scarcity of available data on the different aspects of E. villorum, it is difficult to explore the NGP potential of this species. To the best of our knowledge, there are no data touching its NGP potential. But we anticipate that the presence of CRISPR-Cas genes and sugar metabolism can be used to identify its next-generation probiotic potential.

3.12 Enterococcus viikkiensis

E. viikkiensis is a member of the genus Enterococcus, which shows light gray translucent colonies on its growth media. It was isolated from broiler and broiler production lines [114, 115]. Characteristically, this species grows on bile-esculin agar and temperatures ranging from 10 to 37°C but cannot grow at 4 and 45°C, but shows tolerance to 6.5% NaCl [116]. Li et al. isolated a new enterococcal species, that is, Enterococcus xiangfangensis that has similarities with the E. viikkiensis strain [117, 118]. In the study by Glaeser et al., it was also identified that E. viikkiensis strains harbor the VanA gene besides other E. lemanii clusters [115].

The health profiles, such as pathogenesis, enterocin production, probiotic potential, are still undefined for this specie; hence, it is difficult to elaborate on its next-generation probiotic potential. In a broad sense, one study has shown that it harbors the vancomycin resistance genes, hence making it unfit for next-generation probiotic potential. But as its brighter side is not yet conclusively established, further studies are required that target its NGP potential.

3.13 Enterococcus italicus

E. italicus is a newly identified enterococcal species that belongs to group V and has now been isolated from a variety of cheeses around the globe [119, 120, 121, 122, 123]. Besides other sources, it is also isolated from dairy products [124]. It shows a close relationship with E. sulfureus and E. saccharolyticus, which have 96 and 97% 16S rDNA sequence similarity, respectively [114]. Its unique properties include no growth at 6.5% NaCl and the lack of acid production from L-arabinose, melibiose, raffinose, and ribose [114, 125].

The safety profile of E. lactis is good as there are no potential virulence factors or antibiotic resistance genes identified, thus representing its promising role in adjunct culture and use in different industries [121, 123, 126]. For instance, a study was conducted to evaluate the antimicrobial activity and safety of E. italicus GGN10, which was isolated from Tunisian bovine raw milk. The results showed its antimicrobial activity, stability over a wide range of pH, the production of enterocins (e.g., EntA, EntB), the absence of pathogenic islands, and the production of enzymes such as acid phosphatase and aminopeptidase. These positive attributes of this strain make them an important agent to use in flavor and texture development [122, 127, 128]. Likewise, the genomic analysis of the E. italicus DSM 15952 T-type strain (Accession PRJNA61487, ID 61487) showed the presence of genes responsible for the bifunctional enzyme, which is involved in glutathione production [121]. The aforementioned beneficial properties and its tolerance potential make it a promising agent for NGP potential. In contrast, the antibiotic resistance genes such as tetS (which encodes for a ribosomal protection protein) and tetK tetracycline-resistance were also determined in E. italicus [119].

3.14 Enterococcus xiangfangensis

E. xiangfangensis (named from the China district where it was isolated) is a non-motile species of Enterococcus, having a 1–1.5 mm size and giving circular and smooth colonies on the growth medium, that is, MRS agar [117, 118]. Its physiological properties include growth at 37 to 45°C, growing best at a basic pH of 11.0, tolerating a maximum of 5% NaCl, no ammonia being produced from arginine, and having the highest production of L-lactate, catalase negative, and homofermentative potential. It gives positive tests for pyrrolidonyl arylamidase and leucine arylamidase, while giving negative tests for α-galactosidase, β-galactosidase, β-glucuronidase, alkaline phosphatase, and arginine dihydrolase [117].

E. xiangfangensis has a complex sugar profile and showed both positive and negative tests against different metabolites. Despite being positive against different sugar metabolites, its tolerance potential, particularly against low pH and high salinity, is not good. Hence, it is ambiguous whether its NGP potential is really targeted or not. There are no data available to explore its NGP potential, so its genomic analysis may help identify its correct position from the perspective of NGPs.

3.15 Enterococcus phoeniculicola

E. phoeniculicola was first isolated by Law-Brown and Meyers from the uropygial gland of wild red-billed wood hoopoes (Phoeniculus purpureus). Sequence analysis of the 16S rDNA showed 97.3 and 97.5% sequence similarities with E. faecium and E. avium, respectively [114]. It is separated from these species by its metabolic profile (i.e., it is unable to form acid from lactose, D-mannitol, and D-sorbitol) and its lower tolerance potential against 40% bile or 6.5% NaCl [114].

E. phoeniculicola positive attributes are not well known. Its next-generation probiotic potential is not elucidated yet. Highlighting its metabolic profile indicates positive potential, but the tolerance potential creates a difficult dilemma. The investigation of its safety and genome analysis will help to identify its positons in the NGP.

3.16 Enterococcus plantarum

E. plantarum was isolated from plants as non-motile, ovoid-shaped cocci during enterococcal identification and characterization from plant sources. Its 16S rDNA sequence shows similarities to the E. faecalis group while separated from its close species via phenylalanyl-tRNA synthase alpha subunit (pheS) and RNA polymerase alpha subunit (rpoA) gene sequence analysis. This species is unpigmented despite being showing a yellowish color on an agar plate [114, 129]. The biochemical properties include growth at different temperatures and pH, tolerance to 6.5% NaCl, and positive for Group-D antigen, and produce acetoin, leucine arylamidase, pyrrolidonyl arylamidase, urease, β-mannosidase, and β-glucosidase [129].

Till date, enterococci from plant sources are not very well investigated, and limited studies have shown their insight [130]. Luckily, the draft genome sequence of strain E. plantarum TRW2 (NCBI GenBank number SAMN07453839) was recently performed, which revealed 132 contigs (≥500 bp), 3,383,441 bp with a G + C content of 35.8% and N50 length of 89,597 bp [130]. The strains harbored no antibiotic resistance genes and neither any virulence traits [130]. So far, the strain is not investigated for its next-generation probiotic potential, but it is anticipated that it has NGP potential, as shown by its apparent safety profile.

3.17 Enterococcus quebecensis

E. quebecensis was recently identified by Sistek and his colleagues from a well water sample in Canada [131]. It is separated from other enterococcal species via sequences of a set of genes (i.e., 16S rRNA, rpoA, pheS, tufA, and atpD), DNA fingerprinting, and DNA–DNA hybridization [132]. It belongs to the E. faecalis group and has a close relationship with E. moraviensis [133]. Its biochemical characteristics include a negative test for the Voges-Proskauer test (no acetoin), peculiar temperature ranges for growth, catalase-negative, and not being grown in the presence of 6.5% NaCl. It hydrolyzes aesculin, leucine β-naphthylamide, L-pyrrolidonyl β-naphthylamide, and deaminated arginine [114, 132, 133, 134].

The next-generation probiotic potential of this species has not been described so far. However, the biochemical properties of the species give a positive insight into their use as probiotics, but their low tolerance to salts and temperatures, etc., can limit the NGP potential. Hence, it is important to investigate the genomic properties of the strains and explore their NGP potential.

3.18 Enterococcus rivorum

E. rivorum was identified by Niemi and collaborators in 2012 from pristine waters in Finland. This species shows a close relationship to the E. faecalis group [135]. E. rivorum showed less growth at high temperature (45°C) in the presence of 6.5% NaCl and has variable potential to produce Group-D antigen [114]. Although it can also tolerate high temperatures of 60°C for 30 minutes and 40% bile [135], it also showed positive tests for acid production from N-acetylglucosamine and the Voges-Proskauer test, and can produce acid from glycerol, ribose, galactose, D-glucose, D-fructose, methyl α-D-glucoside, cellobiose, maltose, sucrose, trehalose, and starch [135].

The next-generation probiotic potential of E. rivorum is little explored. A study conducted by Bhagwat et al. showed that several other enterococcal species, besides E. rivorum, have the potential to be used as probiotics. Their results indicated that E. rivorum strains have adherence potential, tolerance to pancreatic enzymes, produce hydrogen peroxide, and possess antimicrobial potential [136].

3.19 Enterococcus rotai

E. rotai is a yellow-pigmented, urease-producing enterococcal species that is isolated from different environmental sources such as water and plants and placed in the E. faecalis group [114, 134, 137]. It shows a close relationship with E. lemimoi [138]. Its biochemical properties include growth at pH 9.6 and 42°C (not grown on 45°C), no gas production, and the production acid phosphatase, chymotrypsin esterase, β-glucosidase, and β-mannosidase [133, 137].

Enterococcus rotai strains show resistance to clindamycin, chloramphenicol, oxacillin, and ofloxacin but show susceptibility to imipenem and gentamicin [114, 137]. The complete genome sequence of E. rotai LMG 26678 T was performed by Lauer et al. and submitted to GenBank under the accession number CP013655 [139]. Resistance to antibiotics makes the species unfit for next-generation probiotic potential, but its tolerance and hydrolytic potential, and the complete known genome can help explore in the race of NGP potential enterococci.

3.20 Enterococcus silesiacus

E. silesiacus was identified by Švec and collaborators from water in the Czech Republic and placed in the group E. faecalis [140]. This enterococcal species gives non-pigmented, shiny, and round colonies on an agar plate that can elongate in all directions. It is a non-motile species with best growth observed in Todd-Hewitt agar and brain heart infusion (BHI) agar in comparison with MRS medium [114, 140]. It produces arginine dihydrolase, pyrrolidonyl arylamidase, acetoin, and β-galactosidase, while hydrolyzing glycerol, D-ribose, D-xylose, D-galactose, D-glucose, D-fructose, D-maltose, D-lactose, and D-trehalose [140].

Its next-generation probiotic potential has not been elucidated, so far. However, its hydrolytic potential and tolerance capacity may help to select it as a next-generation probiotic candidate. Lauer et al. performed the complete genome sequence of the type strain E. silesiacus LMG 23085 T and submitted it to the GenBank under the accession number CP013614 [139].

3.21 Enterococcus termitis

E. termitis was isolated by Švec from the gut of the termites and placed in the E. faecalis group, which shows a close association with E. dunnyi [129, 134, 138, 140]. Besides basic enterococcal characteristics, it gives shiny and circular colonies that are smooth, non-motile, and non-pigmented. It shows more similar biochemical properties to E. silesiacus and has a genome size of 4.7 Mb [138]. It does not produce pyrrolidonyl arylamidase, arginine α-galactosidase, β-galactosidase, and β-glucuronidase, while hydrolyzing glycerol, ribose, D-xylose, D-galactose, D-glucose, D-fructose, D-mannose, D-cellobiose, D-maltose, D-lactose, and D-trehalose [134, 140]. E. termitis LMG 8895 T is considered a type strain that is obtained from a termite’s gut [114].

The next-generation probiotic potential of E. termitis is not fully known yet, but Hamad et al. identified the incidence of this species in cheese whey, indicating its potential applications in the cheese industry. The strain E. termitis LMG 8895 showed greater proteolytic activity, produced exopolysaccharides, and tolerated high nisin concentrations. There was also no hemolytic activity or vancomycin resistance observed [141]. These potential probiotic properties indicate the NGP potential of this species.

3.22 Enterococcus thailandicus/E. Sanguinicola

E. thailandicus was isolated in Thailand from sausage in 2008. The 16S rRNA and rpoA gene sequence analysis show more similarities to the E. faecium group [114, 142]. E. thailandicus is also described as E. sanguinicola in the literature [143, 144]. Characteristically, it is a non-motile, ovoid, non-spore-forming enterococcal species that gives red colonies on Slanetz-Bartley agar, while being considered a non-pigmented microbe [142].

The next-generation probiotic potential of this species has been elucidated in some studies, which showed promising results. Li et al. for the first time identified the antimicrobial potential of E. thailandicus against C. difficile infections (CDI) [145, 146]. E. thailandicus d5B, which is isolated from Chinese children’s fees, also showed enhanced colonization ability and had the basics probiotic properties, like free from virulence traits and antibiotic resistance [145]. In the study by Beukers et al. no intact prophages were detected, while an array of CRISPR-Cas was identified [113]. Likewise, strain E. thailandicus TC1 was also declared a potential probiotic strain as described [143]. Hence, these data showed that E. thailandicus has a promising NGP potential that needs to be explored in more detail.

3.23 Enterococcus ureasiticus

E. ureasiticus was first isolated from a well water sample and shows positive urease activity hence, its name. Sequence analysis showed its relationship with the E. faecalis group but can harbor variable rpoA, pheS, tufA, and atpD gene sequences than 16S rDNA analysis alone [114, 132]. It grows in the presence of 5% CO2 and a wide range of temperatures, while no known strain is grown in a high salinity of 6.5% NaCl. Likewise, no extracellular polysaccharide production was observed. It produces acids from ribose, lactose, trehalose, sucrose, maltose, methyl, and tagatose, while no acid is produced from L-arabinose, D-arabitol, raffinose, and melibiose. It shows the potential to produce different enzymes and can hydrolyze different substances [132, 133, 134].

The next-generation probiotic potential of E. ureasiticus has not been explored yet. Its biochemical properties indicate a positive indication for probiotic usage, but its NGP potential needs to be identified.

3.24 Enterococcus ureilyticus

E. ureilyticus which is isolated from plants and water, is a yellow-pigmented, urease-producing, non-motile, non-spore-forming, ovoid shaped, facultative anaerobic enterococcal specie that is placed in the E. faecalis group on the basis of its 16S rDNA sequence [137, 147]. In contrast, it shows distinct characteristics based on pheS and rpoA gene sequence analysis, whole-cell protein electrophoresis, and DNA-DNA hybridization techniques [137]. It shows tolerance to high pH and salts and is able to grow in wide temperature ranges, but growth is limited at 45°C. It produces pyrrolidonyl arylamidase, leucine arylamidase, acetoin, and acid phosphatase, but not produces catalase, NH3, and arginine dihydrolase. It also has the potential to hydrolyze different sugars such as ribose, galactose, D-glucose, D-fructose, D-mannose, sorbose, cellobiose, maltose, sucrose, and trehalose [114, 133, 134, 137].

The next-generation probiotic potential of this species has not been explored yet. Some strains of this specie show resistance to chloramphenicol, oxacillin, and tetracycline, and susceptibility to imipenem [137], indicating the presence of antibiotic resistance, which indirectly lowers the NGP potential. However, its NGP potential will be explored based on in vitro assays and probiogenomic analysis.

3.25 Miscellaneous enterococcal species

The following are some enterococcal species that are less known and have not yet been explored for their next-generation probiotic potential.

Enterococcus caccae was isolated from a human stool sample and considered a separate specie in the E. faecalis group based on 16S rDNA sequence analysis, DNA-DNA hybridization, and whole-cell protein analysis. It also shows high similarities with E. moraviensis [97, 148]. Its peculiar behavior comprises its non-motile and non-pigmented nature, catalase-negative, ability to hydrolyze arabinose, lactose and mannitol, low G + C contents (32.5%), and tolerance to bile, NaCl, and temperature [114, 133, 148]. There is no such study available showing the next-generation probiotic potential of E. caccae. Firrman et al. studied the effect of quercetin (a polyphenol present in fruits) on E. caccae, and it was identified that quercetin can inhibit the growth of E. caccae [149].

Enterococcus aquimarinus was identified by Švec et al. [150, 151] from sea water [131]. 16S rDNA sequence analysis shows the closest relationship with E. saccharolyticus, E. sulfureus, and E. italicus [133, 150]. Its distinguishing features include polymorphism in the pheS gene, being unable to hydrolyze ribose, good growth at 42°C, and able to digest L-arabinose [114, 133, 150]. Its next-generation probiotic potential is not described.

Enterococcus camelliae was isolated in Thailand from fermented tea leaves and considered a separate specie based on its 16S rDNA genome sequence, rpoA genes, and DNA–DNA hybridization analysis. It showed a close relationship with E. italicus [99, 131, 152]. It is a non-pigmented, non-motile, catalase-negative species that has the capacity to produce acid from D-galactose and lactose, grows at a wide range of pH and temperatures, and shows no hydrolysis of arginine and gelatin [152]. It causes no acidification, coagulation, reduction, or liquefaction of litmus milk, and has a mean G + C content of 37.8% [114, 133, 152]. Currently, there are no such data found that show its next-generation probiotic potential.

Enterococcus canis was first identified by De Graef and colleagues from rectal swabs and chronic otitis in dogs that showed 99% similarity with E. faecium [97, 112, 124]. The distinguishing features include arginine hydrolysis, non-motile and non-pigmented nature, growing at 6.5%, no hydrolysis of starch, being unaffected by the presence of CO2, and hydrolyzing some sugars [112, 114]. To the best of our knowledge, there are no data focusing on the next-generation probiotic potential of E. canis.

Enterococcus devriesei, an animal origin novel enterococcal specie first identified by Švec et al., has a close relationship (99% sequence identity) with E. pseudoavium [116, 151]. It belongs to the E. avium group and besides the groups characteristics, its distinguishing properties include hydrolysis of lactose, non-motile and non-pigmented nature, no growth at 45°C, tolerate to 8% NaCl, and hydrolysis of common sugars. The G + C contents are 40% [114, 117, 151]. It was also isolated from Spanish goats and characterized by safety measurements. The results showed antimicrobial activity against common pathogens and were not involved in any human infections, hence indicating its positive potential in different applications [153]. The next-generation probiotic potential is not attempted, but we anticipate this species based on its safety profile and potential antimicrobial value.

Enterococcus hermanniensis was first reported by Koort et al. from broiler meat and tonsils that have close phylogeny with E. pallens (99%) and was placed in the E. avium group [116, 133, 154]. It was distinguished from related species by the analysis of its 16S rDNA sequence, whole-cell protein, and DNA-DNA hybridization techniques. Other silent features include non-production of acids from common substrates, non-motile, non-pigmented, and catalase-negative nature, tolerance to 4% NaCl solution, no growth at 45°C, no production of Group-D antigen, acid production from mannitol, and mean G + C contents of 37.1% [114, 154]. To the best of our knowledge, there are no data available that describe the next-generation probiotic potential of this species.

Advertisement

4. Discussion

The enterococcal species are Gram-positive, catalase-negative, non-spore-forming, facultative anaerobic cocci that produce lactic acid when metabolizing carbohydrates, thus being considered members of LAB. There has been growing attention to the benefits of LAB, from traditional foods to current nutritious and healthy foods. Understanding that probiotics restore the beneficial bacterial populations of the gut flora, an increasing effort has been made to utilize probiotics with their maximum potential, from source of isolation to different applications. With this concept, LAB species are extensively targeted for probiotic potential, that is, Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Enterococcus species. These species have proven health benefits and contribute to the wellbeing of humans and animals alike. Probiotics are selected from the ocean of microbes on the basis of certain properties such as tolerance potential, aggregation properties, safe nature, no antibiotic resistance or virulence traits, and antimicrobial potential. Different in vitro, in vivo, and genomic studies are required to explore these probiotic properties, and hence, new beneficial species could be identified.

In the search of new probiotic development with enhanced functionalities, the concept of “next-generation probiotics” has been developed, which describes the probiotic potential of those microbes that are not usually explored, used, and targeted for probiotic potential. Following field development, different species (as aforementioned) are identified as next-generation probiotic species. Enterococci, although greatly used in different industries, are still not counted as GRAS and QPS status microbes, thus raising a question about their probiotic potential. On the other side, there are a lot of literature available focusing on the probiotic potential of enterococcal species, and many enterococcal strains are available as commercial probiotics. For instance, E. faecium NCIMB 10415 and Symbioflor® 1 have been used for decades without any human infections [40, 155, 156]. E. faecium and E. faecalis are two well-known and extensively studied enterococcal species that are elucidated for different properties, including their probiotic potential. But there are many other enterococcal species that have preliminary probiotic properties but are not explored for this potential. Herein, we documented the common enterococcal species (approximately 31 of the total species) and explored their basic properties, distinguishing features, and the next-generation probiotic potential.

The enterococcal probiotics safety can be tailored with respect to their pathogenesis, antibiotic resistance, virulence factors, and the transfer potential of detrimental properties to others (i.e., horizontal gene transfer). Extensive investigations in terms of safety, productions, and applications are required to optimally utilize the enterococcal probiotics. Such studies should help to develop guidelines that help in the safety assessment and regulations of enterococcal probiotics. Due to the opportunistic pathogenic nature of enterococci, it is advised to monitor the currently available enterococcal probiotics for any emergence, transfer, and acquisition of virulence traits or antibiotic resistance. Following such monitoring not only helps the industrialists to use enterococcal probiotics but also gives a consumer’s satisfaction [157]. It is also important to characterize probiotic strains for their safety by ensuring that they do not harbor any transferable antibiotic resistance genes that may be transferred to other pathogenic bacteria. Certain enterococcal strains are recognized as opportunistic pathogens that cause urinary tract infections and other infections [62]. Resistance to different antibiotics is also a major contributing factor to the pathogenesis of Enterococcus. Thus, it is important to screen enterococci for pathogenesis and antibiotic resistance before testing them for animal and human clinical trials. Figure 4 summarizes the basic properties that should be considered while selecting enterococcal strains as NGPs.

Figure 4.

The properties that should be considered in a strains to be use as next-generation probiotics.

The literature reviewed in persuasion showed the next-generation probiotic potential of different enterococcal species isolated from different environmental niches and having different characteristics. Some species, such as E. faecium, E. faecalis, E. hirae, E. mundtii, have proven probiotics; others, such as E. casseliflavus, E. durans, and E. gallinarum, required more care while investigating their NGP potential. Other newly identified enterococcal species, such as E. raffinosus, E. italicus, and E. villorum, are anticipated to have NGP potential.

Advertisement

5. Conclusion

The genus Enterococcus belongs to group LAB and has a ubiquitous distribution with more than 80 identified species. It is the third largest genus that is used for probiotic potential. The intrinsic positive attributes of enterococcal species in many industries make them an important agent to be used as next-generation probiotics. The NGP potential of enterococcal species is also elucidated in those species that were recently identified but not explored well. The literature data suggested that the available enterococcal species have the potential to be used as NGPs, primarily because of the intrinsic probiotic properties of the genus Enterococcus. Although there is a scarcity of available data about the NGPs of newly identified enterococcal species, it may be anticipated that these species will also have NGP potential, particularly those that have already been screened for their safety measurements. In conclusion, the different enterococcal species isolated from diverse environmental niches have NGP potential and thus enhance enterococcal industrial, food, and biotechnological applications.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

This research project was financially supported by the “Seed Fund” from ICCBS, University of Karachi, and Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (NRPU: 20-151/Acad-R/03; 20–1339/R&D/09) to Syed Abid Ali.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1. Hussain A. Molecular assessment and validation of the selected enterococcal strains as probiotics [MPhil thesis]. University of Karachi. 2023:1-130
  2. 2. Hussain A, Akram S, Ahmad D, Rehman M, Ahmed A, Ali SA. Molecular assessment and validation of the selected enterococcal strains as probiotics. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2023;15:1-15. DOI: 10.1007/s12602-023-10163-6
  3. 3. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, et al. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for probiotics and prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2014;11(8):506-514
  4. 4. Kechagia M, Basoulis D, Konstantopoulou S, Dimitriadi D, Gyftopoulou K, Skarmoutsou N, et al. Health benefits of probiotics: A review. International Scholarly Research Notices. 2013;1:1-7
  5. 5. Hussain A, Parveen S, Riaz M, Zia A, Ali SA. Probiotics and vegetable oil association: A review. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2024;1379(1):12001. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/1379/1/012001
  6. 6. Ouwehand AC, Salminen S. In vitro adhesion assays for probiotics and their in vivo relevance: A review. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease. 2003;15(4):175-184
  7. 7. Castro MS, Molina MA, Azpiroz MB, Díaz AM, Ponzio R, Sparo MD, et al. Probiotic activity of Enterococcus faecalis CECT7121: Effects on mucosal immunity and intestinal epithelial cells. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2016;121(4):1117-1129
  8. 8. Ben Braïek O, Smaoui S. Enterococci: Between emerging pathogens and potential probiotics. BioMed Research International. 2019;2019(1):5938210
  9. 9. Nueno-Palop C, Narbad A. Probiotic assessment of Enterococcus faecalis CP58 isolated from human gut. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2011;145(2-3):390-394. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.12.029
  10. 10. Roobab U, Batool Z, Manzoor MF, Shabbir MA, Khan MR, Aadil RM. Sources, formulations, advanced delivery and health benefits of probiotics. Current Opinion in Food Science. 2020;32:17-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.cofs.2020.01.003
  11. 11. Ishibashi N, Yamazaki S. Probiotics and safety. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2001;73:465S-470S. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/73.2.465s
  12. 12. Ivanova N, Gugleva V, Dobreva M, Pehlivanov I, Stefanov S, Andonova V. Silver nanoparticles as multi-functional drug delivery systems. In: Farrukh MA, editor. Nanomedicines. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2018. pp. 71-91. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.80238
  13. 13. Ng SC, Hart AL, Kamm MA, Stagg AJ, Knight SC. Mechanisms of action of probiotics: Recent advances. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. 2009;15(2):300-310
  14. 14. Sherman PM, Ossa JC, Johnson-Henry K. Unraveling mechanisms of action of probiotics. Nutrition in Clinical Practice. 2009;24(1):10-14
  15. 15. Pandey KR, Naik SR, Vakil BV. Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics-a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2015;52:7577-7587
  16. 16. Araújo TF, Ferreira CL. The genus enterococcus as probiotic: Safety concerns. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology. 2013;56:457-466
  17. 17. Park JW, Jeong JS, Lee SI, Kim IH. Effect of dietary supplementation with a probiotic (enterococcus faecium) on production performance, excreta microflora, ammonia emission, and nutrient utilization in ISA brown laying hens. Poultry Science. 2016;95(12):2829-2835. DOI: 10.3382/ps/pew241
  18. 18. Hussain A, Ali SA. The role of probiotics in the prevention and treatment of psychological disorders. In: Proceedings of the International Psychology Conference on Mental Health and Resilience (IPC-MHR), Indonesia; 22 February 2024; Indonesia. 2024. p. 62
  19. 19. Hussain A, Khoso A. The anti-aging properties of probiotics. In: Proceedings of Young Scientists’ Conference on Multidisciplinary Research. Young Scientists’ Association, Kandy; 09 November 2023; Sri Lanka. 2023. p. 74
  20. 20. Dinan TG, Stanton C, Cryan JF. Psychobiotics: A novel class of psychotropic. Biological Psychiatry. 2013;74(10):720-726
  21. 21. Sivamaruthi BS, Kesika PE, Chaiyasut CH. A review on anti-aging properties of probiotics. International Journal of Applied Pharmaceutics. 2018;10(5):23-27
  22. 22. Hussain A, Qureshi SR, Parveen S, Um-E-Habiba-U-Nisa Ali SA. The potential use of probiotics as medicine. In: Liu P, editor. Gut Heath, Microbiota and Animal Diseases. Vol. 1. Pakistan: Unique Scientific Publishers; 2024. pp. 30-43. DOI: 10.47278/book.CAM/2024.058
  23. 23. Ferchichi M, Sebei K, Boukerb AM, Karray-Bouraoui N, Chevalier S, Feuilloley MG, et al. Enterococcus spp.: Is it a bad choice for a good use—A conundrum to solve? Microorganisms. 2021;9(11):2222
  24. 24. Hussain A, Rahman M, Bibi T, Fatima R, Arif I, Barwant MM, et al. Prevalence of microorganisms in indoor household environments and their pathogenesis. Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2024;10(1):1-5
  25. 25. Nami Y, Vaseghi Bakhshayesh R, Mohammadzadeh Jalaly H, Lotfi H, Eslami S, Hejazi MA. Probiotic properties of enterococcus isolated from artisanal dairy products. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019;10(300):1-13
  26. 26. Ashraf R, Shah NP. Antibiotic resistance of probiotic organisms and safety of probiotic dairy products. International Food Research Journal. 2011;18(3):837-853
  27. 27. Cebrián R, Baños A, Valdivia E, Pérez-Pulido R, Martínez-Bueno M, Maqueda M. Characterization of functional, safety, and probiotic properties of Enterococcus faecalis UGRA10, a new AS-48-producer strain. Food Microbiology. 2012;30(1):59-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2011.12.002
  28. 28. Fang SB. Enterococci and food safety–are all probiotics beneficial? Pediatrics & Neonatology. 2020;61(3):359-360. DOI: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2020.01.004
  29. 29. Benyacoub J, Cavadini C, Sauthier T, Schiffrin EJ, von der Weid T, Czarnecki-Maulden GL, et al. Supplementation of food with enterococcus faecium (SF68) stimulates immune functions in young dogs. The Journal of Nutrition. 2003;133(4):1158-1162
  30. 30. Holzapfel W, Arini A, Aeschbacher M, Coppolecchia R, Pot B. Enterococcus faecium SF68 as a model for efficacy and safety evaluation of pharmaceutical probiotics. Beneficial Microbes. 2018;9(3):375-388
  31. 31. Zahid S, Bin-Asif H, Hasan KA, Rehman M, Ali SA. Prevalence and genetic profiling of tetracycline resistance (Tet-R) genes and transposable element (Tn916) in environmental enterococcus species. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2017;111:252-261. DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2017.09.009
  32. 32. Yerlikaya O, Akbulut N. In vitro characterisation of probiotic properties of enterococcus faecium and enterococcus durans strains isolated from raw milk and traditional dairy products. International Journal of Dairy Technology. 2020;73(1):98-107
  33. 33. Zhang F, Jiang M, Wan C, Chen X, Chen X, Tao X, et al. Screening probiotic strains for safety: Evaluation of virulence and antimicrobial susceptibility of enterococci from healthy Chinese infants. Journal of Dairy Science. 2016;99(6):4282-4290
  34. 34. Anjum J, Zaidi A, Barrett K, Tariq MA. Potentially probiotic strain of Enterococcus faecalis from human milk that is avirulent, antibiotic sensitive, and nonbreaching of the gut barrier. Archives of Microbiology. 2022;204(2):158. DOI: 10.1007/s00203-022-02754-8
  35. 35. Hanchi H, Mottawea W, Sebei K, Hammami R. The genus enterococcus: Between probiotic potential and safety concerns—An update. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2018;9(1791):1-16
  36. 36. Mao Q, Sun X, Sun J, Zhang F, Lv A, Hu X, et al. Candidate probiotic strain of enterococcus faecium from the intestine of the crucian carp Carassius auratus. AMB Express. 2020;10:1-9. DOI: 10.1186/s13568-020-00973-0
  37. 37. Khoso A, Hussain A, Rehman M, et al. Molecular assessments of antimicrobial protein Enterocins and quorum sensing genes and their role in virulence of the genus enterococcus. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2024. pp. 1-12. DOI: 10.1007/s12602-024-10278-4
  38. 38. Hussain A, Ali SA. Deciphering the spectrum of genus enterococcus. In: Science Synergy: Exploring Interdisciplinary Frontiers. Vol. 1. Bhumi Publishing Nigave Khalasa, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, INDIA 416 207; 2024. pp. 135-150. ISBN: 978-93 95847-07-0
  39. 39. Wei Y, Palacios Araya D, Palmer KL. Enterococcus faecium: Evolution, adaptation, pathogenesis and emerging therapeutics. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2024;22(11):705-721. DOI: 10.1038/s41579-024-01058-6
  40. 40. Franz CM, Huch M, Abriouel H, Holzapfel W, Gálvez A. Enterococci as probiotics and their implications in food safety. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2011;151(2):125-140. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.08.014
  41. 41. Bin-Asif H, Ali SA. The genus enterococcus and its associated virulent factors. Microorganisms. In: Blumenberg M, Shaaban M, Elgaml A. editors. London, U.K.: IntechOpen Publisher; 2020:255-280. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.89083 2019:109-130. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.89083
  42. 42. García-Solache M, Rice LB. The enterococcus: A model of adaptability to its environment. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2019;32(2):10-128
  43. 43. Ali SA, Bin-Asif H, Hasan KA, Rehman M, Abbasi A. Molecular assessment of virulence determinants, hospital associated marker (IS16gene) and prevalence of antibiotic resistance in soil borne enterococcus species. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2017;105:298-306
  44. 44. Kim Y, Choi SI, Jeong Y, Kang CH. Evaluation of safety and probiotic potential of Enterococcus faecalis MG5206 and Enterococcus faecium MG5232 isolated from Kimchi, a Korean fermented cabbage. Microorganisms. 2022;10(10):2070
  45. 45. Bourgogne A, Garsin DA, Qin X, Singh KV, Sillanpaa J, Yerrapragada S, et al. Large scale variation in Enterococcus faecalis illustrated by the genome analysis of strain OG1RF. Genome Biology. 2008;9:1-6
  46. 46. Fakruddin M, Shishir MA, Yousuf Z, Khan MS. Next-generation probiotics-the future of biotherapeutics. Microbial Bioactives. 2022;5:156-163
  47. 47. Singh TP, Natraj BH. Next-generation probiotics: A promising approach towards designing personalized medicine. Critical Reviews in Microbiology. 2021;47(4):479-498. DOI: 10.1080/1040841X.2021.1902940
  48. 48. Chang CJ, Lin TL, Tsai YL, Wu TR, Lai WF, Lu CC, et al. Next generation probiotics in disease amelioration. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis. 2019;27(3):615-622. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfda.2018.12.011
  49. 49. Saarela MH. Safety aspects of next generation probiotics. Current Opinion in Food Science. 2019;30:8-13
  50. 50. Turck D, Bresson JL, Burlingame B, Dean T, Fairweather-Tait S, Heinonen M, et al. Guidance on the preparation and presentation of an application for authorisation of a novel food in the context of regulation (EU) 2015/2283. EFSA Journal. 2016;14(11):e04594
  51. 51. Tan H, Zhai Q, Chen W. Investigations of Bacteroides spp. towards next-generation probiotics. Food Research International. 2019;116:637-644
  52. 52. Bilen M, Dufour JC, Lagier JC, Cadoret F, Daoud Z, Dubourg G, et al. The contribution of culturomics to the repertoire of isolated human bacterial and archaeal species. Microbiome. 2018;6:11
  53. 53. O’Toole PW, Marchesi JR, Hill C. Next-generation probiotics: The spectrum from probiotics to live biotherapeutics. Nature Microbiology. 2017;2(5):1-6. DOI: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.57
  54. 54. Meng J, Liu S, Wu X. Engineered probiotics as live biotherapeutics for diagnosis and treatment of human diseases. Critical Reviews in Microbiology. 2024;50(3):300-314. DOI: 10.1080/1040841X.2023.2190392
  55. 55. Zhang H, Duan Y, Cai F, Cao D, Wang L, Qiao Z, et al. Next-generation probiotics: Microflora intervention to human diseases. BioMed Research International. 2022;2022(1):5633403
  56. 56. Kaźmierczak-Siedlecka K, Skonieczna-Żydecka K, Hupp T, Duchnowska R, Marek-Trzonkowska N, Połom K. Next-generation probiotics–do they open new therapeutic strategies for cancer patients? Gut Microbes. 2022;14(1):1-13. DOI: 10.1080/19490976.2022.2035659
  57. 57. De Filippis F, Esposito A, Ercolini D. Outlook on next-generation probiotics from the human gut. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 2022;79(2):76. DOI: 10.1007/s00018-021-04080-6
  58. 58. Lin TL, Shu CC, Lai WF, Tzeng CM, Lai HC, Lu CC. Investiture of next generation probiotics on amelioration of diseases–strains do matter. Medicine in Microecology. 2019;1:100002. DOI: 10.1016/j.medmic.2019.100002
  59. 59. Ghazisaeedi F, Meens J, Hansche B, Maurischat S, Schwerk P, Goethe R, et al. A virulence factor as a therapeutic: The probiotic Enterococcus faecium SF68 arginine deiminase inhibits innate immune signaling pathways. Gut Microbes. 2022;14(1):2106105
  60. 60. Pieniz S, Andreazza R, Anghinoni T, Camargo F, Brandelli A. Probiotic potential, antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of Enterococcus durans strain LAB18s. Food Control. 2014;37:251-256. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.09.055
  61. 61. Satish Kumar R, Kanmani P, Yuvaraj N, Paari KA, Pattukumar V, Arul V. Purification and characterization of enterocin MC13 produced by a potential aquaculture probiont enterococcus faecium MC13 isolated from the gut of Mugil cephalus. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 2011;57(12):993-1001
  62. 62. Moreno MF, Sarantinopoulos P, Tsakalidou E, De Vuyst L. The role and application of enterococci in food and health. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2006;106(1):1-24
  63. 63. Di Pierro F, Basile I, Danza ML, Venturelli L, Contini R, Risso P, et al. Use of a probiotic mixture containing bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB12 and enterococcus faecium L3 in atopic children. Minerva Pediatrica. 2018;70(5):418-424
  64. 64. Capcarova M, Weiss J, Hrncar C, Kolesarova A, Pal G. Effect of Lactobacillus fermentum and Enterococcus faecium strains on internal milieu, antioxidant status and body weight of broiler chickens. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. 2010;94(5):e215-e224
  65. 65. Sukegawa S, Ihara Y, Yuge K, Rao S, Oka K, Arakawa F, et al. Effects of oral administration of heat-killed Enterococcus faecium strain NHRD IHARA in post-weaning piglets. Animal Science Journal. 2014;85(4):454-460
  66. 66. Vimont A, Fernandez B, Hammami R, Ababsa A, Daba H, Fliss I. Bacteriocin-producing Enterococcus faecium LCW 44: A high potential probiotic candidate from raw camel milk. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;8(865):1-12
  67. 67. Stockert K, Schneider B, Porenta G, Rath R, Nissel H, Eichler I. Laser acupuncture and probiotics in school age children with asthma: A randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study of therapy guided by principles of traditional Chinese medicine. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology. 2007;18(2):160-166
  68. 68. Krishna KV, Koujalagi K, Surya RU, Namratha MP, Malaviya A. Enterococcus species and their probiotic potential: Current status and future prospects. Journal of Applied Biology & Biotechnology. 2022;11(1):36-44
  69. 69. Devriese LA, Vancanneyt M, Descheemaeker P, Baele M, Van Landuyt HW, Gordts B, et al. Differentiation and identification of Enterococcus durans, E. Hirae and E. Villorum. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2002;92(5):821-827
  70. 70. Gupta A, Tiwari SK. Probiotic potential of bacteriocin-producing Enterococcus hirae strain LD3 isolated from dosa batter. Annals of Microbiology. 2015;65:2333-2342
  71. 71. Ness IF, Diep DB, Ike Y. Enterococcal Bacteriocins and Antimicrobial Proteins that Contribute to Niche Control. In: Gilmore MS, Clewell DB, Ike Y, et al., editors. Enterococci: From Commensals to Leading Causes of Drug Resistant Infection [Internet]. Boston: Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary; 2014. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190428/
  72. 72. Rajput K, Dubey RC, Kumar A. Probiotic potential and immunomodulatory properties in Enterococcus faecium GMB24 and Enterococcus hirae SMB16 isolated from goat and sheep milk. Archives of Microbiology. 2022;204(10):619.1-619.61913
  73. 73. Adnan M, Patel M, Hadi S. Functional and health promoting inherent attributes of Enterococcus hirae F2 as a novel probiotic isolated from the digestive tract of the freshwater fish Catla catla. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3085. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.3085
  74. 74. Toc DA, Pandrea SL, Botan A, Mihaila RM, Costache CA, Colosi IA, et al. Enterococcus raffinosus, Enterococcus durans and Enterococcus avium isolated from a tertiary care hospital in Romania—Retrospective study and brief review. Biology. 2022;11(4):598
  75. 75. Mousavi SF, Ahmadi A, Ramazanzadeh R, Nouri B, Shafiee F. Effect of probiotic Enterococcus durans on the adhesion of clinically isolated Streptococcus mutans. Shiraz E-Medical Journal. 2021;22(3):1-5
  76. 76. Avram-Hananel L, Stock J, Parlesak A, Bode C, Schwartz B. E durans strain M4-5 isolated from human colonic flora attenuates intestinal inflammation. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2010;53(12):1676-1686
  77. 77. Jeevaratnam K, Nallala V. Probiotic evaluation of Enterococcus durans VJI19 isolated from gastrointestinal tract of broiler chicken. International Journal of Advanced Life Sciences. 2017;10(1):139-155
  78. 78. Nami Y, Abdullah N, Haghshenas B, Radiah D, Rosli R, Khosroushahi AY. Probiotic assessment of Enterococcus durans 6HL and Lactococcus lactis 2HL isolated from vaginal microflora. Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2014;63(8):1044-1051
  79. 79. Choi DG, Baek JH, Han DM, Khan SA, Jeon CO. Comparative pangenome analysis of Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus lactis provides new insights into the adaptive evolution by horizontal gene acquisitions. BMC Genomics. 2024;25(1):28.1-28.2817. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-023-09945-7
  80. 80. Lu J, Shen T, Zhang Y, Ma X, Xu S, Awad S, et al. Safety assessment of Enterococcus lactis based on comparative genomics and phenotypic analysis. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2023;14(1196558):1-9
  81. 81. Belloso Daza MV, Almeida-Santos AC, Novais C, Read A, Alves V, Cocconcelli PS, et al. Distinction between Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus lactis by a gluP PCR-based assay for accurate identification and diagnostics. Microbiology Spectrum. 2022;10(6):e03268-e03222
  82. 82. Albano C, Morandi S, Silvetti T, Casiraghi MC, Manini F, Brasca M. Lactic acid bacteria with cholesterol-lowering properties for dairy applications: In vitro and in situ activity. Journal of Dairy Science. 2018;101(12):10807-10818
  83. 83. Ghatani K, Tamang B. Assessment of probiotic characteristics of lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented yak milk products of Sikkim, India: Chhurpi, Shyow, and Khachu. Food Biotechnology. 2017;31(3):210-232
  84. 84. Nuhwa R, Tanaka N, Shiwa Y, Fujita N, Sitdhipol J, Chaiyawan N, et al. Characterization, genome analysis and probiotic properties of L-lactic acid producing Enterococcus lactis FM11-1. Current Applied Science and Technology. 2022;22(5):10-55003
  85. 85. Nami Y, Haghshenas B, Haghshenas M, Abdullah N, Yari KA. The prophylactic effect of probiotic Enterococcus lactis IW5 against different human cancer cells. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2015;6(1317):1-11
  86. 86. Uymaz TB. Preliminary in vitro evaluation of the probiotic potential of the bacteriocinogenic strain Enterococcus lactis PMD74 isolated from Ezine cheese. Journal of Food Quality. 2019;2019(1):4693513
  87. 87. Tatsing Foka FE, Ateba CN. Detection of virulence genes in multidrug resistant enterococci isolated from feedlots dairy and beef cattle: Implications for human health and food safety. BioMed Research International. 2019;2019(1):5921840
  88. 88. Dias MT, de Almeida J, Santos A, Santos RM, Carvalho A. Enterococcus gallinarum causing native valve endocarditis. European Journal of Case Reports in Internal Medicine. 2019;6(3):3-4
  89. 89. Palmer KL, Godfrey P, Griggs A, Kos VN, Zucker J, Desjardins C, et al. Comparative genomics of enterococci: Variation in Enterococcus faecalis, clade structure in E. Faecium, and defining characteristics of E. Gallinarum and E. Casseliflavus. MBio. 2012;3(1):10-128
  90. 90. Eshaghi A, Shahinas D, Li A, Kariyawasam R, Banh P, Desjardins M, et al. Characterization of an Enterococcus gallinarum isolate carrying a dual vanA and vanB cassette. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2015;53(7):2225-2229
  91. 91. Ogier JC, Serror P. Safety assessment of dairy microorganisms: The Enterococcus genus. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2008;126(3):291-301
  92. 92. Zhao B, Ye MS, Zheng R. Enterococcus gallinarum meningitis: A case report and literature review. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2018;18:1-4
  93. 93. Choi SH, Lee SO, Kim TH, Chung JW, Choo EJ, Kwak YG, et al. Clinical features and outcomes of bacteremia caused by Enterococcus casseliflavus and Enterococcus gallinarum: Analysis of 56 cases. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2004;38(1):53-61
  94. 94. Deng F, Chen Y, Zhou X, Xiao H, Sun T, Deng Y, et al. New insights into the virulence traits and antibiotic resistance of enterococci isolated from diverse probiotic products. Microorganisms. 2021;9(4):726
  95. 95. Oladipo IC, Sanni AI, Swarnakar S. Virulence potential of Enterococcus gallinarum strains isolated from selected Nigerian traditional fermented foods. Journal of BioScience & Biotechnology. 2014;3(2):97-104
  96. 96. Román L, Padilla D, Acosta F, Sorroza L, Fátima E, Déniz S, et al. The effect of probiotic Enterococcus gallinarum L-1 on the innate immune parameters of outstanding species to marine aquaculture. Journal of Applied Animal Research. 2015;43(2):177-183
  97. 97. Byappanahalli MN, Nevers MB, Korajkic A, Staley ZR, Harwood VJ. Enterococci in the environment. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 2012;76(4):685-706. DOI: 10.1128/MMBR.00023-12
  98. 98. Safari R, Adel M, Lazado CC, Caipang CM, Dadar M. Host-derived probiotics Enterococcus casseliflavus improves resistance against Streptococcus iniae infection in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) via immunomodulation. Fish & Shellfish Immunology. 2016;52:198-205. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsi.2016.03.020
  99. 99. M’hir S, Minervini F, Di Cagno R, Chammem N, Hamdi M. Technological, functional and safety aspects of enterococci in fermented vegetable products: A mini-review. Annals of Microbiology. 2012;62:469-481
  100. 100. Rehman M, Hasan KA, Bin-Asif H, Akram S, Zahid S, Mirani ZA, et al. Differentiating Enterococcus lineages in combined sewer overflow and potable water combating to hospital acquired high-level β-lactam resistance. Environmental Challenges. 2021;4(April):100094. DOI: 10.1016/j.envc.2021.100094
  101. 101. Grenda A, Grenda T, Domaradzki P, Kwiatek K. Enterococci—Involvement in pathogenesis and therapeutic potential in cancer treatment: A mini-review. Pathogens. 2022;11(6):687.1-687.9
  102. 102. Freyaldenhoven BS, Schlieper G, Lütticken R, Reinert RR. Enterococcus raffinosus infection in an immunosuppressed patient: Case report and review of the literature. Journal of Infection. 2005;51(3):e121-e124
  103. 103. Kouhi F, Mirzaei H, Nami Y, Khandaghi J, Javadi A. Potential probiotic and safety characterisation of Enterococcus bacteria isolated from indigenous fermented Motal cheese. International Dairy Journal. 2022;126:105247. DOI: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2021.105247
  104. 104. Carvajal E, Contreras S, Díaz W, Martinez-Bello D, McCown M, Ardila Y, et al. Enterococcus isolated from poultry intestine for potential probiotic use. Veterinary World. 2023;16(8):1605-1614
  105. 105. Lengliz S, Cheriet S, Raddaoui A, Klibi N, Ben Chehida N, Najar T, et al. Species distribution and genes encoding antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus spp. isolates from rabbits residing in diverse ecosystems: A new reservoir of linezolid and vancomycin resistance. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2022;132(4):2760-2767
  106. 106. Nawaz F, Khan MN, Javed A, Ahmed I, Ali N, Ali MI, et al. Genomic and functional characterization of Enterococcus mundtii QAUEM2808, isolated from artisanal fermented milk product dahi. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019;10(434):1-16
  107. 107. Grau T, Vilcinskas A, Joop G. Probiotic Enterococcus mundtii isolate protects the model insect Tribolium castaneum against Bacillus thuringiensis. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;8(1261):1-10
  108. 108. Todorov SD, Von Mollendorff JW, Moelich E, Muller N, Witthuhn RC, Dicks LM. Evaluation of potential probiotic properties of Enterococcus mundtii, its survival in Boza and in situ Bacteriocin production. Food Technology & Biotechnology. 2009;47(2):178-191
  109. 109. Lee YW, Lim SY, Jung J, Kim MJ, Chong YP, Kim SH, et al. Enterococcus raffinosus bacteremia: Clinical experience with 49 adult patients. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. 2022;1-6:415-420
  110. 110. Zhao H, Peng Y, Cai X, Zhou Y, Zhou Y, Huang H, et al. Genome insights of Enterococcus raffinosus CX012922, isolated from the feces of a Crohn’s disease patient. Gut Pathogens. 2021;13:1-7. DOI: 10.1186/s13099-021-00468-8
  111. 111. Patel KP, Mulla S. Speciation of enterococcus species: Better way to deal with clinical infections at resource limited settings. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2020;8(3):941-945. DOI: 10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20200759
  112. 112. De Graef EM, Devriese LA, Vancanneyt M, Baele M, Collins MD, Lefebvre K, et al. Description of Enterococcus canis sp. nov. from dogs and reclassification of Enterococcus porcinus Teixeira et al. 2001 as a junior synonym of Enterococcus villorum Vancanneyt et al. 2001. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2003;53(4):1069-1074
  113. 113. Beukers AG, Zaheer R, Goji N, Amoako KK, Chaves AV, Ward MP, et al. Comparative genomics of Enterococcus spp. isolated from bovine feces. BMC Microbiology. 2017;17:1-8
  114. 114. Hancock LE, Murray BE, Sillanpää J. Enterococcal cell wall components and structures. In: Gilmore MS, Clewell DB, Ike Y, et al., editors. Enterococci: From Commensals to Leading Causes of Drug Resistant Infection. Boston: Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary; 2014. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190431/
  115. 115. Glaeser SP, Sowinsky O, Brunner JS, Dott W, Kämpfer P. Cultivation of vancomycin-resistant enterococci and methicillin-resistant staphylococci from input and output samples of German biogas plants. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2016;92(3):1-14
  116. 116. Rahkila R, Johansson P, Säde E, Bjorkroth J. Identification of enterococci from broiler products and a broiler processing plant and description of Enterococcus viikkiensis sp. nov. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2011;77(4):1196-1203
  117. 117. Li CY, Tian F, Zhao YD, Gu CT. Enterococcus xiangfangensis sp. nov., isolated from Chinese pickle. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2014;64(Pt_3):1012-1017
  118. 118. Li YQ, Gu CT. Enterococcus pingfangensis sp. nov., enterococcus dongliensis sp. nov., Enterococcus hulanensis sp. nov., Enterococcus nangangensis sp. nov. and Enterococcus songbeiensis sp. nov., isolated from Chinese traditional pickle juice. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2019;69(10):3191-3201
  119. 119. Dapkevicius MD, Sgardioli B, Câmara SP, Poeta P, Malcata FX. Current trends of enterococci in dairy products: A comprehensive review of their multiple roles. Food. 2021;10(4):821
  120. 120. Han K, Park S, Sathiyaseelan A, Wang MH. Isolation and characterization of Enterococcus faecium from fermented Korean soybean paste with antibacterial effects. Fermentation. 2023;9(8):760
  121. 121. Borgo F, Carpen A, Ferrario C, Iametti S, Fortina MG. Genomic analysis reveals the biotechnological ability of Enterococcus italicus to produce glutathione. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2013;40(5):489-494
  122. 122. Gaaloul N, Ben Braiek O, Berjeaud JM, Arthur TI, Cavera VL, Chikindas ML, et al. Evaluation of antimicrobial activity and safety aspect of Enterococcus Italicus GGN 10 strain isolated from Tunisian bovine raw milk. Journal of Food Safety. 2014;34(4):300-311
  123. 123. Borgo F, Ballestriero F, Ferrario C, Fortina MG. Hydrogen peroxide-mediated killing of Caenorhabditis elegans by Enterococcus italicus and Lactococcus garvieae isolated from food. Annals of Microbiology. 2015;65:833-839
  124. 124. Giraffa G. Enterococcus. In: Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Bedford Park, IL, USA: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2014. pp. 674-679. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384730-0.00098-7
  125. 125. Fortina MG, Ricci G, Mora D, Manachini PL. Molecular analysis of artisanal Italian cheeses reveals Enterococcus italicus sp. nov. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2004;54(5):1717-1721
  126. 126. Fortina MG, Ricci G, Borgo F, Manachini PL, Arends K, Schiwon K, et al. A survey on biotechnological potential and safety of the novel enterococcus species of dairy origin, E. Italicus. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2008;123(3):204-211
  127. 127. Ben Braïek O, Ghomrassi H, Cremonesi P, Morandi S, Fleury Y, Le Chevalier P, et al. Isolation and characterisation of an enterocin P-producing Enterococcus lactis strain from a fresh shrimp (Penaeus vannamei). Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2017;110:771-786
  128. 128. Merlich A, Galkin M, Choiset Y, Limanska N, Vasylieva N, Ivanytsia V, et al. Characterization of the bacteriocin produced by Enterococcus italicus ONU547 isolated from Thai fermented cabbage. Folia Microbiologica. 2019;64:535-545
  129. 129. Švec P, Vandamme P, Bryndova H, Holochova P, Kosina M, Mašlaňová I, et al. Enterococcus plantarum sp. nov., isolated from plants. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2012;62(Pt_7):1499-1505
  130. 130. Monteiro da Silva BN, Faria AR, de Souza SDSR, Planet PJ, Merquior VLC, Teixeira LM. Draft genome sequence of enterococcus faecium CL-6729, a clinical isolate showing constitutive vancomycin resistance. Microbiology Resource Announcements. 2018;7:e00888-e00818. DOI: 10.1128/MRA.00888-18
  131. 131. Graham K, Stack H, Rea R. Safety, beneficial and technological properties of enterococci for use in functional food applications–a review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2020;60(22):3836-3861. DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2019.1709800
  132. 132. Sistek V, Maheux AF, Boissinot M, Bernard KA, Cantin P, Cleenwerck I, et al. Enterococcus ureasiticus sp. nov. and Enterococcus quebecensis sp. nov., isolated from water. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2012;62(Pt_6):1314-1320
  133. 133. Švec, Pavel, Charles MAP Franz. The genus Enterococcus. Lactic acid bacteria: biodiversity and taxonomy Wiley Online Library; 2014. pp. 175-211
  134. 134. McLaughlin RW, Shewmaker PL, Whitney AM, Humrighouse BW, Lauer AC, Loparev VN, et al. Enterococcus crotali sp. nov., isolated from faecal material of a timber rattlesnake. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2017;67(6):1984-1989
  135. 135. Niemi RM, Ollinkangas T, Paulin L, Švec P, Vandamme P, Karkman A, et al. Enterococcus rivorum sp. nov., from water of pristine brooks. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2012;62(Pt_9):2169-2173
  136. 136. Bhagwat AS, Nandanwar YA, Warke RA, Annapure US. In vitro assessment of physiological properties of enterococcus strains of human origin for possible probiotic use. Asian Journal Pharmacuticle and Clinical Research. 2019;12(6):194-203
  137. 137. Sedláček I, Holochova P, Mašlaňová I, Kosina M, Spröer C, Bryndova H, et al. Enterococcus ureilyticus sp. nov. and Enterococcus rotai sp. nov., two urease-producing enterococci from the environment. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2013;63(Pt_2):502-510
  138. 138. Schwartzman JA, Lebreton F, Salamzade R, Shea T, Martin MJ, Schaufler K, et al. Global diversity of enterococci and description of 18 previously unknown species. National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2024;121(10):e2310852121
  139. 139. Lauer AC, Humrighouse BW, Loparev V, Shewmaker PL, Whitney AM, McQuiston JR, et al. Complete genome sequences of Enterococcus rotai LMG 26678T and Enterococcus silesiacus LMG 23085T. Genome Announcements. 2016;4(6):10-128
  140. 140. Švec P, Vancanneyt M, Sedláček I, Naser SM, Snauwaert C, Lefebvre K, et al. Enterococcus silesiacus sp. nov. and Enterococcus termitis sp. nov. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2006;56(3):577-581
  141. 141. Hamad MN, Selim AE, Yassin MA. Incidence of Enterococcus termitis in cheese whey. Journal of Food and Dairy Sciences. 2019;10(9):331-335
  142. 142. Tanasupawat S, Sukontasing S, Lee JS. Enterococcus thailandicus sp. nov., isolated from fermented sausage (‘mum’) in Thailand. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2008;58(7):1630-1634
  143. 143. Wu X, Wu B, Li Y, Jin X, Wang X. Identification and safety assessment of Enterococcus thailandicus TC1 isolated from healthy pigs. PLoS One. 2021;16(7):e0254081. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254081
  144. 144. Shewmaker PL, Steigerwalt AG, Nicholson AC, Carvalho MD, Facklam RR, Whitney AM, et al. Reevaluation of the taxonomic status of recently described species of Enterococcus: Evidence that E. Thailandicus is a senior subjective synonym of “E. Sanguinicola” and confirmation of E. Caccae as a species distinct from E. Silesiacus. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2011;49(7):2676-2679
  145. 145. Li T, Lyu L, Zhang Y, Dong K, Li Q, Guo X, et al. A newly isolated E. Thailandicus strain d5B with exclusively antimicrobial activity against C. Difficile might be a novel therapy for controlling CDI. Genomics. 2021;113(1):475-483. DOI: 10.1016/ j.ygeno.2020.09.032
  146. 146. Fu X, Lyu L, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Guo X, Chen Q, et al. Safety assessment and probiotic characteristics of Enterococcus lactis JDM1. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2022;163:105380. DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2021.105380
  147. 147. Hasan KA, Ali SA, Rehman M, Bin-Asif H, Zahid S. The unravelled Enterococcus faecalis zoonotic superbugs: Emerging multiple resistant and virulent lineages isolated from poultry environment. Zoonoses and Public Health. 2018;65(8):921-935. DOI: 10.1111/zph.12512
  148. 148. Carvalho MD, Shewmaker PL, Steigerwalt AG, Morey RE, Sampson AJ, Joyce K, et al. Enterococcus caccae sp. nov., isolated from human stools. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2006;56(7):1505-1508
  149. 149. Firrman J, Liu L, Zhang L, Argoty GA, Wang M, Tomasula P, et al. The effect of quercetin on genetic expression of the commensal gut microbes Bifidobacterium catenulatum, Enterococcus caccae and Ruminococcus gauvreauii. Anaerobe. 2016;42:130-141. DOI: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2016.10.004
  150. 150. Švec P, Vancanneyt M, Devriese LA, Naser SM, Snauwaert C, Lefebvre K, et al. Enterococcus aquimarinus sp. nov., isolated from sea water. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2005;55(5):2183-2187
  151. 151. Švec P, Vancanneyt M, Koort J, Naser SM, Hoste B, Vihavainen E, et al. Enterococcus devriesei sp. nov., associated with animal sources. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2005;55(6):2479-2484
  152. 152. Sukontasing S, Tanasupawat S, Moonmangmee S, Lee JS, Suzuki KI. Enterococcus camelliae sp. nov., isolated from fermented tea leaves in Thailand. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2007;57(9):2151-2154
  153. 153. Martín-Platero AM, Valdivia E, Maqueda M, Martínez-Bueno M. Characterization and safety evaluation of enterococci isolated from Spanish goats' milk cheeses. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2009;132(1):24-32
  154. 154. Koort J, Coenye T, Vandamme P, Sukura A, Björkroth J. Enterococcus hermanniensis sp. nov., from modified-atmosphere-packaged broiler meat and canine tonsils. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 2004;54(5):1823-1827
  155. 155. Wang X, Yang Y, Huycke MM. Risks associated with enterococci as probiotics. Food Research International. 2020;129:108788. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108788
  156. 156. Suvorov A. What is wrong with enterococcal probiotics? Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2020;12(1):1-4
  157. 157. Im EJ, Lee HH, Kim M, Kim MK. Evaluation of enterococcal probiotic usage and review of potential health benefits, safety, and risk of antibiotic-resistant strain emergence. Antibiotics. 2023;12(8):1327

Written By

Abrar Hussain and Syed Abid Ali

Submitted: 13 August 2024 Reviewed: 16 September 2024 Published: 25 November 2024