Brief Article
Copyright ©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 7, 2013; 19(25): 4053-4059
Published online Jul 7, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i25.4053
Probiotics improve survival of septic rats by suppressing conditioned pathogens in ascites
Da-Quan Liu, Qiao-Ying Gao, Hong-Bin Liu, Dong-Hua Li, Shang-Wei Wu
Da-Quan Liu, Qiao-Ying Gao, Hong-Bin Liu, Dong-Hua Li, Shang-Wei Wu, Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Acute Abdominal Diseases, Tianjin Nankai Hospital, Tianjin 300100, China
Author contributions: Liu DQ and Gao QY contributed equally to this work; Wu SW designed the research; Liu DQ, Gao QY, Li DH and Liu HB performed the research; Liu DQ and Gao QY analysed the data; Liu DQ and Gao QY wrote the paper.
Supported by The Science Foundation of Tianjin Health Bureau, No. 11020
Correspondence to: Shang-Wei Wu, Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Acute Abdominal Diseases, Tianjin Nankai Hospital, No. 122, Nankai Sanwei Road, Tianjin 300100, China. superldq@yahoo.com.cn
Telephone: +86-22-27435367 Fax: +86-22-27435362
Received: December 27, 2012
Revised: March 28, 2013
Accepted: April 27, 2013
Published online: July 7, 2013
Processing time: 191 Days and 5.2 Hours
Abstract

AIM: To investigate the benefits of probiotics treatment in septic rats.

METHODS: The septic rats were induced by cecal ligation and puncture. The animals of control, septic model and probiotics treated groups were treated with vehicle and mixed probiotics, respectively. The mixture of probiotics included Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus. We observed the survival of septic rats using different amounts of mixed probiotics. We also detected the bacterial population in ascites and blood of experimental sepsis using cultivation and real-time polymerase chain reaction. The severity of mucosal inflammation in colonic tissues was determined.

RESULTS: Probiotics treatment improved survival of the rats significantly and this effect was dose dependent. The survival rate was 30% for vehicle-treated septic model group. However, 1 and 1/4 doses of probiotics treatment increased survival rate significantly compared with septic model group (80% and 55% vs 30%, P < 0.05). The total viable counts of bacteria in ascites decreased significantly in probiotics treated group compared with septic model group (5.20 ± 0.57 vs 9.81 ± 0.67, P < 0.05). The total positive rate of hemoculture decreased significantly in probiotics treated group compared with septic model group (33.3% vs 100.0%, P < 0.05). The population of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus in ascites of probiotics treated group were decreased significantly compared with that of septic model group (3.93 ± 0.73 vs 8.80 ± 0.83, P < 0.05; 2.80 ± 1.04 vs 5.39 ± 1.21, P < 0.05). With probiotics treatment, there was a decrease in the scores of inflammatory cell infiltration into the intestinal mucosa in septic animals (1.50 ± 0.25 vs 2.88 ± 0.14, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus may be primary pathogens in septic rats. Probiotics improve survival of septic rats by suppressing these conditioned pathogens.

Keywords: Sepsis; Probiotics; Pathogens; Escherichia coli; Staphylococcus aureus

Core tip: We observed the survival of septic rats treated with different amounts of mixed probiotics. The data indicated that conditioned pathogens such as Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus may be primary pathogens of septic rats in our study. Probiotics improve the survival of septic rats by suppressing the conditioned pathogens.