The effect of various carbohydrate sources on the antagonistic activity of probiotic strains Lactobacillus paracasei and Bifidobacterium longum against opportunistic intestinal pathogens

Introduction. Carbohydrates, including dietary sugars and prebiotic oligo- and polysaccharides, can influence on the functional activity of probiotic bacteria by modulating their metabolic processes. An important property of prebiotics is the selective activation of endogenous protective populations of intestinal microflora, which helps to suppress the growth of pathogenic and opportunistic microorganisms. However, the specificity of various prebiotic supplements for specific exogenous probiotic microorganisms remains unclear. Probiotics can be components of a wide range of foods and dietary supplements, so it is important to understand how various nutritional substrates influence on their metabolic and functional activity. This knowledge will enable the development of more effective products and supplements aimed at maintaining intestinal bacterial balance. ”In vitro” studies allow evaluating the effects of individual components on probiotic strains. In this work, the effect of various carbohydrate substrates on the antagonistic activity of exogenous probiotic strains Lactobacillus paracasei and Bifidobacterium longum against a number of opportunistic microorganisms was studied.

Objective — to study the effect of various carbohydrate substrates, including well-known prebiotics, on the antagonistic activity of probiotic strains studied against opportunistic pathogens. The choice of a carbohydrate that improves the competitive properties of probiotic strains of L. paracasei and B. longum.

Materials and methods. The antagonistic activity of two probiotic strains against seven pathogenic microorganisms was studied in the presence of nine different carbohydrate substrates using a two-stage cultivation method in a combined system.

Results. Probiotic strains were established to exhibit selective antagonistic properties against the same pathogen, depending on the presence of a particular carbohydrate source. For example, lactose and sucrose were found to contribute to an increase in the degree of antagonistic activity of lactobacilli against Staphylococcus aureus from moderate to high relative to the control and other substrates, and inulin and FOS suppress the competitive properties of this strain relative to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The studied strain of Bifidobacterium longum exhibits moderate antagonistic activity against E. coli and C. jejuni, however, a number of substrates (sucrose, mannitol, inulin, chitosan) are capable of inhibiting this property. At the same time, substrates such as lactose, maltose, sucrose, chitosan, and N-acetyl-D-glucosamine increase antagonistic activity from low to moderate against K.pneumoniae, P.aeruginosa, and A.baumannii. Based on the data obtained, it can be assumed that N-acetyl-D-glucosamine (NAG), mannitol, maltose, and lactose are of interest as substrates that increase the antagonistic potential of the studied strains against a number of opportunistic pathogens.

Limitations. Antagonistic activity in co-cultivation of probiotic strains has not been studied. It is also difficult to assess the functional properties of the studied strains depending on the prebiotic in the gastrointestinal tract. In addition, the effect of the concentration of carbohydrate substrates used in the work on the antagonism of target probiotic strains has not been studied.

Conclusion. We have identified a significant effect of the carbohydrate component on the antagonistic properties of the probiotic strains studied, which can be further taken into account in the development of probiotic compositions, synbiotics, and functional foods.

Compliance with ethical standards. The study does not require the submission of a conclusion from the biomedical ethics committee or other documents.

Contribution:
Kalashnikova I.G. – concept and design of research, collection of material and data processing, writing text, conducting research;
Nekrasova A.I. – concept and design of research, editing;
Gritsyuk O.V., Fedets Z.E., Pankova M.N. – conducting research, methodology development;
Zagainova A.V. – providing research, project administration;
Zhernov Yu.V., Makarov V.V. – definition of the concept, attraction of financing, provision of research;
Yudin S.M. – attraction of financing, provision of research.
All authors are responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of the manuscript final version.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding. The work was performed within the framework of the state task No. 388-00154-22-00 “Creation of micellar probiotics of a new generation for targeted changes in the composition of the human microbiota in chronic non-communicable diseases”.

Received: October 2, 2025 / Revised: November 24, 2025 / Accepted: December 2, 2025 / Published: January 15, 2026

1. Servin A.L. Antagonistic activities of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria against microbial pathogens. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2004; 28(4): 405–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsre.2004.01.003

2. Manor O., Dai C.L., Kornilov S.A., Smith B., Price N.D., Lovejoy J.C., et al. Health and disease markers correlate with gut microbiome composition across thousands of people. Nat. Commun. 2020; 11(1): 5206. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18871-1

3. Hopkins M.J., Macfarlane G.T. Nondigestible oligosaccharides enhance bacterial colonization resistance against Clostridium difficile in vitro. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003; 69(4): 1920–7. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.4.1920-1927.2003

4. Markowiak P., Śliżewska K. Effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on human health. Nutrients. 2017; 9(9): 1021. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9091021

5. Van Hul M., Cani P.D., Petifils C., De Vos W.M., Tilg H., El Omar E.M. What defines a healthy gut microbiome? Gut. 2024; 73(11): 1893–908. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2024-333378

6. Gurry T. Synbiotic approaches to human health and well-being. Microb. Biotechnol. 2017; 10(5): 1070–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12789

7. Kok C.R., Gomez Quintero D.F., Niyirora C., Rose D., Li A., Hutkins R. An in vitro enrichment strategy for formulating synergistic synbiotics. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019; 85(16): e01073–19. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01073-19

8. Gomez Quintero D.F., Kok C.R., Hutkins R. The future of synbiotics: rational formulation and design. Front. Microbiol. 2022; 13: 919725. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.919725

9. Krumbeck J.A., Walter J., Hutkins R.W. Synbiotics for improved human health: recent developments, challenges, and opportunities. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2018; 9: 451–79. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-030117-012757

10. Tarrah A., Pakroo S., Lemos Junior W.J.F., Guerra A.F., Corich V., Giacomini A. Complete genome sequence and carbohydrates-active EnZymes (CAZymes) analysis of Lactobacillus paracasei DTA72, a potential probiotic strain with strong capability to use inulin. Curr. Microbiol. 2020; 77(10): 2867–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-020-02089-x

11. Fuhren J., Rösch C., Ten Napel M., Schols H.A., Kleerebezem M. Synbiotic matchmaking in Lactobacillus plantarum: substrate screening and gene-trait matching to characterize strain-specific carbohydrate utilization. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2020; 86(18): e01081–20. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01081-20

12. Nagpal R., Kaur A. Synbiotic effect of various prebiotics on in vitro activities of probiotic lactobacilli. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2011; 50(1): 63–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2011.539161

13. Sheveleva S.A., Markova Yu.M. Safety and functional potential of probiotics and prebiotics used in baby food. Trudnyi patsient. 2022; 20(6): 22–38. https://elibrary.ru/wmqrrk (in Russian)

14. Sukhina M.A., Zhukhovitskii V.G., Shelygin Yu.A. A method for assessing the antagonistic activity of lactobacilli in a patient’s colon biotope relative to a variety of bacteria by two-stage cultivation of the antagonist microorganism and the test culture in a combined system. Patent RF No. 2670585 C1; 2018. (in Russian)

15. Sukhina M.A., Burgasova O.A., Zhukhovitsky V.G., Yuschuk N.D. Antagonistic activity of lactobacilli of the colon. Zhurnal mikrobiologii, epidemiologii i immunobiologii. 2012; 89(1): 41–9. https://elibrary.ru/pjnhwd (in Russian)

16. Gerritsen J., Smidt H., Rijkers G.T., de Vos W.M. Intestinal microbiota in human health and disease: the impact of probiotics. Genes Nutr. 2011; 6(3): 209–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12263-011-0229-7

17. Roberfroid M. Prebiotics: the concept revisited. J. Nutr. 2007; 137(3 Suppl. 2): 830S–7S. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/137.3.830S

18. Valdés-Varela L., Hernández-Barranco A.M., Ruas-Madiedo P., Gueimonde M. Effect of bifidobacterium upon clostridium difficile growth and toxicity when co-cultured in different prebiotic substrates. Front. Microbiol. 2016; 7: 738. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00738

19. Natividad J.M., Marsaux B., Rodenas C.L.G., Rytz A., Vandevijver G., Marzorati M., et al. Human milk oligosaccharides and lactose differentially affect infant gut microbiota and intestinal barrier in vitro. Nutrients. 2022; 14(12): 2546. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14122546

20. Presti I., D’Orazio G., Labra M., La Ferla B., Mezzasalma V., Bizzaro G., et al. Evaluation of the probiotic properties of new Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains and their in vitro effect. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015; 99(13): 5613–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-6482-8

21. Rossi M., Corradini C., Amaretti A., Nicolini M., Pompei A., Zanoni S., et al. Fermentation of fructooligosaccharides and inulin by bifidobacteria: a comparative study of pure and fecal cultures. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005; 71(10): 6150–8. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.10.6150-6158.2005

22. Valdés-Varela L., Ruas-Madiedo P., Gueimonde M. In vitro fermentation of different fructo-oligosaccharides by Bifidobacterium strains for the selection of synbiotic combinations. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017; 242: 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.11.011

23. Miao M., Cheng J., Yan Q., Jiang Z., Yang S. Prebiotic activity comparison of eight oligosaccharides: selection of a potential synbiotic containing konjac manna-oligosaccharides and Bifidobacterium animalis BB-12. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2025; 76(4): 419–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637486.2025.2494148

24. El Kaoutari A., Armougom F., Gordon J.I., Raoult D., Henrissat B. The abundance and variety of carbohydrate-active enzymes in the human gut microbiota. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013; 11(7): 497–504. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3050

25. Auclair J., Frappier M., Millette M. Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, Lactobacillus casei LBC80R, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus CLR2 (Bio-K+): characterization, manufacture, mechanisms of action, and quality control of a specific probiotic combination for primary prevention of Clostridium di. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2015; 60(Suppl. 2): S135–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/civ179

26. Arslanoglu S., Moro G.E., Boehm G. Early supplementation of prebiotic oligosaccharides protects formula-fed infants against infections during the first 6 months of life. J. Nutr. 2007; 137(11): 2420–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/137.11.2420