Upon ingestion, coxsackieviruses and EV71 establish infection at the gastric mucosa, the primary site of infection, from where the viral particles transiently disseminate systemically and accumulate in muscles where the virus multiplies extensively [
7,
40]. Subsequently, EV71 is believed to gain access to the CNS at the neuromuscular junctions and migrate to the brainstem via retrograde axonal transport [
40,
41]. Based on this model of infection, the antiviral effect of probiotic bacteria against coxsackieviruses and EV71 was tested in vitro using relevant cell lines namely human skeletal muscle RD and intestinal Caco-2 cells. Our data clearly demonstrate a significant antiviral activity of
L. reuteri Protectis against CA16, CA6 and EV71 but not CB2 virus. In contrast,
L. casei Shirota did not display any significant antiviral effect against CA16 or EV71, indicating that the antiviral effect observed with
L. reuteri Protectis is specific and limited to this probiotic bacterium.
L. reuteri is a commensal bacterium that can be found in the gut flora of some mammals and birds. Administration of
L. reuteri to human babies, children and adults (including HIV patients) is safe and has been used for more than 10 years as probiotics.
L. reuteri was shown in a number of clinical trials to enhance protection against a variety of diseases of microbial (including rotavirus,
Gardnerella vaginalis, and
Helicobacter pylori infection), chemical and environmental origin. In addition to maintaining the balance among the GI microbiota, which is the primary role of probiotics,
L. reuteri has been reported to display some immuno-modulatory properties through the modulation of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines production by enterocytes and immunocytes, thereby influencing the host mucosal immune responses [
22,
23]. Furthermore, studies have shown that reuterin secreted by
L. reuteri has antimicrobial properties against Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria, as well as yeast, moulds and protozoa [
42,
43]. The mode of action of reuterin remains speculative although inhibition of DNA synthesis and induction of oxidative stress in the target microorganisms have been proposed. A few studies have reported the antiviral effect of other probiotics through the production of antimicrobial molecules such as bacteriocins [
39] or cell wall components [
44]. However, in our study, two main lines of experimental evidence support that the antiviral effect of
L. reuteri Protectis against CA and EV71 is unlikely to be mediated by the production of a soluble antimicrobial molecule such as reuterin. Firstly, filtered culture supernatant from
L. reuteri Protectis harvested during the exponential or stationary phase, failed to show antiviral effect in the various experimental set-ups (data not shown). Secondly, dead bacteria (formalin-fixed) retain their antiviral property. Furthermore, pre-incubation of
L. reuteri Protectis bacteria with CA or EV71 showed a significant dose-dependent reduction of virus titers which suggests a physical interaction between bacteria and viral particles that may interfere with virus entry into the mammalian host cell. This hypothesis is further supported by the observation of reduced virus titers in the supernatant of
L. reuteri Protectis-virus mixtures after centrifugation and filtration. In addition to a direct binding of bacteria to the viral particles that likely interferes with the entry step (pre-incubation set-up), competition for attachment sites on cell surface between bacteria and virus (antiviral activity observed in co-treatment and post-treatment set-ups) could also contribute to the antiviral effect observed. Further work is necessary to elucidate the mechanisms by which
L. reuteri Protectis interacts physically with CA16, CA6 and EV71.
The next logical step would be to test the antiviral activity of
L. reuteri Protectis in animal models of CA and EV71 infection. So far mouse models of HFMD have employed the intraperitoneal, intramuscular or intracranial routes to establish infection [
45,
46]. These routes of infection are not suitable to test the antiviral efficacy of
L. reuteri Protectis which likely relies on a direct and local interaction between bacteria and the virus particles in the GI-tract. The oral route of infection in these animal models has proven less successful due to the existence of specific oral bottlenecks represented by physical barriers (colonic epithelium) that limit virus trafficking from the gut to other body sites [
47]. Alternatively, EV71 oral infection of non-human primates has been reported [
46,
47] and could be employed to test the antiviral effect of
L. reuteri Protectis. However, economic and ethical aspects must be carefully considered.