21 579.61:616.5-002.2:616.858-008.6 1 CBRB .1, 2 ., ., .3, .1, .4 1 . . . , 2 , 3 . 4 , , » - http://www.famous-scientists.ru CBRB ( ), ) ( , , ). Staphylococcus aureus , , - L. sbsp. lactis . B. subtilis 604 194 ) ( , . . : , , , , , - . ( – , .1 ), , ,- - , (SSSS [1]. ) : ( [2]. , , – , [3]. , , CBRB-Rb(8.17)1Iem ( CBRB [4-6]), - 16 : , , - . 1 ). CBRB Staphylococcus aureus. , COK CBRB. CBRB , ( ), , 3, 2009 - . 22 - , , , . . , - , , S. ureus. Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis Propionibacterium freudenreichii subsp. shermanii 39-44% ( CBRB-Rb(8,17)1Iem ( CBRB) 18±0.5 . . 1), S. aureus. - - 1. , ). , , - 24% [7, 8]. L. lactis, - , , S. aureus (S6 and 243). 12 Lactococcus [9]. sp. HY 449 , ) , [7]. Bacillus subtilis - . . , , B. subtilis, ( ) . - BS) , 37 24 . 5 . 13±0.7 . LL ( 20- . 1-2 [8] L. lactis, 1 – ) 194 . ;2– : 0- , 1- ( , : 1- BS 3 – 2 ; 2- ( LL ; 3- - , , 1.2) LL 1.0) ) ( - 3- (0.2 (0.0. [10-12]. 604 - , , D, F; . CBRB (n=22, BS , 107 ) (n=22, , ); 4 – : ( : 0- , 1, . 1 ), 2, 3( . 1 ); , , : , - 3, 2009 23 (0- , 1- , ); 5 – , 2- , . , . 37 48 - . ( 10 . - ) - 10 %- . 37 24 . - ; , - 0,2 t1. . ( ) ( ) 0- 2 0 , n=22 1 BS 0 0.0, n=14 0.2, n=13 1.0, n=12 1.2, n=12 16, n=22 3- 4 , LL BS 0 BS 0 16 LL - 16 c. 1. - ; CBRB. - - , . ( .2 , 30, p<0.05). - B. subtilis . , 16, p<0.05). BS - B. subtilis , ( . 1). 16, p<0.05). BS ( , BS ( , - 30- . - .2 , , ( 3, 2009 . 2 ). - 24 B. subtilis ( , , . 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 p<0.05 p<0.05 0 5 , 10 15 20 25 ). . 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 30 p<0.0 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2 700 , 600 26.5 26 500 25.5 400 25 300 24.5 24 200 23.5 100 23 0 0 5 10 15 c. 2. 0 16 – 20 25 30 , 22.5 B. subtilis ( - . )- ; ; - ; - . BS LL , ( . 2 ). - . , 19/22=86% , 21/22= 95% . , - BS, ( , - 2 ) 16- : , LL . . , - BS , , . - . , 3, 2009 25 30 ( . <0.001). ( , . 3 , LL ). BS, , LL . 3 , <0.05). BS - , LL. BS ( BS LL 1,4 23 . 20 1,2 , . , 0,7 0,5 . 3 ). - 0,8 0,6 , 1 20 23 30 30 0,8 0,4 0,6 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,2 0,1 0 0 LL , 700 BS 20 2 LL BS+LL 23 30 , 27.0 BS 20 23 BS+LL 30 600 26.0 500 400 25.0 300 24.0 200 23.0 100 LL BS LL BS+LL c. 3. B. subtilis (BS) 20 – , 23 – 30 – BS BS+LL L. lactis (LL) . – ; – ; – , ; – - : , BS. - BS LL ( .3 , 30, <0.05). - , 3, 2009 26 , . , CBRB , BS LL .3 ). , , , - BS, . . LL BS ( . 3 ). . - BS LL . - , (n=2), (10 10 2. 2 ). . , , , lg 2 lg 0 3.48 0 0 LL BS BS+LL 0 1.44 1 1 , , [13, 14] LL, , - , . [15], S. ureus . , ( 3.48 lg , 80% ) ( 2). - ureus . - 20% S. S. ureus , . CBRB LL. - . , BS, CBRB - , , . , lg - , LL, 2 , 1.44 , , (p<0.05). , . , - , 3, 2009 27 , , , - , . B. subtilis L. - lactis . , - : 1. , . 2. BS , LL . 3. - , . 4. BS LL S. aureus . : 1. Van den Broek P.J. //Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2003. 147. (22).1045-1048. 2. Mockenhaupt M., Idzko M., Grosber M., Schopf E., Norgauer J. // J Invest Dermatol. 2005. 124. (4). 700-703. 3. Patel G.K., Finlay A.Y. // Am J Clin Dermatol. 2003. 4 (3). 165-175. 4. Moiseeva E.V., Farber S.M., Lomova L.V., Nikonenko B.V., Klepikov N.N. // Lab Animals (Balt Lab Anim Sci). 1991. (1). 24-27. 5. The Mouse Tumour Biology Database. 1999. http://www.informatics.jax.org/ external/festing/mouse/docs/CBRB.shtml 6. Moiseeva E. 2005. Original approaches to test anti-breast cancer drugs in a novel set of mouse models. Pathobiology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands 191 pp, http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/ dissertations/2005-1130-200033/index.htm 7. Oh S., Kim S.H., Ko Y., Sim J.H., Kim K.S., Lee S.H., Park S., Kim Y.J. // Food Chem Toxicol. 2006. 44 (8). 1184-1190. 8. Vesterlund S., Karp M., Salminen S., Ouwehand A.C. / /Microbiology. 2006. 152 (6). 1819-1826. 9. Hurst A., Kruse H. // Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy. 1972. 1 (3). 277279. 10. Spinosa MR., Braccini T., Ricca E., De Felice M., Morelli L., Pozzi G., Oggioni M.// Res Microbiol. 2000. 151 (5). 361-368. 11. Sorokulova I.B., Pinchuk I.V., Denayrolles M., Osipova I.G., Huang J.M., Cutting S.M., Urdaci M.C. // Dig Dis Sci. 2008. 53 (4). 954-963. 12. Tompkins T.A., Hagen K.E., Wallace T.D., Fillion-Forte V. // Can J Microbiol. 2008. 54 (5). 391-400. 13. Won Y.S., Kwon H.J., Oh G.T., Kim B.H., Lee C.H., Park Y.H., Hyun B.H., Choi Y.K. // Microbiol Immunol. 2002. 46 (9). 629-632. 14. Akimoto T., Kawasumi K., Amao H., Nakama K., Takeuchi Y .// Jikken Dobutsu. 1994. 43 (1). 85-93. 15. Masenga J., Garbe C., Wagner J., Orfanos C.E. // Int J Dermatol. 1990. 29 (8). 579-582. 3, 2009 28 EFFECT OF PROBIOTICS ON SYMPTOMS OF CHRONIC DERMATITIS AND PARKINSON’S DESEASE IN AGING CBRB MOUSE FEMALES Moiseeva E.V.1, Nefedova N.V.2, Semushina S.G.1, Kessler Yu.V.1, Stoyanova L.G.3, Litvin A.A.4 1 Shemiakin-Ovchinnikov Insitute of Bioorganic chemistry, RAS, Moscow, Russia 2 Moscow State University of applied biotechnology, Moscow, Russia 3 Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia 4 National Research Company, Moscow, Russia Aging CBRB mouse females in conventional conditions mimic both localized (impetigo) and generalized (staphylococcal scaled-skin syndrome, SSSS) forms of chronic dermatitis in humans. Later in lifespan mice develop symptoms of human Parkinson’s disease (PD), namely, rigidity, dyskinesia, and tremor. Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci were recognized to cause dermatitis both in rodents and humans. Probiotic cultures were found to inhibit growth of staphylococci. Using this biomodel, we detected synergistic therapeutic effect of B. subtilis 604 spores (BS) and L. sbsp. lactis 194 culture (LL) on symptoms of dermatitis during four weeks while BS alone showed weak efficacy, and LL alone was hardly efficient. Tested probiotics diminished amount of staphylococci in blood and on the skin of treated mice, but did not influence signs of PD. Key words: mouse model, dermatitis, impetigo, staphylococcal scaled-skin syndrome, probiotic, Parkinson’s disease. 3, 2009