In silico prospection of Lactobacillus acidophilus strains with potential probiotic activity.
Bioinformatics
Lactic acid
Lactic acid bacteria
Lactobacillus
Pangenome
Probiotics
Journal
Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]
ISSN: 1678-4405
Titre abrégé: Braz J Microbiol
Pays: Brazil
ID NLM: 101095924
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
11
04
2023
accepted:
26
09
2023
pmc-release:
06
10
2024
medline:
4
12
2023
pubmed:
6
10
2023
entrez:
6
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are fermentative microorganisms and perform different roles in biotechnological processes, mainly in the food and pharmaceutical industries. Among the LAB, Lactobacillus acidophilus is a species that deserves to be highlighted for being used both in prophylaxis and in the treatment of pathologies. Most of the metabolites produced by this species are linked to the inhibition of pathogens. In this study, we utilized a pangenomic and metabolic annotation analysis using Roary and BlastKOALA, ML-based probiotic activity prediction with iProbiotic and whole-genome similarity using ANI to identify strains of L. acidophilus with potential probiotic activity. According to the results in BlastKOALA and iProbiotics, L. acidophilus NCTC 13721 had the greatest potential among the 64 strains tested, both in terms of its ability to be a Lactobacillus spp. probiotic, when in the amount of genes involved in the metabolism of organic acids and quorum sensing. In addition, DSM 20079 proved to be promising for prospecting new probiotic Lactobacillus from BlastKOALA analyses, as they presented similar results in the number of genes involved in the production of lactic acid, acetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, except for quorum sensing where the NCTC 13721 strain had 14 more genes. L. acidophilus NCTC 13721 and L. acidophilus La-5 strains showed greater ability to be Lactobacillus spp. probiotic capacity, showing 84.8% and 51.9% capacity in the iProbiotics tool, respectively. When analyzed in ANI, none of the evaluated strains showed genomic similarity with NCTC 13721. In contrast, the DSM 20079 strain showed genomic similarity with all evaluated strains except NCTC 13721. Furthermore, eight strains with characteristics with approximately 100% genomic similarity to La-5 were listed: S20_1, LA-5, FSI4, APC2845, LA-G80-111, DS1_1A, LA1, and BCRC 14065. Therefore, according to the findings in iProbiotics and BlastKoala, among the 64 strains evaluated, NCTC 13721 is the most promising strain to be used for future in vitro studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37801223
doi: 10.1007/s42770-023-01139-3
pii: 10.1007/s42770-023-01139-3
pmc: PMC10689588
doi:
Substances chimiques
Lactic Acid
33X04XA5AT
Acetic Acid
Q40Q9N063P
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2733-2743Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Sociedade Brasileira de Microbiologia.
Références
Caries Res. 2017;51(2):87-95
pubmed: 28118640
Microbiologyopen. 2021 Feb;10(2):e1173
pubmed: 33970542
Mol Biol Evol. 2020 Mar 1;37(3):933-939
pubmed: 31848603
Genome Announc. 2013 Nov 27;1(6):
pubmed: 24285665
Anaerobe. 2020 Apr;62:102103
pubmed: 31525452
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2011;57(4):197-206
pubmed: 21914968
J Appl Microbiol. 2022 Jan;132(1):592-604
pubmed: 34216519
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 May 15;60 Suppl 2:S98-107
pubmed: 25922408
Microorganisms. 2020 Sep 21;8(9):
pubmed: 32967209
Microbiol Rev. 1995 Mar;59(1):143-69
pubmed: 7535888
J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2022 Oct 28;32(10):1226-1233
pubmed: 36196014
BMJ Open. 2015 Jan 14;5(1):e006474
pubmed: 25588782
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2013 Dec;349(2):77-87
pubmed: 24152174
Genome Announc. 2013 Jun 20;1(3):
pubmed: 23788546
Nat Commun. 2018 Nov 30;9(1):5114
pubmed: 30504855
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2020 Apr;70(4):2782-2858
pubmed: 32293557
Res Microbiol. 2017 Nov - Dec;168(9-10):782-792
pubmed: 28435139
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2018 Jul;68(7):2386-2392
pubmed: 29792589
Molecules. 2019 Jun 26;24(13):
pubmed: 31247973
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 1999 Jan;39(1):13-126
pubmed: 10028126
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2022 Jan;59(1):106471
pubmed: 34757134
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011 Jan;9(1):27-38
pubmed: 21113182
Cell Rep Med. 2021 Sep 07;2(9):100393
pubmed: 34622230
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Mar 15;102(11):3906-12
pubmed: 15671160
Brief Bioinform. 2022 Jan 17;23(1):
pubmed: 34849572
Genome Announc. 2015 Jan 15;3(1):
pubmed: 25593259
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Feb 18;15(2):e0009104
pubmed: 33600419
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020 Sep 25;10:538077
pubmed: 33102249
Microorganisms. 2020 Mar 17;8(3):
pubmed: 32192182
Genome Announc. 2015 Apr 09;3(2):
pubmed: 25858829
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2009 Sep;297(3):G506-13
pubmed: 19589943
Nutrients. 2020 Apr 16;12(4):
pubmed: 32316181
Biocontrol Sci. 2019;24(4):185-192
pubmed: 31875610
J Mol Biol. 2016 Feb 22;428(4):726-731
pubmed: 26585406
Clin Nutr. 2017 Feb;36(1):85-92
pubmed: 26732026
Genome Announc. 2018 Jun 28;6(26):
pubmed: 29954914
RSC Adv. 2020 Apr 29;10(28):16737-16748
pubmed: 35498845
Anaerobe. 2019 Feb;55:142-151
pubmed: 30576791
Microb Genom. 2021 Jun;7(6):
pubmed: 34100697
Microorganisms. 2023 Mar 20;11(3):
pubmed: 36985366
Foods. 2022 Dec 24;12(1):
pubmed: 36613306
J Infect Dev Ctries. 2016 Mar 31;10(3):214-21
pubmed: 27031452
Nat Commun. 2015 Sep 29;6:8322
pubmed: 26415554
Microorganisms. 2021 Sep 20;9(9):
pubmed: 34576887
Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins. 2012 Dec;4(4):217-26
pubmed: 26782181
Front Pharmacol. 2018 Feb 08;9:83
pubmed: 29472862
Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019 Apr 10;7(7):1053-1058
pubmed: 31049080