4.1 Article

Comparison of culture-dependent and independent approaches to characterize fecal bifidobacteria and lactobacilli

Journal

ANAEROBE
Volume 38, Issue -, Pages 130-137

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2015.10.006

Keywords

Bifidobacterium; Lactobacillus; Selective media; Count; Fecal microbiota; Molecular methods

Categories

Funding

  1. Spinner, European Union, Regione Emilia Romagna
  2. Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Modena in the call 'Ricerca Applicata per l'Innovazione'

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Different culture-dependent and independent methods were applied to investigate the population of bifidobacteria and lactobacilli in the feces of five healthy subjects. Bacteria were isolated on MRS, a complex medium supporting growth of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, and on three selective media for bifidobacteria and two for lactobacilli. Taxonomic characterization of the isolates was carried out by RAPD-PCR and partial 16S sequencing. The selectivity of genus-specific media was also investigated by challenging colonies from MRS plates to grow onto each medium. In parallel, a quantitative and qualitative description of bifidobacteria and lactic acid bacteria was obtained by FISH, qPCR, TRFLP, and 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Bifidobacteria did not fail to grow on their specific media and were easily isolated and enumerated, showing comparable quantitative data among culture-dependent and-independent techniques. The Bifidobacterium species identified on plates and those extracted from TRFLP and 16S rRNA gene sequencing were mostly overlapping. Selective media for lactobacilli gave unsuitable results, being too stringent or too permissive. The quantification of lactobacilli through selective plates, qPCR, FISH, and 16S rRNA gene sequencing gave unreliable results. Therefore, unlike bifidobacteria, intestinal lactobacilli are still problematic in terms of quantification and accurate profiling at level of species and possibly of strains by both culture-dependent and culture-independent techniques. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available