4.7 Article

Listeria monocytogenes dairy isolates show a different proteome response to sequential exposure to gastric and intestinal fluids

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
卷 163, 期 2-3, 页码 51-63

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.03.001

关键词

Listeria monocytogenes; Stress response; Gastrointestinal system; Proteome

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia [PROTEC SFRH/BD/494037/2009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The gastrointestinal system poses different stresses to the foodborne pathogen. Listeria monocytogenes, including the low pH of the stomach and the presence of bile and the high osmolality of the intestinal fluid. The present study evaluated how previous exposure of three L monocytogenes dairy isolates (C882 and T8, serovar 4b isolates and A9 serovar 1/2a or 3b isolate) to a cheese-simulated medium (pH 5.5 and 3.5% NaCl [w/v] adapted cultures) affected subsequent survival in a simulated gastrointestinal system. Listerial cultures exposed to the cheese-simulated medium at pH 7.0, with no added NaCl, were considered non-adapted. To investigate the main events involved in listerial survival during the gastric and intestinal subsequent challenge, a proteomic approach was used. All L monocytogenes strains were able to survive the deleterious effects of the gastrointestinal fluids and no significant differences were observed between adapted and non-adapted cells. However the L. monogtogenes strains showed a different protein pattern in response to the gastrointestinal stress. Data indicated that synthesis of stress related proteins is more pronounced in non-adapted cells. Although, a significant number of enzymes involved in glycolysis and energy production were also consistently over-produced by the three strains. These findings provided new insights into the means used by L. monocytogenes to overcome the gastrointestinal system and allow the pathogen to move to the next phase of the infectious process. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据