4.6 Article

Characterization and identification of weissellicin Y and weissellicin M, novel bacteriocins produced by Weissella hellenica QU 13

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 112, 期 1, 页码 99-108

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05180.x

关键词

bacteriocin(s); fermented foods; lactic acid bacteria; peptide(s)

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  2. Research Grant for Young Investigators of Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University
  3. Kato Memorial Bioscience Foundation
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22780069] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To identify and characterize novel bacteriocins from Weissella hellenica QU 13. Methods and Results: Weissella hellenica QU 13, isolated from a barrel used to make Japanese pickles, produced two novel bacteriocins termed weissellicin Y and weissellicin M. The primary structures of weissellicins Y and M were determined, and their molecular masses were determined to be 4925 12 and 4968 40 Da, respectively. Analysis of the DNA sequence encoding the bacteriocins revealed that they were synthesized and secreted without N-terminal extensions such as leader sequences or sec signal peptides. Weissellicin M showed significantly high and characteristic homology with enterocins L50A and L50B, produced by Enterococcus faecium L50, while weissellicin Y showed no homology with any other known bacteriocins. Both bacteriocins showed broad antimicrobial spectra, with especially high antimicrobial activity against species, which contaminate pickles, such as Bacillus coagulans, and weissellicin M showed relatively higher activity than weissellicin Y. Furthermore, the stability of weissellicin M against pH and heat was distinctively higher than that of weissellicin Y. Conclusions: Weissella hellenica QU 13 produced two novel leaderless bacteriocins, weissellicin Y and weissellicin M, and weissellicin M exhibited remarkable potency that could be employed by pickle-producing industry.

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

4.6
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