4.5 Article

Effect of acid stress on protein expression and phosphorylation in Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOMICS
卷 75, 期 4, 页码 1357-1374

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2011.11.009

关键词

Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG; Stress; Phosphorylation; Probiotic; 2-D DIGE; Bacteria

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [210740, 117746]
  2. Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovations [201/08]
  3. ABS
  4. Academy of Finland (AKA) [117746, 117746] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acidic environments encountered in food products and during gastrointestinal tract passage affect the survival of bacteria that are marketed as probiotics. In this study, the global proteome responses of the probiotic lactic acid bacterium Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG to two physiologically relevant pH conditions (pH 4.8 and pH 5.8) were studied by 2-D DICE. The proteomics data were complemented with transcriptome analyses by whole-genome DNA microarrays. The cells were cultured in industrial-type whey medium under strictly defined bioreactor conditions. In total, 2-D DIGE revealed the pH-dependent formation of 92 protein spots. In response to lower pH conditions, the strongest up-regulation of all proteins was detected for a predicted surface antigen, LGG_02016. In addition, the acid pH was found to up-regulate the expression of F0F1-ATP synthase genes whereas the abundance of proteins participating in nucleotide biosynthesis and protein synthesis was significantly diminished. Moreover, the results suggest that L. rhamnosus GG modulates its pyruvate metabolism depending on the growth pH. Furthermore, a growth pH-dependent protein phosphorylation phenomenon was detected in several L. rhamnosus GG proteins with ProQ Diamond 2-DE gel staining. Proteins participating in central cellular pathways were shown to be phosphorylated, and the phosphorylation of glycolytic enzymes was found to be especially extensive. (C) 2011 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

4.5
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