4.3 Article

Development of a minimal growth medium for Lactobacillus plantarum

期刊

LETTERS IN APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 57-64

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2009.02752.x

关键词

folate production; genome-scale metabolic model; lactic acid bacteria; Lactobacillus plantarum; minimal medium

资金

  1. Netherlands Genomics Initiative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: A medium with minimal requirements for the growth of Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS was developed. The composition of the minimal medium was compared to a genome-scale metabolic model of L. plantarum. Methods and Results: By repetitive single omission experiments, two minimal media were developed: PMM5 (true minimal medium) and PMM7 [a pseudominimal medium, supporting proper biomass formation of 350 mg l-1 dry weight (DW)]. The specific growth rate of L. plantarum on PMM7 was found to be 50% and 63% lower when compared to growth on established growth media (chemically defined medium and MRS, respectively). Using a genome-scale metabolic model of L. plantarum, it was predicted that PMM5 and PMM7 would not support the growth of L. plantarum. This is because the biosynthesis of para-aminobenzoic acid (pABA) was predicted to be essential for growth. The discrepancy in simulated growth and experimental growth on PMM7 was further investigated for pABA; a molecule which plays an important role in folate production. The growth performance and folate production were determined on PMM7 in the presence and absence of pABA. It was found that a 12 000-fold reduction in folate pools exerted no influence on formation of biomass or growth rate of L. plantarum cultures when grown in the absence of pABA. Conclusion: Largely reduced folate production pools do not have an effect on the growth of L. plantarum, showing that L. plantarum makes folate in a large excess. Significance and Impact of the study: These experiments illustrate the importance of combining genome-scale metabolic models with growth experiments on minimal media.

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

4.3
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