4.6 Article

A polyphasic approach to characterize Weissella cibaria and Weissella confusa strains

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 128, 期 2, 页码 500-512

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/jam.14483

关键词

antifungal activity; comparative genomic analysis; functional characteristics; virulence traits; Weissella cibaria; Weissella confusa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To study Weissella cibaria and Weissella confusa strains, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) members naturally present in food products, but not yet included in Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) list of European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Methods and Results We carried out a comparative genome analysis of 23 sequenced W. cibaria and 7 W. confusa genomes, in parallel with a physiological and functional characterization of several strains previously isolated from sourdough-like maize bran fermentation. The genome analysis revealed the absence of dedicated pathogenicity factors. Some putative virulence genes found in Weissella genomes were also present in other LAB strains, considered safe by EFSA and commonly used as probiotics. The physiological tests carried out on our strains corroborated the genomic results. Moreover, the following functional traits of interest to application in the food sector were identified: the majority of tested strains displayed high acidification rate, high reducing ability, production of exopolysaccharides (EPS), arabinoxylan degradation ability, growth in the presence of fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS), bile and gastric juice tolerance, and antifungal activity. Conclusions These results provide evidence for the possible use of selected strains of W. cibaria and W. confusa in the food sector. Significance and Impact of the Study This polyphasic study adds to the body of knowledge on the functional and applicable characteristics of these controversial species of LAB. This knowledge contributes to design new selected cultures included in the QPS list required for food applications.

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