4.6 Review

Roles of the Cell Surface Architecture of Bacteroides and Bifidobacterium in the Gut Colonization

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.754819

关键词

adhesion; Bifidobacterium; Bacteroides; mucin; mucosal bacteria; cell surface protein; colonization

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [20K15438]
  2. Institute for Fermentation, Osaka (IFO)
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20K15438] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various bacteria reside in the mammalian gastrointestinal tract, with mucosal bacteria closely interacting with the intestinal mucus layer to utilize host-provided carbon sources. The cell surface architecture plays a crucial role in the interactions between mucosal bacteria and the host.
There are numerous bacteria reside within the mammalian gastrointestinal tract. Among the intestinal bacteria, Akkermansia, Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium, and Ruminococcus closely interact with the intestinal mucus layer and are, therefore, known as mucosal bacteria. Mucosal bacteria use host or dietary glycans for colonization via adhesion, allowing access to the carbon source that the host's nutrients provide. Cell wall or membrane proteins, polysaccharides, and extracellular vesicles facilitate these mucosal bacteria-host interactions. Recent studies revealed that the physiological properties of Bacteroides and Bifidobacterium significantly change in the presence of co-existing symbiotic bacteria or markedly differ with the spatial distribution in the mucosal niche. These recently discovered strategic colonization processes are important for understanding the survival of bacteria in the gut. In this review, first, we introduce the experimental models used to study host-bacteria interactions, and then, we highlight the latest discoveries on the colonization properties of mucosal bacteria, focusing on the roles of the cell surface architecture regarding Bacteroides and Bifidobacterium.

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