4.7 Article

Elucidation of the anti-hyperammonemic mechanism of Lactobacillus amylovorus JBD401 by comparative genomic analysis

期刊

BMC GENOMICS
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12864-018-4672-3

关键词

Hyperammonemia; Lactobacillus amylovorus JBD401; Comparative genome analysis; Ammonia assimilation

资金

  1. Technology Development Program for Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Republic of Korea [313040-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Recent experimental evidence showed that lactobacilli could be used as potential therapeutic agents for hyperammonemia. However, lack of understanding on how lactobacilli reduce blood ammonia levels limits application of lactobacilli to treat hyperammonemia. Results: We report the finished and annotated genome sequence of L. amylovorus JBD401 (GenBank accession no. CP012389). L. amylovorus JBD401 reducing blood ammonia levels dramatically was identified by high-throughput screening of several thousand probiotic strains both within and across Lactobacillus species in vitro. Administration of L. amylovorus JBD401 to hyperammonemia-induced mice reduced the blood ammonia levels of the mice to the normal range. Genome sequencing showed that L. amylovorus JBD401 had a circular chromosome of 1,946,267 bp with an average GC content of 38.13%. Comparative analysis of the L. amylovorus JBD401 genome with L. acidophilus and L. amylovorus strains showed that L. amylovorus JBD401 possessed genes for ammonia assimilation into various amino acids and polyamines Interestingly, the genome of L. amylovorus JBD401 contained unusually large number of various pseudogenes suggesting an active stage of evolution. Conclusions: L. amylovorus JBD401 has genes for assimilation of free ammonia into various amino acids and polyamines which results in removal of free ammonia in intestinal lumen to reduce the blood ammonia levels in the host. This work explains the mechanism of how probiotics reduce blood ammonia levels.

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

4.7
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