4.6 Article

Functional analysis of putative adhesion factors in Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 71, 期 12, 页码 8344-8351

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.71.12.8344-8351.2005

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lactobacilli are major inhabitants of the normal microflora of the gastrointestinal tract, and some select species have been used extensively as probiotic cultures. One potentially important property of these organisms is their ability to interact with epithelial cells in the intestinal tract, which may promote retention and host-bacterial communication. However, the mechanisms by which they attach to intestinal epithelial cells are unknown. The objective of this study was to investigate cell surface proteins in Lactobacillus acidophilus that may promote attachment to intestinal tissues. Using genome sequence data, predicted open reading frames were searched against known protein and protein motif databases to identify four proteins potentially involved in adhesion to epithelial cells. Homologous recombination was used to construct isogenic mutations in genes encoding a mucin-binding protein, a fibronectin-binding protein, a surface layer protein, and two streptococcal R28 homologs. The abilities of the mutants to adhere to intestinal epithelial cells were then evaluated in vitro. Each strain was screened on Caco-2 cells, which differentiate and express markers characteristic of normal small-intestine cells. A significant decrease in adhesion was observed in the fibronectin-binding protein mutant (76%) and the mucin-binding protein mutant (65%). A surface layer protein mutant also showed reduction in adhesion ability (84%), but the effect of this mutation is likely due to the loss of multiple surface proteins that may be embedded in the S-layer. This study demonstrated that multiple cell surface proteins in L. acidophilus NCFM can individually contribute to the organism's ability to attach to intestinal cells in vitro.

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