4.6 Article

Pyrosequencing of Tagged 16S rRNA Gene Amplicons for Rapid Deciphering of the Microbiomes of Fermented Foods Such as Pearl Millet Slurries

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 75, 期 13, 页码 4354-4361

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00451-09

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Commission [ICA4-CT-2002-10047]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pearl millet slurries, mixed with groundnuts or not, were chosen as a model to investigate the feasibility of obtaining a rapid overview of community structure and population dynamics of fermented foods using pyrosequencing of tagged 16S rRNA gene amplicons. From 14 fermented samples collected either in a traditional small-scale processing unit in Burkina Faso or at laboratory scale, 137,469 sequences of bacterial 16S rRNA gene amplicons were characterized. Except for a few Proteobacteria, almost all the bacterial sequences were attributed to cultivable bacteria. This approach enabled 80.7% of the sequences to be attributed to a family and 70% to a genus but did not enable identification to the species level. The bacterial sequences were assigned to four phyla, with Firmicutes representing the highest diversity, followed by Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Bacteroidetes, which were found only in the slurries prepared in traditional production units. Most of the Firmicutes were lactic acid bacteria, mainly represented by members of the Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, Leuconostoc, and Weissella genera, whose ratio varied from the onset to the end of the fermentation. The other bacteria present at the beginning of fermentation were generally no longer detected at the end, which is consistent with already-known patterns in the microbial ecology of fermented foods. In conclusion, this method seems very promising for rapid and preliminary microbial characterization in many samples of an unknown food sample, by determining numerous nucleic sequences simultaneously without the need for cloning and cultivation-dependent methods.

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