4.6 Article

Core Fluxome and Metafluxome of Lactic Acid Bacteria under Simulated Cocoa Pulp Fermentation Conditions

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 79, 期 18, 页码 5670-5681

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.01483-13

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present work, simulated cocoa fermentation was investigated at the level of metabolic pathway fluxes (fluxome) of lactic acid bacteria (LAB), which are typically found in the microbial consortium known to convert nutrients from the cocoa pulp into organic acids. A comprehensive C-13 labeling approach allowed to quantify carbon fluxes during simulated cocoa fermentation by (i) parallel C-13 studies with [C-13(6)] glucose, [1,2-C-13(2)] glucose, and [C-13(6)] fructose, respectively, (ii) gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) analysis of secreted acetate and lactate, (iii) stoichiometric profiling, and (iv) isotopomer modeling for flux calculation. The study of several strains of L. fermentum and L. plantarum revealed major differences in their fluxes. The L. fermentum strains channeled only a small amount (4 to 6%) of fructose into central metabolism, i. e., the phosphoketolase pathway, whereas only L. fermentum NCC 575 used fructose to form mannitol. In contrast, L. plantarum strains exhibited a high glycolytic flux. All strains differed in acetate flux, which originated from fractions of citrate (25 to 80%) and corresponding amounts of glucose and fructose. Subsequent, metafluxome studies with consortia of different L. fermentum and L. plantarum strains indicated a dominant (96%) contribution of L. fermentum NCC 575 to the overall flux in the microbial community, a scenario that was not observed for the other strains. This highlights the idea that individual LAB strains vary in their metabolic contribution to the overall fermentation process and opens up new routes toward streamlined starter cultures. L. fermentum NCC 575 might be one candidate due to its superior performance in flux activity.

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