Evaluation of biochemical and molecular methods for Lactobacillus reuteri strains differentiation
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Evaluation Study, Journal Article
- MeSH
- Bacterial Proteins analysis MeSH
- Bacteriological Techniques methods MeSH
- DNA, Bacterial chemistry genetics MeSH
- Electrophoresis, Polyacrylamide Gel MeSH
- Goats MeSH
- Limosilactobacillus reuteri classification genetics isolation & purification physiology MeSH
- DNA, Ribosomal Spacer chemistry genetics MeSH
- Sheep MeSH
- Polymerase Chain Reaction MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- Cluster Analysis MeSH
- Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization MeSH
- Gastric Mucosa microbiology MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Check Tag
- Animals MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Evaluation Study MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Bacterial Proteins MeSH
- DNA, Bacterial MeSH
- DNA, Ribosomal Spacer MeSH
Several biochemical and molecular methods were used for discrimination of four Lactobacillus reuteri strains isolated from goatling and lamb stomach mucosa. Internal transcribed spacer (ITS)-PCR method and protein analysis by SDS-PAGE and MALDI-TOF showed to be suitable for strain discrimination whereas ITS-PCR/RFLP and enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus (ERIC)-PCR were not strain specific. The used methods differentiated tested strains into distinct groups; however, the location of strains in groups varied. Consistency in results was observed in the case of L. reuteri E and L. reuteri KO4m that were clustered into the same groups using all techniques, except of MALDI-TOF MS. The last one grouped goatling strains and lamb isolate into separate clusters. All investigated methods, except of ITS-PCR/RFLP and ERIC-PCR, were assessed as appropriate for distinguishing of L. reuteri strains.
See more in PubMed
Nat Protoc. 2009;4(5):732-42 PubMed
Nature. 1970 Aug 15;227(5259):680-5 PubMed
Infect Genet Evol. 2013 Jan;13:230-5 PubMed
Microbiology (Reading). 2006 Jan;152(Pt 1):85-93 PubMed
Int J Food Microbiol. 2012 Oct 1;159(2):107-14 PubMed
Mass Spectrom Rev. 2001 Jul-Aug;20(4):172-94 PubMed
J Dig Dis. 2008 Nov;9(4):190-8 PubMed
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2006 Dec;52(6):329-37 PubMed
Int J Food Microbiol. 2011 Oct 17;150(1):73-8 PubMed
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2006 Dec;16(8):531-5 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1993 Apr;59(4):945-52 PubMed
Res Microbiol. 2014 Apr;165(3):190-201 PubMed
New Microbiol. 2005 Jul;28(3):265-70 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2013 Nov;58(6):649-56 PubMed
Anaerobe. 2009 Aug;15(4):122-6 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2002;47(6):649-53 PubMed
Braz J Microbiol. 2008 Jul;39(3):542-6 PubMed
Mass Spectrom Rev. 2001 Jul-Aug;20(4):157-71 PubMed
Gut Pathog. 2013 Sep 24;5(1):27 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Nov;65(11):4949-56 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2013 Jan;58(1):33-8 PubMed
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Dec 17;217(2):141-54 PubMed
BMC Gastroenterol. 2004 Mar 15;4:5 PubMed
Int J Med Microbiol. 2011 Jan;301(1):64-8 PubMed
J Dairy Sci. 2012 Jul;95(7):3536-48 PubMed
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 22;8(7):e69868 PubMed
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2007 Feb;13(2):135-42 PubMed
Microbiol Rev. 1996 Jun;60(2):407-38 PubMed
Anaerobe. 2011 Dec;17(6):407-9 PubMed
Braz J Microbiol. 2011 Jul;42(3):1188-96 PubMed
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1998 Apr 1;161(1):97-106 PubMed
