Phenotypic and genotypic identification of lactic acid bacteria isolated from traditional pickles of the Çubuk region in Turkey
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- DNA, Bacterial genetics MeSH
- Phenotype MeSH
- Fermentation MeSH
- Phylogeny MeSH
- Genotype MeSH
- Lactic Acid metabolism MeSH
- Lactobacillaceae classification genetics isolation & purification metabolism MeSH
- Molecular Sequence Data MeSH
- Food Microbiology MeSH
- RNA, Ribosomal, 16S genetics MeSH
- Bacterial Typing Techniques MeSH
- Vegetables microbiology MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Geographicals
- Turkey MeSH
- Names of Substances
- DNA, Bacterial MeSH
- Lactic Acid MeSH
- RNA, Ribosomal, 16S MeSH
A total of 152 lactic acid bacteria (LAB) were isolated from pickles produced in the Ankara-Çubuk region. These isolates were clustered into eight groups on the basis of their phenotypic characteristics including cell morphology, CO2 production from glucose, growth at 10 and 45 °C, growth in 6.5 % NaCl, and growth at pH 9.6. API 50 CH carbohydrate fermentation test, 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) sequence analysis, and sodium dodecyl sulfate-acrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) whole-cell protein profile analysis were also performed for precise identification of the isolates at the species level. Molecular identification revealed that the most prevalent LAB species involved in pickle fermentation were Pediococcus ethanolidurans (46 isolates, 30.3 %), Lactobacillus brevis (37 isolates, 24.3 %), Lactobacillus plantarum (37 isolates, 24.3 %), and Lactobacillus buchneri (15 isolates, 9.9 %). Other LAB were found in minor frequencies such as Pediococcus parvulus (8 isolates, 5.3 %), Lactobacillus namurensis (6 isolates, 3.9 %), Lactobacillus diolivorans (1 isolate, 0.7 %), Lactobacillus parabrevis (1 isolate, 0.7 %), and Enterococcus casseliflavus (1 isolate, 0.7 %). When results of phenotypic and genotypic identification methods were compared, differences in the species distribution of LAB associated with pickles were defined between the API and the 16S rRNA sequencing. The API 50 CHL test coincided with the 16S rRNA results in 71 out of the 152 tested isolates, indicating that API gave unreliable identification results. A clear correlation could not be found between the results of whole-cell SDS profiles and 16S rRNA sequencing. Therefore, molecular characterization by 16S rRNA sequencing was considered to be the most reliable method for identifying isolates. The results presented in this work provide insight in to the LAB population associated with traditional Çubuk pickles and constitute a LAB strain resource for further studies involving the development of starter cultures.
See more in PubMed
Braz J Microbiol. 2013 May 31;44(1):109-12 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 May;67(5):2011-20 PubMed
Nature. 1970 Aug 15;227(5259):680-5 PubMed
J Appl Bacteriol. 1982 Feb;52(1):31-7 PubMed
Int J Food Microbiol. 2004 Jan 1;90(1):9-14 PubMed
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2012;58(3):163-72 PubMed
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007 Feb;57(Pt 2):223-7 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2005 Oct;43(10):5309-11 PubMed
Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008 Sep;47(3):221-6 PubMed
Int J Food Microbiol. 2011 Jan 5;144(3):352-9 PubMed
Lett Appl Microbiol. 2004;39(5):439-44 PubMed
J Food Sci. 2013 Mar;78(3):M470-6 PubMed
Int J Food Microbiol. 2005 Dec 15;105(3):347-56 PubMed
Genome Announc. 2014 Feb 06;2(1):null PubMed
J Sci Food Agric. 2012 Aug 15;92(10):2069-75 PubMed
Food Microbiol. 2012 Dec;32(2):338-44 PubMed
Food Microbiol. 2008 Apr;25(2):278-87 PubMed
Food Microbiol. 2013 Sep;35(2):129-35 PubMed
Microbiol Immunol. 2007;51(10):919-28 PubMed
J Appl Microbiol. 2004;97(2):446-58 PubMed
Int J Food Microbiol. 2009 Nov 15;135(3):203-10 PubMed
Food Microbiol. 2010 May;27(3):390-5 PubMed
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2011 Mar;51(3):248-60 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012 Feb;78(4):1273-84 PubMed
Pol J Microbiol. 2005;54(4):287-94 PubMed
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006 Jul;56(Pt 7):1553-7 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2010 Sep;55(5):481-8 PubMed
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006 Oct;56(Pt 10):2405-8 PubMed
Microbiol Rev. 1996 Jun;60(2):407-38 PubMed
Indian J Microbiol. 2010 Sep;50(3):292-8 PubMed
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002 Mar;52(Pt 2):639-46 PubMed
Int J Food Microbiol. 2000 Jul 25;59(1-2):9-17 PubMed
Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007 Mar;30(2):111-8 PubMed
