4.7 Article

Genotyping of Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis isolates from Chinese traditional sourdoughs by multilocus sequence typing and multiplex RAPD-PCR

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.07.013

关键词

L. sanfranciscensis; Chinese traditional sourdough; Multilocus sequence typing; Multiplex-RAPD

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31601461]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis is the predominant lactic acid bacteria (LAB) species in Chinese traditional sourdoughs and conduces to the flavor and rheology properties of Chinese steamed bread, a staple food originated in China over 1500 years ago. The aim of this study is to describe the intraspecific diversity of 98 L. sanfranciscensis isolates from 11 Chinese traditional sourdoughs in different regions by multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and multiplex random amplified polymorphic DNA-polymerase chain reaction (multiplex RAPD-PCR). MLST scheme was reduced from six gene fragments (gdh, gyrA, mapA, nox, pgmA and pta) to five (gdh, gyrA, mapA, nox and pta) since the fragment of pgmA displayed only one allele. 10 different sequence types (STs) were revealed by MLST and 6 of them containing 79.8% of the isolates were classified into one clonal complex, demonstrating a close relationship among them. The multiplex-RAPD analysis was performed by employing the combined primers OPL-05 + RD1 and divided the 98 L. sanfranciscensis isolates into 6 types with the similarity level of 70%. According to the result, it seems that the genotypic variations of L. sanfranciscensis strains showed by MLST have no relations to geographical origin. MLST seems to have a higher discriminatory power compared with multiplex-RAPD since it produced more groups, but multiplex-RAPD could help to distinguish some strains in the same ST. Hence, an optimal genotypic characterization of L. sanfranciscensis was obtained under the combination of MLST and multiplex-RAPD analysis, targeting different genetic variations.

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

4.7
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