4.7 Article

Study of the bacterial diversity of foods: PCR-DGGE versus LH-PCR

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.11.008

关键词

Bacterial microbiota; PCR-DGGE; LH-PCR; Fermented and unfermented foods; DNA; RNA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study compared two culture-independent methods, polymerase chain reaction denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE) and length-heterogeneity polymerase chain.reaction (LH-PCR), for their ability to reveal food bacterial microbiota. Total microbial DNA and RNA were extracted directly from fourteen fermented and unfermented foods, and domain A of the variable regions V1 and V2 of the 16S rRNA gene was analyzed through LH-PCR and PCR-DGGE. Finally, the outline of these analyses was compared with bacterial viable counts obtained after bacterial growth on suitable selective media. For the majority of the samples, RNA-based PCR-DGGE revealed species that the DNA-based PCR-DGGE was not able to highlight. When analyzing either DNA or RNA, LH-PCR identified several lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and coagulase negative cocci (CCN) species that were not identified by PCR-DGGE. This phenomenon was particularly evident in food samples with viable loads < 5.0 Log cfu g(-1). Furthermore, LH-PCR was able to detect a higher number of peaks in the analyzed food matrices relative to species identified by PCR-DGGE. In light of these findings, it may be suggested that LH-PCR shows greater sensitivity than PCR-DGGE. However, PCR-DGGE detected some other species (LAB included) that were not detected by LH-PCR. Therefore, certain LH-PCR peaks not attributed to known species within the LH-PCR database could be solved by comparing them with species identified by PCR-DGGE. Overall, this study also showed that LH-PCR is a promising method for use in the food microbiology field, indicating the necessity to expand the LH-PCR database, which is based, up to now, mainly on LAB isolates from dairy products. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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