Abstract
Previous study has reported that Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ZDY2013 which was screened from traditional Chinese fermented soybeans has a strong acid resistance. The purpose of this study was to uncover the genes potentially related to its genetic adaptation and probiotic profiles, based on comparative genomic and comparative transcriptome analysis. We got the basic information about L. plantarum ZDY2013 and identified genes which are related to genetic adaptation and probiotic profiles, including carbohydrate transport and metabolism, cell wall/membrane/envelope biogenesis, proteolytic enzyme systems and amino acid biosynthesis, CRISPR adaptive immunity, stress responses, ability to adhere to the host intestinal wall, exopolysaccharide (EPS) biosynthesis, and bacteriocin biosynthesis. Comparative transcriptome showed CK group (normal MRS culture L. plantarum ZDY2013) and SCL group (pH 3.0 MRS culture L. plantarum ZDY2013) had 652 significant differentially expressed genes including 310 up-regulated genes and 342 down-regulated genes. Besides that, these genes had been classified through KEGG and GO functional annotation. In addition, we also found top 20 KEGG pathways adjusted to acid stress. Then, some genes were selected to verify the transcriptome analysis and explore the mechanism of how L. plantarum ZDY2013 tolerate acid stress. We found that some genes of ABC transporter, phosphotransferase system, oxidation reduction process, membrane transporter and phosphorylation metabolism process had a significant change. These results suggested that comparative characterization of the L. plantarum ZDY2013 genome and transcriptome provided the genetic basis for further elucidating the functional mechanisms of it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anders S, Huber W (2010) Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol 11:R106. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2010-11-10-r106
Bang M, Yong CC, Ko HJ, Choi IG, Oh S (2018) Transcriptional response and enhanced intestinal adhesion ability of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG after acid stress. J Microbiol Biotechnol 28:1604–1613. https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.1807.07033
Bolotin A et al (2001) The complete genome sequence of the lactic acid bacterium Lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis IL1403. Genome Res 11:731–753. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.gr-1697r
Broadbent JR, Larsen RL, Deibel V, Steele JL (2010) Physiological and transcriptional response of Lactobacillus casei ATCC 334 to acid stress. J Bacteriol 192:2445–2458. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.01618-09
Chaillou S et al (2005) The complete genome sequence of the meat-borne lactic acid bacterium Lactobacillus sakei 23K. Nat Biotechnol 23:1527–1533. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1160
Chen X, Sun Z, Meng H, Zhang H (2009) The acid tolerance association with expression of H+-ATPase in Lactobacillus casei. Dairy Technol 62:272–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0307.2009.00461.x
Costabile A, Bergillos-Meca T, Rasinkangas P, Korpela K, de Vos WM, Gibson GR (2017) Effects of soluble corn fiber alone or in synbiotic combination with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and the pilus-deficient derivative GG-PB12 on fecal microbiota, metabolism, and markers of immune function: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in healthy elderly (Saimes Study). Front Immunol 8:1443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.01443
Deutscher J, Francke C, Postma PW (2006) How phosphotransferase system-related protein phosphorylation regulates carbohydrate metabolism in bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 70:939. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00024-06
Fortier LC, Tourdot-Marechal R, Divies C, Lee BH, Guzzo J (2003) Induction of oenococcus oeni H+-ATPase activity and mRNA transcription under acidic conditions. FEMS Microbiol Lett 222:165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1097(03)00299-4
Fu G, Zhao K, Chen H, Wang Y, Nie L, Wei H, Wan C (2019) Effect of 3 lactobacilli on immunoregulation and intestinal microbiota in a β-lactoglobulin–induced allergic mouse model. J Dairy Sci 102:1943–1958. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15683
Guo Y, Tian X, Huang R, Tao X, Shah NP, Wei H, Wan C (2017) A physiological comparative study of acid tolerance of Lactobacillus plantarum ZDY 2013 and L. plantarum ATCC 8014 at membrane and cytoplasm levels. Ann Microbiol 67:669–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13213-017-1295-x
Huang R et al (2015) In vitro probiotic characteristics of Lactobacillus plantarum ZDY 2013 and its modulatory effect on gut microbiota of mice. J Dairy Sci 98:5850–5861. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9153
Huang R, Pan M, Wan C, Shah NP, Tao X, Wei H (2016) Physiological and transcriptional responses and cross protection of Lactobacillus plantarum ZDY2013 under acid stress. J Dairy Sci 99:1002–1010. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9993
Jager R, Purpura M, Farmer S, Cash HA, Keller D (2018) Probiotic Bacillus coagulans GBI-30, 6086 improves protein absorption and utilization. Probiot Antimicrob Proteins 10:611–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9354-y
Kleerebezem M et al (2003) Complete genome sequence of Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:1990. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0337704100
Li P, Gu Q, Zhou Q (2016a) Complete genome sequence of Lactobacillus plantarum LZ206, a potential probiotic strain with antimicrobial activity against food-borne pathogenic microorganisms. J Biotechnol 238:52–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2016.09.012
Li P, Li X, Gu Q, Lou X-y, Zhang X-m, Song D-f, Zhang C (2016b) Comparative genomic analysis of Lactobacillus plantarum ZJ316 reveals its genetic adaptation and potential probiotic profiles. J Zhejiang Univ-Sci B 17:569–579. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1600176
Liu J, Li L, Peters BM, Li B, Deng Y, Xu Z, Shirtliff ME (2016) Draft genome sequence and annotation of Lactobacillus acetotolerans BM-LA14527, a beer-spoilage bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Lett. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnw201
Lowe T, Eddy S (1997) Lowe TM, Eddy SR. tRNAscan-SE: a program for improved detection of transfer RNA genes in genomic sequence. Nucl Acid Res 25: 955–964. Nucleic Acids Res 25:955–964. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.5.955
McKusick VA (1997) Genomics: structural and functional studies of genomes. Genomics 45:244–249. https://doi.org/10.1006/geno.1997.5020
Mols M, van Kranenburg R, Tempelaars MH, van Schaik W, Moezelaar R, Abee T (2010) Comparative analysis of transcriptional and physiological responses of Bacillus cereus to organic and inorganic acid shocks. Int J Food Microbiol 137:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.09.027
Mujagic Z et al (2017) The effects of Lactobacillus plantarum on small intestinal barrier function and mucosal gene transcription; a randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial. Sci Rep 7:40128. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40128
Nazir Y, Hussain SA, Abdul Hamid A, Song Y (2018) Probiotics and their potential preventive and therapeutic role for cancer, high serum cholesterol, and allergic and HIV diseases. J BioMed Res Int 2018:17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3428437
O’Sullivan E, Condon S (1999) Relationship between acid tolerance, cytoplasmic pH, and ATP and H+-ATPase levels in chemostat cultures of Lactococcus lactis. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:2287–2293. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.65.6.2287-2293.1999
Pan M, Wan C, Xie Q, Huang R, Tao X, Shah NP, Wei H (2016) Changes in gastric microbiota induced by Helicobacter pylori infection and preventive effects of Lactobacillus plantarum ZDY 2013 against such infection. J Dairy Sci 99:970–981. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10510
Pandey K, Naik S, Vakil B (2015) Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics—a review. J Food Sci Technol 52:7577–7587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-1921-1
Presti I et al (2015) Evaluation of the probiotic properties of new Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains and their in vitro effect. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:5613–5626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-6482-8
Roškar I, Švigelj K, Štempelj M, Volfand J, Štabuc B, Malovrh Š, Rogelj I (2017) Effects of a probiotic product containing Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. animalis IM386 and Lactobacillus plantarum MP2026 in lactose intolerant individuals: randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Funct Foods 35:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2017.05.020
Shobharani P, Halami PM (2014) Cellular fatty acid profile and H(+)-ATPase activity to assess acid tolerance of Bacillus sp. for potential probiotic functional attributes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98:9045–9058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-5981-3
Siezen RJ, van Hylckama Vlieg JE (2011) Genomic diversity and versatility of Lactobacillus plantarum, a natural metabolic engineer. Microb Cell Fact 10(Suppl 1):S3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2859-10-S1-S3
Tarrah A, Pakroo S, Corich V, Giacomini A (2020) Whole-genome sequence and comparative genome analysis of Lactobacillus paracasei DTA93, a promising probiotic lactic acid bacterium. Arch Microbiol 202:1997–2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-020-01883-2
Wang IK et al (2015) The effect of probiotics on serum levels of cytokine and endotoxin in peritoneal dialysis patients: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Benef Microbes 6:423–430. https://doi.org/10.3920/bm2014.0088
Wang Y, Guo Y, Chen H, Wei H, Wan C (2018) Potential of Lactobacillus plantarum ZDY2013 and Bifidobacterium bifidum WBIN03 in relieving colitis by gut microbiota, immune, and anti-oxidative stress. Can J Microbiol 64:327–337. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjm-2017-0716
WHO (2001) Health and nutritional properties of probiotics in food including powder milk with live lactic acid bacteria; report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation on evaluation of health and nutritional properties of probiotics in food including powder milk with live lactic acid bacteria. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization
Xie Q et al (2016) Short communication: modulation of the small intestinal microbial community composition over short-term or long-term administration with Lactobacillus plantarum ZDY2013. J Dairy Sci 99:6913–6921. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11141
Zhao K, Xie Q, Xu D, Guo Y, Tao X, Wei H, Wan C (2018) Antagonistics of Lactobacillus plantarum ZDY2013 against Helicobacter pylori SS1 and its infection in vitro in human gastric epithelial AGS cells. J Biosci Bioeng 126:458–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2018.04.003
Acknowledgments
We sincerely thank the Editor and reviewers for their contributions and suggestions.
Funding
This work was supported by National Natural Science foundation of China (81760102 and 31770133).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Erko Stackebrandt.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peng, L., Zhao, K., Chen, S. et al. Whole genome and acid stress comparative transcriptome analysis of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ZDY2013. Arch Microbiol 203, 2795–2807 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-021-02240-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-021-02240-7