| Literature DB >> 21995734 |
Susan Mills1, Catherine Stanton, Gerald F Fitzgerald, R Paul Ross.
Abstract
Before a probiotic bacterium can even begin to fulfill its biological role, it must survive a battery of environmental stresses imposed during food processing and passage through the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). Food processing stresses include extremes in temperature, as well as osmotic, oxidative and food matrix stresses. Passage through the GIT is a hazardous journey for any bacteria with deleterious lows in pH encountered in the stomach to the detergent-like properties of bile in the duodenum. However, bacteria are equipped with an array of defense mechanisms to counteract intracellular damage or to enhance the robustness of the cell to withstand lethal external environments. Understanding these mechanisms in probiotic bacteria and indeed other bacterial groups has resulted in the development of a molecular toolbox to augment the technological and gastrointestinal performance of probiotics. This has been greatly aided by studies which examine the global cellular responses to stress highlighting distinct regulatory networks and which also identify novel mechanisms used by cells to cope with hazardous environments. This review highlights the latest studies which have exploited the bacterial stress response with a view to producing next-generation probiotic cultures and highlights the significance of studies which view the global bacterial stress response from an integrative systems biology perspective.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21995734 PMCID: PMC3231925 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2859-10-S1-S19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Cell Fact ISSN: 1475-2859 Impact factor: 5.328
Examples of Proteins and Genes Involved in the Stress Responses of Probiotics
| Stress | Protein/Gene/System (General Role/Description) | Fold Induction | Strain | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | GroEL (chaperone protein) | +49.1 | [ | |
| Heat | GroEL (chaperone protein) | +15 | [ | |
| Heat | +20 | [ | ||
| Heat, Cold, Ethanol | nd | [ | ||
| Heat, Cold, Ethanol | nd | [ | ||
| Heat | DnaK (chaperone protein) | +4.4 | [ | |
| Heat | FtsH (protease and chaperone activity) | +8 | [ | |
| Heat | HtrA (protease and chaperone activity) | +10 -+15 | [ | |
| Heat | +12 | [ | ||
| Heat | +15 | [ | ||
| Heat | +15 | [ | ||
| Heat | +28 | [ | ||
| Temperature downshift | +20 | [ | ||
| Cold | ClpP (Clp ATPase family, members act as chaperones and regulators of proteolysis) | ≥2 | [ | |
| Temperature downshift | +17 | [ | ||
| Osmotic | +15, +14 | [ | ||
| Osmotic | +4.5 | [ | ||
| Oxygen | NADH oxidase & NADH peroxidase | [ | ||
| Oxygen | AhpC (alkyl hydroperoxide reductase C22) | +10 | [ | |
| Bile | HtrA (protease and chaperone activity) | +1.5-+2 | [ | |
| Bile | Bsh1 (bile salt hydrolase) | [ | ||
| Bile | Ctr (cholate transporter) | [ | ||
| Acid | +2-+3 | [ | ||
| Acid | GrpE (chaperone protein) | >3.5 | [ | |
| Acid | [ | |||
| Acid | +2 | [ | ||
| Acid | +15 | [ |
Figure 1Diagrammatic representation of the main stress responses to acid pH and bile salt in bifidobacteria. (1) Conjugated bile acids enter the bacterial cytoplasm and are cleaved by BSH (bile salt hydolase) (2) releasing one amino acid and one de-conjugated bile acid moiety. (3) De-conjugated bile acid can also enter the cell by passive diffusion and becomes deprotonated (4). (5) Ionized bile salts are non-permeable and are excreted by the action of certain transporters e.g. Ctr (cholate transporter) of Bifidobacterium longum. (6) Synthesis of molecular chaperones is also increased and a shift in fatty acid composition of cell membrane can occur (7). Exposure to acid pH or bile salt deprotonation results in acidification of the cytoplasm (8). This can be counteracted by the production of ammonia from glutamine deamination (9) or pumping of protons from the cell by the F1F0-ATPase (10). ATP required for driving these systems is generated through glycolysis (11) (reproduced from Sanchez et al. [138]).
Figure 2Survival of Lb. paracasei NFBC 338 (control) and GroESL-overproducing Lb. paracasei NFBC 338 (GroESL) following spray-drying (a) and freeze-drying (b). White bars represent powders plated on MRS and shaded bars represent powders plated on MRS containing NaCl (5% wt/vol). Insets show transmission electron micrographs of Lb. paracasei NFBC 338 (1) and GroESL-overproducing Lb. paracasei NFBC 338 (2) following spray-drying, and Lb. paracasei NFBC 338 (3) and GroESL-overproducing Lb. paracasei NFBC 338 (4) following freeze-drying. GroESL-overproducing Lb. paracasei NFBC 338 appeared to be more robust following both drying procedures compared to the control strain (adapted from Corcoran et al. [5]).
Figure 3Survival of Lb. paracasei NFBC 338 expressing the gtf gene (GTF+) and control strain in the presence of acid, gastric juice and elevated temperature. Inset displays the loop-touch test of Lb. paracasei NFBC 338 producing EPS demonstrating the ‘ropy’ phenotype of the modified strain (adapted from Stack et al. [67]).