| Literature DB >> 24817864 |
Witold Kot1, Horst Neve2, Knut J Heller2, Finn K Vogensen3.
Abstract
Leuconostoc (Ln.), Weissella, and Oenococcus form a group of related genera of lactic acid bacteria, which once all shared the name Leuconostoc. They are associated with plants, fermented vegetable products, raw milk, dairy products, meat, and fish. Most of industrially relevant Leuconostoc strains can be classified as either Ln. mesenteroides or Ln. pseudomesenteroides. They are important flavor producers in dairy fermentations and they initiate nearly all vegetable fermentations. Therefore, bacteriophages attacking Leuconostoc strains may negatively influence the production process. Bacteriophages attacking Leuconostoc strains were first reported in 1946. Since then, the majority of described Leuconostoc phages was isolated from either dairy products or fermented vegetable products. Both lytic and temperate phages of Leuconostoc were reported. Most of Leuconostoc phages examined using electron microscopy belong to the Siphoviridae family and differ in morphological details. Hybridization and comparative genomic studies of Leuconostoc phages suggest that they can be divided into several groups, however overall diversity of Leuconostoc phages is much lower as compared to, e.g., lactococcal phages. Several fully sequenced genomes of Leuconostoc phages have been deposited in public databases. Lytic phages of Leuconostoc can be divided into two host species-specific groups with similarly organized genomes that shared very low nucleotide similarity. Phages of dairy Leuconostoc have rather limited host-ranges. The receptor binding proteins of two lytic Ln. pseudomesenteroides phages have been identified. Molecular tools for detection of dairy Leuconostoc phages have been developed. The rather limited data on phages of Oenococcus and Weissella show that (i) lysogeny seems to be abundant in Oenococcus strains, and (ii) several phages infecting Weissella cibaria are also able to productively infect strains of other Weissella species and even strains of the genus Lactobacillus.Entities:
Keywords: DNA sequence analysis; Leuconostoc; Oenococcus; Weissella; bacteriophages; morphogenesis
Year: 2014 PMID: 24817864 PMCID: PMC4009412 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00186
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Table summarizing reports on phages infecting genus .
| Dairy | Lytic | Flavor defects | Mosimann and Ritter, | |
| Dairy | Lytic | TEM (2 phages) | Sozzi et al., | |
| Dairy | Lytic (4 phages) | Host range | Shin and Sato, | |
| Dairy | Temperate | TEM (9 phages) | Shin and Sato, | |
| Dairy | Lytic (phage Lc-4) | 1-step growth | Shin, | |
| Dairy | Lytic (4 phages) | Host range, TEM | Saxelin et al., | |
| Dairy | Lytic (phage PWL-2) | TEM, structural proteins, REN analysis | Neve et al., | |
| Dairy | Lytic (4 phages) | Host range | Johansen and Kibenich, | |
| Dairy, coffee | Lytic (19 phages) | 6 DNA homology groups, structural proteins, TEM, REN analysis, genome sizes | Boizet et al., | |
| Dairy | Lytic (4 phages) | 1 DNA homology group, structural proteins, TEM, REN analysis | Davey et al., | |
| Sauerkraut | Lytic (8 phages) | TEM, Host range | Yoon et al., | |
| Sauerkraut | Lytic (6 phages) | TEM, REN analysis, Host range, structural proteins | Barrangou et al., | |
| Sauerkraut | Lytic (29 phages) | Host range (all), TEM, REN analysis, structural proteins (6 phages) | Lu et al., | |
| Sauerkraut | Lytic (Φ1-A4) | TEM, structural proteins, genome sequence (29.5 kb) | Lu et al., | |
| KC04 strain | Temperate (ΦMH1) | TEM, genome sequence (38.7 kb) | Jang et al., | |
| Dairy | Lytic (77 phages) | Host range, thermal stability and inactivation kinetics, TEM | Atamer et al., | |
| Dairy | Lytic (phage Lmd1) | TEM, genome sequence (26.2 kb) | Kleppen et al., | |
| Dairy | Lytic (83 phages) | TEM, 2 DNA homology groups, host range, PCR detection | Ali et al., | |
| Dairy | Lytic (2 phages) | TEM, receptor binding proteins | Kot et al., | |
| Dairy | Lytic (9 phages) | TEM, genome sequence, structural proteins, host range | Kot et al., | |
| Dairy | Lytic (9 phages) | TEM, stability and inactivation kinetics, REN analysis, host range | Pujato et al., |
Type of analysis presented in the paper is listed in the column “analysis.” TEM, Transmission electron microscopy, REN, analysis of restriction endonuclease fragments.
Figure 1Highest ) and in brine () samples obtained from 4 large and from 7 small to medium size dairies. ★, no brine samples (dairies L4 and S6); a, butter milk sample; b, butter cream sample. (Modified from Atamer et al., 2011).
Figure 2Overview on the current taxonomy of dairy . Arrows indicate structural details as follows: globular baseplate appendices (1), non-globular (Y-shaped) baseplate appendages (2), collar or neck passage structure (3), “fluffy” baseplate appendices (4), tail striations (5). (modified from Ali et al., 2013).
Bacteriophages of .
| Φ1-A4 | GQ451696 | Lytic, | 29.5 | Lu et al., | ||
| ΦLmd1 | NC_018273 | Lytic, | 26.2 | Kleppen et al., | ||
| ΦLN25 | KC013026 | Lytic, | 28.4 | Kot et al., | ||
| ΦLN34 | KC013027 | Lytic, | 28.0 | Kot et al., | ||
| ΦLNTR2 | KC013028 | Lytic, | 28.3 | Kot et al., | ||
| ΦLNTR3 | KC013029 | Lytic, | 28.0 | Kot et al., | ||
| P793 | NC_020880 | Lytic, | 26.8 | Kot et al., | ||
| ΦLN04 | NC_020870 | Lytic, | 25.9 | Kot et al., | ||
| ΦLN03 | KC013022 | Lytic, | 26.8 | Kot et al., | ||
| ΦLN12 | KC013025 | Lytic, | 28.2 | Kot et al., | ||
| ΦLN6B | KC013024 | Lytic, | 25.7 | Kot et al., | ||
| ΦMH1 | NAa | HM596271 | Induced from | 38.7 | Jang et al., | |
| ΦYS61 | NC_018270 | Lytic, protein dependent DNA packaging | 33.6 | Kleppen et al., |
Predicted prophage sequences found in fully assembled chromosomes of .
| ATCC 8293 | NC_008531 | 1 | 41.9 | |
| J18 | NC_016805 | 0 | ||
| KM20 | NC_010471 | 1 | 50.5 | |
| JB7 | NC_018631 | 0 | ||
| LMG 18811 | NC_014319 | 2 | 11.5, 45.1 | |
| C2 | NC_015734 | 1 | 37.5 | |
| JB16 | NC_018673 | 0 | ||
| IMSNU 11154 | NC_014136 | 3 | 13.1, 36.8, 65 | |
| PSU-1 | NC_008528 | 0 | ||
| DSM 17330 | NZ_CM001398 | 0 | ||
| KACC 15510 | NC_015759 | 0 |
Prediction was done using PHAST (Zhou et al., 2011) and PhiSpy (Aziz et al., 2008; Akhter et al., 2012) and manually verified afterwards.
Figure 3Comparison of the complete translatome of fully sequenced phages and predicted prophages from complete genomes of . Genomes were prepared as described before (Mahony et al., 2013). The concatemeric sequences were aligned using Geneious 7.1.2 software using BLOSUM62 cost matrix. The phylogenetic tree was constructed and visualized with bootstrapped neighbor-joining method with 500 replicates in Geneious 7.1.2 software.