Genome Sequence of Lactobacillus amylovorus GRL1118, Isolated from Pig Ileum

Kant, Ravi; Paulín, Lars; Alatalo, Edward; Vos, Willem M. de; Palva, Airi

doi:10.1128/jb.00423-11

Cited by 21 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include the genome sequences of Lactobacillus amylovorus 33,36 , Lactobacillus ruminis 37 31 .…”

Section: Genomic Technologies In Probiotic Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While initial genome sequencing strategies embraced the traditional Sanger sequencing methods 25 , more advanced sequencing technologies that are collectively referred to as the Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies have been eventually adopted 26,[33][34][35] . The genome sequencing of probiotic species until or before 2010 was accomplished by the traditional Sanger sequencing method and shotgun sequencing technique.…”

Section: Genomic Technologies In Probiotic Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…lactis AD011 25,27 . Post 2010, NGS technologies have been adopted for genome sequencing with the prominent ones being 454 pyrosequencing technology, Illumina/ Solexa paired end sequencing technology, Ion Torrent sequencing technology, and Pacific BioSciences sequencing technology 26,[33][34][35] .…”

Section: Genomic Technologies In Probiotic Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most cases, genome assembly was done using different versions of Newbler assembler 33,39 except in a few cases where gsAssembler 36,37 or CLC Genomics Workbench 37 Phred-Phrap-Consed software package 41 . Genome annotation was done using the Rapid Assembly using Subsystems Technology (RAST) server 38 -40 , often combined with Glimmer 38 , tRNAscan-SE 38 , RNAmmer 38 , EDGAR 36 , PEDANT 41 , GeneMark 41 , and NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Automated Annotation Pipeline (PGAAP) analysis 33,36 .…”

Section: Genomic Technologies In Probiotic Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Genome annotation was done using the Rapid Assembly using Subsystems Technology (RAST) server 38 -40 , often combined with Glimmer 38 , tRNAscan-SE 38 , RNAmmer 38 , EDGAR 36 , PEDANT 41 , GeneMark 41 , and NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Automated Annotation Pipeline (PGAAP) analysis 33,36 .…”

Section: Genomic Technologies In Probiotic Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Untitled

2018

IJPSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Probiotics are live microorganisms that confer many health benefits to the host when administered in adequate quantities. These health benefits have garnered much attention towards Probiotics and have given an impetus to their use as dietary supplements for the improvement of general health and as adjuvant therapies for certain diseases. The increased demand for probiotic products in the recent times has provided the thrust for probiotic research applied to several areas of human biology. The advances in genomic technologies have further facilitated the sequencing of the genomes of such probiotic bacteria and their genomic analyses to identify the genes that endow the beneficial effects they are known to exert. This work reviews the application of genomic strategies on probiotic bacteria, while providing the details about the probiotic strains whose genome sequences are available. It also consolidates the Genomic tools used for the sequencing, assembly and annotation of the probiotic genes and how it has helped in comparative genomic analyses.

show abstract

“…These include the genome sequences of Lactobacillus amylovorus 33,36 , Lactobacillus ruminis 37 31 .…”

Section: Genomic Technologies In Probiotic Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Genomic Technologies In Probiotic Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Genomic Technologies In Probiotic Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Genomic Technologies In Probiotic Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Genomic Technologies In Probiotic Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Untitled

2018

IJPSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Assessment of Bacterial and Archaeal Community Structure in Swine Wastewater Treatment Processes

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microbial communities from two field-scale swine wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) were assessed by pyrosequencing analyses of bacterial and archaeal 16S ribosomal DNA (rDNA) fragments. Effluent samples from secondary (anaerobic covered lagoons and upflow anaerobic sludge blanket [UASB]) and tertiary treatment systems (open-pond natural attenuation lagoon and air-sparged nitrification-denitrification tank followed by alkaline phosphorus precipitation process) were analyzed. A total of 56,807 and 48,859 high-quality reads were obtained from bacterial and archaeal libraries, respectively. Dominant bacterial communities were associated with the phylum Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, or Actinobacteria. Bacteria and archaea diversity were highest in UASB effluent sample. Escherichia, Lactobacillus, Bacteroides, and/or Prevotella were used as indicators of putative pathogen reduction throughout the WWTPs. Satisfactory pathogen reduction was observed after the open-pond natural attenuation lagoon but not after the air-sparged nitrification/denitrification followed by alkaline phosphorus precipitation treatment processes. Among the archaeal communities, 80% of the reads was related to hydrogeno-trophic methanogens Methanospirillum. Enrichment of hydrogenotrophic methanogens detected in effluent samples from the anaerobic covered lagoons and UASB suggested that CO2 reduction with H2 was the dominant methanogenic pathway in these systems. Overall, the results served to improve our current understanding of major microbial communities' changes downgradient from the pen and throughout swine WWTP as a result of different treatment processes.

show abstract

Lactobacillus surface layer proteins: structure, function and applications

Hynönen

Palva

2013

Appl Microbiol Biotechnol

Self Cite

220

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bacterial surface (S) layers are the outermost proteinaceous cell envelope structures found on members of nearly all taxonomic groups of bacteria and Archaea. They are composed of numerous identical subunits forming a symmetric, porous, lattice-like layer that completely covers the cell surface. The subunits are held together and attached to cell wall carbohydrates by non-covalent interactions, and they spontaneously reassemble in vitro by an entropy-driven process. Due to the low amino acid sequence similarity among S-layer proteins in general, verification of the presence of an S-layer on the bacterial cell surface usually requires electron microscopy. In lactobacilli, S-layer proteins have been detected on many but not all species. Lactobacillus S-layer proteins differ from those of other bacteria in their smaller size and high predicted pI. The positive charge in Lactobacillus S-layer proteins is concentrated in the more conserved cell wall binding domain, which can be either N- or C-terminal depending on the species. The more variable domain is responsible for the self-assembly of the monomers to a periodic structure. The biological functions of Lactobacillus S-layer proteins are poorly understood, but in some species S-layer proteins mediate bacterial adherence to host cells or extracellular matrix proteins or have protective or enzymatic functions. Lactobacillus S-layer proteins show potential for use as antigen carriers in live oral vaccine design because of their adhesive and immunomodulatory properties and the general non-pathogenicity of the species.

show abstract

Genome Sequence of Lactobacillus amylovorus GRL1118, Isolated from Pig Ileum

Cited by 21 publications

References 19 publications

Untitled

Untitled

Assessment of Bacterial and Archaeal Community Structure in Swine Wastewater Treatment Processes

Lactobacillus surface layer proteins: structure, function and applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About