乳酸菌对胆汁酸反应的分子洞察力

IF 2.7 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY BioTech Pub Date : 2024-08-02 DOI:10.3390/biotech13030029
Caren N Moreno, Jorge N Gomez, María P Taranto, Ana E Ledesma, Ana Y Bustos
{"title":"乳酸菌对胆汁酸反应的分子洞察力","authors":"Caren N Moreno, Jorge N Gomez, María P Taranto, Ana E Ledesma, Ana Y Bustos","doi":"10.3390/biotech13030029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Bile acids (BAs) are the main endogenous modulators of the composition and metabolic activity of the intestinal microbiota. In the present work, the effect of conjugated (glycodeoxycholic, glycocholic, taurodeoxycholic, taurocholic acids) and free BAs [cholic acid (CA) and deoxycholic acid (DCA)] on the survival, biological molecules, and structural and surface properties of two potential probiotic lactic acid bacteria (LAB) was evaluated. For this, viability assays, Raman spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and zeta potential (ZP) measurements were employed. Our results evidenced that free BAs were more toxic than conjugates, with CA being significantly more harmful than deoxycholic acid (DCA). RAMAN studies show that BAs modify the bands corresponding to proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, and DNA. SEM showed that BAs cause surface distortions with depressions and fold formation, as well as incomplete cell division. DCA was the one that least altered the ZP of bacteria when compared to CA and taurodeoxycholic acid, with gradual changes towards more positive values. In general, the magnitude of these effects was different according to the BA and its concentration, being more evident in the presence of CA, even at low concentrations, which would explain its greater inhibitory effect. This work provides solid evidence on the effects of BAs on LAB that will allow for the development of strategies by which to modulate the composition of the microbiota positively.</p>","PeriodicalId":34490,"journal":{"name":"BioTech","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11348023/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Molecular Insight into the Response of Lactic Acid Bacteria to Bile Acids.\",\"authors\":\"Caren N Moreno, Jorge N Gomez, María P Taranto, Ana E Ledesma, Ana Y Bustos\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/biotech13030029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Bile acids (BAs) are the main endogenous modulators of the composition and metabolic activity of the intestinal microbiota. In the present work, the effect of conjugated (glycodeoxycholic, glycocholic, taurodeoxycholic, taurocholic acids) and free BAs [cholic acid (CA) and deoxycholic acid (DCA)] on the survival, biological molecules, and structural and surface properties of two potential probiotic lactic acid bacteria (LAB) was evaluated. For this, viability assays, Raman spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and zeta potential (ZP) measurements were employed. Our results evidenced that free BAs were more toxic than conjugates, with CA being significantly more harmful than deoxycholic acid (DCA). RAMAN studies show that BAs modify the bands corresponding to proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, and DNA. SEM showed that BAs cause surface distortions with depressions and fold formation, as well as incomplete cell division. DCA was the one that least altered the ZP of bacteria when compared to CA and taurodeoxycholic acid, with gradual changes towards more positive values. In general, the magnitude of these effects was different according to the BA and its concentration, being more evident in the presence of CA, even at low concentrations, which would explain its greater inhibitory effect. This work provides solid evidence on the effects of BAs on LAB that will allow for the development of strategies by which to modulate the composition of the microbiota positively.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BioTech\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11348023/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BioTech\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/biotech13030029\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BioTech","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/biotech13030029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

胆汁酸(BA)是肠道微生物群组成和代谢活动的主要内源性调节剂。本研究评估了共轭胆汁酸(糖脱氧胆酸、糖代胆酸、牛磺酸)和游离胆汁酸[胆酸(CA)和脱氧胆酸(DCA)]对两种潜在益生乳酸菌(LAB)的存活、生物分子、结构和表面特性的影响。为此,研究人员采用了活力测定、拉曼光谱、扫描电子显微镜(SEM)和 zeta 电位(ZP)测量法。我们的研究结果表明,游离 BA 的毒性高于共轭物,其中 CA 的毒性明显高于脱氧胆酸(DCA)。RAMAN 研究表明,BAs 改变了与蛋白质、脂类、碳水化合物和 DNA 相对应的条带。扫描电子显微镜(SEM)显示,BA 会导致表面变形,形成凹陷和褶皱,以及细胞分裂不完全。与 CA 和牛磺脱氧胆酸相比,DCA 对细菌 ZP 的改变最小,但会逐渐变为更正值。总的来说,这些影响的程度因 BA 及其浓度的不同而不同,在有 CA 存在的情况下更为明显,即使浓度很低,这就解释了为什么 CA 的抑制作用更大。这项研究提供了 BA 对 LAB 影响的确凿证据,有助于制定积极调节微生物群组成的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Molecular Insight into the Response of Lactic Acid Bacteria to Bile Acids.

Bile acids (BAs) are the main endogenous modulators of the composition and metabolic activity of the intestinal microbiota. In the present work, the effect of conjugated (glycodeoxycholic, glycocholic, taurodeoxycholic, taurocholic acids) and free BAs [cholic acid (CA) and deoxycholic acid (DCA)] on the survival, biological molecules, and structural and surface properties of two potential probiotic lactic acid bacteria (LAB) was evaluated. For this, viability assays, Raman spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and zeta potential (ZP) measurements were employed. Our results evidenced that free BAs were more toxic than conjugates, with CA being significantly more harmful than deoxycholic acid (DCA). RAMAN studies show that BAs modify the bands corresponding to proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, and DNA. SEM showed that BAs cause surface distortions with depressions and fold formation, as well as incomplete cell division. DCA was the one that least altered the ZP of bacteria when compared to CA and taurodeoxycholic acid, with gradual changes towards more positive values. In general, the magnitude of these effects was different according to the BA and its concentration, being more evident in the presence of CA, even at low concentrations, which would explain its greater inhibitory effect. This work provides solid evidence on the effects of BAs on LAB that will allow for the development of strategies by which to modulate the composition of the microbiota positively.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BioTech
BioTech Immunology and Microbiology-Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Elimination of Viroids through In Vitro Thermotherapy and a Meristem Tip Culture from a New Limonime Hybrid (Citrus x limon var. limon (L.) Burm. f. x Citrus latifolia var. latifolia). Clinical Evaluation of AMNIODERM+® Wound Dressing Containing Non-Viable Human Amniotic Membrane: Retrospective-Perspective Clinical Trial. Simultaneous Production of Biogas and Electricity from Anaerobic Digestion of Pine Needles: Sustainable Energy and Waste Management. Data Management in Biobanking: Strategies, Challenges, and Future Directions. From Sequence to Solution: Intelligent Learning Engine Optimization in Drug Discovery and Protein Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1