EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
52,725,316
Abstracts:
28,411,598
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

PH homeostasis and citric acid utilization: differences between Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Lactococcus lactis






Current Microbiology 35(4): 233-236

PH homeostasis and citric acid utilization: differences between Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Lactococcus lactis

This study presents the effects of citric acid and extracellular pH (pHe) on the intracellular pH (pHi) of wild-type and citrate negative variants (cit-) Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. mesenteroides (Ln. mesenteroides M) and Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis bv. diacetylactis (L. lactis LD). A recent method using a pH-sensitive fluorescent indicator carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester (cFSE) was adapted to measure the pHi of these two lactic acid bacteria in resting cells. Energized cells with 10 mM lactose of Ln. mesenteroides M and L. lactis LD modified their pH gradient (delta pH) in the same manner; when the pHe was decreased from 7 to 4, the pHi decreased from 7 to about 5. The adjunction of 10 mM citric acid had no effect on the pHi of wild-type and cit(-) variant of L. lactis LD, nor on the pHi of Ln. mesenteroides cit(-) variant. Nevertheless, in Ln. mesenteroides M wild-type, citric acid utilization increased the pHi, which was maintained at about 6.5-7.0 when the pHe was decreased from 7 to 4. It could be concluded that citric acid allows the maintenance of pH homeostasis in Leuconostoc mesenteroides.

Accession: 002914512

DOI: 10.1007/s002849900244

Download PDF Full Text: PH homeostasis and citric acid utilization: differences between Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Lactococcus lactis



Related references

Influence of lactose-citrate co-metabolism on the differences of growth and energetics in Leuconostoc lactis, Leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp. mesenteroides and Leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp. cremoris. Systematic and Applied Microbiology 22(4): 507-513, 1999

Influence of lactose-citrate co-metabolism on the differences of growth and energetics in Leuconostoc lactis, Leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp. mesenteroides and Leuconostoc mesenteroides ssp. cremoris. Systematic and Applied Microbiology 22(4): 507-513, 2000

Peptide utilization by Lactococcus lactis and Leuconostoc mesenteroides. Letters in Applied Microbiology 32(1): 20-25, 2001

Associative growth of Lactococcus lactis and Leuconostoc mesenteroides strains in milk. Journal of dairy science 80(8): 1520-1527, 1997

Secreted expression of Leuconostoc mesenteroides glucansucrase in Lactococcus lactis for the production of insoluble glucans. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 99(23): 10001-10010, 2016

Phosphoketolases from Lactococcus lactis, Leuconostoc mesenteroides and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: dissimilar sequences, similar substrates but distinct enzymatic characteristics. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 98(18): 7855-7867, 2015

Molecular characterization and expression analysis of the dextransucrase DsrD of Leuconostoc mesenteroides Lcc4 in homologous and heterologous Lactococcus lactis cultures. Microbiology 149(Pt 4): 973-982, 2003

Lactococcus lactis and Lactobacillus sakei as bio-protective culture to eliminate Leuconostoc mesenteroides spoilage and improve the shelf life and sensorial characteristics of commercial cooked bacon. Food Microbiology 58: 16-22, 2016

Effect of Lactococcus lactis CLFP 100 and Leuconostoc mesenteroides CLFP 196 on Aeromonas salmonicida Infection in brown trout (Salmo trutta). Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology 17(3): 153-157, 2009

Novel paired starter culture system for sauerkraut, consisting of a nisin-resistant Leuconostoc mesenteroides strain and a nisin-producing Lactococcus lactis strain. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 58(5): 1484-1489, 1992