2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.08.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of phenotypic (Biolog System) and genotypic (random amplified polymorphic DNA-polymerase chain reaction, RAPD-PCR, and amplified fragment length polymorphism, AFLP) methods for typing Lactobacillus plantarum isolates from raw vegetables and fruits

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
43
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
43
1
Order By: Relevance
“…AFLP provides a high-throughput method for high-resolution genomic fingerprinting (20) that has been employed frequently for the classification of strains of various species, including lactobacilli (2,33). AFLP classification of 65 L. rhamnosus strains enabled the distinction of 11 genotypic groups at a similarity cutoff of 70%, with all L. casei strains constituting an outgroup, since they belong to a closely related but genetically distinct species.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…AFLP provides a high-throughput method for high-resolution genomic fingerprinting (20) that has been employed frequently for the classification of strains of various species, including lactobacilli (2,33). AFLP classification of 65 L. rhamnosus strains enabled the distinction of 11 genotypic groups at a similarity cutoff of 70%, with all L. casei strains constituting an outgroup, since they belong to a closely related but genetically distinct species.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, true niche specialization is a complex phenotype, which is unlikely to be represented by single genetic markers and probably involves both multiple discriminating genes that may be genetically unlinked and strain-specific and divergent gene regulatory patterns. Although it is among the highest-resolution methodologies for genetic fingerprinting, AFLP patterns still represent a crude way of genetic typing (2), and whole-genome sequencing and comparative genomics provide a genetic strain typing methodology of substantially higher resolution and may therefore be more appropriate for the niche-fitness correlation analyses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Generally, results from DNA banding pattern recognition-based methods are simpler assays to conduct but are less reproducible and cross-comparable than sequence-based methods. In previously published studies on M13 RAPD-PCR, strains of L. plantarum clustered as expected, with an assay reproducibility of Ͼ89% (15,16). These studies utilized a built-in reference library of PCR profiles for comparison and strain identification but provided little biological relevance and limited dynamic range.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…A number of methods have been examined for Lactobacillus strain typing, including multilocus sequence typing (MLST) (11)(12)(13), pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) (11,14), amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis (AFLP) (15), random amplified polymorphic DNA PCR (RAPD-PCR) (15)(16)(17), phenotypic analysis (15), restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis (RFLP) (18), ribotyping (14,17), and microarrays (3). Despite the number of studies on this topic, consensus on the use of these methods to subtype strains of Lactobacillus remains weak, with only sporadic species-specific solutions (12,19).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For effective representation of composition and relative position of LAB, Hierarchical cluster statistical analysis was carried out to group the isolates based on the phenotypic characters (Ricciardi et al 2005;Di Cagno et al, 2010). To obtain an objective basis for grouping of the isolates, binary 0/1 matrices were created based on negative and positive results of phenotypic tests (the results were coded as 0 for tests showing negative results and 1 for tests with positive results).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%