Abstract:BackgroundMembers of the genus Bifidobacterium are anaerobic Gram-positive Actinobacteria, which are natural inhabitants of human and animal gastrointestinal tract. Certain bifidobacteria are frequently used as food additives and probiotic pharmaceuticals, because of their various health-promoting properties.Due to the enormous demand on probiotic bacteria, manufacture of high-quality products containing living microorganisms requires rapid and accurate identification of specific bacteria. Additionally, isolation of new industrial bacteria from various environments may lead to multiple isolations of the same strain, therefore, it is important to apply rapid, low-cost and effective procedures differentiating bifidobacteria at the intra-species level. The identification of new isolates using microbiological and biochemical methods is difficult, but the accurate characterization of isolated strains may be achieved using a polyphasic approach that includes classical phenotypic methods and molecular procedures. However, some of these procedures are time-consuming and cumbersome, particularly when a large group of new isolates is typed, while some other approaches may have too low discriminatory power to distinguish closely related isolates obtained from similar sources.ResultsThis work presents the evaluation of the discriminatory power of four molecular methods (ARDRA, RAPD-PCR, rep-PCR and SDS-PAGE fingerprinting) that are extensively used for fast differentiation of bifidobacteria up to the strain level. Our experiments included 17 reference strains and showed that in comparison to ARDRA, genotypic fingerprinting procedures (RAPD and rep-PCR) seemed to be less reproducible, however, they allowed to differentiate the tested microorganisms even at the intra-species level. In general, RAPD and rep-PCR have similar discriminatory power, though, in some instances more than one oligonucleotide needs to be used in random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis. Moreover, the results also demonstrated a high discriminatory power of SDS-PAGE fingerprinting of whole-cell proteins. On the other hand, the protein profiles obtained were rather complex, and therefore, difficult to analyze.ConclusionsAmong the tested procedures, rep-PCR proved to be the most effective and reliable method allowing rapid differentiation of Bifidobacterium strains. Additionally, the use of the BOXA1R primer in the differentiation of 21 Bifidobacterium strains, newly isolated from infant feces, demonstrated slightly better discriminatory power in comparison to PCR reactions with the (GTG)5 oligonucleotide. Thus, BOX-PCR turned out to be the most appropriate and convenient molecular technique in differentiating Bifidobacterium strains at all taxonomic levels.

Comparison of Two Rapid Bacteria Strain Identification Methods

Study on the Bacterial Identification Using 16S-23S Rrna Gene Spacer Regions

16S—23S rRNA基因区间细菌鉴定实验研究

Rapid Identification of Common Clinical Organism by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/ionization Time Of-Fright Mass Spectrometry

Molecular Biological Study on 16S-23S Rrna Gene Interval of Common Infective Bacteria in Children

Comparison of Different Methods for Identification of Pathogenic Bacteria from Rice

The Evaluation of Different Molecular Methods for Rapid Identification of Non-Tuberculous Mycobacterium

Comparison of an automated DNA extraction and 16S rDNA real time PCR/sequencing diagnostic method using optimized reagents with culture during a 15-month study using specimens from sterile body sites

Establishment of Quantifying and Typing Analysis of 16S Rrna Gene by Real-Time PCR

Comparison between API and 16S rRNA to identifycorynebacterium

[Molecular Diagnosis of the Specific DNA Patterns of 16S-23S Rrna Gene of Bacteria].

Comparison of Five DNA Extraction Methods for Identification of Two Species Normally Caused Nosocomial Infection by Enterobacterial Repetitive Intergenic Consensus Polymerase Chain Reaction

Comparison of the Multiple Platforms to Identify Various Aeromonas Species

Application of 16S Rrna and OmpA Genes in the Identification of Riemerella Anatipestifer

Comparison of various molecular methods for rapid differentiation of intestinal bifidobacteria at the species, subspecies and strain level

Rapid Identification of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium by a 16S rRNA PCR Method

Comparison of Four Methods for Differentiation of Enterococcus Faecalis and Enterococcus Faecium

Comparison of Six Molecular Methods for Differentiation of Lactococcus Lactis Subsp. Lactis and Cremoris

Rapid identification of pathogens using UPPCR with SSCP and RFLP analysis

Comparison of the identification of Acinetobacter spp. with API20NE and 16S rRNA gene sequencing techniques

Comparasion of three PCR template preparation methods for rapid identification of actinobacteria