getpdf NLM PubMed Logo https://doi.org/10.17113/ftb.61.02.23.7929  Supplement 

The Occurrence of Folate Biosynthesis Genes in Lactic Acid Bacteria from Different Sources

Fenny Amilia Mahara1orcid tiny, Lilis Nuraida1,2*orcid tiny, Hanifah Nuryani Lioe1orcid tiny and Siti Nurjanah1,2orcid tiny

1Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, and Technology, IPB University (Bogor Agricultural University), Bogor 16680, Indonesia

2Southeast Asian Food and Agricultural Science and Technology (SEAFAST) Center, IPB University (Bogor Agricultural University), Bogor 16680, Indonesia

Article history:

Received: 19 September 2022

Accepted: 20 March 2023

cc by

Keywords:

extracellular folate producer; folate biosynthetic genes; lactic acid bacteria

E WEB Goal 03The content of this publication has not been approved by the United Nations and does not reflect the views of the United Nations or its officials or Member States.

Summary:

Research background. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are known to produce folate. However, this ability is highly strain-dependent. Folate synthesis in specific LAB strains is affected by the availability of folate, which can be consumed by other LAB under certain conditions. Moreover, differences in folate synthesis capabilities are related to the presence of folate biosynthesis-related genes and regulation of this pathway.

Experimental approach. As basic information to better understand the regulation of folate biosynthesis among different LAB species and strains, folate biosynthetic genes were screened and identified in folate-producing and non-folate-producing LAB isolated from various local food sources in Indonesia. The extracellular folate productivity amounts of the isolates were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography with a diode array detector (HPLC-DAD).

Results and conclusionsEleven of the thirteen tested LAB isolates had all of the eight genes involved in folate biosynthesis (folE, folQ, folB, folK, folP, folC1, folA and folC2). Furthermore, these isolates produced extracellular folate ranging from 10.37 to 31.10 μg/mL. In contrast, two non-folate-producing isolates lacked several folate biosynthetic genes, such as folQ, folP and folA, which is possibly the reason for their inability to synthesize folate de novo. Phylogenetic tree construction revealed that the folate biosynthetic genes (excluding folK and folP) from six distinct species of folate-producing LAB isolates were monophyletic with homologous genes from other LAB species in the database.

Novelty and scientific contribution. In this study, the distribution of folate biosynthetic genes in various LAB species was determined. The findings from this research support the use of folate biosynthesis marker genes in the genotypic screening for folate-producing LAB.

*Corresponding author: / +622518626725
  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

INTRODUCTION

Folate is a micronutrient required for growth, particularly during foetal development. Deficiency in this vitamin can lead to various disorders, such as megaloblastic anaemia, neural tube defects, coronary heart disease, and cancer risk (1). Thus, folate supplementation is one of the world's primary nutritional goals, especially in pregnant women (2, 3).

Recently, folate-producing microorganisms have been increasingly used to produce natural folate-rich food products (4). In addition to a variety of green plants (5), folate can be synthesized by certain microbes, such as lactic acid bacteria (LAB) (69). Microorganism-produced folate is more available for absorption by the human body and, hence, more effective in providing folate needs (10, 11).

Nevertheless, the capacity of LAB to synthesize folate is highly strain-dependent (7, 9, 12). Various attempts have been made to select superior folate producers by exploiting diverse food sources (7, 8, 1315). Growth optimization is also frequently implemented to boost folate production (11, 16, 17). However, the presence of folate in the media can affect the bacterial ability to produce it, with some folate-producing strains consuming the available folate in the media rather than resynthesizing it (18). This might be due to the efficient metabolic regulation in microbes (19), and possibly the presence of feedback inhibition mechanisms in the regulation of folate biosynthesis (20, 21). Consequently, folate in the media may inhibit or inactivate several enzymes involved in folate biosynthesis (18).

Folate biosynthesis requires three main building blocks, namely: (i) the pteridine moiety (6-hydroxymethyl-7,8-dihydropterin pyrophosphate (DHPPP)), (ii) 4-aminobenzoic acid (p-aminobenzoic acid or PABA), and (iii) glutamate. Most LAB cannot synthesize PABA and glutamate (12, 22), which need to be supplied in the medium. Hence, the folate biosynthetic pathway can be divided into two phases, i.e. the formation of the pteridine moiety (DHPPP) and the combination of the three constituents of folate.

Eight folate biosynthetic enzymes are involved in the conversion of the guanosine triphosphate (GTP) precursor into tetrahydrofolate (THF) polyglutamate. Initially, GTP cyclohydrolase I (encoded by the folE gene) catalyzes the conversion of GTP to 7,8-dihydroneopterin triphosphate. Enzyme dITP/XTP pyrophosphatase (encoded by the folQ gene) hydrolyzes dihydroneopterin triphosphate to dihydroneopterin monophosphate, which is then hydrolyzed further to dihydroneopterin by a specific phosphatase. The biosynthetic pathway continues with the conversion of dihydroneopterin to 6-hydroxymethyl-7,8-dihydropterin by dihydroneopterin aldolase, encoded by the folB gene, and further converted to DHPPP by hydroxymethyl dihydropterin pyrophosphokinase (HPPK), encoded by folK. DHPPP and PABA are transformed into dihydropteroate by dihydropteroate synthase (DHPS), encoded by folP, and then conjugated with glutamate to become dihydrofolate by dihydrofolate synthase (encoded by folC1). Dihydrofolate is an inactive form of folate; thus, it must be reduced by dihydrofolate reductase (encoded by folA) into the active form, tetrahydrofolate (THF). The newly synthesized THF is in the monoglutamate form, hence, requiring the activity of folylpolyglutamate synthase (encoded by folC2) to add multiple glutamate residues to form THF polyglutamate.

In silico research by de Crécy-Lagard et al. (23) showed that two folate biosynthetic genes, folK (encoding HPPK enzyme) and folP (encoding DHPS enzyme), can be used as signature genes of folate biosynthesis. The proteins encoded by these two genes were found in all folate-producing bacteria in an investigation of nearly 400 bacterial genome sequences. Turpin et al. (24) also performed molecular screening of the two signature genes on 152 strains of six distinct LAB species. They found that 98 % of the isolates (150 strains) possessed these two genes, implying that these isolates could produce folate. However, Greppi et al. (9) discovered that despite having both hallmark genes, 56 of these isolates could not synthesize folate and instead consumed folate in the medium. Therefore, the detection of folK and folP genes is insufficient to determine folate production capability in LAB.

This research aims to determine the occurrence of genes encoding folate biosynthetic enzymes in various folate-producing and folate-consuming LAB species isolated from diverse local food sources in Indonesia. Results of the distribution of folate biosynthetic genes in distinct LAB species in this study can be useful in understanding variations in the regulation of folate biosynthesis across different LAB species and strains.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

LAB isolates and growth conditions

The LAB isolates used in this study (Table 1 (18, 25)) were taken from the culture collections of the SEAFAST Center, IPB University, Bogor, Indonesia. These isolates exhibited varying growth abilities in folate-free media (18). Lactiplantibacillus plantarum WCFS1 was used as a positive control for folate gene detection because all folate biosynthesis genes are present in its genome (2426). All LAB isolates were stored in a mixture of de Man, Rogosa and Sharpe broth (MRSB; CM0359, Oxoid Ltd., Basingstoke, UK) and 20 % glycerol at −20 °C and revived in MRSB before use.

Lactic acid bacteria used in this study

No Isolate Source GenBank accession no. Reference
1 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum WCFS1 Human saliva NC_004567.2 (25)
2 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum 4C261 Salted mustard OM980095 (18)
3 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum R12 Breast milk MG952229 (18)
4 Limosilactobacillus fermentum JK13 Kefir granules ON005305.1 (18)
5 Limosilactobacillus fermentum JK16 Kefir granules ON025957.1 (18)
6 Limosilactobacillus fermentum BK27 Sticky rice tapai MG934339 (18)
7 Limosilactobacillus fermentum BG7 Kefir granules ON005183 (18)
8 Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus R23 Breast milk MF689061 (18)
9 Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus R15 Breast milk MF689049 (18)
10 Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus BD2 Kefir granules MT020089.1 (18)
11 Pediococcus acidilactici NG64 Cassava tapai MG928526 (18)
12 Leuconostoc mesenteroides S2SR08 Tempe MF164053 (18)
13 Lactobacillus kefiri JK6 Kefir granules MT613694.1 (18)
14 Lactobacillus kefiri BG8 Kefir granules MT613703.1 (18)

DNA extraction

Each pure culture was grown for 18 h in MRSB supplemented with 10 % glycine. Genomic DNA was extracted from bacterial cell pellets using the Wizard® Genomic DNA Purification Kit (A1120; Promega Corporation, Madison, WI, USA), following the manufacturer's instructions (27). The purity and concentration of the extracted DNA were determined using a Nanodrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). The DNA samples were then stored at −20 °C.

Primer design

The presence of eight genes involved in the folate biosynthesis pathway was detected in various LAB species by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification. The primers for the detection and sequencing of each gene are shown in Table 2 (24). Six of these genes were designed using the online tool NCBI Primer-BLAST (the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) (28) and gene sequences of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum WCFS1 obtained from the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) (26) and GenBank (29) databases. All primers were manufactured by Integrated DNA Technologies Pte. Ltd. (Coralville, IA, USA).

List of primers used for the gene detection and sequencing analysis in this study

Targeted gene Enzyme Sequence (5′– 3′) Primer length/base Amplicon size/bp w(GC)/% Melting temperature/°C Reference
folK Hydroxymethyl dihydropteridine pyrophosphokinase (EC 2.7.6.3) F: CCATTTCCAGGTGGGGAATC 20 214 55.0 55.8 (24)
R: GGGGTGGTCCAAGCAAACTT 20 55.0 58.2
folP Dihydropteroate synthase (EC 2.5.1.15) F: CCASGRCSGCTTGCATGAC 19 261 65.8 60.8 (24)
R: TKACGCCGGACTCCTTTTWY 20 50.0 55.8
folQ Dihydroneopterin triphosphate pyrophosphohydrolase (EC 3.6.1.-) F: GGCTTGACTGCTCGTCAGTA 20 214 55.0 56.9 *designed in this study
R: TGACTGCAACCCCTAAGTCG 20 55.0 57.0
folE GTP cyclohydrolase I (EC 3.5.4.16) F: CGGGTTGCACGAATGTATGC 20 272 55.0 57.1 *designed in this study
R: ACTGTCAACCGCTCCTGAAC 20 55.0 57.4
folA Dihydrofolate reductase (EC 1.5.1.3) F: GACATGCAGCGGTTCAAAGC 20 362 55.0 57.5 *designed in this study
R: ACCGTCCCAATTTGTTGGCT 20 50.0 57.7
folB Dihydroneopterin aldolase (EC 4.1.2.25) F: GGAAGAACGGCGTAATGGTC 20 263 55.0 56.0 *designed in this study
R: TTCCAGGCATTGGTACGCTA 20 50.0 56.3
folC1 Dihydrofolate synthase (EC 6.3.2.12) F: AGTGAGCGATTTGGACAGCA 20 331 50.0 57.0 *designed in this study
R: AGTCGCTGCCATCCTTGAAA 20 50.0 57.1
folC2 Folylpolyglutamate synthase (EC 6.3.2.17) F: GGCTGTTTTGCAGACCGAAG 20 487 55.0 57.0 *designed in this study
R: TGCGGGCGTATTCGTAATCA 20 50.0 56.7

GC=guanine-cytosine

Polymerase chain reaction amplification for the gene detection

PCR amplifications were performed in 20 µL volumes with 10 µL Promega Go Taq Green Master Mix 1× (M7122; Promega Corporation), containing Taq DNA polymerase, dNTPs, MgCl2 and reaction buffers, 1 µL of 0.5 µM of each forward and reverse primer, 1 µL DNA template (>150 ng) and 7 µL nuclease-free water (NFW P1193; Promega Corporation). The amplifications were carried out using an Applied Biosystems 2720 Thermal Cycler (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) with the following cycling conditions: 1 cycle at 95 °C for 2 min; 30–35 cycles at 95 °C for 30 s, the annealing temperature depending on the melting temperature of each primer and tested at 50–60 °C for 1 min, and at 72 °C for 30 s; and 1 cycle at 72 °C for 5 min. The positive and negative controls were also subjected to amplification. The positive control was DNA from the reference strain (L. plantarum WCFS1), while the negative control was NFW without DNA containing the target genes. The PCR products were then separated by gel electrophoresis (Mini-Sub Cell GT Horizontal Electrophoresis System; BioRad Laboratories Inc., Hercules, CA, USA) using 2 % agarose gel in 1× Tris-acetate-EDTA (TAE) buffer and visualized using ethidium bromide staining.

Sequencing analysis

The detected folate biosynthetic genes in six folate-producing isolates of different species, represented by Lactiplantibacillus plantarum 4C261, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus R23, Limosilactobacillus fermentum JK13 and BG7, Pediococcus acidilactici NG64, and Leuconostoc mesenteroides S2SR08, were sequenced by 1st Base Sequencing (Selangor, Malaysia) using the Sanger method (Sanger dideoxy sequencing) (30) after purification. A single sample of purified DNA for each folate gene was needed as a template for sequencing. The PCR products with more than one band on agarose gel electrophoresis were first cut out of the gel and purified using a DNA gel extraction kit (GeneJET Gel Extraction Kit; Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.). Samples with a single DNA band of the expected size on agarose gel electrophoresis were purified further before sequencing. The PCR cleanup step was then performed by an ultrafiltration method using Centricon-100 micro-concentrator columns (Applied Biosystems) to remove unincorporated primers and dNTPs that can interfere with the sequencing results. DNA quality and quantity were then determined by agarose gel electrophoresis and spectrophotometry. After DNA template preparation, cycle sequencing was performed using the BigDye Terminator v3.1 cycle sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems) and run in a thermal cycler (GeneAmp PCR System 9700; Applied Biosystems). The excess dye terminator was removed by spin column purification with Centri-Sep spin columns (Applied Biosystems) prior to analysis on an ABI PRISM 3730xl genetic analyzer (Applied Biosystems). The primers used for sequencing were those listed in Table 2 (the same primers for gene detection). The sequencing output was then analyzed using Sequence Scanner Software v. 2.0 (Applied Biosystems) (31).

The sequenced nucleotides were processed using MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetic Analysis v. 7.0 (32). The obtained consensus DNA sequences (contigs) were used as the query sequences to perform homology searches using the NCBI BLAST algorithm (28). The 'blastn' program was used to find areas of local similarity between query and database nucleotides. The identified query sequences were then stored in the GenBank database with the accession numbers shown in Table 3 (29).

GenBank (29) accession numbers of each gene

Gene GenBank accession no.
4C261 R23 JK13 BG7 S2SR08 NG64
folE OP067669 OP067670 OP067671 OP067672 OP067673 OP067674
folQ ON972433 ON986778 ON972435 ON972434 ON986777 ON972436
folB OP032089 OP032086 OP032085 OP032088 OP032084 OP032087
folK OP032090 OP032091 OP032092 OP032093 OP032094 OP032095
folP OP067663 OP067664 OP067665 OP067666 OP067667 OP067668
folC1 OP081807 OP081808 OP081809 OP081810 OP081811 OP081812
folA ON950739 ON972429 ON972430 ON972428 ON972432 ON972431
folC2 OP067675 OP067676 OP067677 OP067678 OP067679 OP081806

Phylogenetic tree construction

Due to the inadequacy of the folate biosynthesis gene database in NCBI GenBank (29), the KEGG (26) was used as a primary reference for nucleotide sequence database for each folate biosynthetic gene. The MEGA v. 7.0 software (32) was used to align folate-related gene sequences from six isolates and reference data by the ClustalW program (incorporated in the MEGA software). The same software was also used to create phylogenetic trees using the neighbor-joining method and Jukes and Cantor models for determining evolutionary distance values with a 1000 replicate bootstrap test.

Extracellular folate production in folate-free medium

The inoculum of all LAB isolates was prepared according to a previously described method (18). Bacterial cell pellets grown for 24 h in MRSB were washed twice by centrifugation (refrigerated centrifuge LRF-B20; Labtron Equipment Ltd., Camberley, UK) at 10 000×g for 5 min at 4 °C and finally resuspended in sterile saline solution (0.85 % m/V NaCl; Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). The bacterial suspensions had cell densities of around 9–10 log colony-forming units (CFU)/mL, which were diluted to 5–6 log CFU/mL before use as inoculum. A total of 2 % inoculum was then grown in folate-free medium (folic acid casei medium, FACM; HiMedia Laboratories, Mumbai, India) at 37 °C for 24 h and subcultured twice in the same medium under the same growth conditions. The extracellular folate was extracted by centrifugation (refrigerated centrifuge LRF-B20; Labtron Equipment Ltd.) at 10 000×g for 5 min, followed by supernatant filtration using a 0.2-μm nylon filter membrane (ANPEL Laboratory Technologies Inc., Shanghai, PR China). All samples were then stored at –20 °C until further analysis.

Extracellular folate analysis with HPLC

Extracellular folate was analyzed using an Agilent 1260 Infinity HPLC System with a diode array detector (DAD; Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) and a ZORBAX Eclipse XDB-C18 chromatography column (15 cm×4.6 mm, 5 μm; Agilent Technologies, Inc.) at λ=282 nm. The mobile phase was freshly prepared and consisted of water (HPLC grade; LiChrosolv®, Merck KGaA) with glacial acetic acid (0.66 %; EMSURE®, Merck KGaA) and methanol (pure HPLC grade; LiChrosolv®, Merck KGaA), with a ratio of V(water):V(methanol)=70:30 (33). The flow rate was 0.8 mL/min. Folic acid standard was obtained from R-Biopharm (provided in the Vitafast folic acid test kit; Pfungstadt, Germany) and used without further purification.

Data analysis

The data were analyzed using SPSS v. 20.0 (34), with the statistical significance level set at 95 % (α<0.05). A one-way ANOVA was used to compare the differences in the extracellular folate productivity of the isolates in folate-free culture medium (FACM).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Detection of folate biosynthesis genes

Eight folate biosynthetic genes (folE, folQ, folB and folK in the DHPPP formation pathway, and folP, folC1, folA and folC2 in the THF-polyglutamate formation pathway) were successfully amplified using gene-specific primers, with the predicted size of the PCR amplicon for each gene (Fig. 1). As a positive control, a single band for each of the eight genes was also detected in Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1. No bands were detected in the negative control (data not shown).

Detection of folate biosynthetic genes: a) folE, b) folQ, c) folB, d) folK, e) folP, f) folC1, g) folA, and h) folC2, by gel electrophoresis in 14 isolates of lactic acid bacteria. Lane 1: Lactiplantibacillus plantarum WCFS1, lane 2: L. plantarum 4C261, lane 3: L. plantarum R12, lane 4: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus R23, lane 5: L. rhamnosus R15, lane 6: L. rhamnosus BD2, lane 7: Limosilactobacillus fermentum JK13, lane 8: L. fermentum JK16, lane 9: L. fermentum BK27, lane 10: L. fermentum BG7, lane 11: Leuconostoc mesenteroides S2SR08, lane 12: Pediococcus acidilactici NG64, lane 13: Lactobacillus kefiri JK6, and lane 14: L. kefiri BG8


However, despite designing specific primers and performing amplifications at various annealing temperatures, non-specific detections, seen as a double band or multiple bands on gel electrophoresis, were observed. In seven of the 11 folate-producing isolates, i.e. Lactobacillus rhamnosus R23 and R15, L. fermentum JK13, L. plantarum 4C261, R12 and JK16, and Pediococcus acidilactici NG64 (18), all folate biosynthetic genes were specifically detected. In the other folate-producing isolates, there were non-specific detections of one gene, i.e. L. fermentum BK27 (folB), L. fermentum BG7 (folB), Leuconostoc mesenteroides S2SR08 (folC1) and L. rhamnosus BD2 (folP). Non-specific detection of genes was previously reported by Saubade et al. (35), where the folP gene was detected in several pearl-millet-based porridge samples by more than one band on gel electrophoresis. The report also suggested that both specific and non-specific detections were thought to indicate the presence of a gene.

Two isolates, JK6 and BG8, are known folate non-producers (18) and did not have a complete set of folate biosynthesis genes, possibly leading to their inability to produce folate. The JK6 isolate lacked the folQ gene, while the BG8 isolate lacked folQ, folP and folA, as indicated by the absence of the corresponding bands after gel electrophoresis (Fig. 1b, Fig. 1e and Fig. 1g). However, the two non-folate-producing isolates still have folK, one of the signature genes for folate biosynthesis, and even the JK6 isolate has both signature genes, folK and folP. This finding is supported by Greppi et al. (9), who reported that some LAB isolates could not synthesize folate despite having the signature genes folP and folK. Other folate biosynthetic genes probably play an essential role in determining the LAB folate production capacity.

Tetrahydrofolate, whose production is regulated by folP, folC1, folA and folC2, acts as a cofactor in one-carbon metabolic reactions in various pathways, such as the biosynthesis of purines, thymidine, glycine, methionine, pantothenate and formyl-methionyl tRNA (fMet-tRNA), which is required for the initiation of protein synthesis (23, 3639). These folate-dependent metabolites, except fMet-tRNA, can be provided in bacterial growth media. Thus, THF is essential for the production of fMet-tRNA, which is needed for the growth of folate-requiring bacteria. In the final stage of the THF biosynthetic pathway, the reduction of dihydrofolate to THF is catalyzed by dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR), encoded by the folA gene. In addition, when bacteria require a folate supply from the environment, the conversion of folic acid to dihydrofolate in the folate salvage pathway also involves the activity of the DHFR enzyme (23). For this reason, all folate-dependent bacteria need a minimum amount of DHFR activity to synthesize fMet-tRNA. Thus, DHFR is expected to be found in both folate producers and non-producers (23, 40).

However, not all LAB isolates in our investigation had the folA gene. The BG8 isolate, a non-producer of folate, lacked this gene. Levin et al. (41) also stated that although THF is an essential cofactor for all bacteria, the gene encoding DHFR cannot be found in many bacteria. The unavailability of the folA gene in these bacteria may be due to the presence of another type of DHFR enzyme encoded by another gene. Work by de Crécy-Lagard et al. (23) showed that some bacteria might have different types of DHFR, such as DHFR1 (encoded by folM), belonging to the short-chain dehydrogenase/reductase family, or DHFR2, a flavin-dependent dihydropteroate reductase fused with DHFR. Hence, the BG8 isolate is predicted to also have the folM gene or the gene encoding DHFR2, as a homologous gene of folA.

In the folate biosynthetic pathway, the formation of THF-polyglutamate is crucial for folate retention in bacterial cells and is required for most folate-dependent enzymes which have a higher affinity for polyglutamate folate (6, 42, 43). The conversion of THF monoglutamate into the polyglutamate form is catalyzed by folylpolyglutamate synthase (FPGS), encoded by the folC2 gene. Therefore, in addition to folA, folC2 should also be found in all folate-dependent bacteria. Furthermore, FPGS is essential for folate-consuming bacteria, as they can only sequester monoglutamate folate (1-3 glutamate residues) via the salvage route due to the lack of an enzyme to break down folate polyglutamate (γ-glutamyl hydrolase) (20, 44, 45). However, in some bacteria, the folC2 gene can be found in the fusion gene of folC, encoding the bifunctional enzymes DHFS and FPGS. Non-folate-producing bacteria lacking either the folC2 or folC genes may harbour a gene encoding a novel type of FPGS. According to de Crecy-Lagard et al. (23), the unavailability of the folC gene in Mycoplasma species relying on the salvage pathway may be due to the presence of another gene encoding a different FPGS. In this study, folC2 was detected in all LAB isolates (producers and non-producers of folate).

Since all folate-dependent bacteria have the genes folA and folC2 (or folC), or their homologues (23, 40), folate biosynthetic genes defining the potential ability of LAB to synthesize folate may include genes folE, folQ, folB and folK, involved in the DHPPP biosynthetic pathway, and the folP gene, involved in THF-polyglutamate biosynthesis. Rossi et al. (12) also reported that the genes folC (folC1/folC2) and folA, or their homologues, were found in all studied LAB species, whereas other folate biosynthetic genes were detected only in a few species.

In this study, the JK6 and BG8 isolates lacked the gene folQ, which encodes dihydroneopterin triphosphate pyrophosphohydrolase. In some folate-producing bacteria (such as Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli and Streptococcus thermophilus), the absence of the folQ gene may be due to the presence of other homologous genes that have not been identified (25). However, as JK6 and BG8 isolates could not grow in a folate-free medium (FACM), the missing folQ gene in both isolates may indicate that the gene folQ can be a limiting factor in their ability to synthesize folate. Moreover, Liu et al. (46) have reported that in the DHPPP biosynthetic pathway, the folQ gene had the highest expression level, demonstrating a better folate synthesis ability in L. plantarum strain 4_3 used in their study. Although further research of gene expression level analysis is also required in this study, the present findings suggest that the folQ gene may play a crucial role in determining the potential ability of LAB to synthesize folate.

Here, the detection of folate biosynthetic genes did not include the detection of genes encoding PABA biosynthetic enzymes (pabA and pabB/pabC) due to the lack of these genes in almost all lactobacilli, as reported by Rossi et al. (12). Thus, lactobacilli are generally unable to produce folate without PABA supplementation in the medium (9, 12). The FACM used in this study has neither folate nor glutamic acid but it still contains 2 mg/L of PABA (based on the technical datasheet). Despite the presence of PABA in the FACM, the JK6 and BG8 isolates were unable to grow in this medium, indicating that both could not utilize PABA as a precursor in the medium to carry out folate biosynthesis in their cells. Hence, the availability of PABA biosynthetic genes can be neglected in this case.

Phylogenetic analyses

The sequences of eight folate biosynthetic genes (folE, folQ, folB, folK, folP, folC1, folA and folC2) from six folate-producing LAB isolates (R23, 4C261, JK13, BG7, S2SR08 and NG64) (using the same primer for gene detection) yielded different contig sizes for each isolate (Table S1). Nucleotide BLAST search revealed that all the folate genes are homologous with the LAB genome (instead of specific genes for folate biosynthesis) in the NCBI database with 100 % nucleotide sequence identity (Table S2). Hence, the references of nucleotide sequences for each folate biosynthetic gene from KEGG database were used to construct the phylogenetic trees shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. The phylogenetic tree analyses showed that the six folate genes (folE, folQ, folB, folA, folC1 and folC2) found in folate-producing isolates are from the monophyletic group of LAB species in the database, including the positive control, L. plantarum WCFS1 (Figs. 2a-2c and Figs. 3b-3d). For the two other genes, folK and folP, only isolate R23 has both genes from the monophyletic group of LAB species in the database, while the other five folate-producing isolates have the genes from the polyphyletic group (Fig. 2d and Fig. 3a).

Phylogenetic analyses of: a) folE, b) folQ, c) folB, and d) folK genes involved in the 6-hydroxymethyl-7,8-dihydropterin pyrophosphate (DHPPP) biosynthesis pathway by 6 folate-producing lactic acid bacteria (LAB). The phylogenetic trees were constructed using the Jukes and Cantor model and the neighbor-joining method included in MEGA v. 7 software (32). Bootstrap values (based on 1000 replicates) that are greater than 50 % are indicated at the nodes


Phylogenetic analyses of: a) folP, b) folC1, c) folA, and d) folC2 genes involved in the tetrahydrofolate (THF)-polyglutamate biosynthesis pathway by 6 folate-producing lactic acid bacteria (LAB). The phylogenetic trees were constructed using the Jukes and Cantor model and the neighbor-joining method included in MEGA v. 7 software (32). Bootstrap values (based on 1000 replicates) that are greater than 50 % are indicated at the nodes


L. plantarum WCFS1 was selected as a reference strain to compare the similarity of the folate genes from the six isolates because it possesses a complete set of folate biosynthetic genes and has been well studied for its capacity to produce folate (9, 2426). The comparison of the number of conserved sites (C) and variable sites (V) of eight folate biosynthetic genes among the six folate-producing LAB isolates and the reference strain (L. plantarum WCFS1) is given in Table S3. A higher percentage of conserved sites was found in six folate genes that are monophyletic with L. plantarum WCFS1, ranging from 66 to 86 % for folE, 47–96 % for folQ, 96–98 % for folB, 95 % for folC1, 66–97 % for folA, and 92–96 % for folC2. Only 0–2 % of sites were variable sites and the rest were gaps. Meanwhile, the two folate genes (folK and folP) of five isolates that are polyphyletic with L. plantarum WCFS1 showed fewer conserved sites (21–30 % for folK and 20–23 % for folP) than the variable sites (33–53 % for folK and 39–54 % for folP). As an exception, R23 had a higher proportion of conserved sites for both genes, as it is monophyletic with WCFS1.

Six folate-producing LAB isolates have the genetic capacity for de novo folate biosynthesis. The R23 isolate had all homologous folate genes that were the same as the positive control, L. plantarum WCFS1. The nucleotide sequences of the folK and folP genes of the five isolates showed remarkable differences from those of the positive control. The higher variable sites of folK and folP in five LAB isolates may indicate that both genes are not essential in the folate biosynthesis pathway. Jordan et al. (47) stated that essential genes are more conserved than nonessential genes in bacteria. The folK and folP genes of five isolates may contribute at different levels to de novo folate biosynthesis. However, more research is required to determine their correlation with folate production ability. The selection of folQ as a marker gene for folate biosynthesis in this study may also indicate that the folQ gene is essential in the folate biosynthesis pathway.

Based on the phylogenetic tree in Fig. 2b, the gene folQ, which encodes the enzyme that catalyzes the conversion of dihydroneopterin triphosphate to dihydroneopterin monophosphate, is known to produce two isoforms, XTP/dITP diphosphatase (EC 3.6.1.66) and dihydroneopterin triphosphate diphosphatase (EC 3.6.1.67), that have the same function. Several LAB species from the KEGG database, such as Latilactobacillus sakei, L. kefiri and Lactococcus lactis, have the folQ gene encoding dihydroneopterin triphosphate diphosphatase (EC 3.6.1.67), while L. plantarum species has the folQ gene, which encodes for the XTP/dITP diphosphatase. These two types of enzymes were divided into two different clades (Fig. 2b). The folQ genes of six folate-producing LAB isolates (R23, 4C261, JK13, BG7, S2SR08 and NG64) in this study were in the same cluster as L. plantarum, indicating that the enzyme encoded by the folQ gene of the six isolates was probably the XTP/dITP diphosphatase.

Extracellular folate production

The concentration of folate produced by eleven LAB isolates (4C261, R12, R23, R15, BD2, JK13, JK16, BK27, BG7, S2SR08 and NG64) ranged from 10.37 to 31.10 μg/mL (Fig. 4a). The variability in the concentration of folate produced by these isolates was related to the availability of all eight genes involved in synthesizing folate (Fig. 4b). However, two isolates, JK6 and BG8, did not secrete extracellular folate (Fig. 4a) and did not have all the genes for folate biosynthesis (Fig. 4b). Five isolates (R23, JK13, BD2, R15 and NG64) had higher extracellular folate productivity, ranging from 18.40 to 31.10 μg/mL, than that of the positive control, L. plantarum WCFS1. The isolate L. rhamnosus R23 was the highest folate producer, producing 207 % more folate than WCFS1.

Comparison of extracellular folate productivity and folate biosynthesis gene availability in 14 isolates of lactic acid bacteria (LAB). a) Extracellular folate productivity of 14 LAB isolates in folic acid casei medium (FACM) after 24 h of growth. The different letters (a-e) above the bars indicate significant differences between the means (p<0.05). b) Presence of folate biosynthetic genes in 14 LAB isolates. Arrow length represents gene length, on a scale of 0.1 cm=40 bp. DHPPP=6-hydroxymethyl-7,8-dihydropterin pyrophosphate, THF=tetrahydrofolate


The folate concentrations measured in the isolates in this study were higher than those reported by Kodi et al. (33), who studied the LCF10 LAB strain isolated from fermented milk. Using the same analytical method employed here, they found that LCF10 produced 10.4 μg/mL folate in FACM after 18 h of incubation. Wu et al. (48) found higher folate production concentrations in L. casei, L. acidophilus and L. plantarum, which produced 45.41, 42.78 and 63.23 μg/mL of folate in yogurt products, respectively. Nevertheless, the highest folate concentration (31.10 μg/mL) produced by isolate R23 in this study is equivalent to ~8 % of the recommended daily folate intake, which is 400 μg per day for the average adult (49). Supplementation of food products with the R23 isolate can potentially be used as a good source of natural folate.

CONCLUSIONS

All eight folate biosynthetic genes were detected in eleven folate-producing LAB isolates. In the two non-folate-producing isolates, not all folate biosynthetic genes were present. The majority of the identified genes were homologous to genes encoding enzymes involved in the folate biosynthetic pathway, confirming the necessity of these genes in the LAB for folate production ability. The present study also suggests that molecular detection and identification is an excellent strategy for screening folate-producing LAB as an alternative to phenotypic analysis, which is quite time-consuming, laborious and costly. The folQ gene, which was not detected in non-folate-producing isolates, could potentially be used as a marker for folate biosynthesis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary materials are available at: www.ftb.com.hr.

FUNDING

This work was funded by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia in the research scheme of Master of Education towards Doctoral Scholarship Program for Excellence Undergraduate (PMDSU), under contract no.: 3/E1/KP.PTNBH/2019.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION

F.A. Mahara participated in performing the analysis, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, and drafting the article; L. Nuraida participated in the conception of the research, the supervision of the analysis, drafting the article, critical revision, and final approval of the version to be published; H.N. Lioe participated in the supervision of the analysis and drafting the article; S. Nurjanah participated in the supervision of the analysis and drafting the article.

REFERENCES
  1. Warzyszynska JE, Kim YIJ. Folate in human health and disease. In: eLS. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2014. pp. 1-14. 10.1002/9780470015902.a0002268.pub210.1002/9780470015902.a0002268.pub2, https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0002268.pub210.1002/9780470015902.a0002268.pub2
  2. Gernand A, Schulze K, Stewart C, West K, Christian P. Micronutrient deficiencies in pregnancy worldwide: Health effects and prevention. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2016;12(5):274-89, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2016.37, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/27032981
  3. Rogers L, Cordero A, Pfeiffer C, Hausman D, Tsang B, De‐Regil L. Global folate status in women of reproductive age: a systematic review with emphasis on methodological issues. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1431(1):35-57, https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13963, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30239016
  4. Mahara F, Nuraida L, Lioe H. Fermentation of milk using folate-producing lactic acid bacteria to increase natural folate content: A review. J Appl Biotechnol Rep.. 2019;6(4):129-36, https://doi.org/10.29252/JABR.06.04.01
  5. Saini R, Nile S, Keum Y. Folate: Chemistry, analysis, occurrence, biofortification and bioavaibility. Food Res Int. 2016;89(Pt 1):1-13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.07.013, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/28460896
  6. Sybesma W, Starrenburg M, Tijsseling L, Hoefnagel M, Hugenholtz J. Effects of cultivation conditions on folate production by lactic acid bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69(8):4542-8, https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.8.4542-4548.2003, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/12902240
  7. Laiño J, del Valle M, de Giori G, LeBlanc J. Applicability of a Lactobacillus amylovorus strain as co-culture for natural folate bio-enrichment of fermented milk. Int J Food Microbiol. 2014;191:10-6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.08.031, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/25217720
  8. Salvucci E, LeBlanc J, Pérez G. Technological properties of lactic acid bacteria isolated from raw cereal material. Lebensm Wiss Technol. 2016;70:185-91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.02.043
  9. Greppi A, Hemery Y, Berrazaga I, Almaksour Z, Humblot C. Ability of lactobacilli isolated from traditional cereal-based fermented food to produce folate in culture media under different growthconditions. Lebensm Wiss Technol. 2017;86:277-84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.08.007
  10. Lin M, Young C. Folate levels in cultures of lactic acid bacteria. Int Dairy J. 2000;10:409-13, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-6946(00)00056-X
  11. Divya J, Nampoothiri K. Folate fortification of skim milk by a probiotic Lactococcus lactis CM28 and evaluation of its stability in fermented milk on cold storage. J Food Sci Technol. 2015;52(6):3513-9, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-014-1406-7, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/26028733
  12. Rossi M, Amaretti A, Raimondi S. Folate production by probiotic bacteria. Nutrients. 2011;3:118-34, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu3010118, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/22254078
  13. Dana M, Salmanian A, Yakhchali B, Jazi F. High folate production by naturally occurring Lactobacillus sp. with probiotics potential isolated from dairy products in Ilam and Lorestan provinces of Iran. Afr J Biotechnol. 2010;9(33):5383-91
  14. Mosso A, Jimenez M, Vignolo G, LeBlanc J, Samman N. Increasing the folate content of tuber based foods using potentially probiotic lactic acid bacteria. Food Res Int. 2018;109:168-74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.03.073, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/29803439
  15. Tarrah A, de Castilhos J, Rossi R. Duarte VdS, Ziegler DR, Corich V, Giacomini A. In vitro probiotic potential and anti-cancer activity of newly isolated folate-producing Streptococcus thermophilus strains. Front Microbiol. 2018;9(2214):2214, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02214, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30283428
  16. Nor N, Mohamad R, Foo H, Rahim R. Improvement of folate biosynthesis by lactic acid bacteria using response surface methodology. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2010;48(2):243-50
  17. Hugenschmidt S, Schwenninger S, Lacroix C. Concurrent high production of natural folate and vitamin B12 using a co-culture process with Lactobacillus plantarum SM39 and Propionibacterium freudenreichii DF13. Process Biochem. 2011;46:1063-70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2011.01.021
  18. Mahara F, Nuraida L, Lioe H. Folate in milk fermented by lactic acid bacteria from different food sources. Prev Nutr Food Sci. 2021;26(2):230-40, https://doi.org/10.3746/pnf.2021.26.2.230, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/34316488
  19. Scott J, Rebeille F, Fletcher J. Folic acid and folates: The feasibility for nutritional enhancement in plant foods. J Sci Food Agric. 2000;80:795-824, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(20000515)80:7<795::AID-JSFA599>3.0.CO;2-K
  20. Sybesma W, van den Born E, Starrenburg M, Mierau I, Kleerebezem M, de Vos W. Controlled modulation of folate polyglutamyl tail length by metabolic engineering of Lactococcus lactis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:7101-7, https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.12.7101-7107.2003, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/14660354
  21. Laiño J, Levit R, de LeBlanc A, de Giori G, LeBlanc J. Characterization of folate production and probiotic potential of Streptococcus gallolyticus subsp. macedonicus CRL415. Food Microbiol. 2019;79:20-6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2018.10.015, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30621871
  22. Lapujade P, Cocaign-Bousquet M, Loubiere P. Glutamate biosynthesis in Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis NCDO 2118. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64(7):2485-9, https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.64.7.2485-2489.1998, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/9647819
  23. de Crécy-Lagard V, El Yacoubi B, de la Garza R, Noiriel A, Hanson A. Comparative genomics of bacterial and plant folate synthesis and salvage: Predictions and validations. BMC Genomics. 2007;8(1):245, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-8-245, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/17645794
  24. Turpin W, Humblot C, Guyot J. Genetic screening of functional properties of lactic acid bacteria in a fermented pearl millet slurry and in the metagenome of fermented starchy foods. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77(24):8722-34, https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.05988-11, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/22003019
  25. ,
  26. KEGG. Kyoto University, Japan: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes; 1995. Available from: http://www.genome.jp/kegg/
  27. Wizard® genomic DNA purification kit technical manual. Madison, WI, USA: Promega Corporation; 2019. Available from: https://worldwide.promega.com/-/media/files/resources/protocols/technical-manuals/0/wizard-genomic-dna-purification-kit-protocol.pdf?rev=776154d180fe4b41a0a3dc8a9e328c8a&sc_lang=en
  28. NCBI BLAST. Bethesda, MD, USA: National Center for Biotechnology Information, The Basic Local Alignment Search Tool, US National Library of Medicine; 2016. Available from: https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi
  29. GenBank. Bethesda, MD, USA: National Center for Biotechnology Information, US National Library of Medicine; 2016. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/
  30. Sanger F, Nicklen S, Coulson A. DNA sequencing with chain-terminating inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1977;74(12):5463-7, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.74.12.5463, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/271968
  31. Sequence Scanner Software, v. 2.0, Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA; 2014. Available from: http://www.appliedbiosystems.com
  32. Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol. 2016;33(7):1870-4, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw054, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/27004904
  33. Kodi C, Gothandam K, Prabakaran G. Identification and characterization of folic acid producing potential starter for curd fermentation. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2015;4(6):118-30
  34. Statistics SPSS. v. 20.0, IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA; 2011. Available from: https://www.ibm.com/analytics/spss-statistics-software
  35. Saubade F, Humblot C, Hemery Y, Guyot J. PCR screening of an African fermented pearl-millet porridge metagenome to investigate the nutritional potential of its microbiota. Int J Food Microbiol. 2017;244:103-10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.12.020, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/28092820
  36. Green J, Matthews R. Folate biosynthesis, reduction, and polyglutamylation and the interconversion of folate derivatives. Ecosal Plus. 2007;2(2):1-17, https://doi.org/10.1128/ecosalplus.3.6.3.6, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/26443588
  37. Shane B. Folate and vitamin B12 metabolism: overview and interaction with riboflavin, vitamin B6, and polymorphisms. Food Nutr Bull. 2008;29(2):S5-16, https://doi.org/10.1177/15648265080292S103, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/18709878
  38. Stover P. One-carbon metabolism–genome interactions in folate-associated pathologies. J Nutr. 2009;139(12):2402-5, https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.109.113670, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/19812215
  39. Ohrvik V, Witthoft C. Human folate bioavailability. Nutrients. 2011;3:475-90, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu3040475, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/22254106
  40. Myllykallio H, Leduc D, Filee J, Liebl U. Life without dihydrofolate reductase folA. Trends Microbiol. 2003;11(5):220-3, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-842X(03)00101-X, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/12781525
  41. Levin I, Giladi M, Altman‐Price N, Ortenberg R, Mevarech M. An alternative pathway for reduced folate biosynthesis in bacteria and halophilic archaea. Mol Microbiol. 2004;54(5):1307-18, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04339.x, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/15554970
  42. McGuire JJ, Bertino JR. Enzymatic synthesis and function of folylpolyglutamates. In: Najjar VA, editor. The biological effects of glutamic acid and its derivatives. Developments in molecular and cellular biochemistry, vol. 1. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 1981. pp. 19-48. 10.1007/978-94-009-8027-3_210.1007/978-94-009-8027-3_2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8027-3_210.1007/978-94-009-8027-3_2
  43. Revuelta J, Serrano-Amatriain C, Ledesma-Amaro R, Jiménez A. Formation of folates by microorganisms: towards the biotechnological production of this vitamin. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2018;102(20):8613-20, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-018-9266-0, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30073396
  44. Tamura T, Shin Y, Williams M, Stokstad E. Lactobacillus casei response to pteroylpolyglutamates. Anal Biochem. 1972;49(2):517-21, https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(72)90456-3, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/4628358
  45. Shane B, Stokstad E. Rate-limiting steps in folate metabolism by Lactobacillus casei. J Gen Microbiol. 1977;103(2):261-70, https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-103-2-261, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/413875
  46. Liu C, Wu B, Zhang S, Li Q, Zeng X, Yang E. Transcriptomic analysis of de novo folate biosynthetic genes in Lactobacillus plantarum strain 4_3 in fermented soybean. Food Funct. 2019;10(5):2426-38, https://doi.org/10.1039/C8FO01952E, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/30968106
  47. Jordan I, Rogozin I, Wolf Y, Koonin E. Essential genes are more evolutionarily conserved than are nonessential genes in bacteria. Genome Res. 2002;12(6):962-8, https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.87702, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/12045149
  48. Wu Z, Wu J, Cao P, Jin Y, Pan D, Zeng X. Characterization of probiotic bacteria involved in fermented milk processing enriched with folic acid. J Dairy Sci. 2017;100(6):4223-9, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12640, PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24377856/28434721
  49. Human vitamin and mineral requirements: Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation Bangkok, Thailand. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization (FAO/WHO); 2001. Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/y2809e/y2809e.pdf

Contig size of folate biosynthetic genes from six folate-producing lactic acid bacteria (LAB) isolates

Isolate folE folQ folB folK folP folC1 folA folC2
R23 273 123 265 131 163 333 273 478
4C261 271 128 265 142 194 332 364 470
JK13 209 115 257 215 185 333 248 478
BG7 274 124 265 206 185 333 260 487
S2SR08 274 216 265 208 194 333 364 488
NG64 273 105 257 209 233 331 272 487

Percent identity of folate biosynthetic genes from six folate-producing lactic acid bacteria (LAB) with nucleotide sequences from various LAB species in the NCBI databases (29)

Gene Isolate NCBI blastn
Identity/ % Description
folE 4C261 100 L. plantarum strain SKO-001 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP040374.1
R23 100 L. plantarum strain TCI507 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP054259.1
JK13 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
BG7 100 L. plantarum strain TCI507 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP054259.1
NG64 100 L. plantarum strain TCI507 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP054259.1
S2SR08 100 L. plantarum strain TCI507 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP054259.1
folQ 4C261 100 L. plantarum strain SRCM102737 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP028261.1
R23 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
JK13 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
BG7 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
NG64 100 L. plantarum strain SRCM103418 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP035168.1
S2SR08 100 L. plantarum strain SRCM103418 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP035168.1
folB 4C261 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
R23 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
JK13 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
BG7 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
NG64 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
S2SR08 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
folK 4C261 100 L. fermentum strain LfQi6 chromosome; ID: CP025592.1
R23 100 L. fermentum strain LfQi6 chromosome; ID: CP025592.1
JK13 100 L. fermentum strain LfQi6 chromosome; ID: CP025592.1
BG7 100 L. fermentum strain LfQi6 chromosome; ID: CP025592.1
NG64 100 L. fermentum strain LfQi6 chromosome; ID: CP025592.1
S2SR08 100 L. fermentum strain LfQi6 chromosome; ID: CP025592.1
folP 4C261 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
R23 100 L. fermentum strain HFD1 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP050919.1
JK13 100 L. fermentum strain HFD1 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP050919.1
BG7 100 L. fermentum strain HFD1 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP050919.1
NG64 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
S2SR08 100 L. fermentum strain HFD1 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP050919.1
folC1 4C261 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
R23 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
JK13 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
BG7 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
NG64 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
S2SR08 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
folA 4C261 100 L. plantarum strain TCI507 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP054259.1
R23 100 L. plantarum strain TCI507 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP054259.1
JK13 100 L. plantarum strain TCI507 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP054259.1
BG7 100 L. plantarum strain TCI507 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP054259.1
NG64 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
S2SR08 100 L. plantarum strain NCIMB8826 (WCFS1) chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP037961.1
folC2 4C261 100 L. plantarum strain LLY-606 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP023306.1
R23 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
JK13 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
BG7 100 L. plantarum strain Heal19 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP055123.1
NG64 100 L. plantarum strain SRCM100442 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP028221.1
S2SR08 100 L. plantarum strain SRCM100442 chromosome, complete genome; ID: CP028221.1

The comparison of the number of conserved sites (C) and variable sites (V) of eight folate biosynthetic genes between six folate-producing lactic acid bacteria (LAB) isolates and the reference strain (Lactiplantibacillus plantarum WCFS1)

Isolate Reference strain (WCFS1)
folE folQ folB folK folP folC1 folA folC2
C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V
R23 271/314 2/314 123/221 0/221 263/268 2/268 72/257 59/257 92/302 68/302 327/345 6/345 272/374 1/374 478/509 0/509
4C261 269/314 2/314 127/221 1/221 263/268 2/268 53/257 84/257 59/302 134/302 327/345 5/345 361/374 3/374 469/509 1/509
JK13 209/314 0/314 115/221 0/221 256/268 1/268 76/257 134/257 65/302 119/302 327/345 6/345 247/374 1/374 478/509 0/509
BG7 271/314 3/314 124/221 0/221 263/268 2/268 73/257 128/257 65/302 119/302 327/345 6/345 259/374 1/374 487/509 0/509
S2SR08 271/314 3/314 212/221 4/221 263/268 2/268 73/257 130/257 67/302 126/302 327/345 6/345 362/374 2/374 484/509 4/509
NG64 271/314 2/314 104/221 1/221 256/268 1/268 74/257 130/257 70/302 162/302 327/345 4/345 272/374 0/374 483/509 4/509