Cited by 22Gut microbiota and healthInfant Nutrition and HealthProbiotics and Fermented Foods

Comparative genomic analysis revealed genetic divergence between Bifidobacterium catenulatum subspecies present in infant versus adult guts

Open access
Liu, Jiaqi, Li, Weicheng, Yao, Caiqing, Yu, Jie, Zhang, Heping·2022·BMC Microbiology

Abstract

Background: The two subspecies of Bifidobacterium catenulatum , B. catenulatum subsp. kashiwanohense and B. catenulatum subsp. catenulatum , are usually from the infant and adult gut, respectively. However, the genomic analysis of their functional difference and genetic divergence has been rare. Here, 16 B. catenulatum strains, including 2 newly sequenced strains, were analysed through comparative genomics. Results: A phylogenetic tree based on 785 core genes indicated that the two subspecies of B. catenulatum were significantly separated. The comparison of genomic characteristics revealed that the two subspecies had significantly different genomic sizes ( p < 0.05) but similar GC contents. The functional comparison revealed the most significant difference in genes of carbohydrate utilisation. Carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZyme) present two clustering patterns in B. catenulatum. The B. catenulatum subsp. kashiwanohense specially including the glycoside hydrolases 95 (GH95) and carbohydrate-binding modules 51 (CBM51) families involved in the metabolism of human milk oligosaccharides (HMO) common in infants, also, the corresponding fucosylated HMO gene clusters were detected. Meanwhile, B. catenulatum subsp. catenulatum rich in GH3 may metabolise more plant-derived glycan in the adult intestine. Conclusions: These findings provide genomic evidence of carbohydrate utilisation bias, which may be a key cause of the genetic divergence of two B. catenulatum subspecies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12866-022-02573-3

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, J., Li, W., Yao, C., Yu, J., & Zhang, H.
Affiliations
Inner Mongolia Agricultural University (CN)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Heping
Venue
BMC Microbiology
Published
2022-06-16
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
158-158
ISSN
1471-2180 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4283032507
Cited by
22
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Infant Nutrition and Health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
Keywords
Bifidobacterium catenulatum, genetic divergence, infant gut microbiota, carbohydrate-active enzymes, human milk oligosaccharides, GH3 cells, core genome phylogeny, strain genomics
MeSH terms
Bifidobacterium, Carbohydrates, Humans, Infant, Milk, Human, Oligosaccharides, Phylogeny, Genomics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review