Cited by 26Bacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyProbiotics and Fermented FoodsBacteriophages and microbial interactions

Conjugative DNA Transfer From E. coli to Transformation-Resistant Lactobacilli

Open access
Samperio, Sara, Guzmán-Herrador, Dolores L., May-Cuz, Rigoberto, Martín, Maria Cruz, Álvarez, Miguel A., Llosa, Matxalen·2021·Frontiers in Microbiology

Abstract

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) belonging to the genus classically known as Lactobacillus , recently split into 25 different genera, include many relevant species for the food industry. The well-known properties of lactobacilli as probiotics make them an attractive model also for vaccines and therapeutic proteins delivery in humans. However, scarce tools are available to accomplish genetic modification of these organisms, and most are only suitable for laboratory strains. Here, we test bacterial conjugation as a new tool to introduce genetic modifications into many biotechnologically relevant laboratory and wild type lactobacilli. Using mobilizable shuttle plasmids from a donor Escherichia coli carrying either RP4 or R388 conjugative systems, we were able to get transconjugants to all tested Lactocaseibacillus casei strains, including many natural isolates, and to several other genera, including Lentilactobacillus parabuchneri , for which no transformation protocol has been reported. Transconjugants were confirmed by the presence of the oriT and 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Serendipitously, we also found transconjugants into researcher-contaminant Staphylococcus epidermidis . Conjugative DNA transfer from E. coli to S. aureus was previously described, but at very low frequencies. We have purified this recipient strain and used it in standard conjugation assays, confirming that both R388 and RP4 conjugative systems mediate mobilization of plasmids into S. epidermidis . This protocol could be assayed to introduce DNA into other Gram-positive microorganisms which are resistant to transformation.

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 · 10.3389/fmicb.2021.606629

Cites

78 of 78 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?

  • Risk categories for probiotics are associated with four interrelated factors: acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, virulence factors, translocation, and mobile or unstable genomic elements that allow horizontal gene transfer.

    “Risk categories for probiotics are associated with four interrelated factors: acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, virulence factors, translocation, and mobile or unstable genomic elements that allow horizontal gene transfer [43,44].”

    From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says conjugation is a means of spreading resistance and virulence factors among bacteria, and the Discussion reports plasmid transfer into lactobacilli. The paper does not set out four probiotic risk categories or address translocation and unstable genomic elements as parts of that framework. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In vitro and model-system experimental studies have shown plasmid conjugation between enterobacteria and Gram-positive recipients, including LAB.

    “In vitro and in model systems, experimental studies have shown plasmid conjugation between enterobacteria and Gram-positive recipients, including LAB [44,123].”

    From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [44]

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

2 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Lane D. J. (1991). “ 16S/23S rRNA sequencing,” in Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematic, eds Stackebrandt E. Goodfellow M. (New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons), 115– 175.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Samperio, S., Guzmán-Herrador, D. L., May-Cuz, R., Martín, M. C., Álvarez, M. A., & Llosa, M.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Cantabria (ES)
  • Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
Corresponding author
  • Álvarez, Miguel A.
  • Llosa, Matxalen
Venue
Frontiers in Microbiology
Published
2021-02-11
Volume
12
Pages
606629-606629
ISSN
1664-302X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3129747008
Cited by
25
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
FWCI
1.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCrea (University of Cantabria) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Bacteriophages and microbial interactions
Keywords
bacterial conjugation, conjugative transfer, Lactobacillus, Lentilactobacillus parabuchneri, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, plasmid mobilization, probiotics

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