Future Challenges in Lactic Acid Bacteria Stress Physiology Research

  • Konstantinos Papadimitriou
  • Jan Kok
Part of the Food Microbiology and Food Safety book series (FMFS)


Over the past few decades, the stress physiology of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) has been a field of rigorous research. The economic importance of starter and probiotic LAB and, in some instances, the severe pathogenic nature of certain LAB species have been the key reasons fueling stress research in this group of bacteria. The field has greatly benefited from recent advances in sequencing technologies, bioinformatics, functional genomics, and proteomics/metabolomics. In the preceding parts of this book, the state of the art of the stress physiology of LAB has been presented. In this concluding chapter, we will attempt to summarize the most important areas that could be the focus of research in the field and that we consider will significantly improve our understanding of stress behavior in LAB. Stressful conditions can have a profound effect on cell proliferation, and in many cases they induce deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage. However, almost nothing is known about how LAB regulate cell cycle progression, monitor genome integrity, and repair DNA damage. Stress-induced mutagenesis is an established stress response in several bacteria and other organisms, but the overall phenomenon and its importance have been very rarely investigated in LAB. Despite the work that has been done on two-component systems, our understanding of how LAB sense and signal stress is still rather basic. Sensing mechanisms and signal transduction pathways are important targets for manipulating the robustness of LAB. Advances in single-cell technologies may also allow us to better assess the role of intrapopulation diversity that has already been shown to exist within stressed LAB cells. Another topic that appeared in the literature only recently is the stress imposed to LAB during growth in mixed cultures. Such research can shed light on how LAB overcome the fierce competition of other micro-organisms in the ecological niches they occupy. Finally, it will be critical to expand stress research to more LAB species and strains than those traditionally employed by researchers in the field to identify novel stress responses or to better appreciate mechanisms that are species- or even subspecies-dependent.


Lactic Acid Bacterium Lactic Acid Bacterium Strain Stress Sensor Streptococcus Agalactiae Lactic Acid Bacterium Species 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aertsen A, Michiels CW (2005) Diversify or die: generation of diversity in response to stress. Crit Rev Microbiol 31:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolotin A, Wincker P, Mauger S, Jaillon O, Malarme K, Weissenbach J, Ehrlich SD, Sorokin A (2001) The complete genome sequence of the lactic acid bacterium Lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis IL1403. Genome Res 11:731–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Booth IR (2002) Stress and the single cell: intrapopulation diversity is a mechanism to ensure survival upon exposure to stress. Int J Food Microbiol 78:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brehm-Stecher BF, Johnson EA (2004) Single-cell microbiology: tools, technologies, and applications. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 68:538–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davidson CJ, Surette MG (2008) Individuality in bacteria. Annu Rev Genet 42:253–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Delcour J, Ferain T, Hols P (2000) Advances in the genetics of thermophilic lactic acid bacteria. Curr Opin Biotechnol 11:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ducret A, Maisonneuve E, Notareschi P, Grossi A, Mignot T, Dukan S (2009) A microscope automated fluidic system to study bacterial processes in real time. PLoS One 4:e7282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eldar A, Elowitz MB (2010) Functional roles for noise in genetic circuits. Nature 467:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ercolini D, Hill PJ, Dodd CE (2003) Bacterial community structure and location in Stilton cheese. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:3540–3548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Even S, Charlier C, Nouaille S, Ben Zakour NL, Cretenet M, Cousin FJ, Gautier M, Cocaign-Bousquet M, Loubière P, Le Loir Y (2009) Staphylococcus aureus virulence expression is impaired by Lactococcus lactis in mixed cultures. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:4459–4472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitzsimons NA, Cogan TM, Condon S, Beresford T (2001) Spatial and temporal distribution of non-starter lactic acid bacteria in Cheddar cheese. J Appl Microbiol 90:600–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foster PL (2007) Stress-induced mutagenesis in bacteria. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 42:373–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frenkiel-Krispin D, Minsky A (2006) Nucleoid organization and the maintenance of DNA integrity in E. coli, B. subtilis and D. radiodurans. J Struct Biol 156:311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galhardo RS, Hastings PJ, Rosenberg SM (2007) Mutation as a stress response and the regulation of evolvability. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 42:399–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gonzalez C, Hadany L, Ponder RG, Price M, Hastings PJ, Rosenberg SM (2008) Mutability and importance of a hypermutable cell subpopulation that produces stress-induced mutants in Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet 4:e1000208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grandvalet C, Coucheney F, Beltramo C, Guzzo J (2005) CtsR is the master regulator of stress response gene expression in Oenococcus oeni. J Bacteriol 187:5614–5623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gripenland J, Netterling S, Loh E, Tiensuu T, Toledo-Arana A, Johansson J (2010) RNAs: regulators of bacterial virulence. Nat Rev Microbiol 8:857–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hassan AN, Ipsen R, Janzen T, Qvist KB (2003) Microstructure and rheology of yogurt made with cultures differing only in their ability to produce exopolysaccharides. J Dairy Sci 86:1632–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hemm MR, Paul BJ, Miranda-Rios J, Zhang A, Soltanzad N, Storz G (2010) Small stress response proteins in Escherichia coli: proteins missed by classical proteomic studies. J Bacteriol 192:46–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herve-Jimenez L, Guillouard I, Guedon E, Boudebbouze S, Hols P, Monnet V, Maguin E, Rul F (2009) Postgenomic analysis of Streptococcus thermophilus cocultivated in milk with Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus: involvement of nitrogen, purine, and iron metabolism. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:2062–2073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoch JA, Varughese KI (2001) Keeping signals straight in phosphorelay signal transduction. J Bacteriol 183:4941–4949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hols P, Hancy F, Fontaine L, Grossiord B, Prozzi D, Leblond-Bourget N, Decaris B, Bolotin A, Delorme C, Dusko Ehrlich S, Guédon E, Monnet V, Renault P, Kleerebezem M (2005) New insights in the molecular biology and physiology of Streptococcus thermophilus revealed by comparative genomics. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29:435–463Google Scholar
  23. Jeanson S, Chadoeuf J, Madec MN, Aly S, Floury J, Brocklehurst TF, Lortal S (2011) Spatial distribution of bacterial colonies in a model cheese. Appl Environ Microbiol. 77:1493–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katayama T, Ozaki S, Keyamura K, Fujimitsu K (2010) Regulation of the replication cycle: conserved and diverse regulatory systems for DnaA and oriC. Nat Rev Microbiol 8:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klaenhammer TR, Barrangou R, Buck BL, Azcarate-Peril MA, Altermann E (2005) Genomic features of lactic acid bacteria affecting bioprocessing and health. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29:393–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klein G, Dartigalongue C, Raina S (2003) Phosphorylation-mediated regulation of heat shock response in Escherichia coli. Mol Microbiol 48:269–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kramer R (2010) Bacterial stimulus perception and signal transduction: response to osmotic stress. Chem Rec 10:217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lacour S, Doublet P, Obadia B, Cozzone AJ, Grangeasse C (2006) A novel role for protein-tyrosine kinase Etk from Escherichia coli K-12 related to polymyxin resistance. Res Microbiol 157:637–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levine A, Vannier F, Absalon C, Kuhn L, Jackson P, Scrivener E, Labas V, Vinh J, Courtney P, Garin J, Séror SJ (2006) Analysis of the dynamic Bacillus subtilis Ser/Thr/Tyr phosphoproteome implicated in a wide variety of cellular processes. Proteomics 6:2157–2173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lidstrom ME, Konopka MC (2010) The role of physiological heterogeneity in microbial population behavior. Nat Chem Biol 6:705–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu JM, Camilli A (2010) A broadening world of bacterial small RNAs. Curr Opin Microbiol 13:18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lopez C, Maillard MB, Briard-Bion V, Camier B, Hannon JA (2006) Lipolysis during ripening of Emmental cheese considering organization of fat and preferential localization of bacteria. J Agric Food Chem 54:5855–5867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Losick R, Desplan C (2008) Stochasticity and cell fate. Science 320:65–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ly-Chatain MH, Le ML, Thanh ML, Belin J-M, Wachι Y (2010) Cell surface properties affect colonisation of raw milk by lactic acid bacteria at the microstructure level. Food Res Int 43:1594–1602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Macek B, Mijakovic I, Olsen JV, Gnad F, Kumar C, Jensen PR, Mann M (2007) The serine/threonine/tyrosine phosphoproteome of the model bacterium Bacillus subtilis. Mol Cell Proteomics 6:697–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Machielsen R, van Alen-Boerrigter IJ, Koole LA, Bongers RS, Kleerebezem M, Van Hylckama Vlieg JE (2010) Indigenous and environmental modulation of frequencies of mutation in Lactobacillus plantarum. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:1587–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacLean D, Jones JD, Studholme DJ (2009) Application of “next-generation” sequencing technologies to microbial genetics. Nat Rev Microbiol 7:287–296Google Scholar
  38. Majakovic I (2010) Protein phosphorylation in bacteria. Microbe 5:21–25Google Scholar
  39. Makarova K, Slesarev A, Wolf Y, Sorokin A, Mirkin B, Koonin E, Pavlov A, Pavlova N, Karamychev V, Polouchine N, Shakhova V, Grigoriev I, Lou Y, Rohksar D, Lucas S, Huang K, Goodstein DM, Hawkins T, Plengvidhya V, Welker D, Hughes J, Goh Y, Benson A, Baldwin K, Lee JH, Díaz-Muñiz I, Dosti B, Smeianov V, Wechter W, Barabote R, Lorca G, Altermann E, Barrangou R, Ganesan B, Xie Y, Rawsthorne H, Tamir D, Parker C, Breidt F, Broadbent J, Hutkins R, O’Sullivan D, Steele J, Unlu G, Saier M, Klaenhammer T, Richardson P, Kozyavkin S, Weimer B, Mills D (2006) Comparative genomics of the lactic acid bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:15611–15616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marcellino SN, Benson DR (1992) Scanning electron and light microscopic study of microbial succession on Bethlehem St. Nectaire cheese. Appl Environ Microbiol 58:3448–3454Google Scholar
  41. Mills DA (2001) Mutagenesis in the post genomics era: tools for generating insertional mutations in the lactic acid bacteria. Curr Opin Biotechnol 12:503–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mott ML, Berger JM (2007) DNA replication initiation: mechanisms and regulation in bacteria. Nat Rev Microbiol 5:343–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Muller S, Nebe-von-Caron G (2010) Functional single-cell analyses: flow cytometry and cell sorting of microbial populations and communities. FEMS Microbiol Rev 34:554–587Google Scholar
  44. Parker ML, Gunning PA, Macedo AC, Malcata FX, Brocklehurst TF (1998) The microstructure and distribution of micro-organisms within mature Serra cheese. J Appl Microbiol 84:523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pikuta EV, Hoover RB, Tang J (2007) Microbial extremophiles at the limits of life. Crit Rev Microbiol 33:183–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rajagopal L, Clancy A, Rubens CE (2003) A eukaryotic type serine/threonine kinase and phosphatase in Streptococcus agalactiae reversibly phosphorylate an inorganic pyrophosphatase and affect growth, cell segregation, and virulence. J Biol Chem 278:14429–14441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rehman S-U, Farkye NY, Drake M (2003) Reduced-fat Cheddar cheese from a mixture of cream and liquid milk protein concentrate. Int J Dairy Technol 56:94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robleto EA, Yasbin R, Ross C, Pedraza-Reyes M (2007) Stationary phase mutagenesis in B. subtilis: a paradigm to study genetic diversity programs in cells under stress. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 42:327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Romby P, Charpentier E (2010) An overview of RNAs with regulatory functions in Gram-positive bacteria. Cell Mol Life Sci 67:217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosen R, Becher D, Buttner K, Biran D, Hecker M, Ron EZ (2004) Highly phosphorylated bacterial proteins. Proteomics 4:3068–3077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schlacher K, Goodman MF (2007) Lessons from 50 years of SOS DNA-damage-induced mutagenesis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8:587–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schumann W (2007) Bacterial stress sensors. In: Atassi MZ (Ed.), Protein reviews. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Siezen RJ, Wilson G (2010) Probiotics genomics. Microb Biotechnol 3:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Soufi B, Gnad F, Jensen PR, Petranovic D, Mann M, Mijakovic I, Macek B (2008a) The Ser/Thr/Tyr phosphoproteome of Lactococcus lactis IL1403 reveals multiply phosphorylated proteins. Proteomics 8:3486–3493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soufi B, Jers C, Hansen ME, Petranovic D, Mijakovic I (2008b) Insights from site-specific phosphoproteomics in bacteria. Biochim Biophys Acta 1784:186–192Google Scholar
  56. Storz G, Hengge-Aronis R (2000) Bacterial stress responses. ASM Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. Sugimoto S, Abdullah Al M, Sonomoto K (2008) Molecular chaperones in lactic acid bacteria: physiological consequences and biochemical properties. J Biosci Bioeng 106:324–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sun X, Ge F, Xiao CL, Yin XF, Ge R, Zhang LH, He QY (2010) Phosphoproteomic analysis reveals the multiple roles of phosphorylation in pathogenic bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Proteome Res 9:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thattai M, van Oudenaarden A (2004) Stochastic gene expression in fluctuating environments. Genetics 167:523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ulrich LE, Koonin EV, Zhulin IB (2005) One-component systems dominate signal transduction in prokaryotes. Trends Microbiol 13:52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van de Guchte M, Serror P, Chervaux C, Smokvina T, Ehrlich SD, Maguin E (2002) Stress responses in lactic acid bacteria. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 82:187–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van Schaik W, Abee T (2005) The role of sigmaB in the stress response of Gram-positive bacteria—targets for food preservation and safety. Curr Opin Biotechnol 16:218–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Varhimo E, Savijoki K, Jalava J, Kuipers OP, Varmanen P (2007) Identification of a novel streptococcal gene cassette mediating SOS mutagenesis in Streptococcus uberis. J Bacteriol 189:5210–5222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Veening JW, Smits WK, Kuipers OP (2008) Bistability, epigenetics, and bet-hedging in bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol 62:193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Walker GC, Smith BT, Sutton M (2000) The SOS response to DNA damage. In: Storz G, Hengge-Aronis R (Eds.), Bacterial stress responses. ASM Press, Washington, DC, pp. 131–144Google Scholar
  66. Wang JD, Levin PA (2009) Metabolism, cell growth and the bacterial cell cycle. Nat Rev Microbiol 7:822–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Waters LS, Storz G (2009) Regulatory RNAs in bacteria. Cell 136:615–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yother J, Trieu-Cuot P, Klaenhammer TR, De Vos WM (2002) Genetics of streptococci, lactococci, and enterococci: review of the Sixth International Conference. J Bacteriol 184:6085–6092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhong J, Molina H, Pandey A (2007) Phosphoproteomics. Curr Protoc Protein Sci, Chapter 24:Unit 24Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Dairy Research, Department of Food Science and TechnologyAgricultural University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Department of Molecular Genetics, Groningen Biomolecular Sciences and Biotechnology InstituteUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Top Institute Food and NutritionWageningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.The Netherlands Kluyver Centre for Genomics of Industrial Fermentations, NCSBDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations