Next Article in Journal
Microbial Natural Products as Potential Inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease (Mpro)
Previous Article in Journal
Haplotype Diversity of NADPH-Cytochrome P450 Reductase Gene of Ophiocordyceps sinensis and the Effect on Fungal Infection in Host Insects
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Is Lactobacillus Gram-Positive? A Case Study of Lactobacillus iners

1
Department of Agricultural Biotechnology and Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea
2
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Konyang University Hospital, Daejeon 35365, Korea
3
Priority Research Center, Myunggok Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine, Konyang University, Daejeon 35365, Korea
4
Department of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, Konyang University, Daejeon 35365, Korea
5
C & K genomics, H Businesss Park, Seoul 05836, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2020, 8(7), 969; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8070969
Submission received: 12 June 2020 / Revised: 23 June 2020 / Accepted: 27 June 2020 / Published: 29 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Medical Microbiology)

Abstract

:
Lactobacillus iners is the most prevalent bacterial species in the human vaginal microbiome, and there have been few reports of its Gram-negative stain appearances despite the fact that the genus Lactobacillus is universally described as Gram-positive. Here, using transmission electron microscopy, we reveal that the thinness of the cell wall (17.39 ± 0.8 nm) gives the Gram-negative stain appearance, which can lead to over-diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Moreover, comparative genome analysis identified four genes commonly absent in L. iners genomes that might contribute to this phenotypic difference. We suggest that, along with the several niche-specific attributes identified, this unique feature may contribute to the species’ distinguished capability to thrive as the predominant species in the fluctuating vaginal environment as well.

1. Introduction

Lactobacillus iners is the most frequently detected bacterial species in the human vaginal microbiome [1,2,3]. In contrast to the gut microbiota, the healthy human vaginal microbial community is typically characterized by extremely low diversity, and lactobacilli are the representative species [4]. The communities are either dominated by one or a few common Lactobacillus sp. (Lactobacillus crispatus, L. iners, Lactobacillus gasseri, and Lactobacillus jensenii) [2]. These microorganisms protect the host from colonization of potentially pathogenic organisms by producing lactic acids which acidify the vaginal environment to pH 3.5–4.5 or modulation of host immune system [5,6], and when the ecological equilibria are disturbed, the proportion of lactobacilli diminishes and the number of strictly anaerobic bacteria increases, so does the risk of bacterial vaginosis (BV) or other infectious conditions [7,8]. However, unlike other Lactobacillus species, L. iners is detected in women with healthy conditions as well as with, and recovering from, vaginal dysbiosis [9]. They do not seem to be easily displaced by pathogens or infectious conditions, as L. iners could disassemble biofilms of BV-associated pathogens [10], and a recent study proposed that a unique defense system that L. iners has might account for a significantly low number of prophages in their genomes, thereby facilitating persistence during BV [11]. They were even reported to be capable of coexisting when infected with Chlamydia trachomatis [12,13]. It was also identified that they had an ability to produce inerolysin, a pore-forming protein typically found in pathogenic bacteria, which gives them an enhanced adhesion ability [14]. These characteristics imply that they have been more successfully adapted to the fluctuating vaginal environments than the other vaginal lactobacilli. The gene contents of L. iners strains are known to be quite similar, but in health and dysbiosis, they show big differing expression profiles over 10% of their genes, including the inerolysin [15]. They also have several other interesting features that are distinguishable from common Lactobacillus species, which might contribute to their adaptive advantages as well, such as the small size of their genome or different nutritional requirements [16,17]. Complete genome sequences of L. iners were only recently constructed from clinical isolates of Asian, African American, and Caucasian women, and the genome sizes ranged from 1.3 to 1.4 Mbp, with significantly low GC contents of ~33.3% [11,18]. Only three of the known strains harbor plasmids [18]. The vaginal lactobacilli have an overall tendency towards reduced genome sizes [19], and yet the genome sizes of L. iners are as small as to be comparable to those of human symbionts and parasites [17]. In particular, although the genus Lactobacillus has been universally described as being Gram-positive, few reports have claimed that L. iners strains had Gram-negative stain appearances [20,21]. For this reason, the species has been overlooked in culture and microscopy-dependent approaches until it was first identified in 1999 [22], but the structural or genetic backgrounds of the phenomenon have not been investigated yet. In this study, we aim to identify factors confirming the Gram-negative stain appearance of L. iners by uncovering the ultrastructure of its cell envelope using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and comparative genome analysis with 1192 genomes for nine other Lactobacillus species without the controversy of Gram-stained morphology. We expect that the results presented in this work could provide more insights into the niche-specific adaptation of L. iners.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Strain Isolation and Growth Condition

For the isolation of L. iners, vaginal specimens were provided from two healthy Korean women (34 and 37 years old), who were attending the obstetrics and gynecology outpatient clinic of Konyang University hospital, Daejeon, in South Korea. They showed no symptoms of vaginal infections, as noted by an examining clinician. Vaginal swabs were collected by a clinician after informed written consent was obtained from the participants. This study, including specimen collection, was approved by the ethical review board of Konyang University (IRB FILE No: 2017-12-021-010). The swabs were vigorously agitated in sterile 1 mL of saline to dislodge cells. Each sample was serially diluted ten-fold using sterile saline and 100 μL aliquots from 10−1 to 10−8 dilution tubes were spread onto Tryptic Soy Agar plates with 5% defibrinated sheep blood (ATCC Broth recipe no. 260). The inoculated plates were incubated anaerobically by using the BD BBL™ GasPack system (Franklin Lakes, NY, USA) for 48 h at 37 °C. The isolation of purified bacteria was performed by picking single colonies and subculturing in Tryptic Soy Broth with 5% defibrinated sheep blood. Catalase-negative bacillus and coccobacillus isolates were determined as presumptive lactobacilli and subjected to 16S rRNA gene sequencing for identification to the species level. L. plantarum and E. coli OP50, used in comparison, were cultured in de Man-Rogosa-Sharpe (MRS) broth and agar (Difco, Detroit, MI, USA) and Tryptic Soy broth and agar (Difco, Detroit, MI, USA), respectively, and incubated at 37 °C.

2.2. 16S rRNA Sequencing for the Identification of L. iners KY

The bacterial strains were sent to Macrogen Inc. (Seoul, Korea) for 16S rRNA sequencing. The following universal primers were used to selectively amplify the bacterial 16S rRNA gene amplicons, and the resulting amplicons were sequenced using ABI 3730xl DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems): forward primer 27F (5′-AGA-3′) and reverse primer 1492R (5′-TACGGY-3′). The resulting sequences were compared with sequences in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database using BLAST.

2.3. DNA Extraction and Whole Genome Sequencing

Genomic DNA was extracted using PureHelix™ Genomic DNA Prep Kit (Solution Type)-Bacteria (NanoHelix, Daejeon, Korea) with minor modifications. Isolated gDNA was quantified and qualified by gel electrophoresis, 260/280 nm absorbance ratio and Quant-iT™ PicoGreen™ dsDNA Assay Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). The library was prepared using the ONT 1D ligation Sequencing kit (SQK-LSK109) with the native barcoding expansion kit (EXP-NBD104) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The resulting library was loaded onto the Flongle Flow Cell (FLO-FLG001, R9.4.1) and sequenced on the MinION MK1b and MinKNOW (19.06.8).

2.4. Genome Assembly and Annotation

Base calling and de-multiplexing were carried out using Guppy (v3.4.3), and Porechop (v0.2.4, https://github.com/w1bw/Porechop) was employed to remove the sequencing artifacts and chimeric reads. Genome assembly was conducted using CANU (v1.8) [23] with genomeSize = 1.3 Mb parameter, and for assembly polishing, Nanopolish (v0.11.1) [24] was repeatedly applied using Illumina reads generated on an Illumina iSeq 100 until no correction is available to increase consensus accuracy. Genome annotation was conducted using the Prokka (v1.14.5) [25] with-rfam option to enable a search for ncRNA. In addition, automatic annotation results were collected from Rapid Annotation using Subsystem Technology (RAST) [26].

2.5. Comparative Genome Analysis

For comparative genome analysis, 1192 available genomes for 10 Lactobacillus species in the NCBI database were used as of 18 March 2020. In total, 10 Lactobacillus species consisting of L. iners and 9 other species were analyzed without the controversy of Gram-stained morphology (L. platarum, L. acidophilus, L. crispatus, L. gasseri, L. jensenii, L. helveticus, L. johnsonii, L. reuteri, L. salivarius). First, 4 genomes randomly selected from each species were used to construct the gene clusters using OrthoMCL [27] after annotation. Then, we identified gene clusters commonly absent in L. iners genomes but conserved in other Lactobacillus genomes, and further filtering with the rest of the genomes based on BLASTP was conducted, since OrthoMCL cannot handle the 1192 whole genomes used in this study.

2.6. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) and Gram-Staining Test

Sample processing and TEM analysis were performed at the Nanobio imaging center of the National Instrumentation Center for Environmental Management (NICEM), Seoul National University, Korea. For the preparation of TEM samples, L. iners KY and L. plantarum cells were grown to mid-exponential growth phase and centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 10 min at 4 °C. Sample processing was done as follows: cell pellets of each strains were fixed with Karnovsky’s fixative, post-fixed with 1% osmium tetroxide in 0.1 M sodium cacodylate buffer for 2 h, and then stained with 0.5% uranyl acetate overnight at 4 °C. After dehydration in a graded ethanol series (50, 70, 80, 90, and 100%), they were embedded in Spurr’s resin. The samples were sectioned at 70 nm using an ultra-microtome (EM UC7; Leica Microsystems, Vienna, Austria), stained with 2% uranyl acetate and Reynolds’ lead citrate. Then, they were visualized using transmission electron microscope Talos L120C (FEI, Czech Republic) operated at 120 kV. For each strain, cell wall thickness measurements were taken from 12 intact cells. Gram-staining was performed using the BD BBL™ Gram staining kit following the manufacturer’s protocol.

3. Results and Discussion

We isolated the L. iners strain KY from the vaginal swabs of a 34-year-old woman with healthy, asymptomatic vaginal profiles and confirmed using 16S rRNA sequencing. First, we carried out Gram-staining of the strain, and all of the cells were clearly stained Gram-negative (Figure 1a). They were also confirmed as Gram-negative when compared to Lactobacillus plantarum (Figure 1b), and when the strain was stained with Escherichia coli OP50 in the artificial mixtures, their stained appearances were hardly distinguishable from each other (Figure 1c). To further examine the ultrastructure of its cell wall, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of sectioned cells was performed on the L. iners KY and L. plantarum. Since it has been noted that both TEM and Gram-staining are affected by aging [28,29], we used cells in mid-exponential growth phases. TEM images clearly resolved cell envelopes, consisting of the plasma membrane and peptidoglycan (PG) layer (Figure 1d,e). A higher magnification of an individual cell revealed that the PG layer of L. iners was very thin, and the thickness was approximately one-third of that in L. plantarum (Figure 1d,e). The size of the L. iners PG layer was 17.39 ± 0.8-nm thick, when averaged from 12 measurements of morphologically intact cells, which is rather thin for typical Gram-positive organisms (20–80 nm) [30]. In previous studies, Gardnerella vaginalis had also been described to have a small thickness (8–12 nm) for the PG layer, within a classic Gram-positive wall architecture, and it stained negatively as well [31]. L. iners is the first Lactobacillus species reported by far whose PG layer is thin enough to give apparent Gram-negative morphologies. This finding challenges the common understanding that all organisms of genus Lactobacillus stain Gram-positive. This structural characteristic and staining property of L. iners are clinically very important to consider since the Nugent scoring remains a common diagnostic tool to assess vaginal health [16]. This test presumes all lactobacilli as Gram-positive rods and BV-associated pathogens as Gram-negative, with Gram-variable rods and cocci. Furthermore, given that L. iners is the most prevalent species, this can lead to the false interpretation of the vaginal smear [7]. In fact, it has been described that as many as 50% of women diagnosed with BV using the Nugent score were asymptomatic [32].
Whole-genome sequencing of L. iners KY was performed using the MinION platform (Oxford Nanopore Technologies), and the first complete genome of L. iners species was constructed in our previous study [11]. Analysis of its genome revealed that it had a severely reduced number of genes related to carbohydrate and amino acid metabolism, compared to other lactobacilli (Table 1). L. iners is the smallest genome among lactobacilli determined by far (~1.3 Mbp) as a result of massive genome reduction events [17]. Despite its global loss in gene contents, it maintained a substantial proportion of membrane transport genes, which indicates that it may have become, in its evolutionary path, largely dependent on the utilization of essential compounds from the hosts or the community (Table 1). With this unique thin PG layer, L. iners cell envelopes may be more permeable for nutrient uptake or protein secretion than other lactobacilli, thereby facilitating the replenishment of numbers or effectively responding to changes in the nutritional source in their environment. To determine whether related genes were lost as a result of genome reduction, the distribution of genes involved in the PG metabolism was compared in genomes of 40 Lactobacillus strains (four randomly selected from each ten Lactobacillus species including L. iners KY), and it was shown that L. iners was capable of encoding all the enzymes directly involved in the PG synthesis and hydrolysis (Table S1). We, therefore, performed further investigation to search gene clusters commonly absent from L. iners genomes that were conserved in other lactobacilli by defining gene families using OrthoMCL [27] analysis with 1192 Lactobacillus genomes (all available genomes of those ten Lactobacillus species), and four genes (csbB, xynA, yvgN, phoU) were identified to be absent only in L. iners genomes (Table 2). Among them, CsbB is a membrane-bound protein that acts as a bactoprenol (undecaprenyl phosphate) glycosyltransferase. It was demonstrated in Bacillus subtilis that this protein was involved in the lipoteichoic acid sugar modification with N-acetylglucosamine [33]. Moreover, bactoprenol itself is a key molecule of the PG synthesis in which it translocates the newly synthesized PG monomers to the outside surface of the membrane, where they are inserted to the PG matrix [34]. Although no additional functional roles have been investigated yet, our comparative genome analysis results suggest a potential role of CsbB in the regulation of PG metabolism in an as yet unknown mechanism. Surprisingly, we found that csbB was also absent in all available G. vaginalis genomes that give similar Gram-stain results due to the thin PG layer. Future biochemical studies are required to better understand its functional interactions with other components of PG metabolism. Our study identified that the only possible factor that can account for the Gram-negative stain characteristic of L. iners was their thin PG layer and presented candidate genes that may functionally contribute to the phenotypic characteristics. Moreover, we suggest that, along with several niche-specific genes already identified, this unique feature of L. iners may provide an adaptive advantage to thrive as the predominant species in the vaginal environment as well.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/8/7/969/s1, Table S1: Distribution of genes encoding enzymes involved in the peptidoglycan metabolism in 40 Lactobacillus strains.

Author Contributions

H.K. (Hyaekang Kim) wrote the manuscript; T.K. and H.K. (Heebal Kim) designed the research; H.K. (Hyaekang Kim) and T.K. designed and carried out experiments; H.K. (Hyaekang Kim) performed analysis and analyzed data; T.K. and J.K. generated the figures; J.K. and Y.K. critically revised the manuscript; H.K. (Heebal Kim) supervised the research. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2018R1D1A1A02085907) and supported by the C & K genomics Inc. (Republic of Korea).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Shi, Y.; Chen, L.; Tong, J.; Xu, C. Preliminary characterization of vaginal microbiota in healthy Chinese women using cultivation-independent methods. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2009, 35, 525–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Zhou, X.; Bent, S.J.; Schneider, M.G.; Davis, C.C.; Islam, M.R.; Forney, L.J. Characterization of vaginal microbial communities in adult healthy women using cultivation-independent methods. Microbiology 2004, 150, 2565–2573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Zhou, X.; Brown, C.J.; Abdo, Z.; Davis, C.C.; Hansmann, M.A.; Joyce, P.; Foster, J.A.; Forney, L.J. Differences in the composition of vaginal microbial communities found in healthy Caucasian and black women. ISME J. 2007, 1, 121–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ravel, J.; Gajer, P.; Abdo, Z.; Schneider, G.M.; Koenig, S.S.; McCulle, S.L.; Karlebach, S.; Gorle, R.; Russell, J.; Tacket, C.O. Vaginal microbiome of reproductive-age women. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 4680–4687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Boskey, E.; Telsch, K.; Whaley, K.; Moench, T.; Cone, R. Acid production by vaginal flora in vitro is consistent with the rate and extent of vaginal acidification. Infect. Immun. 1999, 67, 5170–5175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Younes, J.A.; Lievens, E.; Hummelen, R.; van der Westen, R.; Reid, G.; Petrova, M.I. Women and their microbes: The unexpected friendship. J. Trends Microbiol. 2018, 26, 16–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ma, B.; Forney, L.J.; Ravel, J. Vaginal microbiome: Rethinking health and disease. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2012, 66, 371–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Parolin, C.; Marangoni, A.; Laghi, L.; Foschi, C.; Ñahui Palomino, R.A.; Calonghi, N.; Cevenini, R.; Vitali, B. Isolation of vaginal lactobacilli and characterization of anti-Candida activity. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0131220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zozaya-Hinchliffe, M.; Lillis, R.; Martin, D.H.; Ferris, M.J. Quantitative PCR assessments of bacterial species in women with and without bacterial vaginosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010, 48, 1812–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Ferris, M.J.; Norori, J.; Zozaya-Hinchliffe, M.; Martin, D.H. Cultivation-independent analysis of changes in bacterial vaginosis flora following metronidazole treatment. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2007, 45, 1016–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Kwak, W.; Han, Y.-H.; Seol, D.; Kim, H.; Ahn, H.; Jeong, M.; Kang, J.; Kim, T.H. Complete genome of Lactobacillus iners KY using Flongle provides insight into the genetic background of optimal adaption to vaginal econiche. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Edwards, V.L.; Smith, S.B.; McComb, E.J.; Tamarelle, J.; Ma, B.; Humphrys, M.S.; Gajer, P.; Gwilliam, K.; Schaefer, A.M.; Lai, S.K. The cervicovaginal microbiota-host interaction modulates Chlamydia trachomatis infection. J. MBio 2019, 10, e01548-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Ceccarani, C.; Foschi, C.; Parolin, C.; D’Antuono, A.; Gaspari, V.; Consolandi, C.; Laghi, L.; Camboni, T.; Vitali, B.; Severgnini, M. Diversity of vaginal microbiome and metabolome during genital infections. J. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Rampersaud, R.; Planet, P.J.; Randis, T.M.; Kulkarni, R.; Aguilar, J.L.; Lehrer, R.I.; Ratner, A.J. Inerolysin, a cholesterol-dependent cytolysin produced by Lactobacillus iners. J. Bacteriol. 2011, 193, 1034–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Macklaim, J.M.; Fernandes, A.D.; Di Bella, J.M.; Hammond, J.-A.; Reid, G.; Gloor, G.B. Comparative meta-RNA-seq of the vaginal microbiota and differential expression by Lactobacillus iners in health and dysbiosis. Microbiome 2013, 1, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Petrova, M.I.; Reid, G.; Vaneechoutte, M.; Lebeer, S. Lactobacillus iners: Friend or foe? Trends Microbiol. 2017, 25, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Macklaim, J.M.; Gloor, G.B.; Anukam, K.C.; Cribby, S.; Reid, G. At the crossroads of vaginal health and disease, the genome sequence of Lactobacillus iners AB-1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 4688–4695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. France, M.T.; Rutt, L.; Narina, S.; Arbaugh, S.; McComb, E.; Humphrys, M.S.; Ma, B.; Hayward, M.R.; Costello, E.K.; Relman, D.A. Complete Genome Sequences of Six Lactobacillus iners Strains Isolated from the Human Vagina. J. Microbiol. Resour. Announc. 2020, 9. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mendes-Soares, H.; Suzuki, H.; Hickey, R.J.; Forney, L.J. Comparative functional genomics of Lactobacillus spp. reveals possible mechanisms for specialization of vaginal lactobacilli to their environment. J. Bacteriol. 2014, 196, 1458–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Vaneechoutte, M. Lactobacillus iners, the unusual suspect. J. Res. Microbiol. 2017, 168, 826–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. De Backer, E.; Verhelst, R.; Verstraelen, H.; Alqumber, M.A.; Burton, J.P.; Tagg, J.R.; Temmerman, M.; Vaneechoutte, M. Quantitative determination by real-time PCR of four vaginal Lactobacillus species, Gardnerella vaginalis and Atopobium vaginae indicates an inverse relationship between L. gasseri and L. iners. BMC Microbiol. 2007, 7, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Falsen, E.; Pascual, C.; Sjödén, B.; Ohlén, M.; Collins, M.D. Phenotypic and phylogenetic characterization of a novel Lactobacillus species from human sources: Description of Lactobacillus iners sp. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 1999, 49, 217–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Koren, S.; Walenz, B.P.; Berlin, K.; Miller, J.R.; Bergman, N.H.; Phillippy, A.M. Canu: Scalable and accurate long-read assembly via adaptive k-mer weighting and repeat separation. J. Genome Res. 2017, 27, 722–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Loman, N.J.; Quick, J.; Simpson, J.T. A complete bacterial genome assembled de novo using only nanopore sequencing data. J. Nat. Methods 2015, 12, 733–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Seemann, T. Prokka: Rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. J. Bioinform. 2014, 30, 2068–2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Aziz, R.K.; Bartels, D.; Best, A.A.; DeJongh, M.; Disz, T.; Edwards, R.A.; Formsma, K.; Gerdes, S.; Glass, E.M.; Kubal, M. The RAST Server: Rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genom. 2008, 9, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Li, L.; Stoeckert, C.J.; Roos, D.S. OrthoMCL: Identification of ortholog groups for eukaryotic genomes. J. Genome Res. 2003, 13, 2178–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Rand, K.H.; Tillan, M. Errors in interpretation of Gram stains from positive blood cultures. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2006, 126, 686–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Arora, H.K.; Chapman, G.B. Transmission electron microscope study of bacterial morphotypes on the anterior dorsal surface of human tongues. Anat. Rec. 2000, 259, 276–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mai-Prochnow, A.; Clauson, M.; Hong, J.; Murphy, A.B. Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria differ in their sensitivity to cold plasma. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Sadhu, K.; Domingue, P.; Chow, A.; Nelligan, J.; Cheng, N.; Costerton, J. Gardnerella vaginalis has a gram-positive cell-wall ultrastructure and lacks classical cell-wall lipopolysaccharide. J. Med. Microbiol. 1989, 29, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Klebanoff, M.A.; Schwebke, J.R.; Zhang, J.; Nansel, T.R.; Yu, K.-F.; Andrews, W.W. Vulvovaginal symptoms in women with bacterial vaginosis. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004, 104, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Rismondo, J.; Percy, M.G.; Gründling, A. Discovery of genes required for lipoteichoic acid glycosylation predicts two distinct mechanisms for wall teichoic acid glycosylation. J. Biol. Chem. 2018, 293, 3293–3306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Chapot-Chartier, M.-P.; Kulakauskas, S. Cell wall structure and function in lactic acid bacteria. Microb. Cell Factories 2014, 13, S9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Microscopic images of strains. (ac) Gram-stains of (a) L. iners KY. (b) L. plantarum. (c) artificial mixtures of L. iners KY (narrow arrow) and E. coli OP50 (wide arrow). (d,e) TEM images of cell envelopes of (d) L. iners KY. (e) L. plantarum. Both species were identically processed. It is shown that L. iners has the cell envelope organization of the Gram-positive organisms, but the thickness of the peptidoglycan layer is relatively thin compared to L. plantarum. Scale bar = 200 nm.
Figure 1. Microscopic images of strains. (ac) Gram-stains of (a) L. iners KY. (b) L. plantarum. (c) artificial mixtures of L. iners KY (narrow arrow) and E. coli OP50 (wide arrow). (d,e) TEM images of cell envelopes of (d) L. iners KY. (e) L. plantarum. Both species were identically processed. It is shown that L. iners has the cell envelope organization of the Gram-positive organisms, but the thickness of the peptidoglycan layer is relatively thin compared to L. plantarum. Scale bar = 200 nm.
Microorganisms 08 00969 g001
Table 1. Functional categories of genes in genomes of L. plantarum WCFS1, L. crispatus ST1, L. iners KY.
Table 1. Functional categories of genes in genomes of L. plantarum WCFS1, L. crispatus ST1, L. iners KY.
Functional Category/PathwayNumber of Genes
L. plantarum WCFS1L. crispatus ST1L. iners KY
Carbohydrate metabolism2588535
Amino acid metabolism1898022
Lipid metabolism392522
Nucleic acid metabolism896961
Cofactor metabolism1045140
Membrane transport492119
Replication & repair503835
Transcription201514
Translation116109109
Cell Wall764320
Stress Response2036
Phages, Prophages, Transposable elements, Plasmids1005
Virulence, Disease and Defense383715
CRISPRs062
Table 2. Proteins commonly absent in L. iners genomes that are conserved in nine Lactobacillus genomes.
Table 2. Proteins commonly absent in L. iners genomes that are conserved in nine Lactobacillus genomes.
ProteinFunction
XynAAlpha/beta hydrolase
CsbBPutative glycosyltransferase CsbB
YvgNGlyoxal reductase
PhoUPhosphate signaling complex protein PhoU

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, H.; Kim, T.; Kang, J.; Kim, Y.; Kim, H. Is Lactobacillus Gram-Positive? A Case Study of Lactobacillus iners. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 969. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8070969

AMA Style

Kim H, Kim T, Kang J, Kim Y, Kim H. Is Lactobacillus Gram-Positive? A Case Study of Lactobacillus iners. Microorganisms. 2020; 8(7):969. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8070969

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Hyaekang, Taehyun Kim, Jaeku Kang, Younghoon Kim, and Heebal Kim. 2020. "Is Lactobacillus Gram-Positive? A Case Study of Lactobacillus iners" Microorganisms 8, no. 7: 969. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8070969

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop