Review Topical Sections

Lactic acid bacteria as starter cultures: An update in their metabolism and genetics

  • Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are members of an heterogenous group of bacteria which plays a significant role in a variety of fermentation processes. The general description of the bacteria included in the group is gram-positive, non-sporing, non-respiring cocci or rods. An overview of the genetics of lactococci, Streptococcus thermophilus, lactobacilli, pediococci, leuconostocs, enterococci and oenococciis presented with special reference to their metabolic traits. The three main pathways in which LAB are involved in the manufacture of fermented foods and the development of their flavour, are (a) glycolysis (fermentation of sugars), (b) lipolysis (degradation of fat) and (c) proteolysis (degradation of proteins). Although the major metabolic action is the production of lactic acid from the fermentation of carbohydrates, that is, the acidification of the food, LAB are involved in the production of many beneficial compounds such as organic acids, polyols, exopolysaccharides and antimicrobial compounds, and thus have a great number of applications in the food industry (i.e. starter cultures). With the advances in the genetics, molecular biology, physiology, and biochemistry and the reveal and publication of the complete genome sequence of a great number of LAB, new insights and applications for these bacteria have appeared and a variety of commercial starter, functional, bio-protective and probiotic cultures with desirable properties have marketed.

    Citation: Thomas Bintsis. Lactic acid bacteria as starter cultures: An update in their metabolism and genetics[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(4): 665-684. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.4.665

    Related Papers:

    [1] Tsanou Berge, Samuel Bowong, Jean Lubuma, Martin Luther Mann Manyombe . Modeling Ebola Virus Disease transmissions with reservoir in a complex virus life ecology. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(1): 21-56. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018002
    [2] Mondal Hasan Zahid, Christopher M. Kribs . Ebola: Impact of hospital's admission policy in an overwhelmed scenario. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(6): 1387-1399. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018063
    [3] Mark G. Burch, Karly A. Jacobsen, Joseph H. Tien, Grzegorz A. Rempała . Network-based analysis of a small Ebola outbreak. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2017, 14(1): 67-77. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017005
    [4] Narges Montazeri Shahtori, Tanvir Ferdousi, Caterina Scoglio, Faryad Darabi Sahneh . Quantifying the impact of early-stage contact tracing on controlling Ebola diffusion. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(5): 1165-1180. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018053
    [5] Xiang-Sheng Wang, Luoyi Zhong . Ebola outbreak in West Africa: real-time estimation and multiple-wave prediction. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2015, 12(5): 1055-1063. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2015.12.1055
    [6] Erin N. Bodine, Connor Cook, Mikayla Shorten . The potential impact of a prophylactic vaccine for Ebola in Sierra Leone. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(2): 337-359. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018015
    [7] Jing-An Cui, Fangyuan Chen . Effects of isolation and slaughter strategies in different species on emerging zoonoses. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2017, 14(5&6): 1119-1140. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017058
    [8] Andreas Widder . On the usefulness of set-membership estimation in the epidemiology of infectious diseases. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(1): 141-152. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018006
    [9] Haitao Song, Dan Tian, Chunhua Shan . Modeling the effect of temperature on dengue virus transmission with periodic delay differential equations. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 4147-4164. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020230
    [10] Ryan Covington, Samuel Patton, Elliott Walker, Kazuo Yamazaki . Improved uniform persistence for partially diffusive models of infectious diseases: cases of avian influenza and Ebola virus disease. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(11): 19686-19709. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023872
  • Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are members of an heterogenous group of bacteria which plays a significant role in a variety of fermentation processes. The general description of the bacteria included in the group is gram-positive, non-sporing, non-respiring cocci or rods. An overview of the genetics of lactococci, Streptococcus thermophilus, lactobacilli, pediococci, leuconostocs, enterococci and oenococciis presented with special reference to their metabolic traits. The three main pathways in which LAB are involved in the manufacture of fermented foods and the development of their flavour, are (a) glycolysis (fermentation of sugars), (b) lipolysis (degradation of fat) and (c) proteolysis (degradation of proteins). Although the major metabolic action is the production of lactic acid from the fermentation of carbohydrates, that is, the acidification of the food, LAB are involved in the production of many beneficial compounds such as organic acids, polyols, exopolysaccharides and antimicrobial compounds, and thus have a great number of applications in the food industry (i.e. starter cultures). With the advances in the genetics, molecular biology, physiology, and biochemistry and the reveal and publication of the complete genome sequence of a great number of LAB, new insights and applications for these bacteria have appeared and a variety of commercial starter, functional, bio-protective and probiotic cultures with desirable properties have marketed.


    Ebola virus disease (EVD), also referred to as Ebola hemorrhagic fever, is caused in humans by four ebolaviruses [1,2,3]. Following an incubation period of 3–21 days, clinical symptoms are initially non-specific, and include fever, muscle pain, sore throat and headaches, which are later typically followed by vomiting, diarrhea, and rashes. If exacerbated, hemorrhagic symptoms including internal and external bleeding as well as coma occur. The case fatality risk (CFR) of EVD is very high, killing 25–90% of diagnosed individuals [2,3]. The virus is transmitted via bodily fluids such as blood from infected humans [2]. Approved specific preventions (e.g. vaccines) and treatments have yet to be fully established, but these have been extensively studied in recent years accelerated by the large epidemics of EVD in West Africa from 2013–16.

    The first recorded outbreak of EVD occurred in a cotton factory in Sudan from June to November 1976 [1]. Since late 2013, the largest ever epidemic of EVD occurred in West Africa, mainly in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, involving about 30,000 cases and 13,000 deaths. To this date, there have been 23 EVD outbreak events in Central and West Africa, all of which arose from zoonotic spillover from wild animals to humans. Zoonotic spillover is defined as the introduction to a human population from a nonhuman animal host [4]. However, some outbreaks were not able to be traced back to a single source animal [2,3,4]. Despite enhanced studies on the prevention and treatment of EVD in recent years, the emergence of human outbreaks and their mechanisms have yet to be explored in detail.

    The emergence records could offer key insights into understanding the changing environment of interface between humans and animal reservoirs. For instance, we have yet to understand if EVD outbreaks are increasing in their frequency. Also, it should be well understood how the route of emergence is established from animals to humans, while animal reservoirs of this particular disease are always arising from wildlife. It is fruitful to understand underlying relationships between the infectiousness and virulence of EVD, and modes of transmission, source animals, and viral taxa (i.e. Zaire ebolavirus, Sudan ebolavirus, Bundibugyo ebolavirus). Here we explore the epidemiological record of EVD outbreaks, aiming to clarify predominant animal sources of the emergence, epidemiological characteristics of each outbreak (e.g. the risk of death), and frequency of emergence. We collected the data of every outbreak that can be traced back to a single zoonotic spillover, anticipating that knowing the main causes and sources of ebolavirus will contribute to predict future emergences, helping us to swiftly react to outbreaks.

    We conducted a literature review and collected all information with respect to the animal source of ebolavirus spillover in every recorded outbreak [1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. In principle, we adhered to the chronological list of outbreaks as described by the World Health Organization [8], and the animal source and other details were traced in literature [1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. To identify each outbreak, we classified the information obtained into: (1) the date of the outbreak, (2) country where it occurred, (3) number of reported cases, (4) number of deaths, (5) the identification method, (6) whether the human case of zoonotic source was laboratory confirmed or not, (7) the animal source of infection, (8) CFR, (9) the mode of transmission to the human index case, and (10) the viral taxa. Subsequently, we considered sub-categories as follows: (ⅰ) animal source of infection: Bats = 0, primates = 1, others = 2, and unknown = 3, (ⅱ) viral taxa: Sudan ebolavirus = 1, Zaire ebolavirus = 2, and Bundibugyo ebolavirus = 3, and (ⅲ) mode of transmission: Eating = 0, environmental = 1, unknown = 2. For clarity, we excluded iatrogenic events from our analysis, because they did not arise from animal-to-human contact, and it would skew the average CFR. The collected data are summarized in Table 1. It is not yet confirmed whether or not bats are infected with ebolavirus, but it is a leading hypothesis that they are, so here we list bats as sources of infection under the assumption that they are actively infected with ebolavirus.

    Table 1.  Collected data from literature listed by date of the outbreak, location, how the index case was identified, whether the source animal was confirmed or not, the suspected or confirmed source animal (if known), the suspected mode of transmission (if known), the number of cases and deaths, the case fatality risk as a percentage, the viral taxa (Zaire ebolavirus: EBOV, Sudan ebolavirus: SUDV, and Bundibugyo ebolavirus: BDBV). Highlighted in grey are outbreaks of which mode of transmission was iatrogenic. The literature from which the data came from are listed on the right-most column.
    Date Location Identification of primary case Laboratory confirmation of the source Suspected source animals Suspected mode of transmission Cases Deaths Case fatality risk Virus References
    Jun–Nov 1976 Sudan Contact history Unconfirmed Insectivorous bats Environmental 284 151 53 SUDV [1,5,6,7,8]
    Aug 1976 DRC Serology Unconfirmed Monkeys and antelope Hunting/Eating 318 280 88 EBOV [2,5,7,8,9]
    Aug–Sep 1979 Sudan Contact History Unconfirmed Insectivorous bats Environmental 34 22 65 SUDV [5,7,8,10]
    Dec 1994–Feb 1995 Gabon Contact History Unconfirmed Primates Hunting/Eating 52 31 60 EBOV [5,8,11,12,13]
    May–Jul 1995 DRC N/A Unconfirmed Unknown Unknown 315 254 81 EBOV [2,5,8]
    Jan–Apr 1996 Gabon Contact history Confirmed Chimpanzees Hunting/Eating 31 21 68 EBOV [5,8,11,12,13]
    Jul 1996–Mar 1997 Gabon Contact history Unconfirmed Primates Hunting/Eating 60 45 75 EBOV [5,8,11,12,13]
    Oct 2000–Jan 2001 Uganda Contact history Unconfirmed Primates, rodents, bats Hunting/Eating 425 224 53 SUDV [5,8,14]
    Oct 2001–Jul 2002 Gabon/Congo Genome Confirmed Gorillas, chimpanzees, duikers Hunting/Eating 124 97 78 EBOV [5,8,13,15,16,17]
    Dec 2002–Apr Congo Genome Confirmed Gorillas, antelope, duikers Hunting/Eating 143 128 90 EBOV [5,8,13,15]
    Nov–Dec 2003 Congo Contact history Unconfirmed Greater white-nosed monkey, duikers Hunting/Eating 35 29 83 EBOV [5,8]
    Apr–Jun 2004 Sudan Contact history Unconfirmed Baboons Hunting/Eating 17 7 41 SUDV [5,8,18]
    Apr–May 2005 Congo Contact history Unconfirmed Elephant, small animals Hunting/Eating 12 10 83 EBOV [5,8,19]
    Aug–Nov 2007 DRC Contact history Unconfirmed Fruit bats Hunting/Eating 264 187 71 EBOV [8,13,20]
    Dec 2007–Jan 2008 Uganda Contact history Unconfirmed Unknown Unknown 149 37 25 BDBV [3,8]
    Dec 2008–Feb 2009 DRC N/A Unconfirmed Unknown Unknown 32 14 44 EBOV [4,8]
    Jun–Aug 2012 Uganda Contact history Unconfirmed Fruit bats Environmental 24 17 71 SUDV [8,21,22]
    Jun–Nov 2012 DRC Genome Unconfirmed Fruit bats Environmental 57 29 51 BDBV [8,21,23]
    Dec 2013–Jun 2016 West Africa Serology Unconfirmed Insectivorous bats Hunting/Eating 28639 11322 40 EBOV [8,24,25]
    Aug–Nov 2014 DRC Contact history Unconfirmed Monkeys Environmental 66 49 74 EBOV [8,26]
    May–July 2017 DRC Contact history Unconfirmed Pigs Environmental 8 4 50 EBOV [27,28]
    May–July 2018 DRC N/A Unconfirmed Unknown Unknown 54 33 61 EBOV [29,30]
    Aug 2018–present DRC N/A Unconfirmed Unknown Unknown ongoing EBOV [31]
    1976 UK Iatrogenic Confirmed Syringe: guinea pig liver Iatrogenic 1 0 0 SUDV [50]
    1996 Russia Iatrogenic Confirmed Experimental treatment for Ebola Iatrogenic 1 1 100 EBOV [51]
    2004 Russia Iatrogenic Confirmed Syringe: guinea pig Iatrogenic 1 1 100 EBOV [52]

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    First, we examined statistical relationships among the CFR, suspected mode of transmission, source animals, and viral taxa, calculated as Pr(Di; Ci) for a sub-category i, where Di and Ci stand for the numbers of deaths and cases of sub-category i, respectively. Visual comparison as well as statistical testing of independence were conducted. For the visual assessment, we have plotted the mean CFR for each sub-category with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Since there were only 22 data points, we performed bootstrap resampling to calculate accurate confidence intervals with realizations for 1,000 times. In addition, we performed a Fisher's exact test of independence for each pair of two variables to examine the statistical association. Second, we tested whether the mean CFR for each sub-category i was not significantly different (null hypothesis). Because there are more than two populations, the One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was employed to test the hypothesis. Otherwise, we altered the categories to have only two sub-categories due to small sample size of outbreaks, in order to create 2 × 2 contingency tables and more accurately use Fisher's exact tests, as follows: (ⅰ) animal source of infection: Not bats = 0, bats = 1, (ⅱ) viral taxa: Zaire ebolavirus = 1, others = 2, and (ⅲ) mode of transmission: Non-eating = 0, eating = 1. Third, we examined if the above-mentioned variables are associated with the cumulative number of cases in each outbreak. Following the F-tests, student's t-tests were implemented to identify the statistical associations. Because the 2013–2016 outbreak in West Africa has an exponentially greater number of cases than any other outbreak, which skews the mean and variance calculations, we utilized the logarithm of the cumulative number of cases.

    In addition to relationships among characteristic variables of outbreak emergence, here we examined the inter-epidemic time periods which represent the time interval between two outbreaks in sequence. If the emergence of EVD outbreaks occurs truly at a random manner, the inter-epidemic period should be exponentially distributed, with its mean equal to the standard deviation. Statistically speaking, such process is referred to as the Poisson process, typically as seen in the time interval between two natural disaster events (e.g. floods). The Poisson distribution test has also been examined with applications to influenza A pandemics elsewhere [32]. We plotted each epidemic across a timeline with 1-month intervals, starting from the month of the first epidemic (June 1976), and divided the epidemics by country, animal source of infection, and mode of transmission to create a visual representation of the interepidemic time intervals.

    A gamma distribution is regarded as a more general representation of an exponential distribution, as it contains the exponential distribution as a special case. Let πi be the time between (i - 1)th and ith outbreaks. This is assumed to follow a distribution Γ(a, b) where a and b are the shape and rate parameters, respectively. If a = 1, the gamma distribution is identical to the exponential as a special case. Let f be the likelihood function of the inter-epidemic periods. Using the observed distribution of inter-epidemic periods, we tested whether the emergence of Ebola outbreaks follows a Poisson distribution. We used the likelihood ratio test where the log-likelihood difference is:

    $D = 2\left[ {\log f\left( {\delta \hat a, \hat b} \right) - \log f\left( {\delta 1, \hat b'} \right)} \right]$ (1)

    which is to follow a chi-squared distribution, where ${\hat a}$, ${\hat b}$, and ${\hat b}' $ represent the maximum likelihood estimate for gamma and exponential distributions. The p-value was obtained with the degree of freedom at 1.

    Similarly, we tested whether there has been a time trend for the occurrence of outbreaks. In this instance, the shape parameter a is fixed at 1. Then, an inverse of the rate parameter 1/b gives the mean of the exponentially distributed inter-epidemic period. We substitute it by a linear function ${q_0} + {q_1}\left({t - 1976} \right)$ where q0 is the intercept and q1 is the rate of change in the frequency of outbreaks. The log-likelihood difference is given as

    $D' = 2\left[ {\log f\left( {\delta \left| {1, \frac{1}{{{{\hat q}_0} + {{\hat q}_1}\left( {t - 1976} \right)}}} \right.} \right) - \log f\left( {\delta \left| {1, \hat b'} \right.} \right)} \right]$ (2)

    where ${{{\hat q}_0}}, {{{\hat q}_1}}, $ and ${\hat b'}$ are the maximum likelihood estimates for exponential distributions with and without time trends.

    The level of statistical significance was set at α = 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted using JMP Pro 13 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and statistical package R (https://cran.r-project.org/) [33].

    Table 1 shows the list of existing outbreak records of EVD. Since the first report of EVD in 1976 [34], in total there have been 23 documented outbreaks, with the median number of cases and deaths at 59 and 35 persons, respectively. One outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was ongoing, and thus, excluded from the analysis except for its inter-epidemic period. In addition, there were three iatrogenic events as reported from the United Kingdom and Russia. The most frequent location of animal-to-human contact emergence was the DRC with n = 9 outbreaks, followed by Congo, Gabon, Sudan, and Uganda at n = 3, respectively. The index case was identified by genetic information for only three outbreaks, diagnosed by serological testing in two outbreaks, and the remaining 14 outbreaks relied on contact history. The source animal was confirmed in a laboratory only in three outbreaks (13.0%). As for the source animals, primates were the most common with n = 10, but species were highly variable, e.g., monkey, baboon, chimpanzee, and gorilla. Bats followed primates with n = 6, divided between fruit and insectivorous bats (n = 3 for each). The most frequent opportunity of transmission was when hunting and eating of those animals took place (n = 12).

    We did not identify any significant difference by comparing the mean CFR by suspected mode of transmission and also by suspected animal source, other than viral taxa (Figure 1). Overall, the CFR by outbreak ranged from 24.8% as the minimum to 89.5% as the maximum. The median (and 25th to 75th percentiles) of CFR was 66.2% (50.7% to 78.8%). Summing cumulative numbers of cases and deaths across outbreaks, the crude CFR was estimated at 41.7%. The CFR by outbreaks attributed to eating/hunting behavior, environmental, and unknown modes of transmission have a p-value of 0.287 (ANOVA, Figure 1A). Similarly, for the CFR of outbreaks traced back to bats, primates, others, and unknown subcategories, there is a p-value of 0.343 (ANOVA, Figure 1B). When we examined the relationship between the CFR and viral taxa, the p-value was 0.02 (ANOVA, Figure 1C). Zaire ebolavirus appeared to be more fatal than Sudan and others, with the estimated CFR at 69.1% (95% CI: 61.2%–77.2%), and Sudan ebolavirus was the second most virulent (56.6% (95% CI: 47.0–65.0%)). However, this is still not confirmed, since running a t-test on the virulence of Zaire ebolavirus and Sudan ebolavirus only resulted in a p-value of 0.093 (t-test), which means we cannot reject the hypothesis that the means of their CFR's are equal.

    Figure 1.  The relationship between the case fatality risk and outbreak characteristics of ebolavirus disease. Panel (a) depicts the mean case fatality risk (CFR) for 3 modes of ebolavirus transmission: eating, environmental, and unknown. The mean CFR for eating is 68.3% (95% CI: 58.9%–78.2%), for environmental it is 60.0% (95% CI: 51.5%–68.0%), and for unknown it is 52.8% (95% CI: 33.8%–71.5%). For panel (b), the mean CFR for the suspected animal sources—bats, primates, others, and unknown—are 57.8% (95% CI: 48.7%–67.2%), 70.0% (95% CI: 60.8%–79.8%), 66.5% (95% CI: 50.0%–83.0%), and 52.8% (95% CI: 33.8%–71.5%), respectively. Panel (c) displays the mean CFR for each viral taxon—Sudan ebolavirus, Zaire ebolavirus, and other—with values of 56.6% (95% CI: 47.0–65.0%), 69.1% (95% CI: 61.2%–77.2%), and 36.0% (95% CI: 25.0%–47.0%), respectively.

    Employing Fisher's exact test, we found that the source animal and mode of transmission were significantly associated (p < 0.01, Fisher's exact test), reflecting the fact that primates represent the transmission via hunting and eating. The mode of transmission was not significantly associated with viral taxa (p = 0.07, Fisher's exact test), and similarly, the source animal and viral taxa were not significantly associated (p = 0.24, Fisher's exact test).

    Figure 2 shows the comparison of the cumulative number of cases by source animals, viral taxa, and the mode of transmission. F-tests were performed for the logarithm of the cumulative number of cases by characteristic variables, and we did not identify significant differences in variances between comparison groups (p = 0.05, 0.42, and 0.26 for mode of transmission, viral taxa and source animal, respectively). ANOVA tests for those same pairs of categories resulted in p-values of 0.56, 0.72, and 0.25, respectively, indicating that there were no significant differences in the cumulative number of cases by these variables.

    Figure 2.  The cumulative number of cases in ebolavirus disease outbreaks by suspected animal source, virus type and mode of transmission. The log(number of cases) is plotted against suspected source animals, viral taxa, and modes of transmission as boxplots and scatterplots. The bottom whiskers of each boxplot represent the data points that are 1.5 interquartile ranges (IQR) below the first quartile, and the whiskers at the top represent the data points that are 1.5 IQR above the third quartile. The bottom edges of the boxes represent the first quartiles of the data points, while the top edges represent the third quartiles. The lines inside the boxplots represent the medians of the data points. Any points outside the whiskers are outliers.

    We also ran similar hypothesis testing for the binary-subdivided categories. Student's t-tests for the association between the cumulative number of cases and the variables (ⅰ) source animal, (ⅱ) mode of transmission, and (ⅲ) viral taxa did not identify any significant association with p = 0.30, 0.34, and 0.73, respectively. Using the 2 × 2 contingency tables of source animal and mode of transmission, source animal and viral taxa, and mode of transmission and viral taxa, we obtained p-values of 0.33, 0.12, and 0.16, respectively, using Fisher's exact tests.

    Figure 3 shows the inter-epidemic period by country of origin, source animal and mode of transmission. The inter-epidemic period was highly skewed, ranging from 0 to 196 months, with a median (and interquartile) of 12.0 (6.5 to 30.5 months). Overall, an exponential distribution yielded a greater negative loglikelihood (NLL) value (85.3) compared to a gamma distribution (81.9), and the difference was significant (p = 0.01, likelihood ratio test). Namely, the emergence was on a whole indicated to take place in a non-random manner. A time trend was not identified (NLL = 84.9).

    Figure 3.  Inter-epidemic period of ebolavirus disease. The top plot illustrates the month in which an EVD outbreak began, separated by location, with 0 being the month of June 1976. The middle plot depicts the beginning of each EVD outbreak separated by source animal, and the bottom plot is separated by mode of transmission.

    Analyzing the inter-epidemic period by country (Figure 3, top), we did not identify any significant deviation of the periods from a Poisson distribution. Nevertheless, when we examined the presence of the time trend, the inter-epidemic period in DRC was shown to have been shortened (p = 0.03, likelihood ratio test) with the rate 0.56 (95% CI: 0.07, 1.79) per month. The inter-epidemic period was also examined by suspected source animal and suspected mode of transmission (Figure 3, middle and bottom). Those caused by bats were shown to prefer a gamma-distributed inter-epidemic period (NLL = 18.1) over a Poisson distribution (NLL = 23.1), with p-value smaller than 0.01 (likelihood ratio test). The same result was the case for the environmental transmission route (NLL = 23.4 and 18.4 for exponential and gamma distributions, respectively, with p < 0.01, likelihood ratio test) which mostly reflects the transmission from bats to humans. No indication of a time trend was found for the inter-epidemic period by source animals and modes of transmission.

    The present study examined descriptive epidemiological features of ebolavirus outbreaks that have been documented to date, in the hope that reviewing such datasets would offer critical insights into prediction of future outbreaks. Outbreak events were most frequently seen in the DRC. The most frequent animal source was primates (n = 10) associated with eating/hunting behaviors, and there were 4 outbreaks attributed to bats. As already known, Zaire ebolavirus was shown to be the most lethal [35,36]. Additionally, by exploring inter-epidemic periods of all documented outbreaks, we have shown that a gamma distribution was preferred over an exponential distribution, indicating some dependence of the emergence event with respect to time. In particular, we have shown that (ⅰ) a non-Poisson process is the case for bat-originating outbreaks and (ⅱ) the inter-epidemic period was shortened with time in the DRC. To our knowledge, the present study is the first to clarify these features.

    While the emergence of ebolavirus outbreaks has been considered as memoryless, or as random using a Bayesian model selection algorithm [32,37], we have shown that an application of a classical likelihood-ratio test to the existing data would result in the suggestion of non-random emergence. In particular, it is critical that the inter-epidemic period of outbreaks caused by bats was shown not to be a memoryless process. The fruit bat, or forest-dwelling bat, is believed to be the natural reservoir host of ebolavirus in wild life [38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. Considering that non-randomness could arise from (ⅰ) the spread of virus in bat populations and also from (ⅱ) the time-dependent variations in the chance of humans to be exposed to bats, our finding implies a need to directly explore the environmental route from bats to humans in more detail. Understanding that the transmission from primates was usually caused by eating habits, characteristics of environmental transmission would reflect exposures to bats and our finding is indicative of some dependence in that human-animal interface.

    It is also remarkable that the frequency of EVD outbreaks was shown to have increased in the DRC, while such indication was not identified in other countries. The DRC is the country where the most recent outbreaks, one in Equateur Province and the other in North Kivu, have been identified. Given the North Kivu outbreak that occurred in the easternmost part of the DRC, it is concerning whether the geographic foci of the reservoir exposure has expanded compared to the past. Although the animal source of the latest outbreak has not been traced back, our finding offers an important clue for future monitoring. For instance, identifying the cause of an ongoing increase of emergence in the DRC as traced back to certain species of animal reservoirs, not only humans but also virus surveillance of corresponding animal species may realistically be considered. As the present study has shown, a simple statistical model can be employed to test whether there is a non-negligible time trend in the emergence of EVD outbreaks in humans, and that can potentially be extended to spatiotemporal analyses in the DRC.

    Five limitations of the present study must be noted. First, we cannot exclude a possibility of ascertainment bias, especially in the early period of observation. Both epidemiological surveillance and laboratory testing technologies have considerably progressed in the last 40 years, and the time trend should be carefully interpreted. Second, the sample size is limited to 23 for 40 years, and thus, the potential sampling bias may have been imposed. Despite this fact, we believe that our findings add insights to existing publications [32,35,37], and in fact, we identified statistically significant results. Third, from a virologic point of view, one may feel that epidemiological characteristics of a more detailed virus cluster (e.g. a cluster in a phylogenetic tree) or genotype should ideally be explored. Fourth, while the present study focused on the documented outbreaks, we did not analyze additional datasets in both humans and animals. Specifically, the information of the spread of virus in wildlife is of utmost importance to clarify the ecological dynamics of ebolavirus [45]. In addition, we acknowledge that data on Ebola is often under-reported, and further work that explicitly takes this fact into account may be desirable [46]. Lastly, while we analyzed the CFR for different suspected modes of transmission and different animal sources of infection, the CFR is most likely skewed depending on the size of the epidemic. Therefore, the most important parameter is virus type.

    Furthermore, for future work on Ebola, one could consider the differences in cultural behavior. For example, a small population with exceptionally higher contact could be considered "superspreaders", which alters the dynamics of the spread of EVD [47,48]. Such analysis is deemed essential, considering the persistent development of Ebola once it develops to a major epidemic [49]. Nonetheless, despite these remarks, we believe that the present study offers an important insight into non-random emergence of EVD in humans, especially through bats. An increasing time trend of outbreak frequency was identified in the DRC. In addition to descriptively characterizing the emergence, mode of transmission and animal source, we believe that the present study offers critical insight into the future prediction of EVD outbreaks.

    The present study examined descriptive epidemiological features of Ebola virus disease outbreaks. We have shown that (ⅰ) the leading cause of emergence was eating and hunting habits, (ⅱ) primates act as the main source of zoonotic spillover, and (ⅲ) Zaire ebolavirus is the most virulent type. Moreover, the emergence was demonstrated not to be a Poisson process, indicating that some unknown, underlying, and non-random mechanisms are likely to govern the spillover event. In addition, statistical fit to the emergence data with an increasing trend of outbreaks was favored in the Democratic Republic of Congo compared with a purely random emergence model. Outbreak event data and their causative viruses should be explored biologically and epidemiologically to possibly predict future outbreak events.

    We would like to thank Professor Bryan Grenfell for offering the opportunity for LP to study in Japan. Additionally, we would like to thank each of our funders: LP, RK and HN were supported by the University of Tokyo-Princeton Strategic Partnership (Co-PIs: Bryan Grenfell and Hiroshi Nishiura). HN received funding from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED; JP18fk0108050), Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI (grant numbers 16KT0130, 16K15356, 17H05808 and 17H04701) and Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) CREST program (JPMJCR1413). RK acknowledges the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Fellowship with the funding KAKENHI (18J21587). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.

    [1] Bintsis T (2018) Lactic acid bacteria: their applications in foods. J Bacteriol Mycol 5: 1065.
    [2] Hayek SA, Ibrahim SA (2013) Current limitations and challenges with lactic acid bacteria: a review. Food Nutr Sci 4: 73–87.
    [3] Khalid K (2011) An overview of lactic acid bacteria. Int J Biosci 1: 1–13.
    [4] Bintsis T, Athanasoulas A (2015) Dairy starter cultures, In: Papademas P, Editor, Dairy Microbiology, A Practical Approach, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 114–154.
    [5] Von Wright A, Axelsson L (2011) Lactic acid bacteria: An introduction, In: Lahtinne S, Salminen S, Von Wright A, et al., Editors, Lactic Acid Bacteria: Microbiological and Functional Aspects, London: CRC Press, 1–17.
    [6] Sheehan JJ (2007) What are starters and what starter types are used for cheesemaking? In: McSweeney PLH, Editor, Cheese problems solved, Boca Raton: Woodhead Publishing Ltd., 36–37.
    [7] Tamime AY (2002) Microbiology of starter cultures, In: Robinson RK, Editor, Dairy Microbiology Handbook, 3 Eds., New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 261–366.
    [8] Parente E, Cogan TM (2004) Starter cultures: General aspects, In: Fox PF, McSweeney PLH, Cogan TM, et al., Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology, 4 Eds., London: Elsevier Academic Press, 23–147.
    [9] Bourdichon F, Boyaval P, Casaregola J, et al. (2012) The 2012 Inventory of Microbial Species with technological beneficial role in fermented food products. B Int Dairy Fed 455: 22–61.
    [10] Bourdichon F, Berger B, Casaregola S, et al. (2012) A safety assessment of microbial food cultures with history of use in fermented dairy products. B Int Dairy Fed 455: 2–12.
    [11] Ricci A, Allende A, Bolton D, et al. (2017) Scientific Opinion on the update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA. EFSA J 15: 4664.
    [12] Beresford T, Cogan T (1997) Improving Cheddar cheese flavor, In: Proceedings of the 5th Cheese Symposium, Cork: Teagasc/University College Cork, 53–61.
    [13] Picon A (2018) Cheese Microbial Ecology and Safety, In: Papademas P, Bintsis T, Editors, Global Cheesemaking Technology, Cheese Quality and Characteristics, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 71–99.
    [14] Wedajo B (2015) Lactic acid bacteria: benefits, selection criteria and probiotic potential in fermented food. J Prob Health 3: 129.
    [15] Grattepanche F, Miescher-Schwenninger S, Meile L, et al. (2008) Recent developments in cheese cultures with protective and probiotic functionalities. Dairy Sci Technol 88: 421–444. doi: 10.1051/dst:2008013
    [16] Law BA (1999) Cheese ripening and cheese flavour technology, In: Law BA, Editor, Technology of Cheesemaking, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., 163–192.
    [17] Smit G, Smit BA, Engels WJ (2005) Flavour formation by lactic acid bacteria and biochemical flavour profiling of cheese products. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29: 591–610. doi: 10.1016/j.fmrre.2005.04.002
    [18] Tamime AY, Robinson RK (1999) Yoghurt Science and Technology, 2 Eds., Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd.
    [19] Ammor MS, Mayo B (2006) Selection criteria for lactic acid bacteria to be used as functional starter cultures in dry sausage production: An update. Meat Sci 76: 138–146.
    [20] Souza MJ, Ardo Y, McSweeney PLH (2001) Advances in the study of proteolysis in cheese. Int Dairy J 11: 327–345.
    [21] Martinez FAC, Balciunas EM, Salgado JM, et al. (2013) Lactic acid properties, applications and production: A review. Trends Food Sci Tech 30: 70–83. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2012.11.007
    [22] Burgos-Rubio CN, Okos MR, Wankat PC (2000) Kinetic study of the conversion of different substrates to lactic acid using Lactobacillus bulgaricus. Biotechnol Progr 16: 305–314. doi: 10.1021/bp000022p
    [23] Hofvendahl K, Hahn-Hägerda B (2000) Factors affecting the fermentative lactic acid production from renewable resources. Enzyme Microb Tech 26: 87–107. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0229(99)00155-6
    [24] Crow VL, Davey GP, Pearce LE, et al. (1983) Plasmid linkage of the D-tagatose 6-phosphate pathway in Streptococcus lactis: Effect on lactose and galactose metabolism. J Bacteriol 153: 76–83.
    [25] Hugenholtz J (1993) Citrate metabolism in lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev 12: 165–178. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.1993.tb00017.x
    [26] McFeeters RF, Fleming HP, Thompson RL (1982) Malic acid as a source of carbon dioxide in cucumber fermentations. J Food Sci 47: 1862–1865. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1982.tb12900.x
    [27] Daeschel MA, McFeeters RF, Fleming HP, et al. (1984) Mutation and selection of Lactobacillus plantarum strains that do not produce carbon dioxide from malate. Appl Environ Microb 47: 419–420.
    [28] Li KY (2004) Fermentation: Principles and Microorganisms, In: Hui YH, Meunier-Goddik L, Hansen LM, et al., Editors, Handbook of Food and Beverage Fermentation Technology, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc., 594–608.
    [29] Chopin A (1993) Organization and regulation of genes for amino acid biosynthesis in lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev 12: 21–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.1993.tb00011.x
    [30] Kunji ERS, Mierau I, Hagting A, et al. (1996) The proteolytic system of lactic acid bacteria. Anton Leeuw 70: 187–221. doi: 10.1007/BF00395933
    [31] Upadhyay VK, McSweeney PLH, Magboul AAA, et al. (2004) Proteolysis in Cheese during Ripening, In: Fox PF, McSweeney PLH, Cogan TM, et al., Editors, Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology, 4 Eds., London: Elsevier Academic Press, 391–433.
    [32] Curtin AC, McSweeney PLH (2004) Catabolism of Amino Acids in Cheese during Ripening, In: Fox PF, McSweeney PLH, Cogan TM, et al., Editors, Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology, 4 Eds., London: Elsevier Academic Press, 435–454.
    [33] Christensen JE, Dudley EG, Pederson JA, et al. (1999) Peptidases and amino acid catabolism in lactic acid bacteria. Anton Leeuw 76: 217–246. doi: 10.1023/A:1002001919720
    [34] Fox PF, Wallace JM (1997) Formation of flavour compounds in cheese. Adv Appl Microbiol 45: 17–85.
    [35] Khalid NM, Marth EM (1990) Lactobacilli-their enzymes and role in ripening and spoilage of cheese: A review. J Dairy Sci 73: 2669–2684. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(90)78952-7
    [36] Bintsis T, Robinson RK (2004) A study of the effects of adjunct cultures on the aroma compounds of Feta-type cheese. Food Chem 88: 435–441. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.01.057
    [37] Broadbent JR, McMahon DJ, Welker DL, et al. (2003) Biochemistry, genetics, and applications of exopolysaccharide production in Streptococcus thermophilus: A review. J Dairy Sci 86: 407–423. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73619-4
    [38] Callanan MJ, Ross RP (2004) Starter Cultures: Genetics, In: Fox PF, McSweeney PLH, Cogan TM, et al., Editors, Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology, 4 Eds., London: Elsevier Academic Press, 149–161.
    [39] Klaenhammer T, Altermann E, Arigoni F, et al. (2002) Discovering lactic acid bacteria by genomics. Anton Leeuw 82: 29–58. doi: 10.1023/A:1020638309912
    [40] Morelli L, Vogensen FK, Von Wright A (2011) Genetics of Lactic Acid Bacteria, In: Salminen S, Von Wright A, Ouwehand A, Editors, Lactic Acid Bacteria-Microbiological and Functional Aspects, 3 Eds., New York: Marcel Dekker Inc., 249–293.
    [41] Mills S, O'Sullivan O, Hill C, et al. (2010) The changing face of dairy starter culture research: From genomics to economics. Int J Dairy Tech 63: 149–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0307.2010.00563.x
    [42] NCBI, Data collected from Genbank, 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/browse/.
    [43] Oliveira AP, Nielsen J, Förster J (2005) Modeling Lactococcus lactis using a genome-scale flux model. BMC Microbiol 55: 39.
    [44] Salama M, Sandine WE, Giovannoni S (1991) Development and application of oligonucleotide probes for identification of Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris. Appl Environ Microb 57: 1313–1318.
    [45] McKay LL (1985) Roles of plasmids in starter cultures, In: Gilliland SE, Editor, Bacterial Starter Cultures for Food, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 159–174.
    [46] Davidson B, Kordis N, Dobos M, et al. (1996) Genomic organization of lactic acid bacteria. Anton Leeuw 70: 161–183. doi: 10.1007/BF00395932
    [47] Dunny G, McKay LL (1999) Group II introns and expression of conjugative transfer functions in lactic acid bacteria. Anton Leeuw 76: 77–88. doi: 10.1023/A:1002085605743
    [48] Hughes D (2000) Evaluating genome dynamics: The constraints on rearrangements within bacterial genomes. Genome Biol 1: 1–8.
    [49] Hols P, Kleerebezem M, Schanck AN, et al. (1999) Conversion of Lactococcus lactis from homolactic to homoalanine fermentation through metabolic engineering. Nat Biotechnol 17: 588–592. doi: 10.1038/9902
    [50] Bolotin A, Quinquis B, Renault P, et al. (2004) Complete sequence and comparative genome analysis of the dairy bacterium Streptococcus thermophilus. Nat Biotechnol 22: 1554–1558. doi: 10.1038/nbt1034
    [51] Pastink MI, Teusink B, Hols P, et al. (2009) Genome-scale model of Streptococcus thermophilus LMG18311 for metabolic comparison of lactic acid bacteria. Appl Environ Microb 75: 3627–3633. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00138-09
    [52] Madera C, Garcia P, Janzen T, et al. (2003) Characterization of technologically proficient wild Lactococcus lactis strains resistant to phage infection. Int J Food Microbiol 86: 213–222. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(03)00042-4
    [53] Turgeon N, Frenette M, Moineau S (2004) Characterization of a theta-replicating plasmid from Streptococcus thermophilus. Plasmid 51: 24–36. doi: 10.1016/j.plasmid.2003.09.004
    [54] Hols P, Hancy F, Fontaine L, et al. (2005) New insights in the molecular biology and physiology of Streptococcus thermophilus revealed by comparative genomics. FEMS Microbiol Rev 29: 435–463.
    [55] O'Sullivan DJ (1999) Methods for analysis of the intestinal microflora, In: Tannock GW, Editor, Probiotics: A critical review, Norfolk: Horizon Scientific Press.
    [56] Solow BT, Somkuti GA (2000) Molecular properties of Streptococcus thermophilus plasmid pER35 encoding a restriction modification system. Curr Microbiol 42: 122–128.
    [57] El Demerdash HAM, Oxmann J, Heller KJ, et al. (2006) Yoghurt fermentation at elevated temperatures by strains of Streptococcus thermophilus expressing a small heat-shock protein: Application of a two-plasmid system for constructing food-grade strains of Streptococcus thermophilus. Biotechnol J 1: 398–404. doi: 10.1002/biot.200600018
    [58] Chevallier B, Hubert JC, Kammerer B (1994) Determination of chromosome size and number of rrn loci in Lactobacillus plantarum by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. FEMS Microbiol Lett 120: 51–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1994.tb07006.x
    [59] Daniel P (1995) Sizing the Lactobacillus plantarum genome and other lactic bacteria species by transverse alternating field electrophoresis. Curr Microbiol 30: 243–246. doi: 10.1007/BF00293640
    [60] Oliveira PM, Zannini E, Arendt EK (2014) Cereal fungal infection, mycotoxins, and lactic acid bacteria mediated bioprotection: From crop farming to cereal products. Food Microbiol 37: 78–95. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2013.06.003
    [61] Johnson JL, Phelps CF, Cummins CS, et al. (1980) Taxonomy of the Lactobacillus acidophilus group. Int J Syst Bacteriol 30: 53–68. doi: 10.1099/00207713-30-1-53
    [62] Fujisawa T, Benno Y, Yaeshima T, et al. (1992) Taxonomic study of the Lactobacillus acidophilus group, with recognition of Lactobacillus gallinarum sp. nov. and Lactobacillus johnsonii sp. nov. and synonymy of Lactobacillus acidophilus group A3 with the type strain of Lactobacillus amylovorus. Int J Syst Bacteriol 42: 487–491.
    [63] Link-Amster H, Rochat F, Saudan KY, et al. (1994) Modulation of a specific humoral immune response and changes in intestinal flora mediated through fermented milk intake. FEMS Immunol Med Mic 10: 55–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.1994.tb00011.x
    [64] Schiffrin EJ, Rochat F, Link-Amster H, et al. (1995) Immunomodulation of human blood cells following the ingestion of lactic acid bacteria. J Dairy Sci 78: 491–497. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76659-0
    [65] Bernet-Camard MF, Liévin V, Brassart D, et al. (1997) The human Lactobacillus acidophilus strain La1 secretes a non bacteriocin antibacterial substance active in vitro and in vivo. Appl Environ Microb 63: 2747–2753.
    [66] Felley CP, Corthésy-Theulaz I, Rivero JL, et al. (2001) Favourable effect of an acidified milk (LC-1) on Helicobacter pylori gastritis in man. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 13: 25–29. doi: 10.1097/00042737-200101000-00005
    [67] Pérez PF, Minnaard J, Rouvet M, et al. (2001) Inhibition ofGiardia intestinalisby extracellularfactors from lactobacilli: An in vitro study. Appl Environ Microb 67: 5037–5042.
    [68] Schleifer KH, Ludwig W (1995) Phylogenetic relationships of lactic acid bacteria, In: Wood BJB, Holzapfel WH, Editors, The Genera of Lactic Acid Bacteria, London: Chapman & Hall, 7–18.
    [69] Hassan AN, Frank JF (2001) Starter cultures and their use, In: Marth EH, Steele JL, Editors, Applied Dairy Microbiology, 2 Eds., New York: Marcel Dekker Inc., 151–206.
    [70] Hammes WP, Vogel RF (1995) The genus Lactobacillus, In: Wood BJB, Holzapfel WH, Editors, The Genera of Lactic Acid Bacteria, London: Blackie Academic and Professional, 19–54.
    [71] Park JS, Shin E, Hong H, et al. (2015) Characterization of Lactobacillus fermentum PL9988 isolated from healthy elderly Korean in a longevity village. J Microbiol Biotechnol 25: 1510–1518. doi: 10.4014/jmb.1505.05015
    [72] Simpson WJ, Taguchi H (1995) The genus Pediococcus, with notes on the genera Tetratogenococcus and Aerococcus, In: Wood BJB, Holzapfel WH, Editors, The Genera of Lactic Acid Bacteria, London: Chapman & Hall, 125–172.
    [73] Beresford TP, Fitzsimons NA, Brennan NL, et al. (2001) Recent advances in cheese microbiology. Int Dairy J 11: 259–274. doi: 10.1016/S0958-6946(01)00056-5
    [74] Caldwell S, McMahon DL, Oberg CL, et al. (1996) Development and characterization of lactose-positive Pediococcus species for milk fermentation. Appl Environ Microb 62: 936–941.
    [75] Caldwell S, Hutkins RW, McMahon DJ, et al. (1998) Lactose and galactose uptake by genetically engineered Pediococcus species. Appl Microbiol Biot 49: 315–320. doi: 10.1007/s002530051175
    [76] Graham DC, McKay LL (1985) Plasmid DNA in strains of Pediococcus cerevisiae and Pediococcus pentosaceus. Appl Environ Microb 50: 532–534.
    [77] Daeschel MA, Klaenhammer TR (1985) Association of a 13.6-megadalton plasmid in Pediococcus pentosaceus with bacteriocin activity. Appl Environ Microb 50: 1528–1541.
    [78] Gonzalez CF, Kunka BS (1986) Evidence for plasmid linkage of raffinose utilization and associated α-galactosidase and sucrose hydrolase activity in Pediococcus pentosaceus. Appl Environ Microb 51: 105–109.
    [79] De Roos J, De Vuyst L (2018) Microbial acidification, alcoholization, and aroma production during spontaneous limbic beer production. J Sci Food Agr 99: 25–38.
    [80] Sakamoto K, Margolles A, van Veen HW, et al. (2001) Hop resistance in the beer spoilage bacterium Lactobacillus brevis is mediated by the ATP-binding cassette multidrug transporter HorA. J Bacteriol 183: 5371–5375. doi: 10.1128/JB.183.18.5371-5375.2001
    [81] Snauwaert I, Stragier P, De Vuyst L, et al. (2015) Comparative genome analysis of Pediococcus damnosus LMG 28219, a strain well-adapted to the beer environment. BMC Genomics 16: 267. doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-1438-z
    [82] Suzuki K, Ozaki K, Yamashita H (2004) Comparative analysis of conserved genetic markers and adjacent DNA regions identified in beer spoilage lactic acid bacteria. Lett Appl Microbiol 39: 240–245. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2004.01572.x
    [83] Bergsveinson J, Friesen V, Ziola B (2017) Transcriptome analysis of beer-spoiling Lactobacillus brevis BSO 464 during growth in degassed and gassed beer. Int J Food Microbiol 235: 28–35.
    [84] Garvie EI (1986) Genus Leuconostoc, In: Sneath PHA, Mair NS, Sharpe ME, et al., Editors, Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 9 Eds., Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1071–1075.
    [85] Cogan TM, O'Dowd M, Mellerick D (1981) Effects of sugar on acetoin production from citrate by Leuconostoc lactis. Appl Environ Microb 41: 1–8.
    [86] Klare I, Werner G, Witte W (2001) Enterococci: Habitats, infections, virulence factors, resistances to antibiotics, transfer of resistance determinants. Contrib Microbiol 8: 108–122. doi: 10.1159/000060406
    [87] Endtz HP, van den Braak N, Verbrugh HA, et al. (1999) Vancomycin resistance: Status quo and quo vadis. Eur J Clin Microbiol 18: 683–690. doi: 10.1007/s100960050379
    [88] Moreno MRF, Sarantinopoulos P, Tsakalidou E, et al. (2006) The role and application of enterococci in food and health. Int J Food Microbiol 106: 1–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.06.026
    [89] Cappello MS, Zapparoli G, Logrieco A, et al. (2017) Linking wine lactic acid bacteria diversity with wine aroma and flavor. Int J Food Microbiol 243: 16–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.11.025
    [90] Hugenholtz J (2008) The lactic acid bacterium as a cell factory for food ingredient production. Int Dairy J 18: 466–475. doi: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2007.11.015
    [91] Hugenholtz J, Kleerebezem M, Starrenburg M, et al. (2000) Lactococcus lactis as a cell-factory for high level diacetyl production. Appl Environ Microb 66: 4112–4114.
    [92] Hugenholtz J, Smid EJ (2002) Neutraceutical production with food-grade microorganisms. Curr Opin Biotech 13: 497–507. doi: 10.1016/S0958-1669(02)00367-1
    [93] Hugenholtz J, Sybesma W, Groot MN, et al. (2002) Metabolic engineering of lactic acid bacteria for the production of nutraceuticals. Anton Leeuw 82: 217–235. doi: 10.1023/A:1020608304886
    [94] Hols P, Kleerebezem M, Schranck AN, et al. (1999) Conversion of Lactococcus lactis from homolactic to homoalanine fermentation through metabolic engineering. Nat Biotechnol 17: 588–592. doi: 10.1038/9902
    [95] Börner RA, Kandasamy V, Axelsen AM, et al. (2018) High-throughput genome editing tools for lactic acid bacteria: Opportunities for food, feed, pharma and biotech. Available from: www.preprints.org.
    [96] Johansen E (2018) Use of natural selection and evolution to develop new starter cultures for fermented foods. Annu Rev Food Sci T 9: 411–428.
    [97] EC (2013) Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the council on genetically modified food and feed. Off J Eur Union L 268: 1–23.
    [98] Derkx PM, Janzen T, Sørensen KI, et al. (2014) The art of strain improvement of industrial lactic acid bacteria without the use of recombinant DNA technology. Microb Cell Fact 13: S5. doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-13-S1-S5
    [99] Bachmann H, Pronk JT, Kleerebezem M, et al. (2015) Evolutionary engineering to enhance starter culture performance in food fermentations. Curr Opin Biotech 32: 1–7.
    [100] Zeidan AA, Poulsen VK, Janzen T, et al. (2017) Polysaccharide production by lactic acid bacteria: From genes to industrial applications. FEMS Microbiol Rev 41: S168–S200. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fux017
    [101] De Angelis M, de Candia S, Calasso MP, et al. (2008) Selection and use of autochthonous multiple strain cultures for the manufacture of high-moisture traditional Mozzarella cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 125: 123–132. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.03.043
    [102] Terzić-Vidojević A, Tonković K, Leboš A, et al. (2015) Evaluation of autochthonous lactic acid bacteria as starter cultures for production of white pickled and fresh soft cheeses. LWT-Food Sci Technol 63: 298–306. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.03.050
    [103] Frau F, Nuñez M, Gerez L, et al. (2016) Development of an autochthonous starter culture for spreadable goat cheese. Food Sci Technol 36: 622–630. doi: 10.1590/1678-457x.08616
    [104] Kargozari M, Moini S, Basti AA, et al. (2014) Effect of autochthonous starter cultures isolated from Siahmazgi cheese on physicochemical, microbiological and volatile compound profiles and sensorial attributes of sucuk, a Turkish dry-fermented sausage. Meat Sci 97: 104–114. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.01.013
    [105] Casquete R, Benito MJ, Martin A, et al. (2012) Use of autochthonous Pediococcus acidilactici and Staphylococcus vitulus starter cultures in the production of "Chorizo" in 2 different traditional industries. J Food Sci 77: 70–79.
    [106] Talon R, Leroy S, Lebert I, et al. (2008) Safety improvement and preservation of typical sensory qualities of traditional dry fermented sausages using autochthonous starter cultures. Int J Food Microbiol 126: 227–234.
    [107] EFSA (2008) Scientific opinion of the panel on biological hazards on the request from EFSA on the maintenance of the list of QPS microorganisms intentionally added to food or feed. EFSA J 928: 1–48.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Yat Hin Chan, Hiroshi Nishiura, Estimating the protective effect of case isolation with transmission tree reconstruction during the Ebola outbreak in Nigeria, 2014, 2020, 17, 1742-5689, 20200498, 10.1098/rsif.2020.0498
    2. Akanksha Sharma, Rishabha Malviya, Rajendra Awasthi, Pramod Kumar Sharma, 2021, Chapter 10, 978-3-030-57551-9, 127, 10.1007/978-3-030-57552-6_10
    3. Andrei R. Akhmetzhanov, Hyojung Lee, Sung-mok Jung, Taishi Kayano, Baoyin Yuan, Hiroshi Nishiura, Analyzing and forecasting the Ebola incidence in North Kivu, the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 2018–19 in real time, 2019, 27, 17554365, 123, 10.1016/j.epidem.2019.05.002
    4. Natalie M. Linton, Francesca A. Lovell-Read, Emma Southall, Hyojung Lee, Andrei R. Akhmetzhanov, Robin N. Thompson, Hiroshi Nishiura, When Do Epidemics End? Scientific Insights from Mathematical Modelling Studies, 2022, 64, 0008-8994, 31, 10.1484/J.CNT.5.130125
    5. Sena Mursel, Nathaniel Alter, Lindsay Slavit, Anna Smith, Paolo Bocchini, Javier Buceta, Alberto d’Onofrio, Estimation of Ebola’s spillover infection exposure in Sierra Leone based on sociodemographic and economic factors, 2022, 17, 1932-6203, e0271886, 10.1371/journal.pone.0271886
    6. Daya Ram, D. S. Bhandari, Dharmendra Tripathi, Kushal Sharma, Propagation of H1N1 virus through saliva movement in oesophagus: a mathematical model, 2022, 137, 2190-5444, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03070-2
    7. Rebecca Maudling, How can One Health contribute to pandemic prevention? Looking at Ebola through a One Health lens, 2022, 2022, 2791-223X, 10.1079/cabionehealth20220004
    8. Li Zhang, Shou Liu, Youchun Wang, 2023, Chapter 6, 978-981-99-0112-8, 105, 10.1007/978-981-99-0113-5_6
    9. Tongqing An, Fandan Meng, 2025, Chapter 99-1, 978-3-031-54690-7, 1, 10.1007/978-3-031-54690-7_99-1
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(23572) PDF downloads(2516) Cited by(373)

Figures and Tables

Figures(3)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog