Back to all available

Metagenomics reveals the diversity and taxonomy of carbohydrate-active enzymes and antibiotic resistance genes in mung bean sour liquid bacterial communities

food-science-and-technology
genomics
microbiology

Abstract

This study employed a metagenomic approach to analyze the bacterial communities of Mung Bean Sour Liquid (MBSL) at different fermentation time points, with a focus on carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZymes) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). We found that the core CAZyme profile, dominated by glycosyl transferases (GTs) and glycoside hydrolases (GHs), remained highly stable throughout fermentation, primarily driven by lactic acid bacteria (LAB) including Lactobacillus, Leuconostoc, and Lactococcus. A key finding is that these same core LAB taxa were also identified as the dominant hosts for a diverse array of ARGs, revealing a dual functional-resistance role within the fermentative microbiome. A total of 211 ARGs were detected, with 202 shared across all time points. Multidrug resistance genes (e.g., msbA, arlR, arlS, LmrS) were the most abundant, and antibiotic efflux was the predominant resistance mechanism. Notably, several high-risk ARGs (e.g., tetM) were detected and showed correlation with mobile genetic elements, yet the overall resistome structure remained stable, suggesting a reservoir function rather than active dissemination under these fermentation conditions. This study highlights an inherent link between metabolic function and resistance in traditional fermented foods. Our findings underscore the need for a balanced approach that prioritizes the selection of starter cultures with desirable fermentative traits but low risk of ARG dissemination, to ensure both the quality and safety of traditional fermented products.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].