Restriction–Modification Systems in Lactic Acid Bacteria: Diversity, Mechanisms, Evolution, and Biotechnological Applications
- 1Research Center for Industrial and Agricultural Biotechnologies, Sirius University of Science and Technology, 354340 Sochi, Russia
- 2National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”, 123182 Moscow, Russia
- 3Centre of Advanced Studies, 123592 Moscow, Russia
Abstract
Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are a physiologically defined and taxonomically diverse group of Gram-positive fermentative organisms central to food production, probiotic development, and microbial biotechnology. Their continual exposure to bacteriophages and mobile DNA has selected multiple defense strategies, but the same defenses can make industrial and non-model isolates difficult to transform or edit genetically. Restriction–modification (R-M) systems are central to this conflict because they discriminate incoming DNA according to sequence and modification state, thereby influencing phage infection, plasmid transfer, transformation, and recombination. This review examines classical Type I–IV R-M systems in LAB, emphasizing systems for which specificity, genetic organization, biochemical activity, methylation, or a restriction phenotype has been experimentally determined. Other DNA-modification-associated defense systems, including bacteriophage exclusion (BREX) and DISARM, are discussed separately from classical R-M. To complement the literature synthesis, we performed an original comparative genomic analysis of 196 quality-filtered RefSeq genomes from ten diversity-oriented, approximately genus-balanced LAB groups. A 100-marker host phylogeny was integrated with independently curated PADLOC and DefenseFinder predictions. Complete predicted R-M systems were detected in 86/196 genomes for Type I, 112/195 evaluable genomes for Type II (including IIG), 30/196 for Type III, and 100/195 for Type IV. The distribution of these predictions varied markedly among the sampled LAB groups, particularly for Type IV, although the comparative panel was not designed to establish population prevalence or the evolutionary causes of these differences. Direct mechanistic evidence remains concentrated in Lactococcus lactis and Streptococcus thermophilus, underscoring the gap between genomic prediction and experimentally demonstrated function. Engineering strategies are considered in relation to the barrier they actually address: inhibitory donor methylation, absence of recipient-like protection, high recognition-site burden, inefficient DNA delivery, or recipient restriction activity. Throughout, experimentally characterized systems are distinguished from methylome-supported assignments and sequence-based predictions.
Related
- Actinidin: A Review from Molecular Mechanisms to Biotechnological Applications
- Ribozymes, DNAzymes, and Fluorescent Aptamers: Diversity, Mechanisms, and Prospects for Bioanalytical Applications
- Starship transposons mobilise via a circular intermediate with potential biotechnological applications
- RNA m6A Modification in Immunometabolism: Context-Dependent Mechanisms and Therapeutic Perspectives
- Compartment-specific m7G RNA modification in cancer: mechanisms, tumor adaptation, and therapeutic vulnerabilities
BibTeX
@article{bondarenko2026restrictionmodification,
title = {{Restriction–Modification Systems in Lactic Acid Bacteria: Diversity, Mechanisms, Evolution, and Biotechnological Applications}},
author = {Kseniya D. Bondarenko and Alina I. Selimzianova and Oksana V. Berezina and Aleksei S. Rozanov and Leonid A. Shaposhnikov},
journal = {International Journal of Molecular Sciences},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3390/ijms272110007},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/27/21/10007},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Restriction–Modification Systems in Lactic Acid Bacteria: Diversity, Mechanisms, Evolution, and Biotechnological Applications
AU - Kseniya D. Bondarenko
AU - Alina I. Selimzianova
AU - Oksana V. Berezina
AU - Aleksei S. Rozanov
AU - Leonid A. Shaposhnikov
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/08
JO - International Journal of Molecular Sciences
DO - 10.3390/ijms272110007
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/27/21/10007
AB - Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are a physiologically defined and taxonomically diverse group of Gram-positive fermentative organisms central to food production, probiotic development, and microbial biotechnology. Their continual exposure to bacteriophages and mobile DNA has selected multiple defense strategies, but the same defenses can make industrial and non-model isolates difficult to transform or edit genetically. Restriction–modification (R-M) systems are central to this conflict because they discriminate incoming DNA according to sequence and modification state, thereby influencing phage infection, plasmid transfer, transformation, and recombination. This review examines classical Type I–IV R-M systems in LAB, emphasizing systems for which specificity, genetic organization, biochemical activity, methylation, or a restriction phenotype has been experimentally determined. Other DNA-modification-associated defense systems, including bacteriophage exclusion (BREX) and DISARM, are discussed separately from classical R-M. To complement the literature synthesis, we performed an original comparative genomic analysis of 196 quality-filtered RefSeq genomes from ten diversity-oriented, approximately genus-balanced LAB groups. A 100-marker host phylogeny was integrated with independently curated PADLOC and DefenseFinder predictions. Complete predicted R-M systems were detected in 86/196 genomes for Type I, 112/195 evaluable genomes for Type II (including IIG), 30/196 for Type III, and 100/195 for Type IV. The distribution of these predictions varied markedly among the sampled LAB groups, particularly for Type IV, although the comparative panel was not designed to establish population prevalence or the evolutionary causes of these differences. Direct mechanistic evidence remains concentrated in Lactococcus lactis and Streptococcus thermophilus, underscoring the gap between genomic prediction and experimentally demonstrated function. Engineering strategies are considered in relation to the barrier they actually address: inhibitory donor methylation, absence of recipient-like protection, high recognition-site burden, inefficient DNA delivery, or recipient restriction activity. Throughout, experimentally characterized systems are distinguished from methylome-supported assignments and sequence-based predictions.
SN - 1422-0067
ER -