4.2 Article

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT CULTIVATION CONDITIONS ON STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS BIOFILM FORMATION AND DIVERSITY OF ADHESIN GENES

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD SAFETY
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 210-218

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-4565.2012.00370.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31071515]
  2. Special Foundation for Young Scientists of Sichuan Province, China [2011JQ0043]
  3. Southwest University for Nationalities [11NZYTH08]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Staphylococcus aureus isolates from foodborne outbreaks were screened for the presence of icaAD, icaBC, clfB, clfA, fnbA, fnbB, ebpS, eno, fib, sasG, sasC, bbp, bap and cna genes that encode microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules. All isolates were positive for icaAD, icaBC, fnbA, fib, sasC and cna, and negative for clfA, bbp and bap. The diversity of clfB, fnbB, sasG, eno and ebpS genes was found to exist. It was remarkable that only biofilm-formation strains were positive for clfB. Furthermore, the effects of the NaCl concentration; glucose, sucrose, lactose and mannitol concentration; pH value; and growth media (Luria broth, basic medium, tryptic soy broth, 7.5% sodium chloride broth and common broth) on S. aureus biofilm formation were compared. Basic medium was proved in favor of biofilm formation. 7.5% sodium chloride broth went against biofilm formation. In detail, different saccharides could effectively promote biofilm formation. Contrarily, the biofilm formation was continuously decreased with increasing NaCl concentration. The effect of pH values on biofilm formation was significant. The rise or drop in pH value (>= 12 or <= 4) was directly involved in the decrease in the biofilm formation. Taken together, the biofilm formation of S. aureus influenced by multiple factors and different adhesin genes, which may contribute to biofilm phenotype, possesses diversity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available