4.2 Article

Identification of genetic and phenotypic differences associated with prevalent and non-prevalent Salmonella Enteritidis phage types: analysis of variation in amino acid transport

Journal

MICROBIOLOGY-SGM
Volume 155, Issue -, Pages 3200-3213

Publisher

SOC GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1099/mic.0.029405-0

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) [OZ0324]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, differences at the genetic level of 37 Salmonella Enteritidis strains from five phage types (PTs) were compared using comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) to assess differences between PTs. There were approximately 400 genes that differentiated prevalent (4, 6, 8 and 13a) and sporadic (11) PTs, of which 35 were unique to prevalent PTs, including six plasmid-borne genes, pefA, B, C, D, srgC and rck, and four chromosomal genes encoding putative amino acid transporters. Phenotype array studies also demonstrated that strains from prevalent PTs were less susceptible to urea stress and utilized L-histidine, L-glutamine, L-proline, L-aspartic acid, gly-asn and gly-gln more efficiently than PT11 strains. Complementation of a PT11 strain with the transporter genes from PT4 resulted in a significant increase in utilization of the amino acids and reduced susceptibility to urea stress. In epithelial cell association assays, PT11 strains were less invasive than other prevalent PTs. Most strains from prevalent PTs were better biofilm formers at 37 degrees C than at 28 degrees C, whilst the converse was true for PT11 strains. Collectively, the results indicate that genetic and corresponding phenotypic differences exist between strains of the prevalent PTs 4, 6, 8 and 13a and non-prevalent PT11 strains that are likely to provide a selective advantage for strains from the former PTs and could help them to enter the food chain and cause salmonellosis.

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