4.7 Article

Assessing biofilm formation by Listeria monocytogenes strains

Journal

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 380-392

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2006.06.006

Keywords

Listeria monocytogenes biofilm; persistence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

When a microtitre plate assay was used to quantify biofilm production by Listeria monocytogenes strains following growth in Tryptone Soy Broth (TSB) for 48 h at 20 degrees C, 127 of 138 strains (92.0%) were classified as weak, 9 of 138 strains (6.5%) as moderate and only 2 of 138 strains (1.5%) as strong biofilm formers. The strains included environmental, animal, food (persistent and sporadic strains) and clinical isolates previously typed using esterase electrophoresis (ESE) and multi-locus enzyme electrophoresis (MEE). Strains from different sources produced similar quantities of biofilm, whereas biofilm production by ESE type 11 strains, irrespective of source, was greater than that observed for other ESE types. No correlation between MEE type and biofilm production was observed. A Petri dish assay which allowed parallel quantification and microscopic examination of biofilms was used to examine biofilm formation by selected L. monoeytogenes strains during growth in TSB for 14 days at 20 degrees C. Results from these assays showed that following prolonged incubation, some L. monocytogenes strains categorized as weak biofilm formers by the 48 h microtitre assay, were able to form biofilms similar in terms of quantity and structure to those produced by strains classified as strong or medium biofilm formers. Results from 14-day Petri dish assays confirmed 48 h microtitre assays regarding greater biofilm production by ESE type 11 strains compared to other ESE types of L. monocytogenes. Biofilm production was similar for ESE type II persistent and sporadic food isolates but reduced for ESE type II clinical strains. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available