4.6 Article

Survival of various ERIC-genotypes of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in well water

Journal

WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION
Volume 177, Issue 1-4, Pages 367-382

Publisher

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/s11270-006-9179-x

Keywords

shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli; ERIC-genotype; survival; well water

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recently, there has been a surge of interest in understanding the survival of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in aquatic environments. Fifteen strains of STEC were monitored, individually, in untreated well water samples incubated at 10 and 22 degrees C for 56 days. The strains were selected from three serogroups (O26, Ol11 and O157) and represented five distinct ERIC (enterobacterial repetitive intergenic concensus)-genotypes. The microcosms were prepared in triplicate and inoculated at an initial cell density of about 7.0 log CFU/ml well water. At 10 degrees C, the cell density of five STEC strains fell below the detection limit of 0.8 log CFU/ml by day 56. Of the ten persisting strains, four showed superior survival with cell densities decreasing to an average of about 5 log CFU/ml while the remaining six strains showed moderate levels of survival, decreasing to an average cell density of about 3 log CFU/ml. At 22 degrees C, strain H32 (genotype I) and H15 (genotype B) persisted at 1.1 log CFU/ml and 2.2 log CFU/ml in 56 days, respectively. The other 13 STEC strains dropped below the detection limit between weeks 3 to 8. The 15 strains demonstrated highly variable levels of survival with no correlation between ERIC-genotypes or serogroups and the strains' ability to persist in the well water samples. Although strain H32 (O157:H7) persisted significantly longer than strain H22 (O157:H7) in natural well water at both 10 and 22 degrees C, both strains survived equally well in sterile well water, indicating that individual STEC strains vary in their ability to compete with background microbial populations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available