4.6 Article

Heat resistance and mechanism of heat inactivation in thermophilic campylobacters

Journal

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 72, Issue 1, Pages 908-913

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.72.1.908-913.2006

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The heat resistance of Campylobacter jejuni strains AR6 and L51 and the heat resistance of Campylobacter coli strains DR4 and L6 were measured over the temperature range from 50 to 60 degrees C by two methods. Isothermal measurements yielded D-55 values in the range from 4.6 to 6.6 min and z values in the range from 5.5 to 6.3 degrees C. Dynamic measurements using differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) during heating at a rate of 10 degrees C/min yielded D-55 values of 2.5 min and 3.4 min and z values of 6.3 degrees C and 6.5 degrees C for AR6 and DR4, respectively. Both dynamic and isothermal methods yielded mean D-55 values that were substantially greater than those reported previously (0.75 to 0.95 min). DSC analysis of each strain during heating at a rate of 10 degrees C/min yielded a complex series of overlapping endothermic peaks, which were assigned to cell wall lipids, ribosomes, and DNA. Measurement of the decline in the numbers of CFU in calorimetric samples as they were heated showed that the maximum rate of cell death occurred at 56 to 57 degrees C, which is close to the value predicted mathematically from the isothermal measurements of D and z (61 degrees C). Both estimates were very close to the peak m, values, 60 to 62 degrees C, which were tentatively identified with unfolding of the 30S ribosome subunit, showing that cell death in C. jejuni and C. coli coincided with unfolding of the most thermally labile regions of the ribosome. Other measurements indicated that several essential proteins, including the alpha and beta subunits of RNA polymerase, might also unfold at the same time and contribute to cell death.

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