4.6 Article

Subinhibitory concentrations of antibiotics affect stress and virulence gene expression in Listeria monocytogenes and cause enhanced stress sensitivity but do not affect Caco-2 cell invasion

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 113, 期 5, 页码 1273-1286

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05435.x

关键词

gene expression; Listeria monocytogenes; stress response; subinhibitory antibiotic concentrations; virulence

资金

  1. Danish Council for Independent Research, Technology and Production Sciences (FTP) [09-066098 (274-08-0531)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Antibiotics can act as signal molecules and affect bacterial gene expression, physiology and virulence. The purpose of this study was to determine whether subinhibitory antibiotic concentrations alter gene expression and physiology of Listeria monocytogenes. Methods and Results Using an agar-based screening assay with promoter fusions, 14 of 16 antibiotics induced or repressed expression of one or more stress and/or virulence genes. Despite ampicillin-induced up-regulation of PinlA-lacZ expression, Caco-2 cell invasion was not affected. Subinhibitory concentrations of ampicillin and tetracycline caused up- and down-regulation of stress response genes, respectively, but both antibiotics caused increased sensitivity to acid stress. Six combinations of gene-antibiotic were quantified in broth cultures and five of the six resulted in the same expression pattern as the agar-based assay. Conclusions Antibiotics affect virulence and/or stress gene expression; however, altered expression could not predict changes in phenotypic behaviour. Subinhibitory concentrations of antibiotics led to increased acid sensitivity, and we speculate that this is attributed to changes in cell envelope or reduced sB-dependent gene expression. Significance and Impact of the Study Although subinhibitory concentrations of antibiotics affect gene expression in L.monocytogenes, the changes did not increase virulence but did enhance the acid sensitivity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据