4.4 Article

Age of Inoculum Strongly Influences Persister Frequency and Can Mask Effects of Mutations Implicated in Altered Persistence

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 193, 期 14, 页码 3598-3605

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.00085-11

关键词

-

资金

  1. Estonian Science Foundation [ETF8197]
  2. Center of Excellence in Chemical Biology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The majority of cells transferred from stationary-phase culture into fresh medium resume growth quickly, while a few remain in a nongrowing state for longer. These temporarily nonproliferating bacteria are tolerant of several bactericidal antibiotics and constitute a main source of persisters. Several genes have been shown to influence the frequency of persisters in Escherichia coli, although the exact mechanism underlying persister formation is unknown. This study demonstrates that the frequency of persisters is highly dependent on the age of the inoculum and the medium in which it has been grown. The hipA7 mutant had 1,000 times more persisters than the wild type when inocula were sampled from younger stationary-phase cultures. When started after a long stationary phase, the two displayed equal and elevated persister frequencies. The lower persister frequencies of glpD, dnaJ, and surA knockout strains were increased to the level of the wild type when inocula aged. The mqsR and phoU deletions showed decreased persister levels only when the inocula were from aged cultures, while sucB and ygfA deletions had decreased persister levels irrespective of the age of the inocula. A dependency on culture conditions underlines the notion that during screening for mutants with altered persister frequencies, the exact experimental details are of great importance. Unlike ampicillin and norfloxacin, which always leave a fraction of bacteria alive, amikacin killed all cells in the growth resumption experiment. It was concluded that the frequency of persisters depends on the conditions of inoculum cultivation, particularly its age, and the choice of antibiotic.

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

4.4
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