4.6 Article

Shiga-Toxin-Producing Strains of Escherichia coli O104:H4 and a Strain of O157:H7, Which Can Cause Human Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, Differ in Biofilm Formation in the Presence of CO2 and in Their Ability to Grow in a Novel Cell Culture Medium

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11071744

关键词

E. coli O104:H4; E. coli O157: H7; biofilm; novel growth medium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In 2011, Germany experienced a major outbreak of bloody diarrhea caused by an atypical E. coli O104:H4 strain. This strain showed phenotypic differences compared to the O157:H7 strain, such as higher biofilm production and the ability to grow in a novel HEK293 cell culture medium. The study uncovered previously unknown phenotypic properties of E. coli O104:H4 to further differentiate it from E. coli O157:H7.
One pathogen that commonly causes gastrointestinal illnesses from the consumption of contaminated food is Escherichia coli O157:H7. In 2011 in Germany, however, there was a prominent outbreak of bloody diarrhea with a high incidence of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) caused by an atypical, more virulent E. coli O104:H4 strain. To facilitate the identification of this lesser-known, atypical E. coli O104:H4 strain, we wanted to identify phenotypic differences between it and a strain of O157:H7 in different media and culture conditions. We found that E. coli O104:H4 strains produced considerably more biofilm than the strain of O157:H7 at 37 ? (p = 0.0470-0.0182) Biofilm production was significantly enhanced by the presence of 5% CO2 (p = 0.0348-0.0320). In our study on the innate immune response to the E. coli strains, we used HEK293 cells that express Toll-like receptors (TLRs) 2 or 4. We found that E. coli O104:H4 strains had the ability to grow in a novel HEK293 cell culture medium, while the E. coli O157:H7 strain could not. Thus, we uncovered previously unknown phenotypic properties of E. coli O104:H4 to further differentiate this pathogen from E. coli O157:H7.

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