4.6 Article

Bacterial Coaggregation Among the Most Commonly Isolated Bacteria From Contact Lens Cases

期刊

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.16-20593

关键词

contact lens case contamination; bacteria; coaggregation; cohesion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To examine the coaggregation and cohesion between the commonly isolated bacteria from contact lens cases. METHODS. Four or five strains each of commonly isolated bacteria from contact lens cases, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Serratia marcescens, were grown, washed, mixed in equal proportions, and allowed to coaggregate for 24 hours. Lactose (0.06 M), sucrose (0.06 M), and pronase (2 mg/mL; 2 hours, 37 degrees C) were used to inhibit coaggregation. Oral bacterial isolates of Actinomyces naeslundii and Streptococcus sanguinis were used as a positive control for coaggregation. Cohesion was performed with the ocular bacteria that demonstrated the highest level of coaggregation. Production of growth-inhibitory substances was measured by growing strains together on agar plates. RESULTS. The oral bacterial pair showed >80% coaggregation. Coaggregation occurred between ocular strains of S. aureus (2/5) or S. epidermidis (2/5) with P. aeruginosa strains (3/5); 42% to 62%. There was only slight coaggregation between staphylococci and S. marcescens. Staphylococcus aureus coaggregated with S. epidermidis. Lactose or sucrose treatment of S. aureus but pronase treatment of P. aeruginosa reversed the coaggregation. There was no cohesion between the ocular isolates. P. aeruginosa was able to stop growth of S. aureus but not vice versa. CONCLUSIONS. This study demonstrated for the first time that ocular isolates of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus could coaggregate, probably through lectin-carbohydrate interactions. However, this may not be related to biofilm formation in contact lens cases, as there was no evidence that the coaggregation was associated with cohesion between the strains.

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