4.2 Article

Atomic force microscopy study on specificity and non-specificity of interaction forces between Enterococcus faecalis cells with and without aggregation substance

期刊

MICROBIOLOGY-SGM
卷 151, 期 -, 页码 2459-2464

出版社

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/mic.0.27877-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enterococcus faecalis is one of the leading causes of hospital-acquired infections, and indwelling medical devices are especially prone to infection. E faecalis expressing aggregation substance (Agg) adheres to biomaterial surfaces by means of positive cooperativity, i.e. the ability of one adhering organism to stimulate adhesion of other organisms in its immediate vicinity. In this study, atomic force microscopy (AFM) was used to measure the specificity and non-specificity of interaction forces between E faecalis cells with and without Agg. Bacteria were attached to a substratum surface and a tip-less cantilever. Two E faecalis strains expressing different forms of Agg showed nearly twofold higher interaction forces between bacterial cells than a strain lacking Agg [adhesive force (F-adh), -1(.)3 nN]. The strong interaction forces between the strains with Agg were reduced after adsorption of antibodies against Agg from -2(.)6 and -2(.)3 nN to -1(.)2 and -1.3 nN, respectively. This suggests that the non-specific interaction force between the enterococci amounts to approximately 1(.)2 nN, while the specific force component is only twofold stronger. Comparison of the results of the AFM interaction forces with the positive cooperativity after adhesion to a biomaterial in a parallel-plate flow chamber showed that in the absence of strong interaction forces between the cells, positive cooperativity was also absent. In conclusion, this is believed to be the first time that the influence of specific antibodies on interaction forces between E faecalis cells has been demonstrated by AFM, thereby experimentally distinguishing between specific and non-specific force components.

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

4.2
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