4.1 Article

Uneven distribution of the luxS gene within the genus Campylobacter

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 68, 期 1, 页码 19-22

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09674845.2011.11732836

关键词

Autoinducer-2; Biofilms; Campylobacter; LuxS protein, bacteria

资金

  1. Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools of Japan
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [20580346]
  3. Great Britain Sasakawa Foundation (Butterfield)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification was performed on 20 isolates of five Campylobacter species using a degenerate primer pair designed in silico to generate a product of the luxS gene or its homologue from Campylobacter organisms. Although the primer pair successfully amplified products of approximately 500 base pairs (bp) with the eight isolates of C. jejuni and C. coli and some of C. upsaliensis and C. fetus, it failed to amplify fragments with all four isolates of C. lari (two urease-negative C. lari; two urease-positive thermophilic campylobacters). When Southern blot hybridisation analysis was carried using the mixed luxS gene fragments prepared from the C. jejuni, C. coil, C. upsaliensis and C. fetus strains as a probe, all C. jejuni, C. coil, C. upsaliensis and C. fetus isolates gave positive signals, but no positive signal was detected with any C. lari isolate. These results clearly indicate that C. jejuni, C. coil, C. upsaliensis and C. fetus carry the luxS gene or its homologue. However, no luxS gene or its homologue was identified to occur in the C. lari genome. Although autoinducer-2 assays were positive in C. jejuni, C. coil, C. upsaliensis and C. fetus isolates, it was negative with all the C. lari isolates examined. In addition, a biofilm formation assay demonstrated that biofilm formation in the C. lari species does not appear to correlate with the occurrence of the luxS gene because biofilm formation occurred among some isolates of C. lari.

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

4.1
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