4.7 Article

Detection of live and antibiotic-killed bacteria by quantitative real-time PCR of specific fragments of rRNA

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 50, 期 6, 页码 1913-1920

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00869-05

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Assessing bacterial viability by molecular markers might help accelerate the measurement of antibiotic-induced killing. This study investigated whether rRNA could be suitable for this purpose. Cultures of penicillin-susceptible and penicillin-tolerant (Tol1 mutant) Streptococcus gordonii were exposed to mechanistically different penicillin and levofloxacin. Bacterial survival was assessed by viable counts and compared to quantitative real-time PCR amplification of either the 16S rRNA genes or the 16S rRNA, following reverse transcription. Penicillin-susceptible S. gordonii lost >= 4 log(10) CFU/ml of viability over 48 h of penicillin treatment. In comparison, the Tol1 mutant lost <= 1 log(10) CFU/ml. Amplification of a 427-bp fragment of 16S rRNA genes yielded amplicons that increased proportionally to viable counts during bacterial growth but did not decrease during drug-induced killing. In contrast, the same 427-bp fragment amplified from 16S rRNA paralleled both bacterial growth and drug-induced killing. It also differentiated between penicillin-induced killing of the parent and the Tol1 mutant (>= 4 log(10) CFU/ml and <= 1 log(10) CFU/ml, respectively) and detected killing by mechanistically unrelated levofloxacin. Since large fragments of polynucleotides might be degraded faster than smaller fragments, the experiments were repeated by amplifying a 119-bp region internal to the original 427-bp fragment. The amount of 119-bp amplicons increased proportionally to viability during growth but remained stable during drug treatment. Thus, 16S rRNA was a marker of antibiotic-induced killing, but the size of the amplified fragment was critical for differentiation between live and dead bacteria.

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

4.7
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