4.4 Article

In vitro serial passage of Staphylococcus aureus: Changes in physiology, virulence factor production, and agr nucleotide sequence

期刊

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY
卷 184, 期 5, 页码 1430-1437

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JB.184.5.1430-1437.2002

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [ZIAAI000900, Z01AI000900] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, we observed that Staphylococcus aureus strains newly isolated from patients had twofold-higher aconitase activity than a strain passaged extensively in vitro, leading us to hypothesize that aconitase specific activity decreases over time during in vitro passage. To test this hypothesis, a strain recovered from a patient with toxic shock syndrome was serially passaged for 6 weeks, and the aconitase activity was measured. Aconitase specific activity decreased 38% (P < 0.001) by the sixth week in culture. During serial passage, S. aureus existed as a heterogeneous population with two colony types that had pronounced (wild type) or negligible zones of beta-hemolytic activity. The cell density-sensing accessory gene regulatory (agr) system regulates beta-hemolytic activity. Surprisingly, the percentage of colonies with a wild-type beta-hemolytic phenotype correlated strongly with aconitase specific activity (p = 0.96), suggesting a common cause of the decreased aconitase specific activity and the variation in percentage of beta-hemolytic colonies. The loss of the beta-hemolytic phenotype also coincided with the occurrence of mutations in the agrC coding region or the intergenic region between agrC and agrA in the derivative strains. Our results demonstrate that in vitro growth is sufficient to result in mutations within the agr operon. Additionally, our results demonstrate that S. aureus undergoes significant phenotypic and genotypic changes during serial passage and suggest that vigilance should be used when extrapolating data obtained from the study of high-passage 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

4.4
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