1887

Abstract

Summary

The ability of 19 strains of to adhere to buccal epithelial cells (BEC) and to the human intestinal cell line HT-29 Clone 19A, and to agglutinate rabbit erythrocytes was compared. Adhesion to BEC was poor compared with that to the cell line. Adhesion to the latter was high for 21% of the strains, moderate for 37% and poor for 42%. Only 53% of the strains agglutinated rabbit red blood cells and only strain A459 did so strongly. Haemagglutination and adhesion of strain A459 were inhibited by sodium periodate, but not by proteases, heat or carbohydrates. These properties were not affected by protease which removed surface appendages. Periodate treatment did not remove the fimbriae or ruthenium red-staining layer, although the capsule was lost. This suggests that carbohydrate residues on the cell surface, possibly forming part of the capsule, are involved in adhesion and haemagglutination by this strain.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-34-1-51
1991-01-01
2022-05-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/34/1/medmicro-34-1-51.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-34-1-51&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Lindberg A. A., Berthold P., Nord C. E., Weintraub A. Encapsulated strains of Bacteroides fragilis in clinical specimens. Med Microbiol Immunol (Berl) 1979; 167:29–36
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Onderdonk A. B., Moon N. E., Kasper D.L., Bartlett J. G. Adherence of Bacteroides fragilis in vivo. Infect Immun 1978; 19:1083–1087
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Shinjo T, Kiyoyama H. Fimbriae and hemagglutination in the Bacteroides fragilis group. Jpn J Vet Sci 1984; 46:373–375
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Patrick S, Coifey A., Emmerson A. M., Larkin M. J. The relationship between cell surface structure expression and haemagglutination in Bacteroides fragilis. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1988; 50:67–71
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Pruzzo C, Dainelli B., Ricchetti M. Piliated Bacteroides fragilis strains adhere to epithelial cells and are more sensitive to phagocytosis by human neutrophils than non-piliated strains. Infect Immun 1984; 43:189–194
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Vel W. A. C., Namavar F., Verweij-van Vught A. M. J. J., Pubben A. N. B., MacLaren D. M. Haemagglutination by the Bacteroides fragilis group. J Med Microbiol 1986; 21:105–107
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Pruzzo C, Guzman C. A., Dainelli B. Incidence of hemagglutination activity among pathogenic and non-pathogenic Bacteroides fragilis strains and role of capsule and pili in HA and adherence. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1989; 59:113–118
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Oyston P. C. F., Handley P. S. Surface structures, haemagglutination and cell surface hydrophobicity of Bacteroides fragilis strains. J Gen Microbiol 1990; 136:941–948
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Riley T. V., Mee B. J. Hemagglutination of Bacteroides fragilis. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1984; 25:229–232
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Duguid J. P., Gillies R. R. Fimbriae and adhesive properties in dysentery bacilli. J Pathol Bacterial 1957; 74:397–411
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Old DC Inhibition of the interaction between fimbrial haemagglutinins and erythrocytes by D-mannose and other carbohydrates. J Gen Microbiol 1972; 71:149–157
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Loesche W. J., Hockett R. N., Syed S. A. The predominant cultivable flora of tooth surface plaque removed from institutionalized subjects. Arch Oral Biol 1972; 17:1311–1325
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Augeron C, Laboisse C. L. Emergence of permanently differentiated cell clones in a human colonic cancer cell line in culture after treatment with sodium butyrate. Cancer Res 1984; 44:3961–3969
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Vosbeck K, Huber U. An assay for measuring specific adhesion of an Escherichia coli strain to tissue culture cells. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1982; 1:22–28
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Harty D. W. S, Willcox M. D. P., Wyatt J. E., Oyston P. C. F., Handley P. S. The surface ultrastructure and adhesive properties of a fimbriate Streptococcus sanguis strain and six non-fimbriate mutants. Biofouling 1990; 2:75–86
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Handley P. S., Harty D. W. S., Wyatt J. E., Brown C. R., Doran J. P., Gibbs A. C. C. A comparison of the adhesion, coaggregation and cell-surface hydrophobicity properties of fibrillar and fimbriate strains of Streptococcus salivarius. J Gen Microbiol 1987; 133:3207–3217
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Handley P. S., Tipler L. S. An electron microscope survey of the surface structures and hydrophobicity of oral and non-oral species of the bacterial genus Bacteroides. Arch Oral Biol 1986; 31:325–335
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cruickshank R. (ed) Medical microbiology. 11th edn Edinburgh E and S Livingstone: 1965651
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Duguid J. P., Old D. C. Adhesive properties of Enterobacteriaceae. In Beachey E. H. (ed) Bacterial adherence (Receptors and recognition, vol 6, Series B) London: Chapman and Hall; 1980187–215
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gibbons R. J. Review and discussion of role of mucus in mucosal defense. In Strober W, Hanson L. A., Sell K. W. (eds) Recent advances in mucosal immunity New York: Raven Press; 1982343–351
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Handley P. S., Carter P. L., Fielding J. Streptococcus salivarius strains carry either fibrils or fimbriae on the cell surface. J Bacterial 1984; 157:64–72
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-34-1-51
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-34-1-51
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error