1887

Abstract

Four types of surface-modified glass were prepared. Aminopropyl glass was prepared by alkylsilylation of glass slides with ?-aminopropyltriethoxysilane. This glass carries primary amino groups which may be protonated at pH 7.2. Owing to the presence of both positively charged ions and hydrophobic ethoxyl groups, the glass is considered to be amphipathic. Three other types of surface-modified glass slides were prepared from aminopropyl glass by forming Schiff's bases with three aldehydes: glucose, glyoxylic acid and hexanal. The aldehyde-treated slides were subsequently reduced using sodium borohydride. Thus, the surface of the glass was rendered hydrophilic, ampholytic or hydrophobic, respectively. The adherence of two strains and two strains to the surface-modified glass slides was studied. Different strains showed differences in adherence to these slides depending on their physico-chemical surface properties. For ATCC 10556, hydrophobic bonds seemed to be most important, while in OMZ 176, ionic interactions made the highest contribution to adhesion. Hydrogen bonds seemed to contribute least to adherence.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-134-5-1299
1988-05-01
2021-09-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/micro/134/5/mic-134-5-1299.html?itemId=/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-134-5-1299&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Baum G., Ward F. B., Weettall H. H. 1972; Stability, inhibition and reactivation of acetylcholinesterase covalently coupled to glass. Biochimica et biophysicaacta 268:411–414
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Busscher H. J., Weerkamp A. H., Van Der Mei H. C., Van Pelt A. W. J., De Jong H. P., Arends J. 1984; Measurement of the surface free energy of bacterial cell surfaces and its relevance for adhesion. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 48:980–983
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cuatrecasas P. 1970; Protein purification by affinity chromatography. Journal of Biological Chemistry 245:3059–3065
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Davies J. T., Rideal E. K. editors 1963 Interfacial Phenomena New York: Academic Press;
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Gerson D. F. 1980; Cell surface energy, contact angles and phase partition - lymphocytic cell lines in biphasic aqueous mixtures. Biochimica et biophysica acta 602:269–280
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gibbons R. J., Van Houte J. 1980; Bacterial adherence and the formation of dental plaque. In Bacterial Adherence, Receptors and Recognition, series B 6 pp. 61–104 Beachey E. H. Edited by New York & London: Chapman & Hall;
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Larsson K., Glantz P. O. 1981; Microbial adhesion to surfaces with different surface charges. Acta odontologica scandinavica 39:79–82
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Minagi S., Miyake Y., Inagaki K., Tsuru H., Suginaka H. 1985; Hydrophobic interaction in Candida albicans and Candida tropicalis adherence to various denture base resin materials. Infection and Immunity 47:11–14
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Mokrasch L. C. 1967; Use of 2,4,6-trinitrobenzene- sulfonic acid for the coestimation of amines, amino acids, and proteins in mixtures. Analytical Biochemistry 18:64–71
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Nesbitt W. E., Doyle R. J., Taylor K. G. 1982; Hydrophobic interactions and the adherence of Streptococcus sanguis to hydroxyapatite. Infection and Immunity 38:637–644
    [Google Scholar]
  11. O’Brien W. J., Fan P. L., Loesche W. J., Walker M. C., Apostolids A. 1978; Adsorption of Streptococcus mutans on chemically treated hydroxyapatite. Journal of Dental Research 57:910–914
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Olsson J., Glantz P. O., Krasse B. 1976; Electrophoretic mobility of oral streptococci. Archives of Oral Biology 21:605–609
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Onose H., Miyazaki T., Nomoto S. 1980; Effect of electrical potential on the adherence of Streptococcus sanguis to gold plate. Journal of Dental Research 59:1179
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ørstavik D., Krause F. W., Henshaw L. C. 1974; In vitro attachment of streptococci to the tooth surface. Infection and Immunity 9:794–800
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Reynold E. C., Wong A. 1983; Effect of absorbed protein on hydroxyapatite zeta potential and Streptococcus mutans adherence. Infection and Immunity 39:1285–1290
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Robinson P. J., Dunnill P., Lilly M. D. 1971; Porous glass as a solid support for immobilisation or affinity chromatography of enzymes. Biochimica et biophysica acta 242:659–661
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Rutter P. R., Vincent B. 1980; The adhesion of microorganisms to surfaces: physico-chemical aspects. In Microbial Adhesion to Surfaces pp. 79–92 Berkeley R. C. W., Lynch J. M., Melling J., Rutter P. R., Vincent B. Edited by Chichester: Ellis Horwood;
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Stinson M. W., Levine M. J., Cavese J. M., Prakobphol A., Murray P. A., Tabak L. A., Reddy M. S. 1982; Adherence of Streptococcus sanguis to salivary mucin bound to glass. Journal of Dental Research 61:1390–1393
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Van Pelt A. W. J., Weerkamp A. H., Uyen M. H. W. J. C., Busscher H. J., De Jong H. P., Arends J. 1985; Adhesion of Streptococcus sanguis CH3 to polymers with different surface free energies. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 49:1270–1275
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Weerkamp A. H., Van Der Mei H. C., Busscher H. J. 1985; The surface free energy of oral streptococci after being coated with saliva and its relation to adhesion in the mouth. Journal of Dental Research 64:1204–1210
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-134-5-1299
Loading
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-134-5-1299
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

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