1887

Abstract

The ability of to aggregate and adhere to biological surfaces is a topic of major biological and medical importance. One factor which has been implicated in such properties is the hydrophobic nature of the cell surface. Two simple spectroscopic techniques are described which permit the rapid determination of this property. The first involves the use of arylnaphthalenesulfonate, the fluorescence emission maximum of which was shown to be a sensitive indicator of dielectric polarity. This was used to identify the hydrophobic characteristics of the cell surface of The second technique involves the use of 90° Rayleigh-Debye light scattering as an indicator of the aggregation state of a fungal suspension. These techniques were then used to compare the surface properties of three different strains of and the effects of culture conditions: the hydrophobicity of the strains varied, and galactose-based culture media promoted the greatest degree of cell surface hydrophobicity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/13500872-141-8-1875
1995-08-01
2021-07-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/micro/141/8/mic-141-8-1875.html?itemId=/content/journal/micro/10.1099/13500872-141-8-1875&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Calderone R.A., Braun P. 1991; Adherence and receptor relationships ofCandida albicans. . Microbiol Rev 55:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Critchley I.A., Douglas L J. 1987; Isolation and partial characterization of an adhesin fromCandida albicans. . J Gen Microbiol 133:629–636
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Douglas L.J. 1985; Adhesion of pathogenicCandida species to host surfaces. Microbiol Sci 2:243–247
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hazen K.C. 1989; Participation of yeast cell surface hydro- phobicity in adhesion ofCandida albicans to human epithelial cells. Infect Immun 57:1984–1900
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Hazen K.C. 1990 In Microbial Cell Surface Hjdrophobicitj, pp. 249–295 Doyle R. J., Rosenberg. M. Edited by Washington, DC:: American Society for Microbiology.;
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Hazen K.C., Hazen B.W. 1987; Temperature-modulated physiological characteristics ofCandida albicans. . Microbiol Immunol 31:497–508
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hazen K.C., Hazen B.W. 1988; Dynamic expression of cell surface hydrophobicity during initial yeast cell growth and before germ tube formation ofCandida albicans. . Infect Immun 56:2521–2525
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hazen K.C, Plotkin B.J, Klimas D.M. 1986; Influence of growth conditions on cell surface hydrophobicity ofCandida albicans andCandida glabrata. . Infect Immun 54:269–271
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hobden C., Ayoub F., Wall J., O’Shea P. 1995; The interaction of arylnaphthalenesulfonates with albumin,. (in press)
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Jones L, O’Shea P. 1994; The electrostatic nature of the cell surface ofCandida albicans: a role in adhesion. Exp Mjcol 18:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Jones L., Hobden C., O’Shea P. 1995; The use of a real-time probe of the electrostatic properties of the cell surface ofCandida albicans. . Mjcol Res 99:969–976
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kaeppeli O., Mueller M., Feichter A. 1978; Chemical and structural alterations at the cell surface ofCandida tropicalis, induced by hydrocarbon substrate. J Bacteriol 133:952–958
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kennedy M.J. 1990; Models for studying the role of fungal attachment in colonization and pathogenesis. Mycopathologia 109:123–137
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kennedy M.J., Sandin R.L. 1988; Influence of growth conditions onCandida albicans adhesion, hydrophobicity and cell wall ultrastructure. J Med Vet Mycol 26:79–92
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kerker M. 1969 The Scattering of Tight and Other Electromagnetic Kadiation New York:: Academic Press.;
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Klotz S.A. 1989; Surface-active properties ofCandida albicans. . Appl Environ Microbiol 55:2119–2122
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Klotz S.A., Penn R.L. 1987; Multiple mechanisms may contribute to the adhesion ofCandida yeasts to living cells. Curr Microbiol 16:119–122
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Klotz S.A., Drutz D.J., Zajic J.E. 1985; Factors governing adhesion ofCandida species to plastic surfaces. Infect Immun 50:97–101
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lachica R.V., Zink D.L. 1984; Determination of plasmid- associated hydrophobicity ofYersinia enterocolitica by a latex particle agglutination test. J Clin Microbiol 19:660–663
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Latimer P. 1979; Light scattering vs. microscopy for measuring average cell size and volume. Biophys J 27:117–126
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lindahl M., Faris A., Wadstrom T., Hjerten S. 1981; A new test based on 'salting out' to measure relative surface hydrophobicity of bacterial cells. Biochim Biophys Acta 677:471–476
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Meunier F. 1989; Candidiasis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 8:438–7
    [Google Scholar]
  23. McCourtie J., Dougias L. J. 1981; Relationship between cell surface composition ofCandida albicans and adhesion to acrylic after growth on different carbon sources. Infect Immun 32:1234–1241
    [Google Scholar]
  24. McCourtie J., Douglas L.J. 1984; Relationship between cell surface composition, adhesion and virulence ofCandida albicans. . Infect Immun 45:6–12
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Minagi S., Miyake Y., Fujioka Y., Tsuru H., Suginaka H. 1986; Cell-surface hydrophobicity ofCandida species as determined by the contact-angle and hydrocarbon-adherence methods. J Gen Microbiol 132:1111–1115
    [Google Scholar]
  26. O’Shea P. 1991; The role of electrostatic and electrodynamic forces in fungal morphogenesis and host infection. In Fungal Cell Wall and Immune Response, pp. 285–302 NATO ASI series H53: Latge J. P., Boucias. D. Edited by Springer-Verlag:: Heidelberg.;
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Pines O., Shoham Y., Rosenberg E., Gutnick D. 1988; Unmasking of surface components by removal of cell-associated emulsan fromAcinetobacter sp. RAG-1. Appl Microbiol Biofechnol 28:93–99
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Reinhart H., Muller G., Sobel J.D. 1985; Speciflcity and mechanism ofin vitro adhesion ofCandida albicans. . Ann Clin Tab Sci 15:406–413
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rosenberg M., Kjelleberg S. 1986; Hydrophobic interactions: role in bacterial adhesion. Adv Microb Ecol 9:353–393
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rosenberg M., Gutnick D., Rosenberg E. 1980; Adhesion of bacteria to hydrocarbons: a simple method for measuring cell- surface hydrophobicity. FEMS Microbiol Eett 9:29–33
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rotrosen D., Gibson T. R., Edwards J. E. Jr 1983; Adhesion ofCandidaspecies to intravenous catheters. J Infect Dis 147:594–595
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Shepherd M.G. 1987; Cell envelope ofCandida albicans. . Crit Rev Microbiol 15:7–25
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Slavik J. 1982; Anilinonaphthalene sulfonic acid as a probe of membrane composition and function. Biochim Biophys Acta 694:1–25
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Smyth C.J., Jonsson P., Olsson E., Soderlind O., Rosengren J., Hjerten S., Wadstrom T. 1978; Differences in hydrophobic surface characteristics of porcine enteropathogenicEscherichia coli with or without K88 antigen as revealed by hydrophobic interaction chromatography. Infect Immun 22:462–472
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/micro/10.1099/13500872-141-8-1875
Loading
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/13500872-141-8-1875
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