1887

Abstract

In radiating populations of SBW25, adaptive wrinkly spreader (WS) mutants are able to gain access to the air–liquid (A–L) interface of static liquid microcosms and achieve a significant competitive fitness advantage over other non-biofilm-forming competitors. Aerotaxis and flagella-based swimming allows SBW25 cells to move into the high-O region located at the top of the liquid column and maintain their position by countering the effects of random cell diffusion, convection and disturbance (i.e. physical displacement). However, wild-type cells showed significantly lower levels of enrichment in this region compared to the archetypal WS, indicating that WS cells employ an additional mechanism to transfer to the A–L interface where displacement is no longer an issue and a biofilm can develop at the top of the liquid column. Preliminary experiments suggest that this might be achieved through the expression of an as yet unidentified surface active agent that is weakly associated with WS cells and alters liquid surface tension, as determined by quantitative tensiometry. The effect of physical displacement on the colonization of the high-O region and A–L interface was reduced through the addition of agar or polyethylene glycol to increase liquid viscosity, and under these conditions the competitive fitness of the WS was significantly reduced. These observations suggest that the ability to transfer to the A–L interface from the high-O region and remain there without further expenditure of energy (through, for example, the deployment of flagella) is a key evolutionary innovation of the WS, as it allows subsequent biofilm development and significant population increase, thereby affording these adaptive mutants a competitive fitness advantage over non-biofilm-forming competitors located within the liquid column.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000844
2019-10-01
2019-10-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Schulter D. The ecology of adaptive radiation Oxford University Press: Oxford; 2000
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Losos JB, Mahler DL.Adaptive radiation: the interaction of ecological opportunity, adaptation, and speciation In Bell MA, Futuyma DJ, Eanes WF, Levinton JS et al. (editors) Evolution Since Darwin: The First 150 Years Sunderland: Sinauer Assoc; 2010; pp381–420
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Buckling A, Craig Maclean R, Brockhurst MA, Colegrave N. The beagle in a bottle. Nature 2009;457:824–829 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Kawecki TJ, Lenski RE, Ebert D, Hollis B, Olivieri I et al. Experimental evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 2012;27:547–560 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dykhuizen D. Thoughts toward a theory of natural selection: the importance of microbial experimental evolution. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2016;8:a018044 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bachmann H, Molenaar D, Branco Dos Santos F, Teusink B. Experimental evolution and the adjustment of metabolic strategies in lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2017;41:S201–S219 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bailey MJ, Thompson IP.Detection systems for phyllosphere Pseudomonads In Wellington EMR, van Elsas JD. (editors) Genetic Interactions Between Microorganisms in the Natural Environment Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1992; pp127–141
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Rainey PB, Bailey MJ. Physical and genetic map of the Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 chromosome. Mol Microbiol 1996;19:521–533 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Rainey PB, Travisano M. Adaptive radiation in a heterogeneous environment. Nature 1998;394:69–72 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Koza A, Moshynets O, Otten W, Spiers AJ. Environmental modification and niche construction: developing O2 gradients drive the evolution of the Wrinkly Spreader. ISME J 2011;5:665–673 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kuśmierska A, Spiers AJ. New insights into the effects of several environmental parameters on the relative fitness of a numerically dominant class of evolved niche specialist. Int J Evol Biol 2016;2016: [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Koza A, Kuśmierska A, McLaughlin K, Moshynets O, Spiers AJ. Adaptive radiation of Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 in experimental microcosms provides an understanding of the evolutionary ecology and molecular biology of A-L interface biofilm formation. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2017;364:fnx109 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Berg JC.Fluid interfaces and capillarity In Berg JC. editor An Introduction to Interfaces and Colloids Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.; 2009; pp23–106
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Spiers AJ, Kahn SG, Bohannon J, Travisano M, Rainey PB. Adaptive divergence in experimental populations of Pseudomonas fluorescens. I. genetic and phenotypic bases of wrinkly spreader fitness. Genetics 2002;161:33–46
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Moshynets OV, Spiers AJ.Viewing biofilms within the larger context of bacterial aggregations In Dhanasekaran D, Thajuddin N. (editors) Microbial biofilms Rijeka: InTech Publishers; 2016; pp3–22
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Spiers AJ. A mechanistic explanation linking adaptive mutation, niche change, and fitness advantage for the wrinkly spreader. Int J Evolutionary Biol 2014;675432:
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Koza A, Hallett PD, Moon CD, Spiers AJ. Characterization of a novel air-liquid interface biofilm of Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25. Microbiology 2009;155:1397–1406 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bantinaki E, Kassen R, Knight CG, Robinson Z, Spiers AJ et al. Adaptive divergence in experimental populations of Pseudomonas fluorescens. III. mutational origins of wrinkly spreader diversity. Genetics 2007;176:441–453 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. McDonald MJ, Gehrig SM, Meintjes PL, Zhang X-X, Rainey PB. Adaptive divergence in experimental populations of Pseudomonas fluorescens. IV. Genetic constraints guide evolutionary trajectories in a parallel adaptive radiation. Genetics 2009;183:1041–1053 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. McDonald MJ, Cooper TF, Beaumont HJE, Rainey PB. The distribution of fitness effects of new beneficial mutations in Pseudomonas fluorescens. Biol Lett 2011;7:98–100 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lind PA, Farr AD, Rainey PB. Experimental evolution reveals hidden diversity in evolutionary pathways. eLife 2015;4:e07074 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lind PA, Farr AD, Rainey PB. Evolutionary convergence in experimental Pseudomonas populations. ISME J 2017;11:589–600 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Spiers AJ, Bohannon J, Gehrig SM, Rainey PB. Biofilm formation at the air-liquid interface by the Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 wrinkly spreader requires an acetylated form of cellulose. Mol Microbiol 2003;50:15–27 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Spiers AJ, Rainey PB. The Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 wrinkly spreader biofilm requires attachment factor, cellulose fibre and LPS interactions to maintain strength and integrity. Microbiology 2005;151:2829–2839 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Arber W. Genetic variation: molecular mechanisms and impact on microbial evolution. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2000;24:1–7 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Andersson DI, Jerlström-Hultqvist J, Näsvall J. Evolution of new functions de novo and from preexisting genes. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2015;7:a017996 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Johnson AD. The rewiring of transcription circuits in evolution. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2017;47:121–127 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Taylor BL, Zhulin IB, Johnson MS. Aerotaxis and other energy-sensing behavior in bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol 1999;53:103–128 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Bailey MJ, Lilley AK, Thompson IP, Rainey PB, Ellis RJ. Site directed chromosomal marking of a fluorescent pseudomonad isolated from the phytosphere of sugar beet; stability and potential for marker gene transfer. Mol Ecol 1995;4:755–764 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Turnbull GA, Morgan JAW, Whipps JM, Saunders JR. The role of bacterial motility in the survival and spread of Pseudomonas fluorescens in soil and in the attachment and colonisation of wheat roots. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2001;36:21–31 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. de Weert S, Vermeiren H, Mulders IHM, Kuiper I, Hendrickx N et al. Flagella-driven chemotaxis towards exudate components is an important trait for tomato root colonization by Pseudomonas fluorescens. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 2002;15:1173–1180 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jones J, Studholme DJ, Knight CG, Preston GM. Integrated bioinformatic and phenotypic analysis of RpoN-dependent traits in the plant growth-promoting bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25. Environ Microbiol 2007;9:3046–3064 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ping L, Birkenbeil J, Monajembashi S. Swimming behavior of the monotrichous bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2013;86:36–44 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Alsohim AS, Taylor TB, Barrett GA, Gallie J, Zhang X-X et al. The biosurfactant viscosin produced by Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 aids spreading motility and plant growth promotion. Environ Microbiol 2014;16:2267–2281 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Silby MW, Cerdeño-Tárraga AM, Vernikos GS, Giddens SR, Jackson RW et al. Genomic and genetic analyses of diversity and plant interactions of Pseudomonas fluorescens. Genome Biol 2009;10:R51 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ude S, Arnold DL, Moon CD, Timms-Wilson T, Spiers AJ. Biofilm formation and cellulose expression among diverse environmental Pseudomonas isolates. Environ Microbiol 2006;8:1997–2011 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Robertson M, Hapca SM, Moshynets O, Spiers AJ. Air-liquid interface biofilm formation by psychrotrophic pseudomonads recovered from spoilt meat. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 2013;103:251–259 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Ueda A, Saneoka H. Characterization of the ability to form biofilms by plant-associated Pseudomonas species. Curr Microbiol 2015;70:506–513 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Armitano J, Méjean V, Jourlin-Castelli C. Gram-negative bacteria can also form pellicles. Environ Microbiol Rep 2014;6:534–544 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Vlamakis H, Chai Y, Beauregard P, Losick R, Kolter R. Sticking together: building a biofilm the Bacillus subtilis way. Nat Rev Microbiol 2013;11:157–168 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kjelleberg S.Mechanisms of bacterial adhesion at gas-liquid interfaces In Fletcher M, Savage DC. (editors) Bacterial adhesion: Mechanisms and Physiological Significance New York: Plenum Press; 1985; pp163–194
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Marshall HG, Burchardt L. Neuston: its definition with a historical review regarding its concept and community structure. Arch. Hydrobiol. 2005;164:429–448 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Wotton RS, Preston TM. Surface films: areas of water bodies that are often overlooked. Bioscience 2005;55:137–145 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Cunliffe M, Upstill-Goddard RC, Murrell JC. Microbiology of aquatic surface microlayers. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2011;35:233–246 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Spiers AJ, Arnold DL, Moon CD, Timms-Wilson TM.A survey of A-L biofilm formation and cellulose expression amongst soil and plant-associated Pseudomonas isolates In Bailey MJ, Lilley AK, Timms-Wilson TM. (editors) Microbial Ecology of Aerial Plant Surfaces Wallingford: CABI; 2006; pp121–132
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Holden PA.How do the microhabitats framed by soil structure impact soil bacteria and the processes they regulate? In Ritz K, Young I. (editors) The architecture and biology of soils Wallingford: CABI; 2011; pp118–148
    [Google Scholar]
  47. King EO, Ward MK, Raney DC. Two simple media for the demonstration of pyocyanin and fluorescin. J Labor Clin Med 1954;44:301–307
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T, Cloning M, Laboratory Manual A. Molecular Cloning. A Laboratory Manual, 2nd Edition. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1989
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Gates FL, Olitsky PK. Factors influencing anaerobiosis, with special reference to the use of fresh tissue. J Exp Med 1921;33:51–68 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Green JH, Koza A, Moshynets O, Pajor R, Ritchie MR et al. Evolution in a test tube: rise of the wrinkly spreaders. J Biol Educ 2011;45:54–59 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Lenski RE, Rose MR, Simpson SC, Tadler SC. Long-Term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. Am Nat 1991;138:1315–1341 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Fechtner J, Koza A, Sterpaio PD, Hapca SM, Spiers AJ. Surfactants expressed by soil pseudomonads alter local soil-water distribution, suggesting a hydrological role for these compounds. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2011;78:50–58 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Berg HC, Berg HC.Movement of self-propelled objects In Berg HC. editor Random walks in biology, Expanded edition. Princetown: Princetown University Press; 1993; pp75–93
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Jørgensen BB.Life in the diffusive boundary layer In Boudreau BP, Jørgensen BB. (editors) The Benthic Boundary Layer. Transport Processes and Biogeochemistry Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001; pp348–373
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Giddens SR, Jackson RW, Moon CD, Jacobs MA, Zhang X-X et al. Mutational activation of niche-specific genes provides insight into regulatory networks and bacterial function in a complex environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007;104:18247–18252 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Pedley TJ, Kessler JO. Hydrodynamic phenomena in suspensions of swimming microorganisms. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 1992;24:313–358 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Ardré M, Dufour D, Rainey PB. Causes and biophysical consequences of cellulose production by Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 at the air-liquid interface. J BacteriolIn press, May 13:2019 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kjelleberg S, Stenström TA. Lipid surface films: interaction of bacteria with free fatty acids and phospholipids at the air/water interface. Microbiology 1980;116:417–423 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Rühs PA, Böni L, Fuller GG, Inglis RF, Fischer P. In-situ quantification of the interfacial rheological response of bacterial biofilms to environmental stimuli. PLoS One 2013;8:e78524 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Holmberg K, Jönsson B, Kronsberg B, Lindman B. Surfactants and Polymers in Aqueous Solution, 2nd. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd; 2002
    [Google Scholar]
  61. de Bruijn I, de Kock MJD, Yang M, de Waard P, van Beek TA et al. Genome-based discovery, structure prediction and functional analysis of cyclic lipopeptide antibiotics in Pseudomonas species. Mol Microbiol 2007;63:417–428 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Deleuze Y, Chiang C-Y, Thiriet M, Sheu TWH. Numerical study of plume patterns in a chemotaxis–diffusion–convection coupling system. Comput Fluids 2016;126:58–70 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Armisén R, Galatas F.Agar In Phillips GO, Williams PA. (editors) Handbook of hydrocolloids2, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd; 2009; pp82–203
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhao Z, Ji X, Dimova R, Lipowsky R, Liu Y. Viscoelasticity of poly(ethylene glycol) solutions on supported lipid bilayers via quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation. Macromolecules 2015;48:1824–1831 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kirinčič S, Klofutar C. Viscosity of aqueous solutions of poly(ethylene glycol)s at 298.15 K. Fluid Phase Equilib 1999;155:311–325 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Asyakina L, Asyakina L, Dyshlyuk L, Dyshlyuk L. Study of viscosity of aqueous solutions of natural polysaccharides. Science Evolution 2016;1:11–19 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Haines JR, Alexander M. Microbial degradation of polyethylene glycols. Appl Microbiol 1975;29:621–625
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Obradors N, Aguilar J. Efficient biodegradation of high-molecular-weight polyethylene glycols by pure cultures of Pseudomonas stutzeri. AEM 1991;57:2383–2388
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Hu X, Fukutani A, Liu X, Kimbara K, Kawai F. Isolation of bacteria able to grow on both polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polypropylene glycol (PPG) and their PEG/PPG dehydrogenases. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2007;73:1407–1413 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Udall YC, Deeni Y, Hapca SM, Raikes D, Spiers AJ. The evolution of biofilm-forming wrinkly spreaders in static microcosms and drip-fed columns selects for subtle differences in wrinkleality and fitness. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2015;91:fiv057 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Spiers AJ.Bacterial evolution in simple microcosms In Harris CH. editor Microcosms: Ecology, Biological Implications and Environmental Impact Hauppauge: Nova Publishers; 2013
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Jennings HS, Crosby JH. Studies on reactions to stimuli in unicellular organisms.—VII. The manner in which bacteria react to stimuli, especially to chemical stimuli. Amer J Physiology 1901;6:31–37 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Acerenza L, Constraints AL. Constraints, trade-offs and the currency of fitness. J Mol Evol 2016;82:117–127 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Ferenci T. Trade-off mechanisms shaping the diversity of bacteria. Trends Microbiol 2016;24:209–223 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Hölscher T, Bartels B, Lin Y-C, Gallegos-Monterrosa R, Price-Whelan A et al. Motility, chemotaxis and aerotaxis contribute to competitiveness during bacterial pellicle biofilm development. J Mol Biol 2015;427:3695–3708 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Kelman A, Hruschka J. The role of motility and aerotaxis in the selective increase of avirulent bacteria in still broth cultures of Pseudomonas solanacearum. J Gen Microbiol 1973;76:177–188 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Nichols NN, Harwood CS. An aerotaxis transducer gene from Pseudomonas putida. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2000;182:177–183 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Shitashiro M, Kato J, Fukumura T, Kuroda A, Ikeda T et al. Evaluation of bacterial aerotaxis for its potential use in detecting the toxicity of chemicals to microorganisms. J Biotechnol 2003;101:11–18 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Sarand I, Osterberg S, Holmqvist S, Holmfeldt P, Skärfstad E et al. Metabolism-dependent taxis towards (methyl)phenols is coupled through the most abundant of three polar localized Aer-like proteins of Pseudomonas putida. Environ Microbiol 2008;10:1320–1334 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Muriel C, Jalvo B, Redondo-Nieto M, Rivilla R, Martín M. Chemotactic motility of Pseudomonas fluorescens F113 under aerobic and denitrification conditions. PLoS One 2015;10:e0132242 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staely JT, Garrity GM.Bergy’s manual of systematic bacteriology, 2nd. New York: Spinger-Verlag; 2005; pp323–378
  82. Sampedro I, Parales RE, Krell T, Hill JE. Pseudomonas chemotaxis. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2015;39:17–46 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Dunstan J, Lee KJ, Hwang Y, Park SF, Goldstein RE. Evaporation-driven convective flows in suspensions of nonmotile bacteria. Phys Rev Fluids 2018;3:123102 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Franden MA, Jayakody LN, Li W-J, Wagner NJ, Cleveland NS et al. Engineering Pseudomonas putida KT2440 for efficient ethylene glycol utilization. Metab Eng 2018;48:197–207 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Xavier JB, Foster KR. Cooperation and conflict in microbial biofilms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007;104:876–881 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Morse M, Huang A, Li G, Maxey MR, Tang JX. Molecular adsorption steers bacterial swimming at the air/water interface. Biophys J 2013;105:21–28 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Fechhner J, Cameron S, Deeni YY, Hapca SM, Kabir K et al.Limitations of biosurfactant strength produced by bacteria In Upton RC. editor Biosurfactants Occurrences, applications and research New York: NOVA Science Publishers; 2017; pp125–148
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Strevett KA, Chen G. Microbial surface thermodynamics and applications. Res Microbiol 2003;154:329–335 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Ardizzone S, Dioguardi FS, Quagliotto P, Vercelli B, Viscardi G. Microcrystalline cellulose suspensions: effects on the surface tension at the air–water boundary. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 2001;176:239–244 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Stana-Kleinschek K, Ribitsch V, Kreze T, Fras L. Determination of the adsorption character of cellulose fibres using surface tension and surface charge. Materials Research Innovations 2002;6:13–18 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Nasatto P, Pignon F, Silveira J, Duarte M, Noseda M et al. Interfacial properties of methylcelluloses: the influence of molar mass. Polymers 2014;6:2961–2973 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Jilal I, El Barkany S, Bahari Z, El Idrissi A, Salhi A et al. A new equation between surface tension and solubility parameters of cellulose derivatives depending on Ds: application on cellulose acetate. Appl Envir Eng Sci 2018;4:171–181
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Dueholm MS, Otzen D, Nielsen PH. Evolutionary insight into the functional amyloids of the pseudomonads. PLoS One 2013;8:e76630 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Taglialegna A, Lasa I, Valle J. Amyloid structures as biofilm matrix scaffolds. J Bacteriol 2016;198:2579–2588 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Lembré P, Di Martino P, Vendrely C. Amyloid peptides derived from CsgA and FapC modify the viscoelastic properties of biofilm model matrices. Biofouling 2014;30:415–426 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Wu C, Lim JY, Fuller GG, Cegelski L. Disruption of Escherichia coli amyloid-integrated biofilm formation at the air-liquid interface by a polysorbate surfactant. Langmuir 2013;29:920–926 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000844
Loading
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000844
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Supplementary material 2

PDF
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