|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ABSTRACT |
|
|
|---|
0.2. Twenty-one aggR+ and 27 aggR - EAEC strains could be screened by an OD570 > 0.2 using this assay. Although confirmation by a HEp-2 cell adherence test is needed, this biofilm assay is convenient and useful in screening for EAEC. | INTRODUCTION |
|
|
|---|
Baudry and others developed a DNA probe pCVD432 (AA probe) to simplify the identification of EAEC.5 In their original report, the probe was found to be 89% sensitive and 99% specific for detection of EAEC. Later studies have confirmed the high specificity of this probe, but have showed that sensitivity varies between 15% and 90% for EAEC from different locations.1 Furthermore, EAEC outbreaks due to probe-negative strains have occurred in Europe and Japan.6,7 A polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay with primers derived from the pCVD432 sequence showed similar sensitivity and specificity.8 A PCR method based on the aggR regulatory gene was also developed to identify EAEC.9 Although the aggR gene is a sensitive target, it is much less specific than the CVD432 locus.1 AggR-negative EAEC was also reported as an enteric pathogen of food-borne outbreaks.10
Thus, it is difficult to screen for EAEC among E. coli isolates from patients with diarrhea in clinical laboratories. The use of biofilm assays may be useful in overcoming these difficulties. Nataro and Kaper reported that EAEC produces a bacterial film on a polystyrene surface that could be easily visualized with Giemsa.11 Recently, Sheikh and others reported the quantitative analysis of EAEC biofilms.12 In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of the quantitative biofilm assay to screen for EAEC among clinical isolates of E. coli.
| SUBJECTS AND METHODS |
|
|
|---|
Quantitative biofilm assay. To assess biofilm formation, we inoculated 200 µL of Dulbeccos modified Eagles medium containing 0.45% glucose in 96-well flat-bottom microtiter polystyrene plates (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) with 5 µL of an overnight Luria broth culture grown at 37°C with shaking. The sample was incubated overnight (18 hours) at 37°C and visualized by staining with 0.5% crystal violet for five minutes after washing with water.12 The biofilm was quantified in duplicate, after adding 200 µL of 95% ethanol, by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay plate reader at 570 nm. Strain EAEC 042 was used as a positive control and E. coli HB101 was used as a negative control.
Detection of the AA probe-associated gene (aatA) and aggR by a PCR. All 1,042 strains were examined for detection of the aatA and the aggR gene by a PCR. Since the aatA gene sequence overlaps with the region of the conventional pCVD432 (AA probe),13 we assumed aatA-positive strains to be AA probe positive. The primers for the aatA gene were as follows: 5'-ATGTTACCAGATATAAATATAG-3' (forward, 2723-2744) and 5'-CATTTCCCCTGTATTG-GAAATG-3' (reverse, 3766-3787) (GenBank AY351860). The primers for the aggR gene were as follows: 5'-CAGAATACATCAGTACACTG-3' (forward) and 5'-GAAGCTTACAGCCGATATAT-3' (reverse).9 The assay was performed in a DNA Thermal Cycler PC707 (Astec, Fukuoka, Japan), and the PCR products were subjected to electrophoresis on agarose gels.
HEp-2 cell adherence test. The HEp-2 cell adherence test was performed by the method originally described by Nataro and others with slight modifications.2 Briefly, bacteria were incubated on cultured HEp-2 cells for three hours using a 24-well flat-bottom culture plate, washed, and stained with Giemsa.
Statistical analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fishers exact probability test and the Mann-Whitneys U test. P values < 0.05 were considered significant.
| RESULTS |
|
|
|---|
|
OD570
0.2), 36 strains; and group 3 (OD570 < 0.1), 944 strains. Fourteen aatA-positive strains were also aggR positive, and these were observed only in group 1. Twenty-one aggR-positive strains were found in group 1, and two were found in group 3. All 98 isolates in groups 1 and 2 and 51 isolates in group 3 were examined using the HEp-2 cell adherence test. In group 1, 48 (77.4%) of 62 strains were identified as EAEC, while no EAEC was found in groups 2 or 3. The incidence of EAEC was significantly higher in group 1 (OD570 > 0.2) than in the other groups (P < 0.0001). All EAEC strains showed absorbances > 0.2. All aggR-positive strains in group 1 were EAEC, while those in group 3 were not.
|
|
|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|
|
|---|
14 days) and with growth retardation in infants.1,11 Therefore, the detection of EAEC strains can make a significant contribution to public health in many areas. Because the gold standard HEp-2 cell adherence test is time-consuming, there is a need for a convenient assay to detect EAEC. We applied the quantitative biofilm assay using a microtiter plate to screen for EAEC among E. coli isolates from children with diarrhea. All EAEC strains in this study showed an OD570 > 0.2 in the assay, and the incidence of EAEC among the strains with an OD570 > 0.2 was 77.4%. Although confirmation by a HEp-2 cell adhesion test is needed to identify EAEC, this biofilm assay is convenient and useful in screening for EAEC. In particular, it is more convenient when a large number of strains are examined in clinical and epidemiologic studies. This assay may be more useful in developing countries where EAEC is often a major problem, because it can be done quickly while the patient is still ill. Furthermore, the test may be available without a spectrophotometer, since a biofilm showing an OD570 > 0.2 is clearly visible. Bacterial clump formation at the surface of liquid culture was previously reported as a rapid test to identify EAEC.15,16 This convenient test is also based on the biofilm formation of EAEC and useful for screening, but it is not quantitative. Furthermore, it may overlook EAEC strains with weak biofilm formation.
Recently, Cerna and others reported a multiplex PCR assay using three plasmid-borne genes (the AA probe, aap, and aggR) as a convenient and sensitive molecular test to detect EAEC.3 Indeed, this test is useful and has increased sensitivity, but it is expensive to use when examining a large number of strains. Furthermore, the test cannot detect EAEC without the plasmid-borne genes. Indeed, Nataro recently suggested using the term typical EAEC to refer to strains expressing the AggR regulon.17 We found a strong association of typical EAEC with diarrhea in a previous report.14 However, atypical EAEC such as AggR-negative EAEC was also reported as an enteric pathogen of food-borne outbreaks.6,7,10 In our assay, we could screen both the AggR-negative and AggR-positive EAEC efficiently. Although the pathogenesis of atypical EAEC without the AggR regulon remains to be determined, we believe that screening AggR-negative EAEC is also important in clinical and epidemiologic studies.
In our study, 14 (22.6%) of 62 strains with an OD570 > 0.2 were not identified as EAEC by the HEp-2 adherence test. These included diffuse-adhering E. coli strains and strains without adhesion on HEp-2 cells, the virulence of which needs to be investigated.
Three AA patterns by the HEp-2 cell adherence test were observed in this study, which showed the heterogeneity of EAEC adherence patterns. The differences in adhesion pattern may be caused by variations in adhesive fimbriae. The aggR-positive strains mainly showed the typical AA pattern with a honeycomb formation and significantly stronger biofilm formation, which may be attributable to the transcriptional activation of adhesin genes by AggR.1,11 Conversely, the pathogenesis and mechanism of adhesion of the aggR-negative strains with an atypical AA pattern need further investigation.
In conclusion, the quantitative biofilm assay using a microtiter plate is convenient and useful in screening for EAEC among E. coli isolates. The best use of this test is to screen large numbers of isolates quickly, so that the more time-consuming HEp-2 assay can be reserved for a smaller number of samples. In addition, this assay may contribute to demonstrating the true incidence of EAEC with and without aggR among clinically isolated E. coli strains.
Received February 17, 2004. Accepted for publication April 14, 2004.
Acknowledgments: We thank Dr. Yasumitsu Baba, Dr. Takuya Ikeda, and all of the staff at the Clinical Laboratory of Kagoshima City Medical Association for collecting the E. coli strains.
Financial support: This study was supported by the Research Fund of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan (no. 12470168).
Authors addresses: Naoko Wakimoto, Junichiro Nishi, Jav Sarantuya, Mayumi Iwashita, Kunihiro Manago, Koichi Tokuda, Masao Yoshinaga, and Yoshifumi Kawano, Department of Pediatrics, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima 890-8520, Japan, Telephone: 81-99-275-5354, Fax: 81-99-265-7196, E-mail: nishi1{at}m2.kufm.kagoshima-u.ac.jp. Jalaluddin Sheikh and James P. Nataro, Center for Vaccine Development, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201.
| REFERENCES |
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D. L. R. Gomes, C. A. S. Martins, L. M. D. Faria, L. S. Santos, C. S. Santos, P. S. Sabbadini, M. C. Souza, G. B. Alves, A. C. P. Rosa, P. E. Nagao, et al. Corynebacterium diphtheriae as an emerging pathogen in nephrostomy catheter-related infection: evaluation of traits associated with bacterial virulence J. Med. Microbiol., November 1, 2009; 58(11): 1419 - 1427. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Herold, J. C. Paton, and A. W. Paton Sab, a Novel Autotransporter of Locus of Enterocyte Effacement-Negative Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli O113:H21, Contributes to Adherence and Biofilm Formation Infect. Immun., August 1, 2009; 77(8): 3234 - 3243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. L. Van Dellen, L. Houot, and P. I. Watnick Genetic Analysis of Vibrio cholerae Monolayer Formation Reveals a Key Role for {Delta}{Psi} in the Transition to Permanent Attachment J. Bacteriol., December 15, 2008; 190(24): 8185 - 8196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Mendez-Arancibia, M. Vargas, S. Soto, J. Ruiz, E. Kahigwa, D. Schellenberg, H. Urassa, J. Gascon, and J. Vila Prevalence of Different Virulence Factors and Biofilm Production in Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli Isolates Causing Diarrhea in Children in Ifakara (Tanzania) Am J Trop Med Hyg, June 1, 2008; 78(6): 985 - 989. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Imuta, J. Nishi, K. Tokuda, R. Fujiyama, K. Manago, M. Iwashita, J. Sarantuya, and Y. Kawano The Escherichia coli Efflux Pump TolC Promotes Aggregation of Enteroaggregative E. coli 042 Infect. Immun., March 1, 2008; 76(3): 1247 - 1256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Cordeiro, D. da Silva Gomes Pereira, M. Rocha, M. D. Asensi, W. P. Elias, and L. C. Campos Evaluation of a Multiplex PCR for Identification of Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli J. Clin. Microbiol., February 1, 2008; 46(2): 828 - 829. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. A. Mohamed, D. B. Huang, Z.-D. Jiang, H. L. DuPont, J. P. Nataro, J. Belkind-Gerson, and P. C. Okhuysen Association of Putative Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli Virulence Genes and Biofilm Production in Isolates from Travelers to Developing Countries J. Clin. Microbiol., January 1, 2007; 45(1): 121 - 126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. B. Huang, A. Mohanty, H. L. DuPont, P. C. Okhuysen, and T. Chiang A review of an emerging enteric pathogen: enteroaggregative Escherichia coli. J. Med. Microbiol., October 1, 2006; 55(Pt 10): 1303 - 1311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Reisner, K. A. Krogfelt, B. M. Klein, E. L. Zechner, and S. Molin In Vitro Biofilm Formation of Commensal and Pathogenic Escherichia coli Strains: Impact of Environmental and Genetic Factors. J. Bacteriol., May 1, 2006; 188(10): 3572 - 3581. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |