» Articles » PMID: 10473455

Impact of RpoS Deletion on Escherichia Coli Biofilms

Overview
Date 1999 Sep 3
PMID 10473455
Citations 66
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Slow growth has been hypothesized to be an essential aspect of bacterial physiology within biofilms. In order to test this hypothesis, we employed two strains of Escherichia coli, ZK126 (DeltalacZ rpoS(+)) and its isogenic DeltarpoS derivative, ZK1000. These strains were grown at two rates (0.033 and 0.0083 h(-1)) in a glucose-limited chemostat which was coupled either to a modified Robbins device containing plugs of silicone rubber urinary catheter material or to a glass flow cell. The presence or absence of rpoS did not significantly affect planktonic growth of E. coli. In contrast, biofilm cell density in the rpoS mutant strain (ZK1000), as measured by determining the number of CFU per square centimeter, was reduced by 50% (P < 0.05). Deletion of rpoS caused differences in biofilm cell arrangement, as seen by scanning confocal laser microscopy. In reporter gene experiments, similar levels of rpoS expression were seen in chemostat-grown planktonic and biofilm populations at a growth rate of 0.033 h(-1). Overall, these studies suggest that rpoS is important for biofilm physiology.

Citing Articles

Recent Contributions of Proteomics to Our Understanding of Reversible N-Lysine Acylation in Bacteria.

Popova L, Carr R, Carabetta V J Proteome Res. 2024; 23(8):2733-2749.

PMID: 38442041 PMC: 11296938. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.3c00912.


Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm exopolysaccharides: assembly, function, and degradation.

Gheorghita A, Wozniak D, Parsek M, Howell P FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2023; 47(6).

PMID: 37884397 PMC: 10644985. DOI: 10.1093/femsre/fuad060.


Comparison of the Efficiency of Selected Disinfectants against Planktonic and Biofilm Populations of and .

Todoric O, Pezo L, Saric L, Kolarov V, Varga A, cabarkapa I Microorganisms. 2023; 11(6).

PMID: 37375095 PMC: 10300984. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11061593.


Biofilm and wound healing: from bench to bedside.

Goswami A, Basu S, Banerjee T, Shukla V Eur J Med Res. 2023; 28(1):157.

PMID: 37098583 PMC: 10127443. DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01121-7.


Targeting the Holy Triangle of Quorum Sensing, Biofilm Formation, and Antibiotic Resistance in Pathogenic Bacteria.

Sionov R, Steinberg D Microorganisms. 2022; 10(6).

PMID: 35744757 PMC: 9228545. DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms10061239.


References
1.
McLean R, Whiteley M, Hoskins B, Majors P, Sharma M . Laboratory techniques for studying biofilm growth, physiology, and gene expression in flowing systems and porous media. Methods Enzymol. 1999; 310:248-64. DOI: 10.1016/s0076-6879(99)10022-3. View

2.
Nickel J, Ruseska I, Wright J, Costerton J . Tobramycin resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells growing as a biofilm on urinary catheter material. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985; 27(4):619-24. PMC: 180108. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.27.4.619. View

3.
Evans D, Brown M, Allison D, Gilbert P . Susceptibility of bacterial biofilms to tobramycin: role of specific growth rate and phase in the division cycle. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990; 25(4):585-91. DOI: 10.1093/jac/25.4.585. View

4.
Bohannon D, Connell N, Keener J, Tormo A, Espinosa-Urgel M, Zambrano M . Stationary-phase-inducible "gearbox" promoters: differential effects of katF mutations and role of sigma 70. J Bacteriol. 1991; 173(14):4482-92. PMC: 208112. DOI: 10.1128/jb.173.14.4482-4492.1991. View

5.
Lawrence J, Korber D, Hoyle B, Costerton J, Caldwell D . Optical sectioning of microbial biofilms. J Bacteriol. 1991; 173(20):6558-67. PMC: 208993. DOI: 10.1128/jb.173.20.6558-6567.1991. View