Literature DB >> 1248879

Hydrolysis of urea in the gastrointestinal tract of "monoxenic" rats: effect of immunization with strains of ureolytic bacteria.

M C Moreau, R Ducluzeau, P Raibaud.   

Abstract

Axenic rats, in whose feces urea is ordinarily excreted, were inoculated with ureolytic strains of Lactobacillus or Actinobacillus originally derived from the microflora of "holoxenic" rats. In these "monoxenic" animals, harboring one or another of the bacterial strains, fecal urea was hydrolyzed, with a more rapid onset of ureolysis in the case of Actinobacillus as compared with Lactobacillus. In vitro, a parallel difference between the two strains with regard to the onset of ureolysis was observed, hydrolysis beginning at the onset of growth in the case of Actinobacillus and only at the end of the exponential growth phase in the case of Lactobacillus. Extracellular urease activity was demonstrated in cultures of Lactobacillus, whereas none was found extracellularly with Actinobacillus. The pH optimum for the Lactobacillus urease in vitro was found to be 3.0, whereas the corresponding value for Actinobacillus was 6.0. In the two types of monoxenic rats, urea was consistently present in the small intestine and virtually absent from cecum and colon. Hydrolysis of urea in stomach was almost complete in rats bearing Lactobacillus but much less so in animals monoxenic with Actinobacillus, despite essentially equal numbers of organisms in that location. When rats carrying a monoflora of ureolytic Lactobacillus were immunized with either whole cells or soluble extract of the same organism, urea appeared in cecum and feces, indicating suppression of ureolytic activity. Immunization with an extract of nonureolytic Lactobacillus failed to produce such a result. Similar immunization techniques applied to animals monoassociated with ureolytic Actinobacillus did not alter ureolysis, and no appreciable quantity of urea appeared in feces. These studies demonstrate that it is indeed possible to inhibit the ureolytic activity of some bacteria in vivo by immunological means, but that the urease system of other organisms may not be as amenable to such manipulation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1976        PMID: 1248879      PMCID: PMC420569          DOI: 10.1128/iai.13.1.9-15.1976

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Infect Immun        ISSN: 0019-9567            Impact factor:   3.441


  19 in total

1.  SOME EFFECTS OF UREASE ADMINISTRATION ON LABORATORY ANIMALS.

Authors:  H C DANG; W J VISEK
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1964-04

2.  SOME EFFECTS OF JACKBEAN UREASE IMMUNITY IN YOUNG CALVES.

Authors:  L H HARBERS; A D TILLMAN; W J VISEK; H A GLIMP
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1965-02       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Antibodies in saliva.

Authors:  F W KRAUS; J KONNO
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1963-03-30       Impact factor: 5.691

4.  Studies on urea hydrolysis in birds and mammals.

Authors:  W J VISEK
Journal:  Am J Vet Res       Date:  1962-05       Impact factor: 1.156

5.  Effect of urease injection on body weights of growing rats and chicks.

Authors:  H C DANG; W J VISEK
Journal:  Proc Soc Exp Biol Med       Date:  1960-10

6.  Some immunologic properties of jackbean urease and its antibody.

Authors:  W J Visek; M E Iwert; N S Nelson; J H Rust
Journal:  Arch Biochem Biophys       Date:  1967-10       Impact factor: 4.013

7.  [Effect of vaccination on the implantation of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus pyogenes in the digestive tract of axenic mice].

Authors:  R Ducluzeau; P Raibaud
Journal:  Ann Inst Pasteur (Paris)       Date:  1968-06

8.  [Microflora of the digestive system of the rat. I. Technics of study and proposed culture media].

Authors:  P Raibaud; A B Dickinson; E Sacquet; H Charlier; G Mocquot
Journal:  Ann Inst Pasteur (Paris)       Date:  1966-04

9.  Effect of urease immunity on urease and antiurease activities in ruminants.

Authors:  K S Sidhu; L T Hall; L R Easley; E W Jones; A D Tillman
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  1969-09       Impact factor: 4.798

10.  [Microflora of the rat digestive tract. IV. Controlled implantation in gnotobiotic rats of various microbial genera isolated from conventional rats].

Authors:  P Raibaud; A B Dickinson; E Sacquet; H Charlier; G Mocquot
Journal:  Ann Inst Pasteur (Paris)       Date:  1966-08
View more
  6 in total

1.  Genes involved in obesity: Adipocytes, brain and microflora.

Authors:  L Macia; O Viltart; C Verwaerde; M Delacre; A Delanoye; C Grangette; I Wolowczuk
Journal:  Genes Nutr       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 5.523

2.  Urease-producing species of intestinal anaerobes and their activities.

Authors:  K Suzuki; Y Benno; T Mitsuoka; S Takebe; K Kobashi; J Hase
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Effect of various diets on toxin production by two strains of Clostridium difficile in gnotobiotic mice.

Authors:  S Mahe; G Corthier; F Dubos
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 3.441

4.  Purification and characterization of acid urease from Lactobacillus fermentum.

Authors:  S Kakimoto; Y Sumino; K Kawahara; E Yamazaki; I Nakatsui
Journal:  Appl Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Genetic Engineering Production of Ethyl Carbamate Hydrolase and Its Application in Degrading Ethyl Carbamate in Chinese Liquor.

Authors:  Naihui Dong; Siyu Xue; Hui Guo; Kexin Xiong; Xinping Lin; Huipeng Liang; Chaofan Ji; Zhiguo Huang; Sufang Zhang
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2022-03-24

Review 6.  Feeding our immune system: impact on metabolism.

Authors:  Isabelle Wolowczuk; Claudie Verwaerde; Odile Viltart; Anne Delanoye; Myriam Delacre; Bruno Pot; Corinne Grangette
Journal:  Clin Dev Immunol       Date:  2008
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.