| Literature DB >> 26748500 |
Abstract
Proteus spp. bacteria were first described in 1885 by Gustav Hauser, who had revealed their feature of intensive swarming growth. Currently, the genus is divided into Proteus mirabilis, Proteus vulgaris, Proteus penneri, Proteus hauseri, and three unnamed genomospecies 4, 5, and 6 and consists of 80 O-antigenic serogroups. The bacteria are known to be human opportunistic pathogens, isolated from urine, wounds, and other clinical sources. It is postulated that intestines are a reservoir of these proteolytic organisms. Many wild and domestic animals may be hosts of Proteus spp. bacteria, which are commonly known to play a role of parasites or commensals. However, interesting examples of their symbiotic relationships with higher organisms have also been described. Proteus spp. bacteria present in soil or water habitats are often regarded as indicators of fecal pollution, posing a threat of poisoning when the contaminated water or seafood is consumed. The health risk may also be connected with drug-resistant strains sourcing from intestines. Positive aspects of the bacteria presence in water and soil are connected with exceptional features displayed by autochthonic Proteus spp. strains detected in these environments. These rods acquire various metabolic abilities allowing their adaptation to different environmental conditions, such as high concentrations of heavy metals or toxic substances, which may be exploited as sources of energy and nutrition by the bacteria. The Proteus spp. abilities to tolerate or utilize polluting compounds as well as promote plant growth provide a possibility of employing these microorganisms in bioremediation and environmental protection.Entities:
Keywords: Bioremediation; Fecal pollution; Natural microflora; PGPR; Pathogens; Symbionts
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26748500 PMCID: PMC5080321 DOI: 10.1007/s00248-015-0720-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Ecol ISSN: 0095-3628 Impact factor: 4.552
Fig. 1P. mirabilis strains swarming on the surface of an agar plate: isogenic A and B (no line of demarcation is visible) versus unrelated C (clear Dienes line of demarcation)
The main metabolic characteristics of Proteus spp. [103, 104]: “+”positive in 100 % strains; “−”negative in 100 % strains; in the other cases, the percentage of strains exhibiting positive reaction is given in parentheses
| Feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Typical of the genus and distinguishing it from the other | |||||
| Phenylalanine deaminase | + (98 %) | + (99 %) | + | + | + |
| Typical of the species and allowing their differentiation | |||||
| Ornithine decarboxylation | + (99 %) | − | − | − | − |
Pathogenicity of Proteus spp. rods to humans [7, 8, 35, 37, 72, 81, 111, 125, 133, 148]
| Infections | Virulence factors | Prevalent O-serotypes |
|---|---|---|
| • Urinary tract infections (cystitis, prostatitis, pyelonephritis, kidney stone formation) | • Fimbriae – adhesion | • O3, O6, O10, O11, O13, O23, O24, O27, O28, O29, O30 – including |
Different kinds of relationship between Proteus spp. and other organisms (details in the text): “+” positive (beneficial), “?” neutral/commensal/not determined, “−” negative (antagonistic, pathogenic)
| organisms |
|
|
|
| selected references |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Humans | ? / − | ? / − | ? / − | 8, 36, 81, 103, 124, 125, 148 | |
| Gorillas | ? | ? | 15 | ||
| Dogs | − | ? / − | ? | ? | 38, 44, 69, 99, 144 |
| Cats, feral cats | − | − | 54, 69, 99 | ||
| Pigs | ? | ? | 68, 75, 147 | ||
| Horses | ? / − | 84, 152 | |||
| Donkeys | − | 83 | |||
| Cow, cattle, calf | ? | ? / − | ? | 2, 56, 76, 123, 138 | |
| Raccoon dog | ? | 66 | |||
| Flying fox | + | + | 6 | ||
| Rats | ? | 73 | |||
| Birds, poultry | − (eggs) | ?/− | ? / − | ? / − | 9, 43, 46, 61, 62, 68, 71, 123, 154, 155, 161 |
| Snakes | ? | ? | ? | 16, 53, 131 | |
| Alligator | − | 101 | |||
| Turtles | − | ? | ? / − | ? / − | 5, 10, 42, 53, 102, 108, 127 |
| Amphibians | ? | 53 | |||
| Fishes | + / ? | + | + / ? /− | + | 17, 66, 70, 97, 107, 141 |
| Oysters | ? | 39 | |||
| Shrimps | + / ? | + / ? | + / ? | + / ? / − | 20, 82, 97, 98 |
| Lobsters | + | + | + | + | 97 |
| Blue crab | ? | 109 | |||
| Sponges | +/? | ? | 50, 64 | ||
| Millipede | + | 4 | |||
| Lepidopteran | − | 85 | |||
| Cockroaches | ? | ? | 142, 145, 149 | ||
| Honey bees | ? | 137 | |||
| Flies | ? | ? / + | ? | 18, 51, 79, 80, 85, 87, 94, 134, 144, 150 | |
| Mites | + | 2 | |||
| Nematodes | − | 76 | |||
| Leguminous plants | + | 12, 14, 120 | |||
| Wild grass | + | 121 | |||
| Tea | + | 12 | |||
| Cabbage | + | 156 | |||
| Maize | + | 60 | |||
| Mould fungi | − | − | 11, 12 | ||
|
| − | 50 | |||
|
| − | 20 |
Unusual physiological features displayed by Proteus spp. strains isolated from different habitats (details in the text)
| Feature |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heterotrophic nitrification | Coastal seawater | |||
| Cellulose digestion | Flying fox, millipede | Flying fox | ||
| Lipase production/hydrocarbons utilization (including aromatic ones) | Contaminated soil; waste sludge | Contaminated soil | Contaminated soil; contaminated fish | |
| Phenol utilization | Contaminated soil | |||
| Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) degradation | Contaminated soil | |||
| ɛ-Caprolactam utilization | Contaminated soil | |||
| Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) pesticide utilization | Contaminated soil | |||
| Phorate pesticide utilization | Contaminated soil | |||
| Chlorpyrifos, methyl parathion, and p-nitrophenol pesticides degradation | Contaminated soil (in consortium) | Contaminated soil (in consortium) | ||
| DDT reduction | Mouse | |||
| Azo dyes decolorizing | Waste site | Contaminated soil; wastewater sludge | Hot spring | |
| Phosphate solubilization | Phorate contaminated soil | Wild grass rhizosphere | ||
| Copper tolerance | Wild grass rhizosphere; wastewater | Soil | Hot spring | |
| Chromium,cobalt, cadmium, zinc,mercury, nickel, lead, arsenic tolerance | Wild grass rhizosphere; wastewater; contaminated soil | |||
| Silver tolerance | Wastewater | |||
| Chromate tolerance | Contaminated seawater | |||
| Thermotolerance | Hot spring | |||
| Halotolerance | Salt lake | Oysters | Halophyte glasswort rhizosphere | |
| Acidotolerance | Soil contaminated by hydrocarbons | Acidic soil | Hot spring |