Literature DB >> 6339389

Survival and implantation of Escherichia coli in the intestinal tract.

R Freter, H Brickner, J Fekete, M M Vickerman, K E Carey.   

Abstract

Preliminary experiments established that a 0.5-ml inoculum that is introduced directly into the stomach of mice was cleared rapidly into the small intestine. Bicarbonate buffer, but not skim milk, protected such an inoculum from stomach acid until at least 90% of it had entered the small intestine. Passage and survival of various Escherichia coli strains through the mouse gut were tested by introducing a buffered bacterial inoculum directly into the stomach, together with the following two intestinal tracers: Cr(51)Cl(3) and spores of a thermophilic Bacillus sp. Quantitative recovery of excreted bacteria was accomplished by collecting the feces overnight in a refrigerated cage pan. The data show that wild-type E. coli strains and E. coli K-12 are excreted rapidly (98 to 100% within 18 h) in the feces without overall multiplication or death. E. coli varkappa1776 and DP50supF, i.e., strains certified for recombinant DNA experiments underwent rapid death in vivo, such that their excretion in the feces was reduced to approximately 1.1 and 4.7% of the inoculum, respectively. The acidity of the stomach had little bactericidal effect on the E. coli K-12 strain tested, but significantly reduced the survival of more acidsensitive bacteria (Vibrio cholerae) under these conditions. Long-term implantation of E. coli strains into continuous-flow cultures of mouse cecal flora or into conventional mice was difficult to accomplish. In contrast, when the E. coli strain was first inoculated into sterile continuous-flow cultures or into germfree mice, which were subsequently associated with conventional mouse cecal flora, the E. coli strains persisted in a large proportion of the animals at levels resembling E. coli populations in conventional mice. Metabolic adaptation contributed only partially to the success of an E. coli inoculum that was introduced first. A mathematical model is described which explains this phenomenon on the basis of competition for adhesion sites in which an advantage accrues to the bacterium which occupies those sites first. The mathematical model predicts that two or more bacterial strains that compete in the gut for the same limiting nutrient can coexist, if the metabolically less efficient strains have specific adhesion sites available. The specific rate constant of E. coli growth in monoassociated gnotobiotic mice was 2.0 h(-1), whereas the excretion rate in conventional animals was -0.23 h(-1). Consequently, limitation of growth must be regarded as the primary mechanism controlling bacterial populations in the large intestine. The beginnings of a general hypothesis of the ecology of the large intestine are proposed, in which the effects of the competitive metabolic interactions described earlier are modified by the effects of bacterial association with the intestinal wall.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6339389      PMCID: PMC348005          DOI: 10.1128/iai.39.2.686-703.1983

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


  25 in total

1.  Antibacterial mechanisms of the mouse gut. II. The role of Eh and volatile fatty acids in the normal gut.

Authors:  G G MEYNELL
Journal:  Br J Exp Pathol       Date:  1963-04

2.  [Colonization of orally administered tetracycline-resistent Escherichia coli in the intestine during therapy with antibiotics of the tetracycline series].

Authors:  W ZISCHKA; E PROHASKA
Journal:  Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig       Date:  1958-09

Review 3.  Behavior of mixed cultures of microorganisms.

Authors:  A G Fredrickson
Journal:  Annu Rev Microbiol       Date:  1977       Impact factor: 15.500

4.  Human fecal markers.

Authors:  H F Sassoon
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  1979-12       Impact factor: 7.045

5.  Estimates of the overall rate of growth of the intestinal microflora of hamsters, guinea pigs, and mice.

Authors:  R J Gibbons; B Kapsimalis
Journal:  J Bacteriol       Date:  1967-01       Impact factor: 3.490

6.  Function of various intestinal bacteria in converting germfree mice to the normal state.

Authors:  R Freter; G D Abrams
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  1972-08       Impact factor: 3.441

7.  Continuous-flow cultures as in vitro models of the ecology of large intestinal flora.

Authors:  R Freter; E Stauffer; D Cleven; L V Holdeman; W E Moore
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  1983-02       Impact factor: 3.441

8.  RESISTANCE OF THE MOUSE'S INTESTINAL TRACT TO EXPERIMENTAL SALMONELLA INFECTION. I. FACTORS WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE INITIATION OF INFECTION BY ORAL INOCULATION.

Authors:  M BOHNHOFF; C P MILLER; W R MARTIN
Journal:  J Exp Med       Date:  1964-11-01       Impact factor: 14.307

9.  Efficiency of various intestinal bacteria in assuming normal functions of enteric flora after association with germ-free mice.

Authors:  S A Syed; G D Abrams; R Freter
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  1970-10       Impact factor: 3.441

10.  Bacterial interference in experimental burns.

Authors:  B F Anthony; L W Wannamaker
Journal:  J Exp Med       Date:  1967-02-01       Impact factor: 14.307

View more
  93 in total

1.  Estimation of growth rates of Escherichia coli BJ4 in streptomycin-treated and previously germfree mice by in situ rRNA hybridization.

Authors:  C U Rang; T R Licht; T Midtvedt; P L Conway; L Chao; K A Krogfelt; P S Cohen; S Molin
Journal:  Clin Diagn Lab Immunol       Date:  1999-05

Review 2.  Role of nonhost environments in the lifestyles of Salmonella and Escherichia coli.

Authors:  Mollie D Winfield; Eduardo A Groisman
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  The Freter model: a simple model of biofilm formation.

Authors:  Don Jones; Hristo V Kojouharov; Dung Le; Hal Smith
Journal:  J Math Biol       Date:  2003-04-23       Impact factor: 2.259

4.  Ecological succession of bacterial communities during conventionalization of germ-free mice.

Authors:  Merritt G Gillilland; John R Erb-Downward; Christine M Bassis; Michael C Shen; Galen B Toews; Vincent B Young; Gary B Huffnagle
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 4.792

5.  Use of norfloxacin to study colonization ability of Escherichia coli in in vivo and in vitro models of the porcine gut.

Authors:  E M Nielsen; J Schlundt
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Ecology of Candida albicans gut colonization: inhibition of Candida adhesion, colonization, and dissemination from the gastrointestinal tract by bacterial antagonism.

Authors:  M J Kennedy; P A Volz
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 3.441

7.  Response of germ-free mice to colonization with O. formigenes and altered Schaedler flora.

Authors:  Xingsheng Li; Melissa L Ellis; Alexander E Dowell; Ranjit Kumar; Casey D Morrow; Trenton R Schoeb; John Knight
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 4.792

Review 8.  Understanding Clostridium difficile Colonization.

Authors:  Monique J T Crobach; Jonathan J Vernon; Vivian G Loo; Ling Yuan Kong; Séverine Péchiné; Mark H Wilcox; Ed J Kuijper
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 26.132

9.  Physiological state of Escherichia coli BJ4 growing in the large intestines of streptomycin-treated mice.

Authors:  L K Poulsen; T R Licht; C Rang; K A Krogfelt; S Molin
Journal:  J Bacteriol       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 3.490

10.  Interaction of Clostridium difficile and Escherichia coli with microfloras in continuous-flow cultures and gnotobiotic mice.

Authors:  K H Wilson; R Freter
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 3.441

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.