Premium
Bacterial interference in vitro
Author(s) -
JOHANSSON ANDERS,
BERGENHOLTZ AXEL,
HOLM STIG E.
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
apmis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.909
H-Index - 88
eISSN - 1600-0463
pISSN - 0903-4641
DOI - 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1994.tb05239.x
Subject(s) - microbiology and biotechnology , streptococcus pyogenes , bacteria , agar plate , staphylococcus epidermidis , biology , bacterial growth , streptococcus mitis , fusobacterium nucleatum , chocolate agar , agar , streptococcus , porphyromonas gingivalis , staphylococcus aureus , genetics
The aim of the present study was to compare two methods for estimation of bacterial growth interference between various bacteria using a Bioscreen robot analyzer, allowing kinetic documentation, and a cocultivation test on blood agar plates. Six laboratory strains with different virulence and growth requirements were used: Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Streptococcus mitis, Staphylococcus aureus , and Staphylococcus epidermidis. The interference activity was correlated with a reference system of Streptococcus sanguis (strain α 89) and Streptococcus pyogenes (group A streptococci, GAS serotypes T 9 and T 22). The methods used and results obtained were as follows: 1. Estimation of synergistic and antagonistic bacterial interferences using a Bioscreen robot analyzer. Suspensions of viable bacteria were added to microtiter plates with different concentrations of UV light‐killed bacteria in liquid media. The Bioscreen analyzer monitored bacterial growth every 10 min for 24 h giving kinetic data during the growth period. Synergisms as well as antagonisms were demonstrated between the tested bacterial strains which have not earlier been reported in the literature. However, the antagonistic effect observed between the six strains was less than that induced by the S. sanguis strain on the two strains of S. pyogenes. 2. Cocultivation of bacterial strains on blood agar surface with precultivated or simultaneously stamped interfering bacteria indicated no detectable interference between the six tested bacterial strains, while the S. sanguis strain inhibited the growth of S. pyogenes strains as well as the hemolysis around the colonies. The Bioscreen method was found more sensitive for testing bacterial interference compared to the commonly used blood agar test.