Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Microbiology Research
Volume 6 Number 36
ISSN 1996-0808
20 September, 2012
About AJMR
The African Journal of Microbiology Research is published monthly (one volume per year) by Academic
Journals.
The African Journal of Microbiology Research (ISSN 1996-0808, IMPACT FACTOR 0.533) is an open access
journal that provides rapid publication (weekly) of articles in all areas of Microbiology such as: Environmental
Microbiology, Clinical Microbiology, Immunology, Viriology, Bacteriology, Phycology, Mycology and
Parasitology, Protozoology, Microbial Ecology, Probiotics and Prebiotics, Molecular Microbiology,
Biotechnology, Food Microbiology, Industrial Microbiology, Cell Physiology, Environmental Biotechnology,
Genetics, Enzymology, Molecular and Cellular Biology, Plant Pathology, Entomology, Biomedical Sciences,
Botany and Plant Sciences, Soil and Environmental Sciences, Zoology, Endocrinology, Toxicology. The Journal
welcomes the submission of manuscripts that meet the general criteria of significance and scientific excellence.
Papers will be published shortly after acceptance. All articles are peer-reviewed.
Submission of Manuscript
Submit manuscripts as e-mail attachment to the Editorial Office at: ajmr@acadjournals.org. A manuscript
number will be mailed to the corresponding author shortly after submission.
The African Journal of Microbiology Research will only accept manuscripts submitted as e-mail attachments.
Please read the Instructions for Authors before submitting your manuscript. The manuscript files should be
given the last name of the first author.
Editors
Prof. Dr. Stefan Schmidt
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
School of Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology
University of KwaZulu-Natal
Private Bag X01
Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3209
South Africa.
E-mail: ajmr.acadjourn@gmail.com
Prof. Veronica Chima Nwosu (nee Dike)
Department of Microbiology and Immunology
Kunming Medical University
Kunming 650031,
China.
Dr. Jianfeng Wu
Dept. of Environmental Health Sciences,
School of Public Health,
University of Michigan
USA
Dr. Ahmet Yilmaz Coban
OMU Medical School,
Department of Medical Microbiology,
Samsun,
Turkey.
Editorial Board
Dr. Kwang Young Song
Department of Biological Engineering,
School of Biological and Chemical Engineering,
Yanbian Universityof Science and Technology,
Yanji,
China.
Dr. Kamel Belhamel
Faculty of Technology,
University of Bejaia
Algeria.
Dr. Sladjana Jevremovic
Institute for Biological Research
Sinisa Stankovic,
Belgrade,
Serbia.
Dr. Tamer Edirne
Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Pamukkale
Turkey.
Dr. R. Balaji Raja M.Tech (Ph.D)
Assistant Professor,
Department of Biotechnology,
School of Bioengineering,
SRM University,
Chennai.
India
Dr. Mohd Fuat ABD Razak
Institute for Medical Research
Malaysia.
Dr. Minglei Wang
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
USA.
Dr. Davide Pacifico
Istituto di Virologia Vegetale CNR
Italy.
Prof. Branislava Kocic
Specaialist of Microbiology and Parasitology
University of Nis, School of Medicine Institute
for Public Health Nis, Bul. Z. Djindjica 50, 18000 Nis
Serbia.
Regular articles
All portions of the manuscript must be typed doublespaced and all pages numbered starting from the title
page.
The Title should be a brief phrase describing the
contents of the paper. The Title Page should include the
authors' full names and affiliations, the name of the
corresponding author along with phone, fax and E-mail
information. Present addresses of authors should
appear as a footnote.
The Abstract should be informative and completely selfexplanatory, briefly present the topic, state the scope of
the experiments, indicate significant data, and point out
major findings and conclusions. The Abstract should be
100 to 200 words in length.. Complete sentences, active
verbs, and the third person should be used, and the
abstract should be written in the past tense. Standard
nomenclature should be used and abbreviations should
be avoided. No literature should be cited.
Following the abstract, about 3 to 10 key words that will
provide indexing references should be listed.
A list of non-standard Abbreviations should be added.
In general, non-standard abbreviations should be used
only when the full term is very long and used often.
Each abbreviation should be spelled out and introduced
in parentheses the first time it is used in the text. Only
recommended SI units should be used. Authors should
use the solidus presentation (mg/ml). Standard
abbreviations (such as ATP and DNA) need not be
defined.
The Introduction should provide a clear statement of
the problem, the relevant literature on the subject, and
the proposed approach or solution. It should be
understandable to colleagues from a broad range of
scientific disciplines.
Short Communications
Short Communications are limited to a maximum of
two figures and one table. They should present a
complete study that is more limited in scope than is
found in full-length papers. The items of manuscript
preparation
listed
above
apply
to
Short
Communications with the following differences: (1)
Abstracts are limited to 100 words; (2) instead of a
separate Materials and Methods section, experimental
procedures may be incorporated into Figure Legends
and Table footnotes; (3) Results and Discussion should
be combined into a single section.
Proofs and Reprints: Electronic proofs will be sent (email attachment) to the corresponding author as a PDF
file. Page proofs are considered to be the final version
of the manuscript. With the exception of typographical
or minor clerical errors, no changes will be made in the
manuscript at the proof stage.
Fees and Charges: Authors are required to pay a $550 handling fee. Publication of an article in the African Journal of
Microbiology Research is not contingent upon the author's ability to pay the charges. Neither is acceptance to pay the
handling fee a guarantee that the paper will be accepted for publication. Authors may still request (in advance) that
the editorial office waive some of the handling fee under special circumstances.
Copyright: 2012, Academic Journals.
All rights Reserved. In accessing this journal, you agree that you will access the contents for your own personal use
but not for any commercial use. Any use and or copies of this Journal in whole or in part must include the customary
bibliographic citation, including author attribution, date and article title.
Submission of a manuscript implies: that the work described has not been published before (except in the form of an
abstract or as part of a published lecture, or thesis) that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; that if
and when the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors agree to automatic transfer of the copyright to the
publisher.
Disclaimer of Warranties
In no event shall Academic Journals be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages of any
kind arising out of or in connection with the use of the articles or other material derived from the AJMR whether or
not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability.
This publication is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not
limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement.
Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications does not imply endorsement of that product or publication.
While every effort is made by Academic Journals to see that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinion or statements
appear in this publication, they wish to make it clear that the data and opinions appearing in the articles and
advertisements herein are the responsibility of the contributor or advertiser concerned. Academic Journals makes no
warranty of any kind, either express or implied, regarding the quality, accuracy, availability, or validity of the data or
information in this publication or of any other publication to which it may be linked.
African
Journal
of Microbiology
Research
International
Journal
of Medicine
and Medical
Sciences
Table of Contents:
Volume 6
nces
ARTICLES
Research Articles
Conventional and molecular characterization of Trichophyton rubrum
Farzad Aala, Rosimah Nulit, Umi Kalsom Yusuf and Sassan Rezaie
6502
6517
6525
6532
6537
6545
Table of Content:
Volume 6
Number 23 21 June, 2012
Table of Contents:
Volume 6
Number 36 20 September, 2012
nces
ARTICLES
ARTICLES
DNA
viral infections
and transient
bone
marrow
failure
in southern
Iranfor
Influence
of ciprofloxacin
on glioma
cell
line GL26:
A new
application
Kambiz
Mohammad Hossein Karimi, Ramin Yaghobi,
an oldBagheri,
antibiotic
Behnam
Mohammadi,
Mehdi
Dehghani and
Padideh
Ebadi
Abdolreza
Esmaeilzadeh,
Massoumeh
Ebtekar,
Alireza
Biglari and
Zuhair Mohammad Hassan
6551
4891
6558
4897
Efficacy
andquality
toxicityofofsome
neutralizers
against
disinfectantsproducts
and antiseptics
Microbial
non-sterile
pharmaceutical
sourced
used
insome
vaccine
production
facility
from
retail
pharmacies
in Lagos, Nigeria
Norhan
S.
Sheraba,
Aymen
S.
Yassin,
Aly Fahmy
and Magdy
A.A.
Amin
Adeola Anifowoshe R., Opara Morrison
I. and Adeleye
Isaac
6565
4903
Effects
of essential
oil extracted
from
Citrullus
colocynthis
(CCT)in
seeds
on
Molecular
detection
of adhesins
genes
and biofilm
formation
methicillin
growth
of phytopathogenic
bacteria
6572
resistant
Staphylococcus aureus
Zahra
Setayesh
Nima
Sanadgol
and LeylaVafadar
Karima
BEKIR,Mehr,
Omayma
HADDAD,
Mohammed
GRISSA,Ghasemi
Kamel CHAIEB,
Amina BAKHROUF and Salem IBRAHIM ELGARSSDI
4908
Development and evaluation of a novel TaqMan fluorescence probe-based
real-time
transcriptase
polymerase
chainBacillus
reaction
assayinfor
Amylasereverse
production
by moderately
halophilic
cereus
solid
detection
and quantification of West Nile virus
state fermentation
Lijun
Shi, HuiqiongD.Yin,
Jingang Zhang,
P. Vijayabaskar,
Jayalakshmi
and T.Zhan-zhong
Shankar Zhao and Gang Li
Microbial
water
qualityand
in the
upper characteristics
Olifants River catchment:
Networking
clusters
sequence
of clusteredImplications
regularly
for
health
interspaced
short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) direct repeats and their
W.evolutionary
J. le Roux, L.comparison
M. Schaeferwith
and B.
Genthe
cas1
genes in lactic acid bacteria
Kaibo Deng, Fei Liu, Chuntao Gu and Guicheng Huo
6576
4918
6580
4927
African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(36), pp. 6502-6516, 20 September, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI: 10.5897/AJMR10.736
ISSN 1996-0808 2012 Academic Journals
Department of Medical Mycology and Parasitology, School of Medicine, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences,
Sanandaj, Iran.
2
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science; Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.
3
Department of Medical Biotechnology, School of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Tehran University of Medical
Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Accepted 10 September, 2012
Different studies illustrated that Trichophyton rubrum, among all species of Trichophyton, is the most
prevalent and consequently the most important genus. T. rubrum as a worldwide filamentous pathogen
fungus can infect human keratinized tissue (skin, nails and rarely hair), and causes dermatophytosis.
Researchers use two general methods for the identification of dermatophytes namely, conventional
methods on the basis of phenotype variations and molecular methods on the basis of molecular
differences. Due to some limitations in traditional methods, in the recent years, molecular biological
methods are regarded as useful in the exact and rapid recognition of dermatophytes. The present study
identified nine clinical isolates and one ATCC as a control strain of T. rubrum by using both
conventional and molecular methods. The molecular systematics method was used to elucidate genetic
diversity among strains of T. rubrum and within Trichophyton species. Morphological characteristics of
all colonies T. rubrum quite varies among each other; we revealed that that conventional methods are
generally prolonged and may be indecisive. However, molecular studies based on internal transcribed
spacer (ITS) sequencing provides a very accurate result, which is more than 96% the similarity of T.
rubrum among all isolates, and more than 90% similarity within Trichophyton spp.
Key words: Trichophyton rubrum, conventional method, internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions, identification,
dermatophytes.
INTRODUCTION
Trichophyton rubrum is one of the most commonly
encountered dermatophytes that infect human keratinized
tissue such as skin, nails and possibly hair. This
pathogen causes well-characterized superficial infections,
and also produces skin infections in unusual parts of the
body in immunodepressed patients (Cervelatti et al.,
2004). Nearly 80% of onychomycosis due to T. rubrum
and 90% of the chronic dermatophyte infections are
caused mostly by T. rubrum, this pathogen developed
mechanisms to avoid or suppress cell- mediated
immunity ((Baeza et al., 2006; Baeza et al., 2007).
Aala et al.
6503
DNA extraction
Fungal genomic DNA from T. rubrum was isolated according to
Rezaie et al. (2000) with slight modification. 200 to 300 mg of
mycelia was ground with liquid nitrogen to powder form. 500 l of
DNA extraction buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0), 50 mM EDTA, 25 l
20% SDS, and 10 l of proteinase-K, was added and mixed gently.
Then, incubated at 65C for 60 min and centrifuged at 3000g for
15 min. 25 l Rnase H (10 mg/ml) was added to supernatant and
incubated again at 37C for 30 min. Then mixed with 500 l of
phenol:chloroform:isoamyl alcohol (25:24:1) and and centrifuge at
10000g for 10 min and the supernatant were collected and
transferred to new steril eppendorff tubes. Then mixed again with
500 l of chloroform:isoamyl alcohol (24:1) and centrifuge at
10000g for 10 min, and the supernatant were collected and
transferred to new steril eppendorff tubes. DNA was precipitated by
adding 500 l isopropanol and 30 l 3 M sodium acetate followed
by centrifugation at 15000g for 30 min and the supernatant was
discarded. DNA pellet was rinsed twice or more with 200 l of 70%
cold ethanol and centrifuged at 10000g for 10 min. The pellet was
air-dry and resuspended DNA pellet in 30 l of distilled water at
37C for 60 min and stored at -20C.
PCR amplification
Internal transcribed spacer 1 and 4 (ITS1 and ITS4) (AIT-Biotech,
Singapore) were designed as ITS1 forward primer is 5-TCC GTA
GGT GAA CCT GC-3 and the ITS4 reverse primer 5-TCC TCC
GCT TAT TGA TAT G-3 (Shehata et al., 2008; Yang et al ., 2008 ).
PCR reaction mixtures were prepared in a 25 l volume
containing 2.5 l of 10 reaction buffer, 1.5 l of 25 mM MgCl2, 0.5
l of 10 mM dNTPs, 0.5 l of 0.2 mM of each ITS 1 primer and ITS
4 primer, 0.5 l of genomic DNA and 0.5 l of 1 U Go Taq DNA
polymerase (Promega Corporation, USA), and 18.5 l of distiled
water. PCR reactions were carried out on a thermal cycler (MJ
Research. Inc. USA) with the following conditions: 1 cycle in an
initial step of 94C for 5 min and then subjected to 30 cycles
consisting of denaturation at 94C for 30 s, annealing at 55C for 40
s, and extention at 72C for 40 s. After the last cycle, this was
followed by a final extention step at 72C for 10 min. Then, 5 l of
PCR product was loaded on 1% agarose in 1X TrisAcetic Acid
EDTA buffer and stained with 0.5 mg/ml ethidium bromide at 80 V
for 40 min and visualised with UV transilluminator (Alpha Innotech,
USA), compared with a standard DNA size marker; 100 bp DNA
ladder (Fermenats, USA), and photographed in UV light.
PCR purification
Conventional method
All isolates of T. rubrum were cultured on Sabouraud dextrose agar
media (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Michigan) at 28C for 14 days.
Then, slide cultures of isolates were prepared and identified under
light microscope (Carl Zeiss, Germany).
Molecular method
6504
molecular
Aala et al.
6505
Figure 1. The colonies and microscopy of 10 isolates of T. rubrum with (macroconidia and microconidia) 400.
6506
Figure 3. Nucleotide sequences of 9 isolates of T. rubrum and ATCC10218. Nucleotide sequence numbering is shown on the left.
Aala et al.
Figure 3. Cotnd.
6507
6508
Figure 3. Cotnd.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
(1138)
(1164)
(1208)
(1044)
(ATCC-10218)
(2970)
(1059)
(1160)
(1298)
(1008)
--NNNNGGGAGAGCGTAAGTGGGCTGCCA-CTAT-AGAGGAC-CGGACAT
---CNNNNNAGACCGTACGTTGGCTGCGC-ATATCAGATAAC-CGGACAT
----TNNGCAGA-CGTACGTGGGCTGCGA-ATATCAGGAAGC---GACAT
NNNANCGGGACAGCCGTAGTGGGCTGCGC-ATATCAGATAACGCGGAGAT
-----NGGGACCGCCGTAGTGGCCTGCGACATATCAGATAACGCGGAGAG
----ANCGGACAGCCGTAGTGGCCTGCGACATATCAGATAACGCGGAGAG
----NCCAGTAACCGTAGGTGACCTGCGC-ATATCAATAAGC----GGAG
--NNNNNAAGAATCGTAAGTGACCTGCGC-ATATCAATAAGC---G-GAG
--NNACNNAGTATCGTAGGTGACCTGCGC-ATATCAATAAGC---G-GAG
---NACNAAGAGCCGTAGGTGACCTGCGC-ATATCAATAAGC---GAGAG
*
**
****
*** *
*
*
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
(1138)
(1164)
(1208)
(1044)
(ATCC-10218)
(2970)
(1059)
(1160)
(1298)
(1008)
TCCATCAGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCCCCATTCTTGTC
GACATCGGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCCCCATTCTTGTC
GACTTCGGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCCCCATTCTTGTC
TACTTCGGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCCCCATTCTTGTC
GACTTCGGGGGTGAGCATACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCCCCATTCTTGTC
GACTTCGGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCCCCATTCTTGTC
GACTCCGTGGGTGAGCATACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCCCCATTCTTGTC
GAT-CCGTAGGTGAACCTGCGCGTATCAATAAGCGGAGGACATTCTTGTC
GATTCCGTAGGTGAACCTGCGCATATCAATAAGCGGAGGATTCCGTTGGT
GACTCCGTAGGTGAACCTGCGTGTATCGGCCGTACGCCCACATTCTTGTC
*
***** *
**
*
*
***
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
(1138)
(1164)
(1208)
(1044)
(ATCC-10218)
(2970)
(1059)
(1160)
(1298)
(1008)
TACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTGCCAGGGAGAGC
TACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTGCCAGGGAGAGC
TACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTGCCAGGGAGAGC
TACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTGCCAGGGAGAGC
TACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTGCCAGGGAGAGC
TACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTGCCAGGGAGAGC
TACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTGCCAGGGAGAGC
TACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTGCCAGGGAGAGC
TACCTCGCCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGGCGCGCTCCCCCTGCCAGGGAGAGC
TACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTGCCAGGGAGAGC
****** ******************************************
T. rubrum (1138)
CGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCGCGCCCGCCGGA
T. rubrum (1164)
CGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCGCGCCCGCCGGA
T. rubrum (1208)
CGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCGCGCCCGCCGGA
T. rubrum (1044)
CGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCGCGCCCGCCGGA
T. rubrum (ATCC-10218) CGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCGCGCCCGCCGGA
T. rubrum (2970)
CGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCGCGCCCGCCGGA
T. rubrum (1059)
CGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCGCGCCCGCCGGA
T. rubrum (1160)
CGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCGCGCCCGCCGGA
T. rubrum (1298)
CGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCGCGCCCGCCGGA
T. rubrum (1008)
CGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCGCGCCCGCCGGA
**************************************************
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Aala et al.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
GGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAGTCTGAGCGTTT
GGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAGTCTGAGCGTTT
GGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAGTCTGAGCGTTT
GGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAGTCTGAGCGTTT
GGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAGTCTGAGCGTTT
GGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAGTCTGAGCGTTT
GGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAGTCTGAGCGTTT
GGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAGTCTGAGCGTTT
GGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAGTCTGAGCGTTT
GGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAGTCTGAGCGTTT
**************************************************
T. rubrum (1138)
AGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTCTTGGTTCCGGC
T. rubrum (1164)
AGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTCTTGGTTCCGGC
T. rubrum (1208)
AGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTCTTGGTTCCGGC
T. rubrum (1044)
AGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTCTTGGTTCCGGC
T. rubrum (ATCC-10218) AGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTCTTGGTTCCGGC
T. rubrum (2970)
AGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTCTTGGTTCCGGC
T. rubrum (1059)
AGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTCTTGGTTCCGGC
T. rubrum (1160)
AGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTCTTGGTTCCGGC
T. rubrum (1298)
AGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTCTTGGTTCCGGC
T. rubrum (1008)
AGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTCTTGGTTCCGGC
**************************************************
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
ATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGAATTGCAGAATT
ATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGAATTGCAGAATT
ATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGAATTGCAGAATT
ATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGAATTGCAGAATT
ATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGAATTGCAGAATT
ATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGAATTGCAGAATT
ATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGAATTGCAGAATT
ATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGAATTGCAGAATT
ATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGAATTGCAGAATT
ATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGAATTGCAGAATT
**************************************************
T. rubrum (1138)
CCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTCTGGCATTCCGG
T. rubrum (1164)
CCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTCTGGCATTCCGG
T. rubrum (1208)
CCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTCTGGCATTCCGG
T. rubrum (1044)
CCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTCTGGCATTCCGG
T. rubrum (ATCC-10218) CCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTCTGGCATTCCGG
T. rubrum (2970)
CCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTCTGGCATTCCGG
T. rubrum (1059)
CCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTCTGGCATTCCGG
T. rubrum (1298)
CCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTCTGGCATTCCGG
T. rubrum (1008)
CCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTCTGGCATTCCGG
**************************************************
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
(1138)
(1164)
(1208)
(1044)
(ATCC-10218)
(2970)
(1059)
(1160)
(1298)
(1008)
(1138)
(1164)
(1208)
(1044)
(ATCC-10218)
(2970)
(1059)
(1160)
(1298)
(1008)
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
GGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGCCCGGCTTGTGT
GGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGCCCGGCTTGTGT
GGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGCCCGGCTTGTGT
GGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGCCCGGCTTGTGT
GGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGCCCGGCTTGTGT
GGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGCCCGGCTTGTGT
GGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGCCCGGCTTGTGT
GGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGCCCGGCTTGTGT
GGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGCCCGGCTTGTGT
**************************************************
T. rubrum (1138)
GATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGACGCGCCCGAAAA
T. rubrum (1164)
GATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGACGCGCCCGAAAA
T. rubrum (1208)
GATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGACGCGCCCGAAAA
T. rubrum (1044)
GATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGACGCGCCCGAAAA
T. rubrum (ATCC-10218) GATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGACGCGCCCGAAAA
T. rubrum (2970)
GATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGACGCGCCCGAAAA
T. rubrum (1059)
GATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGACGCGCCCGAAAA
T. rubrum (1160)
GATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGACGCGCCCGAAAA
T. rubrum (1298)
GATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGACGCGCCCGAAAA
T. rubrum (1008)
GATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGACGCGCCCGAAAA
**************************************************
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
GCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATGGGCAGCCAATT
GCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATGGGCAGCCAATT
GCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATGGGCAGCCAATT
GCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATGGGCAGCCAATT
GCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATGGGCAGCCAATT
GCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATGGGCAGCCAATT
GCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATGGGCAGCCAATT
GCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATGGGCAGCCAATT
GCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATGGGCAGCCAATT
GCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATGGGCAGCCAATT
**************************************************
T. rubrum (1138)
CAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTATATATATATAT
T. rubrum (1164)
CAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTATATATATATAT
T. rubrum (1208)
CAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTATATATATATAT
T. rubrum (1044)
CAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTATATATATATAT
T. rubrum (ATCC-10218) CAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTATATCGCGATAT
T. rubrum (2970)
CAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTATATATATATAT
T. rubrum (1059)
CAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTATATATATATAT
T. rubrum (1160)
CAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTATATATATATAT
T. rubrum (1298)
CAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTATATATATATAT
T. rubrum (1008)
CAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTATATATATATAT
******************************************
****
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
(1138)
(1164)
(1208)
(1044)
(ATCC-10218)
(2970)
(1059)
(1160)
(1008)
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
(1138)
(1164)
(1208)
(1044)
(ATCC-10218)
(2970)
(1059)
(1160)
(1298)
(1008)
(1138)
(1164)
(1208)
(1044)
(ATCC-10218)
(2970)
(1059)
(1160)
(1298)
(1008)
Figure 4. Contd.
ATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCGCTGAACTTAAG
ATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCGCTGAACTTAAG
ATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCGCTGAACTTAAG
ATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCGCTGAACTTAAG
ATCTTGGCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACGT-----------ATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCGCTGAACTTAAG
ATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCGCTGAACTTAAG
ATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCGCTGAACTTAAG
ATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCGCTGAACTTAAG
ATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCGCTGAACTTAAG
***** *****************************
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
6509
6510
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
(1138)
(1164)
(1208)
(1044)
(ATCC-10218)
(2970)
(1059)
(1160)
(1298)
(1008)
CATATCAAAAG--------------------------------------CATATCAAAAGGGGGGAGGAAGAGGGGGGCCCCCCATAGGGGCCCCCCCC
CATATCAATAAGCCGGGAGGAAGGGGGGGCCCCCCA-AAATGCCCCCCCC
CATATCAAAAG---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CATATCAAAAGCGG-----------------------------------CATATCAATAAGCCGG-AGGAAGGGGGGGCCCCCCATAGGGCCCCCCCGC
CATATCAATAAGCGGGGAGGAA---------------------------CATATCAATAAGCGGAGGAA-----------------------------CATATCAATAAGCCGGAGGAAGGGGGCCCCGAAGAGGAGCCACCCCCCTC
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
(1138)
(1164)
(1208)
(1044)
(ATCC-10218)
(2970)
(1059)
(1160)
(1298)
(1008)
--------------------------TTTTTTTTTGGGGTAGCGAGAAGGGGG
TCTCTTTTTGGGGGGGAGAGCGGGG-------------------------------------------------------------------------------TCTCTTTTTGGGGAAGCAAAATGGG-----------------------------------------------------AGGGTGTGTGAAACAAACGGCGGGCC-
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
727
727
727
727
727
727
727
727
727
727
Figure 4. Contd.
CGCCCGTCGCTACTACCGATTGAATGGCTCAGTGAGGCCTTCGGACTGGC
CGCCCGTCGCTACTACCGATTGAATGGCTCAGTGAGGCCTTCGGACTGGC
CGCCCGTCGCTACTACCGATTGAATGGCTCAGTGAGGCCTTCGGACTGGC
CGCCCGTCGCTACTACCGATTGAATGGCTCAGTGAGGCCTTCGGACTGGC
CGCCCGTCGCTACTACCGATTGAATGGCTCAGTGAGGCCTTCGGACTGGC
CGCCCGTCGCTACTACCGATTGAATGGCTCAGTGAGGCCTTCGGACTGGC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50
50
50
50
50
50
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
CCAGGGAGGTTGGAAACGACCGCCCAGGGCCGGAAAGTTGGTCAAACTCG
CCAGGGAGGTTGGAAACGACCGCCCAGGGCCGGAAAGTTGGTCAAACTCG
CCAGGGAGGTTGGAAACGACCGCCCAGGGCCGGAAAGTTGGTCAAACTCG
CCAGGGAGGTTGGAAACGACCGCCCAGGGCCGGAAAGTTGGTCAAACTCG
CCAGGGAGGTTGGAAACGACCGCCCAGGGCCGGAAAGTTGGTCAAACTCG
CCAGGGAGGTTGGAAACGACCGCCCAGGGCCGGAAAGTTGGTCAAACTCG
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100
100
100
100
100
100
GTCATTTAGAGGAAGTAAAAGTCGTAACAAGGTTTCCGTAGGTGAACCTG
GTCATTTAGAGGAAGTAAAAGTCGTAACAAGGTTTCCGTAGGTGAACCTG
GTCATTTAGAGGAAGTAAAAGTCGTAACAAGGTTTCCGTAGGTGAACCTG
GTCATTTAGAGGAAGTAAAAGTCGTAACAAGGTTTCCGTAGGTGAACCTG
GTCATTTAGAGGAAGTAAAAGTCGTAACAAGGTTTCCGTAGGTGAACCTG
GTCATTTAGAGGAAGTAAAAGTCGTAACAAGGTTTCCGTAGGTGAACCTG
--------------------------ACAAGGTTTCCGTAGGTGAACCTG
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------TCCGTAGGTGAACCTG
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
150
150
150
150
150
150
24
16
Figure
5. Comparison
sequence between T. rubrum ITS1
T. raubitschekii
strain NOMHof789nucleotide
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
198
T. saudanese UAMH
8548
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
orthologues.
Nucleotide
sequences
that are present in all ITS1 are shaded198in
T. megninii strain ATCC 12106
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G 198
black
colour.
Nucleotide
numbering is shown on the right.
T. rubrum
strain
UAMH 8547sequence
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
198
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
rubrum
kanei
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCNGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
------GATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
------GATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
-------------NNNNGGGAGAGCGTAAG-TGGGCTGC-CACTATAGAG
198
198
72
42
64
42
35
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
(1059)
(1208)
(1264)
(2970)
(ATCC-10218)
(1044)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCNGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
------GATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
CGGAAGGATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
------GATCATTAACGCGCAGGCCGGAGGCTGGCCCCC-CACGATAG-G
-------------NNNNGGGAGAGCGTAAG-TGGGCTGC-CACTATAGAG
-------------NNNNNAAGAATCGTAAGTGACCTGCG-CATATCA-AT
-------------NNACNNAGTATCGTAGGTGACCTGCG-CATATCA-AT
--------------NACNAAGAGCCGTAGGTGACCTGCG-CATATCA-AT
---------------NCCAGTAACCGTAGGTGACCTGCG-CATATCA-AT
----------------TNNGCAGACGTACGTGGGCTGCG-AATATCA-GG
--------------CNNNNNAGACCGTACGTTGGCTGCG-CATATCAGAT
--------------ANCGGACAGCCGTA-GTGGCCTGCGACATATCAGAT
---------------NGGGACCGCCGTA-GTGGCCTGCGACATATCAGAT
----------NNNANCGGGACAGCCGTA-GTGGGCTGCG-CATATCAGAT
** * *
*
*
198
198
198
198
198
198
72
42
64
42
35
35
35
34
33
32
35
35
34
38
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
GA-CCG-ACGTTCCATCAGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
GA-CCG-ACGTTCCATCAGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
GA-CCG-ACGTTCCATCAGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
GA-CCG-ACGTTCCATCAGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
GA-CCG-ACGTTCCATCAGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
GA-CCG-ACGTTCCATCAGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
GA-CCG-ACGTTC-ATCAGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
GA-CCG-ACGTTCCATCAGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
GA-CCG-ACGTTCCATCAGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
GA-CCG-ACGTTCCATCAGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
GA-CCGGACATTCCATCAGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
AA-GCG--GAGGAT-CCGTAGGTGAACCTGCGCGTATCAATAAGCGGAGG
AA-GCG--GAGGATTCCGTAGGTGAACCTGCGCATATCAATAAGCGGAGG
AA-GCGA-GAGGACTCCGTAGGTGAACCTGCGTGTATCGGCCGTACGCCC
AA-GCG--GAGGACTCCGTGGGTGAGCATACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
AA-GCGA-CATGACTTCGGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
AA-CCGGACATGACATCGGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
AACGCGGAGAGGACTTCGGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
AACGCGGAGAGGACTTCGGGGGTGAGCATACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
AACGCGGAGATTACTTCGGGGGTGAGCAGACGTGCGCCGGCCGTACGCCC
* **
* ***** * **
*
*
246
246
246
246
246
246
119
90
112
90
84
81
82
82
80
80
84
85
84
88
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
C-ATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
ACATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
ATTCCGTTGGTTACCTCGCCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGGCGCGCTCCCCCTG
ACATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG
*** ****** ****************** *************
296
296
296
296
296
296
168
140
162
140
134
131
132
132
130
130
134
135
134
138
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGAGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCTCTTCCGGGGGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGGGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
346
346
346
346
346
Aala et al.
Figure 5. Contd.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
6511
T. rubrum (2970)
T. rubrum (ATCC-10218)
T. rubrum (1044)
6512
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG 135
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG 134
CCATTCTTGTCTACCTCACCCGGTTGCCTCGGCGGGCCGCGCTCCCCCTG 138
*** ****** ****************** *************
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGAGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCTCTTCCGGGGGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGGGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
CCAGGGAGAGCCGTCCGGCGGGCCCCTTCTGGGAGCCTCGAGCCGGACCG
**** ******************* **** *** ****************
346
346
346
346
346
346
218
190
212
190
184
181
182
182
180
180
184
185
184
188
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
CGCCCGCCGGAGGACAGACACCAAGAAAAAATTCTCTGAAGAGCTGTCAG
**************************************************
396
396
396
396
396
396
268
240
262
240
234
231
232
232
230
230
234
235
234
238
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
**************************************************
446
446
446
446
446
446
318
290
312
290
284
281
282
282
280
280
284
285
284
288
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
496
496
496
496
496
Figure 5. Contd.
T.raubitschekii strain NOMH 789
T. megninii strain ATCC 12106
T. saudanese UAMH 8548
T. rubrum strain UAMH 8547
T. rubrum strain ATCC 28188
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
rubrum
(1059)
(1208)
(1264)
(2970)
(ATCC-10218)
(1044)
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
TCTGAGCGTTTAGCAAGCACAATCAGTTAAAACTTTCAACAACGGATCTC
**************************************************
280
280
284
285
284
288
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
TTGGTTCCGGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAGCGAAATGCGATAAGTAATGTGA
**************************************************
496
496
496
496
496
496
368
340
362
340
334
331
332
332
330
330
334
335
334
338
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
ATTGCAGAATTCCGTGAATCATCGAATCTTTGAACGCACATTGCGCCCTC
**************************************************
546
546
546
546
546
546
418
390
412
390
384
381
382
382
380
380
384
385
384
388
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
**************************************************
596
596
596
596
596
596
468
440
462
440
434
431
432
432
430
430
434
435
434
438
Figure
5. Contd.strain NOMH789
T.
raubitschekii
T. megninii strain ATCC 12106
T. saudanese UAMH 8548
T. rubrum strain UAMH 8547
T. rubrum strain ATCC 28188
T. kanei
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
646
646
646
646
646
646
Aala et al.
6513
6514
T. rubrum (1059)
T. rubrum (1208)
T. rubrum (1264)
T. rubrum
(2970)
Afr. J. Microbiol.
Res.
T. rubrum (ATCC-10218)
T. rubrum (1044)
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
TGGCATTCCGGGGGGCATGCCTGTTCGAGCGTCATTTCAACCCCTCAAGC
**************************************************
430
430
434
435
434
438
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTC--TTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
CCGGCTTGTGTGATGGACGACCGTCCGGCCCCTCCCTTCGGGGGCGGGAC
********************************** **************
646
646
646
646
646
646
516
490
512
490
484
481
482
482
480
480
484
485
484
488
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTGGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTGGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
GCGCCCGAAAAGCAGTGGCCAGGCCGCGATTCCGGCTTCCTAGGCGAATG
***************************************** ********
raubitschekii strain NOMH789 GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGG-------------------------megninii strain ATCC 12106 GGCAGCCAAACCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
saudanese UAMH 8548
GGCAGCCAAACCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum strain UAMH 8547
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum strain ATCC 28188
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
kanei
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum 5.8S rRNA gene
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCNGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum strain WM 06.348
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum strain NCPF 295
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum strain 05-287-3929
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum (1138)
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum (1164)
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum (1298)
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum (1008)
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum (1059)
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum (1208)
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum (1264)
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum (2970)
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum (ATCC-10218)
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
rubrum (1044)
GGCAGCCAATTCAGCGCCCTCAGGACCGGCCGCCCTGGCCCCAATCTTTA
********* *************
696
696
696
696
696
696
566
540
562
540
534
531
532
532
530
530
534
535
534
538
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
Figure 5. Contd.
720
746
746
746
746
746
616
590
612
590
584
581
582
582
580
580
584
585
584
588
Aala et al.
-------------------------------------------------TATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCGCT
TATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCGCT
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
TATCGCGATATATCTTGGCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAG------------TATATATATATATCTTTTCAGGTTGACCTCGGATCAGGTAGGGATACCCG
-------------------------------------------------GAACTTAAGCATATCAATAAGCGGAGGAAAAGAAACCAACAGGGATTGCC
GAACTTAAGCATATCAATAAGCGGAGGAAAAGAAACCAACAGGGATTGCC
CTGAACTTAAGCATATCAATAAGCGGAGGAAAAGAAACCAACAGGGATTG
CTGAACTTAAGCATATCAATAAGCGGAGGAAAAGAAACCAACAGGGATTG
CTGAACTTAAGCATATCAATAAGCGGAGGAAAAGAAACCAACAGGGATTG
CTGAACTTAAGCATATCAATAAGCGGAGGAAAAGAAACCAACAGGGATTG
CTGAACTTAA---------------------------------------CTGAACTTAAGCATATCAAT-----------------------------CTGAACTTAAGCATATCAATAAGCGG-----------------------CTGAACTTAAGCATATCAAAAG---------------------------CTGAACTTAAGCATATCAATAAGCGGGGAGGAA-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6515
796
796
796
796
796
666
640
662
640
634
631
632
632
630
630
634
635
621
638
846
846
846
846
846
716
650
682
666
656
664
Figure 5. Contd.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study was supported by the Research University
Grants Scheme (RUGS) from University Putra Malaysia.
REFERENCES
Baeza LC, Matsumoto MT, Almeida AMF, Mendes-Giannini MJS
(2006). Strain differentiation of Trichophyton rubrum by randomly
amplified polymorphic DNA and analysis of rDNA nontranscribed
spacer. J. Med. Microbiol. 55:429-436.
Baeza LC, Bailao AM, Borges CL, Pereira M, Soares CM, Mendes
Gianni MJ (2007). cDNA representational difference analysis used in
the identification of genes expressed by Trichophyton rubrum during
contact with keratin. Microbes. Infect. 9:1415-1421.
6516
African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(36), pp. 6517-6524, 20 September, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI: 10.5897/AJMR11.119
ISSN 1996-0808 2012 Academic Journals
Accumulating data have been dramatically increasing on multiple drug resistant Staphylococcus
aureus isolates that are incriminated in nosocomial and community acquired infections causing high
mortality and morbidity. Accordingly, 70 resistant isolates were collected from King Fahad General
Hospital and National Guard Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in an attempt to find alternative
antimicrobial substances from various plant extracts. The susceptibility pattern was as follows: 50
isolates were resistant to fusidic acid, 28 isolates were resistant to oxacillin, 20 isolates were resistant
to penicillin, 20 isolates were resistant to clindamycin and 21 isolates were resistant to gentamycin.
However, all the isolates were sensitive to vancomycin. The antimicrobial activity of the aqueous
extracts of five medicinal plants namely Canellia sinensis (green tea), Punnica granatum (pomegranate
rind), Psidium guajava Lim (guava leaves), Cinnamomum verum (cinnamon) and Mourus (raspberry)
was tested against the 70 resistant isolates of S. aureus using agar well diffusion assay. Significant
difference was noted in the inhibitory effect between most of the tested extracts. Pomegranate rind
showed the highest activity, followed by green tea, guava leaves, cinnamon bark and raspberry fruits
extract respectively, compared to commercial antibiotics. Interestingly, the inhibitory activity of three
combined extracts: green tea, pomegranate rind and guava leaves was found to be higher on 20
clindamycin resistant isolates compared to each extract alone, indicating synergistic interaction. These
results emphasize the promising role of plant extracts as alternative antibacterial agents against
resistant strains of S. aureus if not other pathogenic bacteria.
Keywords: Staphylococcus aureus, antimicrobial activity, plant extracts, inhibition, methicillin.
INTRODUCTION
Staphylococcus aureus is one of the main causes of
human infections. It can cause diseases ranging from
minor infections such as pimples and boils to serious
systemic fatal infections (Evans and Brachman, 1991).
Many neonates, children and adults may be colonized by
S. aureus and harbor this organism either in the
nasopharynx, skin or any site of their bodies, thus
dispersing this hazardous bacterium. In Saudi Arabia, the
throat carriage rate of S. aureus has been studied and
found to be about 9% among 100 adult and 12% among
150 children (Milyani and Memish, 1987). On the other
6518
Preparation of extracts
The plants were extracted by dissolving 50 g of the plant powder in
150 ml of sterile distilled water and boiled for 30 min (aqueous
extraction). The extracts were filtered using Whatman filter paper
no. 1, and were stored at 4C until used (Somchit et al., 2003).
Statistical analysis
Bacterial isolates
Seventy S. aureus isolates were obtained from both King Fahad
General Hospital and National Guard Hospital in Jeddah City. They
were isolated from the following clinical specimens: sputum, wound
discharge, blood and cerebrospinal fluid. Identification was
according to Winn et al. (2006). The isolates were preserved in
cooked meat broth (Oxoid) at 4C.
Plant materials
The medicinal plants were obtained from different markets in
Jeddah City, Saudi Arabia. The plants were authenticated at the
Herbarium Unit, Department of Biological Sciences, King Abdulaziz
University, Jeddah. Five medicinal plants were used namely:
Canellia sinensis (green tea leaves), Punnica granatum
(pomegranate rind), Psidium guajava Lim (guava leaves),
Cinnamomum verum (cinnamon bark) and Mourus (raspberry fruit)
was tested. The plant materials were washed and sun dried before
being grinded into powder.
6519
Table 1. The sensitivity of 70 Staphylococcus aureus isolates represented by diameter of inhibition zone (mm) to different antibiotics and five
plant extracts.
Isolate
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Fusidic acid
13.0
00.0
11.0
0.00
13.0
12.0
0.0
13.0
12.0
00.0
14.0
30.0
00.0
00.0
12.0
00.0
00.0
12.0
00.0
14.0
00.0
12.0
13.0
00.0
00.0
12.0
14.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
14.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
Antibiotics
Gentamycin Oxacillin
23
20.0
0
00.0
21
14.0
26
14.0
20
15.0
30
17.0
33
17.0
27
21.0
36
17.0
22.0
20.0
31.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
00.0
00.0
22.0
15.0
19.0
16.0
35.0
20.0
27.0
18.0
32.0
19.0
34.0
18.0
27.0
23.0
25.0
15.0
23.0
17.0
32.0
14.0
33.0
20.0
34.0
17.0
32.0
20.0
23.0
19.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
34.0
00.0
20.0
17.0
28.0
00.0
26.0
00.0
20.0
00.0
21.0
00.0
22.0
19.0
Penicillin
25.0
08.0
11.0
00.0
13.0
14.0
17.0
22.0
10.0
11.0
18.0
19.0
00.0
11.0
12.0
16.0
20.0
18.0
19.0
24.0
9.0
10.0
13.0
17.0
00.0
18.0
20.0
8.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
10.0
00.0
11.0
08.0
08.0
00.0
00.0
08.0
00.0
25.0
00.0
08.0
09.0
00.0
0.0
12.0
Clindamycin
29.0
00.0
26.0
27.0
24.0
32.0
30.0
35.0
36.0
25.0
33.0
00.0
27.0
00.0
26.0
24.0
32.0
29.0
35.0
30.0
33.0
32.0
25.0
36.0
00.0
38.0
38.0
27.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
34.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
33.0
00.0
00.0
35.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
24.0
EXT 1
21.0
22.0
23.0
25.0
30.0
20.0
27.0
20.0
19.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
26.0
22.0
20.0
21.0
23.0
20.0
23.0
21.0
19.0
20.0
20.0
22.0
23.0
20.0
31.0
23.0
26.0
22.0
19.0
16.0
22.0
20.0
20.0
27.0
22.0
26.0
29.0
22.0
21.0
24.0
24.0
27.0
23.0
27.0
28.0
25.0
Plant extracts
EXT 2 EXT 3 EXT 4
24.0
11.0
12.0
26.0
14.0
12.0
29.0
17.0
11.0
23.0
16.0
00.0
17.0
15.0
11.0
26.0
13.0
14.0
22.0
15.0
17.0
22.0
20.0
11.0
23.0
13.0
13.0
22.0
18.0
11.0
27.0
17.0
10.0
27.0
14.0
12.0
27.0
17.0
14.0
33.0
16.0
14.0
26.0
14.0
12.0
21.0
00.0
12.0
24.0
11.0
00.0
28.0
08.0
11.0
23.0
08.0
11.0
21.0
10.0
10.0
21.0
15.0
11.0
22.0
19.0
13.0
21.0
15.0
12.0
30.0
16.0
17.0
30.0
16.0
15.0
24.0
19.0
16.0
28.0
15.0
15.0
31.0
30.0
12.0
22.0
13.0
15.0
29.0
13.0
12.0
28.0
16.0
12.0
23.0
00.0
09.0
24.0
19.0
13.0
25.0
12.0
13.0
21.0
11.0
13.0
24.0
16.0
10.0
31.0
13.0
13.0
26.0
16.0
11.0
26.0
20.0
120.0
25.0
18.0
12.0
25.0
19.0
08.0
32.0
00.0
13.0
27.0
16.0
14.0
33.0
16.0
14.0
27.0
19.0
15.0
29.0
00.0
12.0
32.0
00.0
14.0
22.0
13.0
14.0
EXT 5
11.0
14.0
11.0
11.0
13.0
10.0
21.0
10.0
14.0
11.0
10.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
00.0
11.0
11.0
09.0
13.0
13.0
10.0
15.0
12.0
15.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
11.0
12.0
09.0
13.0
13.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
09.0
10.0
12.0
16.0
10.0
17.0
15.0
14.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
6520
Table 1 Contd.
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
00.0
20.0
29.0
35.0
17.0
28.0
23.0
15.0
21.0
25.0
27.0
25.0
25.0
29.0
24.0
27.0
23.0
32
27
28
33
31
20.0
28.0
26.0
20.0
21.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
21.0
23.0
20.0
18.0
19.0
22.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
21
24
25
24
24
00.0
13.0
22.0
20.0
19.0
21.0
19.0
25.0
22.0
20.0
24.0
19.0
19.0
24.0
21.0
17.0
19.0
22.0
21.0
22.0
27.0
26.0
12.0
27.0
20.0
20.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
21.0
00.0
00.0
22.0
19.0
21.0
22.0
00.0
13.0
18.0
20.0
19.0
17.0
17.0
21.0
33.0
40.0
25.0
23.0
18.0
21.0
20.0
22.0
21.0
23.0
20.0
18.0
19.0
22.0
19
20.0
21.0
21.0
24.0
25.0
24.0
24.0
23.0
22.0
21.0
22.0
20.0
19.0
17.0
20.0
16.0
17.0
19.0
17.0
20.0
21.0
19.0
19.0
22.0
18.0
28.0
22.0
22.0
21.0
22.0
32.0
16.0
17.0
19.0
18.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
29.0
25.0
23.0
27.0
26.0
14.0
18.0
12.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
00.0
08.0
00.0
08.0
08.0
00.0
09.0
00.0
16.0
21.0
19.0
20.0
16.0
17.0
13.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
10.0
14.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
10.0
14.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
11.0
07.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
00.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
0.0
EXT 1: Green tea, EXT 2: Pomegranate rind, EXT 3: Guava leaves, EXT 4 cinnamon bark, EXT 5: raspberry.
6521
Table 2. The common and scientific names and used part of five plant extracts.
Common name
Green tea
Pomegranate
Guava
Cinnamon
Raspberry
Family
Theaceae
Rosaceae
Myrtaceae
Lauraceae
Rosaceae
Scientific name
Canellia sinensis
Punnica granatum
Psidium guajava
Cinnamomum verum
Mourus
Figure 1. The inhibitory effect of three different plant extracts against resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolate.
(A) Green tea extract, (b) Pomegranate extract, (C) Guava extract.
6522
Tested plant
Green tea
Pomegranate
Guava leaves
Cinnamon
Raspberry
p value
0.877
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
Pomegranate
Guava leaves
Cinnamon
Raspberry
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
Guava leaves
Cinnamon
Raspberry
0.238
0.349
Cinnamon
Raspberry
1.0
40
20
0
Extract 1 Extract 2
Extract 3
Extract
1+2+3
Figure 2. The inhibitory effect of three plant extracts and their combination on 20
clindamycin resistant isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. Extract 1: Green tea, Extract
2: Pomegranate rind, Extract 3: Guava leaves.
REFERENCES
Al-Digs EK (2004). The role of staphages in the treatment of methecillin
resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, Ph D. Thesis, King Saud
University.
Al-Zimaity D, Kearns AM, Dawson SJ, Price S, Harrison GAJ (2004).
Survey, characterization and susceptibility to fusidic acid of
Staphylococcus aureus in the Carmarthen area. J. Antimicrob.
Chemother. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkh373.
Anas K, Jayasre P, Vijaykumar T, Kumar R (2008). In vitro antibacterial
activity of Psidium guajava Linn leaf extract on clinical isolates of
multidrug resistance. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 46:41-46.
Baron JE, Finegold MS (1990). Diagnostic Microbiology. The C.V.
Mosby Company.
Bilal NE, Gedebou M (2000). Staphylococcus aureus as a paradigm of a
persistent problem of bacterial multiple antibiotic resistance in Abha,
Saudi Arabia. East. Mediterranean Health J. 6(5/6):948-954.
Boyce JM (1990). Increasing prevalence of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus in the United States. Infect. Control Hosp.
Epidemiol. 11:639-642.
Chang ST, Chen PF, Chang SC (2001). Antimicrobial activity of leaf
essential oil and their constituents from Cinnamomum osmphloeum,
J. Ethnopharmacol. 77(1):123-127.
Evans SA, Brachman SP (1991). Bacterial Infections of Humans:
Staphylococcal Infections, Company New York and London: Plenum
Medical Book.
Geyid A, Abebe D, Debella A, Makonnen Z, Aberra F, Teka F, Kebede
T, Urga K, Yersaw K, Biza T, Mariam HB, Guta M (2005). Screening
of some medicinal plants of Ethiopia for their anti-microbial properties
and chemical profiles. J. Ethnopharmacol. 97:421-427.
Gupta C, Garg A, Uniyal R, Kumari A (2008). Comparative analysis of
the antimicrobial activity of cinnamon oil and cinnamon extract on
some food-borne microbes. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2(9):247-251.
Gurib-Fakim A (2006). Medicinal plants: Traditions of yesterday and
drugs of tomorrow. Mol. Aspect. Med. 27(1):1-93.
Hipwell M, Wilkinson JM ( 2003). Antibacterial activity of berry fruits
used for culinary purposes. J. Med. Food 6(1):57-61.
Iqbal A, Zafar M, Faiz M (1998). Screening of some medicinal plants for
their antimicrobial activities. J. Ethnopharmacol. 62:183-193.
Jaiarj P, Khoohaswan P, WongKrajang Y, Peungvicha P, Suriyanwong
P, Saraya ML, Ruansomboon O (1999). Anticough and antimicrobial
activities of Psidium guajava Linn. leaf extract. J. Ethnopharmacol.
67(2):203- 212.
Jikia D, Chkhaidze N, Imedashvili E, Mgaloblishvili I, Tsitlanadze G,
Katsarava R, Glenn MJ Jr, Sulakvelidez A (2005). The use of novel
biodegradable preparation capable of the sustained release of
bacteriophage and ciprofloxacin, in the complex treatment of
multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-infected local radiation
6523
6524
African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(36), pp. 6525-6531, 20 September, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI: 10.5897/AJMR11.1190
ISSN 1996-0808 2012 Academic Journals
In the present investigation minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum biofilm eradication
concentration (MBEC) and CSE1034 (Sulbactomax) was compared with piperacilline+tazobactam,
amoxyclave, ceftriaxone, ceftriaxone+sulbactam and cefoperazone+ sulbactam in planktonic and
sessile cells of Acinetobacter baumannii, Enterobacter cloacae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. MICs
6
were determined by broth microdilution method with a final inoculum size of 10 cfu/ml of plaktonic
cells. MBECs were measured using a calgary biofilm device method to establish a co-relation with
biofilm breaking efficacy of different drugs. The MICs for CSE1034 ranged from 0.5 to 4.0 g/ml and for
other antibacterial drugs ranged from 2 to 32 g/ml. The MBEC for CSE1034 ranged from 8 to 16 g/ml
and for other antibacterial agents, it ranged from 64 to 4096 g/ml. The CSE1034 exhibited
approximately 5 logs reduction in the number of bacteria present in biofilm when compared with other
antibacterial agents. When total lipid and total polysaccharide contents were compared, CSE1034
showed 90 and 84% reduction, respectively. The enhanced efficacy of CSE1034 in the eradication of
biofilm infection is due to presence of EDTA which helps in the destabilizing of the barriers responsible
for the development of biofilm as well as antibiotic resistance. In conclusion, combining of
ceftriaxone+sulbactam with EDTA can significantly reduces the MIC and MBEC values against selected
organisms. Hence, CSE1034 could be one of the best choices to eradicate the biofilm caused by these
organisms.
Key words: Lipopolysaccharide, lipid, log reduction, antibacterial agents.
INTRODUCTION
Biofilms are made of cells and their secreted insoluble
exo-polysaccharide or extracellular polymeric substances
(EPSs). It may account for 50 to 90% of the total organic
carbon of biofilms (Prakash et al., 2003) and can be
considered as the primary matrix. The EPSs are the
major factor influencing the microbial biofilm formation
process (Langille et al., 2000; Liu et al., 2004) and
consisted mainly of polysaccharides (homo and hetero
polysaccharides), proteins, nucleic acids and lipids. EPSs
are also associated with metal ions, divalent cations
6526
Minimum biofilm
determination
eradication
concentrations
(MBECs)
Antimicrobial agents
can be fit into the wells of a standard 96-well plate. The bottom of
the vessel serves to channel the flow of medium across the pegs to
create consistent shear force across all pegs, resulting in the
formation of equivalent biofilms at each peg site. Biofilm of each
isolate was developed by taking of 106 cfu/ml bacterial inoculum of
bacterial strain. Biofilm formation was carried out at 37C and 95%
relative humidity on a rocking table such that fluid flowed along the
channels of the CBD, generating the required shear force across all
pegs. Biofilm formation was determined by viable counts on MHA
plates.
Quantification of biofilms
At different time interval, pegs from the lid were removed, placed in
micro centrifuge tubes containing 200 l of MHB and sonicated for
5 min on sonicator. Viable counts were determined on MHSM
plates.
6527
RESULTS
MIC and MBEC
The lowest concentration of antibacterial agents
exhibiting no growth of planktonic bacterial cells was
designated as the MIC. Similarly, lowest concentration of
antibacterial agents which exhibits no further growth of
bacterial biofilm was designated as MBEC. MIC and
MBEC observed for the antimicrobial agents against
different microbes are presented in the Table 1. The data
represents the mean resulting from three trials. The
MBEC of CSE1034 for A. baumannii, E. cloacae and P.
aeruginosa biofilms was approximately 16X of MIC,
indicating that 16 times more CSE1034 is required to kill
the biofilms than was required to inhibit planktonic cells.
The MBEC of ceftriaxone, ceftriaxone+sulbactam,
cefoperazone+sulbactam, amoxyclave and piperacilline+
tazobactam was observed in range from 32X to 128X of
MIC indicating that 32 to 128 times more antibacterial
agents were required to kill biofilms than was required to
inhibit planktonic cells. The data in Table 2 shows that
only CSE1034 reduced biofilms of A. baumannii, E.
cloacae and P. aeruginosa and respective log reduction
observed in biofilms are 4.95, 4.59 and 4.25 logs. Other
antibacterial agents reduced the growth of biofilms only
by 0.16 to 1.74 logs (Table 2).
Effect of antimicrobial agents on total lipids and total
polysaccharides of biofilms
The effect of various antimicrobial agents on total lipids
and total polysaccharides of biofilms is depicted in Table
3. The levels of total lipids and total polysaccharides was
found to be decreased after treatment with antibacterial
agents as compared to before treatment of biofilms for all
tested organisms. However maximum decrease in total
lipids and total polysaccharides was noted with CSE1034
compared to other antibacterial agents. The decrease in
cellular lipid resulted in an increase of the susceptibility of
bacteria to antibacterial agents.
DISCUSSION
Bacterial biofilm play an important role in the
development and persistence of various chronic
infectious diseases. Biofilms are composed primarily of
microbial cells and EPSs. It is commonly accepted that
biofilms are more resistant to antibiotics than are
planktonic cells (Costerton et al., 1999; Donlan, 2000;
Costerton and Stewart, 2001; Qian et al., 1999). The
mechanism for enhanced antimicrobial resistance is
believed to involve alterations in gene expression leading
to a phenotype difference between the planktonic and
sessile forms. The sessile forms are more resistant as
they produce exo-polysaccharide, have different growth
6528
Table 1. MIC and MBEC of antimicrobial agents against planktonic and biofilms cells.
CSE1034
Piperacilline+
Tazobactam
0.5
16
16
MBEC
1024
128
256
256
512
MIC
32
64
16
MBEC
64
1024
512
1024
2048
1024
MIC
64
MBEC
32
1024
256
512
4096
128
Name of organisms
MIC
Ceftriaxone+ Cefoperazone+
Amoxyclave Ceftriaxone
Sulbactam
Sulbactam
A. baumannii
E. cloacae
P. aeruginosa
MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration; MBEC: minimum biofilm eradication concentration. All are presented in g/ml.
Name of organism
Time (h)
48
48
Name of drugs
CSE1034
Piperacilline+Tazobactam
Biofilm concentration
(cfu/peg) before
treatment
(A)
Biofilm concentration
Log reduction
(cfu/peg) after
treatment
(logA-logB)
(B)
4.710 (7.67)
5.310 (3.72)
4.95
4.210 (7.63)
1.410 (6.14)
1.49
1.16
48
Ceftriaxone+sulbactam
2.610 (7.41)
1.810 (6.25)
48
Cefoperazone+sulbactam
6.310 (7.79)
3.810 (6.57)
1.22
Amoxyclave
3.710 (7.56)
0.76
48
Ceftriaxone
3.110 (7.49)
2.1107 (7.33)
0.16
48
CSE1034
4.710 (7.67)
1.210 (3.08)
4.59
6.810 (5.83)
1.74
3.3107(7.51)
4.5106(6.65)
0.86
5.310 (7.72)
7.210 (6.85)
0.87
1.19
A. baumannii
48
48
48
Piperacilline+Tazobactam
Ceftriaxone+sulbactam
E. cloacae
48
Cefoperazone+sulbactam
3.810 (7.57)
6.410 (6.80)
48
Amoxyclave
3.810 (7.58)
2.510 (6.39)
48
Ceftriaxone
4.310 (7.63)
6.810 (6.83)
0.8
48
CSE1034
6.110 (7.78)
3.410 (3.53)
4.25
48
48
Piperacilline+Tazobactam
Ceftriaxone+sulbactam
5.510 (7.74)
4.810 (7.68)
P. aeruginosa
48
48
48
1.610 (6.2)
2.8106 (6.44)
1.54
a
1.24
5.2107 (7.71)
4.4106 (6.64)
1.07
Amoxyclave
6.110 (7.78)
2.510 (6.39)
1.39
Ceftriaxone
1.18
Cefoperazone+sulbactam
4.810 (7.68)
3.210 (6.50)
6529
Name
of organisms
After
treatment
% reduction
after
treatment
Before treatment
CSE1034
After
% reduction
% reduction
% reduction
After
After
After
treatment
after
after
after
treatment
treatment
treatment
with
treatment
treatment
treatment
Piperacilline+
Tazobactam
Ceftriaxone+Sulbactam
Cefoperazone+
sulbactam
% reduction
after
treatment
Amoxycillin+
clavulanate
After
treatment
% reduction
after
treatment
Ceftriaxone
28.45
82.0
94.56
39.59
104.45
33.2
134.45
14.11
142.12
9.21
135.65
13.34
Total lipid
38.45
9.34
75.70
22.12
42.47
26.54
31.67
24.78
35.55
30.11
21.70
21.45
44.21
Total polysaccharide
74.20
12.20
83.55
41.45
44.13
61.45
17.18
63.45
14.48
63.78
14.04
65.56
11.64
Total lipid
52.00
5.14
90.0
29.65
43.00
39.45
24.13
42.34
18.57
37.65
27.60
43.45
16.44
31.10
77.51
85.63
38.09
123.45
10.75
124.45
10.03
120.56
12.84
128.45
7.14
Total lipid
10.43
75.63
20.35
52.45
32.12
24.95
30.45
28.85
32.45
24.18
34.12
20.28
A. baumannii
E. cloacae
P. aeruginosa
42.80
All results are presented in g/ml. The biofilm concentrationused for the estimation were between 4.5 x107 to 6.5x107 cfu/ml. Total lipid includes neutral lipid, glycolipid and phospholipid.
6530
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Authors are thankful to sponsor, Venus Pharma GmbH,
AM Bahnhof 1-3, D-59368, Werne, Germany, for
providing assistance to carry out this study.
REFERENCES
Anwar K, Naiki H, Nakakuki K, Inuzuka M (1992). High frequency of
human papillomavirus infection in carcinoma of the urinary bladder.
Cancer 70:1967-1973.
Banin E, Brady MK, Greenberg EP (2006). Chelator-induced dispersal
6531
African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(36), pp. 6532-6536, 20 September, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI: 10.5897/AJMR12.027
ISSN 1996-0808 2012 Academic Journals
Tasnim Biotechnology Research Center (TBRC), AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Breast Cancer Research Center (BCRC), Iranian Center for Breast Cancer (ICBC), Academic Center for Education,
Culture & Research (ACECR), Tehran, Iran.
3
Department of Pathobiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran.
Coxiella burnetii, the cause of Q-fever, is a widespread zoonosis. Classical methods for its isolation are
time consuming and risky, requiring biosafety level 3 laboratory. However, this limitation is omitted in
molecular detection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of 16SrRNA gene in molecular
detection of C. burnetii. For this purpose, specific primers were designed for this gene and a
polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay was prepared using these primers. To construct a positive
control plasmid, the PCR product was cloned in pTZ57R/T vector. Sensitivity of the assay was
determined using PCR in 10 fold serial dilutions of the positive control plasmid, and then, the last
concentration with positive band was determined as the limit of detection (LOD) of the assay.
Specificity of the test was assessed with PCR in genomic DNA of the negative control bacteria. The
PCR results showed the presence of a 240 bp band as expected. Sensitivity assessment revealed that
the LOD of the assay was 1 ng. No amplification was exhibited in negative control bacteria after PCR.
These data proved the specificity of the procedure. It is concluded from the results of this study that
16SrRNA gene is an appropriated gene for detection of C. burnetii.
Key words: Coxiella burnetii, Q-fever, 16SrRNA gene, polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
INTRODUCTION
Coxiella burnetii, the causative agent of Q-fever in man
and animals, is an obligate intracellular Gram negative
bacterium which belongs to the family Coxiellaceae and
the genus Coxiella. In a relatively recent classification,
this bacterium has been relocated to the order
Legionellaes, class Gamma Proteobacteria (Angelakis
and Raoult, 2009). Ticks are the primary natural
reservoirs of the bacterium. They circulate the infection
Soleimani et al.
Organism name
Shigella sonnei
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Escherichia coli
Bacillus subtilis
Staphylococcus aureus
Enterococcus faecalis
Salmonella Typhi
Streptococcus penumoniea
Neisseria meningitidis
Escherichia coli O157H7
Escherichia coli EPEC
Yersinia enterocolitica
Yersinia pseudotuberculosis
Strain number
ATCC 9290
ATCC 7881
ATCC 25922
ATCC 6051
ATCC 25923
ATCC 29212
ATCC 700931
ATCC 700669
ATCC13060
ATCC 43895
ATCC 43887
ATCC 35669
ATCC 29833
6533
Primer design
In this study, C. burnetii 16SrRNA gene (Accession number:
D89799) was chosen as the target. Primer designing was done
using
primer
BLAST
from
NCBI
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/tools/primerblast/index.cgi?LINK_LOC=BlastHome). Thermodynamic appraisal
was done with Gene Runner Software version 3.05
(Hastings Software Inc.,
Hastings,
New
York)
(http://www.generunner.com). The forward primer sequence was 5
ATATCCTTGGGCGTTGACGTTACCC3 and the reverse one was
5 ATCTACGCATTTCACCGCTACACCG 3 . These primers
amplified a sequence of 240 bp. Primer synthesis was done by
Cinnagen Corporation (Tehran, Iran). PCR was performed at a
volume of 25 l including dNTPS (0.2 mM), MgCl2 (1.5 mM), and 0.4
mM from each of the primers, one unit of the Taq DNA polymerase
enzyme and 50 ng of C. burnetii genomic DNA. The negative
control reaction was set as a reaction similar to the aforementioned,
but with deionized water instead of DNA. Thermal conditions of the
PCR consisted of primary denaturation at 95C for 1 min, 40 cycles
of denaturation at 95C for 1 min, annealing at 55C for 45 s,
amplification at 72C for 1.5 min. Following PCR amplification, 7 l
of the PCR product with 1 l of the loading buffer were
electrophoresed on the 1% agarose gel.
6534
RESULTS
PCR and specificity determination
After PCR with 16SrRNA gene specific primers of the C.
burnetii bacterium, the 240 bp band was observed on the
1% agarose gel as expected. The results of the negative
control tube showed no amplification which denotes
correctness of the PCR (Figure 1).
Analysis of the agarose gel related to electrophoresis of
the PCR on negative control bacteria genomes using C.
burnetii specific primers led to no amplification. These
results emphasized that the designed primers for
16SrRNA gene were specific and led to no amplification
in all the bacteria, except in C. burnetii. Amplification of
16SrRNA gene in the negative control bacteria genomic
DNA using universal primers showed a 475 bp band. The
presence of this band implied that the PCR was feasible
on these genomes.
Figure 1. The results of the PCR reaction
on C. burnetii genomic DNA, the desired
fragment with the length of 240 bp, is
amplified. M: 100 bp molecular marker; 1:
240 bp related to 16SrRNA gene
amplification; 2: PCR negative control.
DISCUSSION
Molecular methods, such as PCR provide useful utilities
for rapid detection of C. burnetii in clinical samples (Stein
and Raoult, 1992). The first method to be used was
specific hybridization of the target DNA with probe for
amplification in clinical samples. This method was so
sensitive and specific, but the limitation was the state of
being at hand only in certain laboratories (Frazier et al.,
1990, 1992; Mallavia et al., 1990). The fact that there
were primers for specific genes of C. burnetii facilitated
Soleimani et al.
6535
Conclusion
The results of this study concluded that 16SrRNA gene of
C. burnetii bacterium is a specific gene for molecular
detection of this bacterium using PCR and this technique
is a reliable test to be clinically used for bacterial
diagnosis of the Q-fever agent.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge and appreciate
the Faculty of Medicine, AJA University of Medical
Sciences and Tasnim Biotechnology Research Center
(TBRC), for their support and contribution to this study.
6536
REFERENCES
Angelakis E, Raoult D (2009). Q fever. Vet. Microbiol. 140:297-309.
Blondeau J, Williams J, Marrie T (1990). The Immune response to
phase I and phase II Coxiella burnetii antigens as measured by
western immunoblotting. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 590:187-202.
Dller G, Dller P, Gerth HJ (1984). Early diagnosis of Q fever:
detection of immunoglobulin M by radioimmunoassay and enzyme
immunoassay. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 3:550-553.
Fiset P, Ormsbee R, Silberman R, Peacock M, Spielman S (1969). A
microagglutination technique for detection and measurement of
rickettsial antibodies. Acta Virol. 13:60-66.
Fournier PE, Marrie TJ, Raoult D (1998). Diagnosis of Q fever. J. Clin.
Microbiol. 36:1823.
Frazier M, Heinzen R, Mallavia L, Baca O (1992). DNA probes for
detecting Coxiella burnetii strains. Acta Virol. 36:83-89.
Frazier M, Mallavia L, Samuel J, Baca O (1990). DNA probes for the
identification of Coxiella burnetii strains. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 590:
445-458.
Gillespie SH, Hawkey PM (2006). In: Principles and Practice of Clinical
Bacteriology, UK, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 457-460.
Herr S, Huchzermeyer H, Te Brugge L, Williamson C, Roos J, Schiele
G (1985). The use of a single complement fixation test technique in
bovine brucellosis, Johne's disease, dourine, equine piroplasmosis
and Q fever serology. Onderstepoort. J. Vet. Res. 52:279-282.
Ibrahim A, Norlander L, Macellaro A, Sjstedt A (1997). Specific
detection of Coxiella burnetii through partial amplification of 23S
rDNA. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 13:329-334.
Jones RM, Nicas M, Hubbard AE, Reingold AL (2006). The Infectious
Dose of Coxiella burnetii (Q fever). Appl. Biosaf. 11:32-41.
Kazar J, Brezina R, Schramek S, Palanova A, Tvrda B (1981).
Suitability of the microagglutination test for detection of post-infection
and post-vaccination Q fever antibodies in human sera. Acta Virol.
25:235-240.
Khalili M, Shahabi-N N, Golchin M (2010). Q fever serology in febrile
patients in southeast Iran. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 104:623624.
Khalili M, Shahabi-N N, Aflatoonian M (2011). Q fever a forgotten
disease in Iran. J. Kerman Univ. Med. Sci. 18:93-97.
Kirkan S, Kaya O, Tekbiyik S, Parin U (2008). Detection of Coxiella
burnetii in cattle by PCR. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 32:215-220.
Kovacova E, Gallo J, Schramek S, Kazar J, Brezina R (1987). Coxiella
burnetii antigens for detection of Q fever antibodies by ELISA in
human sera. Acta Virol. 31:254-259.
Kruszewska D, Lembowicz K, Wierzbanowska ST (1996). Possible
sexual transmission of Q fever among humans. Clin. Infect. Dis. 22:
1087-1088
African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(36), pp. 6537-6544, 20 September, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI: 10.5897/AJMR12.418
ISSN 1996-0808 2012 Academic Journals
To define new methods for the detoxification of free gossypol (FG) within cotton seed meal (CSM), FG
during CSM fermentation with Bacillus. cereus Br were measured. Four conditions were studied: CSM
inoculated with Br (Br + CSM), CSM without any inocula (CSM), sterilized CSM inoculated with Br (Br +
sCSM), and sterilized CSM without any inocula (sCSM). Samples were taken at various times during the
fermentation and the contents of free gossypol (FG), crude protein (CP), and amino acids were
measured. The polymerase chain reaction and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE)
method was used to analyze the changes in bacterial community structure during the fermentation.
After the Bacillus. cereus Br was inoculated into CSM, the FG concentrations decreased to the
minimum level of detection at 12 h, while CP and amino acids concentrations reached maxima at 18 h.
The initial content of FG and CP decreased significantly when the CSM was pre-sterilized, and
decreased to minima after 12 h fermentation. The changes in bacterial community structure mirrored
the changes in FG and CP. B. cereus Br was dominant in the CSM + Br group during the first 12 h of
fermentation, after which Br growth was inhibited by native bacteria in CSM. In contrast, B. cereus Br
was always dominant during fermentation of autoclaved CSM. These results suggest that the native
microbes of CSM significantly influenced the detoxification rate, and inhibited B. cereus Br growth
during fermentation. But pre-sterilization of CSM significantly affects the FG content and quality of CSM.
The B. cereus Br was capable of detoxifying FG from CSM, and the optimal time of fermentation was 18
h.
Key words: Bacterial community, free gossypol, detoxification, fermentation, cottonseed meal.
INTRODUCTION
Cottonseed meal (CSM) is a source of high-quality
protein. The use of this nutrient rich resource as animal
feed, however, is hampered by the presence of free
gossypol (FG), a toxic polyphenolic pigment produced in
the seeds. Diets containing FG can negatively effect
animal growth, digestive health, and reproduction (Santos
et al., 2003; Carruthers et al., 2007; Cai et al., 2011; ElSaidy and Saad, 2011; zdoan et al., 2012; Zheng et al.,
2012). Methods have been developed to detoxify FG
from cottonseed, such as solvent extraction (Cherry and
6538
Sample processing
Fermented substrates were thawed, and about 1 g of each sample
was placed into sterile 10 ml centrifuge tubes for total DNA
extraction. The rest of the fermented substrates were dried in an
Wang et al.
6539
Related assays
The dry matter (DM) was used for related assays. The FG content
was determined as described by Hron et al. (1996). Crude protein
(CP) assays used the Kjeldahl method (AOAC, 1999). Free amino
acid assays was based on the AOAC method (1999, method
number 994.12) using an Hitachi Model L-8800 automatic amino
acids analyzer (Hitachi Corp.).
Statistical analysis
The data from each experiment were pooled and then evaluated by
one-way ANOVA (SPSS 13.0 for Windows) and least significant
difference (LSD).
acids
6540
Figure 2. The crude protein concentrations during the CSM fermentation. Legend: Br +
CSM: treatment of CSM inoculated with B. cereus Br. CSM: treatment of CSM without
inocula. Br + sCSM: treatment of sterilized CSM inoculated with B. cereus Br. sCSM:
treatment of sterilized CSM without any inocula. Each point represents mean
standard deviation from three independent assays. There are not significantly different
(P>0.05) between the results of repeated experiments.
Table 1. The amino acid concentrations (g kg-1 DM) during the CSM fermentationa.
Amino
acids
ASP
THR
SER
GLU
GLY
ALA
CYS
VAL
MET
ILE
LEU
TYR
PHE
LYS
NH3
HIS
ARG
PRO
Total
a
0h
46.8
16.5
22.6
121.5
20.7
20
8.3
21.8
6.0
15.8
31.2
12.9
27.1
18.9
11.0
13.1
59.6
14.0
487.8
Br + CSM
18 h
48.5
17.9
23.1
123.9
21.8
23.6
8.8
23.9
6.3
17.4
33.4
14.0
29.0
22.0
13.5
13.4
54.3
14.9
509.6
24 h
48.4
17.2
23.4
124.9
21.3
20.5
9.0
22.4
5.8
16.0
31.7
13.7
27.6
19.9
11.5
13.4
62.3
14.5
503.1
0h
47.1
16.8
22.8
121.7
20.8
20
9.2
21.9
6.3
15.7
31
13.5
27
18.9
11.1
13.1
60.3
13.9
491.2
CSM
18 h
48.7
17.9
23.4
123.3
21.7
22.5
9.0
24.2
6.2
17.4
33.7
13.9
28.9
21.8
12.6
13.5
53.5
15.1
507.5
24 h
48.1
16.9
23.2
123.5
21.1
20.3
9.3
22.2
6.6
15.8
31.2
13.7
27.4
19.5
11.3
13.3
61.9
14.6
500.1
0h
44.9
16.5
22.0
117.8
20.2
19.8
8.1
21.7
6.0
15.7
30.7
13.1
26.5
19.0
12.1
12.6
54.2
13.7
474.6
Br + sCSM
18 h
44.0
16.5
20.7
108.2
19.4
20.5
7.6
22.2
5.8
16.4
30.9
13.0
25.6
19.2
13.4
12.3
47.6
13.4
456.7
24 h
44.2
16.2
21.8
116.7
19.6
19.5
8.1
21.3
5.4
15.2
30.5
12.7
26.2
18.9
11.5
12.4
54.4
13.8
468.2
0h
45.9
16.0
21.8
116.5
20.2
20.1
8.8
21.9
5.8
15.6
31.1
13.2
26.9
19.3
11.5
12.7
58.5
14.3
480.3
sCSM
18 h
46.7
16.6
20.4
117.8
20.5
20.8
8.6
22.7
5.9
16.1
31.7
14.4
27.4
21.4
12.5
12.6
50.4
15.3
481.7
24 h
46.5
16.2
22.3
118.7
20.4
20.2
8.3
22
6.0
15.8
31.7
13.3
27.4
19.4
11.8
12.9
59.7
14.5
487.1
Values are means of three replicates of each samples got on different time per treatments.
Figure 3).
Fourteen main bands were recovered, cloned and
sequenced. The sequences were aligned with closely
related 16S rDNA sequences from GenBank, and a
Wang et al.
Figure 3. DGGE profile of 16S rDNA gene fragments of bacteria during the CSM fermentation. The group
of Br + CSM, CSM and Br + sCSM was the treatment of CSM inoculated with B. cereus Br, CSM without
inocula and sterilized CSM inoculated with B. cereus Br, respectively. The numbers on the top of each
lane indicate the time of sampling. All marked bands were analyzed by sequence analysis.
6541
6542
Figure 5. Principal component analysis (PCA) of the DGGE profiles shown in Figure 3. Only
the first principal component (PC1) and the second principal component (PC2) are shown.
The plots (o, *, and squares) indicate the bacterial community structure of samples from
groups Br + CSM, CSM and Br + sCSM respectively. The numbers indicate the time of
sampling.
DISCUSSION
Microbial fermentation might be the most efficient method
for detoxification of FG from CSM. In most studies of
microbial fermentation of CSM, to prevent the effect of
Wang et al.
6543
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was supported by the major projects for
science and technology of Zhejiang province [No.
2006C12097-(1), 2011C12010], and in part by a grant for
innovative research from Zhejiang Academy of
Agricultural Science.
REFERENCES
AOAC (1999). Official methods of analysis, 16th ed., Association of
Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USA.
Barraza ML, Coppock CE, Brooks KN, Wilks DL, Saunders RG,
Latimer GW (1991). Iron sulfate and feed pelleting to detoxify FG in
cottonseed diets for dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 74(10):3457-3467.
Cai C, Li E, Ye Y, Krogdahl A, Jiang G, Wang Y, Chen L (2011). Effect of
dietary graded levels of cottonseed meal and gossypol on growth
performance, body composition and health aspects of
allogynogenetic
silver
crucian
carp,
Carassius
auratus
gibelio Cyprinus carpio. Aquacult. Nutr. 17(4):353-360.
Carruthers NJ, Dowd MK, Stemmer PM (2007). Gossypol inhibits
calcineurin phosphatase activity at multiple sites. Eur. J. Pharmacol.
555(2-3):106-114.
Cherry JP, Gray MS (1981). Methylene chloride extraction of gossypol
from cottonseed products. J. Food Sci. 46(6):1726-1733.
Don RH, Cox PT, Wainwright BJ, Baker K, Mattick JS (1991).
Touchdown PCR to circumvent spurious priming during gene
amplification. Nucleic. Acids.Res. 19:4008.
El-Saidy DMSD, Saad AS (2011). Effects of partial and complete
replacement of soybean meal with cottonseed meal on growth, feed
utilization and haematological indexes for mono-sex male Nile tilapia,
Oreochromis niloticus (L.) fingerlings. Aquacult. Res. 42(3): 351-359.
Qian JF, Yun Z, Shi HX (2010). Cogeneration biodiesel and nontoxic
cottonseed meal from cottonseed processed by two phase solvent
extraction. Energ. Convers. Manag. 51(12):27502756.
Guan ZB, Zhang ZH, Cao Y, Chen LL, Xie GF, Jian L (2012). Analysis
and comparison of bacterial communities in two types of wheat Qu,
the starter culture of Shaoxing rice wine, using nested PCR-DGGE. J.
I. Brewing. 118(1):127-132.
Hron R, Kuk M, Wan P (1996). Quick method for estimating free
gossypol in cottonseed, meats, collets, and extracted meals. J. Am.
Oil Chem. Soc. 73(2):199-202.
Jia XF, Li AK, Yao JH, Zhang XL, Zhou NJ, Hao SH, Pan L (2009).
Effect of solid-state fermentation on gossypol detoxification and
protein degradation in cottonseed meal. J. Northwest Agric. Forest
Univ. 37(3):49-54.
Khalaf MA, Meleigy SA (2008) Reduction of free gossypol levels in
cottonseed meal by microbial treatment. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 10(2):185190.
Kornegay ET, Kelly RF, Campbell TC, Libke KG, Sandrock FW, Blair JE
(1972). Fungal-treated cottonseed meal for swine. J. Nutr.
102(11):1471-1476.
6544
African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(36), pp. 6545-6550, 20 September, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI: 10.5897/AJMR12.476
ISSN 1996-0808 2012 Academic Journals
A lignin and cellulose-degrading fungal strain Bio-1 was isolated from the soil of Yuelu Mountain in
China. It was identified as a member of the genus Cladosporium by 18s rDNA, ITS sequences analysis
and morphological characters. Bio-1 could hydrolyze at least 35% of the alkaline lignin in 4 days when
incubated in screening liquid medium. Both laccase and cellulase activities could be detected in the
fermentation liquid and cell homogenate. High extracellular and intracellular laccase activities of 3800
and 5352 U/L were obtained with copper induction, respectively. The extracellular cellulase production
was reached (51 U/Ml). Based on these characteristics, Bio-1 could be well suited as a commercial
fungus applied in degradation of lignocellulose biomass for environment protection.
Key words: Cladosporium, identification, laccase, cellulase, CuSO4.
INTRODUCTION
Paper and pulp, textiles and petrochemical industries
discharge highly colored effluents, which is not only
aesthetically unacceptable but also leads to serious
environment problems in soil, ground or surface water
ecosystem. The color of effluent is mainly due to the
presence of lignocellulose and its derivates. Application of
biological methods based on fungi biodegradation is an
environmentally friendly process to reduce pollution
caused
by
lignocelluloses-containing
material
(Raghukumar et al., 2008).
As an efficient and typical lignin-degrading fungi
(Rajeev et al., 2005), the white-rot basidiomycete attacks
lignin mainly by secreting lignin-degrading isoenzymes,
such as laccase, lignin peroxidase (LiP) and manganese
peroxidase (MnP) (Rajeev et al., 2005). Similarly, four
laccase isoenzymes were synthesized by a Pleurotus
ostreatus strain V-184 (Rajeev et al., 2005). Daedalea
quercina was reported to produce the laccase and Mndependent peroxidase (Rajeev et al., 2005). Laccases
6546
Primer
18sf
18sr
ITS4
ITS5
Sequence
5-AACCTGGTTGATCCTGCCAGT-3
5-CGACGGGCGGTGTGTAC-3
5-TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC-3
5-GGAAGTAAAAGTAACAAGG-3
Jin et al.
6547
Colletotrichum
Trichoderma
Mycosspaeralla
Penicillium
Cladosporium EU375523
6548
laccase activity.
Jin et al.
6549
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by Doctoral Fund of Ministry of
Education of China (20110161120020), Science and
Technology Planning Project of Hunan Province, China
(2010FJ4105), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan
Province, China (12JJ6023) and Fundamental Research
6550
Steffen KT, Hofrichter M, Hatakka A (2000). Mineralisation of 14Clabelled synthetic lignin and ligninolytic enzyme activities of litterdecomposing basidiomycetous fungi. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.
54(6): 819-825.
Tetsch L, Bend J, Holker U (2006). Molecular and enzymatic
characterization of extra- and intracellular laccases from the
acidophilic
ascomycete
Hortaea
acidophila. Antonie van
Leeuwenhoek 90(2):183-194.
Zhang YHP, Himmel ME, Mielenz JR (2006). Outlook for cellulase
improvement: Screening and selection strategies. Biotechnol. Adv.
24(5): 452-481.
Vijiaykumar MH, Veeranagouda Y, Neelakanteshwar K, Karegoudar TB
(2006). Decolorization of 1:2 metal complex dye Acid blue 193 by a
newly isolated fungus Cladosporium cladosporioides. World J.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 22(2):157-162.
African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(36), pp. 6551-6557, 20 September, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI:10.5897/AJMR12.725
ISSN 1996-0808 2012 Academic Journals
Department of Immunology, Faculty of medicine, Kazerun Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kazerun, Fars, Iran.
2
Shiraz Transplant Research Center- Namazee Hospital- Shiraz University of Medical Sciences-Shiraz- Iran.
3
Hematology Research Center and Bone marrow Transplant Unit- Namazee Hospital- Shiraz University of Medical
Sciences-Shiraz- Iran.
Accepted 16 August, 2012
Some viral infections may have roles in decreasing the myeloid and erythroid progenitor cells leading
to hematopoietic crisis and bone marrow failure. In this research, the potential capacity of some DNA
viruses were studied in patients with transient bone marrow failure. In a cross sectional study the
plasma samples of 27 patients with clinically confirmed transient bone marrow failure were collected for
2 years. The genomic DNA of cytomegalovirus, human herpes virus-6, human herpes virus-8, and TT
virus were extracted from collected samples and amplified by different sensitive and specific in-house
semi nested and nested PCR protocols. Human herpes virus-6 and 8 were found in 3(11.1%) and 2 of 27
(7.4%) patients, respectively while, the TT virus was found in only one (3.7%) of 27 patients. However,
cytomegalovirus infection was not detected in plasma samples of studied patients with transient bone
marrow failure. These findings show the pathogenic role of viral infections in studied patients with
transient bone marrow failure.
Key words: Human herpes virus, TT Virus, bone marrow failure.
INTRODUCTION
Inability of bone marrow to produce adequate blood cells
is called transient bone marrow failure (Kurzrock, 2005;
Aslan et al., 2009), which is associated to significant
mortality due to bleeding or infection. The etiologic cause
of the majority of patients with transient bone marrow
failure remains vague. In a subset of these cases
infection may precipitates although it is not clear why only
some individuals are susceptible. Although it occurs in
mostly childhood, the certain age of disease onset may
vary to adult hood (Dokal, 2006; Marsh, 2005; Dokal and
Vulliamy, 2008; Federman and Sakamoto, 2005).
Depending on the cause, degree and duration of failure,
fever, pallor, infection or serious illness may occur. Acute
bone marrow failure is one of the important results of
infection (Kurzrock, 2005; Risitano et al., 2007).
6552
Viruses
Cytomegalovirus-OF
Cytomegalovirus-OR
Cytomegalovirus-IF
Cytomegalovirus-IR
Human Herpes Virus-8-OF
Human Herpes Virus-8-OR
Human Herpes Virus-8-IF
Human Herpes Virus-8-IR
Human Herpes Virus-6-OF
Human Herpes Virus-6-OR
Human Herpes Virus-6-IF
Human Herpes Virus-6-IR
TT Virus- OF
TT Virus-OR and IR
TT Virus-IF
Primer sequences
5 -TACTGCACGTACGAGCTGTT-3
5 -GCGTACGTGATGAGGCTATAA-3
5 -CCTTCACGTTCATATCACGC-3
5 -GTGGAACTGGAACGTTTGGC-3
5-AT GGGG ACA ACG AGA TTA GC-3
5-CGA CCC GTG CCA GAT TAT G -3
5-TTG GGA AA GAT GGA AGA CG -3
5-AGT CCC CAG GAC CTT GGT TT-3
5-GCT AGA ACG TAT TTG CTG-3
5-ACA ACT GTC TGA CTG GCA- 3
5-TCA CGC ACA TCG GTA TAT 3
5-CTC AAG ATC AAC AAG TTG 3
5-ACA GAC AGA GGA GAA GGC AAC ATG-3
5-GGC AAC ATG TTA TGG ATA GAC TGG-3
5-CTG GCA TTT TAC CAT TTC CAA AGT T-3
1999).
On the other hand, TT virus may be frequently
transmitted through transfusion of blood components. TT
virus may prefer the erythroid and megakaryocyte series
of bone marrow, because thrombocytopaenia and
aplastic anemia have been reported in TTV infected
patients (Tokita et al., 2001; Kamada et al., 2004). TT
virus leads to the maturation arrest and apoptosis of
infected hematopoietic progenitor cells (Dokal, 2006).
Therefore, in this study the prevalence of some human
herpes viruses and TT virus infections were evaluated in
patients with transient bone marrow failure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients and samples
27 patients with transient bone marrow failure, who were admitted
to Namazee Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences,
Shiraz, Iran, were enrolled in this study. Plasma samples were
collected for two years and stored in -70C till virol ogy tests were
performed. Confirmation of transient bone marrow suppression and
rule out of the other hematological malignancies and abnormalities
were clinically and laboratory done by expert hematologist. The molecular viral assays were performed double blind for elimination of
any possible technologist errors. The genomic DNA of
Cytomegalovirus, human herpes virus-6, human herpes virus-8,
and TT virus were extracted from collected samples and
diagnostically amplified by different sensitive and specific in-house
simple and nested PCR protocols.
Molecular analysis
380 bp
167
286 bp
271 bp
PCR protocols
The sequence of the primers using amplifying and detection of the
genomic DNA of viruses in patients with transient bone marrow
failure are presented in Table 1.
Cytomegalovirus
The genomic DNA of cytomegalovirus was detected in patients with
transient bone marrow failure using in-house nested-PCR protocol.
The outer and inner primer sequences are amplifying fragments of
HCMV-UL55 gB encoding sequence (Table 1).
The simple PCR mixture in a total volume of 50 l contained 5
l of 10X PCR buffer, 1.5 l of MgCl2 (50 mM), 1 l dNTP (10 mM),
1 l of each primer (10 pmol), 0.5 l Taq (2.5 unit), and 5 l of the
sample DNA.
The thermocycling conditions of the simple PCR included 93C
for 3 min (one cycle), 30 cycles of 1 min at 93C, 1 min at 60 C
and 1 min at 72C; and finally, one cycle of 5 min at 72C.
The components of the nested PCR mix were similar to simple
PCR. The thermocycling condition of the nested PCR step
included 94C for 3 min (one cycle), 30 cycles of 1 mi n at 93C, 1
min at 59C and 1 min at 72C; and finally, one cyc le of 5 min at
72C.
TT Virus
The genomic DNA of TT virus was detected in patients with
transient bone marrow failure using in-house semi nested-PCR
protocol. The primer pair sequences used in simple PCR step are
NG059 and NG063 amplifying a 286bp fragment of TT virus
genome located in the N22 open reading frame 1 (ORF1) (Table 1).
In the simple PCR step, the total volume of PCR mix contained 5l
of template DNA, 10 pmol/l of primers, 0.25 mMol of dNTPs, 1U of
Bagheri et al.
Taq DNA polymerase, Tris-HCL 10 mM, KCl 30 mM, and 1.5 mMol
of MgCl2. The primer pair sequences used in the second semi
nested PCR steps were NG061 and NG063 amplifying a 271 bp
fragment of the N22 open reading frame 1 (ORF1) of the TTV
genome (Table 1). The components of the semi nested PCR mix
was similar to simple PCR step. The total volume per reaction in the
two rounds of simple and semi nested PCR steps was 20 l.
The thermocycling condition of simple PCR step was initiated by
a first round at 94C for 10 min followed by a second round of 35
cycles at 94C for 30 s, 60C for 45 s, and 72C for 45 s, finalized
with extension at 72C for 7 min. The semi nested P CR step was
initiated by a first round at 94C for 10 min followe d by a second
round of 30 cycles at 94C for 30 s, 59C for 45 s, and 72C for 45
s finalized by extension at 72C for 7 min.
6553
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
The demographic data, clinical and hematological
abnormalities information, hematological laboratory
indices, and the history of DNA virus infections in 27
studied patients with transient bone marrow failure are
presented in Tables 2-4, respectively.
Molecular prevalence of human herpes viruses
The viremia of human herpes virus-6 was found in 3 of 27
(11.1%) patients with transient bone marrow failure.
Transient bone marrow failure was finally confirmed in
these three patients (8, 13, and 27) (Table 2).
6554
Table 2. The clinical presentation of patients with transient bone marrow failure.
Patients no.
Age
Sex
Final disease
Symptoms
33
Petechia
29
Petechia
Thrombocytopenia,
Hemoglobinopathy
3
4
5
6
39
58
20
57
M
M
F
M
Fever, petechia,
Fever, chills, body pain
Fever, body pain
Fever, sleeping disorder
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
22
Pancytopenia
8
9
10
24
38
16
F
F
F
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
11
37
Thrombocytopenia
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
67
25
55
54
15
32
33
48
22
19
35
41
24
26
38
15
M
M
M
F
F
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
F
F
M
M
body pain
Weakness, body pain
Fever, chills
Fever, chills
Fever, petechia, vomiting
Fever, diarrhea
Fever, malaise, Chills
Fever, diarrhea
Fever, chills, petechia
Fever, chills
Fever, chills
Fever, chills
Fever, chills
Fever, chills
Fever, chills
Fever, chills
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Pancytopenia
Leukopenia
Pancytopenia
Hematology diagnosis
Thrombocytopenia,
Hemoglobinopathy
Bagheri et al.
6555
Table 3. The pattern of hematological indices in patients with transient bone marrow failure.
Patients
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
25
26
27
WBC
4400 (N)
7800 (N)
2500 (L)
2800 (L)
1000 (L)
1000 (L)
3700 (L)
2100 (L)
1800 (L)
1200 (L)
6700 (N)
2600 (L)
3000 (L)
NF
1700 (L)
2650 (L)
2800 (L)
1200 (L)
2000 (L)
1900 (L)
2300 (L)
NF
1800 (L)
NF
PMN
704 (L)
5148 (N)
500 (L)
NF
370 (L)
180 (L)
2220 (N)
861 (L)
108 (L)
240 (L)
3350 (L)
1118 ()
720 (L)
NF
578 (L)
0 (L)
1344 (L)
108 (L)
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
LYMPH
748 (L)
2418(N)
1700(H)
NF
610(H)
790(H)
1184(N)
1173(H)
108(L)
960(H)
2814(H)
156(L)
2100(H)
NF
826(H)
26(L)
1176(H)
252(L)
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
MONO
132(L)
156(L)
275(H)
NF
10(L)
0(L)
222(N)
126(N)
54(L)
0(L)
469(N)
26(L)
180(N)
NF
218(H)
0(L)
168(N)
0(L)
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
EOS
0
78
25
NF
0
0
74
0
0
0
67
0
0
NF
43
0
0
0
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
PLT
25000 (L)
16000 (L)
3000 (L)
122000 (L)
90000 (L)
130000 (L)
80000 (L)
35000 (L)
70000 (L)
91000 (L)
94000 (L)
60000 (L)
56000 (L)
7000 (L)
117000 (L)
21000 (L)
104000 (L)
334000 (L)
103000 (L)
87000 (L)
137000 (L)
NF
166000 (N)
NF
HB
2.1 (L)
7.4 (L)
14.5 (N)
11.4 (L)
12.7 (N)
3.9 (L)
11.0 (L)
13.0 (N)
12.4 (N)
11.7 (L)
14.1 (N)
NF
8.2 (L)
15.4 (N)
6.8 (L)
7.7 (L)
13.6 (N)
7.3 (L)
10.9 (L)
16.6 (N)
13.2 (N)
NF
9.1 (L)
NF
ESR
93
75
1
6
12
125
45
13
2
60
9
3
21
NF
14
35
27
105
9
2
7
NF
NF
NF
RETIC
0.05
0.26
0.97
0.1
0.3
NF
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.11
NF
NF
0.06
0.3
NF
0.11
NF
0.04
NF
NF
0.23
0.17
0.48
NF
WBC: White blood cell; PMN: polymorph nuclear; Lymph: lymphocyte; MONO: monocyte; EOS: eosinophil; PLT: platelet; HB:
hemoglobin; ESR: erythrocyte sedimentation rate; RETIC: reticulocyte; NF: not found.
6556
Patients no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Cytomegalovirus
-
TT Virus
+
-
Bagheri et al.
6557
African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(36), pp. 6558-6564, 20 September, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI: 10.5897/AJMR12.757
ISSN 1996-0808 2012 Academic Journals
Minced meat samples containing 8.3 10 cfu/g determined by total aerobic count (TAC) were subjected
to pressures between 259 to 540 MPa for 3 to 17 min at 6C. A day after pressure treatment, no surviva l
on Plate Count Agar (PCA) was detected in the samples that were treated at and above 300 MPa for 10
min or more after 24 h incubation. However, survivors were detected in the pressure treated samples,
when the incubation period was extended to 72 h, indicating repair of injured cells. Compared to control
samples, number of surviving microorganisms in pressure treated samples increased significantly after
21 days of storage at 3C, thus implicating repair of injured cells was possible at refrigeration
temperatures. Experiments designed to mimic the temperature and acidity in stomach and lower
gastrointestinal tract revealed that microorganisms not inactivated by pressure treatment could not
recover or show viability at the pH of the stomach (3.0), but recovery and growth could potentially occur
at pH of the lower gastrointestinal tract (6.5). The information could be valuable for the food industry
and could imply more stringent controls for increasing the shelf life of foods by high pressure
processing (HPP).
Key words: High hydrostatic pressure, sublethal injury, chilled storage, gastrointestinal tract, injury recovery,
bacterial spores.
INTRODUCTION
High hydrostatic pressure (HHP) has proven to be
efficient for destruction of vegetative bacteria, viruses,
and yeasts, with bacterial spores being more resistant to
pressure (Nakayama et al., 1996). HHP can inactivate
microorganisms at room temperature or in combination
with a low heat treatment while maintaining the main
nutritional and organoleptic properties of foods (Knorr,
1993) and extend shelf-life. Research on the effect of
high pressure on food was carried out already in the
nineteenth century by Hite (1899) who described an
increase in shelf-life for products such as milk, fruit and
other foods (Rendueles et al., 2011). Intensive research
in this field has taken place in the last three decades and
as a result, a range of pressure treated food products
such as fruit preparations, fruit juices, sauces, rice cakes,
sliced cooked meat products, raw squid, guacamole and
oysters are now on the market in Japan, USA and
Europe. However, due to concerns on safety of utilizing
this process for pasteurization or sterilization of food
Bulut
6559
6560
HPP parameters
Pressure (MPa)
Control
259
300
300
400
400
400
400
400
500
500
541
Time (min)
10
10
5
10
10
10
3
17
5
15
10
ND Not detected.
case scenario, the time meat samples spent in lower GI tract was
taken as 10 h instead of 7 h as suggested by Dean and Ma (2004).
Based on these assumptions, the experimental conditions for
testing the effect of pH and temperature on microorganism in the
pressure treated samples were as following:
Enumeration of microorganisms
Statistical analysis
The effect of two main variables; pressure from 200 to 500 MPa,
holding time from 5 to 15 min and their interactions on the
inactivation of microorganisms were designed and studied by the
surface response methodology employing Design-Expert v8
Software (Stat-Ease, Inc. Minneapolis, USA) using central
composite design. Assessment of error was derived from three
times repetition of the centre point of experimental design, which
was set as 400 MPa and 10 min. The parameters of the
experimental design are shown in Table 1.
In order to understand the effect of pressure, pressurization time
and their interactions on inactivation of microorganisms, statistical
Bulut
6561
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
15
500
13
450
11
400
Time (min)
350
7
5
Pressure (MPa)
300
Figure 1. Reduction in the number of microorganisms in HHP treated minced meat samples
after 1 day of storage at 3C as a function of press ure and time. Response surface
constructed based on counts obtained on PCA after 72 h of incubation at 37C.
6562
Survival of
temperature
microorganisms
at
GI
acidity
and
Bulut
6563
6564
African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(36), pp. 6565-6571, 20 September, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI: 10.5897/AJMR12.934
ISSN 1996-0808 2012 Academic Journals
VACSERA, the Holding Company for Biological Products and Vaccines, Giza, 22311, Egypt.
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University, Cairo, 11562, Egypt.
Effective neutralization of chemical biocide is the first step in the accurate evaluation of antiseptics and
disinfectants to avoid overestimation of the biocide activity. The aim of this study is to screen novel
neutralizers (or neutralizer combinations) against different antiseptics and disinfectants that are highly
used in the principle vaccine production facility in Egypt. Neutralizer efficacy (NE) ratios were
determined by comparing the recovery of the challenging index microorganisms from the neutralizing
solution in the presence, or the absence, of the biocide. Neutralizer toxicity (NT) ratios were determined
by comparing the recovery of viable microorganisms in the neutralizer exposed population and the
viability population. An effective and non-toxic neutralizer was initially identified by NE and NT ratios of
0.75 (75% recovery). The most potent neutralizers were 1% physiological peptone water, 0.1 % Tween
80 in 1% physiological peptone, 0.6% sodium thiosulphate and Dey-Engley. Due to the absence of a
universal neutralizer, the evaluation of NE and toxicity is an essential step in testing any new biocide.
The evaluation of neutralizer activity should be carried out separately for each index microorganism
and neutralizer pair to identify the most potent compound in each case.
Key words: Antiseptics, disinfectants, neutralizers.
INTRODUCTION
The appropriate use of effective antiseptics and
disinfectants is crucial to prevent transmission of
pathogenic bacteria or viruses carried in the air, on the
ground or on the hands of workers in clean rooms and
aseptic areas, common in vaccine development facilities
and hospitals (Murtough et al., 2002; Kampfa et al.,
2003). Antiseptics are chemical agents that inhibit or kill
microbial growth and are non-toxic when applied to living
tissues; they are used for antisepsis of skin, mucous
membranes as well as wounds (Kramer, 2000).
Disinfectants are chemical and/or physical agents used to
destroy or irreversibly inactivate many or all of the
pathogenic microorganisms but not necessarily spores
6566
Sheraba et al.
6567
Table 1. Antiseptics and disinfectants used and their dilution and composition.
S/No.
Biocidal
solution
Purpose
Use
dilution
Sanigel
Antiseptic
75%
Ethanol 62%, deionized water, glycerin, perfume oil, PEG-9 Dimethicone, PEG-9, Isostearate and
acrylic polymer (Formulin, Egypt).
Hospidermin
Antiseptic
75%
3
4
5
6
Alcohol
AHD 2000
Sanipine
Sanismell
Antiseptic
Antiseptic
Disinfectant
Disinfectant
75%
75%
1:20
1:20
Lysoformin
3000
Disinfectant
1%
7.5 g Glyoxal, 9.5 g glutaraldehyde, 9.6 g didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, in 100 g (Lysoform,
Berlin).
Trichlorol
Disinfectant
0.75%
9
10
H2O2 25%
Chlorax
Disinfectant
Disinfectant
3%
1:16
Composition
80 g Sodium tosylchloramide. 3H2O, sodium lauryl Sulphate, sodium chloride, fragrance, in 100 g
(Lysoform, Berlin).
Hydrogen peroxide 25% (Roam Chene, Belgium, United Co.).
Sodium hypochlorite, surfactant (Chlorax, Egypt).
RESULTS
All experiments were performed for all biocides shown in
Table 1, in use concentration with all neutralizing
solutions shown in Table 2, for each index microorganism
but data shown is for only 75% recovery in the
presumptive test for both the NE and NT comparisons.
Each test was repeated three times and the average
result was calculated and used for evaluation (Tables 3 to
7). Generally, all neutralizers examined showed some
degree of effectiveness as neutralizing agents and no
detectable toxicity. Physiological peptone water (1%) was
a suitable neutralizer for alcohol, AHD 2000,
Hospidermin, Sanigel, Sanipine and Sanismell for all
challenge organisms except B. subtilis. However, 0.1%
Tween 80 in 1% physiological peptone was the most
effective neutralizer to Sanipine and Sanismell when the
challenge organism was B. subtilis. Sodium thiosulphate
(0.6%) was the most effective neutralizer to Clorox
against all challenge organisms. It was also the most
efficient neutralizer to Trichlorol against all organisms
except P. aeruginosa and B. subtilis. Instead, Dey-Engley
was the neutralizer of choice to Trichlorol against P.
aeruginosa and B. subtilis. Dey-Engley was also the
neutralizer of choice to Lysoformin 3000 for all challenge
organisms. PBS was the effective neutralizer to hydrogen
DISCUSSION
This study is a part of an environmental monitoring
program aimed at identification of the most common
environmental isolates present in the main vaccine
production facility to be followed by the most appropriate
corrective plane. The proper use of disinfectant and
antiseptics and evaluating their biocidal activity is the first
step in the correction program as stated in USP 34
<1172>. Choice of an ideal neutralizer is not always a
trivial task due to the lack of a universal neutralizer.
Many substances like organic matter, QAC, surface
active agents and heavy metals can interfere with the
activity of antimicrobial agents like antiseptics and
disinfectants. Such interference is of great importance to
be taken into consideration when evaluating the
antimicrobial activity and efficacy. A neutralizer is usually
a mixture of interfering substances to which the antiseptic
or disinfectant is sensitive.
In the present study, Lysoformin 3000 showed to be the
6568
Neutralizer
A- 1% Physiological peptone water
Peptone
Sodium chloride
Disodium phosphate
Monopotassium phosphate
0.9% Saline
Composition
10.0 g
5.0 g
3.5 g
1.5 g
1000 ml
1 g/L
6 g/L
2.5 g/L
5 g/L
7 g/L
5 g/L
2.5 g/L
10 g/L
1000 ml
Table 3. Efficacy and toxicity of used neutralizers for disinfectants and antiseptics on S. aureus ATCC 6538 (Index microorganism for Gram-positive bacteria).
S/No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Neutralizer
Sanigel
Hospidermin
Alcohol
AHD 2000
Sanipine
Sanismell
Lysoformin 3000
Chlorax
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
Dey-Engley
0.6% Na2S2O3
Neutralizer exposed
population (CFU)
108
104
107
106
104
103
108
105
Efficacy
Neutralizer with
biocide (CFU)
100
96
97
100
99
98
100
100
Neutralizer
efficiency ratio
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.93
0.95
Neutralizer exposed
population (CFU)
108
104
107
106
104
103
108
105
Toxicity
Viability
population (CFU)
97
88
99
98
100
100
96
94
Recovery
percentage ratio
0.90
0.85
0.93
0.92
0.96
0.97
0.89
0.90
Sheraba et al.
Table 3. Contd.
9
10
Trichlorol
H2O2 25%
0.6% Na2S2O3
PBS
103
108
99
89
0.96
0.82
103
108
93
96
0.90
0.89
Table 4. Efficacy and toxicity of used neutralizers for disinfectants and antiseptics on P. aeruginosa ATCC 9027 (Index microorganism for Gram-negative bacteria).
S/No.
Neutralizer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Sanigel
Hospidermin
Alcohol
AHD 2000
Sanipine
Sanismell
Lysoformin 3000
Chlorax
Trichlorol
H2O2 25%
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
Dey-Engley
0.6% Na2S2O3
0.6% Na2S2O3
PBS
Neutralizer exposed
population (CFU)
108
105
107
108
103
102
103
105
102
105
Efficacy
Neutralizer with
biocide (CFU)
99
96
100
99
96
88
92
100
97
98
Neutralizer
efficiency ratio
0.92
0.91
0.93
0.92
0.93
0.86
0.89
0.95
0.95
0.93
Neutralizer exposed
population (CFU)
108
105
107
108
103
102
103
105
102
105
Toxicity
Viability
population (CFU)
113
113
113
113
113
113
118
118
118
118
Recovery
Percentage ratio
1.05
1.08
1.06
1.05
1.1
1.11
1.15
1.12
1.16
1.12
Table 5. Efficacy and toxicity of used neutralizers for disinfectants and antiseptics on A. niger ATCC 16404 (Index microorganism for fungi).
S/No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Neutralizer
Sanigel
Hospidermin
Alcohol
AHD 2000
Sanipine
Sanismell
Lysoformin 3000
Chlorax
Trichlorol
H2O2 25%
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
Dey-Engley
0.6% Na2S2O3
0.6% Na2S2O3
PBS
Neutralizer exposed
population (CFU)
108
108
108
108
108
108
106
107
107
109
Eficacy
Neutralizer with
biocide (CFU)
96
97
93
92
95
91
93
94
97
98
Neutralizer
efficiency ratio
0.89
0.90
0.86
0.85
0.88
0.84
0.88
0.88
0.91
0.90
Neutralizer exposed
population (CFU)
108
108
108
108
108
108
106
107
107
109
Toxicity
Viability
population (CFU)
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
Recovery
percentage ratio
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.07
1.06
1.06
1.04
6569
6570
Table 6. Efficacy and toxicity of used neutralizers for disinfectants and antiseptics on B. subtilis ATCC 6633 (Index microorganism for spores).
S/No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Chemical
agent name
Neutralizer
Sanigel
Hospidermin
Alcohol
AHD 2000
Sanipine
Sanismell
Lysoformin 3000
Chlorax
Trichlorol
H2O2 25%
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
0.1% Tween in 1% physiological peptone
0.1% Tween in 1% physiological peptone
Dey-Engley
0.6% Na2S2O3
0.6% Na2S2O3
PBS
Neutralizer exposed
population (CFU)
104
104
104
104
105
105
107
108
106
103
Efficacy
Neutralizer with
biocide (CFU)
97
98
95
96
92
97
96
94
92
98
Neutralizer
efficiency ratio
0.93
0.94
0.91
0.92
0.88
0.92
0.90
0.87
0.87
0.95
Neutralizer exposed
population (CFU)
104
104
104
104
105
105
107
108
106
103
Toxicity
Viability population
(CFU)
98
92
94
96
97
98
99
100
100
96
Recovery
Percentage ratio
0.94
0.88
0.90
0.92
0.92
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.93
Table 7. Efficacy and toxicity of used neutralizers for disinfectants and antiseptics on S. hominis (Index microorganism for environmental isolate program).
S/No.
Chemical agent
name
Neutralizer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Sanigel
Hospidermin
Alcohol
AHD 2000
Sanipine
Sanismell
Lysoformin 3000
Chlorax
Trichlorol
H2O2 25%
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
1% Physiological peptone
Dey-Engley
0.6% Na2S2O3
0.6% Na2S2O3
PBS
Neutralizer exposed
population (CFU)
105
104
106
109
105
106
107
105
102
104
Efficacy
Neutralizer with biocide
(CFU)
98
95
92
98
100
93
94
100
97
98
Neutralizer
efficiency ratio
0.93
0.91
0.88
0.90
0.95
0.88
0.88
0.95
0.95
0.94
Neutralizer exposed
population (CFU)
105
104
106
109
105
106
107
105
102
104
Toxicity
Viability population
(CFU)
118
94
100
113
118
113
113
118
118
92
Recovery
percentage ratio
1.12
0.90
94
1.04
1.12
1.07
1.06
1.12
1.16
88
Sheraba et al.
Conclusion
Evaluation of NE and toxicity should be performed prior
to testing of a new biocide. We have determined the most
effective neutralizers for the most common disinfectants
and antiseptics used in the main vaccine production
facility in Cairo, Egypt as a part in an environmental
monitoring program. Based on our findings, 1%
physiological peptone water, 0.1% Tween 80 in 1%
physiological peptone, 0.6% sodium thiosulphate and
Dey-Engley were the most effective. The efficacy of
neutralizers should be determined using several index
test organisms and environmental isolates if detected.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Dr. Hamdalla Hafez
Zedan, chairman of the Egyptian Company for Production
of Vaccines, Sera and Drugs (EGYVAC) for his
continuous support and help in carrying out the study, Dr.
Mohamed Rabei, Chairman of the Holding Company for
Production of Vaccines, Sera and Drugs (VACSERA) for
his continuous encouragement and Dr. Ramy Karam
Aziz, Associate professor at Cairo University for help in
editing the manuscript.
6571
REFERENCES
Adams D, Quayum M, Worthington T, Lambert P, Elliott T (2005).
Evaluation of a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol
skin disinfectant. J. Hosp. Infect. 61:287-290.
Buck SL, Rosenthal RA (1996). A Quantitative Method to Evaluate
Neutralizer Toxicity against Acanthamoeba castellanii. J. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 62(9):3521-3526.
Coates D (1996). Sporicidal activity of sodium dichloroisocyanurate,
peroxygen and glutaraldehyde disinfectants against Bacillus subtilis.
J. Hosp. Infect. 32:283-294.
Elkins JG, Hassett DJ, Stewart PS, Schweizer HP, McDermott TR
(1999). Protective role of catalase in Pseudomonas aeruginosa
biofilm resistance to hydrogen peroxide. J. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
65(10):4594-4600.
Espigares E, Bueno A, Fernandez-Crehuet M, Espigares M (2003).
Efficacy of some neutralizers in suspension tests determining the
activity of disinfectants. J. Hosp. Infect. 55:137-140.
Gorman S, Scott E (2004). Chemical disinfectants, antiseptics and
preservatives. In: Denyer SP, Hodges NA, Gorman SP (eds.) Hugo
and Russells Pharmaceutical Microbiology, Blackwell Sciences Ltd.,
Malden, Massachusetts. pp. 285-305.
Holton J, Shetty N, McDonald V (1995). Efficacy of Nu-Cidex (0.35%
peracetic acid) against mycobacteria and cryptosporidia. J. Hosp.
Infect. 31:235-237.
Jette LP, Ringuette L, Ishak M, Miller M, Saint-Antoine P (1995).
Evaluation of three glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants used in
endoscopy. J. Hosp. Infect. 30:295-303.
Kampf G, Meyer B, Goroncy-Bermes P (2003). Comparison of two test
methods for the determination of sufficient antimicrobial activity of
three commonly used alcohol-based hand rubs for hygienic hand
disinfection. J. Hosp. Infect. 55:220-225.
Kramer A (2000) Hand Disinfection and Antiseptic of Skin, Mucous
Membranes, and Wounds. In: Gabard B, Elsner P, Surber C, Treffel
P (eds.) Dermatopharmacology of Topical Preparations. Springer
Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. pp. 121-134.
Madigan MT, Martinko JM, Parker J (2002). Brock Biology of
Microorganisms.10th edition. Pearson Education Publishers, London,
UK. pp. 696-707.
Mohamed SAS (2004). Studying effect of ph on the antimycotic
performance of some disinfectants by using quantitative suspension
test. Ass. Univ. Bull. Environ. Res. 7(1):47-55.
Murtough SM, Hiomy SJ, Palmerz M, Russell AD (2002). A survey of
rotational use of biocides in hospital pharmacy aseptic units. J. Hosp.
Infect. 50:228-231.
Russell AD (1998). Assesssment of sporicidal efficacy. J. Int.
Biodeteriorat. Biodegradat. 4:281-287.
Rutala WA, Weber DJ (1997). Uses of inorganic hypochlorite (bleach) in
health-care facilities. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 10:597-610.
Rutala WA, Weber DJ (1998). Principles of Disinfecting Patient-Care
Items. In: Champlain WA (editor) Disinfection, Sterilization and
Antiseptics in Health Care. Champlain Polyscience Publishers,
Champlain, New York. pp.133-149.
Sheraba NS, Yassin AS, Amin MA (2010). High-throughput molecular
identification of Staphylococcus spp. isolated from a clean room
facility in an environmental monitoring program. BMC Res. Notes
3:278.
Sutton SV, Wrzosek T, Proud DW (1991). Neutralization efficacy of
Dey-Engley medium in testing of contact lens disinfecting solutions.
J. App. Bacteriol. 70:351-354.
Sutton SV, Proud DW, Rachui S, Brannan DK (2002). Validation of
Microbial Recovery from Disinfectants. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol.
56(5):255-266.
Traore O, Springthorpe VS, Sattar SA (2002). Testing chemical
germicides against Candida species using quantitative carrier and
fingerpad methods. J. Hosp. Infect. 50:66-75.
African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(36), pp. 6572-6575, 20 September, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI: 10.5897/AJMR12.981
ISSN 1996-0808 2012 Academic Journals
Citrullus colocynthis (CCT) is a non-hardy, herbaceous perennial vine, branched from the base.
Originally from Tropical Asia and Africa, it is now widely distributed in the Sistan phytogeographic
region of Iran. In a search of alternative ways to control plant disease, essential oil from seeds of CCT
was examined for antibacterial properties. The seeds are edible and have a high oil content with a large
proportion of linoleic acid (C18:2) which is important for human nutrition and an essential fatty acid
also contains only traces of linolenic acid (C18:3). Antibacterial activity of oil separated from the seeds
was tested against Xanthomonas campestris, Burkholderia cenocepacia, Pseudomonas syringae and
Agrobacterium tumefaciens. The agar disc diffusion method was used to assess inhibitory effect by
measuring the inhibition zone against the test microorganisms. Antibacterial activity of the seeds oil
was confirmed for all bacterial, but with different ranges. This activity was observed to be doseindependent. X. campestris was the most sensitive bacterium tested. A weak inhibitory effect was found
against Pseudomonas syringae. These results offer a scientific basis for the use of C. colocynthis seed
oil to prevent diseases caused by these bacteria.
Key words: Citrullus colocynthis, phytopathogens, agar disc diffusion.
INTRODUCTION
Bacterial pathogens and their control are a serious
problem in agriculture practice. Many of the currently
available antimicrobial agents for agriculture are highly
toxic, non-biodegradable, and cause extended environmental pollution (Vyvyan, 2002). Diseases caused by
pathogens including bacteria and fungi significantly
contribute to the overall loss in crop yields worldwide
(Savary et al., 2006). Despite the existence of plant
defense mechanisms, a major difficulty encountered is
the lack of effective control agents against some severe
plant bacterial diseases. On the other hand, application of
chemical derivatives has effectively controlled the plants
from bacterial disease but this threatens to contaminate
the environment, hindering the management of diseases
in crops and agricultural products (Burhan, 2009). The
search for agents to cure infectious diseases began
*Corresponding
author.
E-mail:
n.sanadgol@uoz.ac.ir,
sanadgol.n@gmail.com. Tel: +98-915-7444696. Fax: +98-5422240696
Mehr et al.
6573
Test microorganisms
The test organisms used in this study (reference strains) were
Xanthomonas
campestris
pv.
Campestris
(ATCC33913),
Pseudomonas syringae pv. Syringae (B728a), Burkholderia
cenocepacia (HI2424) and Agrobacterium tumefaciens (str. C58).
The stock cultures were maintained in nutrient agar (NA) slant at
4C and sub-cultured monthly. Working cultures were pre pared by
inoculating a loopful of each test microorganism in 3 ml of nutrient
broth (NB) from NA slants. Broths were incubated at 37C for 12 h.
The suspension was diluted with sterile distilled water to obtain
approximately 106 CFU/ml.
Antibacterial testing
The seeds oil was tested for antibacterial activity by the disc agar
diffusion method (Murray et al., 1995). Disk diffusion: 5 mm of sterile
disks were incorporated in 100 l of plant extracts (5 mg/disk). The
disk (6 mm in diameter, Whatman No. 1) was completely saturated
with the extract and allowed to dry. Mueller Hinton (MH) agar plates
were swabbed with test bacteria and six extract disks with one of
the standard positive control disks (streptomycin) was placed on the
MH agar plate. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was taken as the
negative control (10% DMSO did not show any antibacterial
activity). The plates were incubated at 37C for 24 h and the
diameter of the inhibition zones were measured in mm.
Minimum inhibitory and minimum bactericidal concentrations
Micro-dilution susceptibility assay was performed using the NCCLS
and CLSI methods for the determination of minimum inhibitory
concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC)
6574
Table 1. Antibacterial activity, Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of seeds oil
of CCT against selected plant pathogenic bacterial.
Bacterial pathogen
Xanthomonas campestris pv. Campestris (ATCC33913)
Pseudomonas syringae pv. Syringae (B728a)
Burkholderia cenocepacia (HI2424)
Agrobacterium tumefaciens (str. C58)
Seeds oil
c
IZ
*
15.00.0
*
8.00.0
14.00.0
*
12.00.0
MIC
35.0
65.2
37.00
81.86
MBC
70.0
65.0
59.0
123.0
Standard
IZ
11.00.0
*
13.00.0
14.00.0
*
15.00.0
MIC
500
350
400
300
oil used at 1,000 g/disc; bStandard: streptomycin (20 g/ml, all values are in g/ml); * P<0.05 significant, cData are expressed as the
diameter of inhibition zones (IZ) in mm; Values are given as an average of triplicate experiments.
Mehr et al.
6575
African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(36), pp. 6576-6579, 20 September, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI: 10.5897/AJMR12.1054
ISSN 1996-0808 2012 Academic Journals
Institute of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Chinese Academy of Agriculture Sciences, Beijing 100193, China.
2
Institute of Transfusion Medicine, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing 100850, China.
Accepted 3 September, 2012
In order to improve and accelerate the detection of West Nile virus (WNV), a rapid and specific real-time
reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR) was established. Primers and probe were
designed according to the conservative sequence of capsid protein gene of WNV. Tenfold successive
dilutions of positive WNV DNA were used to measure the sensitivity of rtRT-PCR. The amplifying curve
1
showed that this method could successfully amplify 10 copies/l WNV gene, while reference to
Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) and blank control were all negative. The assay system showed high
reproducibility with coefficient of variation (CV) < 2%. The detection of WNV can be completed within 2
to 3 h. By detecting cDNA samples (n = 55) with rtRT-PCR and the conventional PCR assay, the
established rtRT-PCR showed 96.36% (37 + 16/55) coincidence rate with the conventional PCR. All the
results showed that the newly established rtRT-PCR assay was shown to be a rapid, sensitive and
specific test for detecting WNV.
Key words: West Nile virus, capsid protein gene, real-time RT-PCR.
INTRODUCTION
West Nile virus (WNV) is an arbovirus (genus Flavivirus;
family Flaviviridae) that was first isolated in a fever
womans blood in Uganda in 1937. WNV has a wide
geographical range that includes portions of Europe,
Asia, Africa, Australia (Kunjin virus) and North, Central
and South America. According to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention of USA, from 1999 to 2010 there
have been over 30,622 human cases of confirmed
symptomatic WNV infection in the USA with over 1163
fatalities (De Filette et al., 2012). In the recent years, it
also was separated from migratory birds in some regions
of Xinjiang Uigur autonomous region of China (Petersen
and Roehrig, 2001; Sambol et al., 2009). WNV is
Shi et al.
Real-time amplification
The standard templates (107 to 103 copies/l) were amplified by
real-time. Real-time PCR was performed in a final volume of 20 l
containing 2 l 10PCR Buffer, 4mM MgCl2, 0.25 mM dNTPs, 2 M
CP1, 2 M CP2, 2 l WNV plasmid DNA templates, 5U TaqTM, 1 M
TaqMan probe. The RT-PCR mixtures were followed by
denaturation at 94C for 5 min and 40 cycles of 94C for 30 s, 60C
for 30 s and 68C for 30 s.
6577
WNV gene segments and JEV gene segments with the same
primers, probe and reaction system of WNV. To measure the
sensitivity of real-time assay for WNV, the assay was performed
using serially diluted standard templates. The reproducibility of intra
assay and inter assay was evaluated by Coefficient of Variance
(CV).
RESULTS
Establishment of real-time PCR standard curve
Ten-fold serial dilutions of the standard templates were
used in the real-time PCR assay. The Ct values for each
dilution were measured in duplicate (Figure 1).
The log-linear regression plot generated from the
collected data showed a strong linear relationship (Figure
2). The regressive equation: Y = -2.225X + 46.375; r =
0.967. By using the regressive equation, we were able to
quantify the amount of unknown samples.
6578
Figure 1. Establishment of the real-time PCR standard curve. 1, 1 107 copies/l; 2, 1 106 copies /l; 3, 1 105 copies/l; 4, 1
104 copies /l; 5, 1 103 copies /l.
Conventional RT-PCR
Positive
Negative
Total
Real-time PCR
Positive
Negative
37
0
2
16
39
16
Total
37
18
55
DISCUSSION
Although virus isolation is still considered as the gold
standard, it needs high-security laboratories and many
days to obtain results. The novel real-time RT-PCR
assays for the detection of WNV, which are faster and
Shi et al.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study was supported by the Central Public-interest
Scientific Institution Basal Research Funds (2010 JS-2)
of China.
REFERENCES
Alonso-Padilla J, Jimnez de Oya N, Blzquez AB, Loza-Rubio E,
Escribano JM, Saiz JC, Escribano-Romero E (2010). Evaluation of an
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of West Nile virus
infection based on a recombinant envelope protein produced in
Trichoplusia ni larvae. J. Virol. Methods 166(1-2):37-41.
Bakonyi T, Hublek Z, Rudolf I, Nowotny N (2005). Novel flavivirus or
new lineage of West Nile virus, central Europe. Emerg. Infect. Dis.
11(2): 225-231.
Bakonyi T, Ivanics E, Erdlyi K, Ursu K, Ferenczi E, Weissenbck H,
Nowotny N (2006). Lineage 1 and 2 strains of encephalitic West Nile
virus, central Europe. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 12(4):618-623.
Bennett S, Carman WF, Simmonds , Harvala H, Witteveldt J, McWilliam
Leitch EC, McLeish N, Templeton K, Gunson RP (2011). Rapid
simultaneous detection of enterovirus and parechovirus RNAs in
clinical samples by one-step real-time reverse transcription-PCR
assay. J. Clin. Microbiol. 49(7):2620-2624.
6579
Brault AC, Huang CY, Langevin SA, Kinney RM, Bowen RA, Ramey
WN, Panella NA, Holmes EC, Powers AM, Miller BR (2007). A single
positively selected West Nile viral mutation confers increased
virogenesis in American crows. Nat. Genet. 39(9):1162-1166.
Dauphin G, Zientara S (2007). West Nile virus: recent trends in
diagnosis and vaccine development. Vaccine 25(30):5563-5576.
De Filette M, Ulbert S, Diamond M, Sanders NN (2012). Recent
progress in West Nile virus diagnosis and vaccination. Vet. Res. 43:
1-16.
Esteves A, Almeida AP, Galo RP, Parreira R, Piedade J, Rodrigues JC,
Sousa CA, Novo MT (2005). West Nile virus in Southern Portugal,
2004. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis., 5(4): 410-413.
Figuerola J, Soriguer R, Rojo G, Gmez Tejedor C, Jimenez-Clavero MA
(2007). Seroconversion in wild birds and local circulation of West Nile
virus, Spain. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 13(12):1915-1917.
Jansen RR, Schinkel J, Koekkoek S, Pajkrt D, Beld M, de Jong MD,
Molenkamp R (2011). Development and evaluation of a four-tube real
time multiplex PCR assay covering fourteen respiratory viruses, and
comparison to its corresponding single target counterparts. J. Clin.
Virol. 51(3):179-185.
Komar N, Langevin S, Hinten S, Nemeth N, Edwards E, Hettler D, Davis
B, Bowen R, Bunning M (2003). Experimental infection of North
American birds with the New York 1999 strain of West Nile virus.
Emerg. Infect. Dis. 9(3):311-22.
Lanciotti RS, Kerst AJ, Nasci RS, Godsey MS, Mitchell CJ, Savage HM,
Komar N, Panella NA, Allen BC, Volpe KE, Davis BS, Roehrig JT
(2000). Rapid detection of West Nile virus from human clinical
specimens, field-collected mosquitoes, and avian samples by a
TaqMan reverse transcriptase-PCR assay. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38(11):
4066-4071.
Mackay IM, Arden KE, Nitsche A (2002). Real-time PCR in virology.
Nucleic Acids Res. 30(6):1292-1305.
Nicolle LE, Gutkin A, Smart G, Dawood M, Drebot M, Van Caeseele P,
Giulivi A, Minuk G (2004). Serological studies of West Nile virus in a
liver transplant population. Can. J. Infect. Dis. Med. Microbiol.
15(5):271-274.
Petersen LR, Roehrig JT (2001). West Nile virus: a reemerging global
pathogen. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7(4):611-614.
Wacharapluesadee S, Phumesin P, Supavonwong P, Khawplod P,
Intarut N, Hemachudha T (2011). Comparative detection of rabies
RNA by NASBA, real-time PCR and conventional PCR. J. Virol.
Methods. 175(2):278-282.
Wodak E, Richter S, Bag Z, Revilla-Fernndez S, Weissenbck H,
Nowotny N, Winter P (2011). Detection and molecular analysis of
West Nile virus infections in birds of prey in the eastern part of Austria
in 2008 and 2009. Vet. Microbiol. 149(3-4):358-366.
Yang JL, Cheng AC, Wang MS, Pan KC, Li M, Guo YF, Li CF, Zhu DK,
Chen XY(2009). Development of a fluorescent quantitative real-time
polymerase chain reaction assay for the detection of Goose
Parvovirus in vivo. Virol. J. 6:142.
Yeh JY, Lee JH, Seo HJ, Park JY, Moon JS, Cho IS, Lee JB, Park SY,
Song CS, Choi IS (2010). Fast duplex one-step reverse transcriptase
PCR for rapid differential detection of West Nile and Japanese
encephalitis viruses. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48(11):4010-4014.
African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(36), pp. 6580-6588, 20 September, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI: 10.5897/AJMR12.1204
ISSN 1996-0808 2012 Academic Journals
The Olifants River has been described as one of the most environmentally polluted rivers in Southern
Africa, particularly in the upper catchment. Untreated water from the catchment may be used for many
purposes including irrigation, recreation, consumption, and domestic purposes. As poor quality water
remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, it is essential to understand the health risks that the
water users in the Olifants catchment are exposed to. The aim of this research was to identify the extent
of the microbiological pollution in the upper Olifants River catchment and determine the sources of the
microbial contaminants by monitoring faecal indicator levels and selected water-borne pathogens. It
was shown that sections of the upper Olifants River catchment are highly contaminated with faecal
indicator bacteria and pathogenic micro-organisms. A quantitative microbial risk assessment was also
performed and it showed that the polluted waters pose an unacceptably high risk to water users within
this catchment. In all regions where extreme levels of faecal pollution were observed, the source could
be traced back to inadequate wastewater treatment. The microbial water quality in the upper Olifants
River catchment could therefore be remediated to a large extent by ensuring proper functioning of
wastewater treatment works.
Key words: Faecal indicator organisms, Olifants river catchment, wastewater, pathogens, quantitative microbial
risk assessment, microbial water quality.
INTRODUCTION
In South Africa where water is a scarce resource, the
water quality of natural resources is of paramount
importance. Apart from serving as a source of drinking
water (treated or untreated), water needs to be fit for a
variety of other domestic and economic activities. The
Olifants River is presently one of the most threatened
river systems in South Africa (Ballance et al., 2001; Van
Vuuren, 2009). There is an intense demand for natural
resources in the catchment, and rigorous mining activities
occur in most of the nine secondary catchments. The
South African Department of Water Affairs State of the
Rivers Report on the Olifants River system, states that
river ecosystems in this area are generally in a poor to
fair condition. Mining-related disturbances were seen as
*Corresponding author.
(+27)12 841 2189.
E-mail:
wleroux@csir.co.za.
Tel:
Roux et al.
6581
Figure 1. The upper Olifants River catchment study area. Routine sampling sites, numbered from
1 to 12, are indicated.
6582
Description
Formulae
Reference
Equation 1
Pi 1 1
(2 1)
N 50
Equation 2
Pi 1 (1 d / )^
Equation 3
Pi 1 exp( rN )
WHO
(2001)
Haas et al.
(1999)
Haas et al.
(1996)
Microbial monitoring
Microbial water quality was monitored over a two year period.
During the first year, faecal indicator counts (E. coli) levels were
monitored bi-monthly at eleven sampling sites (Figure 1). Sampling
at site 7 (included initially) was discontinued as the stream was
contaminated with industrial pollution to a point where no viable
bacteria could be detected. Pathogens (Salmonella species,
Shigella species, Vibrio cholerae, Giardia species, Cryptosporidium
species, Norovirus and Enterovirus) were tested for (bi-monthly) at
the sites that exhibited high E. coli counts (Table 2). Faecal
indicator counts were also measured at 12 additional sites during
the year to aid in identifying sources of microbial pollution, and on
average, these sites were monitored on three different occasions.
During the second year, 86 sample sites (Global Positioning
System (GPS) coordinates available on request) were monitored for
E. coli during low flow conditions using a once-off sampling
approach.
Quantification of E. coli was determined using the Colilert Most
Probable Number (MPN) method (IDEXX, USA). This was carried
out according to the manufacturers protocol. For detection of
Salmonella spp., one litre water samples were filtered and the
filtrate incubated overnight in 30 ml of Selenite Broth (Merck,
Germany). Cells were harvested from the broth and the DNA was
extracted using InstaGene Matrix (Biorad Technologies, USA).
Salmonella was detected by real-time polymerase chain reaction
(PCR) targeting the invA gene (Malorny et al., 2003). Bacteria
belonging to the genus Shigella were detected by concentrating
one litre water samples (by filtration), followed by overnight
incubation of the filtrate in 30 ml of Peptone Broth (Biolab, South
Africa). Cells were harvested from the broth and DNA was extracted
using InstaGene Matrix (Biorad Technologies, USA). Shigella
(virulent types) and/or enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC) were detected
by real-time PCR targeting the ipaH (invasion plasmid antigen)
gene (Theron et al., 2001).
For the detection of V. cholerae, one litre water samples were
filtered and the filtrate was incubated overnight in 30 ml Alkaline
Peptone Water (APW) (Merck, Germany). Cells were harvested
from the broth and DNA was extracted using InstaGene Matrix
(Biorad Technologies, USA). For the detection of V. Cholerae (all
strains) the gene coding for the Outer Membrane Protein (ompW)
was targeted using real-time PCR (Nandi et al., 2000; le Roux and
van Blerk, 2011). For the detection of enterotoxigenic strains, the
ctxAB genes were targeted in a real-time PCR amplifying a section
of the cholera toxin A and B sub-unit (Goel et al., 2005; le Roux and
van Blerk, 2011).
RESULTS
Eleven sites (Figure 1) within the upper Olifants River
catchment were monitored on five occasions (bi-monthly)
over one year for faecal indicator levels. Six of these sites
(located in the Olifants-, Wilge- and Klip River, and
tributaries of the Klein Olifants River) were also
monitored for the presence and/or levels of seven waterborne pathogens. A summary of the monitoring data is
provided in Table 2.
High levels of E. coli were recorded at three sites (Sites
6, 8, and 9), and these sampling points were all located in
urban areas and were directly downstream of wastewater
treatment works (WWTWs). A fourth sampling point (Site
Roux et al.
6583
Table 2. Summary of pathogen and indicator organism detection results for five sampling rounds.
Site
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Site 8
Site 9
Site 10
Site 11
Site 12
E. coli (average)
most probable
number/100 ml
34
264
441
364
611
44,110
15,999
13,632
2,319
723
163
Norovirus
(average)
virions/10 L
ND
ns
ns
ns
ns
162
48
828
ND
ND
ns
Mean counts
Enterovirus
(average)
virions/10 L
ND
ns
ns
ns
ns
1620
ND
2760
ND
ND
ns
Giardia
(average)
cysts/10 L
0.5
ns
ns
ns
ns
ND
ND
0.25
7.5
1
ns
Cryptosporidium
(average)
cysts/10 L
ND
ns
ns
ns
ns
ND
ND
0.25
1.2
0.25
ns
Salmonella (%
detection out of
5 samples)
40
ns
ns
ns
ns
80
80
80
40
40
ns
Percentage detection
Shigella (%
Vibrio cholerae
(% detection out
detection out of 5
of 5 samples)
samples)
ND
ND
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
20
60
40
60
100
80
60
ND
60
ND
ns
ns
ns: Not scheduled, ND: not detected. Site 7 is not included in the table as no viable micro-organisms were detected in early sampling efforts, and sampling at this site was discontinued.
Percentage
(%)
6584
Percentage
(%)
Figure 2. Combined probability of infection (Pi) for the seven water-borne pathogens monitored in this
study.
Figure 3. Risk of infection calculated using E. coli as a surrogate for water-borne pathogens.
Roux et al.
DISCUSSION
Faecal indicator levels
Many sampling sites had high counts of E. coli, indicating
that sections of the upper Olifants River system were
heavily contaminated by faecally derived microbes (Table
2). Sites that exhibited lower numbers of E. coli were
generally located in regions of lower population density,
whereas sampling sites located closer to settlements and
towns generally had higher counts. The exceptions to this
rule were two sites located in tributaries of the Klein
Olifants River. The periodically high counts observed
here could be explained by runoff from nearby cattle
feedlots. Indicator counts for sites that were not directly
6585
Pathogen monitoring
Bacterial pathogens were readily detected at the sampled
sites, with Salmonella being the most prevalent (Table 2).
Salmonella causes diseases such as typhoid and
paratyphoid. The widespread occurrence of this organism
in waters from the upper Olifants River catchment is a
concern. This bacteria remains an important pathogen,
with an estimated 216,000 deaths per year (globally)
attributed to typhoid (Crump et al., 2004). Another
devastating disease, dysentery, causes an estimated 1
million deaths per year globally (Niyogi, 2005). Dysentery
is caused by the bacteria of the genus Shigella, and was
readily detected at three sampling sites in the upper
Olifants River catchment (Table 2). The causative agent
of cholera is the bacterium V. cholerae, and more
specifically enterotoxigenic V. cholerae sub-types.
Although, V. cholerae was widely detected in water from
the upper Olifants River (Table 2), none of these strains
were enterotoxigenic. The detected strains cannot cause
epidemic cholera, but may cause sporadic disease as
non-toxigenic strains may cause opportunistic infections
(Bubshait et al., 2000). Predictably, the sites that had the
highest faecal indicator (E. coli) counts also harboured
microbial pathogens more often (Table 2), highlighting
the value of indicator bacteria during monitoring (Wu et
al., 2011).
The protozoan parasites (Giardia and Cryptosporidium)
were detected at two sampling sites; sites 10 and 11
(Table 2), situated in close proximity and directly
downstream
of
cattle
feedlots.
Giardia
and
Cryptosporidium are associated with livestock farming
and domesticated animals (Olsona et al., 1997; Traub,
2008). It is highly likely that the parasites detected
originate from the cattle feedlots. Rainfall events, and the
associated run-off, can cause higher loads of the
pathogens to be present in regional waters. Giardia and
Cryptosporidium can survive for extended periods as
(oo)cysts, and have low infectious doses (Adam, 2001;
DuPont et al., 1995; Guillot and Loret, 2010). In addition,
disease caused by Cryptosporidium is difficult to treat,
and is a concern for immuno-compromised individuals
6586
Roux et al.
Conclusion
It was shown that sections of the upper Olifants River
catchment are highly contaminated with faecal indicator
bacteria and pathogenic micro-organisms. Data from the
quantitative microbial risk assessment also showed that
the polluted waters pose an unacceptably high risk to
water users within this catchment. Making use of E. coli
data as a surrogate for the possibility of other pathogens
in the quantitative microbial risk assessment resulted in
very similar probabilities of infection, illustrating the value
of E. coli in a quantitative microbial risk assessment.
Diffuse sources may be responsible for a portion of the
observed faecal pollution, but in most cases the
contamination associated with diffuse sources (such as
informal and formal housing areas) was a few orders of
magnitude lower than that of the point sources identified.
6587
6588
London, UK.
Haas CN, Rose JB, Gerba C, Regli S (1993). Risk assessment of virus
in drinking water. Risk Anal. 13:545552.
Haas CN, Crockett C, Rose JB, Gerba C, Fazil, A (1996). Infectivity of
Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. J. Am. Water Works Assoc.
88:131136.
Haas CN, Rose JB, Gerba CP (1999). Quantitative Microbial Risk
Assessment. John Wiley and Sons, Canada.
le Roux WJ, van Blerk GH (2011). The use of a high resolution melt
real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for the
environmental monitoring of Vibrio cholerae. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 5:
3520-3526.
Loague K, Corwin DL (2005). Water quality and biogeochemistry: Point
and nonpoint source pollution. In: Anderson MG (ed) Encyclopaedia
of Hydrological Sciences, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp.14271439.
Loisy F, Atmar RL, Guillon P, Le CP, Pommepuy M, Guyader FS
(2005). Real-time RT-PCR for norovirus screening in shellfish. J.
Virol. Methods 123:1-7.
Malorny B, Hoorfar J, Bunge C, Helmuth R (2003). Multicenter
validation of the analytical accuracy of Salmonella PCR: towards an
international standard. App. Environ. Microbiol. 69:290296.
Nandi B, Nandy RK, Mukhopadhyay S, Nair GB, Shimada T, Ghose AC
(2000). Rapid method for species-specific identification of Vibrio
cholerae using primers targeted to the gene of the outer membrane
protein ompw. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38:41454151.
Niyogi SK (2005). Shigellosis. J. Microbiol. 43:133-43.
Olsona M, Thorlakson, CL, Deselliers L, Morck DW, McAllister TA
(1997). Giardia and Cryptosporidium in Canadian farm animals. Vet.
Parasitol. 68: 375-381.
Strachan NJC, Doyle MP, Kasuga F, Rotariu O, Ogden ID (2005). Dose
response modelling of Escherichia coli O157 incorporating data from
foodborne and environmental outbreaks. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 103:
35-47.
African Journal of Microbiology Research Vol. 6(36), pp. 6589-6599, 20 September, 2012
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR
DOI: 10.5897/AJMR12.1505
ISSN 1996-0808 2012 Academic Journals
Division of Microbiology, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Taif, P.O. Box 888, Taif, Saudi
Arabia.
2
Division of Microbiology, Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Sohag University, Sohag (82524), Egypt.
3
Division of Zoology, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Taif, P.O. Box 888, Taif, Saudi Arabia.
Accepted 22 August, 2012
INTRODUCTION
Bacteriocins produced by animal-associated bacteria
might be one of the most potent weapons of these
animals to fight against infectious diseases. In addition,
bacteriocinogenic bacteria may prevent pathogen
dissemination by occupying the same ecological niche.
Bacteriocinogenic bacteria associated with animals are a
relevant source for isolation of probiotics. At higher
temperatures as climate change, numerous bacteria
exhibit greater virulence because of reduced resistance
6590
into the north-west of the city. The terrain is a more sandy stony
area, with scattered farms.
Trapping was conducted by using Tomahawk live trap, model
208, which have double-door wire trap, about 40 40 108 cm in
size. Thirteen animals were captured and anaesthetized with
mixture of ketamine (10% solution) and xylazine (5% solution) at
ratio 3:2, injected intramuscularly using 1 ml syringes (Kreeger et
al., 1990). Samples were taken from oral cavity of foxes by swabs
and then transported immediately to the laboratory. After taking
samples, the foxes were released to the same area from which they
are captured.
6591
Organism
S. faecalis ATCC 19433
S. pyogenes ATCC 19615
S. mutans, Lab. isolate
S. pneumoniae, Lab. isolate
E. coli ATCC 11229
E. faecalis, Lab. isolate
L. monocytogenes S39, Lab isolate
S. aureus ATCC 9664
S. epidermidis ATTC 12228
Micrococcus luteus A102, Lab. isolate
Micrococcus roseus R76, Lab. isolate
B. cereus ATCC1 1778
Bacillus subtilis R89, Lab. isolate
S. typhimurium ATCC 13311
S. paratyphi R46, Lab. isolate
S. enteritidis, Lab. isolate
P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442
Shigella species A23, Lab. isolate
S. sonnei ATCC 25931
S. dysenteriae A20, Lab isolate
6592
Statistical analysis
All analyses were carried out according to one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) and assessed by post hoc comparison of means
using lowest significant differences (LSD) using Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS) 11.0 software. They were considered
significant at P < 0.05 level. The experiments were performed in
triplicate.
6593
Treatment
Proteinase K
Papain
Trypsin
Pepsin
Catalase
Lysozyme
-amylase
Lipase
37C for 30 min
50C for 30 min
90C for 30 min
120C for 20 min
+, Presence of inhibition activity after treatment; -, Loss of inhibition activity after treatment.
pH
3
5
7
9
11
12 h at 37C
+
+
+
+
-
+, Presence of inhibition activity after treatment; -, Loss of inhibition activity after treatment.
6594
706
1000
493
Lactobacillus salivarius HO 66
728
Lactobacillus salivarius P2
549
0.01
Figure 1. Phylogenetic tree of L. salivarius strains and related bacteria based on 16S
rDNA gene sequence. Boot values were based on 1000 replicates. Scale shows
percentage of substitutions per nucleotide position.
Bacteriocin production
The antimicrobial activity of L. salivarius AA13 was
determined after 2 h of incubation. The highest
concentration was obtained between 8 and 10 h of
incubation, with titers of 1,400 AU/ml of supernatant. The
production kinetic is as shown in Figure 3. These results
indicated that the antimicrobial compound was produced
continuously during growth phase. However, the
maximum level of inhibition was detected at the
beginning of mid-log phase and remained constant at
stationary phase. Previous study reported that the
activity of antimicrobial substance produced by L.
salivarius CRL1384 was detected after 3 h of incubation,
while between 9 and 12 h, the highest concentration
(1,280 AU/ml) was detected (Audisio and Apella, 2006).
Moreover, a bacteriocin produced by L. salivarius CRL
1328 demonstrated the highest level of antimicrobial
production during the late exponential phase (Ocana et
al., 1999).
Mode of action
Mode of action of the antimicrobial substance produced
6595
14
12
10
8
6
4
100)
16
2
0
0
20
40
60
Time (day)
Figure 2. Effect of time at different temperature values on the activity of
antimicrobial compound produced by L. salivarius AA13 during storage. Culture
supernatants were stored at 37C (), 4C () and -20C (). The inhibitory
activity was determined by well diffusion assay using L. monocytogenes as
indicator strain.
6596
16
2.5
1.5
8
1
6
4
(OD
10
2
12
100)
14
0.5
2
0
0
0
12
16
Time (h)
20
24
28
emergence
of
antibiotic-resistant
microorganisms
(Patterson and Burkholder, 2003; Reid and Friendship,
2002).
6597
2.2
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
(OD
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
Time (h)
Figure 4. Mode of action of antimicrobial compound produced by L. salivarius AA13. L.
monocytogenes was grown in LB without bacteriocin () and with bacteriocin () at 37C.
The time of adding culture supernatant is indicated by arrow.
Antibiotic tested
Chloramphenicol
Gentamicin
Polymixin
Tobramycin
Ampicillin
Amikacin
Fusidic acid
Cefoxitin
Carbenicillin
Amoxycillin/Clavulanic acid
Netilmicin
Penicillin
Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole
Ampicillin/Sulbactam
Rifampin
Colistin
Nalidixic acid
*S, sensitive; R, resistant.
Antibiotic code
C
GM
PB
TM
AM
AN
FA
FOX
CB
AMC
NET
P
SXT
SAM
RA
CS
NA
Disk load
30 g
10 g
300 UI
10 g
10 g
30 g
10 g
30 g
100 g
20/10 g
30 g
6 g
1.25/23.75 g
10/10 g
5 g
10 g
30 g
Mode of action
Protein synthesis inhibitor
Protein synthesis inhibitor
Disruption of inner and outer cell membrane
Protein synthesis inhibitor
Cell wall synthesis inhibitor
Protein synthesis inhibitor
Protein synthesis inhibitor
Cell wall synthesis inhibitor (-lactam)
Cell wall synthesis inhibitor
Cell wall synthesis inhibitor
Protein synthesis inhibitor
Cell wall synthesis inhibitor
Folic acid and DNA synthesis inhibitor
Cell wall synthesis inhibitor
DNA-dependent RNA synthesis inhibitor
Disruption of outer cell membrane
DNA synthesis inhibitor
Response
S*
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
R*
S
S
S
S
S
6598
6599
UPCOMING CONFERENCES
African Journal of
Microbiology Research