Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:10:57.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cell-surface hydrophobicity of Staphylococcus saprophyticus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

P. F. Schneider  and
T. V. Riley
P. F. Schneider
Affiliation:
Western Diagnostic Pathology, Myaree, Western Australia 6154
T. V. Riley*
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, University of Western Australia and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre, Nedlands, Western Australia 6009
*
* Author for correspondence.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The cell-surface hydrophobicity of 100 urinary isolates of Staphylococcus saprophyticus, cultured from symptomatic females in the general population, was assessed using a two-phase aqueous: hydrocarbon system. Relatively strong cell-surface hydrophobicity was exhibited by 79 isolates using the criteria employed, while only 2 of the remaining 21 isolates failed to demonstrate any detectable hydrophobicity. Cell-surface hydrophobicity may be a virulence factor of S. saprophyticus. important in adherence of the organism to uroepithelia. Additionally, the data support the concept that cell-surface hydrophobicity may be a useful predictor of clinical significance of coagulase-negative staphylococci isoated from clinical sources.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 106 , Issue 1 , February 1991 , pp. 71 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

References

1.Hovelius, B, Mardh, PA. Staphylococcus saprophyticus as a common cause of urinary tract infections. Rev Infect Dis 1984; 6: 328–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Kloos, WE, Schleifer, KH. Staphylococci. In: Buchanan, RE, Gibbons, NE, eds. Bergey's manual of determinative bacteriology, 8th ed.Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1974; 1013–35.Google Scholar
3.Hovelius, B., Mardh, PA. Haemagglutination by Staphylococcus saprophyticus and other staphylococcal species. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand Sect B 1979; 87: 45–50.Google Scholar
4.Johnson, GM, Lee, DA, Regelmann, WE, Gray, ED, Peters, G, Quie, PH. Interference with granulocyte function by Staphylococcus epidermidis slime. Infect Immun 1986; 54: 13–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Christensen, GD, Simpson, WA, Bisno, AL, Beachey, EH. Adherence of slime producing strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis to smooth surfaces. Infect Immun 1982; 37: 318–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Davenport, DS, Massanari, RM, Pfaller, MA, Bale, MJ, Streed, SA, Hierholzer, SJ. Usefulness of a test for slime production as a marker of clinical significant infections with coagulase-negative staphyloccoei. J Infect Dis 1986; 153: 332–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Colleen, S, Hovelius, B, Wieslanders, A, Mardh, PA. Surface properties of Staphylococcus saprophyticus and Staphylococcus epidermidis as studied by adherence tests and two polymer, aqueous phase systems. Acta Pathol Microbial Scand Sect B 1979; 16: 322–5.Google Scholar
8.Mardh, PA, Colleen, S, Hovelius, B. Attachment of bacteria to exfoliated cells from the urogenital tract. Invest Urol 1979; 16: 322–5.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Hogt, AH, Dankert, J, Feigen, J. Adhesion of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus saprophyticus onto a hydrophobic biomaterial. J Gen Microbiol 1985; 131: 2485–91.Google Scholar
10.Fleer, A, Verhoef, J, Hernqndez, AP. Coagulase-negative staphylococci as nosocomial pathogens in neonates – the role of host defense, artificial devicesand bacterial hydrophobicity. Am J Med 1986; 80 (suppl 6B): 161–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Tylewska, SK, Hjerten, S, Wadstrom, T. Contribution of M protein to the hydrophobic surface properties of Streptococcus pyogenes. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1979; 6: 249–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Wadstrom, T, Hjerten, S, Jonsson, P, Tylewska, S. Hydrophobic surface properties of Staph aureus, Staph saprophyticus and Strep pyogenes: a comparative study. In: Jeljaszwicsz, J, ed. Staphylococci and staphylococcal infections. Stuttgart: Fisher, 1981: 441–7.Google Scholar
13.Kasprowicz, A, Bialecka, A, Heczko, PB. Surface properties of Staphylococcus saprophyticus strains isolated from various sources. Zentral Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg A 1987; Suppl 16: 77–81.Google Scholar
14.Martin, PA, Pfaller, MA, Massanari, RM, Wenzel, RP. Use of cellular hydrophobicity, slime production, and species identification markers for the clinical significance of coagulase-negative staphylococcal isolates. Am J Infect Control 1989; 17: 130–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Nicolle, LE, Hoban, S, Harding, GKM. Characterization of coagulase-negative staphylococci from urinary tract specimens. J Clin Microbiol 1983; 17: 267–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Kloos, WE, Schleifer, K. Simplified scheme for routine identification of human Staphylococcus species. J. Clin Microbiol 1975; 1: 82–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Fowler, JE, Stamey, TA. Studies of introital colonisation in women with recurrent urinary tract infection. VII. The role of bacterial adherence. J Urol 1977; 177: 472–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Kallenius, G, Svenson, SB, Mollby, R et al. , Carbohydrate receptor structures recognized by uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Scand J Infect Dis (Suppl B) 1982; 33: 52–60.Google Scholar
19.Schmidt, H, Buhholm, G, Holberg-Petersen, M. Adhesiveness and invasiveness of Staphylococcal species in a cell culture model. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 1989; 97: 655–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Almeida, RJ, Jorgensen, JH.. Comparison of adherence and urine growth rate properties of Staphylococcus saprophyticus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1984; 3: 542–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Arp, LH. Bacterial infection of mucosal surfaces: an overview of cellular and molecular mechanisms. In: Roth, JA, ed. Virulence mechanisms of bacterial pathogens. Washington: ASM, 1988: 6–8.Google Scholar
22.Pascual, A, Fleer, A, Westerdaal, NAG, Berghuis, M, Verhoef, J. Surface hydrophobicity and opsonic requirements of coagulase-negative staphylococci in suspension and adhering to a polymer substratum. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1988; 7: 161–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Schmidt, H, Naumann, G, Putzke, HP. Detection of different fimbriae-like structures on a surface of Staphylococcus saprophyticus. Zentral Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg A 1988; 2658: 223–37.Google Scholar
24.Romero-Steiner, S, Witek, T. Balish, E. Adherence of skin bacteria to human epithelial cells. J Clin Microbiol 1990; 28: 27–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Ljungh, A, Wadstrom, T. Salt aggregation test for measuring cell-surface hydrophobicity of urinary Escherichia coli. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1982; 1: 388–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Ljungh, A, Wadstrom, T. Fimbriation in relation to hydrophobicity of bacteria in urinary tract infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1984; 3: 568–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed