Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:18:55.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Preliminary Note on Inhibition of Bacterial Growth by Amino-acids1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

While amino-acids in appropriate concentrations have long been known as valuable aids to bacterial growth, it does not appear to have been recognised that in relatively low concentrations they are often inhibitory.

Inhibition has been shown to occur with 10 out of 11 single amino-acids tested and with certain mixtures rich in amino-acids. The inhibitory concetration varies from 11 to 130 millimols per litre, or from 0·2 to 2%(wt./vol. ). It is of some intrest that the amino-acids inhibitory in the lowest concentration were the cyclic compounds—histidine, tyrosine, tryphane, phenylalamine. Of the chain compounds tested cystine was the most inhibitory.

Several organisus belonging to various groups of bacteria are susceptible of inhibition by amino-acids; certain intestinal organisms are not susceptible. The effect cannot be attributed to the physical effects of high concentration.

There is an apparent divergence between our results and those of workers who have recommended tryptic digests for stimulating the growth of some of the bacteria here shown to be readily inhibited by amino-acids. A suggested explanation of this divergence is that it is the products of partial protein digestion, the polypetides, which are mainly responsible for the effect of stimulating growth, not the amino-acids. A “polypeptide medium” might prove particularly valuable for bacterial growth.

A metabolism experiment with glycine in high but sub-inhibitory concentration showed that the amino-acid is broken down by Staphylococcus aureus, at this concentration.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1923

References

REFERENCES

Bainbridge, (1911). J. of Hyg. II. 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, and Rettger, (1918). J. Bact. III. 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunker, (1919). J. Bact. IV. 401406.Google Scholar
Burrows, and Neymann, (1919). Johns Hopk. Hosp. Rep. XVIII. 341.Google Scholar
Cole, and Lloyd, (1916–17). J. Path. and Bact. XXI. 267.Google Scholar
Cole, and Onslow, (1916). Lancet, II. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, (1918–19). Ind. J. Med. Res. VI. 148.Google Scholar
Davis, and Ferry, (1919). J. Bact. IV. 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, (1914). Lancet, II. 891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, and Dubin, (1920). J. Biol. Chem. XXXXIV. 487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, (1916–17). J. Path. and Bact. XXI. 113.Google Scholar
Long, (1919–20). Amer. Rev. of Tuber. III. 86.Google Scholar
McLeod, and Wyon, (1921). J. Path. and Bact. XXIV. 205.Google Scholar
Norris, (1918–19). Ind. J. Med. Res. VI. 174, 569.Google Scholar
Rettger, , Berman, and Sturges, (1916). J. Bact. I. 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar