Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T12:45:53.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

618. Host-phage relationship of cheese starter organisms: I. Interaction of phage races with a strain of Streptococcus lactis and its lysogenic and resistant derivatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

J. Czulak  and
Jill Naylor
J. Czulak
Affiliation:
Dairy Research Section, C.S.I.R.O., Melbourne, Australia
Jill Naylor
Affiliation:
Dairy Research Section, C.S.I.R.O., Melbourne, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A lysogenic culture, prepared in the laboratory from a strain of Streptococcus lactis, was used as a cheese starter in commercial factories. It was attacked in turn by two other unrelated phage races. The lysogenic condition, which involved slight morphological and physiological changes, persisted in the subsequent forms resistant to one or both the new phage races. Acquired resistance to any one of the three phages did not protect the culture from the other two phages.

In nature such interactions between phage races and lactic acid bacteria must be constantly taking place, giving rise to similarly related strains.

Two of the three phage races produced spreading haloes around their plaques due to a lysin released during phage action. The lysin may also interfere with the survival of secondary growth after attack by these phage races. Production of this type of lysin is thus a property of the phage race and not of the bacterial strain.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , February 1956 , pp. 120 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Hunter, G. J. E. & Whitehead, H. R. (1949). J. Dairy Res. 16, 368.Google Scholar
(2)Deryabina, E. N. (1953). Mikrobiologiya, 22, (4), 452.Google Scholar
(3)Meanwell, L. J. & Symons, J. M. (1953). Proc. 13th int. Dairy Congr., The Hague, 3, 1109.Google Scholar
(4)Reiter, B. (1949). Nature, Lond., 164, 667.Google Scholar
(5)Pette, J. W. (1953). Proc. 13th int. Dairy Congr., The Hague, 3, 1180.Google Scholar
(6)Czulak, J., & Meanwell, L. J. (1951). Proc. Soc. appl. Bact. 14, 1.Google Scholar
(7)Jago, G. R. (1954). J. Dairy Res. 21, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Lwoff, A., Simonovitch, L. & Kjeldgaard, N. (1950). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 79, 815.Google Scholar
(9)Lwoff, A. (1953). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 84, 225.Google Scholar
(10)Gratia, A. (1937). C.R. Soc. biol., Paris, 126, 418.Google Scholar
(11)Lwoff, A. & Gutmann, A. (1950). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 78, 711.Google Scholar
(12)Luria, S. E. & Delbrück, M. (1943). Genetics, 28, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Hunter, G. J. E. (1947). J. Hyg., Camb., 45, 307.Google Scholar
(14)NicholsAgnes, A. Agnes, A. & Hoyle, Margery (1949). J. Dairy Res. 16, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar