Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T02:43:51.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

688. Phage-organism relationships among strains of Streptococcus cremoris: the selection of strains as cheese starters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

H. R. Whitehead  and
Elizabeth J. Bush
H. R. Whitehead
Affiliation:
The Dairy Research Institute (N.Z.), Palmerston North, New Zealand
Elizabeth J. Bush
Affiliation:
The Dairy Research Institute (N.Z.), Palmerston North, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relationships between nineteen strains of Str. cremoris and nineteen phage races were investigated. It was found that in addition to clear-cut lytic reactions there were other actions between some phage races and bacterial strains whereby in some cases a phage could show adaptation to a strain and become changed in host range, and in other cases could inhibit growth of a strain without any phage multiplication.

There is some evidence to indicate that bacterial strains and phage races fall into family groups within which most of the phages act in one way or another on most of the strains. The suggestion is made that the strains and races in a group may have originated from a parent bacterial strain and parent phage race.

The selection of strains of Str. cremoris for use as cheese starters is discussed in the light of the findings reported in the present paper. The diffculty of isolating a large number of strains unrelated in every respect is indicated.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , October 1957 , pp. 381 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1957

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)Craigie, J. & Yen, C. H. (1938). Canad. publ. Hlth J. 29, 448.Google Scholar
(2)Felix, A. & Callow, B. R. (1943). Brit. med. J. ii, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Fisk, R. T. (1942). J. infect. Dis. 71, 153, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Wilson, G. S. & Atkinson, J. D. (1945). Lancet, i, 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Williams, R. E. O. & Rippon, Joan E. (1952). J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 320.Google Scholar
(6)Hunter, G. J. E. (1946). J. Hyg., Camb., 44, 264.Google Scholar
(7)Nichols, Agnes A. & Hoyle, Margery (1949). J. Dairy Res. 16, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Hunter, G. J. E. (1946). J. Dairy Res. 14, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Reiter, B. (1949). Nature, Lond., 164, 667.Google Scholar
(10)Czulak, J. & Naylor, Jill (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Collins, E. B. (1956). Virology, 2, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Anderson, E. S. & Fraser, Anthea (1956). J. gen. Microbiol. 15, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Evans, Alice C. (1940). J. Bact. 39, 597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Collins, E. B. (1952). J. Dairy Sci. 35, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15)Whitehead, H. R., East, Anne & McIntosh, Lola (1953). J. Dairy Res. 20, 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Czulak, J. & Hammond, L. A. (1954). Aust. J. Dairy Tech. 9, 15.Google Scholar
(17)Lightbody, Lorna G. & Meanwell, L. J. (1955). J. appl. Bact. 18, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar