Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T02:24:20.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multiple modification/restriction systems in lactic streptococci and their significance in defining a phage-typing system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Jean Pierre Boussemaer ,
Peter P. Schrauwen ,
Jean Louis Sourrouille  and
Philippe Guy
Jean Pierre Boussemaer
Affiliation:
Départment Recherches et Application L'air Liquide – Sassenage, France
Peter P. Schrauwen
Affiliation:
Départment Recherches et Application L'air Liquide – Sassenage, France
Jean Louis Sourrouille
Affiliation:
Départment Recherches et Application L'air Liquide – Sassenage, France
Philippe Guy
Affiliation:
Départment Recherches et Application L'air Liquide – Sassenage, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The reactions between 6 strains of mesophilic lactic streptococci and their respective phages were studied quantitatively. Of 30 nonhomologous reactions, the bacteria were fully sensitive in 4 and restricted the phages in 23. A mathematical model was developed that was used to identify at least 4 and probably 5 modification restriction (M/R) systems of which up to 3 were found in the same strain. The model was based on 24 measured values and correctly predicted the values of 5 others. One of the 3 negative reactions was shown to be due to a restriction beyond the limit of detection, a second was due to lysogeny or lack of adsorption, but was shown to have the predicted value when the homologous phage was modified on the host of the challenging phage. In the last reaction a measurable restriction was predicted, but could not be proven by means of a modified phage. These results suggest M/R to be one of the main defenses of the lactic streptococci against their phages. They explain why host range is not a useful criterion in the classification of phages and suggest a rational approach to the definition of a starter rotation.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , October 1980 , pp. 401 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1980

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

Ackermann, H. W. (1975). Pathologie Biologie 23, 247–253.Google Scholar
Arber, W. & Dussoix, D. (1962). Journal of Molecular Biology 5, 18–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouty, J. L., Cinquin, J. L. & Mouchot, J. C. (1978). 19th International Dairy Congress, New Delhi 20, Paris E, 589.Google Scholar
Chapman, H. R. (1978a). Journal of the Society of Dairy Technology 31, 99–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, H. R. (1978b). 19th International Dairy Congress, New Delhi 20, Paris E, 590–591.Google Scholar
Chopin, M.-C., Chopin, A. & Roux, C. (1976). Applied and Environmental Microbiology 32, 741–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogan, T. M. (1975). An Foras Talunlais-Technical Bulletin-Dairy Series 2–75.Google Scholar
Collins, E. B. (1953). Journal of Dairy Science 36, 563.Google Scholar
Collins, E. B. (1955). Applied Microbiology 3, 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, E. B. (1956). Virology 2, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comte, B. & Lablee, J. (1978). Revue des EN1L no. 33 06 1978.Google Scholar
Czulak, J. (1952). Australian Journal of Dairy Technology 7, 82–86.Google Scholar
Engel, G., Von Milczewski, K. E. & Lembke, A. (1975). Kieler Milchwirtschaftliche Forschungsberichte 27, 25–48.Google Scholar
Henning, D. R., Black, C. H., Sandine, W. E. & Elliker, P. R. (1968). Journal of Dairy Science 51, 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, G. J. E. (1947). Journal of Hygiene 45, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, A. W. (1977). New Zealand Journal of Dairy Science and Technology 12, 176–181.Google Scholar
Keogh, B. P. (1972), Australian Journal of Dairy Technology 27, 86–88.Google Scholar
Lablee, J. & Perrot, C. (1978). 19th International Dairy Congress, New Delhi 20, Paris E, 588.Google Scholar
Limsowtin, G. K. Y., Heap, H. A. & Lawrence, R. C. (1978). New Zealand Journal of Dairy Science and Technology 13, 1–8.Google Scholar
Limsowtin, G. K. Y. & Terzaghi, B. E. (1977). New Zealand Journal of Dairy Science and Technology 12, 22–28.Google Scholar
B., Mietton, Harry, C., Pernodet, G. & Tinguely, P. (1978b). Revue Laitiére Française no. 363, pp. 161–168.Google Scholar
Mietton, B., Pernodet, G., Sageaux, R. & Tinguely, P. (1978a). 19th International Dairy Congress, New Delhi 20, Paris E, 587.Google Scholar
Nichols, A. A. & Hoyle, M. (1949). Journal of Dairy Research 16, 167–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, L. E. & Lowrie, R. J. (1974). 19th International Dairy Congress, New Delhi 19, 1–E, 410–411.Google Scholar
Sourrouille, J. L. (1978). Thesis, University of Lyon.Google Scholar
Stobberingh, E. E. & Winkler, K. C. (1977). Journal of General Microbiology 99, 359–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terzaghi, B. E. (1976). New Zealand Journal of Dairy Science and Technology 11, 155–163.Google Scholar
Terzaghi, E. A. & Terzaghi, B. E. (1978). Applied and Environmental Microbiology 35, 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsaneva, K. P. (1976). Applied and Environmental Microbiology 31, 590–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Boven, C. P. A., Stobberingh, E. E., Verhoef, J. & Winkler, K. C. (1974). Annals, New York Academy of Science 236, 376–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar