Advertisement

Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 164, Issue 6, pp 790–793 | Cite as

Comparative Characteristics of Discrimination of S. enterica Isolates by Phagotyping Test and Dienes Test

  • V. N. Afonyushkin
  • Yu. N. Kozlova
  • I. N. Tromenshleger
  • M. L. Filipenko
  • O. B. Novikova
METHODS

We propose an original methodological approach to discrimination of newly isolated Salmonella enterica strains with the use of Dienes test. Dienes test is used for identification of P. vulgaris and P. mirabilis strains. It consists in growth suppression by mobile bacterial strain cultures and the formation of a demarcation line (Dienes line) between the strains growing towards each other. Similarities and differences between salmonella phagotyping method and Dienes test-based discrimination of the strains are detected. The studied sample of salmonellas was divided into 12 phagotypes. Cluster analysis has shown that most of the salmonella strains could not be clusterized by both methods. Discrimination by different methods has shown that the largest clusters contain the same strains. Clusterization of salmonella strains by different methods shows moderate congruency. Rand index used for comparison of the results of the sample clusterization by different methods is 0.88. High heterogeneity of salmonella strains is presumably explained by heterogeneity of antagonism factors within the S. enterica species. Intraspecies antagonism is essential for limitation of the horizontal gene transfer in closely related strains and for increase of the genetic heterogeneity of salmonella population in the host.

Key Words

Dienes test S. enterica bacteriophages clusterization antagonism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Belyakov VD, Golubev DB, Kaminskii GD. Tets VV. Self-Regulation of Parasitic Systems. Leningrad, 1987. Russian.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schmalhausen II. Problems of Darwinism. Moscow, 1969. Russian.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yushkov YuG, Filipenko ML, Afonyushkin VN, Volf VT, Dudareva EV, Troneva AV, Leonov SV. Analysis of variable tandem repeats for typing Salmonella enterica. Sib. Vestn. Sel’skokhoz. Nauki. 2011;(3-4):94-99. Russian.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Budding AE, Ingham CJ, Bitter W, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Schneeberger PM. The Dienes phenomenon: competition and territoriality in Swarming Proteus mirabilis. J. Bacteriol. 2009;191(12):3892-3900.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cho S, Boxrud DJ, Bartkus JM, Whittam TS, Saeed M. Multiple-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis of Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from human and non-human sources using a single multiplex PCR. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2007;275(1):16-23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dienes L. Reproductive processes in Proteus cultures. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 1946;63(2):265-270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dienes L. Further observations on the reproduction of bacilli from large bodies in Proteus cultures. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 1947;66(1):97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gratia A. Des relations numeriques entrebacteries lysogenes, et particules de bacteriophage. Ann. Inst. Pasteur. 1936;57:652-667.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hunter PR, Gaston MA. Numerical index of the discriminatory ability of typing systems: an application of Simpson’s index of diversity. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1988;26(11):2465-2466.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Louvois J. Serotyping and the Dienes reaction on Proteus mirabilis from hospital infections. J. Clin. Pathol. 1969;22(3):263-268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindstedt BA. Multiple-locus variable number tandem repeats analysis for genetic fingerprinting of pathogenic bacteria. Electrophoresis. 2005;26(13):2567-2582.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rand WM. Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1971;66(336):846-850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor JP, Barnett BJ, del Rosario L, Williams K, Barth SS. Prospective investigation of cryptic outbreaks of Salmonella agona salmonellosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1998;36(10):2861-2864.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Todd EC. Epidemiology of foodborne diseases: a worldwide review. World Health Stat. Q. 1997;50(1-2):30-50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Beneden CA, Keene WE, Strang RA, Werker DH, King AS, Mahon B, Hedberg K, Bell A, Kelly MT, Balan VK, Mac Kenzie WR, Fleming D. Multinational outbreak of Salmonella enterica serotype Newport infections due to contaminated alfalfa sprouts. JAMA. 1999;281(2):158-162.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. N. Afonyushkin
    • 1
  • Yu. N. Kozlova
    • 2
  • I. N. Tromenshleger
    • 2
  • M. L. Filipenko
    • 2
  • O. B. Novikova
    • 3
  1. 1.Siberian Federal Center of AgrobiotechnologiesRussian Academy of SciencesNovosibirsk RegionRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Chemical Biology and Fundamental MedicineSiberian Division of the Russian Academy of SciencesNovosibirskRussia
  3. 3.All-Russian Research Veterinarian Poultry InstituteSt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations