Advertisement

Adhesion to Animal Surfaces

  • G. W. Jones
Part of the Life Sciences Research Reports book series (DAHLEM, volume 31)

Abstract

Bacterial adhesins are most commonly proteinaceous in nature, although there is evidence that lipoteichoic acids (LTA) can function as the adhesin of Streptococcus pyogenes and that the deposition of insoluble polysaccharides facilitates the accumulation of Streptococcus mutans on the tooth surface. The specificity of attachment to the animal cell appears to result from the binding of proteinaceous adhesins to carbohydrate receptors of the animal cell glycoconjugates, or perhaps from unique hydrophobic interactions between the acyl groups of LTA and particular hydrophobic domains of the surface. The filamentous form and reduced negative charge of the adhesive appendage probably allows attachment to occur when the distances of separation between the bacterium and the animal cell surface is such that the mutual repulsion between the surfaces is minimized.

Keywords

Streptococcus Mutans Lipoteichoic Acid Bacterial Attachment Adhesive Activity Microbial Adhesion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (1).
    Beachey, E.H., ed. 1980. Bacterial Adherence. London and New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  2. (2).
    Beachey, E.H., and Simpson, W.H. 1980. Interactions of surface polymers of Streptococcus pyogenes with animal cells. In Microbial Adhesion to Surfaces, eds. R.C.W. Berkeley, J.M. Lynch, J. Melling, P.R. Rutter, and B. Vincent, pp. 389–405. Chichester: Ellis Horwood Ltd.Google Scholar
  3. (3).
    Freter, R., and Jones, G.W. 1983. Models for studying the role of bacterial attachment in virulence and pathogenesis. Rev. Infec. Dis. 5: 5647–5658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. (4).
    Gibbons, R.J. 1983. Importance of glycosyltransferase in the colonization of oral bacteria. In Glucosyltransferases, Glucans, Sucrose and Dental Caries, ed. R.F. Doyle and J. Ciardi, pp. 11–19. Washington DC: IRL Press.Google Scholar
  5. (5).
    Gibbons, R.J.; Etherden, I.; and Moreno, E.C. 1983. Association of neuraminidase-sensitive receptors and putative hydrophobic interactions with high-affinity binding sites for Streptococcus sanguis C5 in salivary pellicles. Infec. Immun. 42 1006–1012.Google Scholar
  6. (6).
    Gibbons, R.J.; Moreno, E.C.; and Etherden, I. 1983. Concentration- dependent multiple binding sites on saliva-treated hydroxy apatite for Streptococcus sanguis. Infec. Immun. 39; 280–289.Google Scholar
  7. (7).
    Gibbons, R.J., and van Houte, J. 1975. Bacterial adherence in oral microbial ecology. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 29 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. (8).
    Hamada, S., and Slade, H.D. 1980. Mechanisms of adherence of Streptococcus mutans to smooth surfaces in vitro. In Bacterial Adherence, ed. E.H. Beachey, pp. 105–135. London and New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  9. (9).
    Isaacson, R.E. 1983. Regulation of expression of Escherichia coli pilus K99. Infec. Immun. 40 633–639.Google Scholar
  10. (10).
    Jones, G.W. 1977. The attachment of bacteria to the surfaces of animal cells. In Microbial Interactions, ed. J.L. Reissig, pp. 139- 176. London and New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  11. (11).
    Jones, G.W. 1980. Some aspects of the interaction of microbes with the human body. In Contemporary Microbial Ecology, eds. D. C. Ellwood, J.N. Hedger, M.J. Latham, J.M. Lynch, and J.H. Slater, pp. 253–282. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. (12).
    Jones, G.W.; Abrams, G.D.; and Freter, R. 1976. Adhesive properties of Vibrio cholerae: Adhesion to isolated rabbit brush border membranes and hemagglutinating activity. Infec. Immun. 14 232- 239.Google Scholar
  13. (13).
    Jones, G.W., and Isaacson, R.E. 1983. Proteinaceous bacterial adhesins and their receptors. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 10 229–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. (14).
    Jones, G.W.; Richardson, L.A.; and Uhlman, D. 1981. The invasion of HeLa cells by Salmonella typhimurium: Reversible and irreversible bacterial attachment and the role of bacterial motility. J. Gen. Microbiol. 127 351–360.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. (15).
    Kessler, R.E. 1982. Contribution of lipoteichoic acids to dental adhesion and pathogenesis of oral diseases. In Microbiology-1981, ed. D. Schlessinger, pp. 338–341. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.Google Scholar
  16. (16).
    Liljeviauk, W.F., and Bloomquist, C.G. 1981. Isolation of a protein- containing cell surface component from Streptococcus sanguis which affects its adherence to saliva-coated hydroxyapatite. Infec. Immun. 34 428–434.Google Scholar
  17. (17).
    Simpson, A.W., and Beachey, E.H. 1983. Adherence of group A streptococci to fibronectin on oral epithelial cells. Infec. Immun. 39 275–279.Google Scholar
  18. (18).
    Speziale, P.; Hook, M.; Switalsaki, L.M.; and Wadstrom, T. 1984. Fibronectin binding to a Streptococcus pyogenes strain. J. Bacteriol. 157 420–427.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. (19).
    Sutherland, I.W. 1980. Polysaccharides in the adhesion of marine and fresh water bacteria. InMicrobial Adhesion to Surfaces, eds. R.C.W. Berkeley, J.M. Lynch, J. Melling, P.R. Rutter, and B. Vincent, pp. 329–338. Chichester: Ellis Horwood Ltd.Google Scholar
  20. (20).
    Wicken, A.J. 1980. Structure and cell membrane-binding properties of bacterial lipoteichoic acids and their possible role in adhesion of streptococci to eukaryotic cells. In Bacterial Adherence, ed. H. Beachey, pp. 137–58. London and New York: Chapman and HallGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. S. Bernhard, Dahlem Konferenzen, Berlin 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. W. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Microbiology and ImmunologyUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations