Two Spatial Chemotaxis Assays: The Nutrient-Depleted Chemotaxis Assay and the Agarose-Plug-Bridge Assay

Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1729)

Abstract

This chapter describes two spatial chemotaxis assays, the nutrient-depleted chemotaxis assay and agarose-plug-bridge assay, which enable the evaluation of putative chemoeffectors. These two assays have worked well with Campylobacter jejuni and Helicobacter pylori, and techniques for using these assays with these microbes are described.

Keywords

Chemotaxis Campylobacter jejuni Helicobacter pylori Chemoeffector screening Nutrient-depleted assay Agarose-plug-bridge assay 

References

  1. 1.
    Wadhams GH, Armitage JP (2004) Making sense of it all: bacterial chemotaxis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 5:1024–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller LD, Russell MH, Alexandre G (2009) Diversity in bacterial chemotactic responses and niche adaptation. Adv Appl Microbiol 66:53–75CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keilberg D, Ottemann KM (2016) How Helicobacter pylori senses, targets and interacts with the gastric epithelium. Environ Microbiol 18:791–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Butler SM, Camilli A (2005) Going against the grain: chemotaxis and infection in Vibrio cholerae. Nat Rev Microbiol 3:611–620CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zautner AE, Tareen AM, Groß U, Lugert R (2012) Chemotaxis in Campylobacter jejuni. Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp) 2:24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hendrixson DR, DiRita VJ (2004) Identification of campylobacter jejuni genes involved in commensal colonization of the chick gastrointestinal tract. Mol Microbiol 52:471–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lertsethtakarn P, Ottemann KM, Hendrixson DR (2011) Motility and chemotaxis in Campylobacter and Helicobacter. Annu Rev Microbiol 65:389–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li J, Go AC, Ward MJ, Ottemann KM (2010) The chemical-in-plug bacterial chemotaxis assay is prone to false positive responses. BMC Res Notes 3:77CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    HS Y, Alam M (1997) An agarose-in-plug bridge method to study chemotaxis in the Archaeon Halobacterium salinarum. FEMS Microbiol Lett 156:265–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kanungpean D, Kakuda T, Takai S (2011) False positive responses of Campylobacter jejuni when using the chemical-in-plug chemotaxis assay. J Vet Med Sci 73:389–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rahman H, King RM, Shewell LK, Semchenko EA, Hartley-Tassell LE et al (2014) Characterisation of a multi-ligand binding chemoreceptor CcmL (Tlp3) of Campylobacter jejuni. PLoS Pathog 10:e1003822CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hartley-Tassell LE, Shewell LK, Day CJ, Wilson JC, Sandhu R et al (2010) Identification and characterization of the aspartate chemosensory receptor of Campylobacter jejuni. Mol Microbiol 75:710–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Collins KD, Andermann TM, Draper J, Sanders L, Williams SM et al (2016) The Helicobacter pylori CZB cytoplasmic chemoreceptor TlpD forms an autonomous polar chemotaxis signaling complex that mediates a tactic response to oxidative stress. J Bacteriol 198:1563–1575CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hugdahl MB, Beery JT, Doyle MP (1988) Chemotactic behavior of Campylobacter jejuni. Infect Immun 56:1560–1566PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanders L, Andermann TM, Ottemann KM (2013) A supplemented soft agar chemotaxis assay demonstrates the Helicobacter pylori chemotactic response to zinc and nickel. Microbiology 159:46–57CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for GlycomicsGriffith UniversitySouthportAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Microbiology and Environmental ToxicologyUniversity of California Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations