IAI FigSearch
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Moreau, M C
Right arrow Articles by Raibaud, P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Moreau, M C
Right arrow Articles by Raibaud, P

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Infect Immun. 1976 January; 13(1): 9-15

Hydrolysis of urea in the gastrointestinal tract of "monoxenic" rats: effect of immunization with strains of ureolytic bacteria.

M C Moreau, R Ducluzeau and P Raibaud

ABSTRACT

Axenic rats, in whose feces urea is ordinarily excreted, were inoculated with ureolytic strains of Lactobacillus or Actinobacillus originally derived from the microflora of "holoxenic" rats. In these "monoxenic" animals, harboring one or another of the bacterial strains, fecal urea was hydrolyzed, with a more rapid onset of ureolysis in the case of Actinobacillus as compared with Lactobacillus. In vitro, a parallel difference between the two strains with regard to the onset of ureolysis was observed, hydrolysis beginning at the onset of growth in the case of Actinobacillus and only at the end of the exponential growth phase in the case of Lactobacillus. Extracellular urease activity was demonstrated in cultures of Lactobacillus, whereas none was found extracellularly with Actinobacillus. The pH optimum for the Lactobacillus urease in vitro was found to be 3.0, whereas the corresponding value for Actinobacillus was 6.0. In the two types of monoxenic rats, urea was consistently present in the small intestine and virtually absent from cecum and colon. Hydrolysis of urea in stomach was almost complete in rats bearing Lactobacillus but much less so in animals monoxenic with Actinobacillus, despite essentially equal numbers of organisms in that location. When rats carrying a monoflora of ureolytic Lactobacillus were immunized with either whole cells or soluble extract of the same organism, urea appeared in cecum and feces, indicating suppression of ureolytic activity. Immunization with an extract of nonureolytic Lactobacillus failed to produce such a result. Similar immunization techniques applied to animals monoassociated with ureolytic Actinobacillus did not alter ureolysis, and no appreciable quantity of urea appeared in feces. These studies demonstrate that it is indeed possible to inhibit the ureolytic activity of some bacteria in vivo by immunological means, but that the urease system of other organisms may not be as amenable to such manipulation.


Infect Immun. 1976 January; 13(1): 9-15




This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. J. Virol. Eukaryot. Cell
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. All ASM Journals

Copyright © 1976 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.