This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow An erratum has been published
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 Mohamed, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Murray, B. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mohamed, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Murray, B. E.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Infection and Immunity, June 2004, p. 3658-3663, Vol. 72, No. 6
0019-9567/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/IAI.72.6.3658-3663.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Influence of Origin of Isolates, Especially Endocarditis Isolates, and Various Genes on Biofilm Formation by Enterococcus faecalis

Jamal A. Mohamed,1,2 Wenxiang Huang,1,2 Sreedhar R. Nallapareddy,1,2 Fang Teng,1,2 and Barbara E. Murray1,2,3*

Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine,1 Center for the Study of Emerging and Reemerging Pathogens,2 Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of Texas Medical School, Houston, Texas 770303

Received 10 September 2003/ Returned for modification 21 November 2003/ Accepted 19 January 2004


arrow
ABSTRACT
 
Endocarditis isolates of Enterococcus faecalis produced biofilm significantly more often than nonendocarditis isolates, and 39% of 79 versus 6% of 84 isolates produced strong biofilm (P < 0.0001). esp was not required, but its presence was associated with higher amounts of biofilm (P < 0.001). Mutants disrupted in dltA, efaA, ace, lsa, and six two-component regulatory systems were largely unaltered, while disruptions in epa, atn, gelE, and fsr resulted in fewer attached bacteria, as determined using phase-contrast microscopy, and less biofilm (P < 0.0001).


arrow
TEXT
 
Bacteria are frequently found as part of a complex of organisms known as biofilm (15). Although biofilm formation by enterococci has been reported (1, 3, 28), there has not been a systematic study of endocarditis isolates and there has been little published relating to the genetics of biofilm formation by Enterococcus faecalis. This previous study found that 93.5% of esp-positive isolates formed biofilm while no esp-lacking isolate produced biofilm; esp disruption in two strains resulted in decreased biofilm formation, while esp disruption had no significant effect on the strong biofilm phenotype of a third strain (28). In the present work, we studied the occurrence of esp and biofilm formation among isolates of E. faecalis and evaluated mutants of an esp-lacking strain in an effort to unravel the role played by, and the genesis of, biofilm formation by this organism.

(Part of this work was presented at the 43rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Chicago, Ill., 14 to 17 September 2003).

Bacterial strains. A total of 163 E. faecalis isolates (51 from sources outside the United States) were evaluated. Control strains (28) were kindly provided by I. Lasa. OG1RF (esp negative) (12) and mutants of OG1RF that had been previously generated (14, 17, 18, 22-25, 27, 33) were also evaluated.

Genetic methods. An intragenic fragment of esp was amplified by PCR using previously described primers (19) and used as a probe for colony hybridization, as described elsewhere (23). A disruption mutant (TX5427) of a homologue of Streptococcus agalactiae dltA was generated and confirmed, as described previously (27).

Biofilm formation. Bacteria that had been grown overnight were diluted 1:100 in 200 µl of tryptic soy broth-0.25% glucose and inoculated onto polystyrene microtiter plates (Falcon, Franklin Lakes, N.J.). After 24 h of static incubation at 37°C, plates were processed (2, 28), fixed with Bouin's fixative for 30 min, stained with 1% crystal violet (CV) for 30 min, and rinsed with distilled water. CV was solubilized in ethanol-acetone (80:20, vol/vol), and optical density at 570 nm (OD570) was determined. Each assay was performed in quadruplicate on at least three occasions. For phase-contrast microscopy, bacteria were grown as described above except in polystyrene petri dishes (Falcon). After removal of planktonic bacteria, biofilm was directly examined by phase-contrast microscopy (magnification, x600) with an Eclipse TE2000-E (Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan).

For primary adherence, 5 ml of a diluted overnight culture (OD600, 0.1) was added to polystyrene petri dishes (Falcon) and incubated for 2 h for mutants, as described previously (28), and 30 min for clinical isolates (5) (greater adherence of clinical isolates made counting difficult at 2 h). Bacteria in five different fields were subjected to light microscopy and counted (magnification, x1,000) after Gram staining.

Statistical analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test (NCSS/PASS 2000 edition; NCSS Statistical Software, Kaysville, Utah) or the chi-square test for categorical variables. Median OD570 and interquartile range (IQR) values were calculated using GraphPad Prism 4 software.

Biofilm formation by clinical isolates. OD570 readings after CV staining ranged from 0.2 to 3.5 (Fig. 1), and isolates were categorized (Table 1) based on the approach of others (1, 10, 28) as strong (OD570, >2; 36 isolates [22%]), medium (OD570, 1 to 2; 92 isolates [56%]), or weak (OD570, greater than 0.5 but less than 1; 23 isolates [14%]) biofilm formers or as non-biofilm formers (OD570, <=0.5; 12 isolates [7%]). The median OD570 values for controls (28) were 3.5 for E. faecalis strain 54 (categorized as a strong biofilm former in reference 28), 1.72 for strain 11279 (medium [28]), 0.85 for strain 11262 (weak [28]), and 0.61 for strain 23 (categorized as a non-biofilm former in reference 28). The ca. 93% of 163 E. faecalis isolates classified as biofilm producers is lower than the percentage reported in one study (20) that classified any samples with ODs of >0 as positive for biofilm formation and higher than that found by others (with slightly different methodologies) who reported 57% (28) and 80% (1) of E. faecalis isolates as positive for biofilm formation. If we consider only strong and medium production as positive (OD > 1.0), 78.5% of our isolates would be classified as biofilm formers (Table 1).



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1. Biofilm formation by E. faecalis isolates derived from different sources. Biofilm formation on a polystyrene surface was assessed after CV staining. Each dot indicates the median OD570 value from 12 determinations (three independent experiments, each performed in quadruplicate). The medians (and IQRs) for endocarditis isolates and those from other sources were 1.74 (IQR, 1.32 to 2.35) and 1.31 (IQR, 0.82 to 1.53), respectively (P < 0.0001).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Occurrence of biofilm formation and presence of the esp gene in E. faecalis isolates

All 79 endocarditis isolates formed biofilm versus 86% of 84 isolates from other sources (P < 0.001), and 31 of 79 (39%) were strong biofilm formers (Table 1 and Fig. 1) versus only 5 (6%) of the isolates from other sources (P < 0.0001; median OD570, 1.74 versus 1.31; P < 0.0001). To our knowledge, this is the first report to show that endocarditis isolates are associated with greater biofilm formation, but it would be premature to speculate whether biofilm contributes to or perhaps results from endocarditis. Results for primary adherence were generally, but not absolutely (e.g., TX0034 and TX0291), correlated with an organism's level of biofilm formation (Fig. 2A).



View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2. Biofilm formation (BF) and primary adherence (PA) by representative E. faecalis clinical isolates (A) and mutants (B). Median and IQR values are shown. Values for the biofilm assays are from 12 determinations (three independent experiments, each performed in quadruplicate). All readings for TX1393 and TX0291 were 3.5, the maximum OD detectable by our microplate reader. Primary adherence was assessed after incubation on a polystyrene surface for 30 min for clinical isolates and 2 h for mutants. Bacteria in five different fields from two independent plates were subjected to light microscopy (HPF, high-power field; magnification, x1,000) and counted after Gram staining. TX10275, TX10276, TX10292, TX10298, TX37200, and etaR are two-component regulatory system mutants. The other 10 mutants which showed no change in biofilm were not tested for primary adherence.

Presence of esp and biofilm. esp was present in 74 (45%) of 163 isolates and 49% of biofilm producers (Table 1). Among endocarditis isolates, 48% were esp positive versus 59% of urine isolates, 48% of other clinical isolates, 33% of nosocomial fecal isolates, and 19% of community fecal isolates. The incidence of esp has been reported by others as 29 to 45% among E. faecalis blood isolates (4, 21, 29, 31), 42% among 33 endocarditis isolates (21), and 3 to 40% among fecal isolates (21, 31).

All 74 esp-positive isolates produced biofilm, and 77 of 89 esp-negative isolates also produced biofilm. This is in contrast to results from one study (28) in which none of the esp-negative isolates formed biofilm, but it is consistent with those of another study (20) reporting no association between esp and biofilm formation. However, we did find that 69% of strong, 46% of medium, and 30% of weak biofilm producers and 0 of 12 non-biofilm producers were esp positive (P < 0.001) and that there was a significant difference in median OD values (P < 0.001) (Table 1), indicating a strong association between the presence of esp and greater levels of biofilm production.

Analysis of E. faecalis OG1RF mutants. The absence of esp in 51% of biofilm formers motivated us to look for other genes that might influence biofilm formation. Among mutants of E. faecalis OG1RF (an esp-negative medium biofilm former) that were previously generated, seven were defective in biofilm formation (P, <0.0001 for each mutant) compared to OG1RF (Fig. 2B). In particular, our epa (enterococcal polysaccharide antigen) gene cluster mutant, TX5179 (orfde4) (26, 33), showed ~73% reduction in biofilm formation, suggesting that this gene (encoding a putative glycosyltransferase, often involved in polysaccharide synthesis) (32, 33) and/or the cotranscribed orfde5 is important for biofilm formation. We have no evidence to indicate a surface location for Epa (33) or a direct role of the Epa polysaccharide in attachment or biofilm accumulation, and there may be other effects, such as alteration of the overall cell wall layer, as suggested by others (7).

All three of our fsr mutants (17) also showed decreased biofilm formation, with reduction ranging from ~28 to 32% relative to that by OG1RF (Fig. 2B); fsr, a homologue of staphylococcal agr loci, positively regulates expression of gelatinase (GelE) and serine protease (SprE) genes and is involved in quorum sensing (13, 16, 17). This decrease was not as great as the 46% decrease seen for TX5128, a gelE insertion mutant (GelE– SprE–) (24) (P < 0.0001) or for TX5264, a nonpolar gelE deletion mutant (GelE– SprE+) (22) (P < 0.01) (Fig. 2B). A recent study also demonstrated that GelE enhances biofilm formation by E. faecalis (9). Since the fsr mutants also have the GelE– SprE– phenotype, it is possible that biofilm reduction is due to loss of protease production. Biofilm formation by an agr mutant of Staphylococcus aureus (30) was enhanced compared to that by the wild type, in contrast to our results with fsr mutants; however, the fsr mutants formed slightly (but significantly) more biofilm than the gelatinase mutants, suggesting an additional effect(s) of fsr which influences biofilm formation in the same direction as agr. Future studies will be needed to address what additional role fsr may have on biofilm production. We also examined a gelE in-frame-deletion mutant and TX5243, a sprE insertion mutant (GelE+ SprE–) (17); the sprE mutant formed as much biofilm as the wild type, while the gelE insertion (Gel– SprE–) and deletion (Gel– SprE+) mutants showed decreased biofilm formation (Fig. 2B), indicating that gelatinase rather than the serine protease is important for biofilm formation.

Our autolysin (atn) mutant, TX5127, previously shown to display increased chaining and decreased autolysis (18), showed ~39% reduction in biofilm formation (Fig. 2B). A similar finding was seen in a Lactococcus lactis autolysin (acmA) mutant, which exhibited long chains of cells, adhered less efficiently than the wild type, and was unable to form biofilm (11). A Staphylococcus epidermidis autolysin (atlE) mutant also showed decreased primary attachment to polystyrene (8).

Among the previously described two-component regulatory system mutants (27), five were unaltered in biofilm formation, although the etaR mutant (TX10293) showed a small (~8%) but significant (P < 0.02) reduction in biofilm (Fig. 2B). Mutants TX5132 (efaA, encoding an E. faecalis antigen A) (23) and TX5256 (ace, encoding a collagen adhesin) (14) were also unchanged relative to OG1RF, while TX5332 (lsa, encoding an ATP-binding cassette transporter required for lincosamide and streptogramin A resistance) (25) showed a small (~9%) but significant (P < 0.02) increase (Fig. 2B). Biofilm formation by TX5427 (this study) disrupted in a dltA homologue was approximately equal to that by OG1RF, unlike that by an S. aureus dlt mutant (6).

In a primary attachment assay, OG1RF attached to polystyrene more efficiently than the seven mutants with reduced biofilm formation (P, <0.001 for each mutant) (Fig. 2B). As determined by phase-contrast microscopy, OG1RF formed a more confluent layer, with dark clusters of bacteria in microcolonies interspaced with areas of less densely packed bacteria, whereas these seven mutants showed fewer attached bacteria without microcolonies (Fig. 3). This indicates that epa, atn, gelE, and the fsr locus influence primary attachment, although additional effects on biofilm accumulation are also possible. The atn mutant was again (18) noted to exhibit long chains of cells whereas mutants disrupted in gelE, fsrA, fsrB, and fsrC showed short chains and the orfde4 mutant showed no chain formation (Fig. 3).



View larger version (118K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3. Phase-contrast photomicrographs of biofilms on a polystyrene surface. Images are representative of what was observed in multiple fields (magnification, x600).

In conclusion, our results agree with other reports that biofilm formation is very common among E. faecalis clinical as well as fecal isolates. We also found that the percent and degree of biofilm formation are significantly greater among endocarditis isolates than among isolates from other sources. Although esp was not required for biofilm formation, its presence showed a significant association with the degree of biofilm production. Our study also identified several other genes that influenced primary attachment and biofilm formation by E. faecalis OG1RF.


arrow
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grant R37 AI47923 to B.E.M. from the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

We thank I. Lasa for sending control strains for biofilm production and Chul W. Ahn for his assistance with statistics.


arrow
FOOTNOTES
 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Center for the Study of Emerging and Reemerging Pathogens, Division of Infectious Diseases, JFB 1.728, University of Texas Medical School, 6431 Fannin St., Houston, TX 77030. Phone: (713) 500-6745. Fax: (713) 500-6766. E-mail: bem.asst{at}uth.tmc.edu. Back

Editor: F. C. Fang


arrow
REFERENCES
 
    1
  1. Baldassarri, L., R. Cecchini, L. Bertuccini, M. G. Ammendolia, F. Iosi, C. R. Arciola, L. Montanaro, R. Di Rosa, G. Gherardi, G. Dicuonzo, G. Orefici, and R. Creti. 2001. Enterococcus sp. produces slime and survives in rat peritoneal macrophages. Med. Microbiol. Immunol. (Berlin) 190:113-120.[Medline]
    2. 2
  2. Christensen, G. D., W. A. Simpson, J. J. Younger, L. M. Baddour, F. F. Barrett, D. M. Melton, and E. H. Beachey. 1985. Adherence of coagulase-negative staphylococci to plastic tissue culture plates: a quantitative model for the adherence of staphylococci to medical devices. J. Clin. Microbiol. 22:996-1006.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    3. 3
  3. Distel, J. W., J. F. Hatton, and M. J. Gillespie. 2002. Biofilm formation in medicated root canals. J. Endod. 28:689-693.[CrossRef][Medline]
    4. 4
  4. Eaton, T. J., and M. J. Gasson. 2001. Molecular screening of Enterococcus virulence determinants and potential for genetic exchange between food and medical isolates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67:1628-1635.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    5. 5
  5. Fournier, B., and D. C. Hooper. 2000. A new two-component regulatory system involved in adhesion, autolysis, and extracellular proteolytic activity of Staphylococcus aureus. J. Bacteriol. 182:3955-3964.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    6. 6
  6. Gross, M., S. E. Cramton, F. Gotz, and A. Peschel. 2001. Key role of teichoic acid net charge in Staphylococcus aureus colonization of artificial surfaces. Infect. Immun. 69:3423-3426.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    7. 7
  7. Hancock, L. E., and M. S. Gilmore. 2002. The capsular polysaccharide of Enterococcus faecalis and its relationship to other polysaccharides in the cell wall. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:1574-1579.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    8. 8
  8. Heilmann, C., M. Hussain, G. Peters, and F. Gotz. 1997. Evidence for autolysin-mediated primary attachment of Staphylococcus epidermidis to a polystyrene surface. Mol. Microbiol. 24:1013-1024.[CrossRef][Medline]
    9. 9
  9. Kristich, C. J., Y. H. Li, D. G. Cvitkovitch, and G. M. Dunny. 2004. Esp-independent biofilm formation by Enterococcus faecalis. J. Bacteriol. 186:154-163.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    10. 10
  10. Loo, C. Y., D. A. Corliss, and N. Ganeshkumar. 2000. Streptococcus gordonii biofilm formation: identification of genes that code for biofilm phenotypes. J. Bacteriol. 182:1374-1382.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    11. 11
  11. Mercier, C., C. Durrieu, R. Briandet, E. Domakova, J. Tremblay, G. Buist, and S. Kulakauskas. 2002. Positive role of peptidoglycan breaks in lactococcal biofilm formation. Mol. Microbiol. 46:235-243.[CrossRef][Medline]
    12. 12
  12. Murray, B. E., K. V. Singh, R. P. Ross, J. D. Heath, G. M. Dunny, and G. M. Weinstock. 1993. Generation of restriction map of Enterococcus faecalis OG1 and investigation of growth requirements and regions encoding biosynthetic function. J. Bacteriol. 175:5216-5223.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    13. 13
  13. Nakayama, J., Y. Cao, T. Horii, S. Sakuda, A. D. Akkermans, W. M. de Vos, and H. Nagasawa. 2001. Gelatinase biosynthesis-activating pheromone: a peptide lactone that mediates a quorum sensing in Enterococcus faecalis. Mol. Microbiol. 41:145-154.[CrossRef][Medline]
    14. 14
  14. Nallapareddy, S. R., X. Qin, G. M. Weinstock, M. Hook, and B. E. Murray. 2000. Enterococcus faecalis adhesin, Ace, mediates attachment to extracellular matrix proteins collagen type IV and laminin as well as collagen type I. Infect. Immun. 68:5218-5224.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    15. 15
  15. O'Toole, G., H. B. Kaplan, and R. Kolter. 2000. Biofilm formation as microbial development. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 54:49-79.[CrossRef][Medline]
    16. 16
  16. Qin, X., K. V. Singh, G. M. Weinstock, and B. E. Murray. 2001. Characterization of fsr, a regulator controlling expression of gelatinase and serine protease in Enterococcus faecalis OG1RF. J. Bacteriol. 183:3372-3382.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    17. 17
  17. Qin, X., K. V. Singh, G. M. Weinstock, and B. E. Murray. 2000. Effects of Enterococcus faecalis fsr genes on production of gelatinase and a serine protease and virulence. Infect. Immun. 68:2579-2586.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    18. 18
  18. Qin, X., K. V. Singh, Y. Xu, G. M. Weinstock, and B. E. Murray. 1998. Effect of disruption of a gene encoding an autolysin of Enterococcus faecalis OG1RF. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 42:2883-2888.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    19. 19
  19. Rice, L. B., L. Carias, S. Rudin, C. Vael, H. Goossens, C. Konstabel, I. Klare, S. R. Nallapareddy, W. Huang, and B. E. Murray. 2003. A potential virulence gene, hylEfm, predominates in Enterococcus faecium of clinical origin. J. Infect. Dis. 187:508-512.[CrossRef][Medline]
    20. 20
  20. Sandoe, J. A., I. R. Witherden, J. H. Cove, J. Heritage, and M. H. Wilcox. 2003. Correlation between enterococcal biofilm formation in vitro and medical-device-related infection potential in vivo. J. Med. Microbiol. 52:547-550.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    21. 21
  21. Shankar, V., A. S. Baghdayan, M. M. Huycke, G. Lindahl, and M. S. Gilmore. 1999. Infection-derived Enterococcus faecalis strains are enriched in esp, a gene encoding a novel surface protein. Infect. Immun. 67:193-200.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    22. 22
  22. Sifri, C. D., E. Mylonakis, K. V. Singh, X. Qin, D. A. Garsin, B. E. Murray, F. M. Ausubel, and S. B. Calderwood. 2002. Virulence effect of Enterococcus faecalis protease genes and the quorum-sensing locus fsr in Caenorhabditis elegans and mice. Infect. Immun. 70:5647-5650.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    23. 23
  23. Singh, K. V., T. M. Coque, G. M. Weinstock, and B. E. Murray. 1998. In vivo testing of an Enterococcus faecalis efaA mutant and use of efaA homologs for species identification. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 21:323-331.[Medline]
    24. 24
  24. Singh, K. V., X. Qin, G. M. Weinstock, and B. E. Murray. 1998. Generation and testing of mutants of Enterococcus faecalis in a mouse peritonitis model. J. Infect. Dis. 178:1416-1420.[CrossRef][Medline]
    25. 25
  25. Singh, K. V., G. M. Weinstock, and B. E. Murray. 2002. An Enterococcus faecalis ABC homologue (Lsa) is required for the resistance of this species to clindamycin and quinupristin-dalfopristin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46:1845-1850.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    26. 26
  26. Teng, F., K. D. Jacques-Palaz, G. M. Weinstock, and B. E. Murray. 2002. Evidence that the enterococcal polysaccharide antigen gene (epa) cluster is widespread in Enterococcus faecalis and influences resistance to phagocytic killing of E. faecalis. Infect. Immun. 70:2010-2015.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    27. 27
  27. Teng, F., L. Wang, K. V. Singh, B. E. Murray, and G. M. Weinstock. 2002. Involvement of PhoP-PhoS homologs in Enterococcus faecalis virulence. Infect. Immun. 70:1991-1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    28. 28
  28. Toledo-Arana, A., J. Valle, C. Solano, M. J. Arrizubieta, C. Cucarella, M. Lamata, B. Amorena, J. Leiva, J. R. Penades, and I. Lasa. 2001. The enterococcal surface protein, Esp, is involved in Enterococcus faecalis biofilm formation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67:4538-4545.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    29. 29
  29. Vergis, E. N., N. Shankar, J. W. Chow, M. K. Hayden, D. R. Snydman, M. J. Zervos, P. K. Linden, M. M. Wagener, and R. R. Muder. 2002. Association between the presence of enterococcal virulence factors gelatinase, hemolysin, and enterococcal surface protein and mortality among patients with bacteremia due to Enterococcus faecalis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 35:570-575.[CrossRef][Medline]
    30. 30
  30. Vuong, C., H. L. Saenz, F. Gotz, and M. Otto. 2000. Impact of the agr quorum-sensing system on adherence to polystyrene in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Infect. Dis. 182:1688-1693.[CrossRef][Medline]
    31. 31
  31. Waar, K., A. B. Muscholl-Silberhorn, R. J. Willems, M. J. Slooff, H. J. Harmsen, and J. E. Degener. 2002. Genogrouping and incidence of virulence factors of Enterococcus faecalis in liver transplant patients differ from blood culture and fecal isolates. J. Infect. Dis. 185:1121-1127.[CrossRef][Medline]
    32. 32
  32. Xu, Y., B. E. Murray, and G. M. Weinstock. 1998. A cluster of genes involved in polysaccharide biosynthesis from Enterococcus faecalis OG1RF. Infect. Immun. 66:4313-4323.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    33. 33
  33. Xu, Y., K. V. Singh, X. Qin, B. E. Murray, and G. M. Weinstock. 2000. Analysis of a gene cluster of Enterococcus faecalis involved in polysaccharide biosynthesis. Infect. Immun. 68:815-823.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Infection and Immunity, June 2004, p. 3658-3663, Vol. 72, No. 6
0019-9567/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/IAI.72.6.3658-3663.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Hendrickx, A. P. A., van Luit-Asbroek, M., Schapendonk, C. M. E., van Wamel, W. J. B., Braat, J. C., Wijnands, L. M., Bonten, M. J. M., Willems, R. J. L. (2009). SgrA, a Nidogen-Binding LPXTG Surface Adhesin Implicated in Biofilm Formation, and EcbA, a Collagen Binding MSCRAMM, Are Two Novel Adhesins of Hospital-Acquired Enterococcus faecium. Infect. Immun. 77: 5097-5106 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Guiton, P. S., Hung, C. S., Kline, K. A., Roth, R., Kau, A. L., Hayes, E., Heuser, J., Dodson, K. W., Caparon, M. G., Hultgren, S. J. (2009). Contribution of Autolysin and Sortase A during Enterococcus faecalis DNA-Dependent Biofilm Development. Infect. Immun. 77: 3626-3638 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Teng, F., Singh, K. V., Bourgogne, A., Zeng, J., Murray, B. E. (2009). Further Characterization of the epa Gene Cluster and Epa Polysaccharides of Enterococcus faecalis. Infect. Immun. 77: 3759-3767 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ballering, K. S., Kristich, C. J., Grindle, S. M., Oromendia, A., Beattie, D. T., Dunny, G. M. (2009). Functional Genomics of Enterococcus faecalis: Multiple Novel Genetic Determinants for Biofilm Formation in the Core Genome. J. Bacteriol. 191: 2806-2814 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Coburn, P. S., Baghdayan, A. S., Dolan, G., Shankar, N. (2008). An AraC-Type Transcriptional Regulator Encoded on the Enterococcus faecalis Pathogenicity Island Contributes to Pathogenesis and Intracellular Macrophage Survival. Infect. Immun. 76: 5668-5676 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Thomas, V. C., Thurlow, L. R., Boyle, D., Hancock, L. E. (2008). Regulation of Autolysis-Dependent Extracellular DNA Release by Enterococcus faecalis Extracellular Proteases Influences Biofilm Development. J. Bacteriol. 190: 5690-5698 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Ge, X., Kitten, T., Chen, Z., Lee, S. P., Munro, C. L., Xu, P. (2008). Identification of Streptococcus sanguinis Genes Required for Biofilm Formation and Examination of Their Role in Endocarditis Virulence. Infect. Immun. 76: 2551-2559 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Kristich, C. J., Nguyen, V. T., Le, T., Barnes, A. M. T., Grindle, S., Dunny, G. M. (2008). Development and Use of an Efficient System for Random mariner Transposon Mutagenesis To Identify Novel Genetic Determinants of Biofilm Formation in the Core Enterococcus faecalis Genome. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74: 3377-3386 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Mohamed, J. A., Huang, D. B. (2007). Biofilm formation by enterococci. J Med Microbiol 56: 1581-1588 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Heikens, E., Bonten, M. J. M., Willems, R. J. L. (2007). Enterococcal Surface Protein Esp Is Important for Biofilm Formation of Enterococcus faecium E1162. J. Bacteriol. 189: 8233-8240 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Kemp, K. D., Singh, K. V., Nallapareddy, S. R., Murray, B. E. (2007). Relative Contributions of Enterococcus faecalis OG1RF Sortase-Encoding Genes, srtA and bps (srtC), to Biofilm Formation and a Murine Model of Urinary Tract Infection. Infect. Immun. 75: 5399-5404 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Bourgogne, A., Singh, K. V., Fox, K. A., Pflughoeft, K. J., Murray, B. E., Garsin, D. A. (2007). EbpR Is Important for Biofilm Formation by Activating Expression of the Endocarditis and Biofilm-Associated Pilus Operon (ebpABC) of Enterococcus faecalis OG1RF. J. Bacteriol. 189: 6490-6493 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Nakayama, J., Tanaka, E., Kariyama, R., Nagata, K., Nishiguchi, K., Mitsuhata, R., Uemura, Y., Tanokura, M., Kumon, H., Sonomoto, K. (2007). Siamycin Attenuates fsr Quorum Sensing Mediated by a Gelatinase Biosynthesis-Activating Pheromone in Enterococcus faecalis. J. Bacteriol. 189: 1358-1365 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Van Wamel, W. J. B., Hendrickx, A. P. A., Bonten, M. J. M., Top, J., Posthuma, G., Willems, R. J. L. (2007). Growth Condition-Dependent Esp Expression by Enterococcus faecium Affects Initial Adherence and Biofilm Formation. Infect. Immun. 75: 924-931 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Tsigrelis, C., Singh, K. V., Coutinho, T. D., Murray, B. E., Baddour, L. M. (2007). Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecalis Endocarditis: Linezolid Failure and Strain Characterization of Virulence Factors. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45: 631-635 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Arias, C. A., Cortes, L., Murray, B. E. (2007). Chaining in enterococci revisited: correlation between chain length and gelatinase phenotype, and gelE and fsrB genes among clinical isolates of Enterococcus faecalis. J Med Microbiol 56: 286-288 [Full Text]  
  • Mohamed, J. A., Huang, D. B., Jiang, Z.-D., DuPont, H. L., Nataro, J. P., Belkind-Gerson, J., Okhuysen, P. C. (2007). Association of Putative Enteroaggregative Escherichia coli Virulence Genes and Biofilm Production in Isolates from Travelers to Developing Countries. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45: 121-126 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Mohamed, J. A., Murray, B. E. (2006). Influence of the fsr locus on biofilm formation by Enterococcus faecalis lacking gelE.. J Med Microbiol 55: 1747-1750 [Full Text]  
  • Lepage, E., Brinster, S., Caron, C., Ducroix-Crepy, C., Rigottier-Gois, L., Dunny, G., Hennequet-Antier, C., Serror, P. (2006). Comparative Genomic Hybridization Analysis of Enterococcus faecalis: Identification of Genes Absent from Food Strains.. J. Bacteriol. 188: 6858-6868 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Fabretti, F., Theilacker, C., Baldassarri, L., Kaczynski, Z., Kropec, A., Holst, O., Huebner, J. (2006). Alanine Esters of Enterococcal Lipoteichoic Acid Play a Role in Biofilm Formation and Resistance to Antimicrobial Peptides. Infect. Immun. 74: 4164-4171 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Reisner, A., Krogfelt, K. A., Klein, B. M., Zechner, E. L., Molin, S. (2006). In Vitro Biofilm Formation of Commensal and Pathogenic Escherichia coli Strains: Impact of Environmental and Genetic Factors.. J. Bacteriol. 188: 3572-3581 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • van Merode, A. E. J., van der Mei, H. C., Busscher, H. J., Krom, B. P. (2006). Influence of Culture Heterogeneity in Cell Surface Charge on Adhesion and Biofilm Formation by Enterococcus faecalis.. J. Bacteriol. 188: 2421-2426 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Bourgogne, A., Hilsenbeck, S. G., Dunny, G. M., Murray, B. E. (2006). Comparison of OG1RF and an Isogenic fsrB Deletion Mutant by Transcriptional Analysis: the Fsr System of Enterococcus faecalis Is More than the Activator of Gelatinase and Serine Protease.. J. Bacteriol. 188: 2875-2884 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Tendolkar, P. M., Baghdayan, A. S., Shankar, N. (2006). Putative Surface Proteins Encoded within a Novel Transferable Locus Confer a High-Biofilm Phenotype to Enterococcus faecalis. J. Bacteriol. 188: 2063-2072 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Raad, I. I., Hanna, H. A., Boktour, M., Chaiban, G., Hachem, R. Y., Dvorak, T., Lewis, R., Murray, B. E. (2005). Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium: Catheter Colonization, esp Gene, and Decreased Susceptibility to Antibiotics in Biofilm. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49: 5046-5050 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Mohamed, J. A., Murray, B. E. (2005). Lack of Correlation of Gelatinase Production and Biofilm Formation in a Large Collection of Enterococcus faecalis Isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43: 5405-5407 [Full Text]  
  • Kreikemeyer, B., Nakata, M., Oehmcke, S., Gschwendtner, C., Normann, J., Podbielski, A. (2005). Streptococcus pyogenes Collagen Type I-binding Cpa Surface Protein: EXPRESSION PROFILE, BINDING CHARACTERISTICS, BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS, AND POTENTIAL CLINICAL IMPACT. J. Biol. Chem. 280: 33228-33239 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Tendolkar, P. M., Baghdayan, A. S., Shankar, N. (2005). The N-Terminal Domain of Enterococcal Surface Protein, Esp, Is Sufficient for Esp-Mediated Biofilm Enhancement in Enterococcus faecalis. J. Bacteriol. 187: 6213-6222 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Singh, K. V., Nallapareddy, S. R., Nannini, E. C., Murray, B. E. (2005). Fsr-Independent Production of Protease(s) May Explain the Lack of Attenuation of an Enterococcus faecalis fsr Mutant Versus a gelE-sprE Mutant in Induction of Endocarditis. Infect. Immun. 73: 4888-4894 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Lindahl, G., Stalhammar-Carlemalm, M., Areschoug, T. (2005). Surface Proteins of Streptococcus agalactiae and Related Proteins in Other Bacterial Pathogens. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 18: 102-127 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Carniol, K., Gilmore, M. S. (2004). Signal Transduction, Quorum-Sensing, and Extracellular Protease Activity in Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm Formation. J. Bacteriol. 186: 8161-8163 [Full Text]  

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow An erratum has been published
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 Mohamed, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Murray, B. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mohamed, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Murray, B. E.

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»