SUMMARYThe cultural and pathogenic properties of five rough mutants of avian E. coli were compared with those of four smooth strains. None of the smooth strains showed the ability to agglutinate in aqueous solutions of acriflavine higher than 1:500. On this basis they could be differentiated from the rough strains. In contrast to the smooth strains none of the rough strains grew on D1.5 medium containing 400 ig/ml of crystal violet as an inhibitor. Endotoxin potency was investigated by inoculating 10-day-old chick embryos with bacteria which were dried with alcohol, aceton and ether under vacuum in the presence of CaCl 2 . Pathogenicity of live bacteria was tested by inoculation of 1-day-old commercial broiler chicks via their yolk sacs. The virulence of two live rough mutants (R1 and R2) in a concentration of 10 4 colony forming units (CFU)/ml of inoculum proved to be higher than that of the smooth strains. Live bacteria of both smooth and rough E. coli under experimental conditions produced the same gross pathology in day-old chicks. INTRODUCTIONA considerable number of non-typable and autoagglutinable strains of E. coli has been isolated lately from clinically affected birds as well as from poultry dust. Rosenberger et al. (1984) reported that 16 out of 95 E. coli isolates were nontypable and highly or moderately pathogenic to 1-day-old broiler chicks. Nakamura et al. (1982), testing fluctuation of drug-resistant E. coli strains, has isolated some non-typable forms from the fluff of hatchers and from day-old chicks. It is known that E. coli bacteria undergo smooth to rough (S to R) mutation and that this change results in greater or lesser loss of polysaccharide which determines 0 serotype. Rough forms are characterised by their ability to agglutinate spontaneously in the culture medium or serum (Edwards and Ewing, 1968).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.