2017
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188936
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Campylobacter jejuni transcriptome changes during loss of culturability in water

Abstract: BackgroundWater serves as a potential reservoir for Campylobacter, the leading cause of bacterial gastroenteritis in humans. However, little is understood about the mechanisms underlying variations in survival characteristics between different strains of C. jejuni in natural environments, including water.ResultsWe identified three Campylobacter jejuni strains that exhibited variability in their ability to retain culturability after suspension in tap water at two different temperatures (4°C and 25°C). Of the th… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
17
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 93 publications
1
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The low temperature (4°C) employed in the current study was intentionally chosen to enhance the potential to detect differences in survival among different strains of C. jejuni and C. coli shed by the birds in the feces. Campylobacter strains can differ in their cold tolerance (41)(42)(43)(44), and such differences may contribute to the current findings. In addition to temperature, other attributes, including the avian source (chicken versus turkey) and the Campylobacter species and strains involved, may contribute to the observed differences in survival between our study and others.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…The low temperature (4°C) employed in the current study was intentionally chosen to enhance the potential to detect differences in survival among different strains of C. jejuni and C. coli shed by the birds in the feces. Campylobacter strains can differ in their cold tolerance (41)(42)(43)(44), and such differences may contribute to the current findings. In addition to temperature, other attributes, including the avian source (chicken versus turkey) and the Campylobacter species and strains involved, may contribute to the observed differences in survival between our study and others.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…However, C. jejuni lacks these typical osmotic protective systems that are common in other Gram-negative bacteria (Garenaux et al, 2008;Cameron et al, 2012). Instead, several genes have been implicated in responding to hyperosmotic conditions in C. jejuni, including htrB (encoding high-temperature response protein B), ppk (encoding polyphosphate kinase), a sensor histidine kinase (CJM1_1208) (Bronowski et al, 2017), and gltD and glnA that encode proteins for glutamate and glutamine synthesis, respectively (Cameron et al, 2012). Further study is required to determine if these genes are actively transcribed and play potential roles in the progression of C. jejuni into the VBNC state under osmotic stress or not.…”
Section: Induction Of Vbnc C Jejuni By Osmotic Stressmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most water survival studies for Campylobacter have been performed using C. jejuni isolates and survival times have ranged from 2 weeks to 4 months (Cools et al, 2003;Rollins & Colwell, 1986;Trigui et al, 2015). In several studies, autoclaved tap water has been used to obtain sample reproducibility and to avoid influence of native water microbiota (Bronowski et al, 2017;Buswell et al, 1998). Here, the short-term survival of all the Swedish C. coli water isolates was analyzed in autoclaved tap water.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies on different C. jejuni isolates have shown that the survival time in water at a low temperature varies between 2 weeks and 4 months (Cools et al, 2003;Rollins & Colwell, 1986;Trigui, Thibodeau, Fravalo, Letellier, & Faucher, 2015). It has also been noted that C. jejuni isolates derived from various sources exhibit different water survival potential (Bronowski et al, 2017;Buswell et al, 1998;Cools et al, 2003;Jones, Sutcliffe, & Curry, 1991). These differences have been suggested to be a consequence of variation in the genetic content between the isolates (Trigui et al, 2015).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%