Coaggregation of Fusobacterium nucleatum, Selenomonas flueggei, Selenomonas infelix, Selenomonas noxia, and Selenomonas sputigena with strains from 11 genera of oral bacteria

Abstract

Twenty-eight strains of Fusobacterium nucleatum and 41 Selenomonas strains, including S. sputigena (24 strains), S. flueggei (10 strains), S. infelix (5 strains), and S. noxia (2 strains), were tested for their ability to coaggregate with each other and with 49 other strains of oral bacteria representing Actinobacillus, Actinomyces, Bacteroides, Capnocytophaga, Gemella, Peptostreptococcus, Porphyromonas, Propionibacterium, Rothia, Streptococcus, and Veillonella species. Selenomonads coaggregated with fusobacteria and with Actinomyces naeslundii PK984 but not with any of the other bacteria, including other selenomonads. In contrast, fusobacteria coaggregated with members of all genera, although not with all strains of each species tested. Each fusobacterium strain appeared to have its own set of partners and coaggregation properties, unlike their partners, whose coaggregation properties in earlier surveys delineated distinct coaggregation groups. Coaggregations of fusobacteria with the 63 gram-negative strains were usually inhibited by EDTA, whereas those with the 27 gram-positive strains were usually not inhibited. Likewise, lactose-inhibitable coaggregations were common among some strains of fusobacteria and some strains from each of the genera containing gramnegative partners but were rarely observed with gram-positive partners. Heating the fusobacteria at 85°C for 30 min completely prevented coaggregation with most partners, suggesting the involvement of a protein on the fusobacteria. Heat treatment of many of the gram-negative partners not only enhanced their coaggregation with the fusobacteria but also changed lactose-sensitive coaggregations to lactose-insensitive coaggregations. Although fusobacteria coaggregated with a broader variety of oral partner strains than any other group of oral bacteria tested to date, each fusobacterium exhibited coaggregation with only a certain set of partner strains, and none of the fusobacteria adhered to other strains of fusobacteria, indicating that recognition of partner cell surfaces is selective. The strains of F. nucleatum are heterogeneous and cannot be clustered into distinct coaggregation groups. Collectively, these results indicate that coaggregation between fusobacteria and many gram-negative partners is signfficantly different from their coaggregation with gram-positive partners. The contrasting variety of partners for fusobacteria and selenomonads supports the concept of coaggregation partner specificity that has been observed with every genus of oral bacteria so far examined. * Corresponding author. whereas others were inhibited by treating their partner. Some pairs were inhibited by 0.02 M EDTA, but others were not. A brief report of the properties of coaggregation of F. nucleatum with Streptococcus sanguis, Streptococcus mitis, Bacteroides melaninogenicus, or Staphylococcus aureus indicated that the ability of fusobacteria to coaggregate was destroyed by heat (90°C for 10 min) or protease, whereas the ability of S. sanguis to coaggregate with fusobacteria was...

Interactions between salivary Bifidobacterium adolescentis and other oral bacteria: in vitro coaggregation and coadhesion assays

“…The results presented in this study suggest that a cellular surface protein(s) of F. nucleatum JCM8532 is one of the mediators of coaggregation with B. adolescentis OLB6410. These results are similar to those described by Kolenbrander et al (1989). These authors performed an in-depth analysis of the coaggregation of F. nucleatum with 11 genera of oral bacteria, and reported that heating the fusobacteria completely prevents coaggregation.…”

“…In general, coaggregation is a highly specific process involving an interaction between bacterial surface molecules, which act as adhesives, and complementary receptors, including proteins and carbohydrates (McIntire et al, 1978). It has been reported that many coaggregation reactions of F. nucleatum with other oral bacteria, particularly gram-negative bacteria, are mediated by lectin À carbohydrate interactions (McIntire et al, 1978;Kolenbrander et al, 1989). Such coaggregation is inhibited by sugars and their relatives (e.g.…”

Smoking decreases structural and functional resilience in the subgingival ecosystem

“…Another interesting instance of mutualism was apparent between Streptococcus, Actinomyces and Selenomonas. Oral Streptococci appear to be important for Actinomyces colonization, and Selenomonas are poor colonizers unless Actinomyces naeslundii is present (Kolenbrander et al 1989, Palmer et al 2001). In the present investigation, surprisingly high levels of Selenomonas were found within 24 h in certain subjects, and correlated strongly with the levels of Streptococcus and Actinomyces.…”

Sensitivity of bacterial coaggregation to chelating agents

“…There are several approaches to disaggregating cell clumps, including antibodies, antibiotics, chaotropes, enzymes and low molecular mass saccharides complementary to lectins. Experiments performed some years ago by Cisar et al [7], McIntire et al [8], Kolenbrander et al [9] and Eifuku et al [10] suggest that adhesins of Actinomyces spp. may be inhibited by chelating agents, such as EDTA.…”