Identification of Serratia Occurring in Man and Animals

Abstract

Cultures of Serralia even when unpigmented can be identified by their flagella which have an unusual coiled shape. Serratia cultures isolated from clinical materials are lactose negative, imvic − − + +, sulphide negative, anerogenic, and have a distinctive pattern of fermentative abilities. A different Serratia, not so far encountered in clinical materials, is also described. The literature on isolation of Serralia from man and animals is summarized.

Numerical Study of 60 Strains of Serratia

“…Phenon A resembles Serratia marcescens of Ewing et al (1962) Fulton et al (1959) except that cellobiose is not readily fermented by our strains. Phenon B is not described by Ewing et al (1962).…”

“…Phenon B included five strains characterized by their fermentation pattern, positive malonate test and halotolerance. Phenon C included three aerogenic, cold-tolerant strains resembling pattern 2 of Fulton, Forney & Leifson (1959). One strain did not fall into any of these phena.…”

Numerical Classification of the Tribe Klebsielleae

“…kiliensis (Fife et al 1969, by giving positive results in the Voges-Proskauer test at both 37" and room temperature, and by producing acid from arabinose and raffinose. Serratia biotype I1 also differs from pattern 2 of Fulton et al (1959) in producing urease, and acid from adonitol. Not enough strains of this organism have been studied to discuss its relationship to other described species of Serratia.…”

Taxonomy of the Genus Serratia

“…The only species accepted in the 8th edition of Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology (Buchanan & Gibbons, I 974) is S. marcescens. Evidence that there was more than one species of Serratia (Brisou & Cadeillan, 1959;Fulton, Forney & Taxonomy of' Serratia 43 Leifson, 1959) was not followed up until recently, when Grimont (1969), Bascomb et al (1971) and Grimont & Dulong de Rosnay (1972) produced evidence that red-pigmented enterobacteria constituted more than one species. Although Edwards & Ewing (1972) had recognized only one species in the genus, Ewing, Davis & Fife (1972) and Ewing el al.…”