Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1999 Sep;65(9):4285-7.
doi: 10.1128/AEM.65.9.4285-4287.1999.

Impact of rpoS deletion on Escherichia coli biofilms

Affiliations

Impact of rpoS deletion on Escherichia coli biofilms

J L Adams et al. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Sep.

Abstract

Slow growth has been hypothesized to be an essential aspect of bacterial physiology within biofilms. In order to test this hypothesis, we employed two strains of Escherichia coli, ZK126 (DeltalacZ rpoS(+)) and its isogenic DeltarpoS derivative, ZK1000. These strains were grown at two rates (0.033 and 0.0083 h(-1)) in a glucose-limited chemostat which was coupled either to a modified Robbins device containing plugs of silicone rubber urinary catheter material or to a glass flow cell. The presence or absence of rpoS did not significantly affect planktonic growth of E. coli. In contrast, biofilm cell density in the rpoS mutant strain (ZK1000), as measured by determining the number of CFU per square centimeter, was reduced by 50% (P < 0.05). Deletion of rpoS caused differences in biofilm cell arrangement, as seen by scanning confocal laser microscopy. In reporter gene experiments, similar levels of rpoS expression were seen in chemostat-grown planktonic and biofilm populations at a growth rate of 0.033 h(-1). Overall, these studies suggest that rpoS is important for biofilm physiology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG. 1
FIG. 1
Graph showing effects of rpoS deletion and growth rate on planktonic (expressed as log10 CFU per milliliter) and biofilm (expressed as log10 CFU per square centimeter) cultures. Error bars represent standard deviations. Values with the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05).
FIG. 2
FIG. 2
SCLM micrographs of E. coli biofilms stained with Live/Dead viability stain in the presence (A) and absence (B) of rpoS. The viable (brightly stained) cells are indicated by an arrow. Bars, 2 μm in panel A and 3 μm in panel B.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bohannon D E, Connell N, Keener J, Tormo A, Espinosa-Urgel M, Zambrano M M, Kolter R. Stationary-phase-inducible “gearbox” promoters: differential effects of katF mutations and role of ς70. J Bacteriol. 1991;173:4482–4492. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Davies D G, Parsek M R, Pearson J P, Iglewski B H, Costerton J W, Greenberg E P. The involvement of cell-to-cell signals in the development of a bacterial biofilm. Science. 1998;280:295–298. - PubMed
    1. Evans D J, Brown M R W, Allison D G, Gilbert P. Susceptibility of bacterial biofilms to tobramycin: role of specific growth rate and phase in the division cycle. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1990;25:585–591. - PubMed
    1. Gilbert P, Das J, Foley I. Biofilm susceptibility to antimicrobials. Adv Dent Res. 1997;11:160–167. - PubMed
    1. Lange R, Hengge-Aronis R. The cellular concentration of the sigma-S subunit of RNA polymerase in Escherichia coli is controlled at the levels of transcription, translation and protein stability. Genes Dev. 1994;8:1600–1612. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources