4.6 Article

Nanoscale Cell Wall Deformation Impacts Long-Range Bacterial Adhesion Forces on Surfaces

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 80, 期 2, 页码 637-643

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02745-13

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adhesion of bacteria occurs on virtually all natural and synthetic surfaces and is crucial for their survival. Once they are adhering, bacteria start growing and form a biofilm, in which they are protected against environmental attacks. Bacterial adhesion to surfaces is mediated by a combination of different short- and long-range forces. Here we present a new atomic force microscopy (AFM)-based method to derive long-range bacterial adhesion forces from the dependence of bacterial adhesion forces on the loading force, as applied during the use of AFM. The long-range adhesion forces of wild-type Staphylococcus aureus parent strains (0.5 and 0.8 nN) amounted to only one-third of these forces measured for their more deformable isogenic Delta pbp4 mutants that were deficient in peptidoglycan cross-linking. The measured long-range Lifshitz-Van der Waals adhesion forces matched those calculated from published Hamaker constants, provided that a 40% ellipsoidal deformation of the bacterial cell wall was assumed for the Delta pbp4 mutants. Direct imaging of adhering staphylococci using the AFM peak force-quantitative nanomechanical property mapping imaging mode confirmed a height reduction due to deformation in the Delta pbp4 mutants of 100 to 200 nm. Across naturally occurring bacterial strains, long-range forces do not vary to the extent observed here for the Delta pbp4 mutants. Importantly, however, extrapolating from the results of this study, it can be concluded that long-range bacterial adhesion forces are determined not only by the composition and structure of the bacterial cell surface but also by a hitherto neglected, small deformation of the bacterial cell wall, facilitating an increase in contact area and, therewith, in adhesion force.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据