Adherence of slime-producing strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis to smooth surfaces

G D Christensen, W A Simpson, A L Bisno, E H Beachey, G D Christensen, W A Simpson, A L Bisno, E H Beachey

Abstract

Slime production is not a generally recognized feature of Staphylococcus epidermidis. In a recent outbreak of S. epidermidis intravascular catheter-associated sepsis, we noted that 63% of clinically implicated strains grew as a slimy film coating the culture tube walls when propagated in tryptic soy broth. Only 37% of randomly collected blood culture contaminants and skin isolates demonstrated a similar phenomenon (p less than 0.05). Transmission electron micrographs of these coating bacteria showed them to be encased in an extracellular matrix that stained with alcian blue. Slime production was most evident in autoclaved media containing Casamino Acids and glucose supplementation (0.25% wt/vol). There were strain and media preparation variability of slime production in the presence of other carbohydrates. Some strains were not able to produce slime under any of the tested conditions. The production or nonproduction of slime did not influence growth rate. When grown in vitro, slime producers accumulated on the surface of intravascular catheters as macrocolonies, whereas non-slime, producers did not. Transmission and scanning electron micrographs showed slime producers to be encased in an adhesive layer on the catheter surface, whereas nonproducers were not encased. These results suggest that slime-mediated adherence may be a critical factor in the pathogenesis of S. epidermidis infections of medical devices.

References

    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother (Bethesda). 1967;7:54-9
    1. J Bacteriol. 1968 Oct;96(4):902-8
    1. J Clin Pathol. 1969 Jul;22(4):475-82
    1. J Cell Biol. 1971 Dec;51(3):611-20
    1. Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl. 1972;27:25-8
    1. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972 Mar;54(2):207-36
    1. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972 Mar;54(2):257-75
    1. Circulation. 1973 Aug;48(2):365-77
    1. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1973 Oct;(96):213-21
    1. J Infect Dis. 1974 Mar;129(3):310-6
    1. J Infect Dis. 1975 May;131(5):543-52
    1. South Med J. 1977 May;70(5):555-8
    1. Infect Immun. 1977 Dec;18(3):726-34
    1. Can Med Assoc J. 1978 Mar 4;118(5):524-30
    1. Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig A. 1978 Jul;241(1):119-35
    1. Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig A. 1978 Jul;241(1):140-56
    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Sep;14(3):353-9
    1. Johns Hopkins Med J. 1980 Jan;146(1):13-5
    1. Science. 1981 Oct 16;214(4518):337-9
    1. Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg B. 1981;173(5):285-92
    1. Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg B. 1981;173(5):293-9
    1. Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg B. 1981;173(5):300-7
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1982 Jan;96(1):1-10
    1. Br Med J. 1961 Mar 25;1(5229):860-3
    1. J Exp Med. 1961 Apr 1;113:693-700
    1. N Engl J Med. 1961 Feb 9;264:264-70
    1. J Bacteriol. 1962 Jun;83:1238-43
    1. J Bacteriol. 1962 Jun;83:1169-76
    1. J Bacteriol. 1963 Jan;85:62-7
    1. J Bacteriol. 1965 Mar;89:874-9
    1. J Gen Microbiol. 1965 Mar;38:363-87
    1. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1965 Jul 23;128(1):45-58

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj