Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Methods

Use of High-Affinity Cell Wall-Binding Domains of Bacteriophage Endolysins for Immobilization and Separation of Bacterial Cells

Jan W. Kretzer, Rainer Lehmann, Mathias Schmelcher, Manuel Banz, Kwang-Pyo Kim, Corinna Korn, Martin J. Loessner
Jan W. Kretzer
Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, ETH Zurich, Schmelzbergstrasse 7, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rainer Lehmann
Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, ETH Zurich, Schmelzbergstrasse 7, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mathias Schmelcher
Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, ETH Zurich, Schmelzbergstrasse 7, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Manuel Banz
Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, ETH Zurich, Schmelzbergstrasse 7, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kwang-Pyo Kim
Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, ETH Zurich, Schmelzbergstrasse 7, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Corinna Korn
Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, ETH Zurich, Schmelzbergstrasse 7, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin J. Loessner
Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, ETH Zurich, Schmelzbergstrasse 7, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: martin.loessner@ethz.ch
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02402-06
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIG. 1.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 1.

    Magnetic beads coated with GFP-tagged CBD proteins bind and immobilize bacterial cells. Ni-NTA agarose beads coated with CBD500 (A and B) immobilize L. monocytogenes Scott A cells onto their surface (C). Coating of M-270 Epoxy Dynabeads with CBD500 (D and E) and binding of Listeria cells to their surface (F) are shown. Bars in panels A to C are 20 μm, and those in panels D to F are 10 μm.

  • FIG. 2.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 2.

    Performance of CBD500-coated Ni-NTA magnetic agarose beads for separation of L. monocytogenes Scott A. Three variables were tested for their effects on recovery rates, i.e., (A) different bead concentrations (indicated as the absolute number used in the 200-μl assay volume (with 104 cells, 40-min incubation), (B) different incubation times (with 104 cells, 1.7 × 105 beads), and (C) different cell concentrations (with 1.7 × 105 beads, 40-min incubation).

  • FIG. 3.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 3.

    Influence of blocking agent and CBD type on binding and recovery with CBD-coated Dynabeads. (A) Immobilization of L. monocytogenes EGDe with CBD118-coated beads blocked with either BSA or Tris. (B) Separation of L. monocytogenes EGDe or Scott A after contact with beads coated with CBD118, CBD500, or a 1:1 mixture of both bead types or with uncoated, Tris-blocked control beads, respectively.

  • FIG. 4.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 4.

    CBD-coated beads do not lead to agglutination of cell-bead mixtures. Light microscopy images show the cross-linked agglomerates formed after incubation of anti-Listeria Dynabeads with cell suspensions of both L. monocytogenes Scott A (panel A) and EGDe (panel B), respectively. In contrast, beads coated with CBD500 (panel C) or CBD118 (panel D) did not show significant agglutination after incubation with Scott A and EGDe cells, respectively.

  • FIG. 5.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 5.

    Optimization of parameters for separation and recovery of Listeria cells with CBD-coated Dynabeads. CBD118 beads were tested with L. monocytogenes WSLC 1001 and EGDe, and CBD500 beads were used with L. monocytogenes Scott A and L. ivanovii WSLC 3009. Three variables were tested, i.e., different bead concentrations, indicated as the absolute number used in the 200-μl assay volume (with 104 cells, 40-min incubation time) (panels A and B), different incubation times (104 cells, 2 × 107 beads) (panels C and D), and different cell concentrations (2 × 107 beads, 40-min incubation) (panels E and F).

  • FIG. 6.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 6.

    CBD proteins from endolysins of B. cereus and C. perfringens bacteriophages for labeling and immobilization of host target bacteria. Panels: A, B. cereus cells fluorescently decorated by GFP-tagged CBD21; B, C. perfringens cells labeled by GFP-CBD3626 (see text for details); C, C. perfringens cells immobilized on CBD3626-coated Dynabeads; D, rates of immobilization and recovery of cells of the two organisms with Dynabeads coated with the respective CBD molecules.

Tables

  • Figures
  • TABLE 1.

    Efficiencies of recovery of different Listeria species and serovars from mixed bacterial suspensionsa

    Strain (serovar)CBD type on beadsRate of recovery (mean ± SD)b
    L. monocytogenes
        EGDe (1/2a)CBD11897.2 ± 0.9
        WSLC 1001 (1/2c)CBD11894.9 ± 1.8
        Scott A (4b)CBD50096.2 ± 0.8
        WSLC 1042 (4b)CBD50096.6 ± 1.4
        WSLC 1363 (4b)CBD50093.8 ± 0.9
    L. ivanovii WSLC 3009 (5)CBD50092.2 ± 1.8
    L. innocua WSLC 2012 (6b)CBD50098.6 ± 0.9
    • ↵ a See Materials and Methods for details.

    • ↵ b Percent viable cells (measured as CFU) which were captured on the beads and could be recovered from suspension.

  • TABLE 2.

    Comparison of standard plating and magnetic separation with CBD118-coated beads for detection of L. monocytogenes EGDe in artificially contaminated food samples

    Food sample and initial contamination (CFU/g)Result obtained with following conditions for selective enrichment culturea
    6 h24 h48 h
    IDF/ISObCBD-MSIDF/ISOCBD-MSIDF/ISOCBD-MS
    Sliced iceberg lettuce
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−−++++++++++++
        1(+)−++++++++++++
        10−+++++++++++++
        100−++++++++++++++
    Camembert soft cheese
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−−−−−+
        1−−+++++++++
        10−−++++++++++++
        100+++++++++++++++
    Red smear cheese
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−−−+−+
        1−(+)−++−+
        10−−++++++++++++
        100−+++++++++++++
    Smoked salmon
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−−+++++++
        1−−+++++++++
        10−+++++++++++++
        100+++++++++++++++
    Minced meat
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−+++++++++
        1−+++++++++++
        10−+++++++++++++
        100−++++++++++++++
    Turkey breast
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−++++−+
        1−−+++++++++++
        10−+++++++++++++
        100++++++++++++++
    Milk (pasteurized)
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−−++++++++++++
        1−−++++++++++++
        10−+++++++++++++
        100+++++++++++++++
    • ↵ a The number of plus signs indicates the number of typical Listeria colonies on Oxford agar as follows: (+), presence of a single colony on one plate; +, 1 to 10 colonies; ++, 10 to 50 colonies; +++, more than 50 colonies.

    • ↵ b See Materials and Methods for details.

  • TABLE 3.

    Comparison of standard plating and magnetic separation with CBD500-coated beads for detection of L. monocytogenes Scott A in artificially contaminated food samples

    Food sample and initial contamination (CFU/g)Result obtained with following conditions for selective enrichment culturea
    6 h24 h48 h
    IDF/ISObCBD-MSIDF/ISOCBD-MSIDF/ISOCBD-MS
    Sliced iceberg lettuce
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−−+++++++++++
        1−−++++++++++++
        10−+++++++++++++
        100−+++++++++++++
    Camembert soft cheese
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−−++++++
        1−++++++++−
        10++++++++++++
        100+++++++++++++++
    Red smear cheese
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−−++++++
        1−−++++++++++++
        10−+++++++++++++
        100−+++++++++++++
    Smoked salmon
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−−−++++
        1−−+++++++
        10−+++++++++++++
        100+++++++++++++++
    Minced meat
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−−−−−−
        1−−−++++++
        10−−−++++++++
        100++++++++++++++
    Turkey breast
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−−−++++
        1−−−++++
        10−−++++++++
        100−++++++++++++
    Milk (pasteurized)
        0−−−−−−
        0.1−−−+−+
        1−−++−+
        10+++++++++
        100++++++++++++++++
    • ↵ a The number of plus signs indicates the number of typical Listeria colonies on Oxford agar as follows: +, 1 to 10 colonies; ++, 10 to 50 colonies; +++, more than 50 colonies.

    • ↵ b See Materials and Methods for details.

  • TABLE 4.

    Validation of CBD-MS plating with naturally contaminated food samples

    Food type or parameterNo. of samples positive/no. tested (% positive)a
    CBD-MS platingStandard plating method
    Meat and meat products6/26 (23)5/26 (19)
    Poultry9/13 (69)9/13 (69)
    Fish and seafood25/92 (27)23/92 (25)
    Dairy products4/110 (4)4/110 (4)
    Delicatessen salads1/34 (3)1/34 (3)
    Total positive (Listeria spp.)45/275 (16)42/275 (15)
    Positive for L. monocytogenes28/275 (10)26/275 (9)
    Relative performance (%)b10093
    Total time required (h)48c96d
    • ↵ a Values were rounded to the next whole number.

    • ↵ b Relative performance was set at 100% for the system which detected the most positive samples.

    • ↵ c Selective enrichment for 22 h, CBD-MS, and plate incubation for 24 h.

    • ↵ d International IDF standard/ISO norm (selective enrichment for 48 h and plate incubation for 48 h).

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Use of High-Affinity Cell Wall-Binding Domains of Bacteriophage Endolysins for Immobilization and Separation of Bacterial Cells
Jan W. Kretzer, Rainer Lehmann, Mathias Schmelcher, Manuel Banz, Kwang-Pyo Kim, Corinna Korn, Martin J. Loessner
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Mar 2007, 73 (6) 1992-2000; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02402-06

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Applied and Environmental Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Use of High-Affinity Cell Wall-Binding Domains of Bacteriophage Endolysins for Immobilization and Separation of Bacterial Cells
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Applied and Environmental Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Use of High-Affinity Cell Wall-Binding Domains of Bacteriophage Endolysins for Immobilization and Separation of Bacterial Cells
Jan W. Kretzer, Rainer Lehmann, Mathias Schmelcher, Manuel Banz, Kwang-Pyo Kim, Corinna Korn, Martin J. Loessner
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Mar 2007, 73 (6) 1992-2000; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02402-06
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

bacterial adhesion
Bacteriological Techniques
bacteriophages
cell wall
Endopeptidases
Listeria monocytogenes

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AEM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AppEnvMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

 

Print ISSN: 0099-2240; Online ISSN: 1098-5336