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
Environmental Microbiology

Mechanism of Copper Surface Toxicity in Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci following Wet or Dry Surface Contact

S. L. Warnes, C. W. Keevil
S. L. Warnes
Environmental Healthcare Unit, School of Biological Sciences, Life Sciences Building, Highfield Campus, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: s.l.warnes@soton.ac.uk
C. W. Keevil
Environmental Healthcare Unit, School of Biological Sciences, Life Sciences Building, Highfield Campus, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00597-11
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Fig. 1.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    Survival of vancomycin-resistant E. faecalis ATCC 51299 (A) and E. faecium NCTC 12202 (B) on copper surfaces with the wet fomite inoculum, with the addition of EDTA prolonging the protective effect of Tiron in E. faecalis ATCC 51299 bacteria exposed to copper surfaces (C). (A and B) Approximately 107 CFU in 20 μl was inoculated onto 1-cm2 coupons in PBS (●) or PBS supplemented with EDTA (○), BCS (▾), d-mannitol (▵), Tiron (■), SOD (□), catalase (♦), and sucrose (♢) at 22°C. (C) Approximately 107 CFU in 20 μl was inoculated onto 1-cm2 coupons in PBS (● and ▾) or PBS supplemented with Tiron (○ and ▵). Cells were removed from coupons and assessed for culturability as described in the text. The addition of EDTA at 65 min of contact did not prolong survival if cells had been inoculated in PBS (▾) but did so in cells inoculated in Tiron (▵).

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

    Survival of enterococcal clinical isolates on copper surfaces in the presence of chelators of Cu(I) (BCS) and Cu(II) ions (EDTA) with the wet fomite inoculum. Approximately 107 CFU of E. faecalis (A) or E. faecium (B), resuspended in 20 μl of 20 mM EDTA or 20 mM BCS, was inoculated onto 1-cm2 copper coupons. Cells were removed and assessed for culturability after 2 and 3 h of contact with the surface at 22°C. Strains used were as follows: ATCC 51299 in EDTA (black bars) or BCS (white bars), wound swab isolate 1 in EDTA (dark gray bars) or BCS (light gray bars), and fecal isolate 2 in EDTA (white spotted bars) or BCS (black spotted bars) (A) and NCTC 12202 in EDTA (black bars) or BCS (white bars), ascitic fluid isolate 1 in EDTA (dark gray bars) or BCS (light gray bars), swab isolate 2 in EDTA (white spotted bars) or BCS (black spotted bars), blood culture isolate 3 in EDTA (white diagonal bars) or BCS (gray diagonal bars), gastric aspirate isolate 4 in EDTA (white crossed bars) or BCS (gray crossed bars), and isolate from central venous catheter tip 5 in EDTA (white horizontal striped bars) or BCS (gray horizontal striped bars) (B). (For ease of observation, time zero results are not shown for each graph.) No viable cells were present in PBS alone at these time points.

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

    Survival of vancomycin-resistant E. faecalis ATCC 51299 (A and C) and E. faecium NCTC 12202 (B and D) on copper (A and B) and copper alloy C26000 (C and D) surfaces with the dry inoculum. Approximately 107 CFU in 1 μl was inoculated onto 1-cm2 coupons in PBS (black bars) or PBS supplemented with EDTA (white bars), BCS (dark gray bars), d-mannitol (light gray bars), Tiron (white spotted bars), SOD (black spotted bars), catalase (white diagonal striped bars), and sucrose (gray diagonal striped bars) at 22°C (time zero results not shown).

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

    Protection of bacterial genomic DNA by chelators and ROS quenchers determined by use of a DNA fragmentation assay with the wet and dry inocula. Approximately 107 bacterial cells (in 20 μl [wet] or 1 μl [dry]) were inoculated onto copper coupons in PBS (control) or PBS supplemented with chelators or ROS quenchers and incubated at 22°C for 2 h (wet) or 10 min (dry). The cells were removed from the coupons, and genomic DNA was analyzed with a DNA fragmentation assay. For cells that had been inoculated onto coupons in PBS or PBS supplemented with mannitol or SOD, very little DNA was visible, presumably because the fragments were too small to be visualized and had diffused away from the body of the cell. However, in the presence of EDTA, BCS, and Tiron, intact DNA was visible, suggesting that they exerted a protective effect on the nucleic acid. On stainless steel all supplements demonstrated intact genomic DNA (not shown for the dry inoculum). The bar represents 10 μm.

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

    Rapid breakdown of bacterial DNA on copper (A) and alloy (C26000) (B) surfaces compared to stainless steel (C) occurs as part of the killing mechanism in enterococci. Approximately 107 CFU in 1 μl was inoculated onto 1-cm2 coupons, and cells were removed at the time points indicated (minutes of contact) with glass beads and PBS-EDTA (20 mM) as described in the text. Cells were pooled and stained with SYTO 9 (5 μM) to detect double-stranded DNA and observed by using epifluorescence microscopy. Clumping and disintegration of DNA (reduced staining) were seen at 0 to 30 s of contact with copper surfaces and at 30 s to 1 min of contact with alloy but not on stainless steel. Results for E. faecalis ATCC 51299 are shown. Bar, 10 μM.

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

    Protection of bacterial respiratory pathways by chelators and ROS quenchers on copper surfaces with the wet (A) or dry (B) inoculum. Approximately 107 bacterial cells (in 20 μl) were inoculated onto copper coupons in PBS or PBS supplemented with chelators or ROS quenchers and incubated at 22°C for 2 h. Cells were stained in situ with the redox stain CTC to detect actively respiring cells (fluorescing red) and a nonspecific bacterial stain, SYTO 9, for total cell numbers (green fluorescence DNA stain). In the presence of EDTA, BCS, or Tiron, respiring cells are visible, and the bright staining with SYTO 9 suggests that the DNA is intact. However, no respiring cells were visible in PBS or PBS supplemented with mannitol, catalase, or SOD (not shown). Respiring cells were detected on stainless steel for all supplements tested (not shown). For the dry inoculum (1 μl), cells were removed from coupons as described in the text, and at the times indicated, for culture; pooled; and stained with CTC for 1 h before transferring them onto a microscope slide. Cells were actively respiring at 10 min on stainless steel, but very few respiring cells were visible following 1 min of contact with copper surfaces. Bar, 10 μM.

  • Fig. 7.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 7.

    Detection of changes in membrane potential changes in situ in E. faecalis ATCC 51299 cells exposed to copper (for the times indicated) and stainless steel (only the 10-min time point is illustrated) surfaces. Approximately 107 bacterial cells (in 1 μl) that had been stained with rhodamine 123 were inoculated onto metal coupons for 10 min. Images were recorded every minute and were observed by using epifluorescence microscopy. Bright staining indicates that membranes are not compromised until after 8 min of contact; i.e., many cells were already dead, as indicated by the culture results. The ionophore CCCP was used as a negative control to depolarize the membrane and eliminate rhodamine 123 staining (not shown). Bar, 10 μM.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Mechanism of Copper Surface Toxicity in Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci following Wet or Dry Surface Contact
S. L. Warnes, C. W. Keevil
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Aug 2011, 77 (17) 6049-6059; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00597-11

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.
Mechanism of Copper Surface Toxicity in Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci following Wet or Dry Surface Contact
(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
Mechanism of Copper Surface Toxicity in Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci following Wet or Dry Surface Contact
S. L. Warnes, C. W. Keevil
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Aug 2011, 77 (17) 6049-6059; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00597-11
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

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