Skip to main content
. 2006 Jun 9;103(25):9667–9672. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0602359103

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Comparison of the capacity of WT EHEC and its stx2 isogenic mutant to colonize mice. (A) Single-strain challenges: BALB/c mice were orally infected twice with an inoculum that contained ≈2.5 × 109 cfu of 86-24 (□) or TUV86-2 (○). On subsequent days after infection, fecal pellets were collected, homogenized, and serially diluted for plating on MacConkey agar that contained sorbitol. Results from each mouse and the geometric mean of 10 mice infected with 86-24 (black line) or TUV86-2 (gray line) are presented. The horizontal line represents the limit of detection. Asterisks below the x axis indicate days in which a statistical difference (P ≤ 0.05) between strains was established. (B) Mixed-strain challenge: BALB/c mice were orally infected as in A with an inoculum that contained ≈2.5 × 109 cfu of 86-24 and TUV86-2 in equal ratios. Individual colonies were differentiated by screening for an stx2 sequence or Stx2. The level of colonization reflected by each strain in an individual mouse and the geometric mean of 10 mice are presented as in A.