Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Applied and Environmental Microbiology logoLink to Applied and Environmental Microbiology
. 1977 Apr;33(4):745–750. doi: 10.1128/aem.33.4.745-750.1977

Characteristics of Bacteroides isolates from the cecum of conventional mice.

G W Tannock
PMCID: PMC170761  PMID: 869524

Abstract

Bacteroides isolates from the cecum of conventional mice were characterized and grouped according to their ability to ferment or hydrolyze carbohydrates and other compounds believed to be present in the intestinal ecosystem. The isolates were divided into 11 groups on the basis of the fermentation of glucose, cellobiose, gum arabic and xylan (hemicelluloses), N-acetylglucosamine, and dextrin; the hydrolysis of starch and casein (proteolysis); and the production of indole. Stock cultures of B. fragilis, B. distasonis, B. ovatus, B. vulgatus, and B. ruminicola were characterized in the same way. The strains isolated most frequently from the mouse cecum resembled B. fragilis (except that arabinose was fermented) and B. thetaiotaomicron.

Full text

PDF
745

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bryant M. P. Nutritional features and ecology of predominant anaerobic bacteria of the intestinal tract. Am J Clin Nutr. 1974 Nov;27(11):1313–1319. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/27.11.1313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gordon H. A., Pesti L. The gnotobiotic animal as a tool in the study of host microbial relationships. Bacteriol Rev. 1971 Dec;35(4):390–429. doi: 10.1128/br.35.4.390-429.1971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. HUNGATE R. E. The anaerobic mesophilic cellulolytic bacteria. Bacteriol Rev. 1950 Mar;14(1):1–49. doi: 10.1128/br.14.1.1-49.1950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Lee A., Gordon J., Dubos R. Enumeration of the oxygen sensitive bacteria usually present in the intestine of healthy mice. Nature. 1968 Dec 14;220(5172):1137–1139. doi: 10.1038/2201137a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Luckey T. D. Intestinal microecology. Introduction: the villus in chemostat man. Am J Clin Nutr. 1974 Nov;27(11):1266–1276. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/27.11.1266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. MEYNELL G. G. Antibacterial mechanisms of the mouse gut. II. The role of Eh and volatile fatty acids in the normal gut. Br J Exp Pathol. 1963 Apr;44:209–219. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. MILLER C. P., BOHNHOFF M. CHANGES IN THE MOUSE'S ENTERIC MICROFLORA ASSOCIATED WITH ENHANCED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO SALMONELLA INFECTION FOLLOWING STREPTOMYCIN TREATMENT. J Infect Dis. 1963 Jul-Aug;113:59–66. doi: 10.1093/infdis/113.1.59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Maier B. R., Onderdonk A. B., Baskett R. C., Hentges D. J. Shigella, indigenous flora interactions in mice. Am J Clin Nutr. 1972 Dec;25(12):1433–1440. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/25.12.1433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Moore W. E., Holdeman L. V. Special problems associated with the isolation and identification of intestinal bacteria in fecal flora studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 1974 Dec;27(12):1450–1455. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/27.12.1450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Savage D. C. Associations and physiological interactions of indigenous microorganisms and gastrointestinal epithelia. Am J Clin Nutr. 1972 Dec;25(12):1372–1379. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/25.12.1372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Savage D. C. Associations of indigenous microorganisms with gastrointestinal mucosal epithelia. Am J Clin Nutr. 1970 Nov;23(11):1495–1501. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/23.11.1495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Savage D. C., McAllister J. S., Davis C. P. Anaerobic bacteria on the mucosal epithelium of the murine large bowel. Infect Immun. 1971 Oct;4(4):492–502. doi: 10.1128/iai.4.4.492-502.1971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Shedlofsky S., Freter R. Synergism between ecologic and immunologic control mechanisms of intestinal flora. J Infect Dis. 1974 Mar;129(3):296–303. doi: 10.1093/infdis/129.3.296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Suegara N., Morotomi M., Watanabe T., Kawal Y., Mutai M. Behavior of microflora in the rat stomach: adhesion of lactobacilli to the keratinized epithelial cells of the rat stomach in vitro. Infect Immun. 1975 Jul;12(1):173–179. doi: 10.1128/iai.12.1.173-179.1975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Syed S. A., Abrams G. D., Freter R. Efficiency of various intestinal bacteria in assuming normal functions of enteric flora after association with germ-free mice. Infect Immun. 1970 Oct;2(4):376–386. doi: 10.1128/iai.2.4.376-386.1970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Tannock G. W., Savage D. C. Indigenous microorganisms prevent reduction in cecal size induced by Salmonella typhimurium in vaccinated gnotobiotic mice. Infect Immun. 1976 Jan;13(1):172–179. doi: 10.1128/iai.13.1.172-179.1976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Whitt D. D., Demoss R. D. Effect of microflora on the free amino acid distribution in various regions of the mouse gastrointestinal tract. Appl Microbiol. 1975 Oct;30(4):609–615. doi: 10.1128/am.30.4.609-615.1975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Applied and Environmental Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES