Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Infection and Immunity logoLink to Infection and Immunity
. 1976 Jan;13(1):9–15. doi: 10.1128/iai.13.1.9-15.1976

Hydrolysis of urea in the gastrointestinal tract of "monoxenic" rats: effect of immunization with strains of ureolytic bacteria.

M C Moreau, R Ducluzeau, P Raibaud
PMCID: PMC420569  PMID: 1248879

Abstract

Axenic rats, in whose feces urea is ordinarily excreted, were inoculated with ureolytic strains of Lactobacillus or Actinobacillus originally derived from the microflora of "holoxenic" rats. In these "monoxenic" animals, harboring one or another of the bacterial strains, fecal urea was hydrolyzed, with a more rapid onset of ureolysis in the case of Actinobacillus as compared with Lactobacillus. In vitro, a parallel difference between the two strains with regard to the onset of ureolysis was observed, hydrolysis beginning at the onset of growth in the case of Actinobacillus and only at the end of the exponential growth phase in the case of Lactobacillus. Extracellular urease activity was demonstrated in cultures of Lactobacillus, whereas none was found extracellularly with Actinobacillus. The pH optimum for the Lactobacillus urease in vitro was found to be 3.0, whereas the corresponding value for Actinobacillus was 6.0. In the two types of monoxenic rats, urea was consistently present in the small intestine and virtually absent from cecum and colon. Hydrolysis of urea in stomach was almost complete in rats bearing Lactobacillus but much less so in animals monoxenic with Actinobacillus, despite essentially equal numbers of organisms in that location. When rats carrying a monoflora of ureolytic Lactobacillus were immunized with either whole cells or soluble extract of the same organism, urea appeared in cecum and feces, indicating suppression of ureolytic activity. Immunization with an extract of nonureolytic Lactobacillus failed to produce such a result. Similar immunization techniques applied to animals monoassociated with ureolytic Actinobacillus did not alter ureolysis, and no appreciable quantity of urea appeared in feces. These studies demonstrate that it is indeed possible to inhibit the ureolytic activity of some bacteria in vivo by immunological means, but that the urease system of other organisms may not be as amenable to such manipulation.

Full text

PDF
9

Selected References

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

  1. Bazin H. L'immunité intestinale. Pathol Biol (Paris) 1970 Dec;18(23):1101–1106. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Crabbé P. A., Bazin H., Eyssen H., Heremans J. F. The normal microbial flora as a major stimulus for proliferation of plasma cells synthesizing IgA in the gut. The germ-free intestinal tract. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol. 1968;34(4):362–375. doi: 10.1159/000230130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. DANG H. C., VISEK W. J. Effect of urease injection on body weights of growing rats and chicks. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1960 Oct;105:164–167. doi: 10.3181/00379727-105-26046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. DANG H. C., VISEK W. J. SOME EFFECTS OF UREASE ADMINISTRATION ON LABORATORY ANIMALS. Am J Physiol. 1964 Apr;206:731–737. doi: 10.1152/ajplegacy.1964.206.4.731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ducluzeau R., Raibaud P., Dickinson A. B., Sacquet E., Mocquot G. Hydrolyse de l'urée in vitro et in vivo, dans le caecum de rats gnotobiotiques, par différentes souches bactériennes isolées du tube digestif de rats conventionnels. C R Acad Sci Hebd Seances Acad Sci D. 1966 Feb 21;262(8):944–947. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ducluzeau R., Raibaud P. Influence de la vaccination sur l'implantation d'Escherichia coli et de Staphylococcus pyogenes dans le tractus digestif de la souris axénique. Ann Inst Pasteur (Paris) 1968 Jun;114(6):846–856. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. GLIMP H. A., TILLMAN A. D. EFFECT OF JACKBEAN UREASE INJECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE, ANTI-UREASE PRODUCTION AND PLASMA AMMONIA AND UREA LEVELS IN SHEEP. J Anim Sci. 1965 Feb;24:105–112. doi: 10.2527/jas1965.241105x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. HARBERS L. H., HENDRICKSON R. F., BASS H. N., VISEK W. J. Effect of urease immunity upon rats with controlled vitamin A intakes. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1963 Jun;113:420–424. doi: 10.3181/00379727-113-28384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. HARBERS L. H., TILLMAN A. D., VISEK W. J., GLIMP H. A. SOME EFFECTS OF JACKBEAN UREASE IMMUNITY IN YOUNG CALVES. J Anim Sci. 1965 Feb;24:102–104. doi: 10.2527/jas1965.241102x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. KRAUS F. W., KONNO J. Antibodies in saliva. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1963 Mar 30;106:311–329. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. LEVENSON S. M., CROWLEY L. V., HOROWITZ R. E., MALM O. J. The metabolism of carbon-labeled urea in the germ free rat. J Biol Chem. 1959 Aug;234(8):2061–2062. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Raibaud P., Dickinson A. B., Sacquet E., Charlier H., Mocquot G. La microflore du tube digestif du rat. I. Techniques d'étude et milieux de culture proposés. Ann Inst Pasteur (Paris) 1966 Apr;110(4):568–590. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Raibaud P., Dickinson A. B., Sacquet E., Charlier H., Mocquot G. La microflore du tube digestif du rat. IV.-Implantation controlée chez le rat gnotobiotique de différents genres microbiens isolés du rat conventionnel. Ann Inst Pasteur (Paris) 1966 Aug;111(2):193–210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Raibaud P., Galpin J. V., Ducluzeau R., Mocquot G., Oliver G. Le genre Lactobacillus dans le tube digestif du rat. I. Caractéres des souches homofermentaires isolées de rats holo- et gnotoxéniques. Ann Microbiol (Paris) 1973 Jan;124(1):83–109. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Sidhu K. S., Hall L. T., Easley L. R., Jones E. W., Tillman A. D. Effect of urease immunity on urease and antiurease activities in ruminants. J Nutr. 1969 Sep;99(1):16–22. doi: 10.1093/jn/99.1.16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sidhu K. S., Jones E. W., Tillman A. D. Effect of urease immunity on growth, digestion and nitrogen metabolism in ruminant animals. J Anim Sci. 1968 Nov;27(6):1703–1708. doi: 10.2527/jas1968.2761703x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. VISEK W. J. Studies on urea hydrolysis in birds and mammals. Am J Vet Res. 1962 May;23:569–574. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Visek W. J., Iwert M. E., Nelson N. S., Rust J. H. Some immunologic properties of jackbean urease and its antibody. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1967 Oct;122(1):95–104. doi: 10.1016/0003-9861(67)90127-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. WAGNER G. R., NICHOLS E. L., KOHLMEIER R. H., BALLOUN S. L., HAYS V. W. LACK OF EFFECT OF UREASE INJECTION ON GROWTH RATE AND FEED EFFICIENCY OF CHICKS AND RATS. J Nutr. 1963 Sep;81:30–34. doi: 10.1093/jn/81.1.30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Infection and Immunity are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES