Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Apr 6.
Published in final edited form as: Microbiology (Reading). 2009 May 21;155(Pt 9):3055–3069. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.025031-0

Table 2.

Sensitivity of the VLCFA mutants to detergents, desiccation and osmotic stress

Strain VMM+DOC* VMM+SARC* Desiccation
tolerance
Hyperosmotic
stress
Hypo-osmotic
stress
Wild-type 125.0±4.45 123±3.42 42±1.8 79.4±1.42 57.0±8.08
fabF2/F1 12.9±4.72§ 9.6±2.07§ 3.46±1.68§ 41.2±7.26§ 10.7±0.970§
fabF2/F1+pCS115 110.0±7.67 110.2±7.73 15.7±5.42 90.7±4.57 50.8±2.72
fabF2 16.1±9.75§ 17.6±2.56§ nd 30.1±5.21§ 26.2±2.79§
fabF1 10.5±0.502§ 10.9±1.05§ nd 47.1±2.08§ nd
fabF1+pCS115 94.8±4.64 74.5±6.82 nd 87.9±6.57 nd
*

Strains were grown in VMM broth or VMM supplemented with 0.075 % DOC or 0.050 % sarcosyl (SARC) for 2 days. OD600 values were measured. Percentage growth was calculated as described in Methods. Values are the mean (±sd) from three independent trials.

Desiccation sensitivity assays were performed as described in Methods. Percentage survival values presented are the mean (±sd) percentage survival from three independent trials.

Strains were grown in TY supplemented with 69.5 mM NaCl (hyperosmotic) or GYM medium (hypo-osmotic) for 2 days, and the growth was compared with that of strains grown in TY medium. OD600 values were measured. Percentage growth values are the mean and sd from three independent trials.

§

Difference between the wild-type and mutant is statistically significant at P <0.001 (Student’s t test).