This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chow, J M Articles by Russell, J B Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chow, J M Articles by Russell, J B Agricola Articles by Chow, J M Articles by Russell, J B

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1990 June; 56(6): 1588-1593

Effect of ionophores and pH on growth of Streptococcus bovis in batch and continuous culture.

Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

ABSTRACT

Batch cultures (pH 6.7) of Streptococcus bovis JB1 were severely inhibited by 1.25 and 5 microM lasalocid and monensin, respectively, even though large amounts of glucose remained in the medium. However, continuous cultures tolerated as much as 10 and 20 microM, respectively, and used virtually all of the glucose. Although continuous cultures grew with high concentrations of ionophore, the yield of bacterial protein decreased approximately 10-fold. When pH was decreased from 6.7 to 5.7, the potency of both ionophores increased, but lasalocid always caused a larger decrease in yield. The increased activity of lasalocid at pH 5.7 could largely be explained by an increased binding of the ionophore to the cell membrane. Because monensin did not show an increased binding at low pH, some other factor (e.g., ion turnover) must have been influencing its activity. There was a linear increase in lasalocid binding as the concentration increased, but monensin binding increased markedly at high concentrations. Based on the observations that (i) S. bovis cells bound significant amounts of ionophore (the ratio of ionophore to cell material was more important than the absolute concentration), (ii) batch cultures responded differently from continuous cultures, and (iii) pH can have a marked effect on ionophore activity, it appears that the term "minimum inhibitory concentration" may not provide an accurate assessment of microbial growth inhibition in vivo.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Houlihan, A. J., Russell, J. B. (2003). The susceptibility of ionophore-resistant Clostridium aminophilum F to other antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 52: 623-628 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Butaye, P., Devriese, L. A., Haesebrouck, F. (2003). Antimicrobial Growth Promoters Used in Animal Feed: Effects of Less Well Known Antibiotics on Gram-Positive Bacteria. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 16: 175-188 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Callaway, T. R., Russell, J. B. (1999). Selection of a Highly Monensin-Resistant Prevotella bryantii Subpopulation with Altered Outer Membrane Characteristics. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65: 4753-4759 [Abstract] [Full Text]