- Research article
- Open Access
Development of bioluminescent Salmonella strains for use in food safety
© Karsi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008
- Received: 28 June 2007
- Accepted: 22 January 2008
- Published: 22 January 2008
Salmonella can reside in healthy animals without the manifestation of any adverse effects on the carrier. If raw products of animal origin are not handled properly during processing or cooked to a proper temperature during preparation, salmonellosis can occur. In this research, we developed bioluminescent Salmonella strains that can be used for real-time monitoring of the pathogen's growth on food products. To accomplish this, twelve Salmonella strains from the broiler production continuum were transformed with the broad host range plasmid pAKlux 1, and a chicken skin attachment model was developed.
Salmonella strains carrying pAKlux 1 constitutively expressed the luxCDABE operon and were therefore detectable using bioluminescence. Strains were characterized in terms of bioluminescence properties and plasmid stability. To assess the usefulness of bioluminescent Salmonella strains in food safety studies, we developed an attachment model using chicken skin. The effect of washing on attachment of Salmonella strains to chicken skin was tested using bioluminescent strains, which revealed the attachment properties of each strain.
This study demonstrated that bioluminescence is a sensitive and effective tool to detect Salmonella on food products in real-time. Bioluminescence imaging is a promising technology that can be utilized to evaluate new food safety measures for reducing Salmonella contamination on food products.
- Plasmid Stability
- Bacterial Luciferase
- Attachment Property
- Chicken Skin
- Washed Treatment
Salmonella enterica, with over 2000 different serovars, is indigenous to the gastrointestinal tracts of many mammals, birds, and reptiles, usually in low levels. Salmonella can be pathogenic in these animals if it reaches certain numbers in vivo. However, moribund animals are usually culled before they reach slaughter. Therefore, the food safety problem relative to humans is that Salmonella can be carried into the processing plant in healthy asymptomatic animals. If cross-contamination occurs during the slaughter process, Salmonella can then be transferred to carcasses that were previously uncontaminated. A significant increase in the number of Salmonella positive broilers between exiting the scalding water immersion tank and exiting the crop extractor demonstrates how in-plant cross-contamination can occur [1, 2]. When carcasses were sampled at 6 points in processing, an increase occurred in the presence of Salmonella from 19% pre-scald to 36.9 % post-chill (after exiting the immersion chill tank).
Regardless of whether the source of contamination was pre-harvest or during processing, Salmonella is difficult to remove from carcasses due to its ability to adhere to chicken skin and endure the stages of processing . Laboratory research, as well as in-plant trials, has demonstrated this relationship [4–7]. Therefore, persistence of Salmonella within the processing plant may be partially explained by interactions between chicken skin and Salmonella. Chemical treatments have been developed and shown to be effective under controlled conditions in the reduction of Salmonella levels on broiler carcasses or skin [8–11]. In spite of these efforts, Salmonella is yet to be eliminated from the process.
When testing the efficacy of different antimicrobial compounds, conventional cultural techniques are typically used. The product is sampled, microbiological culturing protocols are followed, and 48 to 72 hours later the results are known. Bioluminescence imaging (BLI) is a technique that can be used for real-time quantification and tracking of live bacteria in hosts [12–15]. To enable BLI, bacteria are tagged with bacterial luciferase, which catalyzes the oxidation of a long-chain aldehyde and FMNH2 to cause emission of visible light [16–19]. Salmonella strains constitutively expressing bacterial luciferase have no significant alterations in phenotype, including growth kinetics [20, 21] or biochemical, serological, or structural phenotypes [20, 22]. Advantages of the bacterial luciferase reporter system include negligible background , no toxic or phenotypic effects from accumulation of signal , real-time detection, and no need for addition of an exogenous substrate. In addition, bioluminescence from bacterial luciferase correlates well with the amount of luciferase protein and lux mRNA [25, 26], bacterial plate counts [20, 27], and intracellular numbers of bacteria in cell culture .
In this research, our aim was to develop twelve bioluminescent Salmonella enterica strains that can be used for real-time monitoring of the pathogen's growth on food products. Our study is unique in that it includes multiple Salmonella field strains isolated from the broiler production continuum, including post hatchery, prior to harvest, arrival at the plant, pre-chill tank, and post-chill tank.
Bioluminescent Salmonella strains
pAKlux 1 was transferred to twelve Salmonella strains that we isolated in a study on the poultry production and processing continuum. The strains represented the twelve most commonly isolated serovars from our study. This result compared favorably with a previous report where transformation of a lux plasmid into Salmonella isolates from a poultry processing plant was only successful for one isolate out of seven attempted . Expression of the luxCDABE operon, which encodes bacterial luciferase, was driven by the lacZ promoter on pAKlux 1. Because Salmonella does not have lacIq in its chromosome, it constitutively expresses the lacZ promoter on pAKlux 1 and hence produces continuous light while it is alive and metabolically active.
pAKlux 1 is derived from the broad host range plasmid pBBR1, which is relatively stable in gram-negative bacteria in the absence of antibiotic selection [33–35]. pAKlux 1 was stable in the gram-negative species Edwardsiella ictaluri for at least 10 days without antibiotic selection, and the plasmid caused no alterations in growth kinetics, native plasmids, and pathogenicity as compared to the parent strain . Data from the current study indicates that the pBBR1 replicon is not as stable in Salmonella as it is in other gram-negative bacteria. However, bioluminescent Salmonella strains labeled with pAKlux 1 should be suitable for short term experiments in which antibiotic selection cannot be applied.
Characterization of skin attachment properties of Salmonella strains
The effect of washing on Salmonella removal from chicken skin
For all 12 strains, the washed treatments had a significantly lower change in bioluminescence than the corresponding non-washed treatments after the 2 h wash period. However, there was strain variation in the effectiveness of washing (Figure 6). For three strains (S. Kentucky, S. Mbandaka and S. Montevideo), washing reduced the number of Salmonella present on chicken skin at 120 min compared to 0 min (pre-wash). For the other strains, although washing did not decrease the number of Salmonella on chicken skin, it was effective in significantly reducing the growth relative to non-washed samples.
When the differences in bioluminescence between washed and non-washed treatments at 120 min were compared across strains, the decrease in bioluminescence for S. Newport caused by washing was significantly greater than the decrease in bioluminescence for S. Alachua, S. Braenderup, S. Enteritidis, and S. Schwarzengrund (Figure 6). Thus, based on the difference in bioluminescence between washed and non-washed treatments, washing was apparently most effective in removing S. Newport and least effective for S. Alachua, S. Braenderup, S. Enteritidis, and S. Schwarzengrund. However, it is interesting to note that the two strains that attached to chicken skin most effectively (S. Seftenberg and S. Thompson; Figure 4) were also able to increase their numbers in the wash treatment most effectively (3.7 and 2.7 fold increases, respectively, relative to pre-wash) over the 2 hr incubation.
Our results demonstrate that pAKlux 1 is effective for labeling Salmonella enterica strains with bioluminescence. Using this tool, we were able to develop twelve bioluminescent Salmonella strains that were isolated from the poultry production/processing continuum. However, stability results indicated that pAKlux 1 is not as stable in Salmonella as it is in other gram-negative species. Therefore, this labeling system may not be useful for long-term experiments, and work is already in progress in our group to develop a labeling system for Salmonella that is more stable.
Our work also shows that bioluminescence is an effective and sensitive method to monitor Salmonella on food products. In particular, our study demonstrates that Salmonella strains vary in their ability to attach to chicken skin. Future research aimed at determining whether the ability to attach to chicken skin correlates with the ability to persist in poultry production/processing environments is warranted. Finally, our results indicate that simple washing in an agitated water bath can remove contaminating Salmonella from chicken skin, but this method alone cannot eliminate the Salmonella completely due to strong bacterial attachment to skin. Therefore, additional methodologies should be used in poultry processing to eliminate Salmonella from the chicken skin to prevent disease outbreaks. The skin model developed in this study should be very useful for testing alternative strategies in addition to washing procedures.
Bacterial strains and growth media
As part of a previous study, we have collected, isolated, and serotyped thousands of Salmonella specimens derived and cataloged at five different sites along the broiler production continuum: post hatchery, prior to harvest, arrival at the plant, pre-chill tank, and post-chill tank. Salmonella isolates were collected from 66 different flocks during the years 2003–2006. The cataloged information ascribed to each isolate includes location within the production continuum, flock environmental and production parameters, as well as processing plant information. Strains from twelve Salmonella enterica serovars from the poultry production continuum were selected for this study (S. Alachua, S. Braenderup, S. Enteritidis, S. Heidelberg, S. Kentucky, S. Mbandaka, S. Montevideo, S. Newport, S. Schwarzengrund, S. Seftenberg, S. Thompson, and S. Typhimurium). Salmonella strains were grown using Luria-Bertani broth and agar plates at 37°C, and bioluminescent Salmonella strains were grown in the same medium containing ampicillin (100 μg ml-1) for plasmid maintenance.
Bioluminescence tagging of Salmonella strains
Bioluminescent Salmonella enterica strains were established using the broad host range plasmid pAKlux 1 containing the luxCDABE operon from Photorhabdus luminescens . Salmonella strains were grown to logarithmic phase (OD600 of 0.6–0.8), made electrocompetent by washing with 10% cold glycerol solution four times, and stored at -80°C. pAKlux 1 was isolated from Escherichia coli DH5α strain by QIAprep Spin Miniprep Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). Salmonella strains were transformed with pAKlux 1 by electroporation using a Gene Pulser II system at 2.5 kV, 25 uF, and 400 Ω (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA). Cells were allowed to recover for 1 h at 37°C in SOC media (Invitrogen Corp., Carlsbad, CA). Following recovery, bacteria were spread on LB plates with ampicillin and placed in an incubator at 37°C for approximately 16 h. Ampicillin resistant bioluminescent Salmonella colonies were detected using a ChemiImager 5500 imaging system with AlphaEaseFC software (Alpha Innotech, San Leandro, CA) or using an IVIS Imaging System 100 Series with Living Image Software v2.50 (Xenogen Corp., Alameda, CA).
Characterizing the bioluminescence properties of Salmonella strains
Bioluminescent Salmonella strains were grown overnight, and OD600 values of each strain were measured from quadruplicate samples in a 96-well plate using ThermoMax spectrometer (Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, USA). Following OD600 measurements, four separate dilution series were prepared from each strain in black 96-well microtiter plates. Each series contained 2 × 10-3, 4 × 10-3, 8 × 10-3, 1.6 × 10-4, 3.2 × 10-4, 6.4 × 10-4, 1.3 × 10-5, and 2.6 × 10-5 dilutions. Bioluminescence was measured for 5 s at 37°C using an IVIS Imaging System 100 Series, and bioluminescence was quantified using Living Image software v2.50 (Xenogen Corp.). The last two dilutions were spread on LB agar with ampicillin to determine viable bacterial densities.
The linear correlation between population densities and bioluminescence was determined for each strain by plotting bioluminescence against bacteria numbers determined by duplicate plate counts. The minimum detectible number for each strain was determined using the number of bacteria present in the last dilution that had detectable luminescence above background. Colony counts were also used to calculate the theoretical amount of bioluminescence produced per CFU for each strain, which was used to compare expression of bioluminescence among serovars.
Plasmid stability in vitro
Plasmid stability of pAKlux 1 in eleven Salmonella strains was analyzed by subculturing bioluminescent Salmonella strains in LB medium with and without ampicillin 15 times. For each passage, new 0.1 ml cultures were inoculated in microplates in quadruplicate from 16 h cultures at a 40-fold dilution. Bacterial density (OD600) and bioluminescence were determined for each of the 16 h cultures prior to starting new subcultures. Bioluminescence was measured using an IVIS Imaging System for 5 s at 37°C and normalized by dividing total flux by OD600 readings. The average normalized bioluminescence for each strain and passage was determined under non-selective and ampicillin-selected conditions, and plasmid stability was determined by calculating the ratio between normalized bioluminescence under non-selective conditions versus ampicillin-selected conditions. This revealed the capability of each serovar to maintain pAKlux 1 under non-selective conditions.
Development of skin attachment model
An experimental model for investigating bacterial attachment to chicken skin was established. Chicken skin was obtained from a commercial poultry processing plant and submerged in 0.26% sodium hypochlorite solution for approximately 2 h and stored at 4°C until use. Circular sections of skin approximately 8 mm in diameter were made using a circular cutting blade and placed in black 24-well culture plates. To determine the optimal bacterial dose to prevent loss of experimental data due to image saturation, chicken skin was incubated with different numbers of bioluminescent Salmonella (1 × 108 to 2.5 × 104 CFU) in 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline. Based on these results, we used a bacterial concentration of 1 × 106 CFU/ml for subsequent experiments because this dose does not cause saturation and because it falls in the linear detection interval (1 × 103-1 × 108 photons/s/cm2/steradean [p/s/cm2/sr]).
Characterization of skin attachment properties of Salmonella strains
After establishing the skin attachment model, differential attachment properties of twelve Salmonella strains were determined. For each strain, overnight bioluminescent Salmonella cultures were diluted to approximately 1 × 106 CFU/ml in distilled water, and 1 ml was added to skin sections in quadruplicate. Plates were incubated at room temperature for 1 h to allow Salmonella to attach to skin. Then bacterial suspension was removed, and each well was gently washed twice with distilled water to remove unattached bacteria. Immediately after washing, plates were warmed to 37°C for 5 min and bioluminescence was measured for 15 s using the IVIS Imaging System. The experiment was repeated three times.
Total flux was calculated from the pseudo color images. To normalize for bacterial density differences between strains, the total flux from each well was divided by the OD600 of the bacterial suspension used to infect that well. Because the amount of bioluminescence from different strains varied, theoretical bacterial numbers were calculated from bioluminescence using the linear correlation formulas calculated for each strain (Figure 1). The data were transformed by taking the base 10 logarithm of the calculated bacterial numbers to improve normality. To compare bacterial numbers of the 12 Salmonella strains following skin attachment (after 1 h incubation), a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the transformed data was conducted using PROC GLM SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Carey NC). Variables for replicate, strain, and their interaction were included in the model. Pairwise comparison of the means was done using Tukey procedure. A significance level of P ≤ 0.05 was used. Data were then retransformed to percent mortality for interpretation.
The effect of washing on Salmonella removal from chicken skin
The effect of washing chicken skin in an agitated water bath for removal of Salmonella was determined. The same 12 bioluminescent Salmonella strains were allowed to attach to chicken skin sections using the exact method described for the attachment experiment. In this experiment, two treatments were included for each strain: a washed treatment and a control (non-washed) treatment. Each treatment was set up in quadruplicate, and the experiment was repeated three times. Each bioluminescence measurement was conducted after warming plates to 37°C for 5 min. Following the 1 h incubation for attachment and washes to remove unattached bacteria, bioluminescence was measured. One ml of distilled water was added to the washed treatments, and control treatments received no water. Plates were incubated at room temperature for 30 min with agitation at 200 rpm. Water was removed from the washed treatments, and bioluminescence was measured. One ml of water was added to the washed skin treatments, and the wash procedure was repeated three more times (2 h total). After each wash, bioluminescence was measured. Total flux was measured from the pseudo color images for each time point, and samples were normalized as described for the attachment experiment.
To determine the effect of washing within each strain, the mean difference in bioluminescence between 0 minutes (prior to washing) and 120 minutes was calculated for both washed and non-washed treatments for each strain. The mean differences of washed and non-washed treatments within each strain were then compared by conducting a two-way analysis of variance using PROC GLM SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Carey NC) for each strain. Variables for replicate, treatment, and their interaction were included in each model. To compare the effect of washing across strains, the mean difference in bioluminescence between washed and non-washed treatments after 120 minutes was calculated for each strain. A two-way analysis of variance was conducted on the mean differences using PROC GLM SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Carey NC). Variables for replicate, strain, and their interaction were included in the model. Pairwise comparison of the means was done using Tukey procedure. A significance level of 0.05 was used in all analyses.
This study was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (agreement no. 58-6202-5-083). We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Scott Willard and Dr. Peter Ryan for use of the IVIS Living Image System in the MSU Laboratory for Organismal and Cellular Imaging. We thank Michelle Banes and Terry Doler for technical assistance during this project.
- Sarlin LL, Barnhart ET, Caldwell DJ, Moore RW, Byrd JA, Caldwell DY, Corrier DE, Deloach JR, Hargis BM: Evaluation of alternative sampling methods for Salmonella critical control point determination at broiler processing. Poult Sci. 1998, 77: 1253-1257.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lillard HS: Incidence and recovery of Salmonellae and other bacteria from commercially processed poultry carcasses at selected pre- and post-evisceration steps. J Food Prot. 1989, 52: 88-91.Google Scholar
- Lillard HS: The impact with commercial processing procedures on the bacterial contamination and cross-contamination of broiler carcasses. J Food Prot. 1990, 53: 202-204.Google Scholar
- Lillard HS: Factors affecting the persistence of Salmonella during the processing of poultry. J Food Prot. 1989, 52: 829-832.Google Scholar
- Lillard HS: Bacterial cell characteristics and conditions influencing Salmonella adhesion to poultry skin. J Food Prot. 1985, 48: 803-807.Google Scholar
- Lillard HS: Distribution of "attached" Salmonella typhimurium cells between poultry skin and a surface film following water immersion. J Food Prot. 1986, 49: 449-454.Google Scholar
- McMeekin TA, Thomas CJ: Retention of bacteria on chicken skin after immersion in bacterial suspensions. J Food Prot. 1978, 48: 939-943.Google Scholar
- Li Y, Slavik MF, Walker JT, Xiong H: Pre-chill spray of chicken carcasses to reduce Salmonella Typhimurium. J Food Sci. 1997, 62: 605-607. 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1997.tb04441.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mullerat J, Sheldon BW, Klapes NA: Inactivation of Salmonella species and other food-borne pathogens with Salmide, a sodium chlorite-based oxyhalogen disinfectant. J Food Prot. 1995, 58: 535-540.Google Scholar
- Rathgeber BM, Waldroup AL: Antibacterial activity of a sodium acid pyrophosphate product in chiller water against bacteria on broiler carcasses. J Food Prot. 1995, 58: 530-534.Google Scholar
- Basti AA, Razavilar V: Growth response and modeling of the effects of selected factors on the time-to-detection and probability of growth initiation of Salmonella Typhimurium. Food Microbiology. 2004, 21: 431-438. 10.1016/j.fm.2003.10.006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Contag PR, Olomu IN, Stevenson DK, Contag CH: Bioluminescent indicators in living mammals. Nat Med. 1998, 4: 245-247. 10.1038/nm0298-245.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Contag CH, Contag PR, Mullins JI, Spilman SD, Stevenson DK, Benaron DA: Photonic detection of bacterial pathogens in living hosts. Mol Microbiol. 1995, 18: 593-603. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1995.mmi_18040593.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Contag CH, Bachmann MH: Advances in in vivo bioluminescence imaging of gene expression. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2002, 4: 235-260. 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.4.111901.093336.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Karsi A, Menanteau-Ledouble S, Lawrence ML: Development of bioluminescent Edwardsiella ictaluri for noninvasive disease monitoring. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006, 260: 216-223. 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2006.00310.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Meighen EA: Molecular biology of bacterial bioluminescence. Microbiol Rev. 1991, 55: 123-142.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hastings JW: Chemistries and colors of bioluminescent reactions: a review. Gene. 1996, 173: 5-11. 10.1016/0378-1119(95)00676-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Frackman S, Anhalt M, Nealson KH: Cloning, organization, and expression of the bioluminescence genes of Xenorhabdus luminescens. J Bacteriol. 1990, 172: 5767-5773.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wilson T, Hastings JW: Bioluminescence. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 1998, 14: 197-230. 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.14.1.197.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bautista DA, Chen J, Barbut S, Griffiths MW: Use of an autobioluminescent Salmonella Hadar to monitor the effects of acid and temperature treatments on cell survival and viability on lactic acid-treated poultry carcasses. J Food Prot. 1998, 61: 1439-1445.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Beyer W, Bohm R: Labeling Salmonella live vaccine strains with the lux operon from Vibrio fischeri improves their detection and discrimination from wild type. Microbiol Res. 1996, 151: 407-419.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chen J, Griffiths MW: Luminescent Salmonella strains as real time reporters of growth and recovery from sublethal injury in food. Int J Food Microbiol. 1996, 31: 27-43. 10.1016/0168-1605(96)00941-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Troy T, Jekic-McMullen D, Sambucetti L, Rice B: Quantitative comparison of the sensitivity of detection of fluorescent and bioluminescent reporters in animal models. Mol Imaging. 2004, 3: 9-23. 10.1162/153535004773861688.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Billard P, DuBow MS: Bioluminescence-based assays for detection and characterization of bacteria and chemicals in clinical laboratories. Clin Biochem. 1998, 31: 1-14. 10.1016/S0009-9120(97)00136-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Liu Y, Golden SS, Kondo T, Ishiura M, Johnson CH: Bacterial luciferase as a reporter of circadian gene expression in cyanobacteria. J Bacteriol. 1995, 177: 2080-2086.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gu MB, Min J, LaRossa RA: Bacterial bioluminescent emission from recombinant Escherichia coli harboring a recA::luxCDABE fusion. J Biochem Biophys Methods. 2000, 45: 45-56. 10.1016/S0165-022X(00)00100-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Siragusa GR, Nawotka K, Spilman SD, Contag PR, Contag CH: Real-time monitoring of Escherichia coli O157:H7 adherence to beef carcass surface tissues with a bioluminescent reporter. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999, 65: 1738-1745.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Maurer JJ, Doggett TA, Burns-Keliher L, Curtiss R: Expression of the rfa, LPS biosynthesis promoter in Salmonella typhimurium during invasion of intestinal epithelial cells. Curr Microbiol. 2000, 41: 172-176. 10.1007/s002840010113.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wiles S, Clare S, Harker J, Huett A, Young D, Dougan G, Frankel G: Organ specificity, colonization and clearance dynamics in vivo following oral challenges with the murine pathogen Citrobacter rodentium. Cell Microbiol. 2004, 6: 963-972. 10.1111/j.1462-5822.2004.00414.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Francis KP, Joh D, Bellinger-Kawahara C, Hawkinson MJ, Purchio TF, Contag PR: Monitoring bioluminescent Staphylococcus aureus infections in living mice using a novel luxABCDE construct. Infect Immun. 2000, 68: 3594-3600. 10.1128/IAI.68.6.3594-3600.2000.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Marincs F, White DWR: Immobilization of Escherichia coli expressing the lux genes of Xenorhabdus luminescens. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1994, 60: 3862-3863.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Unge A, Tombolini R, Molbak L, Jansson JK: Simultaneous monitoring of cell number and metabolic activity of specific bacterial populations with a dual gfp-luxAB marker system. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999, 65: 813-821.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Elzer PH, Kovach ME, Phillips RW, Robertson GT, Peterson KM, Roop RM: In vivo and in vitro stability of the broad-host-range cloning vector pBBR1MCS in six Brucella species. Plasmid. 1995, 33: 51-57. 10.1006/plas.1995.1006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kovach ME, Elzer PH, Hill DS, Robertson GT, Farris MA, Roop RM, Peterson KM: Four new derivatives of the broad-host-range cloning vector pBBR1MCS, carrying different antibiotic-resistance cassettes. Gene. 1995, 166: 175-176. 10.1016/0378-1119(95)00584-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Antoine R, Locht C: Isolation and molecular characterization of a novel broad-host-range plasmid from Bordetella bronchiseptica with sequence similarities to plasmids from gram-positive organisms. Mol Microbiol. 1992, 6: 1785-1799. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.1992.tb01351.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rabbow E, Stojicic N, Walrafen D, Baumstark-Khan C, Rettberg P, Schulze-Varnholt D, Franz M, Reitz G: The SOS-LUX-TOXICITY-Test on the International Space Station. Res Microbiol. 2006, 157: 30-36. 10.1016/j.resmic.2005.08.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.