Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T11:33:37.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Micromorphometrical analysis of rodent related (SPF) and unrelated (human) gut microbial flora in germfree mice by digital image processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

D. Veenendaal ,
J. de Boer ,
B. C. Meijer ,
D. van der Waaij  and
M. H. F. Wilkinson
D. Veenendaal
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, Public Health Laboratory, P.O. Box 21020, 8900 JA Leeuwarden
J. de Boer
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Groningen
B. C. Meijer
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, Public Health Laboratory, Groningen, The Netherlands
D. van der Waaij
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Groningen
M. H. F. Wilkinson
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Groningen
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Digital image processing (DIP) of bacterial smears is a new method of analysing the composition of the gut microbial flora. This method provides the opportunity to compare and evaluate differences in the complex highly concentrated anaerobic fraction of gut microbial flora, based on micromorphological differences. There is ample evidence that this fraction can be characterized as related or unrelated to the host organism by its immunogenicity. In this study germfree ND2 mice were associated with either related (rodent) SPF microflora (SPF-MF) or unrelated human MF (HUM-MF). DIP analysis was performed on original SPF-MF and HUM-MF and on the faeces of ex-germfree mice 4 weeks after association. The micromorphological pattern of highly concentrated anaerobic bacteria in faeces of HUM-MF associated ex-germfree mice was significantly different from SPF-MF associated counterparts with regard to the scores for elongation (P < 0·01) and morphological variety (P < 0·05). Moreover, gross morphological variability was present between individual HUM-MF associated mice but not between individual SPF-MF associated animals. No differences were found between original SPF and HUM-MF. The data are discussed with regard to differences in the presence of (non-)immunogenic bacteria and the ability for related and unrelated flora to colonize the murine gut. This study provides evidence that murine host specificity of microbial flora may not only be reflected in the number of non-immunogenic bacteria but also in the micromorphological pattern of highly concentrated anaerobic bacteria in faeces measured by DIP analysis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 116 , Issue 1 , February 1996 , pp. 35 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

References

1.Meijer, BC, Kootstra, GJ, Wilkinson, MHF. A theoretical and practical investigation into the characterisation of bacterial species by image analysis. Binary 1990; 2: 21–31.Google Scholar
2.Meijer, BC, Kootstra, GJ, Wilkinson, MHF. Morphometrical parameters of gut microflora in human volunteers. Epidemiol Infect 1991; 107: 383–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Meijer, BC, Kootstra, GJ, Geertsma, DG, Wilkinson, MHF. Effects of ceftriaxone on faecal flora: analysis by micromorphometry. Epidemiol Infect 1991; 106: 513–21.Google Scholar
4.Wilkinson, MHF, Jansen, GJ, Van Der Waaij, D. Computer processing of microscopic images of bacteria: morphometry and fluorimetry. Trends Microbiol 1994; 12: 485–9.Google Scholar
5.Moore, WEC, Holdeman, LV. Human faecal flora: the normal flora of 20 Japanese Hawaiians. Appl Environ Microbiol 1974; 27: 961–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Nord, CE, Kager, L. The normal flora of the gastrointestinal tract. Neth J Med 1984; 27: 249–52.Google Scholar
7.Koopman, JP, Van den Brink, ME, Smits, RCTG. Effect on the level and biotypes of Enterobacteriaceae in rat faeces. Micr Ecol Health Dis 1989; 2: 279–83.Google Scholar
8.Veenendaal, D, De Boer, F, Van Der Waaij, D. Effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract of donor and recipient on the occurrence of murine delayed type graft versus host disease after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Med Microbiol Immunol 1988; 177: 133–4.Google Scholar
9.Holdeman, LV, Cato, EP, Moore, Wec. Human faecal flora: variation in bacterial composition within individuals and a possible effect of emotional stress. App Environ Microbiol 1976; 31: 359–75.Google Scholar
10.Meijer-severs, GJ, Van Santen, E. Variations in aerobic faecal flora of ten healthy human volunteers with special reference to the Bacteroides fragilis group and Clostridium difficile. Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg (A) 1986; 261: 43–52.Google Scholar
11.Van der Merwe, JP, Stegeman, JH, Hazenberg, MP. The resident faecal flora is determined by genetic characteristics of the host. Implications for Crohn's disease. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1983; 49: 119.Google Scholar
12.Van Der Waaij, D. The immunoregulation of the intestinal flora; consequences of decreased thymus activity and broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment. Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg 1985; Suppl 13: 73–87.Google Scholar
13.Van Der Waaij, D. Evidence of immunoregulation of the composition of intestinal microflora and its practical consequences. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1988; 7: 103–6.Google Scholar
14.Berg, RD, Savage, DC. Immune responses of specific pathogen-free and gnotobiotic mice to antigens of indigenous and nonindigenous microorganisms. Inf Immunol 1975; 11: 320–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Foo, MC, Lee, A. Immunological response of mice to members of the autochthonous intestinal microflora. Inf Immunol 1972; 6: 525–32.Google Scholar
16.Van Der Waaij, D, Heidt, PJ. Intestinal bacterial ecology in relation to immunological factors and other defence mechanisms. In Hambraeus, L, Hanson, Ca, McFarlane, H, eds. Food and immunology. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1977: 133–41.Google Scholar
17.Veenendaal, D, De Boer, F, Van Der Waaij, D. Immunological selection of related and unrelated microflora by germfree mice. In McDonald, TT, Challacombe, SJ, Bland, PW, Stokes, CR, Heatley, RV, McMowat, A, eds. Advances in mucosal immunology. London: Kluwer academic publisher, 1990: 927–8.Google Scholar
18.Van Der Waaij, D. The persistent absence of Enterobacteriaceae from the intestinal flora of mice following antibiotic treatment. J Infect Dis 1968; 118: 32.Google Scholar
19.Van Der Waaij, D, Berghuis-De Vries, JM, Lekkerkerk-Van Der Wees, JEC. Colonization resistance of the digestive tract in conventional and antibiotic treated mice. J Hyg 1971; 69: 405–11.Google Scholar
20.Lee, A. Neglected niches. The microbial ecology of the gastrointestinal tract. In Marshall, KC, ed. Advances in microbial ecology, vol 8. New York: Plenum Publisher, 1985: 115–62.Google Scholar