Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T02:14:00.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of toxigenic Vibrio cholerae 01 to physico-chemical stresses in aquatic environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Christopher J. Miller ,
Bohumil S. Drasar  and
Richard G. Feachem
Christopher J. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Tropical Hygiene
Bohumil S. Drasar
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT
Richard G. Feachem
Affiliation:
Department of Tropical Hygiene
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.

The survival and growth of toxigenic Vibrio cholerae 01 in water under various conditions of salinity, pH, temperature and cation composition and concentration were studied in an extensive series of laboratory experiments. Inter- and intra-strain variation in stress response (of 01 and non-01 strains) and the ability of V. cholerae to adapt to stressful environments were also studied. Toxigenic V. cholerae 01 were able to survive for at least 70 days at 25 °C in solutions of sea salt. The optimal salt concentration was 2·0% though all solutions in the range 0·25–3·0% gave good support. Substrains with enhanced capacity to persist at sub-optimal salinity (0·1%) were demonstrated. A great degree of inter-strain variation in stress response at low salinity (0·05%) was found among 59 strains, and this variation was unrelated to serogroup (01 or non-01), source (clinical or environmental) or country of origin (Tanzania or Bangladesh). At optimal salinity, inter-strain variation was less and 18 out of 20 strains remained viable at high concentrations for at least 40 months at 25 °C. V. cholerae 01 could not survive beyond 45 days at 4 °C and optimal salinity, either with or without nutrients. The optimal pH range for survival at 25 °C was 7·0–8·5 at optimal salinity, and 7·5–9·0 at low salinity. V. cholerae 01 require Na+ for survival in the absence of nutrients, and for enhanced growth in their presence. The presence of Ca2+ or Mg2+, in addition to Na+, further enhanced survival. These, and other results reported in this paper, suggest that toxigenic V. cholerae 01 are able to survive for extended periods in warm water containing no nutrients but having a salinity of 0·25–3·0% and a pH of around 8·0. With added nutrients and under the same conditions, rapid growth is possible. The implications of these findings for the identification of putative aquatic reservoirs of V. cholerae 01, and for the epidemiology of cholera, are considerable.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 93 , Issue 3 , December 1984 , pp. 475 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

References

Azurin, J. C, Kobair, Kazumine, Barua, D., Alvero, M., Gomez, C. Z., Dizon, J. J., Nakano, Ei-Ichi, Suplido, R. & Ledesma, L. (1967). A long term carrier of cholera: cholera Dolores. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 37, 745–749.Google ScholarPubMed
Baker, R. M., Singleton, F. L. & Hood, M. A. (1983). Effects of nutrient deprivation on Vibrio cholerae. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 46 (4), 930–940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bisgaard, M. & Kristensen, K. K. (1975). Isolation and characterization and public health aspects of Vibrio cholerae NAG isolated from a Danish duck farm. Avian Pathology 4, 271–276.Google Scholar
Bisgaard, M., Sakazaki, R. & Shimada, T. (1978). Prevalence of non-cholera vibrios in cavum nasi and pharynx of ducks. Acta Pathologica et Microbiologica Scandinavica B 86, 261–266.Google Scholar
Blake, P. A., Allegra, D. T., Snyder, J. D., Barrett, T. J., McFarland, L., Caraway, C. T., Feeley, J. C, Craig, J. P., Lee, J. V., Puhk, N. D. & Feldman, R. A. (1980). Cholera – a possible endemic focus in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 302, 305–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clowes, R. C. & Hayes, W. (1968). Experiments in Microbial Genetics. Oxford and Edinburgh: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Colwell, R. R., Seidler, R. J., Kaper, J., Joseph, S. W., Garges, S., Lookman, H., Maneval, D., Bradford, H., Roberts, N., Remmers, E., Huq, I. & Huq, A. (1981). Occurrence of Vibrio cholerae serotype 01 in Maryland and Louisiana estuaries. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 41 (2), 555–558.Google Scholar
Difco Laboratories (1953). Difco Manual of Dehydrated Culture Media and Reagents for Microbiological and Clinical Laboratory Procedures, 9th ed.Detroit: Difco Laboratories Inc.Google Scholar
Felsenfeld, O. (1974). The survival of cholera vibrios. In Cholera (ed. Barua, D. and Burrows, W.) pp. 359–366. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
Hood, M. A. & Ness, G. E. (1982). Survival of Vibrio cholerae and Escherichia coli in estuarine waters and sediments. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 43 (3), 578–584.Google Scholar
Hornick, R. B., Music, S. I., Wenzel, R., Cash, R., LLibonati, J. P., Snyder, M. J. & Woodward, T. E. (1971). The Broad Street pump revisited: response of volunteers to ingested cholera vibrios. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 47 (10), 1181–1191.Google ScholarPubMed
Hugh, R. & Feeley, J. C. (1972). International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology Subcommittee on Taxonomy of Vibrios. Minutes of the meeting, 22 July 1971. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 22 (3), 189–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hugh, R. & Sakazaki, R. (1972). Minimal number of characters for the identification of Vibrio species, Vibrio cholerae and Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Journal of the Conference of Public Health Laboratory Directors 30 (4), 133–137.Google Scholar
Jannasoh, H. W. (1968). Competitive elimination of Enterobacteriaceae from seawater. Applied Microbiology 16 (10), 1616–1618.Google Scholar
Kaper, J., Lockman, H., Colwell, R. R. & Joseph, S. W. (1979). Ecology, serology and enterotoxin production of Vibrio cholerae in Chesapeake Bay. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 37 (1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaper, J. B., Moseley, S. L. & Falkow, S. (1981). Molecular characterization of environmental and non toxigenic strains of Vibrio cholerae. Infection and Immunity 32 (2), 661–667.Google Scholar
Koch, R. (1884). An address on cholera and its bacillus. British Medical Journal II, 403–407, 453–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. V., Bashford, D. J., Donovan, T. J., Furniss, A. L. & West, P. A. (1982). The incidence of Vibrio cholerae in water, animals and birds in Kent, England. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 52 (2), 281–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCormack, W. M., Mosley, W. H., Fahimmuddin, M. & Benenson, A. S. (1969). Endemic cholera in rural East Pakistan. American Journal of Epidemiology 89 (4), 393–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacLeod, R. A. (1965). The question of the existence of specific marine bacteria. Bacteriological Reviews 29 (1), 9–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, A. R., Mosley, W. H., Sau, Binapani Biswas, Ahmed, Shamsa & Huq, I. (1969). Epidemiologic analysis of endemic cholera in urban East Pakistan 1964–1966. American Journal of Epidemiology 89 (5), 572–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, C. J., Drasar, B. S. & Feachem, R. G. (1982). Cholera and estuarine salinity in Calcutta and London. Lancet, I, 1216–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalin, D. R., Daya, V., Reid, A., Levine, M. M. & Cisneros, L. (1979). Adsorption and growth of Vibrio cholerae on chitin. Infection and Immunity 25 (2), 768–770.Google Scholar
Pierce, N. F., Banwell, J. G., Gorbach, S. L., Mitra, R. C.& Mondal, A. (1970). Convalescent carriers of Vibrio cholerae: detection and detailed investigation. Annals of Internal Medicine 72, 357–364.Google Scholar
Pollitzer, R. (1959). Cholera. Monograph no. 43. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google ScholarPubMed
Rogers, R. C, Cuffe, R. G. C. J., Cossins, Y. M., Murphy, D. M. & Bourke, A. T. C. (1980). The Queensland cholera incident of 1977. II. The epidemiological investigation. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 58 (4), 665–669.Google Scholar
Saok, D., Huda, S., Neogi, P., Daniel, R. & Spira, W. (1980). Microtiter ganglioside enzyme linked immunosorbent assay for Vibrio and Escherichia coli heat labile enterotoxins and antitoxin. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 11 (1), 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanyal, S. C, Singh, S. J., Tiwari, I. C, Sen, P. C., Marwah, S. M., Hazarika, U. R., Singh, Hardas, Shimada, T. & Sakazaki, R. (1974). Role of household animals in maintenance of cholera infection in a community. Journal of Infectious Diseases 130 (6), 575–579.Google Scholar
Sarker, B. L., Balakrish Nair, G., Sircar, B. K. & Pal, S. C. (1983). Incidence and level of Vibrio parahaemolyticus associated with freshwater plankton. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 46 (1), 288–290.Google Scholar
Singleton, F. L., Attwell, R. W., Janoi, M. S. & Colwell, R. R. (1982 a). Influence of salinity and organic nutrient concentration on survival and growth of Vibrio cholerae in aquatic microcosms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 43 (5), 1080–1085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singleton, F. L., Attwell, R., Jangi, S. & Colwell, R. R. (1982 b). Effects of temperature and salinity on Vibrio cholerae growth. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 44 (5), 1047–1058.Google Scholar
Speirs, J. I., Stavric, S. & Konowalchuk, J. (1977). Assay of Escherichia coli heat labile enterotoxin with Vero cells. Infection and Immunity, 16, 617–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed