Sengeløv G, Sørensen S J
Department of General Microbiology, Institute of Molecular Biology, University of Copenhagen, Solvgade 83H, DK-1307 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Curr Microbiol. 1998 Oct;37(4):274-80. doi: 10.1007/s002849900378.
Donor and recipient counter selection was evaluated by selecting bacteria that received plasmid RP4 by conjugation on filters and in lake water microcosms. Three counter selection systems were compared; (i) Use of antibiotic-resistant recipients, (ii) use of an auxotrophic donor, and (iii) use of a donor with chromosomal suicide genes. Transfer efficiencies of transconjugants per recipient obtained with the three different counter selection systems in filter-matings were not significantly different. Some nalidixic acid-resistant recipients became partly sensitive to nalidixic acid after receiving the plasmid. Use of an auxotrophic donor was a feasible and easy way to recover indigenous transconjugants. A strain with two copies of the suicide gene gef was successfully eliminated in filter-matings, but elimination of the donor in microcosms by induction of the suicide genes did not succeed. Thus, this counter selection system was not usable in microcosm experiments.
通过在滤膜上以及湖水微宇宙中选择通过接合获得质粒RP4的细菌,对供体和受体的反选择进行了评估。比较了三种反选择系统;(i)使用抗生素抗性受体,(ii)使用营养缺陷型供体,以及(iii)使用带有染色体自杀基因的供体。在滤膜交配中,通过三种不同反选择系统获得的每个受体的转接合子转移效率没有显著差异。一些耐萘啶酸的受体在获得质粒后对萘啶酸部分敏感。使用营养缺陷型供体是回收本地转接合子的一种可行且简便的方法。在滤膜交配中,带有两个自杀基因gef拷贝的菌株成功被消除,但在微宇宙中通过诱导自杀基因消除供体未成功。因此,这种反选择系统在微宇宙实验中不可用。