A simple method for enumerating bacteriophages in soil.

A plaque technique that uses antibiotic-resistant bacteria growing on antibiotic-containing agar for the assay lawn resulted in significantly better recovery of bacteriophages P1 of Escherichia coli and F116 of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from nonsterile soil than standard membrane filtration or centrifugation techniques. Adsorption of the phages on soil particles appeared to be involved in their recovery and survival in soil.

Use of a biotinylated DNA probe to detect bacteria transduced by bacteriophage P1 in soil.

Presumptive bacteriophage P1 transductants of Escherichia coli, isolated from soil inoculated with lysates of transducing phage P1 and E. coli, were confirmed to be lysogenic for phage P1 by hybridization with a biotinylated DNA probe prepared from the 1.2-kilobase-pair HindIII 3 fragment of bacteriophage P1. No P1 lysogens of indigenous soil bacteria were detected with the DNA probe. The sensitivity and specificity of the DNA probe were assessed with purified and dot blot DNA, respectively. In addition, two techniques for the lysis and deproteinization of bacteria and bacteriophages on nitrocellulose filters were compared. These studies indicated that biotinylated DNA probes may be an effective alternative to conventional radiolabeled DNA probes for detecting specific gene sequences in bacteria indigenous to or introduced into soil.

Transduction of Escherichia coli by bacteriophage P1 in soil.

Transduction of Escherichia coli W3110(R702) and J53(RP4) (10(4) to 10(5) CFU/g of soil) by lysates of temperature-sensitive specialized transducing derivatives of bacteriophage P1 (10(4) to 10(5) PFU/g of soil) (P1 Cm cts, containing the resistance gene for chloramphenicol, or P1 Cm cts::Tn501, containing the resistance genes for chloramphenicol and mercury [Hg]) occurred in soil amended with montmorillonite or kaolinite and adjusted to a -33-kPa water tension. In nonsterile soil, survival of introduced E. coli and the numbers of E. coli transductants resistant to chloramphenicol or Hg were independent of the clay amendment. The numbers of added E. coli increased more when bacteria were added in Luria broth amended with Ca and Mg (LCB) than when they were added in saline, and E. coli transductants were approximately 1 order of magnitude higher in LCB; however, the same proportion of E. coli was transduced with both types of inoculum. In sterile soil, total and transduced E. coli and P1 increased by 3 to 4 logs, which was followed by a plateau when they were inoculated in LCB and a gradual decrease when they were inoculated in saline. Transduction appeared to occur primarily in the first few days after addition of P1 to soil. The transfer of Hg or chloramphenicol resistance from lysogenic to nonlysogenic E. coli by phage P1 occurred in both sterile and nonsterile soils. On the basis of heat-induced lysis and phenotype, as well as hybridization with a DNA probe in some studies, the transductants appeared to be the E. coli that was added. Transduction of indigenous soil bacteria was not unequivocally demonstrated.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Gram-negative versus gram-positive (actinomycete) nonobligate bacterial predators of bacteria in soil.

The existence of nonobligate bacterial predators of bacteria in soil has been previously reported. Several additional predators were isolated from soil and tested for predation in situ in soil by use of the indirect bacteriophage analysis technique. The trials were conducted with nutritionally poor and nutritionally enriched soil. Certain of the predators that were gram negative were found to attack a range of both gram-positive and gram-negative host cell species, including at least some of the other predator bacteria, both gram positive and gram negative. The attack occurred in both the nutritionally poor and rich soils, but in some instances it was somewhat depressed in the rich soil. This may be due to the nonobligate nature of the predation. The gram-positive predators attacked a relatively narrow range of prey species, and the attack occurred only in the nutritionally rich soil. In addition, the gram-positive predators were subject to attack by certain of the gram-negative predators. These gram-negative predators therefore appeared to play a dominant role in the control of bacterial numbers in soil.