Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms (Biotechnology Intelligence Unit)

BIOTECHNOLOGY INTELLIGENCE UNIT
Biotechnology Intelligence Unit

Medical Intelligence Unit
Molecular Biology Intelligence Unit
Neuroscience Intelligence Unit
Tissue Engineering Intelligence Unit
The chapters in this book, as well as the chapters of all of the

five Intelligence Unit series, are available at our website.
BIU
2
Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms
The chapters comprise a comprehensive bioscience and biomedical

Report database.
Reports (chapters) from this book and all Intelligence Unit books
are updated annually so information at the website is current.
Many Reports are linked to brief, animated depictions of molecular
mechanisms described in the text. These so-called "Biotoons" can
be viewed at the site.
Access to eurekah.com is unrestricted and free of charge.
JANSSON VAN ELSAS BAILEY
INTELLIGENCE UNITS
BIOTECHNOLOGY INTELLIGENCE UNIT
Janet K. Jansson Jan Dirk van Elsas Mark J. Bailey
Tracking Genetically-Engineered
Microorganisms
BIOTECHNOLOGY
INTELLIGENCE
UNIT 2
Tracking Genetically-Engineered
Microorganisms
Janet K. Jansson
Department of Biochemistry
Stockholm University
Stockholm, Sweden
Jan Dirk van Elsas

Research Institute for Plant Protection
Wageningen, The Netherlands
Mark J. Bailey
National Environment Research Council
Oxford, U.K.
LANDES BIOSCIENCE
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS
U.S.A.
EUREKAH.COM
AUSTIN, TEXAS
U.S.A.
TRACKING GENETICALLY-ENGINEERED MICROORGANISMS

Biotechnology Intelligence Unit
EUREKAH.COM
LANDES BIOSCIENCE
Designed by Judith Kemper
Copyright 2000 EUREKAH.COM
All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in the U.S.A.
Please address all inquiries to the Publishers:
EUREKAH.COM / Landes Bioscience, 810 South Church Street
Georgetown, Texas, U.S.A. 78626
Phone: 512/ 863 7762; FAX: 512/ 863 0081
www.landesbioscience.com
www.EUREKAH.COM
ISBN: 1-58706-009-4
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Tracking genetically-engineered microorganisms / Janet K. Jansson, J.D. van Elsas,

Mark J. Bailey.
p.cm -- (Biotechnology intelligence unit)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-58706-009-4 (alk. paper)
I. Recombinant microorganisms -- Ecology. 2. Recombinant
microorganisms -- Identification. I. Jansson, Janet K. II. Elsas, J.D. van (Jan D.),
1951- III. Bailey, Mark J. IV. Series.
QR 100.T73 2000
660.6'5--dc21
99-056991
CONTENTS
1. Problems in Detecting Dormant (VBNC) Cells, and the Role
of DNA Elements in This Response ......................................................... 1
James D. Oliver
1.1. The Viable but Nonculturable State ............................................. 1
1.2. Assays Used to Determine Viability .............................................. 2
1.3. Characteristics of Cells in the VBNC State ................................... 3
1.4. Inducing Factors ............................................................................ 4
1.5. Bacteria Known to Enter the VBNC State .................................... 5
1.6. Resuscitation from the VBNC State .............................................. 5
1.7. In situ Evidence of the VBNC Response ....................................... 7
1.8. Use of PCR to Detect Cells in the VBNC State ............................ 9
1.9. Effect of Plasmids on Entry into the VBNC State ........................ 9
1.10. Significance of the VBNC State in the Release
of Genetically Modified Bacteria ................................................. 12
1.11. Conclusion ................................................................................... 13
2. The Use of Antibiotic Resistance Gene Markers
for Studying Bacterial Populations in Natural Environments ............. 17
Sharon Egan and Elizabeth M.H. Wellington
2.1. Introduction ................................................................................. 17
2.2. Cultivation Based Assays ............................................................. 18
2.3. Direct Molecular Monitoring Methods ...................................... 20
2.4. Choice of Antibiotic Resistance Gene Markers .......................... 20
2.5. Cross-Resistance .......................................................................... 21
2.6. Marking of Bacteria with Antibiotic Resistance Genes .............. 21
2.7. Use of Antibiotic Resistance Genes
to Monitor Gene Transfer in Soil ................................................ 22
2.8. Ethical Concerns .......................................................................... 23
2.9. Conclusion ................................................................................... 24
3. Extraction and Analysis of Microbial Community Nucleic Acids
from Environmental Matrices ................................................................ 29
Jan Dirk van Elsas, Kornelia Smalla and Christoph C. Tebbe
3.1. Introduction ................................................................................. 29
3.2. Extraction of Microbial Cells from Environmental Matrices .... 33
3.3. Cell Disruption ............................................................................. 35
3.4. Extraction and Purification of DNA ........................................... 36
3.5. Analysis of DNA and Detection of Specific Sequences .............. 38
3.6. Extraction and Purification of RNA ........................................... 39
3.7. Detection of RNA ......................................................................... 40
3.8. Quantification of Specific Targets
in Environmental Nucleic Acids ................................................. 42
3.9. Conclusion ................................................................................... 44
4. Detection of Bacteria by Their Intrinsic Markers ................................. 53

va Tas and Kristina Lindstrm
4.1. Introduction ................................................................................. 53
4.2. Brief Description of PCR-Based Fingerprinting Methods ......... 54
4.3. Development of Specific Hybridization Probes
and PCR Primers .......................................................................... 54
4.4. Case Study: Specific Detection of Rhizobium galegae ................ 56
4.5. Future Prospects .......................................................................... 61
4.6. Conclusion ................................................................................... 63
5. Luminescence-Based Microbial Marker Systems
and Their Application in Microbial Ecology ......................................... 69
James I. Prosser, Antonio J. Palomares, Matti T. Karp, Philip J. Hill
5.1. Introduction ................................................................................. 69
5.2. Lux-Based Systems ....................................................................... 69
5.3. Luc-Based Systems ....................................................................... 72
5.4. Methodology ................................................................................ 74
5.5. Applications ................................................................................. 76
5.7. Conclusion ................................................................................... 82
6. The Use of the GUS Reporter System to Study Molecular Aspects
of Interactions Between Bacteria and Plants ......................................... 87
M. Lambrecht, A. Vande Broek and Jos Vanderleyden
6.1. Introduction ................................................................................. 87
6.2. The Escherichia coli gusA gene ..................................................... 88
6.3. The GUS Reporter system ........................................................... 89
6.4. Application of the GUS Reporter System
in Studies of Plant-Bacterium Interactions ................................ 93
6.5. Conclusion ................................................................................... 97
7. Using Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP)
as a Biomarker or Bioreporter for Bacteria ......................................... 101
J. R. Stoltzfus, Janet K. Jansson and Frans J. de Bruijn
7.1. Introduction ............................................................................... 101
7.2. Properties of Wild-type GFP ..................................................... 101
7.3. Improving GFP Fluorescence .................................................... 102
7.4. Detection of GFP ....................................................................... 104
7.5. GFP as a Biomarker in Bacteria ................................................. 105
7.6. GFP as a Bioreporter in Bacteria ............................................... 111
7.7. Conclusion ................................................................................. 112
8. Monitoring Persistence and Risk Assessment Following

the Field Release of Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX ........ 117
Mark J. Bailey, Tracey M. Timms-Wilson, Richard J. Ellis,
Ian P. Thompson and Andrew K. Lilley
8.1. Introduction ............................................................................... 117
8.2. Construction of P. fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX
and Detection and Monitoring Methods ................................. 118
8.3. Case Study of the Persistence
of P. fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX in Sugar Beet Crops ........... 118
8.4. Survival of Recombinant in Bulk Soil
under Glasshouse Conditions ................................................... 119
8.5. Field Sites, Treatment and Sampling of Plants and Soil .......... 120
8.6. Survival of GMM on Over-Wintering Sugar Beet Secondary
Growth, Resown Crop Plants and Volunteer Weeds ............... 120
8.7. Would Persistence of a Modified Indigenous Strain
in the Soil Environment Pose a Threat? .................................... 122
8.8. Conclusion ................................................................................. 123
9. Use of luc-Tagged Genetically Modified Microorganisms (GMMs)
to Study Rhizobial Ecology in Soil Columns,
Field Lysimeters and Field Plots ........................................................... 127
Christoph C. Tebbe
9.1. Introduction ............................................................................... 127
9.2. Construction and Properties of GMM Strains L1 and L33 ..... 128
9.3. Experimental Design: What Can Be Achieved
with Each System? ...................................................................... 129
9.4. Techniques and Consequences of GMM Soil Inoculations ..... 132
9.5. Survival and Spread of GMMs in Soil Columns,
Field Lysimeters and Field Plots ................................................ 133
9.6. Conclusion ................................................................................. 135
10. The Field Release and Monitoring of Rhizobial Strains Marked
with lacZ and Mercury Resistance Genes ............................................ 139
Viviana Corich, Alessio Giacomini, Elena Vendramin, Patrizia Vian,
Milena Carlot, Andrea Squartini and Marco P. Nuti
10.1. Introduction ............................................................................... 139
10.2. Designing the Markers ............................................................... 139
10.3. Construction of GMM Strains 1110, 1111 and 1112 ............... 140
10.4. Microcosm Studies of GMMs ................................................... 140
10.5. Field Trial I; Fate and Impact of an Allochtonous GMM ........ 141
10.6. Field Trial II; Fate and Impact of a GMM Native
to the Site .................................................................................... 143
10.7. Conclusion ................................................................................. 144
11. The Field Release and Monitoring

of GUS-Marked Rhizobial Strain CT0370 ........................................... 145
Penny R. Hirsch, Tom A. Mendum, Alfred Phler and Werner Selbitschka
11.1. Introduction .............................................................................. 145
11.2. Construction of GMM Strain CT0370 .................................... 145
11.3. Detection of Strains CT0370 and RSM2004 ........................... 146
11.4. Inoculant Preparation .............................................................. 147
11.5. Field Release .............................................................................. 147
11.6. Screening for pSym Acquisition by CT0370 in the Field ....... 148
11.7. Plasmid Transfer from RSM2004 to CT0370 .......................... 148
11.8. Conclusion ................................................................................ 149
12. Regulatory Aspects ................................................................................ 153
Kersti Gustafsson
12.1. Introduction .............................................................................. 153
12.2. Historical Aspects of the Regulation
of Deliberate Releases of GMOs ............................................... 153
12.3. The European Union
and the European Free Trade Association .............................. 155
12.4. Canada ....................................................................................... 156
12.5. Switzerland ................................................................................ 157
12.6. United States ............................................................................. 157
12.7. Risk Assessment ........................................................................ 158
12.8. Concern about the Insertion of Genes Coding
for Antibiotic Resistance .......................................................... 159
12.9. Concern about the Insertion of Genes Coding
for Mercury Resistance ............................................................. 159
12.10. Concern on the Use of Hazardous Chemicals
in Connection with the Deliberate Release of a GMM ........... 159
12.11. Ethical Aspects .......................................................................... 160
12.12. Information on Field Releases and Products .......................... 160
Index ....................................................................................................... 163
EDITORS
Janet K. Jansson
Department of Biochemistry
Stockholm University
Stockholm, Sweden
Chapter 7
Jan Dirk van Elsas
Research Institute for Plant Protection
Wageningen, The Netherlands
Chapter 3
Mark J. Bailey
National Environment Research Council
Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology
Oxford, U.K.
Chapter 8
CONTRIBUTORS
A. Vande Broek
F.A. Janssens Laboratory of Genetics
Kardinaal Mercierlaan 92
Heverlee, Belgium
Chapter 6
Sharon Egan
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Warwick
Coventry, U.K.
Chapter 2
F.J. de Bruijn
MSU-DOE Plant Research Laboratory
Department of Microbiology
NSF Center for Microbial Ecology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A.
Chapter 7
R.J. Ellis
Molecular Microbial Ecology
Laboratory
NERC, Institute of Virology
and Environmental Microbiology
Oxford, U.K.
Chapter 8
Milena Carlot
Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Agrarie
Universit di Padova
Legnaro, Italy
Chapter 10
Alessio Giacomini
Universit di Padova
Legnaro, Italy
Chapter 10
Viviana Corich
Universit di Padova
Legnaro, Italy
Chapter 10
Kersti Gustafsson
Microbiologist/Ecotoxicologist
National Chemicals Inspectorate
Solna, Sweden
Chapter 12
Philip J. Hill
School of Biological Sciences
University of Nottingham
Sutton Bonington Campus
Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire, U.K.
Chapter 5
Marco P. Nuti
Dipartimento di Chimicae
Biotecnologie Agrarie
Universit di Pisa
Pisa, Italy
Chapter 10
Penny R. Hirsch
Soil Science Department
IACR-Rothamsted
Harpenden, U.K.
Chapter 11
James D. Oliver
Professor of Biology
Director, Interdisciplinary
Biotechnology Program
University of North Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S.A.
Chapter 1
Matti T. Karp
Department of Biotechnology
University of Turku
Tykistokatu
Turku, Finland
Chapter 5
M. Lambrecht
Heverlee, Belgium
Chapter 6
A.K. Lilley
Laboratory
Oxford, U.K.
Chapter 8
Kristina Lindstrm
Department of Applied Chemistry
and Microbiology
Division of Microbiology
Viikki Biocenter
University of Helsinki
Helsinki, Finland
Chapter 4
Tom A. Mendum
Soil Science Department
IACR-Rothamsted
Harpenden, U.K.
Chapter 11
Antonio J. Palomares
Departamento de Microbiologia y
Parasitologia
Universidad de Sevilla
Sevilla, Spain
Chapter 5
James I. Prosser
Department of Molecular
and Cell Biology
University of Aberdeen
Institute of Medical Sciences,
Foresterhill
Aberdeen, Scotland
Chapter 5
Alfred Phler
Department of Genetics
University of Bielefeld
Bielefeld, Germany
Chapter 11
Werner Selbitschka
Department of Genetics
University of Bielefeld
Bielefeld, Germany
Chapter 11
Kornelia Smalla
Institut fuer Biochemie und
Pflanzenvirologie, Biologische
Bundesanstalt
Braunschweig, Germany
Chapter 3
Andrea Squartini
Universit di Padova
Legnaro, Italy
Chapter 10
J.R. Stoltzfus
MSU-DOE Plant Research Laboratory
Department of Microbiology
NSF Center for Microbial Ecology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A.
Chapter 7
va Tas
Department of Biosciences
Division of Genetics
Viikki Biocenter
University of Helsinki
Helsinki, Finland
Chapter 4
Christoph C. Tebbe
Institut fuer Agrarecologie, FAL
Braunschweig, Germany
Chapters 3, 9
Ian P. Thompson
Laboratory
Oxford, U.K.
Chapter 8
Jos Vanderleyden
Heverlee, Belgium
Chapter 6
Elena Vendramin
Universit di Padova
Legnaro, Italy
Chapter 10
Patrizia Vian
Universit di Padova
Legnaro, Italy
Chapter 10
Elizabeth M.H. Wellington
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Warwick
Coventry, U.K.
Chapter 2
Tracey M. Timms-Wilson
Laboratory
Oxford, U.K.
Chapter 8
PREFACE
nvironmental microbiology is currently one of the most rapidly expanding areas of scientific research. Impetus for advanced investigations has been provided by the development and application of molecular techniques that facilitate the identification, characterization and
monitoring of microbes. These advances now allow detailed investigations, developed in the laboratory, to be undertaken in the natural environment. Such studies confirm the remarkable biological diversity
represented by microorganisms from their basic genetic structure to the
regulated communications that occur within and between communities
contributing to ecosystem function. However, while it is apparent that
microorganisms constitute the greater part of the planets biomass, and
are central in maintaining the biosphere, we remain essentially ignorant
of a great majority of the functions or processes they undertake. One of
the limiting factors in the study of their ecology, even within communities or populations, is that of scale. For instance, for soil it is very hard to
assess microbes and their activities at the level of each individual pore
where microbial soil inhabitants occur. Highly sensitive and specific tools
are, thus, required for such detailed investigations. However, there is a
paradox. Until a greater knowledge of the genetic and metabolic diversity
within the microbial environment is obtained it remains difficult to
investigate these complex communities or design relevant experiments
that target the role of individuals or specific genes and their products.
This situation is currently changing at an ever increasing rate. In this volume we have attempted to bring together a series of reviews of the approaches taken to study the ecology and functional activity of individual
microbial cells and populations in environmental habitats, with a special
focus on the use of marker/reporter genes for monitoring release strains.
Traditionally, microbial ecology has been limited to studies of
microbial processes, such as cycling of nitrogen or carbon, occurring by
uncharacterized species in a black box scenario. For example, denitrification, nitrification and nitrogen fixation processes have been assessed by
analyzing the specific nitrogen forms appearing as a result of these processes. On the other hand, the study of particular taxa was limited to those
for which suitable cultivation methods and laboratory growth media had
been devised. However, we now know that the majority of microorganisms in nature are not capable of growing on the available media under
standard laboratory conditions. Moreover, in some instances bacteria, that
have been successfully cultivated in the laboratory, may lose the ability to
grow on laboratory media after introduction into the environment, presumably as a result of a stress response. These bacteria may still be viable
or metabolically active in the environment and this apparently recalcitrant state must be considered when these organisms are studied. The
ability to persist and form a resting stage may be ecologically significant in

niche exploitation. The phenomenon of viable but non-culturable (VBNC), as
described for Vibrio spp, is discussed in Chapter 1.
In the 1980s the need to identify and track specific microorganisms in
environmental samples was highlighted by the requirement for risk assessment
of genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs) that were to be deliberately
released into natural settings. The current status of regulatory requirements for
GMMs is discussed in Chapter 12. For risk assessment of GMMs it is no longer
possible to rely purely on traditional monitoring methods since the specific
GMM has to be distinguished from its parent, or wild type, strain that could
also inhabit the same ecosystem. Based on the requirement for specific monitoring methods, a variety of molecular tools have been developed to unambiguously track GMMs in the environment. These tools and examples of their
applications for tracking GMMs in field studies are described in this book. The
molecular tools range from nucleic acid-based monitoring methods (Chapter 3)
to the use of marker genes (biomarkers) with distinct phenotypes that serve as
tags for identification of specific microbes in the laboratory (Chapters 5-7) and
in the natural environment (Chapters 8-11).
Following the established method of isolating defined strains using selective bacteriological media, nucleic acid-based molecular tools were the first to
be applied for the purpose of directly tracking GMMs in environmental samples.
This methodology was dependent on the ability to isolate nucleic acids from
the environment, and a series of methods were developed for the extraction of
DNA and more recently RNA, from complex matrices such as soil. These methods have been continually refined since the first published examples (reviewed
in Chapter 3). As the technology improves, further optimizations in sensitivity
and specificity can be expected. A variety of nucleic acid extraction methods
were originally optimized for the different environmental sample types under
analysis. These extraction and analytical methods have now been simplified
and applied as essentially standard protocols for tracking GMMs in any environment. In particular, the application of polymerase chain reaction amplification (PCR) has revolutionized nucleic acid-based tracking methods by substantially increasing the sensitivity of detection over nucleic acid hybridization
methods (Chapter 3).
A biomarker can be defined as a DNA sequence, introduced into an organism, which confers a distinct genotype or phenotype to enable monitoring
in a given environment. In some cases, an intrinsic marker is sufficient for
monitoring a particular bacterial species. An intrinsic marker is a nonintroduced
DNA sequence or a natural genotype that serves as a signature for a particular
organism or group of organisms. Intrinsic markers are further described in
Chapters 2 and 4. Chapter 2 discusses antibiotic resistance as a special type of
intrinsic marker. Usually, intrinsic markers are not sufficiently specific for tracking of GMMs, since they are also present in the parent, or wild-type, strain, or
they may be prevalent in the environment under study. For some applications,
a reporter gene (bioreporter) can be used. A bioreporter is a gene encoding an
easily detectable phenotype that can be used to measure gene expression when
fused to appropriate promoter target sequences. The choice of biomarker or

bioreporter depends on the particular strain, the environment studied and the
questions to be addressed. Several of the most promising monitoring methods
and examples of their application are described in detail in Chapters 5-7 of this
book. In Chapters 8-11, examples are given of the use of these biomarkers to
track specific GMMs after release during field trial experiments. Chapter 12
outlines regulatory considerations for risk assessment of GMMs before field
release. Figure 1 gives a schematic overview of the use of biomarkers/bioreporters
in GMM releases. The use of any type of marker/reporter is seen by many as
being essential in assessing the environmental fate of release organisms.
Each chapter of this book is authored by at least one participant of the
MAREP Concerted Action of Scientists. MAREP is an acronym for Marker/
Reporter genes in Microbial Ecology and is comprised of 26 scientists from 11
different countries. The MAREP Concerted Action is funded by the European
Commission, Directorate-General XII, and addresses issues related to the use
of marker and reporter genes in microbial ecology research. This is of particular importance in relation to the precise monitoring of GMM presence, persistence and metabolic activity in the environment. More information about the
MAREP Concerted Action can be found in the following Web site:
http://www.biokemi.su.se/marep/marep.html.
We intend this book to be of relevance for all those concerned with studies of the environmental fate of genetically modified or unmodified microorganisms. In particular, this volume will be of value to researchers developing
organisms intended for release, and to representatives of regulatory agencies
concerned with guiding experimental or commercial applications. This volume provides an up-to-date collection of data on the development, use and
assessment of biomarkers and bioreporters for the study of bacterial function
in the natural environment.
We would like to extend our thanks to all the authors for providing the
necessary text for this publication, and for the patience and understanding they
have shown during the editing process. We would also like to thank the editorial staff for their support.
Janet K. Jansson
Jan Dirk van Elsas
Mark J. Bailey
CHAPTER 1
Problems in Detecting Dormant

(VBNC) Cells, and the Role
of DNA Elements in This Response
James D. Oliver
1.1. The Viable but Nonculturable State
icrobial ecologists have long recognized that large proportions of microbial populations inhabiting natural habitats appear to be nonculturable. Indeed, plate counts of
bacteria in soil, rivers and oceans typically indicate that far less than 1% of the total bacteria
observed by direct microscopic examination can be grown on culture media. It has also
long been known that certain portions of bacterial populations in natural environments
seem to disappear during certain seasons, only to reappear at other times. We now
understand that at least part of the explanation for these observations is not due to seasonal
die-off of the cells, but to their entry into what is most commonly called the viable but
nonculturable state.1
A bacterial cell in the viable but nonculturable (VBNC) state may be defined as one
which fails to grow on the routine bacteriological media on which it would normally grow
and develop into a colony, but which is in fact alive and metabolically active. Bacteria enter
into this dormant state in response to one or more environmental stresses which might
otherwise be ultimately lethal to the cell. Thus, the VBNC state should be considered a
means of cell survival. Eventually, when the inducing stress is removed, these cells are able
to emerge from the VBNC state, and again become culturable on routine media.
The typical VBNC response is illustrated in Figure 1.1, which shows the response of the
human pathogen, V. vulnificus, to exposure to low temperature (5C). Such a temperature is
below that at which this aquatic bacterium can grow and, if it were not for the VBNC
response, is a temperature which would eventually lead to death of the population.
As is evident from Figure 1.1, cells lose their ability to be cultured (shown by the open
squares) in a rather linear manner, eventually reaching a point where platings suggest a total
lack of any living cells. However, whereas death of a bacterial population generally leads to
lysis of the cells and loss of cell structure, direct examination of cells entering the VBNC
state indicates that the cells remain intact (as shown by the open circles of Fig. 1.1). Such
cells could, of course, have died, but simply not undergone lysis. The primary evidence that
such cells are alive, even if nonculturable, is from data obtained when one of the direct
viability assays is applied to such cultures. These assays (described below) allow the direct
Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms, edited by Janet K. Jansson, Jan Dirk van Elsas,
Mark J. Bailey. 2000 EUREKAH.COM.
Fig. 1.1. Entry of V. vulnificus into the VBNC state in an artificial sea water microcosm at 5oC.
Shown are plate counts () on HI agar in cfu/ml, total cell counts () by the acridine orange
staining method, and direct viable counts () by the substrate responsive method using yeast
extract and nalidixic acid. Reprinted with permission from: Whitesides MD, Oliver JD. Appl
Environ Microbiol 1997; 63:1002-1005.
determination of the viability of individual cells in a population, without the need for culture. As seen in Figure 1.1 (open circles), such assays often indicate that a large proportion
of the apparently dead population is indeed alive.
1.2. Assays Used to Determine Viability

Several techniques now exist for demonstrating that a cell is viable without requiring
growth in or on a bacterial medium. These fall roughly into two categories: those which
demonstrate an active electron transport chain, and those which demonstrate the ability of
cells in the VBNC state to undergo limited growth, if not cellular division. In the former, the
most common indicators are reduction of INT (p-iodonitrotetrazolium violet) or of CTC
(5-cyano-2,3-ditolyl tetrazolium chloride). INT is an electron acceptor which diverts electrons from an active electron transport chain, thus becoming reduced to INT-formazan.
Whereas INT is soluble and colorless, INT-formazan is insoluble and has a purple to black
color. Thus, a cell which is undergoing metabolism using an electron transport chain (and
therefore presumably is viable) will reduce INT to INT-formazan. Because the electron transport chain is in the bacterial inner membrane, this reduction leads to the development of
dark spots in the membrane, representing sites of precipitation of the INT-formazan. These
spots are readily detected using the light microscope. Through a similar action, reduction converts CTC to CTC-formazan, which fluoresces when irradiated by ultraviolet
light. The result is red-fluorescent cells which are readily detected and differentiated
Detection of VBNC Cells
from non-fluorescing (and presumably non-viable) cells by epifluorescent microscopy. Both

methods are described in Oliver.1
The most common method, originally developed by Kogure et al,2 for demonstrating
viability other than through an active electron transport chain is that involving the addition
to VBNC cells of small amounts of nutrient, usually in the form of yeast extract, along with
nalidixic acid, an inhibitor of cell septation. Cells which are viable and nutrient responsive
metabolize the yeast extract, and begin to elongate. The antibiotic prevents their cell division, however, resulting in elongated cells (Fig. 1.2). Such cells, which clearly are viable, are
easily distinguished from nonviable, and therefore non-elongated, cells.1
Luminescence-based detection methods3,4 and flow cytometry5 may prove of great value
in detecting the activity of cells as they enter into, and resuscitate from, the VBNC state.
Other technologies, such as the use of fluorescently-tagged polyclonal or monoclonal antibodies6 are also essential for the detection of VBNC cells in the environment.
1.3. Characteristics of Cells in the VBNC State

Cells entering the VBNC state generally undergo a reduction in size. In the case of
V. vulnificus, for example, whereas log phase (actively growing) cells might be 3 mm long,
those in the VBNC state are typically 0.6 m in diameter. During this size reduction, significant changes in membrane structure, protein composition, ribosomal content, and possibly
even DNA arrangement are experienced. Again using V. vulnificus as an example,1 we have
found rapid and dramatic decreases in the levels of synthesis of DNA, RNA, and protein
when these cells are exposed to a temperature downshift to 5C (Fig. 1.3). However, such
decreases do not mean that all synthesis has ceased. Indeed, protein synthesis appears to be
essential for entry into this state, and under these conditions V. vulnificus produces some 40
new proteins not seen during growth at normal temperatures.7 At the same time, dramatic changes in membrane fatty acid composition,8 and decreases in nutrient transport
and respiration rates have generally been reported to occur as cells enter this dormant state.
Fig. 1.2. Elongation of viable cells following addition of yeast extract and nalidixic acid by the
method of Kogure et al.2 Nonviable cells remain as small, coccoid cells.
Fig. 1.3. Macromolecular synthesis in V. vulnificus during entry into the VBNC state at 5C. Cells
were assayed for protein ( ), DNA ( ), and RNA () synthesis. Reprinted with permission
from: Oliver JD. In: Kjelleberg S, ed. Starvation in Bacteria. New York: Plenum Press 1993:239-272.
Cell wall synthesis, or at least metabolism of the constituents of these structures, also apparently continues, as addition of penicillin (an inhibitor of cell wall synthesis) to VBNC cells
has generally been observed to result in rapid cell death.1
Most studies have observed that, if a cell entering the VBNC state harbors plasmids
(extrachromosomal DNA elements which are able to control a variety of generally nonessential cell functions), then these plasmids are retained. This finding may prove to be highly
relevant to the VBNC state of genetically modified cells released to the environment, as will
be discussed later in this chapter. In contrast, it is becoming increasingly apparent that (possibly even major) changes in the cells chromosomal DNA may be occurring as cells enter
the VBNC state.1 This aspect may also be critical to release studies, as these changes bring
into question the ability to employ such powerful molecular techniques as the polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) to detect these otherwise undetectable cells. This concern is also dealt
with later in this chapter.
1.4. Inducing Factors

Different bacteria are known to enter the VBNC state in response to different factors,
all of which a cell would normally encounter in natural environments. These include such
stresses as elevated or reduced temperature, elevated or reduced osmotic (e.g., salt) concentrations, nutrient starvation, levels of oxygen, and even certain intensities of light.1 In all
cases, the inducers of the VBNC state appear to be environmental factors which are potentially injurious to a given bacterial species. For example, while entry into the VBNC state by
V. vulnificus (optimum temperature of 37C) is induced by low (< 10C) temperature incubation,9 the reverse is true for Pseudomonas fluorescens. One strain of this bacterium, which
prefers low temperatures, enters the VBNC state at 37C.10
The time required for cells to enter the VBNC state varies markedly with the bacterium
and the inducing conditions. Reports of months being required are not uncommon, while
others have reported days for the same bacteria. In general, times of a few days to a month
seem typical. One factor which has been shown to have a dramatic effect on the time
required for lab-grown cells to become nonculturable is the age of the cells. We have shown
that, whereas V. vulnificus cells from the logarithmic phase of growth generally require less
than 10 days to become completely nonculturable at 5C, those taken from the stationary
phase require over a month. Indeed, a direct correlation between time required to become
nonculturable and the age of the population has been demonstrated.11
1.5. Bacteria Known to Enter the VBNC State

At least 30 species contained in16 genera of mostly gram-negative bacteria have been
demonstrated to enter the VBNC state12 (Table 1.1).
That such a variety of bacterial genera demonstrate this response suggests that it represents a wide-spread physiological response to adverse environments designed to allow the
cell to survive potentially lethal environmental stresses. Whether this stress response provides cross protection against other stresses has not been reported.
1.6. Resuscitation from the VBNC State

For the VBNC response to represent a true survival response it must be possible for the
cells to exit this dormant state and return to a fully active and culturable state. Such a reversal in physiology is termed resuscitation, and often is triggered simply by the removal of the
stress which initially induced the VBNC response. In V. vulnificus, for example, exit from the
low temperature-induced VBNC state is triggered by a temperature upshift (e.g., from 5C
to room temperature). After such a shift, culturable cells rapidly (typically within 8 hours)
begin to appear, and population levels approximately equaling the original levels are generally observed within 12-24 hours (Fig. 1.4). During this time, the small coccoid cells which
result as the cells enter the VBNC state are replaced by rods typical in size for V. vulnificus.13
Table 1.1. Bacteria described to enter the VBNC state

Aeromonas salmonicida
Agrobacterium tumefaciens
Campylobacter jejuni
Enterobacter aerogenes
Enterococcus faecalis
Escherichia coli (including EHEC strains)
Helicobacter pylori
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Lactobacillus plantarum
Legionella pneumophila
Micrococcus luteus
M. varians
Pasteurella piscida
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
P. fluorescens
P. putida
P. syringae
Salmonella enteritidis
S. typhimurium
Shigella dysenteriae
S. flexneri
S. sonnei
Vibrio anguillarum
V. campbellii
V. cholerae
V. fischeri
V. harveyi
V. mimicus
V. natriegens
V. parahaemolyticus
V. proteolytica
V. vulnificus (biotypes 1 and 2)
Fig. 1.4. Changes in culturable cell (plate) counts and cell morphology during temperature downshift to 5C and subsequent resuscitation of the nonculturable cells by incubation at ca. 22C.
Reprinted with permission from: Nilsson L et al. J Bacteriol 1991; 173:5054-5059.
While entry into a VBNC state has been described by many researchers and for many
different bacterial species, demonstrating resuscitation for these cells has not always been a
simple matter. Indeed, while some bacteria like V. vulnificus can be resuscitated by a simple
reversal of the inducing stress, in others it has been quite difficult to show. We now realize
that resuscitation may be an extremely complex event, one which may be quite difficult to
demonstrate in the lab. In the case of L. pneumophila, simple addition of nutrients to the
cells (which enter the VBNC state in response to nutrient deprivation) does not reverse the
dormancy. It was found, however, that the addition of certain amoebae, which are natural
hosts to this bacterium in the aquatic environment, does allow resuscitation of this causative agent of Legionnaires disease.14
Other problems also exist in demonstrating resuscitation from the VBNC state. It has
been difficult to overcome the argument that what was being observed in the name of resuscitation was, in fact, regrowth of a few culturable cells which had escaped detection
during plating of the population under study. However, we have recently presented very
strong evidence that, at least in the case of V. vulnificus, true resuscitation does occur.15 Our
studies employed extensively diluted populations of VBNC cells in which it was statistically
impossible that any culturable cells were present. Resuscitation of these populations occurred at such a rapid rate that, if it were due to regrowth of culturable cells, they would
have to have had a doubling time of approximately 6 minutes. This is clearly an impossible
generation time for cells incubated at a suboptimal temperature without nutrients or aeration (Fig. 1.5). We also observed that the presence of nutrients appears to inhibit (but not
kill) VBNC cells, and this may be the reason such cells are nonculturable when plated onto
the high organic nutrient media routinely employed for bacterial culture.
Fig. 1.5. Time required for resuscitation of VBNC V. vulnificus cells. Cells from a VBNC microcosm (< 3.3 x 101 cfu/ml) were shifted to room temperature and aliquots removed at hourly
intervals and plated onto HI agar. Reprinted with permission from: Whitesides MD, Oliver JD.
Appl Environ Microbiol 1997; 63:1002-1005.
1.7. In Situ Evidence of the VBNC Response

This review has so far described laboratory findings regarding the VBNC state. One
can validly question whether this response actually occurs in natural environments. We
have conducted studies employing membrane diffusion chambers which clearly demonstrated the entry of V. vulnificus into the VBNC state when the estuarine waters into which
they were submerged were cold.16 Similarly, when cells in the VBNC state were placed into
chambers which were suspended into warm (summer) estuarine waters, resuscitation from
the VBNC state occurred rapidly and to levels approximating those of the original population (Fig. 1.6). Thus, it is likely that our inability to isolate V. vulnificus during the winter
months may be accounted for by entrance into the VBNC state, and that recovery from this
state in natural environments may result from a temperature upshift. Taking these observations to their logical conclusions, it seems quite likely that the VBNC response may be a
significant source of the variations seen in natural populations as they undergo various
environmentally-induced stresses, and for inability to culture many of the microorganisms
observed in natural environments. Indeed, Wilson and Lindow17 examined the culturability
of P. syringae inoculated onto leaf surfaces, and found that up to 75% of the cells became
nonculturable after 80 hours.
Fig. 1.6. Entry into (Fig. 1.6A) and resuscitation from (Fig. 1.6B) the VBNC state by V. vulnificus
placed into membrane diffusion chambers in estuarine waters of the coast of North Carolina. A.
Cells were placed into water at a temperature of 10-15C. Shown are plate counts (), total
direct counts (), and direct viability assays (). B. Plate counts of both the encapsulated ()
and non-encapsulated () forms of V. vulnificus induced into the VBNC state in the laboratory
at 5C. Four days after entry into the VBNC state (day 11), resuscitation of the cells is seen when
placed into estuarine waters at a temperature of 16-19C. Reprinted with permission from: Oliver
JD, Hite MF, McDougald D et al. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:2624-2630.
1.8. Use of PCR to Detect Cells in the VBNC State

Alternate methods for detecting cells present in the VBNC state must be explored or
developed. One powerful molecular method which would seem to be ideal for this purpose
is the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This method allows the specific DNA of the target
bacterial population (in this case, the released GMOs) to be amplified, to the exclusion of
that from other cells, to an extent that the amplified DNA can easily be detected, and thus
the presence of the target cells determined. The use of PCR technology to amplify DNA
from VBNC cells would seem to be an ideal match. However, in our earliest studies on the
use of PCR methodology to detect cells of V. vulnificus present in the VBNC state, we found
that as many as 500 times more VBNC cells had to be present to obtain an amplification
signal as compared to culturable cells. Even when the DNA was extracted prior to amplification, 300 times or more DNA had to be present.18 In subsequent studies, we employed a
variation on the PCR method, termed randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD)
PCR analysis. To our surprise, when cells of V. vulnificus were induced into the VBNC state
by incubation at 5C, our ability to detect amplification gradually decreased, until all bands
were lost within a few days (Fig. 1.7). When the cells were subsequently allowed to resuscitate, RAPD-PCR amplification again occurred.19 The same observation has also been made
by Bej et al20 with V. vulnificus. We surmise that, on incubation at the lowered temperature,
the cells begin to synthesize cold shock-induced proteins, which prevent amplification of
the DNA either by modifying the supercoiling of, or physically blocking the DNA polymerase from binding to, the target DNA. A similar result was observed when we used
RAPD-PCR in an attempt to amplify cells of enterohemorrhagic E. coli as they entered the
VBNC state.21 Even more dramatic was our finding that the RAPD-PCR signals we normally observed in V. vulnificus were lost within hours when the cells were deprived of nutrients.19 Resumption of amplification was observed only when nutrient was added back to
the system, similar to the response seen when cells were resuscitated from the VBNC state.
In all cases, loss of PCR amplification could be prevented when the cells were incubated in
the presence of chloramphenicol, a protein synthesis inhibitor. This finding again suggests
that protein synthesis is essential for cells to enter these stress-induced response states.
The results of these studies bode poorly for the use of PCR technology as an alternative
method for the detection of GMOs released to the environment which, for whatever reason,
enter the VBNC state.
1.9. Effect of Plasmids on Entry into the VBNC State

To make the situation potentially worse, it now appears that our knowledge of what
induces the VBNC state in various bacteria must be re-examined, taking into account whether
or not the cells under investigation harbor extrachromosomal plasmids. We have reported10
that Pseudomonas fluorescens cells enter the VBNC state when incubated in sterile river
water at 37C, but not at 5 or 25C (Fig. 1.8A). In rather remarkable contrast, when this
same strain harbored a plasmid (pFAC510), the cells entered the VBNC state at 5C, but not
at 37C (Fig. 1.8B). The same result was seen for P. syringae, with and without an entirely
different plasmid (pQF70/19H). Most recently, we have observed similarly dramatic plasmid effects when P. fluorescens is incubated in soil microcosms (Fig. 1.9).
The fact that plasmids may have such a dramatic affect on culturability has obvious
and significant implications for the monitoring of GMOs intended for environmental
release. Indeed, the plasmid-induced temperature reversal observed in our studies suggests that such cells must be thoroughly characterized as to their plasmid content, with the
realization that plasmid size and copy number may affect the temperature at which they
enter the VBNC state.
10
Fig. 1.7. Randomly amplified polymorphic (RAPD) DNA analysis of V. vulnificus cells induced
into the VBNC state by incubation at 5C. Lanes 1, 5, 9, 11, and 12 contain a 123 bp ladder. Lanes
2-4 contain cells entering the VBNC state at 0, 1, and 2 days; lanes 6-8 contain cells entering the
VBNC state at 3, 4, and 5 days; lane 10 contains cells entering the VBNC state at 7 days.
Reprinted with permission from: Warner JM, Oliver JD. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998;
64:3025-3028.
Fig. 1.8. (opposite) Effect of plasmid FAC510 carriage in P. fluorescens on culturability in river
water at different temperatures. The same P. fluorescens strain was without the plasmid (, parent), with the plasmid (, plasmid), or with the entire plasmid inserted into the chromosome
(, chromosome). Cells incubated at 5C (A) or at 37C (B). Plate counts were performed on
L agar. Reprinted with permission from: Oliver JD, McDougald D, Barrett T et al. FEMS Microbiol
Ecol 1995; 17:229-238.
11
12
Fig. 1.9. P. fluorescens placed into soil microcosms at 5(), 25(), and 37C (). Shown are
plate counts for each temperature. S. Bunker and J.D. Oliver (unpublished).
1.10. Significance of the VBNC State in the Release

of Genetically Modified Bacteria
There are numerous practical consequences of the existence of the VBNC state in bacteria. One example is the fact that coliforms, the assay for which is employed worldwide as
an indicator of fecal contamination of drinking and recreational waters, also enter the VBNC
state. Entrance of these bacteria into this dormant state appears to result from exposure to
low temperatures or to increased salt levels. Thus, it must frequently be the case that waters
are considered to be coliform negative when, in fact, there is a large number of such indicator bacteria present, but in the nonculturable state!
Another practical example is that of pathogenic bacteria, many of which are known to
enter the VBNC state (see Table 1.1). If oysters are maintained on ice (as they should be!) for
several days, this may be sufficient time to induce the VBNC state in V. vulnificus, which
typically occurs at high levels in oysters (at least, in the Gulf Coast states of the United
States). Public health officials who might examine such oysters for the presence of this species would then conclude the oysters were free of this potentially fatal human pathogen. As
we have shown, however, cells of V. vulnificus in the VBNC state retain virulence, and remain capable of producing lethal infections when injected into laboratory mice.22 For a
recent review on the public health significance of the viable but nonculturable state of pathogenic bacteria, see Oliver.23
Concern must also be present for researchers and government regulators involved in
the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Several bacterial species which are
being considered, and even currently employed, for release studies are known to enter the
VBNC state (Table 1.1). These include Pseudomonas fluorescens and P. syringae, both of
which are induced into the VBNC state by incubation at the high temperatures (ca. 37C)
which these cells would likely be exposed to in many environments.10 Other factors, such as
13
nutrient deprivation, may also be important for the induction of the VBNC state in
pseudomonads. Wilson and Lindow17 have shown that cells of P. syringae which are actively
growing on leaves or which were only recently inoculated to leaf surfaces remain fully
culturable. However, their study showed that culturable counts of such cells, after 80 hours
of epiphytic growth under constant environmental conditions, were two- to four-fold less
than direct viable counts, indicating that up to 75% of the population had entered the VBNC
state. As these authors stated, This finding is particularly relevant to the monitoring and
detection of GEMS [genetically engineered microorganisms] in terrestrial ecosystems,
because if part of an epiphytic population has become metabolically inactive . . . the viable
bacterial population size will be underestimated by the plate count method. The plate count
may indicate that a GEM has disappeared from the ecosystem, whereas actually, the GEM is
still present in low numbers in a viable but nonculturable, quiescent state.
The presence of bacterial cells in the VBNC state presents a major new dilemma in that
the ability to monitor the persistence and spread of released GMOs is critical. The routine
methods (primarily platings) for detecting bacteria in natural environments can not be
employed for cells in the VBNC state. It also appears from our studies that alternate methods to detect such cells, such as PCR amplification, may not be practical alternatives. It must
also be asked whether cells in this state are able to either donate or take up genetic material
(plasmid or chromosomal DNA) to/from other bacteria which are present as part of the
normal microflora. If such gene exchange is possible (although this has not been shown to
date), then the problem is compounded, as not only would these GMOs be undetectable,
but they might take part in the development of previously non-existent strains of bacteria.
Most studies to date on VBNC cells from a variety of genera suggest that plasmids are not
lost during entry into this state, suggesting that the acquisition of any new genes would
likely take place in an otherwise relatively stable genetic environment.
To conclude on a more positive note, our recent studies using certain genetically-tagged
bacteria suggest some hope in our ability to detect bacteria present in natural environments
in the VBNC state. The green fluorescent protein (Chapter 7) is an extremely stable protein which is coded for by the gfp gene present in certain marine jellyfish, and which fluoresces when irradiated with ultraviolet light. The use of this protein is currently finding
considerable interest as a marker, following insertion of the gene into the DNA of bacteria
intended for environmental release. In collaboration with Dr. Janet Jansson and researchers
in her laboratory at the University of Stockholm, we have found that cells producing this
fluorescent protein continue to fluoresce even when induced into the VBNC state. Indeed,
as seen in Fig. 1.10, not only does a gfp-labeled strain of P. fluorescens continue to fluoresce
as it becomes nonculturable, but it appears to fluoresce brighter than logarithmic phase
(actively metabolizing) cells of the same gfp-labeled strain. If these results are corroborated
in the field, then the use of this marker for monitoring released cells may be of significant
value in providing a means of identifying released bacteria even when they are no longer
culturable. Such field studies are currently in progress in the authors laboratory.
1.11. Conclusion
Since the pioneering studies from Colwells laboratory,24,25 it has become evident that
many gram-negative bacteria enter into a state of dormancy in response to one or more of
a variety of environmental stresses, including both low and high temperatures. VBNC cells
remain metabolically active, although they can not be cultured by standard methods. Cells
undergo a variety of morphological, physiological, and biochemical changes as they enter
this state, all of which may allow the cells to survive what could otherwise be lethal conditions. On removal of the inducing stress, these cells can resuscitate from the VBNC state,
again becoming metabolically active.
14
Fig. 1.10. Fluorescence due to the green fluorescent protein in P. fluorescens, as detected by flow
cytometry. Shown is the percent of control cell fluorescence of cells incubated at 5C, 30C, and
37.5C for up to 19d. Cells incubated at 37.5C were completely nonculturable by day 15 in this
study. M. Lowder and J.D. Oliver (unpublished).
Unfortunately, it appears that cells in the VBNC state may undergo changes in their
chromosomal DNA which prevents their detection through PCR amplification. Further, it
is possible that VBNC cells may participate in genetic exchange with bacteria making up the
normal microflora of a release environment. Such an event could involve gain or loss of
plasmids, an event having potentially dramatic consequences on the conditions inducing
the VBNC state. Whether these dormant cells can be genetically transformed or transduced
is not know at this time, but if so, such events could lead to significant genetic modifications
in these nonculturable cells.
Thus, the VBNC state presents a number of potential concerns to the researcher and
regulator alike, making detection of the introduced cells difficult, and presenting a situation
wherein gene exchange could potentially occur, yet be undetectable. Whether or not new
technologies such as the use of the gfp marker gene will at least provide a means for monitoring such cells is currently under investigation.
Acknowledgments
J.D. Oliver is a member of the MAREP Concerted Action sponsored by the European
Commission Biotechnology Programme, DGXII.
References
1. Oliver JD. Formation of viable but nonculturable cells. In: Kjelleberg S, ed. Starvation in
Bacteria. New York: Plenum Press 1993: 239-272.
2. Kogure K, Simidu U, Taga N. A tentative direct microscopic method for counting living
marine bacteria. Can J Microbiol 1979; 25:415-420.
3. Duncan S, Glover LA, Killham K et al. Luminescence-based detection of activity of starved
and viable but nonculturable bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994; 60:1308-1316.
15
4. Rattray EAS, Prosser JI, Killham K et al. Luminescence-based nonextractive techniques for
in situ detection of Escherichia coli in soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 1990; 56:3368-3374.
5. Kaprelyants AS, Kell DB. Rapid assessment of bacterial viability and vitality using rhodamine
123 and flow cytometry. J Appl Bacteriol 1991; 72:410-422.
6. Paszko-Kolva C, Shahamat M, Yamamoto H et al. Survival of Legionella pneumophila in
the aquatic environment. Microbiol Ecol 1991; 22:75-83.
7. McGovern VP, Oliver JD. Induction of cold responsive proteins in Vibrio vulnificus. J
Bacteriol 1995; 177:4131-4133.
8. Linder K, Oliver JD. Membrane fatty acid and virulence changes in the viable but
nonculturable state of Vibrio vulnificus. Appl Environ Microbiol 1989; 55:2837-2842.
9. Wolf PW, Oliver JD. Temperature effects on the viable but nonculturable state of Vibrio
vulnificus. FEMS Microbiol Eco. 1992; 101:33-39.
10. Oliver JD, McDougald D, Barrett T et al. Effect of temperature and plasmid carriage on
nonculturability in organisms targeted for release. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1995; 17:229-238.
11. Oliver, JD, Nilsson L, Kjelleberg S. Formation of nonculturable cells of Vibrio vulnificus
and its relationship to the starvation state. Appl Environ Microbiol 1991; 57:2640-2644.
12. Oliver JD. The viable but nonculturable state in the human pathogen Vibrio vulnificus.
FEMS Microbiol Lett 1995; 133:203-208.
13. Nilsson L, Oliver JD, Kjelleberg S. Resuscitation of Vibrio vulnificus from the viable but
nonculturable state. J Bacteriol 1991; 173:5054-5059.
14. Steinert M, Emody L, Amann R et al. Resuscitation of viable but nonculturable Legionella
pneumophila Philadelphia JR32 by Acanthamoeba castellanii. Appl Environ Microbiol 1997;
63:2047-2053.
15. Whitesides MD, Oliver JD. Resuscitation of Vibrio vulnificus from the viable but
nonculturable state. Appl Environ Microbiol 1997; 63:1002-1005.
16. Oliver JD, Hite MF, McDougald, D et al. Entry into, and resuscitation from, the viable but
nonculturable state by Vibrio vulnificus in an estuarine environment. Appl Environ Microbiol
1995; 61:2624-2630.
17. Wilson M, Lindow SE. Relationship of total viable and culturable cells in epiphytic populations of Pseudomonas syringae. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992; 58:3908-3913.
18. Brauns LA, Hudson MC, Oliver JD. Use of the polymerase chain reaction in detection of
culturable and nonculturable Vibrio vulnificus cells. Appl Environ Microbiol 1991;
57:2651-2655.
19. Warner JM, Oliver JD. Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA analysis of starved and viable but nonculturable Vibrio vulnificus cells. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998; 64:3025-3028.
20. Bej AK, Harold N, Vickery MCL et al. Use of PCR to determine genomic diversity and
distribution of siderophore-mediated iron acquisition genes in clinical and environmental
isolates of Vibrio vulnificus. Abstr Annu Meet Amer Soc Microbiol 1997; Q177, p.485.
21. Mickey S, Warner JM, Simpson LM et al. Detection of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli
in the viable but nonculturable state using a RAPD-PCR protocol. Abstr Annu Meet Amer
Soc Microbiol 1997; P78, 449.
22. Oliver JD, Bockian R. In vivo resuscitation, and virulence towards mice, of viable but
nonculturable cells of Vibrio vulnificus. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:2620-2623.
23. Oliver JD. Public health significance of viable but nonculturable bacteria. In: Colwell RR,
Grimes J eds. Nonculturable Organisms in the Environment. ASM Press, 1999 (in press).
24. Roszak DB, Colwell RR. Survival strategies of bacteria in the natural environment. Microbiol
Rev 1987; 51:365-379
25. Xu HS, Roberts NC, Adams LB et al. Survival and viability of nonculturable Escherichia
coli and Vibrio cholerae in the estuarine and marine environment. Microb Ecol 1984;
8:313-323.
CHAPTER 2
The Use of Antibiotic Resistance

Gene Markers for Studying Bacterial
Populations in Natural Environments
Sharon Egan and Elizabeth M H Wellington
2.1. Introduction
ntibiotic resistance genes have been used to mark bacteria by providing a readily selectable phenotype, which can be detected using selective growth media. Detection and monitoring is therefore culture-dependent. A wide range of resistance genes have been
characterised (Tables 2.1 and 2.2) which confer resistance to commercially available, inexpensive antibiotics. In addition, resistance genes have provided a valuable tool for cloning
and genetic manipulation procedures in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Many industrial
strains carry resistance genes which have resulted from cloning procedures, enabling selective maintenance of a construct or plasmid carrying the resistance gene by inclusion of the
respective antibiotic in the growth medium (For details see ref. 1).
The main environmental application for antibiotic resistance gene markers has been
the monitoring of gene transfer associated with plasmid or transposon mobility. In addition, the tracking of bacterial populations in soil, water or other environments, and determination of the extent of plant root or shoot colonisation has relied on antibiotic resistance
phenotypes.2-4 A distinction can be made between the use of antibiotic resistant mutants
and the introduction of cloned resistance genes. The former have been used in field releases
where it was necessary to avoid releasing antibiotic resistance genes into the environment.2
The selection provided by antibiotics has provided a powerful tool for isolation of marked
bacteria and cultivation based assays have allowed quantitative estimates of cell numbers.
Resistance genes have also been detected using molecular methods such as PCR, and this
approach provides confirmation of the phenotype. Due to ergotropic and clinical use, some
resistance genes have become widely disseminated in the environment and are less useful as
selective markers. The choice of resistance gene is therefore important to avoid certain common genotypes. For field releases ethical considerations are important to avoid the use of
any resistance gene which may become disseminated to the indigenous bacterial community and thus ultimately contribute to the clinical problems of antibiotic resistant pathogens. The aim of this chapter is to provide information useful for the selection and exploitation of resistance genes as markers for detection and enumeration of bacteria in natural
environments.
18
Table 2.1. Some examples of common bacterial resistance genes and their mode of
action
Gene
Resistance phenotype
Host
Mechanism of resistance
aph(3)-Iva
nptII
aphII
tsr
strA
ant(2)-I
ant(6)-Ia
ant(9)-Ia
aac(3)-I
aac(6)-Ih
aac(3)-Ia
mgt
tetA/B/C
tet(M)
ampC
otrA/B
kanamycin, neomycin
kanamycin, neomycin
neomycin
thiostrepton
streptomycin
gentamicin, sisomicin
streptomycin
spectinomycin
gentamicin
sisomicin, tobramycin
gentamicin, sisomicin
oleandomycin
tetracycline
tetracycline
-lactams
oxytetracycline
Bacillus circulans
Enterobacter
Streptomyces lividans
S. lividans
Enterobacter
Pseudomonas
E. faecalis
Staphylococcus aureus
Pseudomonas
Acinetobacter spp.
E. coli
Streptomyces antibioticus
Enterobacter
Streptococcus pneumoniae
gram-negative bacteria
Streptomyces rimosus
Phosphorylation
Phosphorylation
Phosphorylation
Target modification
Phosphorylation
Nucleotidyltransferase
Adenylylation
Adenylylation
Acetylation
Acetylation
Acetylation
Glycosyltransferase
Efflux
Ribosomal modification
Hydrolysis
Ribosomal modification/efflux
2.2. Cultivation Based Assays

The traditional approach for monitoring bacteria using antibiotic resistance is selective
agar plate counting, although the most probable number technique (MPN) can be used for
selective broth culture. Agar antibiotic gradient plates, in which the antibiotic concentration increases linearly from zero to an established level, are produced by making an agar
gradient containing the antibiotic and covering a basal agar layer without antibiotic. Such
gradients are difficult to replicate and have not generally been used for isolation and counting although they are useful for characterisation of isolates.5 Many antibiotics are unstable,
and biological activity can therefore decrease with time or due to inappropriate handling.
For example, tetracycline is light sensitive and -lactams and aminoglycosides, such as neomycin are heat sensitive. Some antibiotics, such as thiostrepton, are only soluble in organic
solvents and so will be insoluble in agar forming a suspension, thus affecting availability
and activity.6 The bioactivity of antibiotics in agar is affected by many factors (see Hewitt7)
and it is well known that they are often complexed by particular constituents of media.
Philips8 demonstrated that viomycin exerted a greater selective effect in a defined medium
than in a complex one. Methods manuals may often indicate two concentrations of antibiotics, for use in either defined or complex media (For example see ref. 9).
The degree of resistance may also be affected by the levels of salt in the cultivation
medium; lower salt concentrations can make some bacteria more sensitive.9 Problems can
also occur with very polar compounds, for example, streptomycin is a highly water-soluble
polar antibiotic and the generation of agar gradients with this compound is particularly
difficult as it diffuses very rapidly throughout the agar plate.8
Cultivation-based assays are quantitative, but this procedure is dependent on the bacteria being culturable. The physiological state of the marked bacterium is important and
can determine how readily target bacteria can be isolated on highly selective media. The
stress of inoculation into a nutrient poor environment such as soil may result in the inoculant becoming nonculturable on isolation media (see Chapter 1) or becoming susceptible
Antibiotic Resistance Gene Markers
19
Table 2.2. Antibiotic resistance genes used as markers

Resistance
phenotype
Gene/
transposon
Host
Detection1
Reference
kanamycin
aph/ nptII
Enterobacter
agglomerans
SP, PCR
Selenska et al14
Escherichia
coli
SP, MPN-PCR
Recorbet et al15
kanamycin
nptII
kanamycin
nptII (Tn501) E.coli
SP, probing
Zeph and Stotzky33
kanamycin
nptII (Tn903) Erwinia carotovora
SP
Orvos et al34
kanamycin
nptII (Tn5)
Azospirillum sp.
SP, MPN
probing
Bentjen et al35
kanamycin
nptII (Tn5)
P.fluorescens
SP, MPN-PCR
van Overbeek
et al32
neomycin
nptII (Tn5)
R.leguminosarum
SP, probing
Hirsch and Stokes2
neomycin
nptII (Tn5)
Rhizobia
SP, probing
Armager and
Delgutte44
erythromycin
erm
Bacillus
SP
Wendt/Potthof
et al55
kanamycin
nptII
P. fluorescens
SP
Smit and
van Elsas24
gentamicin
aadB
chloramphenicol cam
B. subtilis
SP
McDonald et al46
kanamycin
Tn5
E.agglomerans
/E.coli
SP
Klingmller50
neomycin,
thiostrepton
viomycin
aphII
tsr
vph
Streptomyces lividans SP
Herron et al6
thiostrepton
tsr
S. lividans
SP, probing
Marsh and
Wellington31
tetracycline
unknown
B. subtilis
SP
Amner et al21
neomycin
aphII
Streptomyces
violaceolatus/
S. lividans
SP
Wellington et al16
thiostrepton
viomycin
tsr
vph
1SP: Selective plating, MPN-PCR: Most-probable number-PCR.
20
to selective components in the medium such as antibiotics. Under nutrient limitation some
bacteria have been demonstrated to be less susceptible to antibiotics.10,11
2.3. Direct Molecular Monitoring Methods

Since the development of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), molecular monitoring
methods for resistance genes have proved to be sufficiently sensitive for detection of sparse
populations in natural environments and now provide a valuable adjunct to cultivation
assays. However, viability and cellular location of a DNA target cannot be established by
PCR detection. In addition, problems still exist with quantitation of PCR although a number of methods have been described for quantitative PCR with targets in natural samples
(see Chapter 3).12,13
PCR has been used to examine the persistence of genes introduced to environments
such as soil, and in the case of resistance genes, the marker has allowed comparison of molecular and cultivation based detection. Selenska et al 14 targeted the chromosomally-located
resistance gene markers aph and nptII. PCR amplification of these genes from total community DNA allowed detection of these genes 56 days after inoculation, even though the
Enterobacter agglomerans kanamycin-resistant host could no longer be detected on agar plates.
This discrepancy indicated that either the DNA was extracellular and had been released
from dead bacteria, or that cells were not culturable. Recorbet et al15 determined the survival of an Escherichia coli population in soil using thenptII gene, and noted that the population decreased to < 102 after 15 days, as calculated by selective plate counts. However, by
use of the most-probable-number-PCR method, 5 x 105 target sequences could still be detected after 40 days. It was not clear if this apparent population remaining in the soil was
viable but uncultured or simply represented dead cells and extracellular DNA.
2.4. Choice of Antibiotic Resistance Gene Markers

The choice of resistance gene markers depends on the environmental use of the marked
bacterium and is influenced by the background resistance of the indigenous bacteria in a
given habitat. Members of some genera, including Pseudomonas, Mycobacterium and
Rhodococcus, have nonspecific mechanisms for resistance to antibiotics and heavy metals,
including exclusion from the cell.16 The levels of resistant indigenous bacteria depends on
the antibiotic and can range from 103-104 cfu g-1 dry soil for tetracycline and ampicillin
resistance17 to 108 cfu g-1 for tobramycin resistance.18
Amner et al19 suggested that examination of the antibiotic resistance profiles of indigenous populations and resistance genes within the gene pool of microbial populations from
different environments could be useful in the development of marker systems. The fate of
thermophilic actinomycetes in compost was monitored,20 where all microbial constituents
of the microflora were sensitive to tetracycline. This resistance gene was thus suitable for
introduction into host vector systems to allow the detection of host organisms.21 A plasmid
encoding tetracycline resistance was used to monitor Bacillus subtilis in compost. The use of
just a single resistance marker was feasible due to the low level (103) of tetracycline resistant
isolates in the indigenous bacteria. 21 Conversely, Smalla et al22 examined the distribution of
kanamycin resistance in bacteria from different habitats and demonstrated that the resistance phenotype was widely distributed among indigenous bacteria in most habitats
examined.
Multiple-resistance phenotypes may overcome the problems of background resistance
in indigenous bacteria. The use of combined markers for phenotypes which occur less frequently in bacteria, such as viomycin and thiostrepton resistance, is successful and can increase selectivity for an introduced strain. Certain antibiotic resistances often have a low
occurrence in indigenous bacteria because of the rarity of use of the antibiotic in medicine,
21
veterinary science or agriculture. In addition, selection from antibiotic-producing bacteria

must also have been absent. The combination of two resistance gene markers was used by
Cresswell23 to track plasmid-containing streptomycetes in soil. The tsr and nptII genes for
thiostrepton and neomycin resistance, respectively, were rarely found in actinomycetes, which
also allowed monitoring and detection by PCR. A study by Smit and van Elsas24 used a
combination of kanamycin and gentamicin resistance which lowered the level of resistant
indigenous bacteria from 105-104 cfu g-1 of dry soil for kanamycin to 103 isolates resistant to
both kanamycin and gentamicin. A marker gene cassette with nptII (kanamycin resistance)
and aadB (gentamicin resistance) was constructed because these two genes were considered
to have a low probability of phenotype and/or genotype prevalence in the indigenous soil
populations. This gene cassette was cloned into both a broad-host-range mobilisable plasmid and into a disarmed transposon which would allow tagging of the hosts chromosome.
Alternatively, additional markers can be incorporated into hosts, which allow differentiation between the inoculated host and background indigenous bacteria. Van Elsas et al25
engineered an additional unexpressed gene, pat, into the RP4 plasmid of Pseudomonas
fluorescens which allowed specific identification of the introduced population by selective
plating using the resistance of RP4, followed by DNA hybridisation. Similarly, McNaughton
et al26 combined the use of two markers, kanamycin resistance and xylE, on a plasmid introduced into soil. Kanamycin was used in the selective isolation of resistant bacteria, including
the inoculant population. Isolates were then examined for catechol oxidation to unequivocally identify the inoculant. When multiple resistance markers have been combined with
additional markers for definitive identification, they have proved useful in initial selective
procedures.
2.5. Cross-Resistance
Resistance to the same antibiotic can be achieved by different genes coding for
enzymes with various modes of action or the same gene can confer resistance to more than
one antibiotic (Table 2.2). Resistance to paromomycin is conferred by either a
phosphotransferase or an acetyltransferase.27 Other resistance gene products can confer a
cross-resistance to different antibiotics, for example, Skeggs et al28 have shown that an RNA
methylase aminoglycoside resistance determinant can confer resistance to kanamycin,
apramycin and gentamicin. The aac resistance gene which encodes an acetyltransferase in
Streptomyces fradiae and the phosphotransferase-encoding nptII from Tn5 confer resistance
to both neomycin and kanamycin.9,29 This functional diversity in resistance genes means
that the same phenotype can be due to quite different genes. Unequivocal identification is
only possible with selective isolation followed by a molecular method to confirm the presence of the specific resistance marker.17,30-32
2.6. Marking of Bacteria with Antibiotic Resistance Genes

Chromosomes of bacteria are often marked by the use of random or site-specific integration vectors, such as transposons. Location of marker genes on the chromosome instead
of plasmids may improve stability, and although this reduces the likelihood of a transfer
event, it does not eliminate it.
Insertion of markers into the chromosome has been achieved by random integration
of transposons which encode resistance genes, such as Tn501 in E. coli,33 Tn903 in Erwinia
carotovora,34 Tn5 in Azospirillum35 or Pseudomonas fluorescens.32 The fate of bacteria introduced into different environments has been monitored using these transposons. One of the
best characterised systems is that for monitoring Rhizobium strains in soil where markers
have been developed to monitor numerous field releases of engineered rhizobial strains.
Rhizobium leguminosarum was marked by the insertion of Tn5,2 which allowed selection
22
for neomycin resistance on isolation media. This phenotype was not found in native rhizobia, which made it a suitable marker, particularly in combination with the spontaneous
chromosomally located rifampicin resistance mutation.
Antibiotic resistance gene markers have been inserted on multiple and single copy plasmids for monitoring the fate of inoculants and gene transfer in natural environments. The
choice of chromosomal or plasmid location is dependent on the requirements of the study,
but gene dose effects with multicopy plasmids will greatly improve molecular detection of
both DNA and mRNA. In addition, enhanced phenotypic resistance from multiple copies
of the resistance gene marker will aid selection.9 Both naturally occurring R-plasmids and
constructed plasmids with one or multiple resistance genes are readily available. However,
R-plasmids are mainly found in gram-negative hosts and many will not be able to replicate
in gram positive backgrounds. Plasmids from gram-negative and gram positive bacteria
have very different conjugation systems and genes involved in plasmid transfer, replication
and maintenance are very diverse.36 For gram positive bacteria, resistance plasmids have
been constructed (see next section 2.7). For example, Wipat et al 37 used tsr to mark a
multicopy streptomycete plasmid which was then introduced into Streptomyces lividans via
transformation of protoplasts. This allowed the monitoring of survival and spread of S.
lividans in soil microcosms.37
Many resistance marker genes can function in different bacterial species; for example,
the nptII gene has been used in many different genera (Table 2.2), but other marker systems
are restricted to specific groups. The host range of the vector must also be considered.
Although the nptII gene occurs frequently in diverse bacteria, it is often associated with
different transposons (Table 2.2).
The choice of promoters for marker genes is also an important consideration. The
nptII gene from Tn5 is expressed in Streptomyces, but the level of kanamycin resistance varies from 2-200 mg/ml, depending on promoter strength and copy number of the plasmid.9
2.7. Use of Antibiotic Resistance Genes to Monitor Gene Transfer

in Soil
Antibiotic resistance markers have been used to study gene mobility and dissemination
of antibiotic resistance genes has been the subject of a large number of studies due to the
problem of drug resistance in bacterial pathogens. Resistance genes are highly mobile under
intense selection pressure in clinical environments and have been found associated with
chromosomes, plasmids, integrons and bacteriophages.38,39 The application of antibiotics
such as streptomycin to treat bacterial rots in soft fruit has resulted in the spread of selected
streptomycin resistance genes in Pseudomonas species.40 In addition, genes involved in streptomycin production by streptomycetes are more widely distributed than was previously
thought.41,42 There is evidence for the actual presence of antibiotics in soil. Phenazine43 and
thiostrepton16 have been detected in soils following the introduction of the respective producer
strain. Such antibiotics produced in situ could provide selection pressure for resistance in
nature, but at a lower level compared with agricultural, veterinary and clinical
environments. Overall, the extent of selection in the natural environment is not well defined.
Hirsch and Spokes2 used the Tn5 transposon carrying the nptII gene to mark Rhizobium leguminosarum. and introduced 1012 culturable cells of the strain into soil. Survival
was monitored by plating onto selective agar, followed by hybridisation with a Tn5 probe.
This study demonstrated that no transconjugants were found, although it was suggested
that transfer could have occurred below the limit of detection (< 0.02% isolates received
Tn5).2 The inoculant strain persisted in the soil and could be detected seven years later, even
in soils in which non-cereal crops were cultivated. A similar study by Armager and Delgutte44
examined the transfer of a Tn5 tagged conjugative plasmid in the same Rhizobium strain in
23
the rhizosphere of different plants and also failed to detect transfer of Tn5 to other rhizobia
and even to introduced potential recipients.
Other antibiotic resistance gene markers have been used to study plasmid transfer in
the natural environment and to examine the extent of conjugation in soil. Cresswell monitored the transfer of plasmid pIJ673 containing neomycin (aphII), viomycin (vph) and
thiostrepton (tsr) resistance genes. The plasmid was a derivative of pIJ101.23 Putative
transconjugants were selected by growth on neomycin plus thiostrepton-containing agar plates
and plasmid presence confirmed by colony hybridisation with a labeled plasmid as a probe.
This technique was used to show inter-specific plasmid transfer in Streptomyces strains in
both sterile and non-sterile soil batch microcosms.6,30 High copy number plasmids also provide an advantage by effectively increasing the copy number of the gene, which can enhance
detection by molecular methods. In a study by Smit and van Elsas24 a plasmid and a chromosomally-inserted transposon were stably maintained in Pseudomonas fluorescens R2f in
soil for 7 days and a broad host range plasmid (IncQ) could be mobilised into several indigenous bacterial species. McDonald et al45 examined the persistence of a plasmid encoding
chloramphenicol resistance in B. subtilis and reported that plasmid stability in the inoculant population remained at 100% after 28 days. Other studies have shown that engineered
plasmids are not stably maintained by the hosts, particularly when released into the environment.46,47 It could be interpreted that in these cases the burden of maintaining multicopy plasmids is greater than the advantage conferred on the host by the marker gene
phenotype.48
Examination of intrageneric plasmid transfer in soil has shown that Tn5 labeled plasmids in both E. agglomerans and E. coli could transfer to homologous strains in soil, and the
transfer frequency was enhanced by the input of particular nutrients into the system.49 Herron
et al6 used pIJ673 (containing nptII, vph and tsr) to monitor the selective effect of antibiotics
on the plasmid transfer and survival of Streptomyces in soil microcosms. This study demonstrated that addition of neomycin and thiostrepton to soil microcosms increased the levels of
resistant transconjugants from 103 to 105.
The population dynamics of bacteriophage and their hosts in soil has also been studied
by marking phage with antibiotic resistance genes. Marsh and Wellington31 examined the
lysogenic infection of indigenous soil Streptomyces species by using a bacteriophage containing a thiostrepton resistance gene to mark bacteriophage and then select for host resistance in soil microcosms. The addition of tsr marked KC301 actinophage lysates to nonsterile
soil gave rise to thiostrepton resistant indigenous streptomycetes which were subsequently
shown to contain KC301 DNA by colony blots. Probing digested chromosomal DNA of
some of the lysogens showed that their chromosomes contained KC301 prophage.
2.8. Ethical Concerns

Although there are obvious advantages in the use of antibiotic resistance gene markers,
their value for field releases has been limited. This is probably due to the ethical questions
raised about deliberately releasing resistance genes into the environment, which presents
the risk of spread into the indigenous bacterial population. However, transfer is known to
be limited in conditions of low nutrients24,16 and is also affected by the activity and spatial
distribution of bacteria in addition to physical conditions in the soil.50 The problem of
transfer has been addressed with the development of modified vectors which inhibit the
movement of resistance genes into new hosts.51,52 There is widespread resistance in indigenous bacteria to selected antibiotics in current use in agriculture such as streptomycin.
However, there will soon be restrictions on the use of antibiotics in animal growth promotion to reduce the future development of resistance in enteric bacteria. There is a clear link
between the development of resistance in antibiotic-fed farm animals and the dissemination
24
of antibiotic resistance genes in enteric bacteria in the environment and within pathogenic
groups.53 These data demonstrate the horizontal transfer of genes in natural populations
and their selection under conditions of antibiotic administration. Therefore, selection pressure is the key problem. Certain antibiotic resistance gene markers have been proposed for
environmental use due to the lack of clinical application of the antibiotic used for selection,
thus reducing the chance of resistance development. However, it is often uncertain which
chemical classes of antibiotic will prove to be clinically useful in the future and how far cross
resistance will affect the use of chemically similar antibiotics. In the case of the antibiotic
avoparcin, a glycopeptide fed to pigs and poultry, there was not sufficient difference compared to vancomycin, the clinically important glycopeptide, to prevent cross resistance developing.53 As already discussed in Section 2.6, some field releases have been approved which
used antibiotic resistance gene markers for tracking genetically modified micro-organisms
(GMMs) and included Tn5 and the kanamycin resistance gene aph(3')-II (see Chapter 8).
The risk of a gene transferring from GMMs into the environmental gene pool is presumably
greater than for a transgenic crop plant marked with an antibiotic resistance gene. The only
GMM-based product containing an antibiotic resistance gene for marketing within the European Union is a kit consisting of Streptococcus thermophilus modified with the cat
(chloramphenicol acetyltransferase) gene. The cat gene is located on a plasmid, pMJ723,
harbouring the lux genes, and detects antibiotic residues in milk. The strain is not released
into to the environment, as it is contained in vials throughout the test. For transgenic crop
plants, the marker antibiotic resistance genes aph(3')-II and blaTEM-1, for kanamycin/neomycin resistance and -lactam resistance respectively, have been approved for marketing within
Europe. Future research should address the levels of transfer of these genes to indigenous
micro-organisms, as plant DNA containing aph(3')-II is known to successfully transform
suitable, competent, recipient bacteria. 54
2.9. Conclusion
Antibiotic resistance genes have a long history of reliability for use as highly selective,
versatile markers allowing detection and enumeration of bacteria in environmental samples.
Resistance genes found in non-antibiotic producing bacteria are readily expressed in a wide
range of host backgrounds. Examples include the neomycin resistance gene, nptII, which has
been used in gram-positive (high and low GC) and gram-negative bacteria, yeasts, plant
and animal cell cultures.
The resistance genes are highly mobile between bacterial groups and this may be a
reason for their versatility and often near universal expression. A wide range of genes have
been cloned and frequently used with their own promoter in diverse hosts. Levels of expression and strength of resistance may vary slightly from strain to strain but this is also related
to the nature of the construct used. Multiple copies of a resistance gene secure high levels of
resistance but only under defined conditions of growth and assay. No other type of marker
provides such an extensive range of genes for use with almost any bacterium, resulting in a
highly selective marker. Some bacteria now carry an extensive range of antibiotic resistance
genes resulting from the excessive use of antibiotics for over 50 years and this may reduce the
choice of genes useful for marking a strain within a population of close relatives. The background resistance of indigenous bacterial populations may also be a problem where certain
phenotypes, such as kanamycin resistance, are widespread in soil bacteria due to the use of
antibiotics in agriculture. This problem can be overcome by combining unique sets of resistance genes or by combining resistance genes with markers such as lux or gfp (see Chapters 5-7).
25
Acknowledgments
E.M.H. Wellington is a member of the MAREP Concerted Action sponsored by the
European Commission Biotechnology Programme, DGXII.
References
1. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 2nd ed. NY:
Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory Press, 1989.
2. Hirsch P, Spokes JD. Survival and dispersion of genetically modified rhizobia in the field
and genetic interactions with native strains. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1994; 15:147-160.
3. Kinkel LL, Wilson M, Lindow SE. Utility of microcosm studies for predicting phylloplane
bacterium population sizes in the field. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996; 62:3413-3423.
4. Nielsen KM, Bones AM, van Elsas JD. Induced natural transformation of Acinetobacter
calcoaceticus in soil microcosms. Appl Environ Microbiol 1997; 63:3972-3977.
5. Philips L, Wellington EMH. The distribution of DNA sequences hybridizing with antibiotic production and resistance gene probes within type strains and wild isolates of Streptomyces species. J Antibiotics 1992; 45:1481-1491.
6. Herron PR, Toth IK, Heilig GHJ et al. Selective effect of antibiotics on survival and gene
transfer of streptomycetes in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 1998; 30:673-677.
7. Hewitt W. Microbiological Assays. London: Academic Press, 1977:284-317.
8. Philips L. PhD thesis. University of Warwick, U.K. 1992.
9. Hopwood DA, Bibb MJ, Chater KF et al. Genetic Manipulation of Streptomyces: A laboratory manual. Norwich: The John Innes Foundation, 1985.
10. Oliver JD. The viable but non-culturable state in the human pathogen Vibrio vulnificus.
FEMS Microbiol Lett 1995; 133:203-208.
11. Turpin P, Dhir VK, Maycroft K et al. The effect of Streptomyces species on the survival of
Salmonella in soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1992; 101:271-280.
12. Picard C, Ponsonnet C, Paget C et al. Detection and enumeration of bacteria in soil by
direct DNA extraction and polymerase chain reaction. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992;
58:2717-2722.
13. Romanowski G, Lorenz M, Wackernagel W. Use of PCR to monitor the persistence of
extracellular plasmid DNA introduced into soils. Appl Environ Microbiol 1993;
59:3438-3446.
14. Selenska S, Schenzinger S, Klingmuller W. Direct detection of particular DNA sequences
in soil. In: Gauthier MJ, ed. Gene transfers and environments. Proceedings of the third
European meeting on Bacterial Genetics and Ecology (BAGECO-3). Springer-Verlag
1992:3-8.
15. Recorbet G, Picard C, Normand P et al. Kinetics of the persistence of chromosomal DNA
from genetically engineered Escherichia coli introduced into soil. Appl Environ Microbiol
1993; 59:4289-4294.
16. Wellington EMH, Herron PR, Cresswell N. Gene transfer in terrestrial environments and
the survival of bacterial inoculants in soil. In: Edwards C, ed. Monitoring genetically Manipulated Microorganisms in the Environment. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. 1993:
137-170.
17. van Elsas JD, Trevors JT. Plasmid transfer to indigenous bacteria in soil and rhizosphere:
problems and perspectives. In: Fry JC and Day MJ eds. Bacterial Genetics in Natural Environments. Chapman and Hall, 1993:188-199.
18. Henschke RB, Schmidt FRJ. Use of wide host range promoters to monitor the fate of recombinant DNA in soil. In: Fry JC and Day MJ eds. Bacterial Genetics in Natural Environments. Chapman and Hall, 1993:200-206.
19. Amner W, Edwards C, McCarthy AJ. Composting as a model system for monitoring the
fate of genetically manipulated gram-positive bacteria. In: Edwards C, ed. Monitoring Genetically Manipulated Microorganisms in the Environment. Chichester: John Wiley and
Sons, 1993: 83-109.
26
20. Amner W, McCarthy AJ, Edwards C. Quantitative assessment of factors affecting the recovery of indigenous and released thermophilic bacteria from compost. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1988; 54:3107-3112.
21. Amner W, McCarthy AJ, Edwards C. Survival of a plasmid-bearing strain of Bacillus subtilis
introduced into compost. J Gen Mirobiol 1991; 137:1931-1937.
22. Smalla K, van Overbeek LS, Pukall R et al. Prevalence of nptII and Tn5 in kanamycinresistant bacteria from different environments. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1993; 13:47-58.
23. Cresswell N. PhD thesis. University of Warwick, U.K. 1992.
24. Smit E,van Elsas JD. Conjugal gene transfer in the soil environment; New approaches and
developments. In: Gauthier MJ, ed. Gene transfers and environments. Proceedings of the
third European meeting on Bacterial Genetics and Ecology (BAGECO-3). Springer-Verlag
1992:79-94.
25. van Elsas JD, Fouchier R, van Overbeek LS. A specific marker, pat, for studying the fate of
introduced bacteria and their DNA in soil using a combination of techniques. Plant and
Soil. 1991; 138:49-60.
26. McNaughton SJ. Rose DA, ODonnell AG. Growth and survival of genetically modified
Pseudomonas putida in soils of different texture. In: Stewart-Tull DES, Sussman M. eds.
The release of genetically modified microorganisms-REGEM 2. New York: Plenum
Press,1992, 191-193.
27. Zalacain M, Gonzalez A, Guerrero MC et al. Nucleotide-sequence of the hygromycin-
phosphotransferase gene from Streptomyces hygroscopicus. Nucleic Ac Res 1986; 14:
1565-1581.
28. Skeggs PA, Holmes DJ, Cundliffe E. Cloning of aminoglycoside-resistance determinants
from Streptomyces tenebrarius and comparison with related genes from other actinomycetes.
J Gen Microbiol. 1987; 133:915-23.
29. Shaw KJ, Rather PN, Hare RS et al. Molecular genetics of aminoglycoside resistance genes
and familial relationships of the aminoglycoside-modifying enzymes. Microbiol Rev 1993;
57:138-163.
30. Wellington EMH, Cresswell N, Saunders V. Growth and survival of streptomycete inoculants and extent of plasmid transfer in sterile and non-sterile soil. Appl Environ Microbiol
1990; 56:1413-1419.
31. Marsh P, Wellington EMH. Phage-host interactions in soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1994;
15:99-108.
32. van Overbeek LS, van Veen JA, van Elsas JD. Induced reporter gene activity, enhanced
stress resistance and competitive ability of a genetically modified Pseudomonas fluorescens
strain released into a plot planted with wheat. Appl Environ Microbiol 1997; 63:1965-1973.
33. Zeph LR, Stotzky G. Use of a biotinylated DNA probe to detect bacteria transduced by
bacteriophage P1 in soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 1989; 55:661-665.
34. Orvos DR, Lacy GH, Cairns J. Genetically engineered Erwinia carotovoraSurvival, intraspecific competition, and effects upon selected bacterial genera. Appl Environ Microbiol
1990; 56:1689-1694.
35. Bentjen SA, Fredrickson JK, van Voris P. Intact soil-core microcosms for evaluating the
fate and ecological impact of the release of genetically engineered microorganisms. Appl
36. Macrin FL, Archer GL. Conjugation and broad host range plasmids in streptococci and
staphylococci. In: Clewell DB, ed. Bacterial Conjugation. London: Plenum Press, 1993:
313-330.
37. Wipat A, Wellington EMH, Saunders VA. Streptomyces marker plasmids for monitoring
survival and spread of streptomycetes in soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 1991; 57:3322-3330.
38. Tschpe H. The spread of plasmids as a function of bacterial adaptability. FEMS Microbiol
Ecol 1994;15:23-32.
39. Salyers AA, Shoemaker NB. Broad host range gene transfer: Plasmids and conjugative
transposons. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1994; 15:15-22.
40. Sundin GW, Monks DE, Bender CL. Distribution of the streptomycin-resistance transposon
Tn5393 among phylloplane and soil bacteria from managed agricultural habitats. Can J
Microbiol 1995; 41:792-799.
27
41. Wiener P, Egan S, Huddleston, AS, Wellington EMH. Evidence for transfer of antibiotic
resistance genes in soil populations of streptomycetes. Mol Ecol 1998; 7:1205-1216.
42. Egan S, Wiener P, Kallifidas D, Wellington EMH. Transfer of streptomycin biosynthesis
gene clusters within streptomycetes isolated from soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998;
64:5061-5063.
43. Thomashow L, Weller DM, Bonsall RF et al. Production of the antibiotic phenazine-1carboxylic acid by fluorescent Pseudomonas species in the rhizosphere of wheat. Appl
44. Amarger N and D. Delgutte. Assesment of gene transfer under field conditions in France.
In: Abstracts of: Horizontal Gene transfer- Mechanisms and Implications. Bielefield, Germany. 1994.
45. McDonald IR, Riley PW, Sharp RJ et al. Survival of plasmid-containing Bacillus subtilis
released into mushroom compost. Microbial Ecol 1998; 36:51-59.
46. Tokuda Y, Ano T, Shoda M. Survival of Bacillus subtilis Nb22, an antifungal-antibiotic
iturin producer, and its transformant in soil-systems. J. Ferment. Bioeng. 1993; 75: 68-73.
47. Crowley DE, Brennerova MV, Irwin C. Rhizosphere effects on biodegradation of 2,5dichlorobenzoate by a bioluninescent strain of root-colonizing Pseudomonas fluorescens.
FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1996; 20:79-89.
48. Tang WZ, Pasternak JJ, Glick BR. Persistence in soil of the plant-growth promoting
rhizobacterium Pseudomonas putida gr12-2 and genetically manipulated derived strains.
Canad J Microbiol 1995; 41 445-451.
49. Klingmuller, W. 1992. Risk assesment in releases of nitrogen-fixing Enterobacter into soil;
survival and gene transfer, as influenced by agricultural substrates. In: Stewart-Tull DES,
Sussman M, eds. The Release of Genetically Modified Microorganisms-REGEM 2. New
York: Plenum Press,1992:155-157.
50. van Elsas JD. Antibiotic resistance gene transfer in the environment: an overview. In:
Wellington EMH, van Elsas JD, eds. Genetic Interactions Among Microorganisms in the
Natural Environment. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1992; 17-39.
51. Bej AK, Perlin MH, Atlas RM. Model suicide vector for containment of genetically engineered microorganisms. Appl Environ Microbiol 1988; 54:2472-2477.
52. Sanchis V, Agaisse H, Chafaux J et al. A recombinase-mediated system for elimination of
antibiotic resistance gene markers from genetically engineered Bacillus thuringiensis strains.
53. Witte W. Impact of antibiotic usage in animal feeding on resistance of bacterial pathogens
in humans. In: Chadwick DJ, Goode J, eds. Antibiotic resistance: Origins, evolution, selection and spread. Ciba Foundation Symposium 207. Chichester:John Wiley and Sons, 1997
61-71.
54. Gebhardt F, Smalla K. Transformation of Acinetobacter sp. strain BD413 by transgenic sugar
beet DNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998; 64:1550-1554.
CHAPTER 3
Extraction and Analysis of Microbial

Community Nucleic Acids
from Environmental Matrices
Jan Dirk van Elsas, Kornelia Smalla, Christoph C. Tebbe
3.1. Introduction
nvironmental monitoring on the basis of nucleic acids is increasingly being recognized

as an extremely powerful approach, since organisms or genes can be directly assessed,
even without prior cultivation. Hence, targets present in unculturable, poorly-culturable or
as yet uncultured organisms, which would escape detection when using traditional cultivation-based approaches, are assessable. In the last decade, a number of developments,
including the rapid development of nucleic acid detection methodologies, have provided a
great thrust to the efforts to assess microbes directly in their natural environment. Areas of
study that have been significantly stimulated by nucleic acid based approaches are:
1. Monitoring indigenous microorganisms of interest from an ecological or biotechnological perspective,
2. The study of natural microbial diversity and of factors that disturb that diversity,
3. The need to monitor genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs) based on their
unique nucleic acid sequences,
4. The assessment of the expression of specific microbial genes in the environment.
The environmental matrices to be sampled and extracted may range from a variety of
bulk soils, plant roots (rhizospheres and/or rhizoplanes), leaves (phyllosphere) or interior
plant tissue, seeds, rockwool and manure to diverse aquatic systems such as sediments and
sewages. A large and diverse suite of protocols for the extraction and analysis of nucleic
acids from these environments has been collected in recent texts,1,2 and the reader is
referred to these for detailed information. The basic principles of these protocols are inherently very similar, as in most cases the nucleic acids are to be obtained from mixed microbial
communities that occur adsorbed to, and heterogeneously dispersed in, the matrix under
study. In addition, there are often compelling reasons, e.g., when the persistence of a specific
target gene has to be monitored, to also analyze the fractions of the total nucleic acid pool
that occur extracellularly.3
There are two different approaches to the extraction of nucleic acids from mixed
microbial communities in environmental matrices. The first approach is based on the prior
separation of microbial cells from the matrix, after which the dislodged cells are lysed and
the nucleic acids extracted and further purified (Cell extraction / nucleic acid extraction, or
30
indirect, approach4,5). The second approach is based on the direct lysis of microbial cells in
the environmental matrix (e.g., soil), followed by separation of the nucleic acids from the
matrix and from cell debris and other impurities (Direct lysis approach6). Major differences
between the two strategies are the higher nucleic acid yields obtained with the direct lysis
approach, coupled to the co-extraction of larger amounts of contaminating substances7.
Moreover, the cell extraction/nucleic acid extraction approach in principle allows the removal of a large fraction of the extracellular nucleic acids from the bacterial cells prior to
lysis, thus allowing a better assessment of target DNA present inside the microbial cells in
the environment.
Since these pioneering studies on DNA extraction from soil,4-7 there has been a considerable methodological development, the main purpose of which was the omission of laborious purification steps, mainly hydroxyapatite column chromatography and cesium chloride (CsCl) gradient purifications, replacing these by faster approaches. Thus, the numerous
nucleic acid extraction protocols that are currently in use in different laboratories1-2,8-19 all
share a relatively small number of individual extraction and purification steps (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1. Some examples of frequently used steps in nucleic acid extraction and
purification protocols
Purpose
Step
Principle
Remarks
Cell lysis
Enzymes and detergents
Breakdown and
solubilization of cell
envelope components
Very diverse
requirements of
different cells (e.g.,
grampositives versus
gramnegatives.
Freeze/thaw (heat and

cold shocks)
Temperature shocks
combined with water
crystals, to destabilize
membranes
Less efficient for

lysis of grampositive
bacteria
Grinding with liquid N2
Abrasive action of grinding Efficient for fungal

with soil combined with
spores and
ice crystals
mycelium
Bead beating using

small glass beads and
high frequency shaking
Mechanical lysis (brute

force)
Recognized as
highly efficient in
lysing a wide range
of bacterial and
fungal/yeast cells
Microwave oven
Heat induced lysis
Combined with
other lysis methods
Sonication
High energy induced lysis
Often not efficient if

energy-dissipating
materials are present
Extraction and Analysis of Nucleic Acids
31
Purpose
Step
Principle
Remarks
Extraction
and
precipitation
Phenol
Denaturing and extractive

action on proteins and
lipoproteins
Standard method in
molecular biology
Chloroform
Denaturing action on
proteins and hydrophobes
Standard method in
molecular biology
Ethanol or isopropanol
precipitations
Removal of salts and solutes
Standard method in
molecular biology
Polyethylene glycol
(PEG) precipitation
Precipitation/concentration
of DNA
CsCl precipitation
Removal of impurities by
salting-out effect
KAc/NH4Cl
precipitations
Precipitation of DNA due

to high molarity acetate
Glassmilk sorption
Sorption on glassmilk
beads, followed by
differential desorption
Highly efficient in
removing humic
compounds from
DNA
Elutip D
Chromatography
separation
Method repeated
on same extract
Wizard DNA cleanup

spin columns
Powerful separation of
DNA from humics via
chromatography over
mini spin column
Sephadex
G50/G75/G200
Separation of
contaminants, e.g.,
humics, via gel filtration
Efficient fast method,

often combined with
other methods
Gel electrophoresis
Charge- and size-related

separation of nucleic acids
from impurities
Very efficient, but

laborious method
PVPP* sorption
Selectively removes
humics from DNA/RNA
solutions
PVPP needs rigorous

acid wash
Hydroxy apatite
chromatography
Selective binding of
nucleic acids to HAP**,
column. Differential elution
of DNA or RNA by varying
phosphate concentrations
Theoretically very
good, but practically
difficult. Often low
recoveries
Purification
* PVPP: polyvinyl poly pyrrolidine;** HAP: hydroxyapatite
32
Fig. 3.1. Outline of nucleic

acid based detection protocols
There have even been efforts to simplify and miniaturize soil DNA extraction protocols to a
level where their on site use becomes feasible.20 Most of the current protocols have been
shown to produce DNA and/or RNA suitable for the analysis of microbial diversity or
microbial fate. However, they often differ in the way they release and lyse microbial cells
from the environmental matrix, and such (qualitative and quantitative) differences are likely
to affect the final analyses performed. Hence, it is key to our understanding of microorganisms in their natural settings as described by molecular methods, that the possible biases
introduced by cell extraction and lysis methods are understood.
This chapter will review currently available strategies to recover and purify (1) microbial (bacterial) cells and (2) nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) from environmental matrices,
and will then briefly address the use of these nucleic acids in monitoring methods to assess
33
microbial diversity and inoculant fate. Figure 3.1 gives a general outline of these
methodologies.
3.2. Extraction of Microbial Cells from Environmental Matrices

Recovery and concentration of microbial cells may be an important first step if nucleic
acid analysis is to be performed in environments with relatively low cell densities, such as
aquatic or phyllosphere habitats. Moreover, even for environments with high population
densities, it can be advantageous to prepare a cell fraction prior to nucleic acid extraction, in
particular if intracellular targets are to be assessed. Bacterial diversity assessments based on
DNA reassociation kinetics21 even depend on the DNA being primarily of bacterial origin.
Paul recently reviewed the available methods for cell concentration from aquatic environments;22 a variety of approaches has been used, the most effective being those including the
filtration of large volumes through membrane filters.23-25 Tangential flow filtration26 or Vortex
flow filtration27 have the advantage that cells experience less mechanical stress and that
large volumes (up to 100 L) can be processed within short times. Prefiltration through
3 m filters can be used to remove large particles which would clog filters.26 Alternatively, high-speed centrifugation is applicable for concentrating bacteria in smaller
water volumes. Filters with microbial biomass or bacterial pellets obtained after highspeed centrifugation can be stored frozen until further processing.
As most bacterial cells in nature, including aquatic environments, occur attached to
surfaces (forming microcolonies or biofilms28), cell dislodgement methods are often
required. Cells can actually adhere quite strongly to surfaces by bonding mechanisms such
as via bacterial polymers, pili or flagellae, electrostatic forces or water bridging.29-31 Bacteria
can also be entrapped in soil aggregates which are formed through gluing by bacteriallyproduced polysaccharides and physico-chemical interactions between silica/clay surfaces
and decomposed organic matter.32, 33
The representative extraction of surface-attached bacteria from environmental matrices requires that the cells bound by the various modes and with different strengths are efficiently dislodged. Dissociation of cells from surfaces is generally achieved by repeated
homogenization steps. For soil, homogenization can be achieved by shaking soil suspensions with gravel or beads, or by blending in Stomacher or Waring blenders.34 Mild
ultrasonication in a low energy bath has also been used.29 However, the amount of energy
needed to completely disperse soil aggregates can result in considerable cell death.29,35 During extraction, bacterial cells experience not only mechanical stress but also changes in their
physico-chemical conditions. Thus, the physiological state of cells following dislodgment
from surfaces, reflected in the diversity of intracellular RNA molecules, might not represent
their in situ physiological state. Lindahl et al36 found that the activity of extracted bacterial
fractions is often lower than that in soil slurries. Furthermore, Priem et al31 reported that
treatment of soil samples in a Waring blender decreased methane oxidation activity, with a
profound difference between different soils. Soil slurries in sodium pyrophosphate showed
less than 10% of the methane oxidation observed with soils resuspended in water. Furthermore, the sodium pyrophosphate used might be problematic in microbiological incubations due to the enhanced supply of phosphorus.33
Following dislodgment, separation of bacterial cells from the particulate matter is usually achieved by low-speed centrifugation, with their subsequent recovery in a pellet by
high-speed centrifugation (differential centrifugation37). Recent studies revealed that the
centrifugal force applied is highly critical;38 centrifugal forces over 500 xg reduced cell
recoveries dramatically. The use of forces < 100 xg was therefore recommended, but at these
reduced speeds, recovery rates did not exceed 45% of the total discernable cells.38
34
Fig. 3.2. A protocol for the recovery of bacterial cells from soil.
An alternative method to disperse soil particles and dissociate microbial cells from soil,
sediment or root parts involves the use of cation exchange resins. Shaking of soil with, for
instance, Dowex39 or Chelex-10029,40,41 is used to remove the bivalent and polyvalent cations
responsible for electrostatic bonding between like-charged bacterial cells and soil particles.
Detergents are also used to overcome adhesive interactions. A comparison of five different
treatments (Fig. 3.2) showed that cell extraction could be improved by using Stomacher
blending instead of shaking. Consistent results and a fairly rapid treatment were possible
with the automated paddle action of the Stomacher. On the other hand, Lindahl and Bakken42
did not find any positive effect of the Chelex-100 treatment on cell extraction efficiency
and, thus, recommended simple, threefold repeated, blending with water. Shaking in lowelectrolyte concentrations, e.g. in distilled water, increases the interactive free energy
between like-charged soil particles. In a recent comparison of both methods with agricultural soil, the total cfu numbers obtained were found to be comparable between the methods (unpublished). However, the water-based protocol yielded a higher number of different
colony types, suggesting that the extraction protocol strongly affects the diversity of bacterial types obtained.
In particular for soils with high clay contents, separation of bacterial cells and soil
particles is necessary. This can be achieved by flotation in the density media Percoll or
35
Nycodenz,31,43 but not with simple centrifugation steps, because clay particles and bacterial
cells show similar sedimentation behavior. The efficiency of different cell extraction protocols thus depends on the soil type; hence, different protocols may prove suitable for different soils.43 However, even with the most optimized protocol, complete extraction of all bacterial cells, in particular of cells bound to soil particles, is probably impossible. Thus, for
studies on the diversity of microbial communities in soil, it seems reasonable that the cells
recovered represent, in their relative abundance, the surface-attached microbial community. As microbial cells may occur both at the outside of soil aggregates and in the interior
regions, the extent to which these soil aggregates are disrupted will determine the sites from
which the inhabiting bacterial cells are dislodged. To monitor the population dynamics of
bacterial inoculants, it is, thus, primordial to understand their localization, as the protocol
to be used and the limit of detection are affected by it. Moreover, inoculant cells may preferentially occur at different locations than indigenous microbes, and hence the requirements
with respect to extraction are different.
The bacterial cell fractions obtained can be used for the extraction of genomic DNA4,5
or for the parallel extraction of both DNA and RNA (Fig. 3.1).44,45 Furthermore, the cell
fractions can serve for assessments of cell numbers using fluorescent dyes or immunofluorescence enumeration. In general, nucleic acids recovered from soil/rhizosphere bacterial
cell fractions are less contaminated with coextracted humic acids, fulvic acids, polyphenols,
polysaccharides, or other plant-derived substances which can hinder molecular analyses,
than these recovered directly.7 For polluted soils, separation of bacterial cell fractions may
even be an absolute requirement. For instance, DNA extracted directly from a zinc-contaminated soil was not PCR amplifiable even after several purification steps, whereas DNA
extracted from the recovered bacterial fraction was amplifiable without any problems (Brim
et al, unpublished).
3.3 Cell Disruption

The aim of the cell disruption step is to lyse as many target microbial cells as possible,
since any subsequent analysis on the basis of nucleic acids is greatly sensitized if this step is
optimized. The lysis protocol can be targeted towards a specific microbial group or to the
total microbial community. Unfortunately, cell lysis is often the main limiting step in nucleic
acid extraction protocols, even of pure cultures.46 Due to the enormous differences in
lysability of cells (cf. easily lysed enterobacteriaceae or members of the genus Pseudomonas
versus recalcitrant types such as Bacillus spores or mycobacteria), different preferred lysis
protocols have been concocted. Moore et al 46 summarized the different available methods
for a range of bacteria and fungi, and suggested that each microbial group should be tackled
by a particular choice or combination of enzymatic, detergent-based and mechanical methods, the aim clearly being the generation of high nucleic acid yields of optimal quality (molecular size and purity).
Cell lysis in the presence of an environmental matrix is different from that without it,
and is often more difficult, since compounds from the matrix can affect the action of the
lysing agents used, and cells can be in a physiological/morphological state that makes them
refractory to lysis.47 For example, the presence of soil particles can inhibit the action of lytic
enzymes due to effects on pH, ionic strength or to simple adsorption, but enhance the (mechanical) action of mortar/pestle grinding in the presence of liquid nitrogen, due to their
abrasive action.48,49 Moreover, it is possible that certain sites in soil are not reached by lytic
enzymes, resulting in a lack of lysis in these specific sites. It is, therefore, likely that lysis
efficiencies and possible biases are different for lysis steps applied to pre-separated bacterial
fractions as opposed to those of cells in the presence of their natural matrix.
36
The strategies used in most protocols to achieve lysis of bacterial cells from environmental matrices, either in its presence or absence, are:
1. Enzymatic removal of cell wall material,
2. Chemical action such as solubilization of the cell membrane with detergents,
3. Physical action such as freezing/thawing, ultrasonication or microwave oven treatment, and
4. Mechanical action such as achieved via e.g., bead beating or mortar/pestle grinding.
Often, some of these strategies are combined. Key aspects are described below:
1. A range of enzymes that attack different cell wall components can be applied, such
as proteinase K, lysozyme, mutanolysin, lysostaphin, subtilisin or achromopeptidase.46 These enzymes are more effective when combined with EDTA.
2. Commonly used detergents are sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and N-lauroylsarcosine
(Sarcosyl). Cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) is also often used. Nonpolar detergents, such as Triton X, Tween or Nonidet P-40, which provide for milder
treatments, are less common.
3. Physical methods have mostly been combined with other (enzymatic or mechanical) methods, as there is doubt whether their single use will result in acceptable
levels of lysis.15,20 For instance, the application of freeze/thaw steps, even repeatedly,
has been shown to be inferior to bead beating.15,20 Moreover, it is difficult to achieve
high lysis rates by the single use of ultrasonication of soil slurries.
4. Of particular interest is the use of the bead beater (Braun cell homogenizer), which
is able to lyse even very recalcitrant cellular forms such as Bacillus spores, mycobacteria or fungal conidia.20,50,51 This method was proposed in a pioneering paper on
direct extraction of soil DNA7 and is still widely in use. Furthermore, a method in
which the abrasive action of mortar/pestle grinding was combined with liquid nitrogen snap-freezing was shown to be efficient in releasing fungal DNA.48,49,52
Table 3.1 lists the most o
c mmonly used steps of popular protocols. Combinations of
these approaches have also been used. For instance, Picard et al53 have shown that a combination of ultrasonication, microwave oven and enzymatical treatment resulted in a higher
degree of cell lysis and thus DNA yield from soil, than any of these steps performed in
separate. However, DNA shearing was a severe problem.
Problems with all these approaches are related to either the uneven distribution of
microbial cells throughout environmental matrices, resulting in their uneven exposure to
the action of lysis agents, or to differences in the resistance of different microbial types to
lysis. It is therefore prudent to state that complete lysis of cells in environmental matrices is
most often impossible to achieve. Hence, the data obtained on the basis of environmental
DNA (and/or RNA) should be regarded as descriptive of the populations recovered in a
relative sense, and rigorous checks on the nature of the possible bias introduced may be
necessary.
3.4. Extraction and Purification of DNA

3.4.1. Extraction
Generally, the aim of the extraction steps is to quickly separate the microbial DNA
from contaminating compounds such as humic acids, fulvic acids, polyphenols, polysaccharides, enzymes (in particular DNAses) and cellular debris. Protocols for pure culture
extractions, although similarly structured,46 often do not deal with compounds that abound
in environmental extracts, and these protocols are therefore not a priori suitable. There are
a limited number of physico-chemical strategies to quickly remove contaminating compounds, which might eventually be combined into a standardized protocol. However, a wide
37
range of protocols for extraction of environmental nucleic acids is currently still in use.1,2
The main strategy is based on organic solvents which interact with the hydrophobic parts of
proteins and lipoproteins, resulting in their denaturation and extraction. Using, for instance,
phenolor chloroformwater phase separations, many proteins, lipoproteins and other
hydrophobic compounds concentrate in the organic phase, whereas nucleic acids will concentrate in the water phase. Phenol is known to be efficient in denaturing and extracting
proteins, whereas chloroform interacts with proteins and polysaccharidic material. Hence,
a combination of these two extractants is often employed. Chloroform also removes traces
of phenol still present in the aquatic phase. In addition to phenol/chloroform extractions,
ethanol or isopropanol precipitations of DNA, followed by washes, are often used to remove salts, SDS and other impurities.54
The solution produced in these initial steps, called the crude extract, will often be a
rather impure aqueous solution of nucleic acids. DNA and RNA show similar behavior and
may be both present in these crude extracts.
3.4.2. Purification
The aim of purification of the crude extract is to recover the nucleic acids from the
crude extract in a form ready for analyses by appropriate molecular techniques. Ideally, the
procedure is as rapid and simple as possible, and incurs minimal quantitative and/or qualitative loss of, or damage to, the nucleic acids. The different protocols currently in use in
different laboratories have been based on an array of different steps in various combinations. Table 3.1 presents a summary of purification methods employed in selected protocols.
There is ample evidence that the requirements, with respect to DNA purity, for restriction by different enzymes, cloning, PCR amplification, reverse transcription or direct
hybridization can be quite different. Moreover, different enzymes, e.g., thermostable DNA
polymerases, have different requirements as to DNA purity.14,55 Therefore, for each new
experimental system, the extent to which nucleic acid purification is needed has to be carefully established and controlled. However, a few trends in the purification of environmental DNA are worth mentioning. The powerful purification steps used in the early protocols,
such as CsCl gradients5 and hydroxyapatite chromatography,4,30 have been found to be
either very tedious or unpredictable with respect to yields. Gel electrophoresis has been
shown to offer a powerful (one-step) alternative strategy to obtain DNA pure enough for
molecular analyses via PCR.18,19,56, 57 Young et al58 even used polyvinylpolypyrrolidone in
their gels to enhance the selective removal of humics. However, gel electrophoresis may lead
to a bias when the DNA is subsequently used for PCR amplification and community fingerprinting.58 Moreover, the method can be tedious, and has therefore been superseded by
other approaches. Thus, there has been an extensive search for reliable alternative purification methods that were simple, fast and provided high throughput.8-12,15-19 Often, these protocols relied on a sequence of short, different, treatments, including e.g., KAc or NH4Ac
precipitations,8,11 CTAB extraction,10 hydroxyapatite mini-spincolumns12 and Sephadex gel
filtration.8,12,56,59,60
One rapid protocol that consistently yielded PCR amplifiable and restrictable DNA
from different soils, originally developed by Smalla et al,15 was based on a two- or three-step
purification consisting of sequential KAc precipitation, CsCl precipitation and (originally)
glass milk or Wizard spin column purification. In later work, it was shown that this protocol
was very flexible and adaptable to a wide range of soil types.61 In a parallel study, Zhou et
al 62 also described a protocol which contained four flexible purification routines applicable
to a range of different soils.
As previously mentioned, a recent development aimed at the on site extraction of nucleic
acids from soil. A very simple one-step purification over a Sephadex G-200 column was
38
found to yield DNA sufficiently pure for PCR amplification and detection of key microbial
groups.20 However, it is doubtful the DNA obtained was of a quality similar to that obtained
by more rigorous protocols.
3.5. Analysis of DNA and Detection of Specific Sequences

Commonly, the quantity and quality of extracted environmental DNA is analyzed by
standard methods, such as absorbance at 260 nm in the spectrophotometer or gel electrophoresis.1,2,54 However, due to the presence of coabsorbing compounds (humic acids) in
most nucleic acid extracts,14,15,20 direct spectophotometry is not recommended. A solution
is offered by DNA-intercalating compounds such as Hoechst dye 33258, which results in
DNA absorbance at different wavelengths.2,11,20 Gel electrophoresis, on the other hand, is
often the method of choice as it allows the direct estimation of DNA quantity and quality
(degree of shearing, presence of humics).
Extracted DNA can be used directly for analysis, or it may be separated into fractions,
which are based on, for instance, molecular size or on relative G+C content. To enhance
successful detection of a released GMM, van Elsas et al56 isolated the 2-23 kb fraction of
their soil DNA, as the specific targets were expected to be prevalent in this fraction. Nusslein
and Tiedje63 succeeded in separating soil DNA into high-G+C (63%) and low-G+C (35%)
fractions, after which clones generated via PCR with these fractions were sequenced. The
former fraction was dominated by Pseudomonas, Rhizobium-Agrobacterium and
Rhodospirillum types, whereas the latter had a dominance of Clostridium sequences.
Detection of specific sequences in purified DNA extracts can proceed by a number of
different strategies, i.e.,
1. direct hybridization with a specific probe,
2. DNA labeling and use in probing (reverse sample probing),
3. direct restriction, followed by analysis on an agarose gel and/or cloning and
4. PCR amplification followed by molecular analysis.
These analyses and their intricacies are summarized hereunder.
1. Direct hybridization. To directly assess the presence and relative abundance of target sequences in the environment studied, the environmental DNA can be hybridized with labeled probes for these targets, in dilution dot blot or even Southern
setups.54,64 For the analysis of target abundancy, calibration of the signals, e.g. via
the use of target DNA added in known dilutions, is needed. An advantage of direct
hybridization is that it is independent from amplication techniques. Moreover, it
allows the direct assessment of rearrangements in the genes of released organisms.65
However, a major disadvantage is its low sensitivity. For an average soil with 108-109
cells per g, it is often difficult to detect targets present at levels below 105 per g.
2. DNA labeling and use in probing. Applications of environmental DNA, in particular DNA from oil fields, include its use as a probe to assess the prevalence of specific
targets, in a reverse hybridization setup coined reverse sample probing.66 For this
purpose, the DNA should be of sufficient purity to allow (enzymatic) labeling and
subsequent hybridization.
3. Direct restriction and cloning. Commonly, restriction enzyme digestion and cloning are performed on previously amplified DNA. However there might be instances
in which it is important to obtain a bank of environmental fragments, in particular
when the potential biases introduced by PCR are to be bypassed. For that purpose,
the DNA should be amenable to cutting with common enzymes, to allow cloning.
4. PCR amplification. The vast majority of analyses performed with environmental
DNA are based on the use of PCR amplification, since PCR offers the advantage
that the targets, even when present as minority sequences, can be quickly amplified
39
to easily detectable or clonable quantities. The potential of this approach is tremendous, and it has revolutionized molecular microbial ecology. In accordance with
primer choice, specific target organisms or genes can be detected and quantified,50-51
or broader groups can be fingerprinted by techniques such as denaturing or temperature gradient gel electrophoresis (D/TGGE),67,68 terminal restriction fragment
length polymorphism (T-RFLP),69 single strand conformational polymorphism
(SSCP)70 or amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis (ARDRA). This field is
currently exploding, with new applications being reported almost monthly. However, due to problems inherent to mixed community PCR,71 the real value of the
resulting fingerprints for actual in situ microbial diversity remains to be assessed.
Furthermore, an important step forward in the analysis of D/TGGE profiles is the
use of probes based on the variable region 6 (V6 probes) of the 16S rDNA.72 This
highly variable region allows for the generation of highly specific probes which can
serve to identify bacterial types in gels, or to link the bands from D/TGGE gels to
either isolates or cloned 16S community amplicons.
3.6. Extraction and Purification of RNA

In contrast to DNA, which serves as a pool of genetic information, RNA has multiple
cellular functions. Generally, three classes of RNA can be distinguished, i.e., messenger
(m)RNA, ribosomal (r)RNA and transfer (t)RNA. mRNA molecules are transcribed from
genes during gene expression. These transcripts are translated into amino acid sequences at
ribosomes, which are made up of rRNA molecules and proteins. tRNA molecules serve as
carriers for amino acids in this translation process in protein biosynthesis at the ribosomal
sites. In microbial ecology, all three classes of RNA have been targeted to characterize structures or functions of microbial communities. Additionally, RNA can be present in the environment in the form of viral genomes. Protocols for the extraction and detection of viral
RNA from environmental samples are available73-76 and will not be discussed further in this
context.
RNA extraction and purification from environmental matrices follow the same lines
described for DNA extractions. However, due to the high abundance and persistence of
RNases in the environment, RNA extractions generally require more precautions than those
of DNA. The use of RNase-inhibiting compounds, like diethylpyrocarbonate (DEPC),
chaotropic RNA stabilizing reagent or SDS to inactivate proteins can help to increase
extraction efficiencies from environmental samples.78,79 Protocols have been developed to
simultaneously obtain different types of RNA or even both RNAs and DNA from environmental samples,6,44,45,80 whereas other protocols aimed at extracting specific RNAs.78
Similar to DNA (see above; Table 3.1), recently developed RNA extraction protocols take
advantage of commercially available nucleic acid extraction and purification kits, thereby
replacing time- and material-consuming purification steps like ultracentrifugation or
dialysis. Limitations of existing protocols are correlated with RNA instability (especially
prokaryotic mRNA), and with the co-extraction of contaminating substances, mainly DNA
or humic acids. In this regard, soil or sediment samples are more laborious for purification
and less sensitive for detection compared to samples of aquatic origin. Therefore, it is not
surprising that, in early work, the detection of bacterial transcripts was shown to be several
orders of magnitude more sensitive in marine environments81 than in soil.59, 82
Various strategies can be used to obtain suitable material for rRNA analysis, i.e. direct
or indirect (cell extraction first) extraction of RNA from environmental samples, or isolation of ribosomes. These approaches have been successfully applied for 16S rRNA based
studies. For instance, using analyses based on direct RNA extraction, Hahn et al83 were able
to detect poorly culturable Frankia sp. in soil. Felske et al84 characterized the bacterial
40
community of a grassland soil on the basis of rRNA obtained from soil-extracted ribosomes. Duarte et al44 generated profiles of soil bacterial communities using reverse transcription and PCR amplification of RNA extracted from the bacterial fraction. The RNA
obtained from pre-extracted cells or ribosomes is likely to be less contaminated with coextracted material like humic acids.44,85 However, recent progress in optimizing PCR efficiencies even in the presence of a substantial amount of contaminating humic acids by a
considerate selection of heat-stable DNA polymerases and additives like single strand stabilizing proteins, suggests that partially purified RNA might be good targets for RT-PCR analysis.14,55,86 Generally the yield of ribosomal RNA has been reported to be higher with direct
or indirect extractions than with the ribosome isolation method.44,87 Early protocols to directly extract total RNA from soil could not detect intact ribosomal RNA molecules,59,88,89
but recently a rapid and direct extraction of intact 5S, 16S, 18S, 23S and 28S RNA, which
were amplifiable by RT-PCR has been reported.79
3.7. Detection of RNA

3.7.1. Analysis of Gene Expression on the Basis of mRNA Assessments
Analysis of mRNA directly extracted from environmental samples is conducted to investigate habitat dependent regulations of gene expression. In eukaryotic organisms, transcribed mRNA molecules are altered by various co- and posttranscriptional modifications
such as capping of the 5' end and polyadenylation of the 3'-end.90 These modifications
increase the stability of the molecules to half-life values of several hours. The poly-A 3'-end
is a suitable target for the isolation of eukaryotic transcripts by poly-T hybridization using
commercially available matrices. In particular, poly-T-coated magnetic beads have been found
useful in this respect. Tebbe et al91 extracted mRNA from yeast cells (Saccharomyces cerevisiae,
Pichia angusta) in soil by a direct approach, hybridizing poly-T magnetic beads in soil slurries, previously treated for total cell lysis. Transcripts from 10 cells per g soil were detectable
after reverse transcription of mRNA and subsequent amplification by PCR. The expression
of a recombinant gene was found to become extinct before elimination of the organisms
from the environment. A similar polyA-polyT hybridization protocol was developed for the
analysis of specific gene expression (e.g. lignin peroxidases) of the white-rot fungus
Phanerochaete crysosporium in soil.92-94
In contrast to eukaryotic mRNA, bacterial mRNAs have half-life values in the range of
only 0.5-30 min.95 Also, they lack a common target region like the poly-A 3-end. In order to
detect transcripts of biodegradative genes (nahAB transcripts) and the mercury reductase
gene merA by gene probe hybridization, over 107 target cells had to be present per g of
soil.59,82 Enhanced sensitivity (approximately 2 orders of magnitude) in the detection of
bacterial gene expression was achieved by Fleming et al96 who protected specific mRNAs of
the napthalene degradation encoding nahA gene by hybridization with antisense RNA in a
ribonuclease protection assay.
Target cells can also be extracted from soil and gene expression can be analyzed by
whole-cell hybridization with digoxigenin-labeled probes. This approach has been used to
detect the expression of a protease gene by Bacillus megaterium in soil. The detection limits,
however, were above 106 cells g-1 soil.97 Moreover, as indicated before, cells upon extraction
from soil may change their physiological status and hence their pattern of gene expression
does not necessarily reflect that in situ. Thus, the detection limits for analysis of bacterial
gene expression in soil are still several orders of magnitude above the sensitivity desired for
most ecological studies. To date, the use of recombinant reporter genes (Chapters 5-7) represents a more sensitive approach to study bacterial gene expression in soil.98,99
41
In aquatic samples, the problem of low sensitivity can be alleviated by concentrating

bacterial cells prior to RNA extraction.100 In a pioneering study,81 106 cells (concentrated
from 100 ml seawater) were necessary to detect the expression of the plasmid-encoded neomycin phosphotransferase gene (nptII) by Vibrio sp. Detection was by hybridization of target mRNA with single-stranded RNA probes. Similar detection limits were observed in studies
on the expression of merA by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and microbial communities in lake
water.101,102 Quantification of mRNA via direct hybridization or quantitative PCR will be
discussed further under section 3.8, below.
Differential display (DD) is a PCR-based method which allows to generate characteristic patterns of expressed genes in an organism without a priori sequence information. Recently, this technique has been applied to analyze prokaryotic mRNA following extraction
from soil. The expression of a gene (todC1) involved in the degradation of toluene by an
inoculated Pseudomonas putida in soil could be demonstrated.103 Additionally, gene expression of the soil microbial community, triggered by the addition of toluene was detected. The
DD-technique has the potential to characterize responses of natural microbial communities to, for instance, stress and can eventually help to identify new genes and enzymes of
environmental significance.
3.7.2. rRNA-Characterization of Growing Cells in Microbial Communities

Analysis of rRNA has become a major technique in the characterization of microbial
activities and community structures in the environment.104-106 The various rRNA types contain regions that are conserved among all living organisms as well as regions characteristic
for their phylogenetic individuality, offering both targets for PCR and markers for differentiation (Chapter 4). Analysis of rRNA is often preferred over that of DNA, since the number
of ribosomes and, thus, rRNA, correlates with the growth rate for a number of bacteria. 107109 Hence, for these types, rRNA analysis would mainly include active organisms and not
non-viable or dormant cells. However, other bacterial groups do not seem to shift their
ribosome numbers up and down in accordance with their growth rate. Furthermore, the
presence of multiple rRNA targets per cell enhances the sensitivity of detection compared
to DNA-based detection. Finally, compared to whole genomes, the diversity of sequences is
dramatically reduced, and less diverse sequences might be less prone to non-specific primer
binding. However, this point is open for debate.110
Using domain-specific gene probes, Ogram et al89 found that rRNA directly extracted
from sediment was mainly of bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic origin. To obtain sufficient
numbers of target sequences for the analysis of variable sequences, regions were amplified
by PCR using primers which bind to highly conserved sites.111 Such PCR-mediated analysis
of rRNA is possible at the DNA level or directly at the RNA level. If RNA is the template,
reverse transcription is necessary prior to PCR. Most environmental studies on microbial
community structures have focussed on 16S or 18S rRNA, but other regions may become
more important during the next years, e.g. the bacterial 23S rRNA112 and the internally
transcribed spacer (ITS) regions.113,114
The comparison of 16S or 18S rRNA PCR products generated with community RNA
and DNA as templates might provide insight in the ratio of active (growing) and inactive
cells in particular environments such as soil.44 Using denaturing or temperature gradient
gel electrophoresis (D/TGGE) or single strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP), the
intensity of such products can be visualized and compared.44,67,70 Significant differences can
then be characterized by DNA sequencing. RNA and DNA based characterizations of fecal
communities were similar,115 suggesting that due to the high nutrient content of fecal material, the dominating microorganisms in this system were probably actively growing. In environments with large numbers of inactive cells like bulk soil, however, differences between
42
rRNA and DNA based techniques can be more significant, as shown by Duarte et al.44 DGGE
analysis of PCR or RT-PCR products generated with either DNA or RNA from the same
bacterial fraction showed that, next to similarities in the community profiles, there were
clear dissimilarities, suggesting that there were differences in the activity levels between the
various bacterial groups underlying the profiles.
3.8. Quantification of Specific Targets

in Environmental Nucleic Acids
Specific targets in environmental DNA or RNA can be directly quantified by hybridization in a dot blot setup, using careful calibration with a dilution range of the target in the
same background.64 Among numerous other applications, the fate in soil of a genetically
marked self-transmissible plasmid, RP4, has thus been successfully monitored.56
Quantification of specific mRNA can also be achieved by hybridization with a single-stranded
RNA probe. To assess the level of gene expression, the amount of mRNA should be normalized to the gene dose, i.e., the number of genes present in the DNA extracted from an environmental sample. Such an approach has been successfully used by Pichard and Paul116 to
study the temperature-dependent expression of a biodegradation gene (xylE) of Vibrio sp.
in seawater.
However, due to the relative insensitivity of common hybridization protocols,54 probing methods are generally restricted to the assessment of relatively high target numbers
present in the sample. Hybridization-based quantification has, thus, been superseeded by
PCR- or RT-PCR-based quantitative methods. Quantification via PCR, eventually preceded
by a reverse transcription step of mRNA, can be achieved if a relationship between the
number of target molecules obtained in the amplification product and the original target
number can be established. Several different procedures have been cogitated and applied,117
of which the most important ones are (1) Most-probable-number PCR (MPN-PCR), and
(2) Competitive PCR using an internal standard. Other approaches, such as direct quantification,118 quantification by comparison to an external standard or by comparison to a
co-amplicon, analysis of PCR kinetics and molecular beacon PCR (in which a fluorescent
molecule is formed per successful amplicon produced in the PCR) have also been proposed.
These later applications have either met with problems when applied to environmental
samples or have found little application yet, and will therefore not be further discussed.
3.8.1. MPN-PCR
The principle of MPN-PCR is similar to that in other MPN enumeration procedures.
Briefly, the sample material (extract) is serially diluted and amplified, in a number of replicates, to a level where detection is not possible anymore (outdilution). Theoretically, this
would be the case at the point of complete removal of all target sequences from the PCR
reaction mix. However, in practice the cutoff points can be slightly higher due to inefficiencies in PCR amplification of targets in environmental DNA. The data of all amplification
reactions are recorded, and the cutoff levels are determined in the replicates. A table based
on statistical principles will then indicate the most probable number of virtual amplifiable
targets (VAT) in the dilution assessed, and, thus, in the sample. If the minimal number of
targets amplifiable under the conditions used equals 1, then the VAT equals the actual
amplifiable numbers; if there is a discrepancy, a compensation factor should be included in
the calculations.
Nesme et al 119 successfully used MPN-PCR to quantify the number of pathogenic
Agrobacterium sp. strains in soils. MPN-PCR has further been employed, for instance, to
assess the numbers of targets of Mycobacterium chlorophenolicum, a pentachlorophenoldegrading bacterium, in soil.61 The method was specific and provided positive detection of
43
the target down to about 103 targets per g of soil. In addition, the fate of introduced
Paenibacillus azotofixans vegetative cells and spores in soil and wheat rhizosphere could be
successfully monitored in microcosms using specific MPN-PCR.51 However, an important
drawback of MPN-PCR is the excessive number of replicate PCR reactions needed, as well
as the careful controls that are required for PCR efficiency. This makes the method rather
laborious and expensive. MPN-PCR has now been superseeded by competive PCR methods as discussed below.
3.8.2. Competitive PCR

Competitive PCR (cPCR) is based on the principle of co-amplification with the same
primers, at presumably similar rates, of known amounts of an easily recognizable added
indicator (competitor) molecule with the actual target nucleic acid in the sample. To obtain
comparable amplification rates between target and competitor, both the sizes and sequences
of the two products should not be widely divergent. Moreover, control of PCR conditions
(rate and extent of amplification) is required to avoid biases due to effects of primer:product
annealing competition.120 Jansson and Leser117 reviewed the intricacies of competitive PCR,
and the reader is referred to this paper for detailed information.
In a common competitive PCR assay, a set of reactions is set up with varying amounts
of competitor DNA added to the environmental extract containing an unknown amount of
the target. Following competitive PCR, the number of targets in the sample can be inferred
from the PCR reaction in which the number of indicator molecules equals the number of
specific targets. Alternatively, a standard curve is prepared with a dilution series containing
a known number of target DNA molecules and a fixed number of competitor DNA molecules. The ratio of the competitor:target band intensities after PCR amplification is plotted
versus the original target number. This simplifies the cPCR approach, since a single sample
containing an unknown target DNA concentration can be co-amplified together with the
competitor DNA at the fixed concentration used for preparation of the standard curve. The
target DNA concentration in the sample can be determined from the ratio competitor:target
products by interpolation from the standard curve.117,121
There are certain restrictions to the type and size of indicator molecule, as it is absolutely
required that amplification rates are similar between competitor and target. The competitor
should, for instance, be similar to the target with respects to size, base sequence and flanking
sequences. Suitable competitors are artificially constructed or natural DNA fragments of similar size and with similar primer annealing sites but different internal sequence, which are separable on denaturing gradients. For 16S rDNA sequences, competitors can be easily generated via low-stringency PCR with heterologous templates, yielding molecules with similar
size yet different sequence to the target. Also, small deletions or insertions can be introduced into the target region, in order to obtain an indicator which is separated by size on an
agarose gel.117
Competitive PCR has been successfully applied in studies on the fate of specific bacteria released into the environment. Using amplification of a specific (B13) fragment, Leser et
al 122 successfully monitored the decline, as well as the response to a selective agent
(4-chlorobenzoate), of the genetically modified Pseudomonas sp. B13 (FR1) in marine
microcosms. Also, a competitive quantification system was developed to follow the fate of
the pentachlorophenol degrader Sphingomonas chlorophenolica in soil.123 A competitor was
fortuitously found when studying sizes of amplicons generated with bacterial primers on different bacterial species, as a product generated with Paenibacillus polymyxa was slightly smaller
than the product generated with S. chlorophenolica, while amplification rates were similar. This
allowed separation of the two products by electrophoresis through common agarose gels. S.
chlorophenolica was thus shown to persist for a long time in pentachlorophenol containing
44
soil. cPCR was further found to be a very accurate method for quantitation of a genetically
modified cyanobacterium added to Baltic sea sediment.121 In these experiments, the competitor DNA was added to the sediment samples before DNA extraction and PCR amplification in order to account for variations in extraction efficiencies between samples.
However, as mentioned, competitive PCR based on amplification of DNA targets does
not assess viable cell numbers. Hence, if a focus on active cells rather than total cells is
required, the method should be combined with other methodology, viz microscopic assessments of viable cells. The activity (expression) of specific genes can be quantified by using
PCR preceded by a reverse transcription step (RT-PCR). This method is very sensitive for
the detection of transcripts, as shown with eukaryotic microorganisms;91,92 detection of
bacterial gene expression by RT-PCR in activated sludge was possible at a detection threshold
of 106 CFU g-1 soil.124 Competitive RT-PCR allows for quantitative determinations of gene
expression, as was shown in studies on the expression of peroxidases by Phanerochaete
chrysosporium in soil.93,94 Obviously, quantification on the basis of two enzymatic reactions
needs a series of controls to compensate for the putative biases of both processes.
3.9. Conclusions and Perspectives for Further Development

From a practical perspective, several of the DNA and RNA extraction and analysis
methods discussed herein are suitable for the screening of large sample numbers. They are
thus useful for the assessment of the fate of GMMs and/or their genes (activity) following
introduction into environmental matrices. If required, they also facilitate the detection of
naturally occurring DNA or RNA sequences in soil microbes. Due to the current lack of
comprehensive data with respect to the suitability of different protocols for different environmental matrices, unfortunately there is no standard nucleic acid protocol that can be
recommended for the wide array of environments in which the technology is applicable,
not even for soils. However, two recent papers indicated some progress towards a unification of protocols in that amplifiable DNA can be obtained from a range of different soils by
the flexible and educated use of different purification routines61,62 On the other hand, real
routine and high-throughput use can only be achieved if methods can be kept simple and
can be miniaturized or even robotized, as suggested by Kuske et al.20
The great strength of the nucleic acid based detection strategies lies in the fact that
direct and cultivation-independent data can be obtained with respect to the numbers (DNAbased strategies) and activities (RNA-based strategies) of microorganisms in complex matrices. The DNA based assessments will often also detect extracellular DNA (the naked genes)
as well as DNA from either non-viable, non-culturable, injured or even dead cells. Thus,
they can provide a very complete picture of the occurrence of the molecular target under
study, which is important when the fate of recombinant genes in the environment is to be
monitored. However, it is less relevant to obtain such information when only the viable cells
present in the environment are to be targeted. For these studies, DNA-based methods are
less suitable, as even with methods that exclusively target microbial cells (carefully controlled for the co-extraction of extracellular DNA), there is no inherent link to viability.
Therefore, these methods need a link to molecular or traditional viability assessments, an
obvious choice being analyses based on RNA. As a corollary, methods based on RNA suffer
less from biases related to the presence of naked DNA, as, due to their presumed rapid
decline in most environments, all RNA types tend to reflect cellular activity rather than
cellular abundance.
Furthermore, even though for instance the bead beater is known to efficiently lyse a
major proportion of bacterial species including many gram-positives,50,51 there is no absolute certainty that cell lysis by this method will yield nucleic acid mixtures that are truly
representative for the soil bacterial community. For instance, the findings of Mor et al 47
45
suggest that lysis may well be confined to the larger cell-size fraction of the microbial community, since the numerous minute or dwarf cells present essentially escaped lysis. On the
other hand, the nature and significance of these dwarfs is currently under heavy debate, as
their putative role in natural environments is blurred. These considerations have to be taken
into account when DNA or RNA extraction protocols are to be used for microbial community structure or fate studies in soil. In addition, the majority of extraction protocols not
only yield bacterial, but also eukaryotic DNA, which may originate from a variety of source
organisms present in the system (e.g., fungi, protozoans, nematodes and/or plants). For
quantification purposes, a eubacterial probe is necessary to determine the proportion of
bacterial DNA in the total extracts obtained.
A major criticism on studies that were exclusively based on environmental DNA,
including those that identified novel microbial species by sequencing of cloned 16S ribosomal amplicons, has been the absence of significant evidence for the cellular nature of these
sequences. To bridge the gap between the evidence for novel types exclusively on the basis of
clone sequences and knowledge obtained from sound microbiological work in which
microbial functioning is central, a link to traditional, isolation-based microbiology has been
advocated.125 However, another strategy with potential to link the direct molecular information with that of microbial cells can be based on the detection of cells following their
reaction with a labeled probe, a process called whole cell hybridization. This procedure has
been applied successfully in aquatic environments, but it has met with problems of signal
weakness in soils.126 Recently, it was shown that whole cells from the environment can also
be used as targets for PCR (in situ PCR) or reverse transcription-PCR,127-129 and this approach has a potentially enhanced sensitivity. This method has been successfully applied to
aquatic systems, whereas its application to soil is still awaiting. Both methods have clear
potential as complementary tools to support findings obtained on the basis of the extractive
protocols. At this point in time, a major drawback may still be their sensitivity to false positive results, as well as the limitations with respect to minimal cell densities needed for successful observation of cells on microscopy slides. However, the combination of molecular
fingerprinting methods with the whole cell hybridization approach to monitor the potential enrichment and isolation of unculturable, VBNC or hithertoas yetuncultured
bacteria is a powerful tool which has so far been only sparsely explored.
Thus, albeit with a definite right of their own, molecular analyses on the basis of
extractive approaches clearly gain enormous scientific strength and meaning when they are
tied together with methods based on cultivation approaches. It is foreseeable that a polyphasic
strategy, in which the extractive, the whole cell hybridization and the cultivation-based
approaches are combined, ultimately offers the best perspective for future studies on the
fate and activity of microorganisms in their natural habitats.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from the EU-BIOTECH Programme. We thank
L.S. van Overbeek for critically reading the manuscript. J.D. van Elsas and C. C. Tebbe are
members of the MAREP Concerted Action sponsored by the European Commission Biotechnology Programme, DGXII.
References
1. Akkermans ADL, van Elsas JD, de Bruijn FJ. Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1995.
2. Trevors JT, van Elsas JD. Nucleic acids in the Environment; Methods and Applications.
Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 1995.
46
3. Van Elsas JD, Duarte GF, Rosado AS et al. Microbiological and molecular biological methods for monitoring microbial inoculants and their effects in the soil environment. J
Microbiol Meth 1998; 32:133-154.
4. Torsvik V. Isolation of bacterial DNA from soil. Soil Biol Biochem 1980; 12:15-21.
5. Holben WE, Jansson JK, Chelm BK et al. DNA probe method for the detection of specific
microorganisms in the soil bacterial community. Appl Environ Microbiol 1988; 54:703-711.
6. Ogram A, Sayler GS, Barkay TJ. DNA extraction and purification from sediments. J
Microbiol Meths 1987; 7:57-66.
7. Steffan RJ, Goksoyr J, Bej AK et al. Recovery of DNA from soils and sediments. Appl
8. Dijkmans R, Jagers A, Kreps S et al. Rapid method for purification of soil DNA for hybridization and PCR analysis. Microb Rel 1993; 2:29-34.
9. Josephson KL, Gerba CP, Pepper IL. Polymerase chain reaction detection of nonviable
bacterial pathogens. Appl Environ Microbiol 1993; 59:3513-3515.
10. Malik M, Kain J, Pettigrew C et al. Purification and molecular analysis of microbial DNA
from compost. J Microbiol Meth 1994; 20:183-196.
11. Lovell CR, Piceno Y. Purification of DNA from estuarine sediments. J Microbiol Meth
1994; 20:161-174.
12. Purdy KJ, Embley TM, Takii S et al. Rapid extraction of DNA and rRNA from sediments
by a novel hydroxyapatite spin-column method. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996; 62:
3905-3907.
13. Cullen DW, Hirsch PH. Simple and rapid method for direct extraction of microbial DNA
from soil for PCR. Soil Biol Biochem 1998; 30:983-993.
14. Tebbe CC, Vahjen W. Interference of humic acids and DNA extracted directly from soil in
detection and transformation of recombinant DNA from bacteria and a yeast. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1993; 59:2657-2665.
15. Smalla K, Cresswell N, Mendonca-Hagler LC et al. Rapid DNA extraction protocol from
soil for polymerase chain reaction-mediated amplification. J Appl Bacteriol 1993; 74:78-85.
16. Tsai, Y-L, Olson BH. Rapid method for separation of bacterial DNA from humic substances in sediments for polymerase chain reaction. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992;
58:2292-2295.
17. Tsai Y-L, Olson BH. Detection of low numbers of bacterial cells in soils and sediments by
polymerase chain reaction. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992; 58:754-757.
18. Porteous LA, Armstrong JL. A simple method to extract DNA directly from soil for use
with polymerase chain reaction amplification. Curr Microbiol 1993; 27:115-118.
19. Porteous LA, Armstrong JL, Seidler RJ et al. An effective method to extract DNA from
environmental samples for polymerase chain reaction amplification and DNA fingerprint
analysis. Curr Microbiol 1994; 29:301-307.
20. Kuske CR, Banton KL, Adorada DL et al. Small-scale DNA sample preparation method for
field PCR detection of microbial cells and spores in soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998;
64:2463-2472.
21. Torsvik V, Goksoyr J, Daae FL. High diversity in DNA of soil bacteria. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1990; 56:782-787.
22. Paul JH, Pichard SL. Extraction of DNA and RNA from aquatic environments. In: Trevors
JT, van Elsas JD, eds. Nucleic acids in the environment. Methods and applications. Berlin:
Springer Verlag 1995: 153-177.
23. Bej AK, Mahbubani MH, Dicesare JL et al. Polymerase chain reaction-gene probe detection of microorganisms by using filter-concentrated samples. Appl 9-3534.
24. Fuhrman JA, Comeau DE, Hagstrm A et al. Extraction from natural planctonic microorganisms of DNA suitable for molecular biological studies. Appl Environ Microbiol 1988;
54:1426-1429.
25. Somerville CC, Knight IT, Straub, WL et al. Simple rapid method for direct extraction of
nucleic acids from aquatic environments. Appl Environ Microbiol 1989; 55:548-554.
47
26. Pickup RW, Rhodes G, Saunders JR. Extraction of microbial DNA from aquatic sources:
freshwater. In: Akkermans ADL, van Elsas JD, de Bruijn FJ, eds. Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995:1.1.2:1-11.
27. Paul J. Extraction of microbial DNA from aquatic sources: Marine environments. In:
Akkermans ADL, van Elsas JD, de Bruijn FJ, eds. Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996:1.1.1:1-13.
28. Dixon B. Biofilms: Diversity in action. ASM News 1998; 64:484-485.
29. Hopkins DW, ODonnell AG. Methods for extracting bacterial cells from soil. In: Wellington
EMH, van Elsas JD, eds. Genetic Interactions Among Microorganisms in the Natural Environment.1992: 104-112. London: Pergamon Press.
30. Torsvik V. Cell extraction method. In: Akkermans ADL, van Elsas JD, de Bruijn FJ eds.
Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995:
1.3.1:1-15.
31. Priem A, Sitaula JIB, Klemedtsson AK et al. Extraction of methane-oxidizing bacteria from
soil particles. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1996; 21:59-68.
32. Leung K, Trevors JT, van Elsas JD. Extraction and amplification of DNA from the rhizosphere and rhizoplane of plants. In: Nucleic Acids in the Environment; Methods and Applications. In: Trevors JT, van Elsas JD, eds. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag,. 1995: 69-87.
33. Strickland TC, Sollins P, Schimel DS et al. Aggregation and aggregate stability in forest
and range soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 1988; 52:829-833.
34. Donegan K, Matyac C, Seidler R et al. Evaluation of methods for sampling, recovery, and
enumeration of bacteria applied to the phylloplane. Appl Environ Microbiol 1991; 57:51-56.
35. Ramsay AJ. Extraction of bacteria from soil: Efficiency of shaking or ultrasonication as
indicated by direct counts and autoradiography. Soil Biol Biochem 1984;16:475-481.
36. Lindahl V, Aa K, Olsen RA. Effects on microbial activity by extraction of indigenous cells
from soil slurries. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1996; 21:221-230.
37. Faegri A, Torsvik VL, Goksoyr J. Bacterial and fungal activities in soil: Separation of bacteria and fungi by a rapid fractionated centrifugation technique. Soil Biol Biochem 1977;
9:105-112.
38. Riis V, Lorbeer H, Babel W. Extraction of microorganisms from soil: Evaluation of the
efficiency by counting methods and activity measurements. Soil Biol Biochem 1998;
30:1573-1581.
39. MacDonald RM. Sampling soil microfloras: Dispersion of soil by ion exchange and extraction of specific microorganisms from suspensions by elutriation. Soil Biol Biochem 1986;
18:399-406.
40. Herron PR, Wellington EMH. New method for extraction of streptomycete spores from
soil and application to the study of lysogeny in sterile amended and nonsterile soil. Appl
41. Jacobsen CS, Rasmussen OF. Development and application of a new method to extract
bacterial DNA from soil based on separation of bacteria from soil with cation-exchange
resin. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992; 58:2458-2462.
42. Lindahl V, Bakken LR. Evaluation of methods for extraction of bacteria from soil. FEMS
Microbiol Ecol 1995; 16:135-142.
43. Bakken LR, Lindahl V. Recovery of bacterial cells from soil. In: Trevors JT, van Elsas JD
eds. Nucleic Acids in the Environment. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag 1995: 13-27.
44. Duarte GF, Rosado AS, Keijzer-Wolters AC et al. Extraction of ribosomal RNA and genomic DNA from soil for studying the diversity of the indigenous microbial community. J
Microbiol Methods 1998; 32:21-29.
45. Selenska-Pobell S. Direct and simultaneous extraction of DNA and RNA from soil. In:
Akkermans ADL, van Elsas JD, de Brujn FJ eds. Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual 1995;
1.5.1:1-17
46. Moore E, Arnscheidt A, Kruger A et al. Simplified protocols for the preparation of genomic DNA from bacterial cultures. In: Akkermans ADL, van Elsas JD, de Brujn FJ eds.
Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual 1999 (in press).
48
47. Mor MI, Herrick JB, Silva MC et al. Quantitative cell lysis of indigenous microorganisms
and rapid extraction of microbial DNA from sediment. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994;
60:1572-1580.
48. Volossiouk T, Robb EJ, Nazar RN. Direct DNA extraction for PCR-mediated assays of soil
organisms. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:3972-3976.
49. Nazar RN, Robb EJ, Volossiouk T. In: Akkermans ADL, van Elsas JD, de Bruijn FJ eds.
Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual. Kluwer Acad Publ Dordrecht 1996; 1.3.6: 1-8.
50. Briglia M, Eggen RIL, de Vos WM et al. Rapid and sensitive method for the detection of
Mycobacterium chlorophenolicum PCP-1 in soil based on 16S rRNA gene-targeted PCR. Appl
51. Rosado AS, Seldin L, Wolters AC et al. Quantitative 16S rDNA-targeted polymerase chain
reaction and oligonucleotide hybridization for the detection of Paenibacillus azotofixans in
soil and the wheat rhizosphere. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1996; 19:153-164.
52. Van Elsas JD, Duarte GF, Keijzer-Wolters A et al. Analysis of the dynamics of fungal communities in soil via fungal-specific PCR of soil DNA followed by denaturing gradient gel
electrophoresis. Molec Ecol 1999 (in press).
53. Picard C, Ponsonnet C, Paget E et al. Detection and enumeration of bacteria in soil by
direct DNA extraction and polymerase chain reaction. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992;
58:2717-2722.
54. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T. Molecular Cloning. A Laboratory Manual. Second
Edition. 1989. New York: Cold Spring Harbor.
55. Al-Soud WA, Radstrm P. Capacity of nine thermostable DNA polymerases to mediate
DNA amplification in the presence of PCR-inhibiting samples. Appl Environ Microbiol
1998; 64:3748-3753.
56. Van Elsas JD, van Overbeek LS, Fouchier R. A specific marker, pat, for studying the fate of
introduced bacteria and their DNA in soil using a combination of detection techniques.
Plant Soil 1991; 138:49-60.
57. Myrold DD, Martin KJ, Ritchie NJ. In: Akkermans ADL, van Elsas JD, de Bruijn FJ eds.
Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual 1995; 1.3.5:1-9.
58. Young CC, Burghoff RL, Keim LG et al. Polyvinyl pyrrolidene. Agarose gel eletrophoresis
purification of poylmerase chain reaction-amplified DNA from soil. Appl Environ Microbiol
1998; 59:1972-1974.
59. Tsai YL, Park MJ, Olson BH. Rapid extraction of mRNA from seeded soils. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1991; 57:765-768.
60. Moran MA, Torsvik VL, Torsvik T et al. Direct extraction and purification of rRNA for
ecological studies. Appl Environ Microbiol 1993; 59:915-918.
61. Van Elsas, JD, Mantynen V, Wolters AC. Soil DNA extraction and assessment of the fate
of Mycobacterium chlorophenolicum strain PCP-1 in different soils via 16S ribosomal RNA
gene sequence based most-probable-number PCR and immunofluorescence. Biol Fertil Soils
1997; 24:188-195.
62. Zhou J, Bruns MA, Tiedje JM. DNA recovery from soils of diverse composition. Appl
63. Nusslein K, Tiedje JM. Characterization of the dominant and rare members of a young
Hawaiian soil bacterial community with small-subunit ribosomal DNA amplified from DNA
fractionated on the basis of its guanine and cytosine composition. Appl Environ Microbiol
1998; 64:1283-1289.
64. Sayler GS, Layton AC. Environmental application of nucleic acid hybridization. Ann Rev
Microbiol 1990; 44:625-648.
65. Jansson JK, Holben WE, Tiedje JM. Detection in soil of a deletion in an engineered DNA
sequence by using DNA probes. Appl Environ Microbiol 1989; 55:3022-3025.
66. Voordouw G. Reverse sample genome probing of microbial community dynamics. ASM
News 1998; 64:627-633.
67. Muyzer G, de Waal EC, Uitterlinden AG. Profiling of complex microbial populations by
denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes
coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 1993; 59:695-700
49
68. Heuer H, Smalla K. Application of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and temperature gradient gel electrophoresis for studying soil microbial communities. In: van Elsas JD,
Trevors JT, Wellington EMH eds. Modern Soil Microbiology 1997; 353-373. New York,
NY : Marcel Dekker.
69. Liu WT, Marsh TL, Cheng H, Forney LJ. Characterization of microbial diversity by determining terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms of genes encoding 16S rRNA.
70. Schwieger F, Tebbe CC. A new approach to utilize PCR-single-strand conformation polymorphism for 16S rRNA-based microbial community analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol
1998; 64:4870-4876.
71. Suzuki M, Rappe MS, Giovannoni SJ. Kinetic bias in estimates of coastal picoplankton
community structure obtained by measurements of small-subunit rRNA gene PCR amplicon
length heterogeneity. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998; 64:4522-4529.
72. Heuer H, Hartung K, Wieland G et al. Polynucleotide probes that target a hypervariable
region of 16S rRNA genes to identify bacterial isolates corresponding to bands of community fingerprints. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999; 65:1045-1049.
73. Tougianidou D, Botzenhart K. Detection of poliovirus in water by direct isolation of the
RNA and hybridization with gene probes. Water Sci Technol 1991; 27:219-222
74. Bej AK. PCR amplification of DNA recovered from the aquatic environment. In: Trevors
JT, van Elsas JD, eds. Nucleic acids in the environment; Methods and Applications. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 1995; 179-218.
75. Tsai YL, Tran B, Palmer CJ. Analysis of viral RNA persistence in seawater by reverse transcriptase-PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:363-366.
76. Limsawat S, Ohgaki S. Fate of liberated viral RNA in wastewater determined by PCR. Appl
77. Felske A., Akkermans ADL, de Vos WM. Quantification of 16S rRNAs in complex bacterial communities by multiple competitive reverse transcriptionPCR in temperature gradient gel electrophoresis fingerprints. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998; 64:4581-4587.
78. Pichard SL, Paul JH. Extraction of microbial RNA from aquatic sources: Marine environments. In: Akkermans ADL, van Elsas JD, de Brujn FJ, eds. Molecular Microbial Ecology
Manual 1996; 1.2.1:1-13.
79. Borneman J, Triplett EW. Rapid and direct method for extraction of RNA from soil. Soil
Biol Biochem 1997; 29:1621-1624.
80. Selenska S, Klingmller W. Direct recovery and molecular analysis of DNA and RNA from
soil. Microb Releases 1992; 1:41-46.
81. Pichard SL, Paul JH. Detection of gene expression in genetically engineered microorganisms and natural phytoplancton populations in the marine environment by mRNA analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol 1991; 57:1721-1727.
82. Ogunseitan OA, Delgado IL, Tsai YL et al. Effect of 2-hydroxybenzoate on the maintenance of napthhalene degrading pseudomonads in seeded and unseeded soil. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1991; 57:2873-2879.
83. Hahn D, Kester R, Starrenburg MJC et al. Extraction of ribosomal RNA from soil for the
detection of Frankia with oligonucleotide probes. Arch Microbiol 1990; 154:329-335.
84. Felske A, Wolterink A, Van Lis R et al. Phylogeny of the main bacterial 16S rRNA sequences in Drentse A grassland soils (The Netherlands). Appl Environ Microbiol 1998;
64:871-879.
85. Felske A, Backhaus H, Akkermans ADL. Direct ribosome isolation from soil. In: Akkermans
ADL, van Elsas JD, de Brujn FJ eds. Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual 1998; 1.2.4:1-10.
86. Chandler DP, Wagnon CA, Bolton Jr H. Reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibition of PCR at
low concentrations of template and its implications for quantitative RT-PCR. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1998; 64:669-677.
87. Felske A, Engelen B, Nbel U et al. Direct ribosome isolation from soil to extract bacterial
rRNA for community analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996; 62:4162-4167.
88. Moran MA, Torsvik VL, Torsvik T et al. Direct extraction and purification of rRNA for
ecological studies. Appl Environ Microbiol 1993; 59:915-918.
50
89. Ogram A, Sun W, Brockman FJ et al. Isolation and characterization of RNA from low
biomass deep-surface sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:763-768.
90. Cattaneo R. Different types of messenger RNA editing. Annu Rev Genet 1991; 25:71-88.
91. Tebbe CC, Wenderoth DF, Vahjen W et al. Direct detection of recombinant gene expression by two genetically engineered yeasts in soil on the transcriptional and translational
levels. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:4296-4303.
92. Lamar RT, Schoenike B, Vanden Wymelenberg A et al. Quantitation of fungal mRNAs in
complex substrates by reverse transcription PCR and its application to Phanerchaete
chrysosporium-colonized soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:2122-2126.
93. Bogan BW, Schoenike B, Lamar RT et al. Expression of lip genes during growth in soil
and oxidation of anthracene by Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996;
62:3679-3703.
94. Bogan BW, Schoenike B, Lamar RT et al. Manganese peroxidase mRNA and enzyme activity levels during bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-contaminated soil with
Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996; 62:2381-2386.
95. Neidhardt FC, Ingraham JL, Schaechter M. Physiology of the bacterial cell: A molecular
approach. Sunderland, Mass: Sinauer Associates Inc., 1990.
96. Fleming JT, Sanseverino J, Sayler GS. Quantitative relationship between naphthalene catabolic gene frequency and expression in predicting PAH degradation in soils at town gas
manufacturing sites. Environ Sci Technol 1993; 27:1068-1074.
97. Hnerlage W, Hahn D, Zeyer J. Detection of mRNA of nprM in Bacillus megaterium ATCC
14581 grown in soil by whole-cell hybridization. Arch Microbiol 1995; 163:1814-1821.
98. Heitzer A, Webb OF, Thonnard JE et al. Specific and quantitative assessment of naphthalene and salicylate bioavailability by using a bioluminescent catabolic reporter bacterium.
99. Brazil GM, Kenefick L, Callanan M et al. Construction of a rhizosphere pseudomonad
with potential to degrade polychlorinated biphenyls and detection of bph gene expression
in the rhizosphere. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:1946-1952.
100. Paul JP, Pichard SL. Extraction of DNA and RNA from aquatic environments. In: Trevors
JT, van Elsas JD eds. Nucleic Acids in the Environment; Methods and Applications. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag 1995: 153-177.
101. Jeffrey WH, Nazaret S, Von Haven R. Improved method for recovery of mRNA from aquatic
samples and its application to detection of mer expression. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994;
60:1814-1821.
102. Nazaret S, Jeffrey WH, Saouter E et al. merA gene expression in aquatic environments
measured by mRNA production and Hg(II) volatilization. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994;
60:4059-4065.
103. Fleming JT, Yao WH, Sayler GS. Optimization of differential display of prokaryotic mRNA:
application to pure culture and soil microcosms. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998;
64:3698-3706.
104. Amann RI, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH. Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of
individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiol Rev 1995; 59:143-169.
105. Von Wintzigerode F., Gbel UB, Stackebrandt E. Determination of microbial diversity in
environmental samples: pitfalls of PCR-based rRNA analysis. FEMS Microb Rev 1997;
21:213-229.
106. Head IM, Saunders JR, Pickup RW. Microbial evolution, diversity, and ecology: a decade
of ribosomal RNA analysis of uncultured microorganisms. Microb Ecol 1998; 35:1-21.
107. Wagner R. The regulation of ribosomal RNA synthesis and bacterial cell growth. Arch
Microbiol 1994; 161:100-106.
108. Giovannoni SJ, Britschgi TB, Moyer CL et al. Genetic diversity in Sargasso sea
bacterioplankton. Nature 1990; 345:60-63.
109. Binder BJ, Liu YC. Growth rate regulation of rRNA content of a marine Synechococcus
(Cyanobacteria) strain. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998; 64:3364-3351.
51
110. Fuhrman JA, Lee SH, Masuchi Y et al. Characterization of marine prokaryotic communities via DNA and RNA. Microb Ecol 1994; 28:133-145.
111. Devereux R, Willis SG. Amplification of ribosomal RNA sequences. In: Akkermans ADL,
van Elsas JD, de Brujn FJ eds. Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer
Acad Publ 1995; 3.3.1:1-11.
112. Ludwig W, Dorn S, Springer N et al. PCR-based preparation of 23S rRNA-targeted groupspecific polynucleotide probes. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994; 60: 3236-3244.
113. Normand P, Ponsonnet C, Nesme X et al. ITS analysis of prokaryotes. In: Akkermans ADL,
van Elsas JD, de Brujn FJ eds. Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer
Acad Publ 1996; 3.4.5:1-12.
114. White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S et al. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal
RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ eds. PCR
protocols. A guide to methods and applications. San Diego: Academic Press 1990: 315-322.
115. Zoetendal EG, Akkermans ADL, De Vos WM. Temperature gradient gel electrophoresis
analysis of 16S rRNA from human fecal samples reveals stable and host-specific communities of active bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998; 64:3854-3859.
116. Pichard SL, Paul JH. Gene expression per gene dose, a specific measure of gene expression
in aquatic microorganisms. Appl Environ Microbiol 1993; 59:451-457.
117. Jansson J, Leser T. Quantitative PCR of environmental samples. In: van Elsas JD, Trevors
JT, Wellington EMH eds. Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual Kluwer Acad. Publ.
Dordrecht, NL 1996; 2.7.4:1-19.
118. Romanowski G, Lorenz MG, Wackernagel W. Use of polymerase chain reaction and
electroporation of Escherichia coli to monitor the persistence of extracellular plasmid DNA
introduced into natural soils. Appl Environ Microbiol 1993; 59:3438-3446.
119. Nesme X, Picard C, Simonet P. Specific DNA sequences for detection of soil bacteria. In:
Trevors JT, van Elsas JD eds. Nucleic acids in the environment; Methods and Applications.
Heidelberg: Springer Verlag 1995; 111-140.
120. Polz MF, Cavanaugh CM. Bias in template-to-product ratios in multitemplate PCR. Appl
121. Moller A, Jansson JK. Quantification of genetically-tagged cyanobacteria in Baltic sea sediment by competitive PCR. Biotechniques 1997; 22:512-518.
122. Leser TD, Boye M, Hendriksen NB. Survival and activity of Pseudomonas sp. strain B13
(FR1) in a marine microcosm determined by quantitative PCR and an rRNA-targeting probe
and its effect on the indigenous bacterioplankton. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995;
61:1201-1207.
123. Van Elsas JD, Rosado AS, Wolters AC et al. Quantitative detection of Sphingomonas
chlorophenolica in soil via competitive polymerase chain reaction. J Appl Microbiol 1998;
85:463-471.
124. Selvaratnam S, Schoedel B, McFarland BL et al. Application of reverse transcriptase PCR
for monitoring expression of the catabolic dmpN gene in a phenol-degrading sequencing
batch reactor. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:3981-3985.
125. Liesack W, Janssen PH, Rainey FA et al. Microbial diversity in soil: the need for a combined approach using molecular and cultivation techniques. In: van Elsas JD, Trevors JT,
Wellington EMH, eds. Modern Soil New York: Microbiology Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1997;
375-439.
126. Hahn D, Amann RI, Ludwig W et al. Detection of micro-organisms in soil after in situ
hybridization with rRNA-targeted, fluorescently labeled oligonucleotides. J Gen Microbiol
1992; 138: 879-887.
127. Hodson RE, Dustman WA, Garg RP et al. In situ PCR for visualization of microscale distribution of specific genes and gene products in prokaryotic communities. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1995; 61:4074-4082.
128. Chen F, Gonzalez JM, Dustman WA et al. In situ reverse transcription, an approach to
characterize genetic diversity and activities of prokaryotes. Appl Environ Microbiol 1997;
63: 4907-4913.
129. Tani K, Kurokawa K, Nasu M. Development of a direct in situ PCR method for detection
of specific bacteria in natural environments. Appl. Environ Microbiol 1998; 64:1536-1540.
CHAPTER 4
Detection of Bacteria
by Their Intrinsic Markers
va Tas and Kristina Lindstrm
4.1. Introduction
he detection and identification of specific bacterial species and strains has long been of
interest for different applications in agriculture, the food industry, the bioleaching industry and the biological degradation of toxic wastes (bioremediation). In addition, basic
and applied sciences, such as microbial ecology, are investing more research into exploring
the components of microbial populations living in various ecological niches.
Classical microbial identification methods are primarily based on morphology, growth
characteristics and metabolic properties of the organism under study. For pathogens or
symbiotic organisms, host specificity is also an important feature. In addition, bacteriophage typing, antibiotic resistance, lipopolysaccharide and protein profiles, serological properties, and plasmid profiles of bacteria can be characterized. More advanced immunological
techniques include detection of antigens by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)
or by fluorescent antibody labeling. The problem with most of these techniques is that they
require microbiological cultivation. Thus, for example, detection of released organisms may
not be possible when their numbers are low relative to those of the indigenous population.1
In addition, disadvantages of the immunological methods lay in possible cross-reactions
and nonspecific binding. The use of monoclonal antibodies can be a solution,2,3 but the
antigens to be detected can be variable depending on growth conditions.
Along with the traditional identification methods described above, molecular methods, including detection of specific nucleic acid sequences or profiles are now available.
Nucleic acid based detection techniques overcome some of the problems inherent in traditional identification methods (see above) and they are usually more rapid and sensitive
than traditional approaches. Detection of specific DNA or RNA sequences in environmental samples enables reliable detection of virtually any group of microorganisms, including
those in nonculturable states.4 In particular, DNA:DNA hybridization5 and the polymerase
chain reaction (PCR)6,7 are indispensable tools for detection of microorganisms in environmental samples. The reader is also referred to Chapter 3 for details on extraction and analysis of nucleic acids from environmental samples.
The targets for molecular identification methods can be intrinsic markers or introduced markers. An intrinsic marker can be defined as a natural (i.e., nonintroduced) DNA
sequence or phenotype that serves as a signature for a particular organism or group of
organisms. Detection of intrinsic markers is an important tool for identification of specific
54
microorganisms in the environment and complements the use of marker genes for genetic
tagging of microorganisms (see Chapters 5-7 describing introduced marker genes).
In this chapter we will introduce some examples of the use of intrinsic DNA markers
for monitoring of specific microorganisms. We will also describe methods for designing
specific nucleic acid probes and PCR primers, which are prerequisites for the application of
these detection techniques.
4.2. Brief Description of PCR-Based Fingerprinting Methods

PCR based fingerprinting methods are useful for bacterial identification and, as such,
are gaining an important role in ecological studies. Some of these methods, such as arbitrarily primed PCR8 and random primed amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis,9
are based on amplification of multiple DNA fragments from genomic DNA with random
or arbitrary primers, which will result in a characteristic pattern of PCR products for each
different organism. Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) is a variation of these
techniques in which genomic DNA is digested with a restriction endonuclease, ligated to
adapters, and PCR amplified using primers complementary to the adapters.10 Specific
genomic fingerprints can also be achieved by amplification of conserved repetitive bacterial
sequences such as Repetitive Extragenic Palindromes (REP), Enterobacterial Repetitive
Intergenic Consensus (ERIC) sequences and BOX elements found mainly in gram positive
bacteria. 11,12 An example of REP PCR fingerprinting is described in section 4.4.4 below.
Other techniques can be used to detect different microorganisms in mixed populations. For example, microbial community diversity can be analyzed by PCR amplification
of DNA encoding 16S rRNA genes and separating the products by temperature or denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (TGGE and DGGE). The resulting fingerprints are indicative of the major species present in a given ecosystem and are sensitive indicators of changes
in the structures of microbial communities with different treatments.13
4.3. Development of Specific Hybridization Probes and PCR Primers

The first crucial step for both DNA/RNA hybridization and PCR techniques is to find
appropriate probe or primer sequences. Fortunately, the development of recombinant DNA
techniques and the large amount of sequences accessible in nucleic acid databanks now
allow probes and primers to be designed with desired specificity, e.g., for strains, species,
genera or other groups. Here we outline a few different approaches for probe design.
4.3.1. Detection of Specific Genes

Numerous bacterial genes or gene fragments have been cloned and sequenced, and
their occurrence in different organisms is often known. Therefore, these DNA sequences
can serve as potential targets for DNA hybridization or PCR. Bacteria that are genetically
characterized are often identified using these methods in clinical diagnostics, the food
industry and for environmental applications, such as bioremediation.14-21
For example, an intrinsic marker was used for detection of a biodegradative Pseudomonas Burkholderia cepacia strain in soil.22 The intrinsic sequence was a repeated 1.3 kb
sequence present in 15-20 copies per cell. This sequence could be detected in sediment samples
by dot blot DNA hybridization and PCR, even when the bacterium was no longer detectable
by plating methods. In a similar approach, Raaijmakers et al 23 used a siderophore receptor
gene as a specific wild type marker for a Pseudomonas putida strain.
Engineered marker genes may also be detected by hybridization or PCR (see Chapter 3).19,22,24-29 These techniques are of particular importance for the detection of nonexpressed
genetic markers. For example, if a marker gene is repressed or otherwise inactive under certain
conditions, nucleic acid probes can still help to detect the gene. Pillai and Pepper30 found that
Detection of Bacteria by Their Intrinsic Markers
55
an antibiotic resistance marker carried by Tn5 was not expressed in some cells under high
temperature stress. Another example is when the marker is not a fully functional gene but a
recombinant fragment detectable by DNA techniques. Van Elsas et al28 used a small eukaryotic DNA fragment, pat from Solanum tuberosum, as a marker to study the fate of Pseudomonas fluorescens introduced into soil. This DNA sequence was not present in indigenous soil
bacteria, so problems with background were eliminated.31 Although not expressed as a phenotypic marker, the pat fragment was readily detected by DNA hybridization and by PCR.
4.3.2. Detection of Ribosomal Genes

Probes derived from 16S or 23S rRNA genes, or the intergenic transcribed spacer
sequence (ITS) separating them, are often used for detection and identification of bacteria.
Ribosomal RNA genes are appropriate target sequences against which DNA probes or primers
can be directed, and there are several advantages to this approach. Firstly, ribosomal genes
are universal and relatively well conserved, but they contain highly conserved and less conserved regions (including ITS), facilitating the design of probes with various specificities.32
Ribosomal RNA is a naturally amplified target (up to 105 copy per cell) that allows in situ
detection of single cells by hybridization.33 In addition, ribosomal sequences are well documented in nucleic acid databanks which significantly enhances the potential of probe
design. Finally, the probes based on ribosomal sequences are usually oligonucleotides that
are easy to synthesize and label.
Ribosomal RNA-targeted probes provide important tools for studying the microbial
community structure of natural and man-made environments,34-37 but their specificity is
limited. Generally, 16S rRNA-derived probes are reliable at the level of genus and above,38
whereas 23S rRNA- and ITS-derived probes distinguish closer relatives such as species and
even strains.39 However, phenotypically divergent bacteria can have identical or nearly identical rRNA sequences. In contrast, significant variation in rRNA sequences has been
described within single species or between different copies of the rrn operons of a strain.40
These factors should be considered when hybridization probes or PCR primers based on
ribosomal sequences are to be used for monitoring.
4.3.3. Use of Randomly Cloned Fragments as Specific Probes

When designing hybridization probes, it is not essential to know the function of the
selected DNA fragment(s). Randomly cloned DNA fragments, such as entire or enriched
genomic libraries, or sub-fragments from partially described genomic regions can be screened
for unique sequences.41 Alternatively, specific sequences can be isolated by differential comparison of two or more genomes. Subtraction hybridization, which will be discussed later in
more detail, is one method based on this idea. Another potential approach could exploit
arbitrarily primed PCR, similarly to differential display which is a method for isolation of
genes differentially expressed in different eukaryotic cells or tissues, as described by Liang
and Pardee.42 These authors used a set of arbitrary primers for PCR amplification of cDNA
generated by reverse transcription from mRNA. They could amplify and clone differentially
expressed genes by comparison of the electrophoretic patterns of the amplified cDNA products from different cells. Taking a similar approach, a comparison of the patterns of fragments amplified from genomic DNA from different organisms, by any PCR fingerprinting
method mentioned in section 4.2.1, can lead to isolation of DNA fragments unique for a
particular bacterial group.
The drawback of these methods is that the function, stability and genetic variability of
the selected sequences are unknown. On the other hand, these methods can be very useful
for rapid preparation of specific hybridization probes, without the requirement for knowledge of sequence information.
56
4.3.4. Specificity of Selected Probes and Primers

Specificity of each probe and primer pair has to be experimentally evaluated, especially
against closely related nontarget groups of bacteria or bacteria inhabiting the environment
studied. Since the probes are based on the sequences of strains from culture collections, we
cannot be sure that they recognize all possible organisms from an environmental sample
that belong to a target group. For example, the developed probes or primers might not
detect organisms of environmental importance, which have never been previously cultured.
In contrast, unspecificity may be revealed during the environmental application of new
probes. This is illustrated by the work of Cullen et al, who used PCR to monitor Rhizobium
inoculants in the field.1 One of their markers specifically detected the inoculated strain,
while DNA sequences of indigenous bacteria were not amplified. With another set of primers they detected homologous sequences that were present in the indigenous soil microbial
population. Some of these nonspecific products comigrated in the gel with the targeted
DNA bands, but they could be distinguished by DNA hybridization. Some of the problems
with unspecificity could be avoided by increasing the stringency of the reaction conditions
used in the assay.
4.3.5. Sensitivity of Detection

Detection limits of bacterial strains in environmental samples using the polymerase
chain reaction are mainly dependent on the success of nucleic acid extraction. When analyzing aquatic samples, the main problem is the need for filtration of large volumes of water
to obtain sufficient cell concentrations. With soil samples, PCR-inhibitory contaminants
coextracted with the DNA cause a major problem. Variation in cell lysis and DNA recovery
efficiencies could effect not only the yield, but also the ratio of target DNA to nontarget
DNA in the extracts used as templates in the PCR reactions. (See chapter 3 for details.)
It is possible to increase the sensitivity to a certain extent by fractionating the DNA on
CsCl gradients according to its G+C content. This way the target DNA can be enriched in
one of the fractions relatively to total environmental DNA.1
Optimization of the PCR reaction conditions, including template concentration, magnesium concentration and number of PCR cycles are ultimate requirements for optimum
sensitivity. In some applications special additives in the reaction mixture such as formamide,
BSA or betaine can increase both the specificity and the yield of PCR products. As mentioned above, combined use of PCR and hybridization increases not only the specificity but
also the sensitivity of detection. For example, in hybridization experiments with mRNA
targeted gene specific probes, relatively high cell numbers (> 106 per g of soil or 106 per liter
of water) are needed for reliable quantitative detection, although even single cells can be
visualized. When PCR is involved in the procedure, 1-100 cells per gram of sediment or soil
can be detected.1,22,29,37 However, the sensitivity of detection is always dependent on several
factors such as nucleic acid extraction, copy number of the target, assay conditions, probe
labeling techniques, and therefore should be considered case specific.
Alternatively, nested PCR is another sensitive detection method. This technique uses a
second set of primers, which bind to specific sequences internal to the first PCR product.
Use of nested PCR confirms the identity of the PCR products and simultaneously increases
the sensitivity of detection of the assay.
4.4. Case Study: Specific Detection of Rhizobium galegae

Rhizobium bacteria are continuously being released because of their nitrogen fixing
capacity that potentially promotes the growth of legumes with which rhizobia live in symbiosis. The Rhizobium-legume symbiosis has been widely investigated and the history of
legume fields and inoculations are in many places well documented. Inoculation with new
Rhizobium strains is often needed because of the lack of or inefficiency of the indigenous
57
rhizobial population. However, inoculation often fails because Rhizobium populations present
in the soil may outcompete the newly introduced strain.43 That is why rhizobia are among
the most important targets of genetic engineering, aiming to increase nitrogen fixation capacity or inoculation competitiveness.44 As a consequence of genetic engineering and environmental release, sensitive monitoring methods to detect rhizobia in the environment have
become essential. Examples of field releases of genetically modified rhizobia are given in
Chapters 8-11.
Rhizobium galegae is a recently described and well-studied species45 that nodulates Galega
officinalis and Galega orientalis (goats rue). The latter species is a perennial legume with
potential agricultural importance. R. galegae has not yet been genetically engineered, but
antibiotic resistant strains have been selected to facilitate laboratory studies. The species has
unique taxonomy and host specificity45-47 and it is not indigenous in Finnish soils.48 These
properties make it a suitable model organism for studying the fate of inoculant rhizobia in
the field in Finland. R. galegae species- and strain-specific probes and PCR primers were
developed in our laboratory. They allow specific detection of R. galegae from environmental samples as will be demonstrated in this chapter.
4.4.1. Development of a R. Galegae Species-Specific Probe by Testing

Randomly Cloned Fragments
As we described above, some approaches for isolation of specific probes comprise screening of partially described regions of a bacterial genome. Since R. galegae is peculiar in that it
nodulates only a specific legume host,approaches were adapted to locate R. galegae speciesspecific hybridization probes from the genes determining host specificity. Limited information on the localization of these genes was known from previous hybridization experiments.49
Fragments of DNA, carrying the host specificity gene region of R. galegae, were analyzed for
specificity in dot blot hybridization experiments.50 The blots contained total DNA from
representatives of different rhizobial species and other soil bacteria. One of the probes hybridized strongly with DNAs from all tested R. galegae strains, but showed a weak reaction
with two nontarget organisms (Rhizobium loti and Erwinia carotovora). Therefore, smaller
sub-fragments of the probe were further analyzed (Fig. 4.1). One of the sub-fragments showed
species-specificity: in Southern blot experiments with EcoRI digested total DNA of different bacteria, as it hybridized only with R. galegae DNA. The DNA fragment was sequenced
and PCR primers were designed at the ends of it (Fig. 4.1). The specificity of the primers
Fig. 4.1. Fragments of genomic DNA from R. galegae HAMBI 1174, which carry host specificity
genes, were analyzed for species specificity. The 2.4 kb EcoRI-fragment shown here was a good
candidate but it weakly hybridized with DNA from nontarget organisms. Its three subfragments
were also analyzed, and the 0.9 kb EcoRISalI fragment was species specific. Arrows show PCR
primers.
58
was verified in PCR reactions with purified genomic DNA from an assortment of strains of
R. galegae, other rhizobia and some other species.51 PCR amplification always produced an
850-bp specific fragment with R. galegae DNA. PCR-RFLP of this species-specific fragment
revealed a difference between R. galegae strains according to their host plant G. orientalis
and G. officinalis (Fig. 4.2).
4.4.2. Development of Strain-Specific Probes by Subtraction Hybridization

Subtraction hybridization is an efficient method for isolation of DNA present in one
genome (probe) but absent in another, otherwise very similar one (subtracter).52-54
Essentially, the procedure involves DNA:DNA or RNA:DNA hybridization carried out
either in solution or at a surface. After hybridization, subtracter DNA and probe sequences
homologous to it are separated from the mixture, which becomes enriched in nonhybridizing
potentially unique target fragments. The hybridization and separation steps can be repeated
several times using fresh pools of subtracter DNA in each cycle. The separated DNA pool
enriched in specific sequences can be subsequently cloned for further screening or used
directly as a probe. DNAs of different strains can be pooled for use as subtracter DNA. Thus,
the desired probe specificity can be achieved by controlling the composition of the subtracter DNA.55 A schematic representation of the method is shown in Figure 4.3.
The most important factors that affect the success of subtraction or number of cycles
needed for effective enrichment are the level of homology the compared genomes share, the
stringency of hybridization, and the extent of modifications of the hybridization partners
such as restriction enzyme digestion, sonication, and biotin labeling.
The subtraction method has several applications such as isolation of tissue-specific or
developmental stage-specific genes,52,56 or cloning a gene missing in a deletion mutant.53,57
Subtraction hybridization was also successfully applied for isolation of specific bacterial
probes. Welcher et al used the method for the first time and selected specific genomic
sequences from Neisseria gonorrhoeae.52 Schmidhuber et al found Streptococcus oralis-specific
probes with the same method.41 Bjourson and Cooper successfully isolated strain-specific probes
for three different Rhizobium loti strains,54 and Bjourson et al 58 developed an improved
method for isolation of strain-specific probes for Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii.58 In
latter work the same researchers developed group-specific DNA probes for R. leguminosarum
bv. phaseoli and R. tropici.55 In our laboratory, a R. galegae strain-specific probe was isolated59 by the subtraction protocol of Straus and Ausubel.53 Darrasse et al have applied the
same subtraction strategy independently for isolation of probes specific for Erwinia carotovora
subsp. atroseptica.60
Figure 4.3 illustrates the subtraction strategy used in our laboratory. The specificity of
the selected probe was tested, similarly to the species-specific probe, in numerous dot blot
and Southern blot experiments. The fragment was then sequenced, and PCR primers
amplifying an internal fragment were designed. The probe and the primers recognized only
the strain R. galegae HAMBI 1174, which had been used in the subtraction procedure.
4.4.3. Application of the R. galegae Specific Probes and Primers

for Monitoring
To study the applicability of detection with strain- and species-specific sequences, a
greenhouse experiment was conducted.51 Soil devoid of R. galegae was inoculated with different levels of R. galegae HAMBI 1207, which forms an ineffective symbiosis with
G. orientalis. Then seeds of G. orientalis, inoculated with the effective strain R. galegae HAMBI
1174, were sown into the soil. The competition between the two Rhizobium strains was
assessed by measuring plant dry weights from the plots and inspecting nodules formed on
the plant roots. Multiple PCR with the strain- and species-specific primers were used
59
Fig. 4.2. PCR-RFLP of the R. galegae-specific fragment from genomic DNA of different R. galegae
strains with the restriction enzymes HinfI and MspI. The host plant is shown above the samples.
Lanes: M, molecular weight marker; 1, reference strain, R. galegae HAMBI 1174; 2-15, other
R. galegae strains.
60
Fig. 4.3. Isolation of a strain-specific probe by subtraction hybridization. HAMBI 1174 and HAMBI
1207 are genetically closely related strains of R. galegae.
directly from crushed nodules (Fig. 4.4). The results were in good agreement with those of
dilution platings on selective media, in which the two strains could be counted.
The specific primers were also used for the amplification of DNA extracted from soil
and peat.61 After developing a suitable method for DNA extraction and purification from
the peat samples (for methods see Chapter 3), the PCR assay proved to be very useful for
quality control (i.e., confirmation of the inoculum strain) of commercial peat inoculants.
61
Fig. 4.4. PCR amplification of the R. galegae species-specific fragment (upper band) and the R.
galegae HAMBI 1174 strain-specific fragment (lower band) from crushed nodules. Lanes: ,
molecular weight marker; 1, R. galegae HAMBI 1174 genomic DNA; 2, R. galegae HAMBI 1207
genomic DNA; 3-26, nodules from G. orientalis inoculated with R. galegae; -, negative control
without template DNA. Reprinted with permission from Tas , Leinonen P, Saano A et al. Appl
4.4.4. Use of REP-PCR for Fingerprinting of Rhizobium galegae

DNA primers corresponding to repetitive extragenic palindromic (REP) and enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus (ERIC) sequences can be used to produce specific
fingerprints of different bacterial genomes.12 These primers were used to fingerprint the
genomes of several R. galegae strains.62 For each strain tested, highly reproducible fingerprint patterns were obtained from pure bacterial genomic DNA. The patterns were specific
for each strain and REP-PCR grouped the strains according to their host plant, G. orientalis
and G. officinalis. The methods were useful for identification of bacteria from pure cultures
as well as from Galega root nodules (Fig. 4.5). However, these methods are not suitable for
the analysis of mixed bacterial populations such as those, for example, found in soil or peat
samples, as the patterns obtained would become too complex.
4.5. Future Prospects

Nucleic acid based methods for assessment of the environmental fate and effects of
bacteria are under continuous development. In the future, growth and wider availability of
nucleic acid sequence databases, further improvement and optimization of molecular techniques as well as application of microarray chips will facilitate monitoring studies.
DNA databases are of great help in probe and primer design. Since data are accumulating very fast in nucleic acid sequence databanks, special databases of probes and PCR primers are of great value. There are probe databases accessible via the Internet. Alm et al have
established an oligonucleotide probe database.63 Their probes and primers, mainly based
on rRNA sequences, are widely used in microbial ecology and environmental microbiology.
The authors also provide advice on probe and PCR primer design and characterization. A
more complete database for ribosomal sequences and for data analysis tools is maintained
at the Center for Microbial Ecology at Michigan State University.64 Another database is available at the Technical University of Munich (http://www.mikro.biologie.tu-muenchen.de).
One of the most promising techniques is the direct detection and quantification of
gene transcripts (mRNA) by reverse transcription-PCR, which allows assessment of micro-
62
Fig. 4.5. REP PCR fingerprint patterns of R. galegae DNA obtained by sonicating root nodules.
Lanes: S, lambda BstEII; 1, genomic DNA from reference strain R. galegae HAMBI 540; 2, field
nodule (R. galegae HAMBI 540); 3-8, nodules from G. orientalis inoculated with different R.
galegae strains; 9, negative control without template DNA. Reprinted with permission from Nick
G, Lindstrm K. System Appl Microbiol 1994; 17:265-273.
bial activities in the field (For a review see ref 65). The RT-PCR technique consists of synthesis of DNA from RNA by reverse transcription, and amplification of a specific DNA
fragment by PCR. The method is very sensitive, and by using appropriate controls the detection can be made quantitative. The first environmental applications included detection
of food-borne pathogens,66 and microorganisms used in bioremediation of contaminated
soils.65
For the selection of a suitable target gene for RT-PCR several characteristics should be
considered: the target gene should be abundantly expressed throughout the growth cycle of
the organism tested, and its expression should not be regulated at the transcriptional level.
Since bacterial mRNAs have a very short half-life, these methods discriminate living (i.e.,
metabolically active) cells from dead or dormant ones, although DNA from the latter ones
can still be detected by DNA-targeted Southern hybridization or amplified by conventional
PCR. (Detection of active contra dormant cells is discussed in more detail in Chapter 1.)
Some technical difficulties arise from the need for rapid isolation of undegraded mRNA.
However, in situ techniques are now under development for the amplification of gene transcripts inside microbial cells.18
In addition, the fingerprints achieved by the PCR-based applications mentioned in
section 4.2.1 can be used for identification of microorganisms in pure cultures or relatively
simple microbial communities. In highly diverse microbial systems such as soil, the banding
patterns are too complex to be assigned to specific organisms but a comparison of microbial communities (diversity as well as quantitative aspects)67 is possible. Particularly the
TGGE technique seems to be appropriate for monitoring effects of environmental disturbances such as pollution or release of new organisms.68
Hybridization of RNA and DNA on microarrayed chips (on glass or silica surfaces) is
another technique that will probably be broadly applied in the near future. Cheng et al
prepared nucleic acids of E. coli and other bacteria from human blood and hybridized them
with appropriate probes on microchips.69 Since the hybridization of RNA on microarrayed
63
chips allows monitoring of gene expression, this technique may prove to be useful in studying the dynamics of cell populations in environmental samples. Thus, microarrays have
great potential in medical diagnostics, food monitoring, water testing, and other fields.
New approaches based on specific molecular recognition mechanisms are also under
development, such as nucleic acid probes detecting proteins and other molecules,70 or synthetic DNA mimics that behave like DNA oligonucleotides but bind to nucleic acids with higher
specificity and affinity.71 Drolet et al have developed an ELISA-like assay using an oligonucleotide probe which binds to a protein target.70 A method called SELEX (systematic evolution of
ligands by exponential enrichment)72 allowed rapid selection of oligonucleotides that preferentially bind to the target molecule from a population of random sequences. High affinity
oligonucleotide ligands could be developed in this way for virtually any target molecule and
used, for example, as therapeutic or diagnostic agents.73 Nucleic acid ligands would have several advantages over antibodies.70 For example, they can be easily synthesized and thus
accurately replicated with the same binding properties, while antibodies may differ when generated in different laboratories and are also subject to animal-to-animal variation. Secondly,
animals are not required for the synthesis of oligonucleotide ligands. Also, the ligands can be
generated even for toxic or nonimmunogenic targets. Their small size can also be an advantage
for some applications. In the future, further DNA ligands will be developed for diagnostic
purposes and may be used for more general approaches. If successful, the method could challenge, for example, in situ hybridization and immune detection methods.
An interesting new approach is based on the use of a synthetic molecule peptide nucleic
acid (PNA). This molecule has recently been proposed to expand the applications of oligonucleotides.71 PNAs are DNA analogs with a polyamide backbone substituted with purine
and pyrimidine base sidechains. The specificity of PNA in binding to complementary nucleic
acids is higher than that of DNA strands, and the resulting PNA/DNA and PNA/RNA
duplexes have high stability compared to DNA/DNA and DNA/RNA duplexes. Similarly to
DNA, PNA can be labeled by biotin, fluorescein or reporter enzymes. Therefore, PNA is a
good candidate for hybridization studies and may, one day, share the burgeoning field of
DNA-based diagnostics with traditional nucleic acid probes.
Along with the above described sophisticated genetic approaches, phenotypic description of microbial communities is equally important. Metabolic fingerprints of individual
organisms or microbial communities can be determined by the BIOLOG system, which
colorimetrically detects the utilization of various carbon substrates. Phospholipid fatty acid
(PLFA) profiles are also increasingly being used to characterize the structure of microbial
communities.74,75
4.6. Conclusion
To assess the survival and behavior of deliberately released strains in the environment,
specific markers are required for monitoring the populations of both the released and the
indigenous strains. Intrinsic markers are of great value in these studies and their detection
complements the use of tagging genetically introduced marker genes. In addition, some
applications, e.g. detection of pathogens or food-borne microorganisms, do not allow the
use of genetically engineered markers. Therefore, detection techniques based on specific
intrinsic markers are indispensable. This chapter focused on these techniques and discussed
different methods for selection of suitable molecular probes and primers.
In addition to exploring previously described genes or ribosomal sequences, an alternative for probe selection is screening randomly cloned fragments. This approach can provide
specific probes also for organisms for which sequence data are limited. It was illustrated in this
chapter by the isolation of strain- and species-specific probes from R. galegae. The problem
with these random search methods is that the gene stability and genetic variability of the
64
fragments selected this way are unknown. However, in our experiments the data obtained
proved that our markers are stable and can be used for ecological studies.
Introduced marker genes may affect the fitness of the engineered organisms. In addition, gene transfer to nonmarked organisms can not be excluded. (Look for details in later
chapters of the book.) Therefore, intrinsic markers are generally considered to be more
stable than introduced markers, but further data is needed from comparative studies to
address this hypothesis.
Intrinsic markers can be detected with remarkable sensitivity, as illustrated by the fact
that detection of a single cell is possible from some samples. The performance of in situ
hybridization with fluorescent probes and the results of some PCR-based detection techniques are comparable in this sense with those of engineered marker genes, but extensive
optimization of assay conditions is required.
An early criticism on nucleic acid-based detection techniques was based on their incapability to distinguish active and dead cells, but this problem can be overcome by the use of
RNA-targeted probes. Detection of ribosomal RNA gives some insight into the dynamics of
a bacterial population since number of ribosomes correlates with the metabolic activity of
a cell. However, since rRNAs are extremely stable, they are not suitable targets for discriminating between living and nonliving cells. In contrast, detection of mRNA by hybridization
or RT-PCR allows description of the active population relative to the total number of cells.
Most of the molecular methods for detection of microorganisms based on intrinsic
markers do not require isolation and cultivation of organisms, rather they allow in situ
studies of individual members of complex microbial communities. By combined use of
several probes with different specificities and by use of fingerprinting methods, different
segments of a microbial population can be concurrently assessed. Therefore, the complementary use of several different methods will most likely be needed for accurate description
of complex natural and man-made microbial communities.
Acknowledgments
K. Lindstrm is a member of the MAREP Concerted Action sponsored by the European Commission Biotechnology Programme, DGXII.
References
1. Cullen DW, Nicholson PS, Mendum TA et al. Monitoring genetically modified rhizobia in
field soils using the polymerase chain reaction. J Appl Microbiol 1998; 84:1025-1034.
2. Olsen P, Wright S, Collins M et al. Patterns of reactivity between a panel of monoclonal
antibodies and forage Rhizobium strains. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994; 60:654-661.
3. Faude UC, Hfle MG. Development and application of monoclonal antibodies for in situ
detection of indigenous bacterial strains in aquatic ecosystems. Appl Environ Microbiol
1997; 63:4534-4542.
4. Trevors JT, van Elsas JD. A review of selected methods in environmental microbial genetics. Can J Microbiol 1989; 35:895-902.
5. Hames BD, Higgins SJ. Nucleic acid hybridization: a practical approach. Oxford.: IRL Press
Ltd., 1985.
6. Saiki RK, Scharf S, Faloona F et al. Enzymatic amplification of -globin genomic sequences
and restriction site analysis for diagnosis of sickle cell anemia. Science 1985; 230:1350-1354.
7. Saiki RK, Gelfand DH, Stoffel S et al. Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA
with a thermostable DNA polymerase. Science 1988; 239:487-491.
8. Welsh J, McClelland M. Fingerprinting genomes using PCR with arbitrary primers. Nucleic
Acids Res 1990; 24:7213-7218.
9. Williams JGK, Kubelik AR, Livak KJ et al. DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary
primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res 1990; 22:6531-6535.
65
10. Lin J-J, Kuo J, Ma J. A PCR-based DNA fingerprinting technique: AFLP for molecular
typing of bacteria. Nucleic Acids Res 1996; 24:3649-3650.
11. Martin B, Humbert O, Camara M et al. A highly conserved repeated DNA element located
in the chromosome of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Nucleic Acids Res 1992; 20:3479-3483.
12. Versalovic J, Koeuth T, Lupski JR. Distribution of repetitive DNA sequences in eubacteria
and application to fingerprinting of bacterial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 1991;
24:6823-6831.
13. Muyzer G, de Waal EC, Uitterlinden AG. Profiling of complex microbial populations by
denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes
coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 1993; 59:695-700.
14. Bej AK, Steffan RJ, DiCesare J et al. Detection of coliform bacteria in water by polymerase
chain reaction and gene probes. Appl Environ Microbiol 1990; 56:307-314.
15. McDonald IR, Kenna EM, Murrell JC. Detection of methanotrophic bacteria in environmental samples with the PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:116-121.
16. Cascn A, Anguita J, Hernanz C. Identification of Aeromonas hydrophila hybridization group
1 by PCR assays. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996; 62:1167-1170.
17. Shangkuan YH, Show YS, Wang TM. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction to detect toxigenic Vibrio cholerae O1. J Appl Bacteriol 1995; 79:264-273.
18. Hodson RE, Dustman WA, Garg RP et al. In situ PCR for visualization of microscale distribution of specific genes and gene products in procaryotic communities. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1995; 61:4074-4082.
19. Ludwig W, Brockmann E, Beimfohr C et al. Nucleic acid based detection systems for genetically modified bacteria. System Appl Microbiol 1995; 18:477-485.
20. von Berg LK-H, Bothe H. The distribution of denitrifying bacteria in soils monitored by
DNA-probing. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1992; 86:331-340.
21. Brockman FJ. Nucleic-acid-based methods for monitoring the performance of in situ
bioremediation. Mol Ecol 1995; 4:567-578.
22. Steffan RJ, Atlas RM. DNA amplification to enhance detection of genetically engineered
bacteria in environmental samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 1988; 54:2185-2191.
23. Raaijmakers JM, Bitter W, Punte HLM et al. Siderophore receptor PupA as a marker to
monitor wild-type Pseudomonas putida WCS358 in natural environments. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1994; 60:1184-1190.
24. Jacobsen CS. Microscale detection of specific bacterial DNA in soil with a magnetic capture-hybridization and PCR amplification assay. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:
3347-3352.
25. Jansson JK. Tracking genetically engineered microorganisms in nature. Curr Opin Biotechnol
1995; 6:275-283.
26. Hwang I, Farrand SK. A novel gene tag for identifying microorganisms released into the
environment. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994; 60:913-920.
27. Flemming CA, Leung KT, Lee H et al. Survival of lux-lac-marked biosurfactant-producing
Pseudomonas aeruginosa UG2L in soil monitored by nonselective plating and PCR. Appl
28. Van Elsas JD, Van Overbeek LS, Fouchier R. A specific marker, pat, for studying the fate
of introduced bacteria and their DNA in soil using a combination of detection techniques.
Plant Soil 1991; 138:49-60.
29. Mller A, Gustafsson K, Jansson JK. Specific monitoring by PCR amplification and bioluminescence of firefly luciferase gene-tagged bacteria added to environmental samples. FEMS
30. Pillai SD, Pepper IL. Transposon Tn5 as an identifiable marker in rhizobia: survival and
genetic stability of Tn5 mutant bean rhizobia under temperature stressed conditions in
desert soils. Microb Ecol 1991; 21:21-33.
31. van Elsas JD, Nikkel M, van Overbeek LS. Detection of plasmid RP4 transfer in soil and
rhizosphere, and the occurrence of homology to RP4 in soil bacteria. Current Microbiology 1989; 19:375-381.
66
32. Grtler V, Stanisich VA. New approaches to typing and identification of bacteria using the
16S-23S rDNA spacer region. Microbiology 1996; 142:3-16.
33. Amann RI, Ludwig W, Schleifer K-H. Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of
individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiol Rev 1995; 59:143-169.
34. Ward DM, Bateson MM, Weller R et al. Ribosomal RNA analysis of microorganisms as
they occur in nature. In: Marshall KC, editor. Advances in Microbial Ecology. v. 12. New
York: Plenum Press, 1992:219-86.
35. Amann RI. Fluorescently labelled, rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes in the study of
microbial ecology. Mol Ecol 1995; 4:543-554.
36. Devereux R, Kane MD, Winfrey J et al. Genus- and group-specific hybridization probes
for determinative and environmental studies of sulfate-reducing bacteria. System Appl
Microbiol 1992; 15:601-609.
37. Briglia M, Eggen RIL, De Vos WM et al. Rapid and sensitive method for the detection of
Mycobacterium chlorophenolicum PCP-1 in soil based on 16S rRNA gene-targeted PCR. Appl
38. Young JPW. Phylogeny and taxonomy of rhizobia. Plant Soil 1996; 186:45-52.
39. Olsen GJ, Woese CR. Ribosomal RNA: a key to phylogeny. FASEB J 1993; 7:113-123.
40. Clayton RA, Sutton G, Hinkle PS et al. Intraspecific variation in small-subunit rRNA sequences in GenBank: Why single sequences may not adequately represent prokaryotic taxa.
Int J Syst Bacteriol 1995; 45:595-599.
41. Schmidhuber S, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH. Construction of a DNA probe for the specific
identification of Streptococcus oralis. J Clin Microbiol 1988; 26:1042-1044.
42. Liang P, Pardee AB. Differential display of eukaryotic messenger RNA by means of the
polymerase chain reaction. Science 1992; 257:967-971.
43. Triplett EW, Sadowsky MJ. Genetics of competition for nodulation of legumes. Annu Rev
Microbiol 1992; 46:399-428.
44. Paau AS. Improvement of Rhizobium inoculants by mutation, genetic engineering and formulation. Biotech Adv 1991; 9:173-184.
45. Lindstrm K. Rhizobium galegae, a new species of legume root nodule bacteria. Int J Syst
Bacteriol 1989; 39:365-367.
46. Lipsanen P, Lindstrm K. Infection and root nodule structure in the Rhizobium galegae sp.
nov.-Galega symbiosis. Symbiosis 1988; 6:81-96.
47. Lindstrm K, Jurgens G, Kaijalainen S et al. Rhizobium galegae - properties, phylogeny and
molecular identification methods. In: Kiss GB, Endre G, editors. Proceedings of the 1st
european nitrogen fixation conference and the workshop Safe application of genetically
modified microorganisms in the environment. Szeged, Hungary: Officina press, 1994:265-9.
48. Lindstrm K, Lipsanen P, Kaijalainen S. Stability of markers used for identification of two
Rhizobium galegae inoculant strains after five years in the field. Appl Environ Microbiol
1990; 56:444-450.
49. Suominen L, Saano A, Lindstrm K. Cloning of the host specific gene region of Rhizobium
galegae. In: Gresshoff PM, Roth LE, Stacey G, et al., editors. Nitrogen fixation: achievements and objectives. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1990:589.
50. Saano A, Kaijalainen S, Lindstrm K. Isolation of Rhizobium galegae species-specific DNA
probes. In: Gresshoff PM, Roth LE, Stacey G, et al., editors. Nitrogen fixation: achievements and objectives. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1990:575.
51. Tas , Leinonen P, Saano A et al. Assessment of competitiveness of rhizobia infecting Galega
orientalis on the basis of plant yield, nodulation and strain identification by antibiotic resistance and PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996; 62:529-535.
52. Welcher AA, Torres AR, Ward DC. Selective enrichment of specific DNA, cDNA and RNA
sequences using biotinylated probes, avidin and copper-chelate agarose. Nucleic Acids Res
1986; 14:10027-10044.
53. Straus D, Ausubel F. Genomic subtraction for cloning DNA corresponding to deletion
mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87:1889-1893.
67
54. Bjourson AJ, Cooper JE. Isolation of Rhizobium loti strain-specific DNA sequences by subtraction hybridization. Appl Environ Microbiol 1988; 54:2852-2855.
55. Streit W, Bjourson AJ, Cooper JE et al. Application of subtraction hybridization for the
development of Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar phaseoli and Rhizobium tropici groupspecific DNA probe. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1993; 13:59-68.
56. Sargent TD, Dawid IB. Differential gene expression in the gastrula of Xenopus levis. Science 1983; 222:135-139.
57. Kunkel LM, Monaco AP, Middleworth W et al. Specific cloning of DNA fragments absent
from the DNA of a male patient with an X chromosome deletion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
1985; 82:4778-4782.
58. Bjourson AJ, Stone CE, Cooper JE. Combined subtraction hybridization and polymerase
chain reaction amplification procedure for isolation of strain-specific Rhizobium DNA sequences. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992; 58:2296-2301.
59. Tas , Kaijalainen S, Saano A et al. Isolation of a Rhizobium galegae strain-specific DNA
probe. Microb Releases 1994; 2:231-237.
60. Darrasse A, Kotoujansky A, Bertheau Y. Isolation by genomic subtraction of DNA probes
specific for Erwinia carotovora subsp. atroseptica. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994; 60:298-306.
61. Tas , Saano A, Leinonen P et al. Identification of Rhizobium spp. in peat-based inoculants by DNA hybridization and PCR and its application in inoculant quality control. Appl
62. Nick G, Lindstrm K. Use of repetitive sequences and the polymerase chain reaction to
fingerprint the genomic DNA of Rhizobium galegae strains and to identify the DNA obtained by sonicating the liquid cultures and root nodules. System Appl Microbiol 1994;
17:265-273.
63. Alm EW, Oerther DB, Larsen N et al. The oligonucleotide probe database. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1996; 62:3557-3559.
64. Maidak BL, Cole JR, Parker CTJ et al. A new version of the RDP (Ribosomal Database
Project). Nucleic Acids Res 1999; 27:171-173.
65. Gottschal JC, Meijer WG, Oda Y. Use of molecular probing to assess microbial activities in
natural ecosystems. In: Insam H, Rangger A, editors. Microbial communities. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1997:10-8.
66. Klein PG, Juneja VK. Sensitive detection of viable Listeria monocytogenes by reverse transcription-PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 1997; 63:4441-4448.
67. Felske A, Akkermans ADL, De Vos WM. Quantification of 16S rRNAs in complex bacterial communities by multiple competitive reverse transcription.PCR in temperature gradient gel electrophoresis fingerprints. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998; 64:4581-4587.
68. Eichner CA, Erb RW, Timmis KN et al. Thermal gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of
bioprotection from pollutant schocks in the activated sludge microbial community. Appl
69. Cheng J, Sheldon EL, Wu L et al. Preparation and hybridization analysis of DNA/RNA
from E. coli on microfabricated bioelectronic chips. Nature Biotechnology 1998; 16:541-546.
70. Drolet DW, Moon-McDermott L, Romig TS. An enzyme-linked oligonucleotide assay.
Nature Biotechnology 1996; 14:1021-1025.
71. Egholm M, Buchardt O, Christensen L et al. PNA hybridizes to complementary oligonucleotides obeying the Watson-Crick hydrogen-bonding rules. Nature 1993; 365:566-568.
72. Tuerk C, Gold L. Systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment: RNA ligands
to bacteriophage T4 DNA polymerase. Science 1990; 249:505-510.
73. Gold L. Oligonucleotides as research, diagnostic and therapeutic agents. J Biol Chem 1995;
270:13581-13584.
74. Langworthy DE, Stapleton RD, Sayler G et al. Genotypic and phenotypic response of a
riverine microbial community to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon contamination. Appl
68
75. Pennanen T, Fritze H, Vanhala P et al. Structure of a microbial community in soil after
prolonged addition of low levels of simulated acid rain. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998;
64:2173-2180.
CHAPTER 5
Luminescence-Based Microbial
Marker Systems and Their
Application in Microbial Ecology
James I. Prosser, Antonio J. Palomares, Matti T. Karp and Philip J. Hill
5.1. Introduction
olecular marker systems provide the ability to track specific microbial inocula in the
environment. This is a fundamental requirement for many ecological studies and is
particularly appropriate for the assessment of risks associated with the release of genetically
modified microorganisms. The efficiency of a marker system requires the absence of the
marker gene, or its phenotype, from the environment under study, stable insertion of the
marker genes into the host organism without loss of fitness and efficient and sensitive genotypic and/or phenotypic detection. Techniques for genotypic detection are similar for all marker
genes and distinctions therefore arise through differences in efficiency of phenotype detection
and the information that this provides. The major advantage of all marker systems over traditional techniques is the increased ability to distinguish specific organisms under study from the
indigenous population. Marker systems do, however, require laboratory cultivation of the host
strain and ecological studies utilizing marked strains must accept this limitation. This is not,
however, a limitation for applications to risk assessment of genetically modified microorganisms, which require growth in the laboratory before release.
This article focuses on luminescence-based techniques that involve marking with
prokaryotic or eukaryotic genes encoding luciferase, which catalyses light production. They,
like all marker systems, increase selective detection of inocula but provide several additional
advantages. In particular, they enable rapid and specific measurement of metabolic activity
of marked organisms, without cell extraction, and studies of their spatial distribution in
environmental samples.
5.2. Lux-Based Systems

Bacterial luciferase catalyses the oxidation of FMNH2 and a long chain aldehyde by
molecular oxygen to produce FMN and the corresponding acid, with concomitant emission
of blue-green light:1
RCHO + O2 + FMNH2 RCOOH + FMN + H2O + h (ca. 490 nm in Vibrio spp.)
Luciferase is a heterodimeric enzyme of ca. 79 kDa that is cytoplasmic in Vibrio harveyi
and membrane-bound in Plesiomonas leiognathi. The reaction2 is initiated by an interaction
between FMNH2 and luciferase to produce luciferase-bound FMNH2 (Intermediate I), which
70
reacts with molecular oxygen to form 4-hydroperoxy-FMNH (Intermediate II) (Fig. 5.1).
In the absence of aldehyde, this decays to generate FMN and hydrogen peroxide with no
light emission (dark decay). In the presence of aldehyde, Intermediate III (4 peroxyhemiacetal-FMNH) is formed, which decays to yield the aliphatic acid and an
excited emitter, proposed to be a 4-hydroxy-FMNH species,3 which undergoes a radiative
relaxation to emit light. After returning to the ground state, 4-hydroxy-FMNH decays to
generate water and oxidized FMN. Although the in vivo aldehyde substrate appears to be
tetradecanal, other long chain aldehydes (e.g., nonanal or decanal) may elicit a bioluminescent
response. Enzyme turnover rate is greatly affected by the nature of the aldehyde substrate used,
and may differ significantly and characteristically with luciferases from different species.
5.2.1. Genetic Organization of the lux Regulon

The genes encoding bacterial luciferase and the other proteins required for bioluminescence are situated in lux operons, which have been most studied in Photobacterium and
Vibrio. In Vibrio fischeri, all lux genes can be assigned to two operons, L and R, whose organization is illustrated in Figure 5.2.4 The only known gene in operon L is luxR, which
encodes a regulatory protein. Operon R contains luxA and luxB, which code for the and
subunits of luciferase respectively, and luxC, D, E and I, which respectively code for a fatty
acid reductase, an acyl transferase, an acylprotein synthase and synthesis of the autoinducer,
N-(3-oxo-hexanoyl) homoserine lactone, which induces light production in all V. fischeri
strains. In V. fischeri strains MJ-1 and ATCC7744 these genes are in the order luxICDABE.
The organization of structural genes for bioluminescence in other luminescent bacteria is
similar, except that regulatory genes are omitted.5 Another gene, luxF, lying between luxB
and luxE and sharing high homology with luxB, has been identified in Photobacterium
phosphoreum and P. leiognathi.6,7 An additional gene, luxG, has been identified downstream
of luxE in all marine bioluminescent bacteria, but not in any Photorhabdus luminescens
Fig. 5.1. The mechanism of bacterial bioluminescence. L represents luciferase, roman numerals show key intermediates, *
indicates excited intermediate.
Luminescence-Based Microbial Marker Systems and Their Application in Microbial Ecology 71
Fig. 5.2. A physical map of the lux regulon.
strains studied,5 and gene luxH has been identified downstream of luxG in V. harveyi.8 These
genes are not essential for a bioluminescent phenotype but may be involved in the generation of reduced flavin substrate for the luminescence reaction.
All luxA and luxB genes sequenced (e.g., refs. 7,9) show a high degree of sequence
homology. The luxA gene shows greater conservation than luxB, consistent with the postulate that the subunit controls the kinetic properties of the enzyme. Sequence analysis
indicates that bacterial luciferases may be subdivided into two distinct classes, the first represented by those from V. fischeri and Photobacterium and the second by V. harveyi,
P. luminescens and a symbiont from the fish Kryptophanaron alfredi, the latter group comprising the less heat-labile enzymes. The high homology between and subunits both
within and between different species indicates that luxA and luxB arose by gene duplication.5 The subunit appears to be solely responsible for the catalytic activity of the enzyme
but the subunit is essential for functionality, and may be required to maintain the catalytically active conformation of residues.
5.2.2. Supply of Aldehyde for the Bioluminescent Reaction

The bioluminescent reaction requires a long chain aldehyde substrate and tetradecanoic
acid appears to be the precursor of the natural substrate tetradecanal.10 A fatty acid reductase complex, responsible for aldehyde synthesis, consists of two distinct functional components;11 acyl protein synthase (50 kDa) which, with cleavage of ATP to AMP, activates the
fatty acid to a fatty acyl intermediate, and acyl-protein reductase (58 kDa), responsible for
the transfer of the acyl group from the synthase and its subsequent NADPH dependent
reduction to release free tetradecanal. A third component, initially identified in
P. phosphoreum,12 is a 34 kDa acyl transferase and is acylated only in the presence of the
other two polypeptides. It utilizes acyl-acyl carrier protein as substrate to supply free fatty
acid to the luminescent system13 but is unnecessary for fatty acid reductase activity in vitro.
Aldehyde synthesis involves channeling of tetradecanoic acid from acyl-ACP, by the acyl
protein transferase subunit, releasing the free acid to acylate the acyl protein synthase in an
ATP dependent reaction. After removal of AMP, the acyl group is transferred in a freely
reversible reaction to the acyl protein reductase subunit, which, utilizing the reducing power
of NADPH, releases free tetradecanal. This aldehyde is oxidized by luciferase, with concomitant light emission, back to the fatty acid that may then be recycled.
72
5.2.3. Expression Vectors for Bacterial Luciferases

Cloning vectors using insertional inactivation of luxAB as a marker gene, instead of the
ubiquitous LacZ complementation, have been reported, but most published uses of
luciferase encoding plasmid vectors concern their use in the study of DNA control sequences.
For example, the construction of vectors containing promoters upstream of luxAB with a
polylinker between the promoter and lux genes allows for the identification of transcriptional terminators as evidenced by decreased bioluminescence of clones containing terminators.14 Many luxAB containing plasmids have been employed as promoter probe vectors,
allowing detection and determination of strength of promoter DNA cloned upstream of
luxAB or a whole lux operon. Many such vectors are available for use in gram-negative and
grampositive bacteria.
Another method of promoter probing is to use transposons. In addition to providing
insertional inactivation of chromosomal genes, lux-containing transposons may allow the
expression of target genes to be monitored on the basis of bioluminescence. A number of such
transposons have been reported, including a miniMu-lux in E. coli and other gram-negative
bacteria,15 Tn5 derivatives containing luxAB in Pseudomonas16 and other bacteria and a Tn1721
derivative in X. campestris.17 These transposon systems have been used successfully to identify
environmentally responsive genes,18 maintain a constitutive expression of bioluminescence in
normally dark bacteria,19 for promoter probing16 and in the characterization of loci for phytopathogenicity.17 More recently, mini-Tn5 derivatives containing the whole lux operon from P.
luminescens, obviating the need to add exogenous aldehyde, have been constructed and shown
to be effective in many gram-negative organisms.20 Shuttle plasmid vectors, constructed for
expression of either bacterial or insect luciferase genes in grampositive and gram-negative
strains, have been found to lead to high levels of light emission which could be measured in
real-time from intact cells.21
5.3. Luc-Based Systems

Although bacterial luciferases are most frequently used as markers for environmental
use, strains carrying the firefly luciferase or other insect luciferase genes can provide advantages. The enzymes from insects are in general more heat stable, are not subject to substrate
inhibition and their quantum yield (90%) is considerably higher than that of bacterial
luciferase (5-10%).
Firefly luciferase requires luciferin, a heterocyclic carboxylic acid, oxygen and ATP as
substrates. The requirement for ATP is very specific and firefly luciferase cannot utilize other
nucleotide triphosphates. In the presence of magnesium and molecular oxygen, luciferase
catalyses the oxidative decarboxylation of luciferin, resulting in the production of light and
oxyluciferin, with hydrolysis of ATP.
D-Luciferin + ATP + Mg Luciferase-luciferyl-AMP + PPi
Luciferase-luciferyl-AMP + O2 oxyluciferin + AMP+CO2 + light
This reaction has a quantum yield of 0.88 photons emitted per luciferin oxidized, and is
the most efficient luminescent reaction known.22 The best-characterized firefly luciferase is
that of the common North American firefly Photinus pyralis, from which luciferase has been
purified and the luciferin substrate determined.23 SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis of
purified P. pyralis luciferase shows a single band of protein with an apparent molecular weight
of 62,000.24 Only one dehydroluciferyl adenylate, a substrate intermediate analogue, binds per
luciferase dimer although there are two ATP and two luciferin binding sites.25 This suggests
that the two subunits in the dimer may be different, but it has not been possible to separate
physically two forms of the protein.
A potential disadvantage of luc systems is the requirement for exogenous addition of

luciferin. However, uptake of D-luciferin is efficient at slightly acidic conditions, e.g., pH
values of 5 and 6 for E. coli26 and Streptococcus mutans,27 respectively. A thermostable variant of firefly luciferase has also been generated by genetic engineering28 and is able to sustain temperatures up to 50C for 60 minutes, in vitro.
The color of light emitted by firefly luciferase varies between species. P. pyralis emits
yellow-green light, with the peak emission occurring at 562 nm. This color can be shifted to
red in vitro by adding divalent metal cations, such as zinc, by increasing the temperature, or
by reducing the pH to below 7.0.22 Light emitted by other species of firefly ranges from
green (550 nm) to yellow (579 nm), possibly reflecting adaptation to the time of night during which fireflies are active. Twilight-active species tend to emit yellow light that should be
more visible against the background light than the green light of dark-active species. The
Jamaican click beetle, Pyrophorus plagiophthalamus, has a pair of dorsal organs that emit
bright green light (543 nm) and a ventral organ that emits yellow-orange light (582 nm).22
The color of light emitted is a property of the luciferase, rather than the luciferase substrate
or filtering of the light by pigments.22 The ability of all beetle luciferases to utilize synthetic
P. pyralis luciferin suggests that all synthesize very similar luciferin, and that differences in
the color of the emitted light must be due to structural differences in the luciferases themselves. Furthermore, there must be extensive conservation in the overall structure of the
beetle luciferases since they must all possess the same substrate binding sites. This is supported by the observation that anti-P. pyralis luciferase antibodies recognize luciferases from
the six species of firefly tested as well as the luciferase from the click beetle P. plagiophthalamus.
Fireflies have long life cycles and are not easily maintained in the laboratory, making genetic
approaches to the study of firefly luciferase impractical. The cloning and expression of firefly luciferase genes in heterologous systems, however, enables the creation of mutant
luciferases in vitro by means of recombination technology.
5.3.1. Expression Vectors Using Eukaryotic Luciferases as Bacterial Markers

The eukaryotic nature and presumed absence of firefly and click beetle luciferase genes
may provide a unique genotype to bacteria and the variation in wavelength of emitted light
provides an additional advantage. To exploit this difference in luciferase assays, luc and lucOR
genes, which encode emission of light at 560 nm (yellow-green) and 595 nm (orange),
respectively, have been used to develop marker genes for bacteria employing three transcriptional units (Fig. 5.3). The first, an antitetracycline PI promoter, provides considerable
constitutive expression when P1::luc and P1::lucOR are borne on ColE1 plasmids, but
luciferase activity decreases when both fusions are borne on a RK2 derivative plasmid. This
reduction is due to the presence of a tetR gene in the parental plasmid pRK293 or to differences in copy number. A second system, cI857-PR, provides a highly regulated promoter
which is useful for marking cells for environmental release, as it may be silenced in the
natural environment, avoiding the use of nutrients or energy in marker synthesis. In the
presence of the cI857 repressor gene, PR is a well-regulated promoter,29 as found when the
PI::luc fusion is expressed in E. coli in either ColE1 or RK2 replicons. Detection of marked
organisms requires induction of the marker gene, allowing identification on solid media or
in enrichment broth. In the presence of the cI857 gene, PR is not efficiently regulated in
some gram-negative bacteria but constitutive expression of either luc or lucOR from PR
can be achieved efficiently in a range of bacteria. 30 PR expresses high levels of luciferase
activity, which are easily detected constitutively. The third system involves a strong promoter, Ptrc, which provides higher and better-regulated luminescence in bacteria that
express lucOR and leads to greater in vivo luciferase activity in E. coli and other gram-negative bacteria. Ptrc is effective in a range of bacterial hosts and, following induction, yields
74
Fig. 5.3. Plasmids constructed to study the expression of eukaryotic luciferases under the control
of different promoters in gram-negative bacteria. All of the plasmids were based on the RK2
derivative pRK293. Fragments with the represented fusions of luc and lucOR were cloned
in the sites of pRK293 indicated. B, BamHI; Bg, BglII; C, ClaI; H, HindIII S, SalI; X, XhoI.
Reprinted with permission from Cebolla A, Vzquez ME, Palomares AJ. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1995; 61:660-668.
higher levels of luminescence than other constructs.31 Use of PR::luc and P R::lucOR
enables distinction between Pseudomonas putida colonies emitting light of different wavelengths30 (Fig. 5.4).
5.4. Methodology
Luminescence-marked organisms can be monitored using several techniques. Lux and
luc genes may be detected by gene probing, but the major advantages of luminescence marker
systems lie in the ability to detect light.
5.4.1. Detection of Luminescence by Eye and by Photographic and X-ray Film

Viable cell enumeration of luciferase-marked strains can be achieved using traditional
dilution plate counting and luminescent colonies can usually be detected by the unaided eye in
a darkened room.32 Greater sensitivity can be achieved using photographic film (with long
exposure), X-ray film or photon imaging (see below). The majority of luciferase-marked strains
are also marked with antibiotic resistance (see Chapter 2), enabling selectivity against indigenous populations by enumeration on media supplemented with the appropriate
antibiotic. In the absence of antibiotic resistance markers, selective enumeration depends on
the competitive ability of the marked strain on enumeration media, the nutrients
required for luminescence and the sensitivity of detection. Nevertheless, visual detection of a
single luminescent colony of lux-marked Erwinia carotovora is possible in the presence of 3000
nonluminescent colonies.32 Similar techniques may be used for in situ detection of luminescent strains. Photography has also been used to compare in vivo activities of firefly and click
Fig. 5.4. Luminescence emitted by two strains of Pseudomonas putida containing plasmids pAP2
and pACR3 with PR::luc and PR::lucOR fusions, respectively. Cells were incubated on nitrocellulose filters placed on solid medium, incubated for 30 h and photographed under normal illumination (A) and after 30 min exposure in the dark. Reprinted with permission from Cebolla A,
Vzquez ME, Palomares AJ. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:660-668.
beetle luciferase in E. coli cultures on nitrocellulose filters, with exposure for 10-15 minutes.30 Similar examination of E. coli streaks on solid media demonstrated the four colors of
bioluminescence emitted by different click beetle luciferases, with 2 s exposure time.33 This
approach has also been used to determine regions of plants infected with lux-marked pathogenic bacteria 34 and for detection of luciferase activity in alfalfa nodules induced by R. meliloti
containing a nifH::luc fusion.35
5.4.2. Luminometry
The major advantage of lux- and luc- marker systems lies in the relationship between
luminescence and cell activity enabling assessment of the activity of marked organisms by
quantification of luminescence, by luminometry. In organisms in which luciferase production is constitutive and where luminescence per cell is maximal, or constant, total light
emission is proportional to biomass concentration. This occurs in exponentially growing
cultures, with proportionality between luminescence and biomass concentration over several orders of magnitude.27,36 The convenience and validity of this approach depend on the
nature of the construct. For example, constitutive luciferase production may be achieved by
chromosomal marking with luxA and luxB genes, but luminescence requires addition of
dodecanal and incubation under optimal conditions. Cellular production of dodecanal is
achieved in cells additionally marked with luxCDE genes, but the additional genetic load
may affect the physiological characteristics of the marked organism. Increased luminescence may also be achieved by increasing lux-or luc- gene copy number, for example, in
plasmid marked strains, although this increases the likelihood of decreased host fitness and
stability.37 Finally, use of luminometry in samples with particulate material reduces sensitivity. Lower detection limits using luminome
try therefore depend on a number of factors.
For example, detection limits for chromosomally and plasmid-marked strains of P. fluorescens
in cell suspensions were 1.7 x 103 and 8.9 x 104 cells ml-1, respectively. Equivalent detection
limits in inoculated autoclaved sterile soil were 8.1 x 103 and 3.0 x 105 cell g-1, respectively,
76
while inoculation into nonsterile soil increased detection limits to 5.9 x 104 and 2.2 x 105
cells g-1, possibly through greater competition for nutrients.38 An added advantage of chromosomal marking is the frequent lack of apparent effect on host fitness.
In the environment, conditions are likely to be variable and sub-optimal for luminescence. Luminometry of untreated samples will therefore provide a measure of the activity
of marked organisms under nutritional and environmental conditions prevailing at the time
of sampling. Luminescence activity is equivalent to that measured using traditional techniques, e.g., dehydrogenase activity39 but luminometric measurements are considerably more
sensitive, convenient and rapid, with results within several minutes of sampling. More importantly, luminometry assesses the activity of the marked population only, in the presence
of high indigenous populations, while traditional activity techniques, e.g., enzyme assays,
substrate conversion rates, provide information on the total population. The technique is
also sufficiently sensitive to detect the activity of viable but nonculturable populations.40
Luminescence assays may be modified to assess biomass by amendment with nutrients and
incubation under optimal conditions.41 This measure of potential luminescence is equivalent to other measures of potential activity, e.g., the substrate induced respiration method.
5.4.3.Photon Imaging
Quantitative imaging of gene expression using luciferase based reporter constructs is
now possible due to the availability of extremely sensitive imaging equipment that can be
calibrated using light standards. These camera systems are usually based on image intensifiers coupled to video cameras, or cooled charge coupled device (CCD) technology. Intensified cameras have high sensitivity and the ability to watch the image form almost in realtime but, at high gain, suffer from reduction in spatial resolution. Cooled CCD systems rely
on capturing the image during a single long exposure. They have extremely low noise and
wide dynamic range and are increasingly available, leading to a reduction in cost of this
technology. The sensitivity of many cooled CCD cameras can be significantly increased by
pixel binning, although this reduces spatial resolution. Both systems may be configured for
microscopic analysis or imaging of macro samples. They are often supplied with flexible
image processing software that allows the user to count areas, quantify signals and superimpose images.
Examples of the power of this technology to assess gene expression, even in highly
complex environments, include assessment of mas gene (mannopine synthesis) expression
by Agrobacterium tumefaciens in different tobacco plant tissues during infection42 and the
coupling of luxAB with the nitrogenase promoters of nifD and nifH from Bradyrhizobium
japonicum, enabling imaging of luciferase expression in single soybean root nodules and,
indeed, in single bacteroid infected cells.43
5.5. Applications
5.5.1. Stable Tagging of Bacteria with Firefly Luciferase Gene
for Environmental Monitoring
Gram-negative strains engineered for in situ applications must meet a number of practical requirements for safe and efficient performance. These include not only the absence of
traits that may give them an advantage over nonengineered strains but also the ability to
retain the acquired genotype and phenotype in the absence of selection. Use of firefly luciferase addresses the first of these concerns, since D-luciferin is expected to be absent from
all prokaryotic cells and the enzyme is unlikely to provide any advantage over the wild type.
Stable inheritance of the marker gene, in the absence of selective pressure, can be achieved
by chromosomal marking using the mini-Tn5 system.44 A HindIII fragment containing only
the PR promoter and the luc genes was isolated and cloned into pUC18Not. The NotI fragment with the luc gene was cloned into the unique NotI site of pUT/mini-Tn5 Sm/Sp and
into pUTKm. The resulting plasmids, pTCR210 and pTCR240, were selected for studies of
transposition and luciferase expression in various gram-negative bacteria. 36 To tag bacteria
without the use of antibiotic resistance genes, the Km resistance gene may be replaced with
the lPR::luc fusion. To attenuate the expression in the environment, where the marked strain
must survive, and to allow sensitive detection, a DNA fragment containing the repressor
gene lacIq and a PR::lucOR fusion has been introduced on a suicide plasmid. PTEB510
(Fig. 5.5) is a representative of constructs able to express high luciferase levels only when
induced by IPTG. Transposition frequencies were suitable for marking purposes and the
levels of luminescence were sufficient for detection by the standard methods.
Fig. 5.5. Construction of suicide orange click beetle luciferase plasmids used for marking gramnegative bacteria. The selective markers are flanked by Tn5 19-bp terminal ends (I end and O
end). The IS50R tnp gene devoid of NotI sites (tnp*) is oriented divergently from the I end.
Restriction sites: E, EcoR1; Nt, NotI; Xb, XbaI; H, HindIII; B, BamHI; S, SalI; P, PstI; Bg, BglII.
Reprinted with permission from Vzquez ME, Cebolla A, Palomares, AJ. FEMS Microbiol Lett
1994; 121:11-18.
78
5.5.2. Determination of Rhizobium Nodule Occupancy by Luminescence

The symbiotic interaction between rhizobia and leguminous plants results in the formation of root nodules through a number of stages determined by different sets of genes
both in the microsymbiont and macrosymbiont. Quantification of nodule occupancy is
required to determine the competitiveness of two or more strains in producing and occupying nodules. Luminescence marking of bacteria that interact with plants provides a simple
and highly sensitive system for their detection, particularly under conditions in which light
emission is directly related to cell concentration. Palomares et al.45 compared luc-marked
R. meliloti strain CR201 with the wild-type strain, R. meliloti 1021. To determine the competitiveness of the marked luminescent strain, alfalfa plants were inoculated with suspensions containing known proportions of each strain. Luminescent and nonluminescent cells
isolated from nodules were enumerated by plate counting and the proportions of the two
strains were equal to those in the inocula. Under the experimental conditions employed,
light emission was linearly related to luciferase activity over at least four orders of magnitude.46 Luciferase activity was then determined in bacteroid suspensions taken from nodules inoculated with different proportions of luminescence-marked cells and was found to
be directly related to viable cell concentrations. Direct measurement of luminescence of
cells isolated from nodules provides many advantages over other methods. In particular, it
does not require plating and is less laborious and less time consuming than alternative marker
phenotypes that require colony formation.
5.5.3. Eukaryotic Luciferase Markers for Assessment of Plasmid Transfer

in Soil Environments
Most studies of gene transfer in the soil have focused on conjugal transfer and there are
concerns regarding the transfer of the genetically engineered DNA sequences to indigenous
microorganisms. Vzquez and Palomares46 have established a model system for plasmid
transfer analysis involving constructs obtained using the lambda promoter, PR, and the
luciferase genes luc and lucOR (see above). This promoter is regulated by the thermosensitive
repressor cI857 that is active at 28C but not at 42C, at which temperature the promoter, PR,
is induced. A luciferase fusion system was constructed consisting of cI857-PR::luc and cI857PR::lucOR which is temperature-inducible in E. coli. Expression was constitutive at 28C
and luminescence could be detected using either luc or lucOR genes when the plasmids were
mobilized to other backgrounds. Use of luciferase genes encoding emission of either green
or orange light demonstrated transfer from RK2 derivative plasmids, incompatibility group
IncP (pACR4 and pACR18), and from R388 derivative plasmids, incompatibility group IncW
(pET2), either in vitro or in microcosms of sterile and nonsterile soil. Mobilization from
RK2 and R388 derivatives to P. putida 2440 (co-introduced with donors) or indigenous soil
organisms was demonstrated. High transfer frequencies were found for both plasmid groups
in assays on solid media. The experiments in sterile soil enabled assessment of the influence
of abiotic environmental parameters on gene transfer; in this case transfer frequency was
two orders of magnitude lower than on solid media, perhaps due to physical separation
between donor and receptor.
5.5.4. Survival and Resuscitation of Microbial Inocula

Luminescence-based markers provide the ideal strategy for risk assessment of genetically engineered microorganisms following their release into the environment. This requires
monitoring of population size and activity to quantify survival, growth and recovery following periods of stress or starvation. An example of this approach is assessment of the
effect of matric potential on the survival of a strain of Pseudomonas fluorescens, 10586s/
FAC510, chromosomally marked with lux genes and kanamycin resistance.47 This strain
was inoculated into microcosms containing autoclaved or nonautoclaved soil after adjustment of matric potential to -30, -750 or -1500 kPa. Selective viable cell enumeration was
achieved by plate counting on media containing kanamycin and population activity was
measured by luminometry, radiorespirometry and dehydrogenase activity. Matric potential
did not significantly affect survival, as determined by plate counts, but survival was significantly greater in autoclaved soil at higher matric potentials. This may be due to reduced
competition and predation, as protozoan movement will be lower at the lowest matric potential. Luminescence activity decreased rapidly following inoculation, and at a greater rate
than viable cell counts, and was the most sensitive indicator of effects of matric potential
and autoclaving. It was also found to be significantly more sensitive, reproducible and convenient as a measure of population activity than traditional techniques of radiorespirometry
and dehydrogenase activity in autoclaved soil. More importantly, in nonautoclaved soil,
luminescence provided a measure of the marked organism only in the presence of a significant indigenous microbial population. Potential luminescence involved assessment of luminescence during incubation with nutrients and indicated the speed of recovery of starved
organisms. Early samples showed no increase in luminescence during the incubation period at the highest matric potentials, indicating little inactivation immediately following
inoculation, but significant increases were observed during incubation of samples from soil
at the lowest matric potential. The rate of recovery and final potential luminescence values
decreased with time spent by cells in the soil and with decreasing matric potential, and were
lowest in nonautoclaved soil. Samples taken from nonautoclaved soil at the lowest matric
potential after 28 days showed no recovery. This suggests that P. fluorescens, inoculated into
soil at this matric potential, would have negligible environmental impact within four weeks
of inoculation, as any available substrates would be rapidly utilized by competing indigenous organisms. Conversely, the lack of persistence of activity of this organism might question its suitability in performing the function for which it was originally designed. A combination of viable cell enumeration, luminescence and potential luminescence measurements
therefore provides information which is of relevance and importance to both risk assessment and the development of more efficient microbial inocula.
5.5.5. Predation
The ability to detect luminescence activity of specific marked strains has been exploited
to determine the effect of predation by protozoa on bacterial prey.48 Soil microcosms were
inoculated with lux-marked bacterial cells (P. fluorescens) at specific matric potentials to
ensure their location in small (neck size < 6 m) or intermediate size (neck size 6-30 m)
pores, while Colpoda steinii was introduced to large pores (neck size 30-60 m) (Fig. 5.6).
Viable cell concentrations of both populations were monitored and bacterial activity was
assessed by luminometry. Bacteria in intermediate pores were predated at a greater rate
than those introduced to small pores, and decreases in bacterial viable cell concentration
were associated with increases in the ciliate population. Small pores therefore appear to
provide protection from predation. Luminescence decreased, following inoculation, due to
loss of bacterial activity through lack of nutrients and this effect was greater in the presence
of the ciliate, due to predation. However, luminescence activity per cell was significantly
greater for cells introduced into intermediate-sized pores, where predation was greatest.
This suggests that predation, although reducing numbers of bacteria, results in the release
and turnover of nutrients by the ciliate such that surviving bacterial cells have greater activity. Demonstration of this effect using traditional activity techniques was not possible because of problems in distinguishing between bacterial and ciliate activity.
80
Fig. 5.6. Changes in a) viable cell

concentration, b) luminescence and
c) luminescence viable cell-1 following introduction of P. fluorescens
into small pores (neck diameter <
6 m) (o, ) or intermediate-sized
pores (neck diameter 6-30 m) (,
) and introduction of sterile water (o, ) or C. steinii (, ) into
large pores (neck diameter 30-60
m). Error bars are minimum significant difference values calculated
from two way analysis of variance
for p 0.05. Bars are omitted where
treatments were not significantly
different (p > 0.05). Reprinted with
permission from Wright D, Killham
K, Glover LA et al. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1995; 61:3537-3543.
5.5.6. Biosensors
Use of living cells as biosensors offers several advantages over enzyme-based or other
biosensors. Most importantly, analytical systems that require a sequence of biochemical
reactions are greatly simplified by using cells within which all the reactions are conveniently
packaged, and carried out efficiently in an optimal environment. In addition, production of
bacterial-based biosensors is easily scaled-up, as only minor down-stream processing is
needed after bacterial cultivation.
Luminescence-based microbial biosensors for total toxicity have been developed and
commercialized using naturally luminescent bacteria 49 and measure toxicity as quenching
of luminescence following exposure of cells to a sample. Response times are short, ranging
from few seconds50 to tens of minutes and operation is simple and does not require highly
trained personnel or expensive instrumentation. Use of recombinant luminescent strains
for general toxicity testing is now under evaluation for commercial products.51 One
example is the assessment of inhibition of protein synthesis by strains of E. coli marked with
prokaryotic or eukaryotic luciferase, using the strong bacteriophage leftward promoter.52
This provides several-hundred-fold induction in less than ten minutes and incubation prior to
and after induction of protein synthesis enables distinction between effects on protein synthesis and direct metabolic inhibition. The test can be performed with lyophilized bacteria in less
than an hour and no bacterial cultivation is required, making it suitable for rapid and extremely sensitive detection of environmental samples.
5.6.1. Heavy Metal Sensors

Regulatory elements from bacteria resistant to a heavy metal can provide a sensitive
and selective receptor for heavy metal bioavailability53, 54 which will function in physiological concentration ranges. Genetic determinants for heavy metal resistance are usually found
on plasmids and transposons of soil bacteria, which facilitate their analysis and manipulation by molecular genetic techniques. Many have been characterized, including mercury,55
arsenite,56 cadmium,57,58 zinc,59 cobalt,59 chromate,60 and copper.61 The first specific biosensor for bioavailable mercury was constructed utilizing firefly luciferase as a reporter gene.62
The regulatory unit of the mercury resistance operon from plasmid R100 was introduced
into a plasmid vector pCSS810 21 to control the expression of firefly luciferase. Detection by
this sensor strain, E. coli/pTOO11, gave a detection limit of approximately 1 fM HgCl2
(0.2 ppt Hg) and luminescence increased with increasing Hg (II) concentration. Selectivity
was high, with interference only from cadmium at concentrations 108-fold higher than mercury. Sensitivity was sufficiently low for measurement of mercury in unpolluted natural
waters, in which the concentration range is 2 - 60 ppt Hg.63 The detection limit of the routine method is approximately 200 ppt. A similar mercury sensor based on the usage of luciferase genes of Vibrio harveyi had a detection limit for mercury of 10 nM.64 Heavy metal
sensors therefore operate at concentration ranges that are relevant to metal contamination
of the environment, and that will be very useful in the future. An important feature is their
amenability to lyophilisation, ensuring long shelf life (up to several years) and reagent-like
usage.65, 66
5.6.2. Stress and Xenobiotics Sensors

Bacteria in natural environments must protect themselves from a range of toxic insults, e.g., increased temperature, ultraviolet light, oxidative stress, redox-cycling xenobiotics
and heavy metals. Protective mechanisms are best understood in E. coli in which exposure
of aerobically growing cells to redox-cycling agents induces roughly 80 proteins.67 Stress
response promoters have been utilized to generate stress biosensors. For example, plasmids
have been constructed in which DNA damage-inducible promoters recA, uvrA, and alkA
from E. coli have been fused to the V. fischeri luxCDABE operon.68 This allowed detection of
a dose-dependent response to DNA-damaging agents, such as mitomycin and UV irradiation. A panel of such strains of lux biosensors may have use in monitoring chemical, physical, and genotoxic agents as well as in further characterizing the mechanisms of DNA repair.
Individual strains from this panel will exhibit differential responses to specific stress conditions dependent on the regulatory circuit controlling the expression.69 A tod-luxCDABE
fusion has been constructed and introduced into the chromosome of Pseudomonas putida
F1.70 This strain was used to examine the induction of the tod operon when exposed to
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) compounds and aqueous solutions of
JP-4 jet fuel constituents. Since this system contained the complete lux cassette (luxCDABE),
bacterial bioluminescence in response to putative chemical inducers of the tod operon was
measured on-line in whole cells without added aldehyde substrate. The sensor cells described above, together with specific heavy metal sensing strains, could be immobilized to
an array of sensing elements and connected to a sensitive detector. This kind of biosensor
might provide a more definitive understanding on the contents of complex environments
through on-line monitoring of, for example, paper mill effluents and waste-water treatment plants.
82
5.7. Conclusion
All molecular marker systems enable the detection of tagged organisms through gene
probing and viable cell enumeration. The major additional advantages offered by luminescence markers lie in the ability to detect light emission by marked organisms. This provides
a degree of selective enumeration by colony counting, but is particularly valuable as a means
of assessing real time, in situ metabolic activity of marked organisms, for instance in studies
of spatial organization of organisms against background indigenous populations. Both
prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems may be exploited and a range of vectors for each is
available. Luminescence genes have also been used for assessment of general metabolic activity and as reporters of specific gene function. A range of relatively inexpensive methods is
available for detection and luminescence-based markers have been used to study a variety
of organisms and environments. The approach has particular advantages for monitoring of
genetically engineered microorganisms released into the environment and, increasingly, in
biosensor applications, and represents a powerful technique for fundamental studies of
microbial ecology.
Acknowledgments
MK acknowledges support from Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation. AJP acknowledges
support to Spanish Ministry of Education, Junta de Andalucia and Fundacin Ramn Areces.
All authors are members of the MAREP Concerted Action sponsored by the European Commission Biotechnology Programme, DGXII.
References
1. Engebrecht J, Silverman M. Identification of genes and gene products necessary for bacterial bioluminescence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1984; 81:4154-4158.
2. Eberhard A, Hastings JW. A postulated mechanism for the bioluminescent oxidation of
reduced flavin mononucleotide. Biochem Biophys Res Comm 1972; 47:348-353.
3. Kurfurst M, Ghisla S, Hastings, JW. Characterization and postulated structure of the primary emitter in the bacterial luciferase reaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1984; 81:2990-2994.
4. Devine JH, Countryman C, Baldwin TO. Nucleotide sequence of the luxR and luxI genes
and structure of the primary regulatory region of the lux regulon of Vibrio fischeri
ATCC7744. Biochem 1988; 27:837-842.
5. Meighen EA. Molecular biology of bacterial bioluminescence. Microbiol Rev 1991;
55:123-142.
6. Soly RR, Mancini JA, Ferri, SR et al. A new lux gene in bioluminescent bacteria codes for
a protein homologous to the bacterial luciferase subunits. Biochem Biophys Res Comm
1988; 155:351-358.
7. Baldwin TO, Devine JH, Heckel RC et al. The complete nucleotide sequence of the lux
regulon of Vibrio fischeri and the luxABN region of Photobacterium leiognathi and the mechanism of control of bacterial bioluminescence. J Biolum Chemilum 1989; 4:326-341.
8. Swartzman E, Miyamoto C, Graham A et al. Delineation of the transcriptional boundaries
of the lux operon of Vibrio harveyi demonstrates the presence of two new lux genes. J Biol
Chem 1990; 265:3513-3517.
9. Meighen EA, Szittner RB. Multiple repetitive elements and organization of the lux operons
of luminescent terrestrial bacteria. J Bacteriol 1992; 174:5371-5381.
10. Ulitzur S, Hastings JW. Evidence for tetradecanal as the natural aldehyde in bacterial bioluminescence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1979; 76:265-267.
11. Riendeau D, Rodriguez A, Meighen, E. Resolution of the fatty acid reductase from
Photobacterium phosphoreum into acyl protein synthetase and acyl-CoA reductase activities. J Biol Chem 1982; 257:6908-6915.
12. Rodriguez AL, Reindeau D, Meighen E. Fatty acid acylation of proteins in bioluminescent
bacteria. Biochem 1983; 22:5604-5611.

13. Byers DM, Meighen EA. Acyl-acyl carrier protein as a source of fatty acids for bacterial
bioluminescence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1985; 82:6085-6089.
14. Peabody DS, Andrews CL, Escudero, KW et al. A plasmid vector and quantitative techniques for the study of transcription termination in Escherichia coli using bacterial luciferase.
Gene 1989; 75:289-296.
15. Engebrecht J, Simon M, Silverman M. Measuring gene expression with light. Science 1985;
227:1345-1347.
16. Lorenzo V, Herrero M, Jakubzik U et al. Mini-Tn5 transposon derivatives for insertion
mutagenesis, promoter probing, and chromosomal insertion of cloned DNA in gram-negative eubacteria. J Bact 1990; 172:6568-6572.
17. Shaw J J, Settles LG, Kado CI. Transposon Tn4431 mutagenesis of Xanthomonas campestris
pv. campestris: Characterization of a nonpathogenic mutant and cloning of a locus for pathogenicity. Mol Plant-microbe Interactions 1988; 1:39-45.
18. Wolk CP, Cai Y, Panoff, J-M. Use of a transposon with luciferase as a reporter to identify
environmentally responsive genes in a cyanobacterium. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1991;
88:5355-5359.
19. Boivin R, Chalifour F-P, Dion P. Construction of a Tn5 derivative encoding bioluminescence and its introduction in Pseudomonas, Agrobacterium and Rhizobium. Mol Gen Genet
1988; 213:50-55.
20. Winson MK, Swift S, Hill PJ et al. Engineering the luxCDABE genes from Photorhabdus
luminescens to provide a bioluminescent reporter for constitutive and promoter probe plasmids and mini-Tn5 constructs. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1998; 163:193-202.
21. Lampinen J, Koivisto L, Wahlsten M et al. Expression of luciferase genes from different
origins in Bacillus subtilis. Mol Gen Genet 1992; 232:498-504.
22. Seliger HH, McElroy WD. Spectral emission and quantum yield of firefly bioluminescence.
Arch Biochem Biophys 1960; 88:136-141.
23. Seliger HH, McElroy WD, White EH et al. Stereospecificity and firefly luminescence, a
comparison of natural and synthetic luciferin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1961; 47:1129-1134.
24. Wood KV, de Wet JR, Dewji N et al. Synthesis of active firefly luciferase by in vitro translation of RNA obtained from adult lanterns. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1984;
124:592-596.
25. McElroy WD, DeLuca, M. Chemistry of firefly luminescence. In: Herring PJ ed. Bioluminescence in Action. Academic Press, London., 1978:109-127.
26. Wood KV, DeLuca M. Photographic detection of luminescence in Escherichia coli containing the gene for firefly luciferase. Anal Biochem 1987; 161:501-507.
27. Loimaranta V, Tenovuo J, Koivisto L et al. Generation of bioluminescent Streptococcus
mutans and its usage in rapid analysis of antimicrobial compounds. Antimicrob Agents
Chemother 1998; 42:1906-1910.
28. Kajiyama N, Nakano E. Enhancement of thermostability of firefly luciferase from Luciola
lateralis by a single amino acid substitution. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 1994; 58:1170-1171.
29. Denhardt DT, Colasanti J. A survey of vectors for regulating expression of cloned DNA in
E. coli. In: Rodriguez RL, Denhardt DT eds. Vectors: a survey of molecular cloning vectors
and their use. Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham, Mass. 1987:179-203.
30. Cebolla A, Vzquez ME, Palomares AJ. Expression vectors for the use of eukaryotic luciferases as bacterial markers with different colors of luminescence. Appl Environ Microbiol
1995; 61:660-668.
31. Vzquez ME, Cebolla A, Palomares, AJ. Controlled expression of click beetle luciferase
using a bacterial operator-repressor system. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1994; 121:11-18.
32. Grant FA, Glover LA, Killham K et al. Luminescence-based viable cell enumeration of
Erwinia carotovora in the soil. Soil Biol Biochem 1991; 23:1021-1024.
33. Wood KV, Lam YA, Seliger, HH et al. Complementary DNA coding click beetle luciferases
can elicit bioluminescence of different colors. Science 1989; 244:700-702.
34. Shaw JJ, Dane F, Geiger D et al. Use of bioluminescence for detection of genetically engineered microorganisms released into the environment. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992;
58:267-273.
84
35. Cebolla A, Ruiz F, Palomares AJ. Expression and quantification of firefly luciferase under
control of Rhizobium meliloti symbiotic promoters. J Biolumin Chemilumin 1991; 6:177-184.
36. Cebolla A, Ruiz F, Palomares AJ. Stable tagging of Rhizobium meliloti with firefly luciferase
gene for environmental monitoring. Appl Environ Microbiol 1993; 59, 2511-2519.
37. Coronado C, Vzquez ME, Cebolla A et al. Use of firefly luciferase gene for plasmid copy
number determination. Plasmid 1994; 32:336-341.
38. Amin-Hanjani S, Meikle A, Glover LA et al. Plasmid and chromosomally encoded luminescence marker systems for detection of Pseudomonas fluorescens in soil. Mol Ecol 1993;
2:47-54.
39. Meikle A, Killham K, Prosser JI et al. Luminometric measurement of population activity
of genetically modified Pseudomonas fluorescens in the soil. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1992;
99:217-220.
40. Duncan S, Glover LA, Killham K et al. Luminescence-based detection of activity of starved
and viable but nonculturable bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994; 60:1308-1316.
41. Meikle A, Glover LA, Killham K et al. Potential luminescence as an indicator of activation
of genetically modified Pseudomonas fluorescens in liquid culture and in soil. Soil Biol
Biochem 1994; 26:747-755.
42. Langridge WHR, Fitzgerald KJ, Koncz C et al. Dual promoter of Agrobacterium tumefaciens
mannopine synthase genes is regulated by plant growth hormones. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 1989; 86:3219-3223.
43. OKane DJ, Lingle WL, Wampler JE et al. Visualization of bioluminescence as a marker of
gene expression in Rhizobium infected soybean root nodules. Pl Mol Biol 1988; 10:387-399.
44. Herrero M, de Lorenzo V, Timmis K. Transposon vectors containing non antibiotic resistance selection markers for cloning and stable chromosomal insertion of cloned genes in
gram-negative bacteria. J Bacteriol 1990; 172:6557-6567.
45. Palomares AJ, Vzquez ME, Cebolla A. Determination of Rhizobium nodule occupancy by
luminescence. In: Hasting JW, Kricka LJ, Stanley PE eds. Bioluminescence and Chemiluminescence. Molecular Reporting with Photons. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 1997:
383-386.
46. Vzquez ME, Palomares AJ. Eukaryotic luciferase markers as monitoring methods for plasmid transfer analysis in soil environment In: Hasting JW, Kricka LJ, Stanley PE eds. Bioluminescence and Chemiluminescence. Molecular Reporting with Photons. John Wiley and
Sons, New York. 1997:387-390.
47. Meikle A, Amin-Hanjani S, Glover LA et al. The effect of matric potential on survival and
activity of a Pseudomonas fluorescens inoculum in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 1995; 27:881-892.
48. Wright D, Killham K, Glover LA et al. The role of pore size location in determining bacterial activity during protozoal predation. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:3537-3543.
49. Ribo JM, Kaiser KLE. Photobacterium phosphoreum, toxicity bioassay. Tox Assessm 1987;
2:305-323.
50. Lappalainen J, Juvonen R, Vaajasaari K et al. A new flash method for measuring the toxicity of solid and colored samples. 1998; Chemosphere:38,1069-1083.
51. Lampinen J, Virta M, Karp M. Use of controlled luciferase expression for monitoring of
chemicals affecting protein synthesis. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61:2981-2989.
52. Lampinen, J, Virta M, Karp, M. Comparison of gram-negative and grampositive bacterial
strains cloned with different types of luciferase genes in bioluminescence cytotoxicity tests.
Environ Toxicol Wat Qual 1995; 10:157-166.
53. OHalloran TV. Transition metals in control of gene expression. Science 1993; 261:715-725.
54. Silver S, Walderhaug M. Gene regulation of plasmid- and chromosome-determined inorganic ion transport in bacteria. Microbiol Rev 1992; 56:195-228.
55. Summers AO. Organization, expression, and evolution of genes for mercury resistance.
Ann Rev Microbiol 1986; 40:607-34.
56. Silver SK, Budd KM, Leahy WV et al. Inducible plasmid-determined resistance to arsenate,
arsenite and antimony(III) in Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. J Bacteriol 1981;
146:983-996.

57. Nucifora G, Chu L, Misra TK et al. Cadmium resistance from Staphylococcus aureus plasmid pI258 cadA gene results from cadmium-efflux ATPase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1989;
86:3544-3548.
58. Tauriainen S, Karp M, Chang W et al. Luminescent bacterial sensor for cadmium and
lead. Biosensors Bioelectronics 1998; 13:931-938.
59. Nies DH, Silver S. Plasmid-determined inducible efflux is responsible for resistance to cadmium, zinc, and cobalt in Alcaligenes eutrophus. J Bacteriol 1989; 171:896-900.
60. Peitzsch N, Eberz G, Nies DH. Alcaligenes eutrophus as a bacterial chromate sensor. Appl
61. Cha J-S, Cooksey DA. Copper resistance in Pseudomonas syringae mediated by periplasmic
and outer membrane proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1991; 88:8915-8919.
62. Virta M, Lampinen J, Karp M. A luminescence-based mercury biosensor. Anal Chem 1995;
34:667-669.
63. Tescione L, Belfort G. Construction and evaluation of a metal ion biosensor. Biotechnol
Bioeng 1993; 42:945-952.
64. Condee CW, Summers AO. A mer-lux transcriptional fusion for real-time examination of
in vivo gene expression kinetics and promoter response to altered superhelicity. J Bacteriol
1992; 174:8094-8101.
65. Tauriainen S, Karp M, Chang W et al. A luminescence-based biosensor for arsenite and
antimonite. Appl Environ Microbiol 1997; 63:4456-4461.
66. Ramanathan S, Ensor M, Daunert S. Bacterial biosensors for monitoring toxic metals. Trends
Biotechnol 1997; 15:500-506.
67. Greenberg JT, Demple D. A global response induced in Escherichia coli by redox-cycling
agents overlaps with that induced by peroxide stress. J Bacteriol 1989; 171:3933-3939.
68. Vollmer AC, Belkin S, Smulski DR et al. Detection of DNA damage by use of Escherichia
coli carrying recA::lux, uvrA::gram, or alkA::lux reporter plasmids. Appl Environ Microbiol
1997; 63:2566-2571.
69. Ben-Israel O, Ben-Israel H, Ulitzur S. Identification and quantification of toxic chemicals
by use of Escherichia coli carrying lux genes fused to stress promoters. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1998; 64:4346-4352.
70. Applegate, BM, Kehrmeyer SR, Sayler GS. A chromosomally based tod-luxCDABE wholecell reporter for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) sensing. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1998; 64:2730-2735.
CHAPTER 6
The Use of the GUS Reporter System

to Study Molecular Aspects
of Interactions Between Bacteria
and Plants
M. Lambrecht, A. Vande Broek and J. Vanderleyden
6.1. Introduction
he most important criterion for an ideal marker/reporter system for rhizosphere bacteria is the absence of endogenous activity in the microbe of interest and in its natural
environment. Other criteria include inexpensive use of substrates and/or material necessary to detect the marker, the availability of simple though sensitive, nondestructive, and
histochemical assays to detect the strain or gene activity in planta, and unaffected fitness of
the host after introduction of the marker.1
Although lacZ,2 encoding -galactosidase, and phoA,3 encoding alkaline phosphatase,
are well suited as gene fusion markers and have been used in plant-interacting bacteria, a
high background in rhizosphere bacteria and higher plants often restricts their use in in
planta studies. Luciferase activity can be detected using sensitive and nondestructive assays
but needs costly materials and relies on the presence of oxygen and reduced cofactors in the
host cell.4 The major advantage of the bioluminescent system is the total absence of activity
in the plant-microbe background (see Chapter 5).5 The InaZ reporter (bacterial ice nucleation protein) does not need substrates nor sample processing for detection.6 Its major
advantage is a logarithmic relationship between ice nucleation activity and InaZ protein
concentration. However, it remains difficult to relate reporter activity to actual promoter
strength or gene transcriptional activity. The xylE gene product, catechol-2,3-dioxygenase,7
is detected by means of a soluble compound and therefore not suitable to detect bacteria
attached to plant tissue.8 Recently, the gfp gene, encoding green fluorescent protein, came
into use as a reporter gene in diverse biological systems (see Chapter 7).9
The E. coli gusA gene (previously also named uidA), encoding -glucuronidase, was
first used as a reporter gene in plants.10,11 It is currently being used in a wide variety of
biological systems, including plant-interacting bacteria. GUS activity is not present in most
higher plants12 and in bacteria of agricultural importance such as Meso-, Sino-, Azo-, Brady
Rhizobium, Agrobacterium, Azospirillum and Pseudomonas.13 In this chapter, the GUS
reporter system and its use to study bacterium-plant interactions are reviewed.
88
6.2. The Escherichia coli gusA Gene

Originally, -glucuronidase was biochemically characterized in the bacterium Escherichia coli14 and later the gusA gene was isolated from E. coli strain K12.15 GUS activity enables
E. coli in its natural environment, the gut, to decouple glucuronic acid from various substrates13 and to use glucuronic acid for further metabolization. The compounds coupled to
glucuronic acid, the aglycones, can be very diverse. They are coupled to glucuronic acid in
the liver to make them more water-soluble and are taken up again after decoupling by E. coli.
This circulation is called the enterohepathic cycle, an important physiological process in the
human body. In E. coli, gusA is part of an operon, together with two other genes, gusB and
gusC, encoding a glucuronide-specific permease and a membrane-associated protein of
unknown function, respectively (Fig. 6.1). The E. coli gusA gene is 1809 bp long and the
-glucuronidase has a predicted monomer molecular weight of 68,300, in agreement with
the experimentally determined molecular weight of 73,000.15 The enzyme is probably active as a tetramer in vivo.11 Genetic analysis of the gusA locus has revealed three distinct
modes of transcriptional control in E. coli. Firstly, the GusR repressor binds to an operator
sequence upstream of gusA and is relieved from binding in the presence of glucuronide
substrates. A second repressor, UxuR, downregulates both the gusA gene and the uxuAB
operon,16,17 required for further metabolization of the glucuronic acid. A third level of control is exerted by catabolite repression.15
The -glucuronidase of E. coli specifically hydrolyzes -linked D -glucuronides to
D-glucuronic acid and aglycone. The enzyme has a broad specificity range for -conjugated
glucuronides but not for other glycosides.18 -glucuronidase was found to be very stable
and to be more active in the presence of thiol-reducing agents such as -mercaptoethanol
and dithiothreitol (DTT).11 The optimum pH for GUS activity is between 5.0 and 6.8, but
the enzyme retains about 50% activity at pH 4.3 or at pH 8.4. GUS is partially resistant to
Fig. 6.1. The gus operon in Escherichia coli.
The GUS Reporter System
89
Table 6.1. Characteristics of Escherichia coli -glucuronidase (see text for ref.)
Characteristics
Description
Substrates
-linked D-glucuronides are hydrolized to D-glucuronic acid

and aglycone
No cleavage of glucuronides in internal positions within
polymers (plant cell wall)
Theoretical 68,000 ; experimental 72,000
5.07.0 (activity is 50% at pH 4.3 and 8.5)
None
Half-life of two hours at 55C and of 15 minutes at 60C
Enhanced activity in presence of thiol reducing agents (DTT)
Exo-hydrolase
Molecular weight
pH range
Cofactors
Thermal stability
Special requirements
thermal inactivation with a half-life of two hours at 55C and about 15 minutes at 60C.
GUS is inhibited by some heavy divalent metal ions such as Cu2+ and Zn2+.11 Physical and
enzymatic characteristics of GUS are summarized in Table 6.1.
The enzyme can tolerate large amino-terminal additions for translational fusions. It is
not processed at the amino-terminus in E. coli and is found exclusively in the cytoplasm. It
is not subject to any post-transcriptional modification.
6.3. The GUS Reporter system

Going back to the landmark publication of Jefferson et al,15 we can only now put in
perspective to what extent the use of the Escherichia coli gusA gene as a reporter shifted the
balance from reporter systems suited only for specific studies to a broad purpose, easy-touse, and precise reporter of gene expression.
The use of fusions between a gene of interest and a reporter gene with an easily detectable phenotype, such as gusA, offers several advantages for the study of gene expression.
Two types of gene fusions can be made. Transcriptional fusions are generated using sequences containing the coding sequence of GUS including its translational initiation signals. Expression of a transcriptional fusion results in the production of wild type -glucuronidase. In a translational fusion, the translational initiation signal and the amino terminal
coding sequences of a gene are linked in frame 5' to the coding sequence of gusA. Expression
of a translational fusion results in the production of a chimeric protein. Fusion proteins are
formed only when the reporter gene is inserted in the proper reading frame. Fusions can be
generated in vivo by promoter probe transposons or in vitro by using promoter probe vectors.
GUS can tolerate large amino-terminal fusions without loss of enzyme activity.10,15
While the data generated with GUS fusions to 5' control sequences of higher plant genes
give only partial information of the transcriptional control of the gene of interest,19 this
problem is not significant in prokaryotes.
Besides E. coli, other bacteria, including soil bacteria, appear to have GUS activity.13
Plants grown in nonsterile soil occasionally exhibit GUS activity resulting from plant-associated bacteria. The proportion of soil bacteria expressing either LAC (-galactosidase) activity or GUS activity has been estimated to be the same.20 It is not known to which degree
the endogenous GUS activity of soil bacteria is inducible by the presence of glucuronides.
Wilson et al13 found that some of the GUS activity in soil bacteria is inducible and may thus
be responsible for some of the background activity when samples are incubated for a long
period of time in the presence of GUS substrates.
90
-glucuronidase has become a widely used reporter system to measure expression of

diverse genes by means of gene fusions (see 6.4). The composition of a typical extraction
buffer used in quantitative GUS assays is 50 mM Na 2HPO4 (pH 6.0), 10 mM DTT or
-mercaptoethanol, 1 mM Na 2EDTA (to prevent inhibition by divalent metal ions), 0.1%
Sodium Lauryl Sarcosine, 0.1% Triton X-10011 and substrate. Various fluorogenic and
colorigenic substrates have been synthesized allowing quantification of the gene expression
level in relatively simple and direct assays. para-Nitro-phenyl--D-glucuronide is a standard colorigenic substrate used for detection of -glucuronidase activity in vitro.21 The liberated 4-nitrophenol can be measured spectrophotometrically at around 410 nm. The most
frequently used fluorogenic substrate is 4-methylumbelliferyl--D-glucuronide (4-MUG).
4-methylumbelliferone formed by -glucuronidase action has an excitation wavelength at
363 nm and an emission wavelength at 447 nm. Background fluorescence from the substrate is negligible.21 The product gives maximum fluorescence in the protonated phenoxide form and weak fluorescence in the phenol form. The equilibrium between these two
forms is shifted towards the phenoxide form at pH values higher than its pKa value (for
MUG, pKa 8.2). This results in rather low fluorescence at physiological pH values.
Alternative GUS fluorochromes are available. For example, resorufin--D-glucuronide is
hydrolyzed by GUS to resorufin. Resorufin, a phenoxazine derivative, has a high extinction
coefficient and quantum efficiency, and excitation and emission maxima at wavelengths where
plant tissue neither absorbs nor emits light. 4-Trifluoromethylumbelliferyl--D-glucuronide is
a very sensitive substrate with emission maxima around 500 nm at which almost no plant
tissue compounds emit energy.
3-Substituted umbelliferones such as 3-cyanoumbelliferyl--D-glucuronide have a
reduced pKa in comparison to MUG. When hydrolyzed by GUS, these substrates thus have
a stronger fluorescence at neutral pH, which can be an advantage for some assays. Fluorescein glucuronides are hydrolyzed to fluorescein by the GUS enzyme. Fluorescein is the most
widely used fluorochrome in biology. It fluoresces very well in living cells although the main
disadvantage of fluorescein glucuronides is the intr insic fluorescence of the substrates.
Although the sensitivity of fluorogenic GUS assays is higher than the spectrophotometric
assays, expensive fluorescence instrumentation is required when using these assays. The
main advantage of fluorescence assays is that they can provide two or three orders of magnitude greater sensitivity than spectrophometric assays. Fluorescence assays do require slightly
higher skills than spectrophotometric methods due to the attention which has to be given to
control experiments for calibration of fluorometers, nonenzymatic turnover of fluorescent
substrates in certain conditions and quenching of the fluorescence.
The main benefit when using the GUS reporter system in microbial rhizosphere ecology is
the ability to localize GUS marked bacteria on plants using histochemical GUS substrates. The
colorless histochemical substrate X-GlcA (5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl--D-glucuronide) is
hydrolyzed by GUS to a blue indigo dye precipitate.21 After enzymatic reaction, the released
indoxyl derivative must undergo an oxidative dimerization to form the insoluble and highly
colored indigo dye.11 The dimerization is enhanced in the presence of atmospheric oxygen
and can be stimulated by using an oxidative catalyst such as a ferricyanide/ferrocyanide
mixture (K3Fe(CN)6 and K4Fe(CN)6 respectively). Naphtol AS-BI -D-glucuronide is cleaved
by GUS to liberate free naphtol AS-BI which must then be coupled to a diazo dye to give a
precipitating azo dye. The assay has the capacity to generate different colors depending on
the coupling dye used.22 Besides X-GlcA, other histochemical substrates have recently been
synthesized20 which render products with various other colors (Table 6.2).
In Table 6.3, an overview of constructs, containing the E. coli gusA gene, is given. The
table is not exhaustive and only a selection of constructs with potential use in plant-microbe
interaction studies, is mentioned.
91
Table 6.2. Currently available histochemical GUS substrates15,20

Name
Chemical Name
Color of product
Company
X-GlcA
5-bromo-4-chloro-3indolyl--D-glucuronide
6-bromo-2-hydroxy-3naphthoyl-O-anisidine-D-glucuronide
5-bromo-6-chloro-3indolyl--D-glucuronide
6-chloro-3-indolyl-D-glucuronide
Indoxyl--D-glucuronide
6-chloro-3-indlyl--Dglucuronide
Blue
Biosynth AG, Research

Organics Inc.
CalBioChem
Sigma
Naphtol ASBIglucuronide
Magenta-glcA
Salmon-glcA
Indoxyl-glcA
Red-Gluc
Depends on
choice of
coupling dye
Magenta
Biosynth AG
Salmon pink
Biosynth AG
Indigo blue
Red
Biosynth AG
Research Organics Inc.
6.3.1. The Tn5-gusA Promoter probe transposons of Sharma and Signer23

Sharma and Signer23 constructed Tn5-gusA promoter probe transposons to monitor
expression of Rhizobium meliloti symbiotic genes within alfalfa nodules. For these
transposons, a Tn5 derivative,24 in which 25 base pairs of IS50L are retained, was used. Tn5gusA1 is a transcriptional operon fusion transposon. The gusA gene is preceded by translation stop codons in all open reading frames and a Shine-Dalgarno sequence to allow initiation of gusA translation. Tn5-gusA2 is similar although one of the stop codons and the
Shine-Dalgarno sequence have been omitted, making it ideal for the construction of translational gene fusions.
6.3.2. GUS Constructs of Wilson et al25

Wilson et al25 constructed vectors useful for manipulation of gusA and a whole series
of minitransposons containing gusA as a reporter gene. The vectors allow construction of
translational fusions to gusA in all three open reading frames.
In the miniTn5, constructed by de Lorenzo et al26 and Herrero et al,27 transposase activity inherent to Tn5 has been deleted allowing a stable insertion. Transposase activity has,
thus, to be provided in trans for transposition. Wilson et al 25 used the unique restriction
sites of mini-Tn5 to insert gusA and some other genes.
The construct mTn5SSgusA20 gives high constitutive expression of gusA in Rhizobium.
mTn5SSgusA10 contains the lacIq gene and gusA under the control of the tac promoter and,
therefore, expression is repressed until an inducer of the lac operon, such as IPTG, is added.
This allows regulation of gusA gene expression after introduction in the host strain. Postponing high GUS expression until the time of the GUS assay reduces the stress imposed on
the bacterium during the normal life-cycle. mTn5SSgusA40 is a promoter probe transposon
useful to screen for promoters, e.g., those responding to specific environmental signals.
6.3.3. Other GUS Constructs

Five gusA cassettes, uidA1, uidA2, uidA2-cat, uidA2-aadA and uidA2-aph, suitable for
constructing transcriptional fusions,were described by Metcalf and Wanner.28 Three of them
contain additional antibiotic resistance genes (see Table 6.3). uidA1, uidA2 and uidA2-aph
cause nonpolar mutations after double homologous recombination into the host genome.
92
Table 6.3. Overview of GUS constructs used in studies of plant-bacteria

interactions
Name
Description
Properties
Ref.
Tn5-gusA1
Promoter probe
transposon
23
Tn5-gusA2
Promoter probe
transposon
gusA-expressing
transposon
gusA-expressing
transposon
Construction of transcriptional fusion;

presence of Shine-Dalgarno consensus
sequence and stop codons in all open
reading frames
Construction of translational fusions;
no Shine-Dalgarno sequence
gusA under the control of the nptII
promoter
Same as mTn5SsgusA20; restriction site
of rare cutter for chromosomal mapping
of Tn5 insertion location
lacIq, encoding LAC repressor, is present
and gusA gene under control of tac
promoter; expression of gusA dependent
on addition of IPTG
Same as mTn5SSgusA10 but no lacIq present
mTn5SsgusA20
Tn5SSgusA21
mTn5SsgusA10
gusA-expressing
transposon
mTn5SsgusA11
gusA-expressing
transposon
gusA-expressing
transposon
mTn5SsgusA30
mTn5SsgusA31
gusA-expressing
transposon
mTn5SsgusA40
Promoter probe
transposon
GUS expression
vector
pRAJ289
pRAJ294
pKW117
pKW118
pKW119
pRG960
pRG970
pFAJ31
pWM2 (uidA1)
GUS expression
vector
Translation fusion
vectors
Broad host range
and promoter
selection cosmid
Broad host range

and promoter
selection cosmid
GUS fusion vector
contains gusA
cassette for generating transcriptional
fusions
gusA under the control of UAS and

54-dependent sequence of Rhizobium etli
CFN42 nifH gene promoter
gusA under the control of 54-dependent
sequence of Bradyrhizobium sp.
Parasponia strain Rp501 nifH gene promoter
Promoterless gusA can be transcribed
from adjacent promoters in the genome.
gusABC and unknown ORF under the
control of the tac promoter on a multicopy
expression vector carrying lac repressor gene
Same as pRAJ289 but only gusA present
23
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Construction of translational fusion to

gusA in all 3 open reading frames
25
Replication in wide variety of

gramnegative bacteria ; compatible
with IncP cloning vectors; construction
of transcriptional and translational fusions
to a promoterless gusA ; cos site
Same as pRG960 ; isolation of promoter
due to presence of one multiple cloning
site upstream of both gusA and lacZ
pLAFR3 derivative with promoterless
gusA gene
Non-polar mutation after allele replacement
in the host genome ; no antibiotic resistance
29
29
31
28
93
Name
Description
Properties
pWM3 (uidA2)
contains gusA
cassette for generating transcriptional fusions
contains gusA
contains gusA
contains gusA
Promoter-probe
transposon
Promoter-probe
transposon
Same as pWM2 but different flanking

multiple cloning site
28
Same as pWM3 but cat gene present in

cassette; polar mutation after introduction
in the host genome
28
Same as pWM3 but SpR and SmR genes

present in cassette; polar mutation after
introduction in the host genome
28
Same as pWM3 but AmpR gene present

in cassette; nonpolar mutation after
introduction in the host genome
28
pWM4
(uidA2-cat)
pWM5
(uidA2-aadA)
pWM6
(uidA2-aph)
mTn5gfp-pgusA
mTn5gusA-pgfp11
mTn5gusA-pgfp12
mTn5gusA-pgfp21
mTn5gusA-pgfp22
Promoter probe
transposon
Promoter probe
transposon
Promoter probe
transposon
Ref.
Promoterless gfp followed by a

34
constitutively expressed gusA gene.
Promoterless gusA preceded by consensus
34
Shine-Dalgarno sequence and translational
stop codons in three ORFs. Expression of
uv-gfp controlled by nptII promoter
Same as mTn5gusA-gfp11. Expression of
34
uv-gfp controlled by tandem nptII promoter
Same as mTn5gusA-gfp11. Two copies of
34
gfp are each controlled by a nptII promoter
Same as mTn5gusA-gfp11. Two copies of gfp 34
are each controlled by a tandem nptII promoter.
Several researchers constructed reporter vectors based on gusA and lacZ, facilitating the
analysis of bidirectional promoter regions.29,30 All of these constructs can be used to monitor free-living populations of bacteria in soil and to monitor the colonization of plant roots
by bacteria. Additionally, a number of constructs have been specifically developed to monitor the colonization of plant roots by Azospirillum31,32 and Azoarcus.33
Recently, a series of promoter-probe transposons, mTn5gusA-pgfp, containing a
promoterless gusA gene and one or two constitutively expressed gfp genes has been constructed and found to be useful for gene expression studies in Rhizobium, Azospirillum and
Pseudomonas.34
6.4 Application of the GUS Reporter System in Studies

of Plant-Bacterium Interactions
This section deals with studies of rhizosphere bacteria, i.e., Rhizobium, Azospirillum,
Azoarcus, Xanthomonas and Pseudomonas, which have used GUS as a reporter. In these studies,
GUS has been used to mark the soil bacterium of interest or to analyze the expression of a
specific gene in planta. Only a few representative cases for the different genera are discussed.
6.4.1. Rhizobium-legume Symbiosis

Sharma and Signer23 have used Tn5-gusA1 and Tn5-gusA2 to study the expression of
Rhizobium meliloti symbiotic genes during nodule organogenesis of alfalfa. Two patterns of
94
spatial and temporal expression of the symbiotic genes were observed. The nod genes,
involved in nodule formation, are expressed in an early phase (from 36 hours after inoculation) on the root surface and nodule cortex and later (from 10 days after inoculation) especially at the nodule meristem. In contrast, the nif (encoding nitrogenase), fix (required for
nitrogen fixation) and syrM (a regulator of other symbiotic genes) are expressed 10 days
after inoculation in the active symbiotic zone of the alfalfa nodules spreading off to the rest
of the central region of the nodule. For histochemical assay of -glucuronidase, nodules
were embedded, fixed and stained with 20 g/ml 1-GlcA.
The transposons described by Wilson et al 25 were designed to monitor population
changes in the soil and the rhizosphere and to determine nodule occupancy in rhizobial
competition studies. All assay parameters to study rhizobial infection and nodule occupancy were optimized. The ideal concentration of the histochemical substrate X-Glc was
100 g/ml. Elevating the substrate concentrations to 250 or 500 g/ml elicited intrinsic and
inducible GUS activity from other soil bacteria. Rhizobial cells, marked with mTn5SSgusA10,
mTn5SSgusA11, mTn5SSgusA20 or mTn5SSgusA21, could be visualized especially on young
nodules. Rhizobia marked with mTn5SSgusA30 or mTn5SSgusA31, containing gusA expressed from a nifH promoter, could be visualized in older nodules with maximal expression in the central, nitrogen-fixing zone. In Figure 6.2, an X-GlcA stained section of an
alfalfa root nodule, infected with R. meliloti containing a nifH-gusA translational fusion, is
shown.35
Streit et al36 used a GUS+ strain of R. leguminosarum bv. phaseoli strain KIM5s to test
the nodulation competitiveness of 17 Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. phaseoli and 3 R. tropici
strains. They found that strains which could use simple aromatic compounds were generally more competitive. Kalinowski and Long37 used fusions between deletion derivatives of
a selected nod gene and gusA to monitor expression levels in free-living conditions and in
planta.
6.4.2. Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria (PGPR) of the Genus Azospirillum

Bacteria living in the rhizosphere and favorably affecting plant growth are denominated Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR). PGPR of the genus Azospirillum
were initially studied because of their association with Gramineae and because of their ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen.38 Field trials, however, indicated that bacterial nitrogen is
not responsible for the enhanced plant growth observed upon Azospirillum inoculation.39
The observation that inoculation of plant roots with Azospirillum results in a clear plant
root proliferation intensified the study of bacterial phytohormone biosynthesis. For the
azospirilla to exert their beneficial effect, it is well recognized that rhizosphere colonization
is a prerequisite for enhancing plant growth. Aspects of bacterial rhizosphere colonization
include chemotactic motility, adherence to the plant root surface and utilization of rhizosphere nutrients.
The study of an associative plant-bacterium interaction is hampered by the lack of an
easily detectable plant phenotype following inoculation. To visualize the Azospirillum-plant
root association, A. brasilense strains carrying a constitutive gusA fusion (pFAJ31.13) were
constructed.31 pFAJ31.13 was constructed by inserting an A. brasilense gene library upstream
of a promoterless gusA gene and selecting a fusion for high -glucuronidase activity under
different physiological conditions. This fusion was then considered useful to localize
Azospirillum on wheat roots in colonization assays. During the first days of the association,
the bacterial cells were mainly found in the root hair zones (see Fig. 6.3) and at the sites of
lateral root emergence. Microscopic analysis of sections through colonized zones occasion-
95
Fig. 6.2. Section of an X-GlucA
stained alfalfa nodule, infected
with R. meliloti (nifH-gusA)
ally revealed the presence of azospirilla in the epidermis and cortex layers. No bacterial
penetration through the endodermis or vascular tissue was observed.
In a second study, the colonization of wheat roots by a selection of A. brasilense
mutants impaired in motility, chemotaxis and plant root attachment, carrying
pFAJ31.13, was evaluated. Two nonmotile and a generally nonchemotactic mutant were
found to be impaired in the primary colonization of the wheat roots. It can be
hypothesized, that key compounds are specifically secreted by the root hair zone of
the wheat roots to which Azospirillum is attracted.40,41
The expression of a translational A. brasilense nifH-gusA fusion was studied in
free-living conditions and during wheat root association.31 Free-living nifH expression was shown to occur only under nitrogen-limiting microaerobic conditions, suggesting the presence of nitrogen and oxygen-dependent control mechanisms for nif
gene expression in Azospirillum. Analysis of nifH gene expression and nitrogenase
activity during the Azospirillum-wheat root association indicated that both oxygen
and the availability of carbon sources are limiting factors for associative nitrogenfixation.
96
Fig. 6.3. Primary colonization of the wheat hair root zone by Azospirillum brasilense Sp245
(pFAJ31.13).
6.4.3. Root Colonization and Systemic Spreading of Azoarcus sp. Strain

BH72
Azoarcus sp.42 is an endorhizospheric isolate of Kallar grass. Kallar grass is an undomesticated C4 plant with high tolerance to soil salinity, alkalinity and waterstress. Similarly
as has been described for Azospirillum, colonization of Kallar grass by Azoarcus has been
studied using a constitutively expressed gusA fusion. For this, mutants of Azoarcus were
generated by transposon mutagenesis with Tn5-gusA1 (Table 6.1) and selected for constitutive GUS expression.33 Microscopic examination of Kallar grass treated with GUS-marked
wild-type Azoarcus revealed bacterial colonization inside and between cortex cells of the
roots. In particular, identity of the inoculant Azoarcus cells inside cells of roots was established by histochemical GUS staining.33
6.4.4. Plant-Pathogenic Bacteria

GUS was used to study the expression of the sod gene encoding superoxide dismutase
from Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris both ex planta and in planta.43 The formation
of active oxygen species (AOS) in plants is believed to be important in host defense mechanisms. Superoxide dismutase (SOD), among other microbial enzymes, protects the pathogenic
bacterium from the O2- produced by the plant by reduction to H2O2 and O2. Expression of a X.
campestris sod-gusA transcriptional fusion was monitored in bacterial strains released onto
plants. A clear induction of the sod-gusA fusion in in planta experiments could be observed.
The second burst of plant AOS production, typical for incompatible interactions, is stimulated
only by bacteria that cause a hypersensitive response. However, no difference in GUS activity
was measured following a compatible or an incompatible interaction of X. campestris on turnip and pepper, respectively. The gene was not induced by conditions mimicking the first
AOS burst, occurring both in compatible and incompatible interactions. These two observations suggest that the induction of the X. campestris SOD enzyme under in planta conditions is
not a direct response to extracellular O2- or H2O2.43
Xiao et al 44 performed site-directed Tn5-gusA1 mutagenesis on the hrp genes of
Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae. The hrp gene cluster functions in elicitation of the hypersensitive response when a nonhost plant species (or a resistant variety of a susceptible
plant species) is inoculated with P. syringae and is also required during pathogenesis in a
susceptible host. On the basis of the orientation of Tn5-gusA1 insertions and their relative
GUS activities in planta, the transcriptional organization of the P. syringae pv. syringae hrp
97
gene cluster could be deduced. Since levels of expression were similar in minimal medium
and during the early stages of interaction with tobacco cells, it was suggested that nutritional conditions, rather than a particular plant factor, affect expression of the hrp genes in
P. syringae pv. syringae.
6.5 Conclusion
The GUS system is a precise and robust reporter for gene expression, allowing transcriptional and translational fusions between the gene of interest and the gusA gene. The
main advantages of GUS are the absence of endogenous activity in plants, the existence of a
large number of commercially available substrates and the number of constructs facilitating the use of the E. coli gusA gene.
GUS has been used both as a reporter and marker in studies with rhizosphere bacteria,
e.g., the Rhizobium-legume symbiosis, PGPR, endophytic and phytopathogenic bacteria.
Histochemical assays allow the assessment of the localization of GUS marked rhizosphere
bacteria on plant roots. Quantitative assays exist to count the number of GUS marked bacteria in the rhizosphere.
GUS-marked recombinant Azospirillum strains have been used in field release experiments in Italy in 1994 and 1995. The gusA gene, under the control of the nptII promoter,
was inserted in the genome of Azospirillum brasilense (wild-type and strains altered in auxin
biosynthesis). The engineered strains were used for inoculation of sweet sorghum by
Agronomica (Italy) in collaboration with the University of Padua, in the framework of an
EU project. The GUS marker allowed monitoring of survival and spread of the recombinant bacteria in soil samples with a detection limit of 102 CFUs of GUS-marked strains per
gram soil.
Acknowledgments
M.L. and A.V.B. are recipients of a predoctoral and postdoctoral fellowship of the Fund
for Scientific Research, Flanders, respectively. J. Vanderleyden is a member of the MAREP
Concerted Action sponsored by the European Commission Biotechnology Programme,
DGXII.
References
1. Wilson KJ. Molecular techniques for the study of rhizobial ecology in the field. Soil Biol
Biochem 1995; 27:501-514.
2. Silhavy TJ, Beckwith JR. Uses of lac fusions for the study of biological problems. Microbiol
Rev 1985; 49:398-418.
3. Reuber TL, Long, SL, Walker GC. Regulation of Rhizobium meliloti exo genes in free-living
cells and in planta examined using TnphoA fusions. J Bacteriol 1991; 173:426-434.
4. de Weger L, Dekkers LC, van der Bij AJ et al. Use of bioluminescence markers to detect
Pseudomonas spp. in the rhizosphere. Appl Environ Microbiol 1991; 57:3641-3644.
5. Cebolla A, Ruiz-Berrasuero F, Palomares AJ. Stable tagging of Rhizobium meliloti with the
firefly luciferase gene for environmental monitoring. Appl Environ Microbiol 1993; 59:25112519.
6. Lindgren PB, Frederic R, Govindarajan AG. An ice nucleation gene reporter gene system
identification of inducible pathogenicity genes in Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola.
EMBO J 1989; 8:1291-1301.
7. Winstanley C, Morgan JA, Pickup R et al. Use of a xylE marker gene to monitor survival
of recombinant Pseudomonas populations in lake water by culture on nonselective media.
8. Buell CR, Anderson AJ. Expression of the aggA locus of Pseudomonas putida in vitro and
in planta as detected by the reporter gene xylE. Mol Plant-Microbe Int 1993; 6(3):331-340.
98
9. Chalfie M, Tu Y, Euskirchen G et al. Green fluorescent protein as a marker for gene expression. Science 1994; 263:802-805.
10. Jefferson RA, Kavanagh TA, Bevan MW. GUS fusions : -glucuronidase as a sensitive and
versatile gene fusion marker in higher plants. EMBO J 1987; 6(13):3901-3907.
11. Jefferson RA. Assaying chimeric genes in plants : The GUS gene fusion system. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 1987; 5:387-405.
12. Hu CH, Chee PP, Chesney RH et al. Intrinsic GUS-like activities in seed plants. Plant Cell
Reports 1990; 9:1-5.
13. Wilson K, Hughes SG, Jefferson RA. The Escherichia coli gus operon : introduction and
expression of the gus operon in E. coli and the occurrence and use of GUS in other bacteria. In : Gallagher SR, ed. GUS protocols. Using the GUS gene as a reporter of gene expression. San Diego : Academic Press, Inc. 1992:7-22.
14. Stoeber F. Etudes des proprits et de la biosynthse de la glucuronidase et de la glucuronide-permease chez Escherichia coli. Thse de Docteur des Sciences 1961; Universit de
Paris, France.
15. Jefferson RA, Burgess SM, Hirsh D. -glucuronidase from Escherichia coli as a gene-fusion
marker. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1986; 83:8447-8451.
16. Novel M, Novel G. Regulation of -glucuronidase synthesis in Escherichia coli K-12 : constitutive mutants specifically derepressed for uidA expression. J Bacteriol 1976; 127:406-417.
17. Novel M, Novel G. Regulation of -glucuronidase synthesis in Escherichia coli K-12 : pleiotropic constitutive mutations affecting uxu and uidA expression. J Bacteriol 1976;
127:418-432.
18. Tomasic J, Keglevic D. The kinetics of hydrolysis of synthetic glucuronic esters and glucuronic ethers by bovine liver and Escherichia coli -glucuronidase. Biochem J 1973; 133:789.
19. Taylor CB. Promoter fusion analysis: An insufficient measure of gene expression. The Plant
Cell 1997; 9:273-275.
20. Wilson KJ. gusA as a reporter gene to track microbes. In: Akkermans ADL, van Elsas JD,
de Bruijn FJ, eds. Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual. Dordrecht : The Netherlands, 1995.
21. Naleway JJ. Histochemical, spectrophotometric, and fluorometric GUS substrates. In:
Gallagher, SR, ed. GUS protocols. Using the GUS Gene as a Reporter of Gene Expression.
San Diego ; Academic Press, Inc. 1992: 61-76.
22. Fishman W, Nakajima Y, Anstiss C et al. Napthol AS-BI -D-glucuronidic acid: Its synthesis and suitability as a substrate for -glucuronidase. J Histochem Cytochem 1964;
12:298-305.
23. Sharma SB, Signer ER. Temporal and spatial regulation of the symbiotic genes of Rhizobium meliloti in planta revealed by transposon Tn5-gusA. Genes Dev 1990; 4:344-356.
24. Simon R, Quandt J, Klipp W. New derivatives of transposon Tn5 suitable for mobilization
of replicons, generation of operon fusions and indction of genes in gramnegative bacteria.
Gene 1989; 80:161-169.
25. Wilson KJ, Sessitsch A, Corbo J et al. -glucuronidase (GUS) transposons for ecological
and genetic studies of rhizobia and other gramnegative bacteria. Microbiology 1995;
141:1691-1705.
26. de Lorenzo V, Herrero M, Jakubzik U et al. Mini-Tn5 transposon derivatives for insertion
mutagenesis, promoter probing, and chromosomal insertion of cloned DNA in gramnegative
eubacteria. J Bacteriol 1990; 172:6568-6572.
27. Herrero M, de Lorenzo V, Timmis KT. Transposon vectors containing non-antibiotic resistance selection markers for cloning and stable chromosome insertion of foreign genes in
gramnegative bacteria. J Bacteriol 1990; 172:6557-6567.
28. Metcalf WW, Wanner BL. Construction of new -glucuronidase cassettes for makiing transcriptional fusions and their use with new methods for allele replacement. Gene 1993;
129:17-25.
29. Van den Eede G, Deblaere R, Goethals K et al. Broad host range and promoter selection
vectors for bacteria that interact with plants. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 1992 ; 5(3):228-234.
30. Parry SK, Sharma SB, Terzaghi EA. Construction of a bidirectional promoter probe vector
and its use in analysing nod gene expression in Rhizobium loti. Gene 1994; 150:105-109.
99
31. Vande Broek A, Michiels J, Van Gool A et al. Spatial-temporal colonization patterns of
Azospirillum brasilense on the wheat root surface and expression of the bacterial nifH gene
during association. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 1993; 2:261-266.
32. Christiansen-Weniger C, Vanderleyden J. Ammonium-excreting Azospirillum sp. become
intracellularly established in maize (Zea mays) para-nodules. Biol Fertil Soils 1993; 17:1-8.
33. Hurek T, Reinhold-Hurek B, van Montagu M et al. Root colonization and systemic spreading of Azoarcus sp. strain BH72 in grasses. J Bacteriol 1994; 176:1913-1923.
34. Xi C, Lambrecht M, Vanderleyden J et al. Bi-functional gfp-and gusA containing mini-Tn5
transposon derivatives for combined gene expression and bacterial localization studies. J
Microbiol Meth 1999; 35:85-92.
35. Vande Broek A, Michiels J, de Faria SM et al. Transcription of the Azospirillum brasilense
nifH gene is positively regulated by NifA and NtrA and is negatively controlled by the
cellular nitrogen status. Mol Gen Genet 1992; 232:279-283.
36. Streit W, Kosch K, Werner D. Nodulation competitiveness of Rhizobium leguminosarum
bv. phaseoli and Rhizobium tropici strains measured by glucuronidase (gus) gene fusion.
Biol Fertil Soils 1992; 14:140-144.
37. Kalinowski G, Long SR. Deletion analysis of the 5 untranslated region of the Rhizobium
meliloti nodF gene. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 1996; 9:869-873.
38. Beijerinck MW. ber ein Spirillum, welche freien Stikstoff binden kann ? Zentralbl Bakteriol
Parasitenkd Infektionskr Abt 1925; 63:353.
39. Okon Y, Vanderleyden J Root-associated Azospirillum species can stimulate plants. ASM
News 1997; 63:364-370.
40. Vande Broek A, Vanderleyden J. The role of bacterial motility, chemotaxis, and attachment in bacteria-plant interactions. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 1995; 8:800-810.
41. Vande Broek A, Lambrecht M, Vanderleyden J. Bacterial chemotactic motility is important
for the initiation of wheat root colonization by Azospirillum brasilense. Microbiology 1998;
144:2599-2606.
42. Reinhold-Hurek B, Hurek T, Gillis M et al. Azoarcus gen. nov., nitrogen-fixing
proteobacteria associated with roots of Kallar grass (Leptochloa fusca (L.) Kunth), and
description of two species, Azoarcus indigens sp. nov., and Azoarcus communis sp. nov. Int
J Syst Bacteriol 1993; 43:574-584.
43. Smith SG, Greer Wilson TJ, Maxwell Dow J et al. A gene for superoxide dismutase from
Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris and its expression during bacterial plant interactions. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 1996 ; 9:584-593.
44. Xiao Y, Lu Y, Heu S et al. Organization and environmental regulation of the Pseudomonas
syringae pv. syringae 61 hrp cluster. J Bacteriol 1992; 174:1734-1741.
CHAPTER 7
Using Green Fluorescent Protein

(GFP) as a Biomarker or Bioreporter
for Bacteria
J. R. Stoltzfus, J.K. Jansson and F.J. de Bruijn
7.1 Introduction
ince the cloning of the Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) gene from the jellyfish Aequorea
victoria,1 and its expression in other organisms,2 GFP has rapidly become an important
biomarker/bioreporter in a wide variety of eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms. The utility of GFP as a bioreporter/biomarker lies mainly in the simplicity of the biochemical reaction generating fluorescence. GFP expression and fluorescence does not depend on the
addition of co-factors or additional substrates, and only requires oxygen briefly for the autooxidation of GFP. When GFP is excited with light of the proper wavelength it autofluoresces.
Visualization of this fluorescence can be used to monitor gene expression, to localize proteins, to isolate novel genes, or to track tagged cells (For reviews see refs. 3-9). Because of
these advantages, GFP is replacing some of the traditional biomarkers/bioreporters used in
molecular microbial ecology, such as metabolic markers or luciferase markers which
require substrate addition and cellular energy reserves for visualization (For reviews see
refs. 6, 10, 11).
7.2 Properties of Wild-type GFP

Wild-type GFP (wt GFP) is a 27 kDa monomer consisting of 278 amino acid residues.1
In Aequorea victoria, GFP serves to convert blue chemiluminescence, generated by the protein aequorin, into green light.12 This conversion is accomplished by means of an internal
protein p-hydroxybenzylideneimidazolinone chromophore formed by the cyclization of three
amino acid residues of GFP, Ser-Tyr-Gly, followed by oxidation of the Tyr residue. These
essential three residues are located at positions 65-67 of the GFP protein.13 The formation
and activation of the GFP chromophore does not require additional enzymes or cofactors,
and therefore heterologous expression of GFP in numerous organisms has been shown to
result in fluorescence.3 The wtGFP absorbs light with an excitation maximum of 395 nm,
with a second excitation peak at 470 nm and it fluoresces with an emission maximum of
510 nm.14,15
The excitation/emission characteristics of GFP have important implications for its use
as a biomarker/bioreporter. The 470 nm excitation peak allows observation of wtGFP fluorescence with a standard fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) excitation-emission filter set, or
with the 488 nm line of an argon laser, equipped with appropriate filters. This allows the
102
detection of GFP using fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS), flow cytometry,

epifluorescent microscopy and laser-scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM).
The fluorescence emission of the wtGFP when excited with longer wavelength light is
less intense than its emission when excited with shorter wavelength light. This renders
detection of the low levels of fluorescence emitted from wtGFP expressed in some bacteria
problematic. On the other hand, excitation of wtGFP with longer wavelength light causes
less photobleaching than excitation with shorter wavelength light, making longer wavelength light a better choice for exciting GFP.2 One possible reason for the low fluorescence
emission levels observed when wtGFP is expressed in selected bacteria is that much of the
wtGFP produced is found in inclusion bodies in an insoluble non-fluorescent form.16 For
example, populations of E. coli cells containing plasmids encoding wtGFP give rise to a
non-fluorescent subpopulation, presumably due to formation of inclusion bodies.17,18 A
similar effect has been observed in clonal populations of Pseudomonas putida tagged with
wtGFP.19
7.3. Improving GFP Fluorescence

GFP from the sea pansy Renilla reniformis contains the same chromophore as GFP
from Aequorea victoria. However, the GFP from R. reniformis has a single excitation peak at
498 nm. This difference is presumably due to the difference in amino acid residues surrounding the chromophore in the mature protein.15 Neither the isolated chromophore, nor
the denatured protein at neutral pH, are fluorescent.13 These data suggested that changing
the protein environment (amino acid sequence) around the chromophore of GFP could
change the excitation/emission characteristics of GFP.
A number of methods to generate GFP mutants with altered excitation-emission spectra
and enhanced emission intensities have been used to increase the utility of GFP as a biomarker/
bioreporter (See Table 7.1). For example, hydroxylamine treatment and error-prone PCR were
used to generate mutant cDNAs encoding new versions of GFP.16 Colonies of E. coli harboring
mutant cDNAs were screened for changes in emission color and brightness when excited with
375 vs 495 nm light. Five mutants were identified in this screen. Three of these mutants (H9, P9
and P11, Table 7.1) displayed significant alterations in excitation maxima, with little or no
effect on emission spectra, and had an enhanced fluorescence level. None of these three
mutants contained changes in the chromophore-forming residues. The other two mutants, P4
and W, both harbored substitutions at position 66, which forms part of the chromophore, and
exhibited blue fluorescence. In addition, the excitation maxima of mutant W was increased
(Table 7.1).
Site-directed mutagenesis of the serine residue at position 65 yielded four mutants of
GFP with single excitation peaks in the 470-490 nm range and an enhanced level of light
emission.20 The S65T mutant GFP was found to fold four times faster than wtGFP, making
it useful for applications requiring rapid detection of fluorescence following protein production. The faster folding may also partially explain the increased emission levels from the
mutant protein.
Additional mutagenesis of primary GFP mutants yielded versions of GFP with multiple mutations and enhanced emission properties. Two variants had lower wavelength emission than wtGFP, making it possible to obtain three distinct color emissions. Fluorescence
resonance energy transfer (FRET) between two version of GFP was also demonstrated.21
In another study, optimized combinatorial mutagenesis of amino acid residues 64-69
was used to create mutations in the GFP chromophore.22 The mutant proteins were screened
for GFP with an enhanced excitation maximum using Digital Imaging Spectroscopy. These
mutant proteins were named Red-Shifted GFP (RSGFP, Table 7.1). No comparison of
their fluorescence intensity with wtGFP was carried out. Two other GFP mutants (GFP/2031
Using Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) as a Biomarker or Bioreporter for Bacteria
103
Table 7.1. GFP mutants. List of GFP variants giving the mutant name, amino acid
changes, excitation wavelength, emission wavelength, and relative intensity to
wtGFP
GFP name
Residues mutatated
Excitation
(nm)a
Emission
(nm)b
Relative
intensityc
wtGFP
None
395/470
509
H9
S202F
398
511
1.17
16
P9
I167V
471/396
502
1.66
16
P11
I167T
471/396
502
1.88
16
P4
Y66H
382
448
0.57
16
Y66W
458
480
ND
16
S65-T
S65T
490
510
20
Cycle 3
F100S, M145T,
V164A
385
510
18
25
RSGFP4
F64M, S65G, Q69L
490
505
ND
22
GFPmut1
(EGFP)
F64L, S65T
488
507
30-50
24
GFPmut2
S65A, V68L, S72A
481
507
80-100
24
GFPmut3
S65G, S72A
501
511
70-80
24
GFPT203I
T203I
400
512
ND
23
GFPE222G
E222G
481
506
ND
23
GFPmut3*
gfp(AAV,
LVA, LAA,
or ASV)
S2R, S65G,S72A
GFPmut3* with
instability tail added
501
501
511
511
70-80
70-80
26
26
S65A
S65A
ND
505
70
S65G
S65G
ND
513
70
P4-3
Y66H, Y145F
381
445
21
W7
Y66W, N146I,
M153T, V163A,
N212K
433
475
21
V2
Y66W, I123V,
Y145H, H148R,
M153T, V163A,
N212K
432
480
21
P4-1
S65T, M153A,
K238E
504
514
ND
21
NDno data was given in the paper sited

aDifferent methods were used to determine peak excitation. See the reference for details.
bDifferent methods were used to determine peak emission. See the reference for details.
cDifferent methods were used to determine relative intensity. See the reference for details.
Ref.
104
and GFP222G, Table 7.1) were created using a strain of E. coli deficient in DNA polymerase
proofreading.23 One mutant was not fluorescent when excited with 395 nm light; the other
mutant was not fluorescent when excited with 470 nm light, although they were fluorescent
when excited at 400 or 481 nm, respectively. Neither of the corresponding mutations mapped
to the chromophore.
In another study, a codon-based mutagenesis scheme was used to mutate amino acid
residues in ositions 55-74 and a FACS machine to isolate red-shifted GFP mutants, mut1,
mut2 and mut3 (Table 7.1) with increased fluorescence intensity (30-100x wtGFP).24 These
authors found that 90-100% of the mutant protein was soluble, which probably contributes
to the enhanced level of emission. The authors also suggested that the mutations may result
in faster chromophore formation and increased 488 nm excitation. Using DNA shuffling, a
non-redshift mutant of GFP was isolated that remains soluble and has emission levels 18
times higher that of wtGFP.25 The different mutants described above have greatly increased
the utility of GFP as a biomarker/bioreporter in bacterial systems.
Variants that change the stability of GFP in bacteria have also been developed. Andersen
et al added short peptide sequences to GFP that cause bacterial proteases to degrade the
protein at different rates, generating GFP variants with shorter half lives.26 These mutant
GFPs allow studies of temporal gene expression.
The Gfp gene has also been specifically mutated to optimize expression in non-bacterial systems. Many of these mutants have codon usage optimized for a particular organism.
For example, GFP mutants have been developed for yeast, plants and mammalian cells (For
reviews see refs. 3,27). Therefore, it is now possible for researchers to select from a number
of GFP variants with different excitation and emission maxima and fluorescence levels (see
Table 7.1). Careful selection of a GFP variant suited for a particular application can maximize the utility of this marker.28
In some cases, there are problems that remain to be overcome, even when using the
more optimized mutant derivatives of GFP. For example, clonal populations of bacteria
expressing mutant derivatives of GFP may sometimes still exhibit variable levels of fluorescence.29 There have also been reports of no detectable fluorescence in bacteria containing
GFP, even when the Gfp gene is controlled by a promoter known to be active in that bacterium. For example, Kremer et al observed blue color in all E. coli cells harboring a plasmid
with the lacZ gene controlled by a heat shock promoter (hsp60).30 However, when the lacZ
gene in this plasmid was replaced with the Gfp gene, no fluorescence was observed. Egener
et al. (1998) observed fluorescence in Azoarcus sp BH72 harboring the gene encoding
GFPmut2 under the control of the nifH promoter.31 However, they could not detect fluorescence in bacteria harboring the genes encoding wtGFP or the P11 mutant GFP expressed
from the same promoter. Bacteria harboring a vector containing a kanamycin resistance
gene and the P11 Gfp gene, both expressed from a PpsbA promoter, were resistant to kanamycin but were not fluorescent (Stoltzfus and de Bruijn, unpublished data). The exact reasons for lack of detectable fluorescence have not been elucidated.
Toxicity of GFP can also be a problem when GFP is expressed at high levels in bacteria.
For example, E. coli cells harboring high copy-number plasmids strongly expressing
GFPmut1were found to be prone to cell lysis.32
However, it is now usually the case that by careful choice of mutant GFP, expression
levels and copy number (for example by chromosomal integration) most if not all of these
problems can be overcome.
7.4. Detection of GFP

As GFP requires no additional substrate for fluorescence,2 detection is basically noninvasive, requiring no pre-detection processing and allows rapid and accurate in vivo/in
105
situ analyses. GFP also allows detection of tagged bacteria regardless of the energy status of
the cells.17,33 A wide variety of detection methods suitable for analysis of bacteria expressing
GFP are available which enables optimization of the experimental design to address multiple relevant biological questions without the compromises sometimes associated with
biomarkers that require special detection protocols. These methods include the following:
1. visualization of bacterial colonies on plates using blue light illumination,
2. visualization of colonies or individual cells using an epifluorescence microscope,
3. visualization of single cells and three dimensional imaging of the pattern of cell
aggregation/colonization in samples using a laser-scanning confocal microscope,
4. visualization of gross aggregation/colonization patterns by tagged bacteria on
samples such as plant tissue using fluorescence stereomicroscopy,
5. counting fluorescent cells using flow cytometry,
6. screening bacterial collections using fluorescent microtiter plate readers, and
7. quantitation of fluorescence in suspensions using spectrofluorimetry. In some cases
the use of image enhancement software may be needed to distinguish the fluorescence of tagged bacteria from background autofluorescence, such as observed in
root or soil samples.17,34 Several reviews detailing these techniques are available (for
reviews see refs. 10,11, 35). An important development has been the development
of a filter set optimized for detection of GFP by epifluorescence microscopy.36
More specialized techniques for observing GFP-mediated fluorescence have also been
described. For example, scanning near-field optical/atomic force microscopy has been used
for determination of the spatial localization of tagged bacteria in liquid,37 and video-endoscopy has been employed to detect GFP expression in situ.38 Specialized software can create
three-dimensional images from optical sections made from samples containing GFP labeled bacteria using a laser scanning confocal microscope. Because GFP detection is noninvasive, real time and time-lapse videos can be used to track cells (or proteins) labeled with
GFP (For a review see 5). Studies using different GFP mutants have been carried out using
double and even triple labeling allowing simultaneous detection of multiple targets in the
same sample.21,39-41
7.5. GFP as a Biomarker in Bacteria

GFP has been used as a biomarker in a variety of bacterial strains. A partial list of the
bacterial species studied and the types of studies performed is presented in Table 7.2.
Use of constitutive or inducible promoters to express GFP in bacterial cells allows tracking of tagged cells in the environment and visualization of their location.10 Constitutive
expression can be obtained by cloning GFP into a vector containing a promoter known to
be constitutively expressed in the bacterium of interest (for example, see ref. 17). Alternatively, constitutive expression can be obtained by random insertion of a promoterless Gfp
gene into the bacterial genome and screening for strains that are fluorescent under particular physiological conditions.19 Inducible expression of GFP can be obtained using inducible
promoters such as Plac or PF10 .42,43
Bacteria marked with GFP can also be monitored for movement and survival in the
environment. For example, a promoterless GFP-containing transposon was used to obtain
fluorescent P. putida strains and to monitor their movement through columns of defined
medium.19 These authors also performed similar experiments with E. coli cells harboring a
plasmid containing the Gfp gene under control of the inducible Plac promoter. In addition,
E. coli cells with GFP controlled by a constitutive promoter were monitored to study their
survival in stream water.44 GFP was also used to monitor Moraxella cells during degradation of p-nitrophenol in broth cultures and soil by enumeration of green fluorescent colonies.45 Tombolini et al used a Tn5 derivative transposon containing the Gfp gene expressed
Type of study
Localize proteins involved in septum formation

and study their interactions
Create promoter fusions
Monitor cells during bioremediation of

4-chlorophenol contaminated soil
Observe Azoarcus expressing nif genes in soil

and on rice roots
Localize proteins involved in sporulation

septum formation

septum formation
Localize proteins involved in chromosomal

partitioning
Localize proteins to determine where processing

takes place
Localize Hbsu
Localize gene expression and proteins involved

in sporulation
Localize proteins involved in chromosomal

partitioning
Organism
Agrobacterium
tumefaciens A136
Alcaligenes eutrophus
Arthrobacter
chlorophenolicus A6
Azoarcus sp BH72
Bacillus megaterium
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis
chromosomal
integration
chromosomal
integration
chromosomal
integration
chromosomal
integration
chromosomal
integration
chromosomal
integration
chromosomal
integration
chromosomal
integration
chromosomal
integration
mini-Tn5
mini-Tn5
plasmid
Type of Vector
pDL50B
pSG1141,pSG1147
pPK9C8
pF1
pSG1517
pSG1044
pCW28
pIIE-GFP-T
pBHFN35
pUTgfp
pAG408
pAEG3, pZEG3,
and related plasmids
Vector Name
S65-T
wtGFP
wtGFP
S65-T
S65-T
wtGFP
wtGFP
GFPmut2
P11
Cycle 3
GFPmut2
GFP mutant
64
72
63
60
62
59
58
57
31
46
68
56
Ref.
Table 7.2. GFP Marked Bacteria. List of bacteria in which GFP has been used as a biomarker/bioreporter. The table lists the genus
and species of bacteria used in the study, the type of vector, the name of the vector and the GFP variant carried on the vector
106
plasmid
plasmid
Study chromosome partitioning

septum formation
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis
Escherichia coli
pGFP
pUTgfplux
plasmid
mini-Tn5
Monitor floc stability in activated sludge
Detection and counting of bacteria using GFP

and monitoring their energy status using luxAB
plasmid
Study chromosome and plasmid partitioning
Escherichia coli K12
Monitor cells during degradation of

p.-nitrophenol in broth and in soil
Observe infection of macrophages

and epithelial cells
Moraxella sp.
Mycobacterium avium
Escherichia coli K12

Study plasmid partitioning
HB101
Escherichia coli NM522 Track movement of bacteria through a
column of sand
plasmid
Monitor persistence of bacteria in stream

water using microscopy
Escherichia coli JM109
plasmid
pWES4
pJBA28
pGFP
plasmid
mini-Tn5
pSopB-GFP
pSg20
pGFP
pAEG1, pZEG1,
pURE-RD-GFP
plasmid
plasmid

and study their interactions
Escherichia coli JM105
plasmid
Correlate ureD expression with urea

concentrations
Escherichia coli DH5a
pK3G
pDR112,pDR123
Escherichia coli 01
Escherichia coli DH5a
plasmid
Escherichia coli
pAG, pCSK100, pGZ,pZG
pCH50
pSG1902
pSG1151
pAT3, pAT11, pCW13,

pCW15, pCW33, pCW37
Vector Name
Escherichia coli
Escherichia coli
phage
chromosomal
integration
chromosomal
integration
chromosomal
integration
Study the expression of genes regulated by

sporulation
Bacillus subtilis
Type of Vector
Type of study
Organism
wtGFP
GFP mut2
wtGFP
S65-T
wtGFP
GFPmut2
GFPmut2
P11
wtGFP
GFPmut2
GFPmut2
GFPmut2
S65-T
GFPmut1
wtGFP
GFP mutant
52
45
19
67
66
44
56
77
33
18
76
75
55
74
61
65
73
Ref.

107
Observe ureD gene expression by bacteria in

bladders and kidneys of infected mice
Proteus mirabilis
HI4320
Pseudoaltermonas sp.
plasmid
plasmid
plasmid
plasmid
plasmid
plasmid
mini-Tn5
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Create promoter fusions

PA01
Pseudomonas
chlororaphis MA 342
Visualize pattern of cell aggregation on

barley seeds
plasmid
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Observe fluorescent intensity and plasmid

stability and distinguish tagged bacteria
in mixed cultures
Investigate colonization behaviour of a marine

mini-Tn10
isolate on squid pen (a natural biodegradable substrate)
Use as a promoter probe for bacterial promoters
Study expression patterns of different promoters

in bacteria grown in macrophages
Mycobacterium
marinum
Mycobacterium
smegmatis
Mycobacterium
smegmatis
Visualize bacteria infecting host cells and count

infected cells using flow cytometry
Mycobacterium bovis
BCG
Test for fluorescence
plasmid
Observe infection of cell line from mice
Mycobacterium bovis
BCG
Mycobacterium
smegmatis
Used to test drug susceptibility, response to

plasmid
environmental signals and localize bacteria in vivo
plasmid
Study expression patterns of different

promoters in bacteria grown in macrophages
Mycobacterium bovis
BCG
chromosomal
integration
Observe infection of macrophages

and epithelial cells
Mycobacterium avium
Type of Vector
Type of study
Organism
wtGFP
GFP mutant
PUTgfp2
pIVET-GFP
pSMC2
mini-Tn10-gfp-kan
pURE-RD-GFP
pGFM-12
P11
GFPmut3
GFPmut2
GFPmut2
GFPmut2
wtGFP
wtGFP
wtGFP
phsp60-gfp, pMlaphc-gfp,
pMtaphc-gfp, pmtra-gfp,
ptbprc3-gfp
pGFM-11
wtGFP
S65-T
wtGFP
pFPV2
pYL mutGFP
pGFM-11
phsp60-gfp,
wtGFP
pMlaphc-gfp, pMtaphc-gfp,
pmtra-gfp, ptbprc3-gfp
pMV306(hsp 60/gfp)
Vector Name
49
69
50
80
77
30
30
78
79
51
30
78
52
Ref.
108
Counting of bacteria using GFP and monitoring

their energy status using luxAB
Visualize bacteria infecting host cells and count

plasmid
pFPV1
TOL-gfp (RP1::GFP)
plasmid
Yersinia
pseudotuberculosis
pFVP25
plasmid
Salmonella typhimurium Find acid induced promoters and test for

expression by bacteria in macrophages
Serratia marcescen
Monitor floc stability in activated sludge
pFPV1
plasmid
pUTgfp
Detect VBNC cells in groundwater microcosms
Salmonella typhi
Salmonella typhimurium Visualize bacteria infecting host cells and count

mini-Tn5
Localize proteins involved in septum

formation and study their interactions
Sinorhizobium
meliloti MB501
pTB93F
pAG408
pAEG3, pZEG3,
plasmid
plasmid
mini-Tn5
TOL-gfp (RP1::GFP)
plasmid
Visualize nodulation of Meticago sativa

by bacteria
pJBA30, pJBA26
mini-Tn5
Tn5GFP1
pAG408
pRL765gfp
Tn5
derivative
mini-Tn5
Tn5
Pseudomonas sp B13
Sinorhizobium
meliloti 1021
Pseudomonas
Track movement of bacteria through
putida mt-2
a column of sand
Pseudomonas putida R1 Observe gene induction and bacterial
location in a bioreactor
Pseudomonas
Monitor plasmid transfer by conjugation
putida KT2442
pUTgfplux
mini-Tn5
Monitor conjugal plasmid transfer in the

phylloplane of bush bean
Pseudomonas
fluorescens AS12
Pseudomonas
fluorescens SBW25
Pseudomonas
putida KT2442
TOL::gfpmut3b
plasmid
Monitor bacteria in culture, soil samples,

and on roots with flow cytometry and microscopy
pGB5
Pseudomonas
fluorescens A506
plasmid
Observe fluorescent intensity and plasmid

stability and localize bacteria on plant roots
Vector Name
Pseudomonas
fluorescens WCS365
Type of Vector
Type of study
Organism
wtGFP
wtGFP
GFPmut3
wtGFP
wt GFP
GFPmut2
S65-T
Cycle 3
tGFP
GFPmut3b
wtGFP
Cycle 3
P11
GFPmut3b
P11
GFPmut2
GFP mutant
79
18
79
79
47
56
34
68
42
71
19
68
33
43
17
50
Ref.

109
110
from a constitutive promoter to tag P. fluorescens cells, and showed that the tagged cells
could be detected by flow cytometry, epifluorescent microcopy and laser-scanning confocal
microscopy. 17
In addition, dual tagging experiments using GFP and bacterial luciferase has allowed
simultaneous tracking of tagged bacteria cells and monitoring of their energy status (by
luciferase activity) in soil microcosms.33 Similarly, Arthrobacter chlorophenolicus cells were
tagged with either GFP or the firefly luciferase gene (luc) in order to monitor Arthrobacter
cells during bioremediation of 4-chlorophenol in soil.46 GFP-tagged cells could be enumerated in soil by flow cytometry, after extraction of the bacterial soil fraction by density gradient
centrifugation to remove soil particles and debris that would otherwise interfere with flow
cytometric measurements.33,46 GFP fluorescent A. chlorophenolicus 46 or P. fluorescens 33 cells
could be counted at relatively stable levels after inoculation to soil, compared to counts
based on CFU or luciferase expression, which decreased during incubation. These experiments demonstrate the utility of GFP as a stable marker for counting the total number of
tagged cells in environmental samples, regardless of their metabolic activity or culturability.
However, it is possible that some of the cells that were counted in such experiments are
dead.33,46 Recent studies in our laboratory and in others have shown that viable but nonculturable cells (see Chapter 1) can still retain GFP fluorescence.47,48
GFP can also be used to monitor transfer of plasmids between bacteria. Christensen et
al used a plasmid containing GFP controlled by an inducible promoter, PF10, to monitor
plasmid transfer on semi-solid surfaces.42 The P. putida donor strain did not contain the T7
RNA polymerase gene and therefore the T7 PF10 promoter was inactive and the bacteria
were not fluorescent. The recipient strain carried the T7 RNA polymerase gene integrated
in its chromosome. T7 RNA polymerase activates the PF10 promoter and hence any recipient that captured PF10-GFP became fluorescent. Thus, fluorescence resulted only when the
plasmid was transferred to the recipient strain. A similar system was used with GFP expression regulated by Plac to observe plasmid transfer in the phylloplane of bush beans and on
polycarbonate filters.43
7.5.1. Localizing Bacteria in situ

As illustrated above, bacteria marked with GFP can clearly be visualized in situ, allowing identification of the environmental niche they occupy. One research area that has greatly
benefited from the use of GFP has been the localization of plant-associated bacteria. An
example of the use of GFP as a marker to localize specific bacteria directly on plant surfaces
is shown in Fig. 7.1. In this study, the biocontrol strain P. chlororaphis MA 342, which controls fungal disease on cereal crops, was chromosomally tagged with two copies of the Gfp
gene to enhance GFP fluorescence, and enabling visualization of the pattern of colonization
of the cells on barley seeds by fluorescence stereomicroscopy and confocal microscopy
(Fig. 7.1).49 We have also used bacteria marked with a transposon containing GFP to monitor the interactions between rice roots and endophytic bacteria (Stoltzfus and de Bruijn,
unpublished data). Moreover, Gage et al used confocal microscopy to monitor early events
in rhizobial infection and nodule formation on alfalfa using a Sinorhizobium meliloti isolate
carrying a plasmid constitutively expressing GFP,34 and Bloemberg et. al used a combination of phase contrast and fluorescence microscopy to distinguish Pseudomonas aeruginosa
cells containing plasmid-borne GFP from untagged Burkholderia cepacia bacteria attached
to an abiotic surface.50 These authors also monitored GFP-tagged P. fluorescens bacteria
associated with the roots of tomato seedlings by fluorescence microscopy.
There are several other published examples of the use of GFP as a marker for in situ
localization of bacteria in other kinds of environments. For example, GFP-marked E. coli
and Serratia marcescens cells have also been used to study flocculation in activated sludge by
111
Fig. 7.1. Confocal microscope projection of a stack of images of individual GFP-tagged Pseudomonas chlororaphis MA342G2 cells (white spots on this figure) distributed on the outer surface of a
barley seed coat or glume (large cells). A model LSM501 laser scanning confocal microscope
(Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany) was used. The images are the result of pseudocolor merging of the
output of three channels. Three-dimensional rendering of the stack of images was obtained by
using the software 3D for LSM510, version 1.4 (Carl Zeiss).
confocal microscopy.18 In addition, Mycobacterium bovis cells were marked with GFP to
follow their infection of mice cells using flow cytometry.30,51 The infection of human macrophages and epithelial cells by Mycobacterium avium marked with GFP has also been observed,52 and Valdivia et al used GFP to visualize infection of live mammalian cells by Salmonella typhimurium, Yersinia pseudotuberculosis and Mycobacterium marinum.53
7.6. GFP as a Bioreporter in Bacteria

The fusion of GFP to a protein of interest and monitoring of the expression of the
fusion product in vivo permits the assessment of the cellular localization of the fusion protein (For reviews see refs. 3,5,6,8). Although GFP looses its fluorescence when truncated,3
the full-length protein can be used successfully in both C-terminal and N-terminal protein
fusions.54
GFP has been used extensively as a bioreporter to study cell division in bacteria. For
example, Ma et al have created fusions of the cell division proteins FtsZ and FtsA to GFP in
E. coli cells and reported that both C-terminal and N-terminal fusions of FtsZ with GFP
showed midcell localization and polymerization.55 FtsZ and FtsA interactions have also been
examined with GFP fusions in Agrobacterium tumefaciens and S. meliloti.56 GFP has also
been used to study proteins involved in septation during vegetative division and sporulation in Bacillus.57-61
112
The localization of proteins involved in chromosome behavior has also been studied
using GFP. 62-64 Webb et al used a GFP-LacI fusion to localize specific regions of the B. subtilis
chromosome in vegetative and sporulating cells by inserting a lacO cassette at specific sites
in the chromosome.65 The same system was used to compare chromosome and plasmid
behavior during replication of E. coli.66,67
Promoterless GFP constructs can also be used to screen for promoters that are induced
under a specific set of physiological conditions. For example, Kremer et al inserted fragments of the M. bovis genome in front of the Gfp gene and found that 3 to 5% of the chimeric genes showed differing levels of fluorescence on agar plates.30 Suarez et al. (1997)
developed both plasmid and mini-Tn5-based promoterless GFP vectors.68 P. putida,
Pseudomonas sp B13 and Alcaligenes eutrophus were mutated with mini-Tn5::GFP. Up to
5% of the bacteria with chromosomal integration of the mini-Tn5 were fluorescent, displaying varied levels of expression. Moreover, a promoterless GFP vector was developed
that allows rapid selection for active promoters by fusing aspartate -semialdehyde dehydrogenase with GFP and using it as a selectable marker in Asd- strains.69 Another example
of the utility of GFP as a bioreporter is the construction of pGreenscript.70 In this vector
GFP replaces the -galactosidase (lacZ gene) as the marker for insertion of DNA in the
multiple cloning site of the popular cloning vector pBluescript.
Biomarking can be combined with bioreporting to obtain spatial and temporal information on gene expression in situ. For example, a nifH promoter-GFP fusion has been used
to monitor expression of nitrogen-fixing genes in Azoarcus sp. BH72 in soil and on rice
roots.31 Moreover, Mller et al used P. putida cells containing the Gfp gene expressed from
promoters controlling the expression of proteins involved in the biodegradation of toluene
to visualize gene expression in flow chambers and observed the effects of various community members on gene induction.71 These studies demonstrate that key activities of microbial communities in environmental samples can be specifically investigated in situ using
GFP as a reporter.
7.7. Conclusion
The large number of studies employing GFP as a biomarker/bioreporter clearly demonstrate the value and versatility of GFP. GFP is particularly useful for visualization of single
cells or cell aggregates in environmental samples without the need for any substrate addition. Cells tagged with GFP can be monitored by a range of fluorescence detection methods
including flow cytometry and fluorescence microscopy. GFP also can be used to quantitate
the number of cells of a particular cell population, regardless of the energy status of the
cells. This is in contrast to most of the other existing markers available, such as luciferase
markers, that require the cells to be metabolically active to be detected. While problems
with GFP as a biomarker/bioreporter in bacteria have been encountered, many have been
overcome by using mutant versions of GFP, adding appropriate translation initiation sites,
or adding flexible linkers to protein fusions. The many successful studies using GFP and the
continued development of new techniques incorporating GFP will undoubtedly lead to the
use of GFP in more species of bacteria to answer diverse questions in molecular microbial
ecology.
Acknowledgments
Jon R. Stoltzfus and Frans J. de Bruijn gratefully acknowledge support for studies carried out at MSU from the NSF Center for Microbial Ecology (CME; grant no. DEB9120006),
from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and from the Department of Energy
(DOE; grant no. DE-FG02-91ER20021). Janet K. Jansson gratefully acknowledges support
from the Swedish Council for Engineering Science, the Carl Tryggers Foundation the Swed-
113
ish Foundation for Environmental Research and the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research. Both F.J. de Bruijn and J.K. Jansson are partners of the MAREP Concerted Action
sponsored by the European Commission Biotechnology Programme, DGXII.
References
1. Prasher DC, Eckenrode VK, Ward WW et al. Primary structure of the Aequorea victoria
green-fluorescent protein. Gene 1992; 111(2):229-233.
2. Chalfie M, Tu Y, Euskirchen G et al. Green fluorescent protein as a marker for gene expression. Science 1994; 263(5148):802-805.
3. Cubitt AB, Heim R, Adams SR et al. Understanding, improving and using green fluorescent proteins. Trends Biochem Sci 1996; 20(11):448-455.
4. Errampalli D, Leung, K, Cassidy MB et al. Applications of the green fluorescent protein as
a molecular marker in environmental microorganisms. J Microbiol Meth 1999; 35:187-199.
5. Gerdes HH and Kaether C. Green fluorescent protein: applications in cell biology. FEBS
Lett 1996; 389(1):44-47.
6. Jansson JK, and de Bruijn FJ. Biomarkers and Bioreporters to track microbes and monitor
their gene expression. In: Davies J, ed. Manual of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2nd ed. Washington DC: ASM Press, 1999:651-665.
7. Kendall JM, Badminton MN. Aequorea victoria bioluminescence moves into an exciting
new era. TIBTECH 1998; 16:216-224.
8. Misteli T and Spector DL. Applications of the green fluorescent protein in cell biology and
biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology 1997; 15(10):961-964.
9. Tsien RY. The green fluorescent protein. Ann Rev Biochem 1998; 67:509-544.
10. Unge A, Tombolini R, Davey ME et al. GFP as a Marker Gene. In: Akkermans ADL, van
Elsas JD, de Bruijn FJ, eds. Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998; 6.1.13:1-16.
11. Tombolini R and Jansson JK Monitoring of GFP tagged bacterial cells. Methods in Molecular Biology 1998; 102:285-298.
12. Prasher DC. Using GFP to see the light. Trends Genet 1995; 11(8):320-323.
13. Cody CW, Prasher DC, Westler WM et al. Chemical structure of the hexapeptide chromophore of the Aequorea green-fluorescent protein. Biochemistry 1993; 32(5):1212-1218.
14. Morise JG, Shimomura O, Johnson FH et al. Intermolecular energy transfer in the bioluminescent system of Aequorea. Biochemistry 1974; 13:2656-2662.
15. Ward WW, Cody CW, Prasher DC et al. Spectrophotometric identity of the energy-transfer chemophores in Renilla and Aequorea green-fluorescent protein. Photochem Photobiol
1980; 31:611-615.
16. Heim R, Prasher DC, and Tsien RY. Wavelength mutations and posttranslational autoxidation of the green fluorescent protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1994; 91(26):12501-12504.
17. Tombolini R, Unge A, Davey MA et al. Flow cytometric and microscopic analysis of GFPtagged Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1997; 22:17-28.
18. Olofsson AC, Zita A and Hermansson M. Floc stability and adhesion of green-fluorescentprotein-marked bacteria to flocs in activated sludge. Microbiology 1998; 144(2):519-528.
19. Burlage RS, Yang ZK, and Mehlhorn T. A transposon for green fluorescent protein transcriptional fusions: Application for bacterial transport experiments. Gene 1996; 173(1);53-58.
20. Heim R, Cubitt AB and Tsien RY. Improved green fluorescence. Nature 1995; 373(6516):
663-664.
21. Heim R, and Tsien RY. Engineering green fluorescent protein for improved brightness,
longer wavelength and fluorescence resonance energy transfer. Curr. Biol. 1996;
6(2):178-182.
22. Delagrave S, Hawtin RE, Silva CM et al. Red-shifted excitation mutants of the green fluorescent protein. Biotechnology 1995; 13(2):151-154.
23. Ehrig T, OKane DJ and Prendergast FG. Green-fluorescent protein mutants with altered
fluorescence excitation spectra. FEBS Lett. 1995; 367(2):163-166.
114
24. Cormack BP, Valdivia RH and Falkow S. FACS-optimized mutants of the green fluorescent protein (GFP). Gene 1996; 173(1):33-38.
25. Crameri A, Whitehorn EA, Tate E et al. Improved green fluorescent protein by molecular
evolution using DNA shuffling. Nat Biotechnol 1996; 14(3):315-319.
26. Andersen JB, Sternberg C, Poulsen LK et al. New unstable variants of green fluorescent
protein for studies of transient gene expression in bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 1988;
64(6):2240-2246.
27. Stauber RH, Horie K, Carney P et al. Development and applications of enhanced green
fluorescent protein mutants. Biotechniques 1998; 24(3):462-466.
28. Patterson GH, Knobel SM, Sharif WD et al. Use of the green fluorescent protein and its
mutants in quantitative fluorescence microscopy. Biophys J 1997; 73(5):2782-2790.
29. Matthysse AG, Stretton S, Dandie C et al. Construction of GFP vectors for use in Gramnegative bacteria other than Escherichia coli. FEMS Microb Lett 1996; 145(1):87-94.
30. Kremer L, Baulard A, Estaquier J et al. Green fluorescent protein as a new expression marker
in mycobacteria. Molecular Microbiology 1995; 17(5):913-922.
31. Egener T, Hurek T and Reinhold-Hurek B. Use of green fluorescent protein to detect expression of nif genes in Azoarcus sp. BH72, a grass-associated diazotroph, on rice roots.
Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 1998; 11(1):71-75.
32. Miller WB and Lindow SE An improved GFP cloning cassette designed for prokaryotic
transcriptional fusions. Gene 1997; 191(2):149-153.
33. Unge A, Tombolini R, Molbak L et al. Simultaneous monitoring of cell number and metabolic activity of specific bacterial populations with a dual gfp/luxAB marker system. Appl
Environ Microbiol 1999; 65(2):813-821.
34. Gage DJ, Bobo T and Long SR. Use of green fluorescent protein to visualize the early
events of symbiosis between Rhizobium meliloti and alfalfa (Medicago sativa). J Bacteriol
1996; 178(24):7159-7166.
35. Khodjakov A, Cole RW and Rieder CL. A synergy of technologies: Combining laser microsurgery with green fluorescent protein tagging. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton 1997; 38(4):311-317.
36. Zylka MJ and Schnapp BJ. Optimized filter set and viewing conditions for S65T mutant of
GFP in living cells. Biotechniques 1996; 21(2):220-226.
37. Tamiya E, Iwabuchi S, Nagatani N et al. Simultaneous topographic and fluorescence
imagings of recombinant bacterial cells containing a green fluorescent protein gene detected by a scanning near-field optical/atomic force microscope. Anal Chem 1997;
69(18):3697-3701.
38. Flotte TR, Beck SE, Chesnut K et al. A fluorescence video-endoscopy technique for detection of gene transfer and expression. Gene Ther 1998; 5(2):166-177.
39. Yang TT, Cheng L and Kain SR. Optimized codon usage and chromophore mutations provide enhanced sensitivity with the green fluorescent protein. Nucleic Acids Res 1996;
24(22):4592-4593.
40. Yang TT, Sinai P, Green G et al. Improved fluorescence and dual color detection with
enhanced blue and green variants of the green fluorescent protein. J Biol Chem 1998;
273(14):8212-8216.
41. Lybarger L, Dempsey D, Patterson GH et al. Dual-color flow cytometric detection of fluorescent proteins using single-laser (488-nm) excitation. Cytometery 1998; 31(3):147-152.
42. Christensen BB, Sternberg C, and Molin S. Bacterial plasmid conjugation on semi-solid
surfaces monitored with the green fluorescent protein (GFP) from Aequorea victoria as a
marker. Gene 1996; 173(1):59-65.
43. Normander B, Christensen BB, Molin S et al. Effect of bacterial distribution and activity
on conjugal gene transfer on the phylloplane of the bush bean. Appl Environ Microbiol
1998; 64(5):1902-1909.
44. Leff LG and Leff AA. Use of green fluorescent protein to monitor survival of genetically
engineered bacteria in aquatic environments. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996; 62(9):3486-3488.
45. Tresse O, Errampalli D, Kostrzynska M et al. Green fluorescent protein as a visual marker
in a p-nitrophenol degrading Moraxella sp. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1998; 164:187-193.
115
46. Elvng AM, Westerberg K, Jernberg C et al. Monitoring bioremediation of 4-chlorophenol-contaminated soil using gfp or luc-tagged Arthrobacter chlorophenolicus A6 cells. Submitted.
47. Cho J-C, Kim S-J. Green fluorescent protein-based direct viable count to verify a viable
but non-culturable state of Salmonella typhi in environmental samples. J Microbiol Meth
1999; 36:227-235.
48. Lowder M, Unge A, Jansson JK et al. The effect of starvation and the VBNC state on GFP
fluorescence in Pseudomonas fluorescens. Submitted
49. Tombolini R, Van der Gaag DJ, Gerhardson, B et al. Colonization pattern of the biocontrol
strain Pseudomonas chlororaphis MA 342 on barley seeds visualized by using green fluorescent protein. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999; 65:3674-3680.
50. Bloemberg GV, OToole GA, Lugtenberg BJJ et al. Green fluorescent protein as a marker
for Pseudomonas spp. Appl Environ Microbiol 1997; 63(11):4543-4551.
51. Luo Y, Szilvasi A, Chen X et al. A novel method for monitoring Mycobacterium bovis BCG
trafficking with recombinant BCG expressing green fluorescent protein. Clin Diagn Lab
Immunol 1996; 3(6):761-768.
52. Parker AE and Bermudez LE. Expression of the green fluorescent protein (GFP) in Mycobacterium avium as a tool to study the interaction between Mycobacteria and host cells.
Microb Pathog 1997; 22(4):193-198.
53. Valdivia RH, Hromockyj AE, Monack D et al. Applications for green fluorescent protein
(GFP) in the study of host-pathogen interactions. Gene 1996; 173(1):47-52.
54. Wang S and Hazelrigg T. Implications for bcd mRNA localization from spatial distribution
of exu protein in Drosophila oogenesis. Nature 1994; 369(6479):400-403.
55. Ma X, Ehrhardt DW and Margolin W. Colocalization of cell division proteins FtsZ and
FtsA to cytoskeletal structures in living Escherichia coli cells by using green fluorescent
protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1996; 93(23):12998-13003.
56. Ma X, Sun Q, Wang R et al. Interactions between heterologous FtsA and FtsZ proteins at
the FtsZ ring. J Bacteriol 1997; 179(21):6788-6797.
57. Barak I, Behari J, Olmedo G et al. Structure and function of the Bacillus SpoIIE protein
and its localization to sites of sporulation septum assembly. Mol Microbiol 1996;
19(5):1047-1060.
58. Arigoni F, Pogliano K, Webb CD et al. Localization of protein implicated in establishment
of cell type to sites of asymmetric division. Science 1995; 270(5236):637-640.
59. Edwards DH and Errington J. The Bacillus subtilis DivIVA protein targets to the division
septum and controls the site specificity of cell division. Mol Microbiol 1997; 24(5):905-915.
60. Ju J, Luo T and Haldenwang WG. Bacillus subtilis pro-sigmaE fusion protein localizes to
the forespore septum and fails to be processed when synthesized in the forespore. J Bacteriol
1997; 179(15):4888-4893.
61. Wu LJ, Feucht A and Errington J. Prespore-specific gene expression in Bacillus subtilis is
driven by sequestration of SpoIIE phosphatase to the prespore side of the asymmetric septum. Genes Dev 1998; 12(9):1371-1380.
62. Glaser P, Sharpe ME, Raether B et al. Dynamic, mitotic-like behavior of a bacterial protein
required for accurate chromosome partitioning. Genes Dev 1997; 11(9):1160-1168.
63. Kohler P and Marahiel MA. Association of the histone-like protein HBsu with the nucleoid of Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol 1997; 179(6):2060-2064.
64. Lin DCH, Levin PA and Grossman AD. Bipolar localization of a chromosome partition
protein in Bacillus subtilis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1997; 94(9):4721-4726.
65. Webb CD, Teleman A, Gordon S et al. Bipolar localization of the replication origin regions of chromosomes in vegetative and sporulating cells of B. subtilis. Cell 1997;
88(5):667-674.
66. Gordon GS, Sitnikov D, Webb CD et al. Chromosome and low copy plasmid segregation
in E. coli: visual evidence for distinct mechanisms. Cell 1997; 90(6):1113-1121.
67. Kim SK and Wang JC. Localization of F plasmid SopB protein to positions near the poles
of Escherichia coli cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1998; 95(4):1523-1527.
116
68. Suarez A, Guttler A, Stratz M et al. Green fluorescent protein-based reporter systems for
genetic analysis of bacteria including monocopy applications. Gene 1997; 196(1-2):69-74.
69. Handfield M, Schweizer HP, Mahan MJ et al. ASD-GFP vectors for in vivo expression
technology in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other gram-negative bacteria. Biotechniques 1998;
24(2):261-264.
70. Inouye S, Ogawa H, Yasuda K et al. A bacterial cloning vector using a mutated Aequorea
green fluorescent protein as an indicator. Gene 1997; 189(2):159-162.
71. Mller S, Sternberg C, Andersen JB et al. In situ gene expression in mixed-culture biofilms:
evidence of metabolic interactions between community members. Appl Environ Microbiol
1998; 64(2):721-732.
72. Lewis PJ and Errington J. Use of green fluorescent protein for detection of cell-specific
gene expression and subcellular protein localization during sporulation in Bacillus subtilis.
Microbiology 1996; 142(4):733-740.
73. Webb CD, Decatur A, Teleman A et al. Use of green fluorescent protein for visualization
of cell-specific gene expression and subcellular protein localization during sporulation in
Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol 1995; 177(20):5906-5911.
74. Hale CA and de Boer PA. Direct binding of FtsZ to ZipA, an essential component of the
septal ring structure that mediates cell division in E. coli. Cell 1997; 88(2):175-185.
75. Raskin DM and de Boer PA. The MinE ring: An FtsZ-independent cell structure required
for selection of the correct division site in E. coli. Cell 1997; 91(5):685-694.
76. Yu XC, Tran AH, Sun Q et al. Localization of cell division protein FtsK to the Escherichia
coli septum and identification of a potential N-terminal targeting domain. J Bacteriol 1998;
180(5):1296-1304.
77. Zhao H, Thompson RB, Lockatell V et al. Use of green fluorescent protein to assess urease
gene expression by uropathogenic Proteus mirabilis during experimental ascending urinary
tract infection. Infect Immun 1998; 66(1):330-335.
78. Dhandayuthapani S, Via LE, Thomas CA et al. Green fluorescent protein as a marker for
gene expression and cell biology of mycobacterial interactions with macrophages. Mol
Microbiol 1995; 17(5):901-912.
79. Valdivia RH and Falkow S. Bacterial genetics by flow cytometry: Rapid isolation of Salmonella typhimurium acid-inducible promoters by differential fluorescence induction. Mol
Microbiol 1996; 22(2):367-378.
80. Stretton S, Techkarnjanaruk S, McLennan AM et al. Use of green fluorescent protein to
tag and investigate gene expression in marine bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998;
64:2554-2559.
CHAPTER 8
Monitoring Persistence and Risk

Assessment Following the Field
Release of Pseudomonas fluorescens
SBW25EeZY6KX
Mark J. Bailey, Tracey M. Timms-Wilson, Richard J. Ellis,
Ian P. Thompson and Andrew K. Lilley
8.1. Introduction
he selection of Genetically Modified Microorganisms (GMMs), or other candidate bacteria, for environmental release should be carefully considered.1 This is particularly
relevant when developing inocula with known functional traits, such as for biological control, Since it is likely that the most effective inocula derive from the intended target habitat.2,3
However, prior to the field release of a GMM, it remains essential to study the organisms
autecology using enclosed facilities. Of particular importance in such studies is the capacity
of the GMM to persist and cause an impact, features that are dependent on fitness and
competitive ability.4-6 To some extent, these factors can be predicted from knowledge of
closely related, indigenous populations.7 Data from our own releases in glasshouse and field
environments confirm those of previous investigations, i.e., any impacts caused by GMMs
are likely to be short lived and probably no more ecologically significant8-10 than those caused
by wild type bacterial inocula.11,12 It is worthwhile noting that the apparent competitiveness of the GMM used in our studies may have been exaggerated by the artificiality of glasshouse conditions.13 We observed that bacterial diversity in the phyllosphere of glasshouse
plants was in most cases significantly lower than that detected in the field. The calculated
Shannon diversity index (H) for the community colonizing immature leaves of 133 day old
glasshouse grown sugar beet plants was 0.04 (4 taxa) compared to 1.114 (20 taxa) for field
grown plants grown for approximately the same period. This study demonstrated that the
behavior of GMMs in protected environments such as glasshouses is unlikely to be representative of the environment and can only be addressed by field studies.
The aims of the investigations outlined below have been to provide appropriate information for the assessment of impact and survival of GMMs in the environment. We have undertaken a number of investigations, following a stepwise approach, to confirm the suitability of
the candidate bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25, and its genetic modification.14 These
studies have been divided into three phases comprised of:
118
1. prerelease studies in contained environments2,5,13

2. the field releases to sugar beet crops4,5,15 and,
3. as discussed here, postrelease monitoring.
8.2. Construction of P. fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX and Detection

and Monitoring Methods
To facilitate detection, marker genes, for antibiotic resistance (aph1, kanamycin), lactose utilization (lacZY, lactose permease and -galactosidasealso converts X-gal to a blue
pigmented product) and colorimetric detection (xylE, 2,3,catechol dioxygenase, converts
catechol to a soluble yellow pigmented semi-aldehyde), were selected to provide a unique
set of marker phenotypes for highly sensitive plate isolation and enumeration assays.14 These
marker genes were introduced, by site-directed homologous recombination, to predetermined, nonessential sites in the choromosome,16 for the construction of P. fluorescens
SBW25EeZY6KX.14,17 PCR based methods were then used for the detection of the introduced genes,18 and plate isolation methods were used for detecting mobile genetic elements
acquired by the GMM from the indigenous microbial community.4,18
8.3. Case Study of the Persistence of P. fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX

in Sugar beet Crops
Data gathered in microcosm and field investigations confirmed the utility of P. fluorescens
SBW25EeZY6KX as a competitive phytosphere colonizer of plants when introduced as a
seed dressing4,5,19 or foliar spray.20,21 In open field studies, information on the survival,
establishment and dissemination of GMMs in the environment was acquired during the
development and maturation of deliberately inoculated field crops. Data on the spread,
persistence and survival of the inocula on plants and in soil15,21 were collected. In addition
studies were undertaken that demonstrated the role of phytophageous insects in the effective dispersal of leaf colonizing populations of the GMM to other plants.22
Data on the longer term persistence of introduced inocula as a viable fraction of the
soil and phytosphere microbiota or gene pool need to be gathered in an ecologically relevant environment. The approach taken and studies pertinent to the long term monitoring
of genetically modified inocula and their genes have not been widely discussed. However,
the persistence and fate of environmentally competent bacteria is a highly relevant issue.
P. fluorescens SBW25 was selected for its ability to successfully colonize plants following
seed inoculation, and was isolated directly from one of the target habitats, the sugar beet
phyllosphere.23 It therefore provided an ideal opportunity to observe whether a known,
habitat-adapted isolate would exhibit greater fitness in its presumed natural habitat or in
alternative habitats such as soil and wheat plants.
The ability of the isolate to persist had been observed during glasshouse studies where
the GMM colonized the rhizoplane and rhizosphere of sugar beet representing ca. 0.05% of
the pseudomonad community.13 A similar correlation between the recombinant bacterial
populations and the total pseudomonad community was observed in the phyllosphere. It is
considered likely that the GMM colonized those niches, in developing tissue, typically occupied by other closely related fluorescent pseudomonads and is an effective competitor due
to the introduction of a large inocula to the seed (> 107 cfu/seed). In contrast to the field
situation, the GMM was still present in the glasshouse rhizosphere environment on sugar
beet that had been maintained for 531 days after seed inoculation, demonstrating that it
survives well especially when closely associated with developing leaf and root tissue
(Table 8.1).
Field Released Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX
119
Table 8.1. Percentage of total colony forming units, growing on tryptic soy broth
agar, identified as P. fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX isolated from the phytosphere
of glasshouse grown plants
Days after Sugar beet plant habitat sampled after seed inoculation with ca. 1 x 107 cfu GMM
sowing
29
50
64
71
92
103
126
133
190
220
231
531
Immature leaf
Mature leaf
Rhizosphere
Rhizoplane
Root cortex
18.6
64.4
-x
79.0
65.0
54.6
80.7
65.3
38.1
94.1
65.3
22.8
36.4
3.7
10.0
11.9
0.03
22.6
0.07
0.01
0.30
0.02
0.40
0.05
11.8
nd
Notes, nd = no GMMs detected (limit of detection 100 cfu g-1), = not determined. Total counts
estimated by serial dilution of plant tissue homogenates spread onto Trypic Soy broth agar; GMM
counts confirmed Pseudomonad selective agar (Oxoid) supplemented with 100 g ml-1
kanamycin, and 0.01% X-gal, method and table after Thompson IP, Ellis RJ, Bailey MJ. FEMS
8.4. Survival of Recombinant in Bulk Soil Under Glasshouse

Conditions
Seventy one days after planting GMM inoculated sugar beet seeds in nonsterile soils in
the glasshouse, bulk soil samples were collected 0-1 cm, 1-2 cm, 2-3 cm and 5-6 cm away
from the root. GMM bacteria were only detected in the rhizosphere zone, < 1 cm from the
root (1.06 x 104 cfu g-1) against a background total bacterial count of 9.98 x 106 cfu g-1. In
addition, nonrhizosphere soil (bulk soil) was inoculated with GMM at ca 3 x 105 cfu g-1 and
maintained at a moisture content approximate to field conditions (30%). The GMM survived poorly in soil, particularly at elevated temperatures or in the absence of root material.
Total bacterial counts remained relatively constant irrespective of the alteration in conditions and exposure to different temperatures, 4C, 15C or 28C. Field soil temperatures, at
a depth of 10-20 cm, were recorded at 16C ( 1C) throughout the growing season. GMM
numbers declined rapidly when the inoculated soil was maintained at 28C, GMM were no
longer detected after 34 days. Similarly, treatment at 15C reduced GMM survival, as GMMs
were not detected after 81 days. At 4C a more gradual decline in GMM numbers was
observed. Temperature, therefore, affects recombinant survival in the soil. These data allowed the prediction that after successful phytosphere colonization from seed inoculation
in the absence of viable plant material, and a period of over-wintering, that the field-released
GMM, P. fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX, would not persist. However, despite careful design,
glasshouse conditions remain artificial and therefore controlled investigations under true
field conditions are necessary to determine whether inocula survived in the soil or on plant
debris postharvest.
120
8.5. Field Sites, Treatment and Sampling of Plants and Soil
The GMM was applied as a seed dressing (7 x 106 cfu seed-1) to commercially pelleted
sugar beet (Beta vulgaris var. Amethyst) in April 1993.15 The field plots were planted in 10
by 10 row arrays surrounded by three rows of untreated plants in Evesham series clay soil at
the University Farm, Wytham, UK. Nine individual 5 m2 plots of sugar beet were established. Following a Latin square design three plots were planted with untreated seeds, three
with seeds inoculated with wild type P. fluorescens SBW25, and the remaining plots planted
with seed inoculated with P. fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX. The survival and persistence of
the organism, together with its dispersal, were monitored until the crop was harvested in
January 1994. A number of plants were left in each plot so that the persistence of the GMM
on over-wintered sugar beet could be determined. Triplicate samples of soil and weed plants
were also collected on a regular basis. Leaves were removed from over-wintering sugar beet
plants in early March and were sampled further as new tissue developed. In April 1994 and
April 1995, untreated sugar beet seeds were sown in half the area of each of the plots and
monitored for colonization by the GMM. The presence of the GMM on the leaves and roots
of indigenous volunteer weed species was also investigated. Weed plant samples which included Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens L.), Fat hen (Chenopodium album L.), Knot
grass (Polygonum avicular L.) and Thistle (Cardus teniflorus Curt.) were excavated from the
ground (Table 8.2). Root and leaf samples were examined for the presence of recombinants
as described for sugar beet samples. The GMM persisted very poorly in bulk soil and was
not detected in samples collected over the winter period following release to March 1994
(Table 8.2). The GMM (1.9 x 102 cfu g-1) was isolated from only one soil sample (October
1994) from all of the bimonthly samples collected from each plot between March 1994 until
December 1996 (n= 144).
8.6. Survival of GMM on Over-Wintering Sugar beet Secondary

Growth, Resown Crop Plants and Volunteer Weeds
No GMMs were detected in samples of over-wintered leaf rosettes and the rhizospheres
of the sugar beet plants collected in mid March 1994 (11 months after sowing). When samples
of new secondary leaf and rhizosphere growth were collected 384 days after sowing of the
inoculated seeds, GMMs were detected (Table 8.2). These old plants were removed to prevent bolting and new sugar beet seed was sown in the recombinant treated plots. The new
seedlings and subsequent plants were assessed for the presence of the GMM at approximately bimonthly intervals. In spring 1995 the plants were again removed and the plots
resown with sugar beet. Subsequent detection of the GMM was transient and highly variable. GMMs were recorded on the secondary leaf growth of the 1993 plants in May 1994
(day 384). However, even in the emerging leaves of an old plant the level of colonization was
low, with an average of 1.8 x 103 cfu g-1 in three replicates. This was at least one order of
magnitude below the density recorded from plants that had been colonized from inocula
introduced with the seed at the time of planting. On the same occasion, the GMM was also
detected in rhizosphere soil in one of three replicates at a level of 5.4 x 102 cfu g-1.
In June 1994, GMMs were detected at a density of 3.5 x 103 cfu g-1 in only one of nine
samples of buttercup taken (Ranunculus spp.), but when buttercup was sampled again in
August no GMMs could be isolated. In August and October 1994, the GMM was only isolated from habitats below ground level. In August 1994, the GMM was only found in one of
nine sugar beet rhizosphere soil samples at 1.1 x 102 cfu g-1. In October 1994, the GMM was
only detected in one of nine sugar beet rhizoplane samples at 8.6 x 101 cfu g-1. The source of
the inoculum was unresolved, but the data indicate that the GMM may persist in the
phytosphere below the limit of detection (20 cfu g-1) and is able to colonize new plant tissue.
No GMMs were isolated from any habitat sampled in December 1994, nor in any sample
Leaf
Root Cortex
Rhizoplane
Rhizosphere soil
Secondary leaf
Immature leaf
Mature leaf
Senescent leaf
Rhizoplane
Rhizosphere soil
Leaf
Root
Bulk soil
Old sugar beet

over-wintered
from 1993
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
March 94
+b
++c
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
May 94
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
+
*
June 94
*
*
*
*
*
*
+
-
August 94
*
*
*
*
*
+
+
October 94
*
*
*
*
*
-
December 94
*
*
*
*
*
-
March 95
isolated from any sugar beet planted in April 1995, or from weed or bulk soil sample collected April 1995 - December 1996. The bacterium, P. fluorescens
SBW25 was isolated from the leaf surface of sugar beet grown at the field site, Wytham UK, and by site directed homologous recombination was
chromosomally marked, one locus carrying lacZY (lactose utilisation and ability to turn X-gal blue) and at another locus with aph-xylE (kanamycin resistance
and the ability to turn catechol yellow). In combination these novel phenotypes provided unique and highly sensitive isolation and molecular methods for strain
and marker gene detection.
Except for weeds, triplicate samples were taken. Limits of detection 5 cfu g-1
aWeeds: Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens L.), Fat hen (Chenopodium album L.,) Knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare L.) and Thistle (Carduus tenuiflorus
Curt.). - No GMM detected in any replicate. *Not determined. bGMM detected in one replicate. cGMM detected in more than one replicate. GMM was not
Weeds a
New sugar beet

planted April 1994
Habitat
Plant
Table 8.2. Detection of a GMM, Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX, in the sugar beet release plots Wytham, 1994.
Inocula applied once as a seed dressing April 1993.

121
122
taken from replanted sugar beet leaves or roots, volunteer weeds or soil samples collected in
1995 or 1996 (Table 8.2).
8.7. Would Persistence of a Modified Indigenous Strain in the Soil

Environment Pose a Threat?
One of the major concerns about the release of GMMs is their potential to persist and
proliferate for long periods of time in the environment. The longer the organism is present
in the environment the greater its potential to cause an impact. Therefore, it is essential to
assess the longevity of any released organism in order that the risks associated with it can be
properly estimated. Sensitive culture based assays were developed which were able to detect
1 cfu g-1 of inocula17 and this approach was preferred to molecular based techniques, including PCR assays of similar sensitivity,24 because of their ease of use in the analysis of the
large numbers of samples collected to provide statistically relevant data. In addition, we
wanted to assess whether dormant populations or populations persisting at densities below
the level of detection could be selected for by the introduction of growing plants. The introduction of plants was used as an environmental enrichment protocol to measure the persistence of viable bacteria rather than the persistence of nucleic acids. In the field investigations undertaken in 1993, the inocula persisted at low levels in the soil and was able to
colonize the sugar beet plants during the growing season. At the time of harvest, associated
with the first hard frosts, the population of the introduced GMM had declined considerably.15 However, in the following spring of 1994 secondary plant growth from over-wintering sugar beet apparently supported a transient GMM population which did not establish a
sustained GMM community and was not found on mature or immature leaves sampled 60
days later. Further evidence that the GMM was dependent on plant material for over-winter
survival, was shown as the GMM colonized wheat roots during 1993-1994 at densities as
high as 106 cfu g-1 roots, but could not be isolated once roots could no longer be recovered
from the soil seven months after harvest.21
The limited amount of dissemination and persistence of P. fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX
(the GMM) in soil is in agreement with other similar studies.19,25 These investigators monitored the survival of a P. fluorescens, marked with lacZY, in the rhizosphere of wheat and
concluded that there was limited lateral movement and a failure of inocula to persist or
colonize subsequent introduced crops. If precautions are necessary, then the removal of
plant material from release sites for at least one season postrelease might be appropriate.
This assumption would need to be tested. Other bacteria better adapted to harsh soil conditions may survive more effectively in bulk soils. For example, rhizobia have persisted at
ecologically significant levels at Rothamstead Research Station (UK) since their release in
1987.26 The highly specialized nature of these nodulating bacteria as well as their ability to
survive in soil no doubt has selected for strains that are able to persist to provide inocula
able to colonize appropriate host plants as they develop.
Although no genetic instability or mobilization of marker genes from the GMM could
be demonstrated in vitro or as a result of the field releases,14,15,18 it was established that the
colonizing populations of the GMM interacted with the indigenous microflora in the exchange of genetic material in vivo4 and that carriage of novel plasmids affected the ecology
of the bacterial host.5 Therefore, it was important to establish whether any isolates detected
during the postrelease monitoring of soils and volunteer plants had acquired these or other
plasmids, or lost or transferred their markers to other bacteria. In all samples collected, no
evidence for plasmid transfer to the GMM or persistence of GMM transformants was gathered. All isolates retained the complete GMM phenotype, i.e., they produced blue colonies
on media supplemented with kanamycin and X-gal (genotype; lacZY, aphI, xylE). No kanamycin resistant, white colonies (lacZ-) were identified that reacted with catechol. Such reac-
123
tions would have identified mutants or indicated the selection of transconjugants as the
kanamycin resistance-catechol 2,3 dioxygenase genes were linked and inserted at the same
chromosomal site in P. fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX.
Small populations of the GMM probably survived under particular conditions as colony
forming units were detected at highly variable densities on a few samples collected from
new plant growth and rhizosphere soil samples. However these populations were transient
and failed to become established. The loss of the inocula in a viable state from the release
site was confirmed in all subsequent surveys conducted in 1995 and 1996. The absence of
the introduced bacteria, as determined by plate counts assay and PCR screening of total
extracted soil DNA,14,24 or any evidence for gene transfer, confirms a lack of sustained activity in the environment. In the absence of activity it can be assumed that negligible or no risk
occurred to the environment as a result of these investigations.
So what are the risks associated with GMMs entering the environment? Should they be
considered more or less hazardous than the current usage of chemical and biological
reagents? To make such assessments, we must provide data drawn from a sound basic scientific understanding, which addresses concerns, real or potential, from which accurate
predictions can be made in order to gain public confidence and (if possible) identify
and quantify hazards.
8.8. Conclusion
Irrespective of the origin of the inoculum, the introduction of a large number of
organisms to any habitat is likely to have some effect (impact), even if only short term. This
inoculum effect has been demonstrated with both the introduction of unmodified bacteria and GMMs. Unmodified microbes have been released into the environment for many
decades, particularly in the agricultural practices of the biocontrol of pathogens and inoculation of crop plants with nitrogen fixing micro-organisms. Few studies have attempted to
determine the effect of these introductions on indigenous microbial communities. Assessments of the risks from GMMs have been made in situ in field releases where inocula have
been released into the natural environment.13,15,25,28,39,30 Particular consideration has been
given to the potential impact GMMs may have on ecosystems by disturbing natural communities or by exchanging genetic material.28,31 The plant surface and rhizosphere are the
target of a number of releases and have been the focus of many studies, including those of
fluorescent pseudomonads in the rhizosphere of a number of crops.15,18,19,21,25,30,32 Typically, GMMs contain introduced antibiotic resistance genes which facilitate their detection
against the background of indigenous strains sampled form the environment, and as a consequence of the technical approaches used to generate the recombinants.
It should be emphasized that the use of antibiotic resistance genes in GMMs does not
in itself pose an unacceptable generic risk. Potential harm may only arise from the transfer
of the introduced marker genes to other bacterial populations where the incidence or likelihood of external selective pressures (e.g., antibiotics) are encountered by the GMMs and
indigenous suitable recipient populations. Obviously, the use of marker genes that impart
resistance to clinically important antibiotics would not be advised, but the use of a marker
resistance in a GMM, for example kanamycin or ampicillin, where the specific phenotype is
comparatively common in soils and other natural environments, would not be considered
as an additional serious hazard. The possibility of selection through the use of antibiotics in
animal health or growth promotion could be a factor (Chapter 2). This may be compounded
by the application of untreated sewage or slurry to land where the GMM has been applied
or might be encountered. As with current practices, all GMM releases should be taken on a
case-by-case basis to evaluate their consequences on entering the environment, a part of
which is the consideration of the construct and the nature of the introduced genes themselves.
124
The nature of the introduced genes and the resulting phenotype is relevant as this will influence the degree of risk. The advantage of selective markers is that they can be used to readily
track and monitor the fate, persistence and activity of released GMMs. The facility to track
inocula, and therefore the fate of the genes is an important safety consideration.
Manipulated genes can be transferred horizontally to or from a GMM where they may
persist and be expressed. Although the frequencies of horizontal transfer will usually be low,
the location of manipulated genes at carefully chosen chromosomal sites can considerably
reduce these events further. However, it should not be necessary to prescribe the chromosomal location of introduced genes unless minimizing the chance of gene transfer is preferred. Investigations with marked mobile elements will provide data to evaluate gene flow
in the environment to ascertain whether restrictions to the chromosome, avoiding all known
mobile genetic elements is appropriate. The nature of the construct will dictate the probability of gene transfer, but perhaps the primary consideration must remain the phenotype
of the introduced genes and how the ecology and activity of the modified host is altered.
However, any introduced genes, in order to persist and proliferate, require at the very least
periodic amplification (selection) of their host. With the decline in concentration of the
manipulated genes in the environment, the potential for the future proliferation and spread
of these genes is considerably reduced. Precise prediction of the changes in behavior arising
from the acquisition of new genes is especially difficult because microbial populations are
engaged in highly complex interactions. Assessment of risks arising from the transfer of
manipulated genes requires the nature and activity of the genes selected for use in a GMM
to be considered on a case by case basis.
From the results presented in this chapter it would appear that the persistence of the
released GMM, P. fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX, in the environment is limited. Even when
the GMM was detected it was present at very low levels and not in all replicate samples. This
lack of consistency may reflect that the levels of GMM were close to the limits of detection.
Lateral dispersal of the GMM during the release was limited so it was probable that the
GMM was confined to a relatively small area of soil around the plant root. Given this scenario, it was unlikely that colonization of plant roots would occur unless seeds were sown in
the exact position where an inoculated plant had grown the previous season. Thus, the
numbers of GMMs detected in 1994/5 were not considered to be ecologically significant.
This view was supported by our inability to detect the GMM in 1996. This implies that, as P.
fluorescens SBW25EeZY6KX does not appear to be able to persist in soil, it will not have any
long-term effects upon the site to which it is released.
Acknowledgments
These investigations were supported by the UK Department of the Environment and
the EU-Biotech program. Mark J. Bailey is a member of the MAREP Concerted Action sponsored by the European Commission Biotechnology Programme, DGXII.
References
1. Ellis RJ, Thompson IP, Bailey MJ. Temporal fluctuations in the genotypic composition of
a population of leaf-associated pseudomonads. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1999; 28:345-356.
2. Thompson IP, Bailey MJ, Fenlon JS et al. Quantitative and qualitative seasonal changes in
the microbial community from the phyllosphere of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). Plant and
Soil 1993; 150:177-191.
3. Rainey PB, Bailey MJ, Thompson IP. Phenotypic and genotypic diversity of fluorescent
pseudomonads isolated from field grown sugar beet. Microbiol 1994; 140:2315-2331.
4. Lilley AK, Bailey MJ. The acquisition of indigenous plasmids by a genetically marked
pseudomonad population colonizing the phytosphere of sugar beet is related to local environmental conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 1997; 63:1577-1583.
125
5. Lilley AK, Bailey MJ. Impact of pQBR103 acquisition and carriage on the phytosphere
fitness of Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25: burden and benefit. Appl Environ Microbiol
1997; 63:1584-1587.
6. Lilley AK, Young JP, Bailey MJ. Bacterial population dynamics: plasmids a genetic mechanism for maintaining diversity and adaptation. In: Thomas CM ed. Chapman and Hall.
1999:In Press.
7. Lenski RE. Quantifying fitness and gene stability on micro-organisms. In: Ginzburg LR.
Ed. Assessing risks of biotechnology. Butterworth-Heineman, Boston. 1991:173-192.
8. Ellis RJ, Thompson IP, Bailey MJ. Metabolic profiling as a means of characterising plantassociated microbial communities. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1995;16:9-18.
9. De Leij FAAM, Sutton EJ, Whipps JM et al. Effect of a genetically modified Pseudomonas
aureofaciens on indigenous microbial populations of wheat. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1994;
13:249-258.
10. Doyle JD, Stotzky G. Methods for detection of changes in the microbial ecology of soil
caused by the introduction of micro-organisms. Microbial Releases 1993; 2:63-72.
11. Weller DM. Colonisation of wheat root by fluorescent pseudomonads suppressive to takeall. Phytopathol 1993; 73:1548-1553.
12. Yuen GY, Schroth MN. Interactions of Pseudomonas fluorescens strain E6 with ornamental
plants and its effect on the composition of root colonizing microflora. Phytopath 1986;
76:176-180.
13. Thompson IP, Ellis RJ, Bailey MJ. Autecology of a genetically modified fluorescent
pseudomonad on sugar beet. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1995; 17:1-14.
14. Bailey MJ, Lilley AK, Thompson IP et al. Site directed chromosomal marking of a fluorescent pseudomonad isolated from the phytosphere of sugar beet; stability and potential for
marker gene transfer. Molec Ecol 1995; 4:755-764.
15. Thompson IP, Lilley AK, Ellis RJ et al. Survival, colonisation and dispersal of genetically
modified Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 in the phytosphere of field grown sugar beet.
Bio/Technology. 1995; 13:1493-1497.
16. Rainey PB, Bailey MJ. Physical and genetic map of the Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25
chromosome. Mol Microbiol 1996; 19:521-533.
17. De Leij FAAM, Bailey MJ, Lynch JM et al. A simple most probable number technique for
the sensitive recovery of a genetically engineered Pseudomonas aureofaciens from soil. Lett
Appl Microbiol 1993; 16:307-310.
18. Bailey MJ, Lilley AK, Ellis RJ et al. Microbial ecology, inocula distribution and gene flux
within populations of bacteria colonizing the surface of plants: Case study of a GMM field
release in the UK. In: Van Elsas JD, Trevors JT, Wellington EMM eds. Modern Soil Microbiology. Marcel Dekker, New York. 1997:479-500.
19. Drahos DJ, Barry GF, Hemming BC et al. Spread and survival of genetically marked bacteria in soil. In: Fry JC, Day MJ, eds. Release of genetically engineered and other microorganisms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1992:147-159.
20. De Leij FAAM, Sutton EJ, Whipps JM et al. Spread and survival of a genetically modified
Pseudomonas aureofaciens on the phytosphere of wheat and soil. Appl Soil Ecol 1994;
1:207-218.
21. De Leij FAAM, Sutton EJ, Whipps JM et al. Field release of a genetically modified Pseudomonas fluorescens on wheat: Establishment, survival and dissemination. Bio/technology 1995;
13:1488-1992.
22. Lilley AK, Hails RS, Cory JS et al. The dispersal and establishment of pseudomonad populations in the phyllosphere of sugar beet by phytophagous caterpillars. FEMS Microbiol
Ecol 1997; 24:151-158.
23. Bailey MJ, Thompson IP. Detection systems for phylloplane pseudomonads. In: Wellington
EMH, van Elsas JD, eds. Genetic interactions between micro-organisms in the environment. Pergamon Press 1992:126-141.
24. Bramwell PA, Barallon RV, Rogers HJ et al. Extraction and PCR amplification of DNA
from the rhizoplane. In: Akkermans ADL, Van Elsas JD, DeBruijn FJ, eds. Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1995:36-55.
126
25. Kluepfel DA, Kline EL, Skipper HD et al. The release and tracking of genetically engineered bacteria in the environment. Phytopathol 1991; 81:348-352.
26. Hirsch P, Spokes JD. Survival and dispersion of genetically modified rhizobia in the field
27. Denning N, Morgan J, Whipps JM et al. The flagellin gene as a stable marker for detection
of Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25. Lett Appl Microbiol 1997; 24:198-202.
28. Bailey MJ, Lilley AK, Thompson IP et al. Deliberate release of Recombinant Micro-organisms. In: Demain AL, Davies JE, eds. Manual of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 2nd edition. American Society Microbiology, Washington. 1999:693-703.
29. Cory JS, Hirst ML, Williams T et al. Field trial of a genetically improved baculovirus insecticide. Nature 1994; 370:138-140.
30. Wilson M, Lindow SE. Release of recombinant micro-organisms. Ann Rev Microbiol 1993;
47:913-944.
31. Tiedje JM, Colwell RK, Grossman YL et al. The planned introduction of genetically engineered organismsEcological considerations and recommendations. Ecology 1989;
70:298-315.
32. De Leij FAAM, Sutton EJ, Whipps JM et al. Field release of genetically modified Pseudomonas fluorescens on wheat: Impact on indigenous microbial populations. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1995; 61:3443-3453.
CHAPTER 9
Use of luc-Tagged Genetically

Modified Microorganisms (GMMs)
to Study Rhizobial Ecology
in Soil Columns, Field Lysimeters
and Field Plots
Christoph C. Tebbe
9.1. Introduction
he benefit and importance of genetically tagged microorganisms for agricultural

biotechnology can be demonstrated with studies on plant-microbe interactions such as
the symbiosis between rhizobia and leguminous plants (see also Chapter 11). Rhizobia, a
group consisting of the five genera Rhizobium, Sinorhizobium, Mesorhizobium, Azorhizobium,
and Bradyrhizobium1 are soil bacteria which are able to infect roots of specific leguminous
host plants and induce the formation of root nodules into which the transformation of
atmospheric nitrogen (N2) into organic nitrogen takes place (nitrogen fixation). Rhizobia
provide the essential enzymatic machinery for this process, most importantly the nitrogenase enzyme, whereas the plant supplies the intracellular bacteria (bacteroids) with photosynthetically generated organic nutrients. Additionally, the plant tissue protects the bacteroids
against oxygen, a compound that inhibits the nitrogenase. By this symbiosis, plants become
independent of mineral or organically dissolved nitrogen sources. On the other hand, the
symbiosis is inhibited if sufficient bound nitrogen is available for plant growth.
In agriculture, nitrogen fixing crop plants, such as alfalfa, do not require fertilization
with organic or mineral nitrogen. Such plants can be included into crop rotations to
increase the nitrogen content of soil and thus optimize conditions for the following plant,
e.g., wheat. However, if no symbiotic partner bacteria or bacteria with low nodulation efficiencies are present in the soil, leguminous plants may fail to fix nitrogen. To overcome this
risk, leguminous plants have been inoculated with rhizobia in agriculture for more than
100 years. However, in some cases bacterial inocula may fail to induce root nodule formation and nitrogen fixation.2 One reason is that the commercially available inoculants may
have a poor quality due to the presence of contaminant, nonrhizobial, bacteria.3 But even if
pure cultures of potentially effectively nodulating and nitrogen-fixing bacteria are utilized
in field applications, beneficial effects such as shown by enhanced growth of leguminous
host plants are not guaranteed. Nonefficient inoculant preparation or application may be
128
one reason for the lack of success,4,5 but the main reason seems to be the unpredictable
impact of environmental factors (e.g., temperature, humidity, nutrient availability) upon
the released bacterial cells, or the presence of other plant roots or indigenous competing
strains of the same species as the inoculant.6 In most cases of unsuccessful field applications, it is not known whether the lack of plant growth promotion can be attributed to the
poor survival of the inoculant, the loss of its competitive capability for nodulation, or to
other factors.7 To evaluate the reason for such failures it would be helpful to analyze the
rates of survival of such inoculants.
Although several methods for reisolation, identification and quantification of rhizobia
from soil are available, most of them require extensive laboratory studies, e.g., nodulation
of host plants in the laboratory or greenhouse followed by genetic fingerprinting, to distinguish inoculated cells from indigenous cells of the same species.8-10 Due to the methodological efforts, the number of samples which can be analyzed in one laboratory is rather
small and may not be sufficient for the evaluation of a specific inoculant in field release
experiments. Marker gene technology can provide the ideal tools to perform such evaluation studies, since an inoculant can be tagged specifically with a quickly detectable and
unambiguous trait.11,12 The characteristics, potentials and limitations of these tools are
described in detail in Chapters 5-7. Depending on the marker gene, strains can be directly
detected by microscopy (without cultivation), by PCR amplification of such genes from
DNA directly extracted from microbial communities (see also Chapter 3), or by quantification after growth (colony formation) on selective or nonselective growth media (Chapter
2). An important point to consider before using marker gene -tagged strains for evaluation
as inoculants is, that the insertion of a marker gene or its expression may affect the fitness of
a strain and thereby decrease the capacity to compete with indigenous bacteria.13-15 Another
potential disadvantage for field applications of marker gene-tagged strains is, that they are
genetically engineered (genetically modified microorganisms; GMMs) and, thus, their
release requires thorough risk assessment studies and permission of competent national
authorities. In fact, the case study reported in this chapter included the first two field
releases of GMMs in Germany. These releases were conducted in a collaboration between
the University of Bielefeld (M. Keller, A. Phler) and the FAL (Forschungsansalt fuer
Landwirtschaft; C.C. Tebbe, J.C. Munch).
9.2. Construction and Properties of GMM Strains L1 and L33

In order to perform a field study with Sinorhizobium meliloti (formerly: Rhizobium
meliloti), two different marker gene-tagged strains were constructed at the University of
Bielefeld, Germany. S. meliloti nodulates the pasture crop alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and also
weed plants of the genus Melilotus and Trigonella. The nonengineered strain S. meliloti 2011
was streptomycin resistant (intrinsic marker). By cultivation of soil suspensions on selective, streptomycin amended growth media (agar plates; selective plating), the background
population of co-cultivated soil microorganisms could be reduced approx. 100-fold and
thus, the sensitivity of GMM detection was enhanced.16 The marker gene used for construction of the engineered strains in this study was the luciferase gene (luc). This gene was
selected, since the metabolic burden imposed by this gene upon the organism was expected
to be low and thus, the fitness of tagged strains would not be affected compared to that of
the wild-type strain (see also Chapter 5). The luc reporter gene was combined with a constitutively expressed broad host range promoter (nptII), isolated from transposon Tn5. This
promoter was selected to allow efficient detection of marker gene expression and potentially to also detect the marker gene in other soil bacteria, as a result of intergeneric gene
transfer. The marker gene was detected after blotting colonies grown on plates onto nylon
membranes, wetting these membranes with a luciferin solution and detecting light emis-
Use of luc-Tagged GMMs to Study Rhizobial Ecology
129
sion in a film cassette. It is important to notice, that, due to its oxygen demand, luciferase
gene expression could only be detected when air was permitted to diffuse between the attached colonies and the film material. This was achieved by inserting a distance holder of
0.5 cm into the film cassettes.
In strain S. meliloti L1, the combined nptII-luc gene construct was chromosomally inserted into the recA gene. This gene is involved in homologous recombination of DNA and
also in DNA repair mechanisms, such as induced after UV exposure.17 Since the luc gene
cassette was inserted into this gene, the gene sequence was disrupted and, therefore, strain
L1 exhibited a RecA- phenotype.16 Microcosm studies in the laboratory demonstrated that
in the absence of its host plant, alfalfa, the recA-mutation reduced the ability of strain L1 to
persist in bulk soil.18 The other strain selected for our field release study was an isogenic
strain of S. meliloti 2011. This strain, designated L33, contained the same reporter gene
cassette as S. meliloti L1, but its chromosomal insertion was downstream of the recA gene,
and, thus, not disrupting it (Fig. 9.1). The strain was indistinguishable from its parent strain
2011, except for the expression of the marker gene.19
9.3. Experimental Design: What Can Be Achieved with Each System?

Three different successive experimental setups were used at the FAL (Braunschweig) to
study the survival and ecological fitness of tagged strains, S. meliloti L1 and L33 (Fig. 9.2).
The first experimental setup consisted of soil columns in the greenhouse, the second were
field lysimeters of the same size as the greenhouse soil columns and the third setup were
field plots which were inoculated with the respective S. meliloti strains. Characteristics of
the three setups are shown in Table 9.1. The experiments were started in three successive
years (1993 to 1995).
Fig. 9.1. Genetic maps of the chromosomal recA regions in the S. meliloti (former name: Rhizobium meliloti) strains 2011 (wild-type), L33 and L1 and positions of primers, which allow to
differentiate L1 and L33 by size of the PCR product. Reprinted with permission from: DammannKalinowski T, Niemann S, Keller M et al. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 1996; 45:509-512.
130
Table 9.1. Comparison of microcosms, lysimeters and field plots used to study the
survival and ecological interactions of Sinorhizobium meliloti strains in soil
Parameter
Greenhouse soil columns
Field lysimeters
Field plots
Size
diameter: 30 cm
depth: 65 cm
diameter: 30 cm
depth: 65 cm
3 m x 3 m squares
no depth limitation
soil horizons
reconstructed,
equilibrated for 2 month
reconstructed,
equilibrated for 1 year
natural horizons
(plough layer 25 cm
depth)
number of
3
replicates for
each treatment
total surface
0.4 m2
area inoculated
with each strain
0.6 m2
45 m2
total number
approx. 3 x 1011
of genetically
engineered cells
released
approx. 1 x 1011
approx. 2 x 1013
inoculation
technique
mixing of bacterial cell

suspension and peat
into the upper 4 cm of
the soil
mixing of bacterial cell

suspension into the
upper 4 cm of soil in
the laboratory and
subsequent transfer
onto field lysimeters
spraying of cell
suspension onto the
soil surface
Monitoring
parameters
* survival of GMMs
* recombinant gene
persistence
* nodulation efficiency
* GMMs colonization of
different soil horizons
* effect on plant growth
* effect on organic carbon
and nitrogen concentrations in soil
* microbial biomass
* quantification of selected
culturable bacterial populations
* immediate
metabolic response
(Biolog-method)
* survival of GMMs
*
* nodulation efficiency *
* GMMs colonization
of different soil horizons
* vertical transport of
*
GMMs
* effect on plant growth
* effect on organic car- *
bon and nitrogen concentrations in soil
*
* microbial biomass
* quantification of selected culturable bacterial
populations
*
survival of GMMs;
horizontal
transport of
GMMs
rood nodule
occupancy in the
field
nodulation
efficiency
colonization of
rhizospheres from
host plants and
weed
impact of GMMs
and the microbial
diversity found in
plant rhizospheres
* ingestion and
transport of
GMMs by soil
invertebrates
131
Parameter
Greenhouse soil columns
Field lysimeters
Field plots
stability of
ecological
parameters
Low
Medium
High
maximum
length of
monitoring
1.5 years
2 years
> 3 years
Problems
* soil compaction
* crevices in soil columns
and rim effects
* limited amount of
sampling dates
* limited amount of
sampling dates
* refilling holes after
auger insertions and
its impact on soil
structure
* large scale
production of
inoculants
* inoculation of
field plots without
aerial spread of
GMMs
* spread into
neighboring plots
with host plants
Reference
Schwieger et al23
Schwieger et al24
Dresing et al25
Schwieger and
Tebbe26
The major difference between soil columns in the greenhouse and field lysimeters were
the environmental factors acting on both systems. In the greenhouse, soil columns were
wetted to allow plant growth. However, in order to study active movement of the GMM
strains, columns were not saturated with water and, thus, no flow-through water could be
collected. In order to protect the columns from frost damage, the minimum temperature in
the greenhouse was not permitted to be below 4C. Moreover, the maximum temperature
was not above 30C. In contrast, field lysimeters were exposed to the natural conditions,
including periods with temperatures below 0C and above 30C. Wind exposure in the field
resulted in a rather quick drying of the soil in the lysimeters, even after heavy rain periods.
On the other hand, large amounts of flow-through rain water could be collected; 42.5 l per
lysimeter over a period of 18 months. The soil surface inoculated in the field plot investigation was approx. 100 times larger than that of the greenhouse columns or field lysimeters.
This allowed the removal of more material for analyses during this investigation. Also, holes
created by auger insertions in the plot experiment during sampling were not refilled, as in
greenhouse or lysimeter studies, since vertical transport was not analyzed and such holes
were not much different in size compared to those, naturally produced by mice in the field.
The selection of parameters monitored along with the assessment of the survival of the
inoculated S. meliloti strains L1 and L33, respectively, depended on the characteristic specificities of each model system. Since the model systems were studied subsequently, we could
optimize our monitoring methods and omit parameters that proved to be insensitive or
remained unaffected. For instance, the immediate metabolic response of soil extracted
microbial communities20,21 (community level physiological profiles, CLPP) did not detect
any differences between the treatments (inoculation, noninoculated controls). Therefore,
this parameter was not further included in the field monitoring. Transport by rain water
could not be analyzed on the field plots, but on the other hand, the plots were ideal for study
of the colonization of rhizospheres of host plants and weed plants growing between the
host plants. Also, only from the field plots, a large variety of soil insects could be collected
132
during the growing season. The gut contents of several of these insects were analyzed for the
occurrence of marker gene tagged, bioluminescent cells.22
9.4. Techniques and Consequences of GMM Soil Inoculations

In all three experimental setups it was intended to start the experiment with approx.
106 cells of the strain g-1 soil in the upper soil horizon (plough layer; 0 to 25 cm depth). In
greenhouse experiments, batch culture grown cells were harvested, washed in potassium
phosphate buffer (50 mM, pH 7.2), and mixed with sterile peat and soil taken from the
upper 4 cm of the soil columns. This mixture was loaded onto the soil columns and alfalfa
seeds were added. A similar technique was applied to inoculate the field lysimeters. However, we abstained from utilizing peat as the carrier, since laboratory studies did not show
any beneficial effect of peat on the establishment of S. meliloti in the field soil. Also, to study
the survival and vertical transport of inoculated cells we decided to exclude peat as a material, since peat would have provided additional nutrients and would have protected the
inoculated cells against predation. Finally, vertical transport was a monitoring parameter in
this study and adsorption of the inoculated cells to the peat would have prevented translocation of such cells into deeper soil horizons. Due to the size of the field plots that had to be
inoculated, the surface soil could not be removed and inoculated in the laboratory. Instead,
a spraying machine, normally used to apply pesticides onto experimental field plots, was
utilized and bacterial suspensions were directly sprayed onto the soil surface in the field. In
contrast to the other systems, aerial spread of the inoculant into neighboring field plots
could not be excluded even though the spraying machine was modified by utilizing a rather
low pressure (1 bar). Also, a specifically developed box only allowed bacterial cells to move
downwards but not sidewards (see Fig. 9.2, right side). During the inoculation period the
wind strength was low (0.5-3 ms-1).
The concentration of inoculated cells (106 cfu g-1 in the plough horizon) was one to
three orders of magnitude above the upper limit of rhizobial populations found in well
colonized soils.6,7 Compared to the total number of bacterial cells commonly found in soil,
the inoculant was less than 1% of the population. With the three experimental settings used
in this study (soil columns, field lysimeters, field plots), the titers of inoculated cells, as
determined immediately after the beginning of each experiment varied by one
order of magnitude (Table 9.1). However, as shown by the survival of both strains, S. meliloti
L1 and L33, the fate of the release strain was not dramatically influenced by the number of
Fig. 9.2. Three model systems used to study the survival and microbial ecology of bioluminescent
S. meliloti strains (GMMs) in soil. Left, soil columns in the greenhouse, allowing to study bacterial colonization of different soil horizons; field lysimeters (middle) of the same design, and field
plot inoculation (right).
133
cells initially introduced into each model system. Due to the relatively low amount of microbial cells added, it was not surprising to see that general parameters, like microbial biomass, organic carbon or total nitrogen (with variances of at least 10%), did not respond to
this treatment at all. Other parameters, like population sizes of culturable heterotrophic
bacterial communities on cellulose, glucose or aromatic compounds, also did not respond
to the inoculation procedure. Thus, these parameters, which were suspected to be indicative
for nonintended, dramatic changes within the soil microbial community, were only monitored during the first two stages of this investigation (soil columns and field lysimeters).
9.5. Survival and Spread of GMMs in Soil columns, Field lysimeters

and Field Plots
In the greenhouse experiment, a continuous decline of the inoculated cells was observed over a period of 85 weeks (Fig. 9.3). Strain S. meliloti L33 declined to 9.0 x 104 cfu g-1
soil within 24 weeks and to 2.8 x 103 cfu g-1 within 85 weeks in the upper 25 cm of the soil
columns.23 Decline rates for S. meliloti L1 were not significantly different, indicating that in
the presence of its host plant, alfalfa, and under greenhouse conditions, the recA-mutation
did not affect the environmental fitness of S. meliloti. In order to confirm that the decrease
of the GMM was due to its elimination from the soil habitat, and not just a decrease of
culturable cells (for more details of this phenomenon, see Chapter 1), we additionally monitored the presence of the luc marker gene in DNA directly extracted from soil by PCR.
Techniques to obtain DNA from soil suitable for PCR detection are described in Chapter 3.
Using carefully selected primers, we could differentiate between product sizes obtained from
strain L1 and L33 (for positions of primers, see Fig. 9.1). By this means we were able to show
that no cross-contamination of inoculated GMM cells occurred between the lysimeters
(Fig. 9.4). Additionally, following GMM inoculation, a decrease in PCR product yields was
observed. This decrease was probably caused by a decline of the template copy numbers in
soil DNA.
A similar decrease of inoculated cells was detected after field lysimeter inoculation:
after 24 weeks, 2.0 x 104 cfu g-1 soil were detected for strains L1 and L33, respectively. In
contrast to the greenhouse experiment, however, the titer did not decrease any further, until
growth of alfalfa was stopped after 80 weeks.24 A similar population decline as observed in
the field lysimeters, was detected after inoculation of field plots. Populations of both strains
dropped from 106 to below 104 within 14 weeks, then increased to 2 x 104 cfu g-1, 24 weeks
after inoculation. Until today, four years after the field release, the titers of L33 and L1
Fig. 9.3. Survival of S. meliloti
strains in the upper 25 cm in soil
columns (greenhouse). Strain L1
() and strain L33 (). Reprinted
with permission from: Schwieger
F, Willke B, Munch JC et al. Biol
Fertil Soils 1997; 25:340-348.
134
Fig. 9.4. PCR mediated detection of the recombinant luc-marker gene in DNA, directly extracted
from soil. PCR products of strain L33 (415 base pairs; lanes 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16) and L1 (1011
base pairs; lanes 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 15) are clearly distinguishable. DNA was extracted from soil
columns (0-25 cm depth) after a day (lanes 2, 3), 2.1 weeks (4, 5), 4.1 weeks (6, 7), 8.1 weeks (8,
9), 16.1 weeks (10, 11), and 24.1 weeks (12,13). Other lanes show size standards and controls.
Reprinted with permission from: Schwieger F, Willke B, Munch JC et al. Biol Fertil Soils 1997;
25:340-348.
remained in the range between 2 x 103 and 7 x 104 cfu g-1 soil, with a seasonal impact on the
population sizes. Interestingly, in the first two years, the populations of L1 were below those
of L33 in Fall and Winter but above L33 in Spring, as observed in the two following years.25
This suggested that there was an ecological significance of the recA mutation. However, in
the third year, this phenomenon was not significant. Even though it is extremely difficult to
determine the reason for significant differences between recA- and recA+, the majority of
sampling dates did not yield such differences and, thus, we can conclude that the recA gene
was not crucial for S. meliloti to successfully colonize the field plots with alfalfa. Due to the
high persistence of both strains, L1 and L33, we can also conclude that the luciferase marker
gene did not interfere with the environmental fitness of S. meliloti. This clearly supports the
assumption that in contrast to some other marker genes, such as luxCDABE, luc has a rather
low impact on fitness.
Vertical transport of surface soil inoculated cells was studied in greenhouse columns
and field lysimeters, but only the latter system yielded reliable data. In the greenhouse, more
than 98% of the inoculated cells were recovered in the upper 10 cm in three of four soil
columns analyzed after 85 weeks of incubation.23 However, in one column, layers below 20
cm soil depth were almost homogeneously colonized with titers of 104 to 105 cfu g-1 soil.
Rim effects and crevices in the soil column probably led to transport of the surface inoculated cells in that column. Additionally, oxygen diffusion from the bottom of the soil columns, which could not completely be sealed from the greenhouse atmosphere and a
homogenous temperature of the soil column, may have promoted growth in such deeper
soil layers. In the lysimeters, the temperature and the gas atmosphere were more similar to
conditions in the surrounding field soil environment. With this, more realistic system, monitoring of the inoculated cells showed no migration of the GMMs into layers below 20 cm
depth (threshold of detection 100 cfu g-1 soil) and flow-through rain water did not transport any detectable bioluminescent cells through the 65 cm soil profile (threshold of detection 10 cfu ml-1). Thus, it could be concluded that no risk of vertical migration of GMMs on
the field site for the subsequent field plot inoculation existed. By selection of the field site, at
135
which the groundwater table was 20 m below the soil surface, unintentional spread into
ground water could be excluded.
Horizontal spread of inoculated cells could only be analyzed in the field plot experiment. The experimental field consisted of 20 plots, each a square of 9 m2 in 4 x 5 rows, with
each plot separated from the other by 3-meter noninoculated strips, seeded with grass. Plots
were inoculated in block randomized order with S. meliloti wild-type, L33, L1, or not inoculated. Already 12 weeks after the field release, bioluminescent cells were detected in the rhizosphere of alfalfa growing on noninoculated plots.26 Two weeks later, when we analyzed the
titer of bioluminescent cells in bulk soil, recombinant cells were detected on the
noninoculated control plots with an average titer of 2.2 x 101 cfu g-1 soil. This titer increased
further throughout the 3 year monitoring period to numbers only one order of magnitude
below those on the inoculated plots.25 Mixed populations of strain 2011, L33 and L1 were
found on wild-type-inoculated plots. Thus, inoculation of S. meliloti 2011 did not completely inhibit the colonization by the GMMs. Sampling outside of the alfalfa seeded plots
never resulted in detection of any significant amounts of bioluminescent cells.25 The horizontal spread of the GMMs was obviously restricted to the presence of alfalfa roots.
Unintentionally, a large number of different weed plants (approx. 20 different species)
grew on the alfalfa-seeded plots during the first vegetation period after inoculation. Several
of such weed plants were sampled concomitantly with alfalfa plants to study their rhizosphere colonization by bioluminescent cells. As expected, the rhizosphere of alfalfa plants
provided a well suited habitat for S. meliloti and was densely colonized by bioluminescent
cells (> 105 cfu g-1 root material). Some weed plants, e.g., Capsella bursa-pastoris, did not
enrich for any bioluminescent rhizobial cells, but for the weed Chenopodium album, we
found approx. 103 cfu g-1 root material on inoculated and 101 cfu g-1 on noninoculated
control plots, 12 weeks after the field release.
A total of approx. 1,200 pure culture colonies were isolated on growth media adapted
to the isolation of rhizosphere bacteria. These isolates were obtained from rhizospheres of
alfalfa and C. album plants, grown on inoculated and noninoculated plots 12 weeks after the
release of the GMMs. The species richness, as detected by restriction fragment length polymorphism of PCR amplified 16S rRNA genes (ARDRA) was higher in rhizospheres of alfalfa than of C. album. The diversity of isolates was characterized at the phylogenetic level
using restriction fragment length polymorphisms of PCR amplified 16S rRNA genes. The
number of ARDRA pattern types, which correlated with species richness and diversity (expressed as the Shannon Index), was larger in rhizospheres of alfalfa than in that of C. album.
The species richness was unaffected by inoculation in rhizospheres of C. album but
increased in rhizospheres of alfalfa.26 Possibly, the S. meliloti inoculation increased the
nutritional status of the early developing alfalfa plants and concomitantly resulted in the
release of rhizosphere exudates stimulating the growth of a larger variety of soil bacteria.
9.6. Conclusion
The results of this still ongoing investigation on the ecology of a genetically-tagged
Sinorhizobium sp. in the field demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of different
model detection systems for such studies. In general, greenhouse soil columns were useful
to demonstrate that the model strain, S. meliloti, did not cause any dramatic alterations in
the soil microbial community. However, to study vertical translocation and long term
effects of inoculated bacterial cells in the soil, more sophisticated systems with temperature
gradients, freeze thawing cycles to prevent soil compaction, and control of the soil atmosphere would be needed. Such factors were intrinsically provided in our field lysimeter
investigation. The major limitation of both soil columns and lysimeters compared to the
field plot experiment was that the number of samples which could be taken for analysis was
136
limited due to the small size of both systems. Field plots were also found to be extremely
useful for observing the impact of the nondeliberately controlled biological parameters,
namely soil invertebrates and weed plants, on the survival of the released GMMs. Interactions with both compartments, which serve as habitats of a large, mainly uncharacterized,
diversity of microorganisms, could also be studied.
It can be expected, that future environmental applications of recombinant bacterial
inoculants will not only include strains for biofertilization like S. meliloti in alfalfa fields,
but also bacterial strains for biocontrol or biodegradation. In general, it would be ecologically sound if any GMM construct is eliminated from the environment after its job has been
done. A continued persistence potentially includes ecological risks, e.g., exclusion of other
indigenous microorganisms, spread into neighboring nontarget ecosystems, transfer of
recombinant genes to indigenous microorganisms and noncontrolled establishment of new
properties in microbial communities, such as enhanced emergence of resistances. In order
to develop GMMs with improved ecological properties, long-term studies on the environmental fate of GMMs are needed. In our own studies, the luc-tagged GMMs were persistent
for at least four years after their field release and it can be concluded that this recombinant
trait did not dramatically effect the environmental fitness of the strains. Thus, for longterm monitoring of field released microorganisms, the luc marker gene should be an ideal
tool.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Frank Schwieger, Birgit Willke and Rona Miethling for their collaboration which was essential for the success of the project. The co-operation with our
colleagues from the University of Bielefeld, especially Mathias Keller, Werner Selbitschka
and Alfred Phler is gratefully acknowledged. Excellent technical assistance was provided
by Simone Dose and Phan Tuong Nguyen. The experimental work was supported by funds
from the Bundesministerium fr Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie (grants
BEO 0310549A, BEO 0310664, and BEO 0311203). C. Tebbe is a member of the MAREP
Concerted Action sponsored by the European Commission Biotechnology Programme,
DGXII.
References
1. Young, JPW. Phylogeny and taxonomy of rhizobia. Plant and Soil 1995; 186:45-52.
2. Maier RJ, Triplett EW. Toward more productive, efficient, and competitive nitrogen-fixing
symbiotic bacteria. Crit Rev Plant Sci 1996; 15:191-234.
3. Olsen PE, Rice WA, Bordeleau LM et al. Levels and identities of nonrhizobial microorganisms found in commercial legume inoculant made with nonsterile peat carrier. Can J
Microbiol 1996; 42:72-75.
4. Paau AS. Improvement of Rhizobium inoculants. Appl Environ Microbiol 1989; 55:862-865.
5. Van Elsas JD, Heijnen CE. Methods for the introduction of bacteria into soil: A review.
Biol Fertil Soils 1990; 10:127-133.
6. Stacey G. The Rhizobium experience. In: Halvorson O, Pramer D, Rogul M, eds. Engineered organisms in the environment: Scientific issues. Washington: ASM Press,
1985:109-120.
7. Lowendorf HS. Factors affecting the survival of Rhizobium in soil. In: Alexander M, ed.
Advances in Microbial Ecology. New York: Plenum Press, Vol.4, 1977:87-124.
8. Handley BA, Hedges AJ, Beringer JE. Importance of the host plants for detecting the population diversity of Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viciae in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 1998;
30:241-249.
9. Laguerre G, Bardin M, Amarger N. Isolation from soil of symbiotic and nonsymbiotic
R. leguminosarum by DNA hybridisation. Can J Microbiol 1993; 39:1142-1149.
137
10. Louvrier P, Laguerre G, Amager N. Semiselective medium for isolation of Rhizobium

leguminosarum from soils. Soil Biol Biochem 1995; 27:919-924.
11. Jansson JK. Tracking genetically engineered microorganisms in nature. Current Opinion
in Biotechnology 1995; 6:275-283.
12. Wilson KJ. Molecular techniques for the study of rhizobial ecology in the field. Soil Biol
Biochem 1995; 27:501-514.
13. Doyle JD, Stotzky G, McClung G et al. Effects of genetically engineered microorganisms
on processes in natural habitats. Advances in Applied Microbiology 1995; 40:237-287.
14. Sessitsch A, Jjemba PJ, Hardarson G et al. Measurement of the competitiveness index of
Rhizobium tropici strain CIAT899 derivatives marked with the gusA gene. Soil Biol Biochem
1997; 29:1099-1110.
15. Vahjen W, Munch JC, Tebbe CC. Fate of three genetically engineered, biotechnologically
important microorganisms species in soil: Impact of soil properties and intraspecies competition with nonengineered strains. Can J Microbiol 1997; 43:827-834.
16. Selbitschka W, Phler A, Simon R. The construction of recA-deficient Rhizobium meliloti
and R. leguminosarum strains marked with gusA or luc cassettes for use in risk-assessment
studies. Molecular Ecology 1992; 1:9-19.
17. Selbitschka W, Arnold W, Priefer UB et al. Characterization of recA genes and recA mutants of Rhizobium meliloti and Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viciae. Mol Gen Genet
1991; 229:86-95.
18. Hagen M, Phler A, Selbitschka W. The persistence of bioluminescent Rhizobium meliloti
strains L1 (RecA-) and L33 (RecA+) in nonsterile microcosms depends on the soil type,
on the co-cultivation of the host legume alfalfa and on the presence of an indigenous R.
meliloti population. Plant and Soil 1997; 188:257-266.
19. Dammann-Kalinowski T, Niemann S, Keller M et al. Characterization of two bioluminescent Rhizobium meliloti strains constructed for field releases. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
1996; 45:509-512.
20. Garland JL, Mills AL. Classification and characterization of heterotrophic microbial communities on the basis of patterns of community-level soil-carbon-source utilization. Appl
21. Vahjen W, Munch JC, Tebbe CC. Carbon source utilization of soil extracted microorganisms as a tool to detect the effects of soil supplemented with genetically engineered and
nonengineered Corynebacterium glutamicum and a recombinant peptide at the community
level. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1995; 18:317-328.
22. Thimm T, Tebbe CC. - unpublished results 23. Schwieger F, Willke B, Munch JC et al. Ecological pre-release risk assessment of two genetically engineered, bioluminescent Rhizobium meliloti strains in soil column model systems. Biol Fertil Soils 1997; 25:340-348.
24. Schwieger F, Dammann-Kalinowski T, Dresing U et al. Environmental release of luciferase
marker gene-tagged Sinorhizobium meliloti strains into lysimeters to evaluate the ecological
significance of soil inoculation and a recA-mutation. FEMS Microbial Ecolmanuscript
submitted
25. Dresing U, Schwieger F, Dammann-Kalinowski T et al. Field release of two bioluminescent
Sinorhizobium meliloti strains to monitor survival and dissemination of a genetically engineered soil bacterium in the environment. manuscript submitted.
26. Schwieger F, Tebbe CC. Impact of a field release of S. meliloti L33 on the structure of
bacterial communities in the rhizosphere of a host and a nonhost plant as detected by
nucleic acid based techniques. manuscript submitted.
CHAPTER 10
The Field Release and Monitoring

of Rhizobial Strains Marked with lacZ
and Mercury Resistance Genes
Viviana Corich, Alessio Giacomini, Elena Vendramin, Patrizia Vian,
Milena Carlot, Andrea Squartini and Marco P. Nuti
10.1. Introduction
his brief account will summarize the experiences gathered over an eight year period
(1989-1996), devoted to assessing the potential risks associated with the construction
and use of genetically modified microorganisms. As part of the BAP, BRIDGE and IMPACT
I European projects, these studies fall primarily in the category of prenormative research; the
aims of which were to provide information to competent authorities and protection agencies and to contribute to the build up of case histories for the validation of environmentally
safe guidelines. With this respect, the experimental schemes adopted have been focused on
addressing a simple and somewhat rhetorical question: whether or not a neutral genetic
modification, not conferring advantages to the bacteria, could perturb the environment
into which they are released?
10.2. Designing the Markers

The theoretical rationale that inspired our marker design stemmed from considerations
on the strength of gene promoters. In the late 1980s we had scanned aligned compilations
of bacterial promoter sequences and summarized that a hypothetical consensus promoter,
featuring the most frequent base entry displayed at each position by known upstream gene
regions, was likely to confer strong expression levels. We therefore constructed a 59-mer
synthetic promoter, which was then assembled in a gene cartridge (Fig.10.1), together with
a lacO-lacIq system to allow regulated expression, translational requirements by means of a
ribosome binding site, and the lacZ reporter gene.1 In addition a number of suitable restriction sites were added allowing: (1) the subcloning of the module, (2) optional removal of
the operator to attain constitutive expression and (3) insertional gene fusions replacing or
trailing the lacZ gene. In order to add selectable traits for future monitoring of the GMM,
mercury resistance determinants were included in the cassette. The avoidance of antibiotic
markers was appropriate in the light of EU guidelines which discourage their use in open
field releases. A broad host-range vector of the incQ type was the carrier of the cassette
which was tested in Rhizobium leguminosarum and E. coli. The incorporation of inorganic
Hg as a selective agent safeguarded against extensive fungal growth on isolation plates. The
140
Fig.10.1. Map of the assembled gene cartridge

used for the genetic modifications (redrawn with
modifications from ref. 1).
synthetic promoter fulfilled expectations, conferring levels of -gal activity that more than
doubled those of the tac promoter cloned in an isogenic vector-background. Interestingly,
the regulated version of the cassette behaved differently in the two tested species: in E. coli
an IPTG-induced regulated tac promoter was stronger than the regulated synthetic promoter while in Rhizobium the situation was reversed. The cassette proved therefore efficient
for monitoring of rhizobia. An additional advantage was the facility of performing highlyspecific fragment amplification from environmental samples ensured by a DNA sequence
virtually unique in nature.
10.3. Construction of GMM Strains 1110, 1111 and 1112

Our first target organism was Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae strain 1003. To begin with, a spontaneous rifampicin-resistant derivative was obtained, in which the above
described gene cassette was introduced (such spontaneous antibiotic resistances do not fall
in the recombinant category regulated by the EU). In order to observe the effects that
identical genetic modifications could exert on a microorganism in relation to the replicon
of residence and to the status of marker gene expression, we devised and constructed three
isogenic GMM derivatives of strain 1003.2 The first (strain 1110) carried the lac-regulated
mercury-resistant gene cassette on a broad host range incQ plasmid derived from pRL4973
and devoid of antibiotic resistances (plasmid pDG3). The second (strain 1111) was identical with the exception of the absence of the 26 bp lac operator (plasmid pDG4). This difference brought about a constitutively high level of lacZ expression. The third strain (1112)
had the same regulated cassette of strain 1110, but inserted into the chromosome via homologous recombination of flanking Rhizobium sequences previously cloned in a suicide
vector. The three constructs were made to test whether the same marker genes could give
rise to different outcomes in terms of stability and fitness, with respect to their positions
and expression levels within the cells. Phenotypically the GMMs were clearly distinct from
their parent strain due to the levels of -gal activity and to their resistance to HgCl2
(Table 10.1). Mercury resistance was also found to be affected by the growth medium, being
lower in mannitol-based media, supposedly due to an interference between mannitol
metabolism and mercury detoxification.4 Measurements of growth kinetics indicated that
the genetic modification did not affect growth rate of the three strains. When testing genetic
stability through 70 generations in batch culture, as predicted, the strain carrying the
unregulated cassette underwent an over 99% loss of the introduced plasmid, versus a 99%
marker stability shown by the regulated plasmid version over the same period. The metabolic load of a continuous lacZ expression at very high levels therefore appears a deleterious
burden that prompts marker/reporter elimination.
10.4. Microcosm Studies of GMMs

A long-term microcosm study to reproduce storage of commercial agricultural
inoculants was undertaken to obtain information on the behavior of GMMs during a
mandatory stage for any marketed PGPR (Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria).
The collaboration with Heligenetics S.p.A (Gaiba [Rovigo] Italy), a company manufacturing inoculants, allowed us to use state-of-the-art industrial technology and test
The Field Release and Monitoring of Rhizobial Strains
141
Table 10.1. Expression level of the introduced genes: -galactosidase activity and
resistance to mercury chloride
Strain
1003 (wt)
1110
1111
1112
-gal activity (Miller U)
-gal activity (Miller U)
IPTG-induced
uninduced
MIC (g/ml) of
HgCl2
38
6.849
12.982
718
40
260
15.165
243
<1
10
10
5
three different carrier formulations, namely; sterile liquid medium, -irradiated sterile
vermiculite, and non sterile peat. The latter was a suitable environment to assess possible
gene transfer to indigenous peat microflora. The three GMMs, and the parent strain, were
inoculated into the three different microcosms. Strain survival and marker stability were
monitored by periodic sampling from stored packages for over 500 days. Results are shown
in Figure 10.2. The liquid medium supported high viability during the first 100 days whereas
vermiculite appeared more suitable for long term survival. The chromosomal integration
was extremely stable and allowed a survival rate comparable to that of the parent. Strain
1110, carrying the regulated plasmid-borne cassette, demonstrated weaker persistence. By
contrast, strain 1111 rapidly lost the plasmid carrying the unregulated construct, but plasmid free segregates survived as well as the wild type. Marker loss was easily detected by
plating bacteria on X-gal plates. A typical feature of the highly expressed lac genes in strain
1111 was the small size of its dark blue colonies compared to the larger and paler revertants.
Horizontally-acquired marker genes were sought among peat indigenous bacteria but the
background levels of lactose utilization and of HgCl2 resistance (respectively 20% and 0.07%
of the total aerobic bacterial peat population) hindered such analysis. However, when 1650
HgR colonies were screened for lac phenotypes, 139 colonies showed both marker phenotypes and were tested by hybridization with probes from pDG3, (mercury resistance genes
and the 59-mer synthetic promoter). Two colonies hybridized with the first probe and two
different ones with the second one. When the isolates with homology to the synthetic promoter probe were checked with a lacZ probe no signal was detected. These fragmentary
homologies may suggest that transformation by liberated DNA portions had occurred, but
absolute proof was not obtained for gene transfer or exchange.
10.5. Field Trial I; Fate and Impact of an Allochtonous GMM

Upon authorization from the national competent authority, the three GM rhizobia
tested in microcosms were released as field inoculants in the presence of their pea host plant
(Pisum sativum) by liquid inoculation at about 5x106 cfu per seed. The release took place in
soil at the agricultural experimental station of the University of Padova.5 Bacteria were
monitored in soil, rhizosphere and nodules. The parental strain 1003, from which the GMMs
were derived had been isolated in northern Europe and propagated for a considerable time
in the laboratory environment. It was therefore allochtonous with respect to the release site.
This condition along with a possible fitness reduction due to extended laboratory maintenance, may have contributed to its poor persistence after inoculation. Although both the
wild type and the three GMMs had shown good nodulation and nitrogen fixation phenotype on different cultivars of peas in preliminary pot trials, analysis of their persistence in
the field revealed a decrease from 106 to 103 cfu g-1 within the first 30 days after sowing.
142
Fig.10.2. Survival (A-B-C) and marker stability (D-E-F) of Rhizobium strains in inoculant packages. A, D, liquid medium; B, E, sterile vermiculite; C, F, unsterilized peat. Symbols: , strain
1003; , strain 1110; , strain 1111; , strain 1112. Each point represents the mean of data
obtained from three different packages. Standard deviations were within the ranges 4% to 41%
for liquid, 8% to 59% for vermiculite, and 21% to 68% for peat samples (redrawn with
modifications from Corich V, Bosco F, Giacomini A et al. J Appl Bacteriol 1996; 81:319-328.).
Nodulation was correspondingly low for all introduced strains, less than 1.4% out of a
sampled population of 1229 nodules. The detection limit inherent to the markers used was
in the order of 102 cfu g-1 soil dry weight.
In parallel, the possible impact on resident biota was measured by plate counts of total
aerobic culturable bacteria, spore forming bacteria, microfungi, streptomycetes, fluorescent
The Field Release and Monitoring of Rhizobial Strains
143
pseudomonads, and total rhizobia. No significant numerical perturbations were detected.

Other parameters were measured, including respiration and denitrification by assaying CO2
and N2O evolution from soil, and VA mycorrhizal infection of pea plants. No differences
were found between control and GMM plots. The persistence of released strains was assessed for a period of up to 2.5 years after inoculation by host plant nodulation and PCR
amplification to target the marker gene cassettes in total DNA samples extracted from soil.
No trace of viable (nodulating) GMMs or of their DNA (PCR) was found.
10.6. Field trial II; Fate and Impact of a GMM Native to the Site
The experience gained by field release of an allochtonous strain prompted the consideration as to what would have happened if a competitive, indigenous Rhizobium engineered
with the same genetic modification had been used. To address this question we had a set of
data available from RAPD fingerprinting analyses of > 250 nodule occupants from the first
release site. The Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae natural local population showed more
than 30 different RAPD profiles some of which were present in a large number of nodules.
Nodulation tests on an alternative host, Vicia faba subsp. minor, also contributed data to
identify the profile of the dominant strain which occupied over half of the nodules on both
plants (profile D on Table 10.2).
A spontaneous rifampicin resistant derivative of this strain was genetically modified by
introducing plasmid pDG3, yielding the equivalent of strain 1110 used in the first release,
but in a background strain native of the chosen habitat and successful on its symbiotic
hosts. The strain was named 1114. The performance of this GMM lived up to the standards
of its parent whose competitive traits were maintained in terms of nodulation and persistence in the habitat. Despite the active colonization and infection of strain 1114, again the
resident microbiota did not show significant alterations, as determined by plate counting,
indicating that a GMM extensively invading its environment, does not necessarily alter the
measured soil populations.6 An analysis of heterospecific but related species such as
Sinorhizobium meliloti was carried out from pea rhizosphere using MPN counts by means
of the homologous host alfalfa. The GMM did not alter S. meliloti numbers. Moreover, their
growth appeared not to be stimulated in the rhizosphere of the heterologous pea plant. In
terms of marker/reporter genes efficiency in monitoring, differences were noticed between
the first released GMM, based on strain 1003, and 1114, the dominant profile D strain.
The former, despite carrying mercury resistant genes, was difficult to grow on mercury con-
Table 10.2. Frequency of the most abundant RAPD profiles shown by nodule
occupants on pea (P. sativum) and vetch (V. faba) in the soil of the release
P. sativum
(250 nodules)
V. faba
(32 nodules)
10%
13%
9%
19%
11%
6%
55%
44%
< 1%
9%
144
taining media when plated straight from soil suspension, although it would grow well if
restreaked from agar plates or liquid cultures. This is presumably due to the necessity for
induction of mercury resistance. The latter strain, 1114 did not present such a limitation,
allowing a faster screening. Conversely, the lacZ marker driven to high expression by the
synthetic promoter, conferred a distinct phenotype in the 1003 background, while in strain
1114 a higher endogenous -galactosidase activity made the reporter less distinctive when
monitoring the GMMs.
10.7. Conclusion
In essence, the experiments described here indicate that the efficiency of detoxifying
and catabolic marker genes can not be generalized and is dependent on the physiology of
each bacterial strain. Their stability instead, is correlated with both gene expression and
genomic location. As for field release practice, data suggest that the use of an allochtonous
strain does not warrant successful colonization, and that on the contrary, strong autochtonous
isolates can yield backgrounds for a more promising field exploitation. GMM impact on
resident life is not necessarily associated with niche occupation and will therefore be dependent on the nature of the introduced genetic modification.
Acknowledgment
M.P Nuti is a member of the MAREP Concerted Action sponsored by the European
References
1. Giacomini A, Ollero FJ, Squartini A et al. Construction of multipurpose gene cartridges
based on a novel synthetic promoter for high-level gene expression in gram-negative bacteria. Gene 1994; 144:17-24.
2. Corich V, Bosco F, Giacomini A et al. Fate of genetically modified Rhizobium leguminosarum
biovar viciae during long-term storage of commercial inoculants. J Appl Bacteriol 1996;
81:319-328.
3. Elhai J and Wolk CP. A versatile class of positive-selection vectors based on the nonviability
of palindrome-containing plasmids that allow cloning into long polylinkers. Gene 1988;
68:119-138.
4. Robinson JB, and Tuovinen OH. Mechanisms of microbial resistance and detoxification of
mercury and organomercury compounds: Physiological, biochemical and genetic analyses.
Microbiol Rev 1984; 48:95-124.
5. Corich V, Giacomini A, Concheri G et al. Environmental impact of genetically modified
Azospirillum brasilense, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Rhizobium leguminosarum released as
soil/seed inoculants. In: Jones D, ed. Biosafety Results of Field Tests with Genetically Modified Plants and Microorganisms. Oakland, University of California Division of Agriculture
and Natural Resources 1995: 371-388.
6. Nuti MP, Basaglia M, Bonfante P et al. Field release of genetically modified biofertilizers
and phytostimulators. In: Matsui S, Miyazaki S, and Kasamo K, eds. The Biosafety Results
of Field Tests of Genetically Modified Plants and Microorganisms. Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan: JIRCAS Publisher, 1996: 101-111.
CHAPTER 11
The Field Release and Monitoring of

GUS-Marked Rhizobial Strain CT0370
Penny R. Hirsch, Tom A. Mendum, Alfred Phler and Werner Selbitschka
11.1. Introduction
he population genetics of soil bacteria provides strong evidence that genes are exchanged
in the natural environment (For examples, see refs 1-3). However, there is little information on the frequency and time scale of such events. There are concerns that the deliberate
release of beneficial genetically modified microorganisms (GMM) as plant inoculants could
result in the generation of undesirable hybrids if novel genes are transferred from the GMMs
to the native population. Conversely, genes from native strains could be transferred into the
inoculant, affecting its performance or persistence. There is extensive information on the
survival of rhizobial inoculants,4 which have been widely used for over 100 years in agriculture to form dinitrogen-fixing symbioses with leguminous plants. In recent years there have
been several releases of GM rhizobia (see refs 5-7 and Chapters 9 and 10). Also evidence has
been obtained for the transfer of a conjugative transposon from an inoculant to native rhizobia,8,9 but there are no reports of genes being transferred into rhizobial inoculants.
To investigate this possibility, Selbitschka et al10 marked a strain of Rhizobium
leguminosarum biovar viciae which had been cured of its symbiotic plasmid and consequently had lost the ability to form nodules on pea plants, by insertion of the Escherichia
coli uidA (gusA) gene into the chromosome. This gene conferred -glucosidase (GUS) activity, not normally present in rhiziobia or plants (see Chapter 6). When the strain, CT0370,
re-acquired a conjugative symbiotic plasmid, it regained nodulation ability and formed
nodules with GUS activity. Thus, the GUS marker not only facilitated the monitoring of the
survival of CT0370 after field release, but it also provided a simple screen: any pea root
nodules containing rhizobia with GUS activity would indicate symbiotic gene acquisition
by CT0370. To increase the potential for the detection of transfer events, the release site
selected contained an established population, released seven years previously by Hirsch and
Spokes,6 of R. leguminosarum biovar viciae strain RSM2004 containing a conjugative symbiotic plasmid that had been shown to confer nodulation ability on strain CT0370.
11.2. Construction of GMM Strain CT0370

The genetically modified release strain CT0370 was constructed as follows. The parent
strain LRS39401 is a derivative of R. leguminosarum biovar viciae faba bean nodule isolate
VF39 cured of its symbiotic plasmid, and selected for spontaneous mutation to streptomycin resistance.11 It was subjected to targeted insertion of the E. coli gusA gene constitutively
expressed by the promoter PnptII of the nptII gene of transposon Tn5 into a noncoding
146
Tracking Genetically Engineered Microorganisms
sequence between the chromosomal recA and alaS genes, reported by Selbitschka et al12 In
order to accomplish integration of the gus gene cassette, Selbitschka et al10 introduced an
XhoI restriction site by site-directed mutagenesis in the recA-alaS region, immediately adjacent to the putative rho-independent terminator of the recA gene. The chromosomal site
had been chosen since previous characterization of Sinorhizobium meliloti strain L33 which
carried the bioluminescence mediating firefly luc gene in the analogous recA-alaS intergenic
region had shown that an insertion in the target site per se did not adversely affect the
strains fitness. Selbitschka et al13 reported that strain L33 behaved like its parent strain with
respect to vegetative and symbiotic properties such as growth rate, growth competitive abilities or symbiotic performance (see also Chapter 9).
The recA-alaS region was cloned in E. coli using a vector which could not replicate
autonomously in Rhizobium, and contained sacRB (sucrose sensitivity) and aacC1 (gentamicin resistance) markers. Following mobilization into strain LRS39401, gentamicin
resistant transconjugants were assumed to have undergone a chromosomal insertion of the
vector in the target site by homologous recombination. Following selection on sucrose, some
transconjugants had lost the gentamicin and sucrose-sensitivity markers of the vector but
retained a GUS phenotype. These were tested for vector sequences by extracting DNA,
digesting with BamH1, EcoR1 and NruI, and probing gel blots with vector DNA. PCR with
primers designed to identify a single GUS gene cassette insertion in the predicted position
was used to confirm the structure (Fig. 11.1). Primers were: recA forward, uidA reverse,
uidA forward, and alaS reverse. PCR products arose only from reactions with recA forward,
uidA reverse and uidA forwards, alaS reverse. Spontaneous mutation to spectinomycin
resistance was selected in one such construct, producing strain CT0370.
11.3. Detection of Strains CT0370 and RSM2004

Routine CT0370 culturing was on complete TY or minimal Y medium, detailed by
Hirsch and Skinner,14 at 28C. To count CT0370 in soil, selective TY or Y agar were used,
containing 500 g ml-1 streptomycin (Str) and 200 g ml-1 spectinomycin (Sp) to counterselect
other bacteria, cycloheximide 100 g ml-1 and benomyl at 7.5 g ml-1 to inhibit fungi, and
the GUS substrate X-gluc (5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-(-D)-glucoronic cyclohexamine salt,
supplied by NBL Biologicals, U.K.) at 50 g ml-1. In soil from the release site before inoculation there were 2 x 104 Str and Sp resistant bacteria and 3% of these were GUS-positive.
After release the only bacteria with a typical rhizobial morphology and which gave blue
colonies on the selective agar were demonstrated to be CT0370 from plasmid profiles using
a modified Eckhardt procedure.14 Strain RSM2004, which contains a conjugative symbiotic
plasmid marked with the neomycin resistance transposon Tn5, could be counted on TY
agar containing neomycin (Neo) 100 g ml-1, rifampicin (Rif) 50 g ml-1 and the antifungal
agents, as reported by Hirsch and Spokes.6 At each sampling time, 10 soil sub-samples (five
Fig. 11.1. GUS gene insertion in the chromosome of strain CT0370

Restriction sites: N-NruI; E EcoRI; B BamHI
PCR primer binding sites: rf recA forward; ur uidA reverse; uf uidA forward; ar alaS
reverse
The Field Release and Monitoring of GUS-Marked Rhizobial Strain CT0370
147
from each section of the noninoculated buffer zones) were collected and pooled, sieved
through a 5 mm mesh, 10 g resuspended in 100 ml sterile distilled water, and 100 l plated
on five replicate plates. Total nodulating rhizobia were enumerated using Vicia hirsuta
infection tests with most probable number (MPN) estimation as described by Hirsch and
Skinner.14
Strains CT0370 and RSM2004 could be detected in DNA extracted directly from soil
using PCR with primers specific for the GUS insert and Tn5, respectively, as reported by
Cullen et al.15
11.4. Inoculant Preparation

CT0370 inoculant was prepared using a commercial peat-based carrier system (MicroBio
Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, U.K.) as described previously.6 This system releases rhizobia into
the soil over a period of 1-2 weeks. Prior to release, the inoculant was enumerated in the
peat and its viability was checked using fluorescent microscopy with Baclight(TM) live/
dead stain (Molecular Probes, Oregon, USA). Prior to release, direct and plate counts of the
inoculant gave 1.5 x 109 and 1.7 x 109 cfu g-1 peat, respectively.
11.5. Field Release

The release site (Fig. 11.2), a 3 x 3 m plot within the site of the RSM2004 release6 had
been under rotation with cereal crops since 1989. To comply with the requirements of the
U.K. Department of the Environment, the plot was covered by a net to exclude birds and
surrounded by two 1 m buffer zones of wheat separated by a fence.
Fig. 11.2. Release plot of strain CT0370

A wheat field, B outer buffer zone; C fence; D inner buffer zone; E net; F peas inoculated with strain CT0370; G dustbin.
148
The release took place in July 1994: inoculant granules were placed in drills (10 cm
apart), into which 840 untreated Avola peas (PGRO, Peterbourgh, U.K) coated in inoculant
were planted at 10 cm intervals. A total of 662 g of peat inoculant containing 9 x 1011 live
cells was applied; initial soil samples thus contained 4.9 x 105 cfu CT0370 g-1 soil. Samples
were taken immediately before and after the release, then weekly for 10 weeks and then
fortnightly. Peas were again planted in May 1995 and July 1995, but without further inoculation. An initial ten-fold drop in CT0370 cfu numbers was observed during the first 10
weeks, to 5 x 104 culturable cells g-1 soil (Fig. 11.3). Subsequently numbers remained around
104, similar to the numbers of native R. leguminosarum in the soil (Fig. 11.3). The inoculant
appeared to survive better than RSM2004 which had rapidly dropped to 102 cfu g-1 soil
although it subsequently persisted at this level. No CT0370 was detected in any buffer zone
samples: the major dispersion mechanism in arable fields is via soil cultivation6 and the
buffer zones were not cultivated.
11.6. Screening for pSym Acquisition by CT0370 in the Field

Pea plants were harvested at pod-fill, the roots washed in water, nodules removed and
surface sterilized by washing in 70% ethanol for 30 s, rinsing in H2O, leaving in 10% sodium
hypochlorite for 1 min, then washing twice in H2O. They were stored at 70C in sterile 96
well microtiter dishes containing sterile 10% glycerol. The nodules were screened for GUS
activity using MUG (4-methyl-umbelliferyl--D-glucoronide supplied by NBL biologicals)
and UV-induced fluorescence was assessed as described.10 Nodules containing GUS activity
were crushed onto TY plates. Over two years, 21,146 nodules were screened. Three had GUS
activity but were found to contain nonrhizobial contaminants. Hence, no rhizobia with
GUS activity were found.
11.7. Plasmid Transfer from RSM2004 to CT0370

For filter crosses, parents were grown in liquid TY to mid-late log-phase. Then, 100 l
of each culture were placed on a membrane filter and incubated overnight at 28C on TY
Fig. 11.3. Survival of strain CT0370 and other rhizobia in the field
149
plates. The mixed growth was suspended in 1 ml H2O by vortexing and serial dilutions were
plated onto selective media. Sterile field soil was prepared by drying and milling, passing it
through a 5 mm sieve and autoclaving it three times at 121C for 1 hr with 24 hr intervals
between sterilizations. Nonsterile conjugations were performed in fresh field soil
(7.5% w/w H2O) previously passed through a 5mm sieve. Samples from late log phase cultures of CT0370 and RSM2004 were mixed, centrifuged, and resuspended in 500 l/H2O.
Then, 5 g of soil were added, the mixture was vortexed and incubated for 4 days at 28C.
Samples of parental cultures, and of soil after 2 and 4 days (resuspended as described for
field soil) were diluted and plated onto selective media. To determine how plasmid transfer
rate was affected by the presence of pea plants, and of introducing inoculant in peat granules, field soil in pots was mixed with peat inoculant to give RSM2004 and CT0370 levels of
approximately 106 cfu g-1 soil, and peas were planted. Control pots contained the parents
alone or strain CT0370 carrying pSym2004. Samples of the inoculant granules and of rhizosphere soil after one and two weeks were resuspended and plated as described for field
samples. Root nodules were screened for GUS activity as described previously.
The highest transfer frequency of the pSym plasmid from RSM2004 to CT0370, i.e.,
9 x 10-5 transconjugants per recipient, was observed in laboratory matings on filters. In sterile soil microcosms with 106 to 107 cfu of each parent strain per g soil, the highest frequency
was 2.6 x 10-6 transconjugants per recipient cell; in nonsterile soil it was 2.3 x 10-7. In pot
experiments with peat inoculant containing both parents, providing 5 x 106 cfu g-1 soil, no
transconjugants were found, indicating that in field soil with only 102-103 RSM2004 and
104-105 CT0370 cfu g-1 soil, the frequency would most likely be too low to detect.
CT0370 colonies reisolated from soil were screened for the acquisition of other plasmids from the soil population by subjecting them to PCR with primers designed to amplify
two rhizobial plasmid replication origins identified in the field population.16,17 More than
1000 colonies were screened, pooled in groups of 10 for DNA extraction and tested by PCR.
No positive results were obtained, although control reactions in which one colony of a positive field isolate was included did give the expected band.
11.8. Conclusion
Although strain CT0370 lacked symbiotic genes, it survived well in field soil after release and remained at a level similar to that of the native rhizobial population for five years
of sampling. This compares to the prior release of RSM2004 at the same site, where numbers declined by two orders of magnitude in the six months following release, but subsequently stabilized at around 102 cfu g soil-1.4,6 However, RSM2004 does not persist in all
soils and it is probable that survival is influenced by both soil type and bacterial strain.4 The
GUS marker alone would not have facilitated counting of CT0370 because of GUS activity
in the indigenous population of heterotrophic soil bacteria. However, in conjunction with
the chromosomal antibiotic resistances of CT0370, the gus gene made it possible to detect
the strain in soil against the background population, without effecting the enumeration of
RSM2004 (which contains different antibiotic resistances, neomycin and rifampicin). The
GUS marker offered a very sensitive detection system for identifying root nodules with
containing rhizobia with GUS activity and facilitated the screening of many more nodules
than would have been feasible with markers. The lack of transconjugants with GUS activity
in the field indicates that plasmid transfer does not occur at elevated levels in the field compared with laboratory studies. Symbiotic plasmid transfer from RSM2004 to CT0370 could
be detected in soil microcosms with parental densities of 106-107 cfu g soil-1, much higher
than those in field soil. The population density of rhizobia on pea roots is much higher than
in bulk soil but did not appear to be sufficient to enable conjugation to occur at a detectable
level and no evidence was found for acquisition of symbiotic or other plasmids from native
150
rhizobia by CT0370. Nevertheless, studies on natural populations of rhizobia indicate that

plasmid transfer does occur over time.1, 3 This contrasts with the findings by Lilley et al,2 of
high levels of plasmid transfer in pseudomonad populations in the sugar beet phytosphere
and indicates that rates of gene transfer in the environment vary between different bacteria
groups and habitats.
In conclusion, the GUS marker facilitated sensitive detection of CT0370 in root nodules and proved to be an excellent marker for monitoring microbes in the field.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by EC Biotechnology Programmes (BIO2 CT92-0370
and BIO4 CT96-0434). IACR-Rothamsted receives grant-aided support from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council of the UK. A. Phler and W. Selbitschka
are members of the MAREP Concerted Action sponsored by the European Commission
Biotechnology Programme, DGXII.
References
1. Young JPW, Wexler M. Sym plasmid and chromosomal genotypes are correlated in the
field populations of Rhizobium leguminosarum. J Gen Microbiol 1988; 134:2731-2739.
2. Lilley AK, Bailey MJ. The acquisition of indigenous plasmids by a genetically marked
pseudomonad population colonising the phytosphere of sugar beet is related to local environmental conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 1997; 63:1577-1583.
3. Villadas PJ, Burgos P, Rodriguez-Navarro DN et al. Characterization of rhizobia homologues of Sinorhizobium meliloti insertion elements ISRm3 and ISRm4. FEMS Microbiol
Ecol 1998; 25:341-348.
4. Hirsch PR. Population dynamics of indigenous and genetically modified rhizobia in the
field. New Phytol 1996; 133:159-171.
5. Bosworth AH, Williams MK, Albrecht K et al. Alfalfa yield response to inoculation with
recombinant strains of Rhizobium meliloti with an extra copy of dctABD and/or modified
nifA expression. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994; 60:3815-3832.
6. Hirsch PR, Spokes JD. Survival and dispersion of genetically modified rhizobia in the field
7. OFlaherty S, Monne-Loccoz Y, Boesten B et al. Greenhouse and field evaluations of an
autoselective system based on an essential thymidylate synthase gene for improved maintenance of plasmid vectors in modified Rhizobium meliloti. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995;
61:4051-4056.
8. Sullivan JT, Patrick HN, Lowther WL et al. Nodulating strains of Rhizobium loti arise
through chromosomal symbiotic gene transfer in the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 1995; 92:8985-8989.
9. Sullivan JT, Ronson CW. Evolution of rhizobia by acquisition of a 500-kb symbiosis island
that integrates into a phe-tRNA gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998; 95:5145-5149.
10. Selbitschka W, Jording D, Nieman S et al. Construction and characterisation of a Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viciae strain designed to assess horizontal gene transfer in the
environment. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1995; 128:255-263.
11. Hynes MF, McGregor NF. Two plasmids other than the nodulation plasmid are necessary
for formation of nitrogen-fixing nodules by Rhizobium leguminosarum. Mol Microbiol 1990;
4:567-574.
12. Selbitschka W, Arnold W, Priefer UB et al. Characterization of recA genes and recA mutants of Rhizobium meliloti and Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viciae. Mol Gen Genet
1991; 229:86-95.
13. Selbitschka W, Dresing U, Hagen M et al. A biological containment system for Rhizobium
meliloti based on the use of recombination-deficient (recA-) strains. FEMS Microbiol Ecol
1995; 16:223-232.
151
14. Hirsch PR, Skinner, F.A. The identification and classification of Rhizobium and
Bradyrhizobium. In: Board RG, Jones K, Skinner FA, eds. Identification Methods in Applied and Environmental Microbiology Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. 1992:45-65.
15. Cullen DW, Nicholson PS, Mendum TA et al. Monitoring genetically-modified rhizobia in
field soils using the polymerase chain reaction. J Appl Bacteriol 1998; 84:1025-1034.
16. Turner SL, Rigottier-Gois L, Power RS et al. Diversity of repC plasmid-replication sequences
in Rhizobium leguminosarum. Microbiology 1996; 142:1705-1713.
17. Rigottier-Gois L, Turner SLT, Young JPW et al. Distribution of repC plasmid-replication
sequences among plasmids and isolates of Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae from field
populations. Microbiology 1998; 144:771-780.
CHAPTER 12
Regulatory Aspects
Kersti Gustafsson
12.1. Introduction
any countries have chosen to regulate GMOs (genetically modified organisms) for deliberate release into the environment. Reasons for regulation are the lack of knowledge
on the fate and behavior of GMOs and inserted genomes deliberately released into the environment and lack of experience of accompanying risks. Another reason is the concern of
people in general about releases of GMOs into the environment. Some countries are of the
opinion that ethical aspects of these matters are important. Regulation and control
facilitate increased general knowledge concerning the deliberate release of GMOs and hopefully contribute to a safe and acceptable development of the area.
This chapter deals mainly with GMM (genetically modified organisms), however, much
of the regulation is developed for the whole group of GMOs.
The United States has chosen to regulate GMOs under the existing legislation, while
the European Union (EU) has chosen to introduce new directives. Sweden has an act regulating GMOs and the responsibility among authorities is divided according to existing legislation. Since much is dependent on the vector of the gene modification, i.e., the organism,
a divided responsibility among different experts must be relevant. The use of biotechnology
in industrial applications as well as for research and development purposes has increased.
This is also a reason to have a divided responsibility for the control of the use of GMOs.
12.2. Historical Aspects of the Regulation of Deliberate Releases

of GMOs
In 1986, the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) Council made recommendations for applications of recombinant DNA organisms in industry,
agriculture and the environment.1 It was considered that recombinant DNA techniques
have opened up new and promising possibilities in a wide range of applications and can be
expected to bring considerable benefits to mankind. It was also considered that a common
understanding of safety issues raised by recombinant DNA techniques will provide the
basis for taking initial steps toward international consensus, the protection of health and
the environment, the promotion of international commerce and the reduction of national
barriers to trade in the field of biotechnology, that assessment of potential risks of recombinant DNA organisms for environmental or agricultural applications is less developed than
the assessment of potential risks for industrial applications. Some of the recommendations
are listed in Table 12.1.
In 1992, the OECD published a follow-up document concerning safety considerations
for biotechnology with good developmental principles (GDP) as a guide for the design of
154
Table 12.1. Recommendations to OECD Member countries from the OECD

council concerning safety considerations for applications of recombinant DNA
organisms in industry, agriculture and the environment (sections 1 and 3
reprinted with permission from OECD publications)1
1. OECD council recommends that OECD Member countries:
a) share, as free as possible, information on principles or guidelines for national
regulations, on developments in risk analysis and on practical experience in risk
management with a view to facilitating harmonization of approaches to recombinant
DNA techniques;
b) examine their existing oversight and review mechanisms to ensure that adequate
review and control of the implementation of recombinant DNA techniques and
applications can be achieved while avoiding any undue burdens that may hamper
technological developments in this field;
c) recognize, when aiming at international harmonization, that any approach to
implementing guidelines should not impede future developments in recombinant DNA
techniques;
d) examine at both national and international levels further developments such as testing
methods, equipment design, and knowledge of microbial taxonomy to facilitate data
exchange and minimize trade barriers between countries. Due account should be
taken of ongoing work on standards within international organizations, e.g. WHO,
CEC, ISO, FAO, MSDN1
e) make special efforts to improve public understanding of the various aspects of
recombinant DNA techniques;
f) watch the development of recombinant DNA techniques for applications in industry,
agriculture and the environment, while recognizing that for certain industrial
applications, and for environmental and agricultural applications of recombinant DNA
organisms, some countries may wish to have a notification scheme;
g) ensure that the assessment and review procedures protect intellectual property and
confidentiality interests in applications of recombinant DNA, recognizing the need for
innovation while still ensuring that all necessary information is made available to
assess safety.
2. OECD council recommends, with specific reference to agricultural and environmental
applications, that OECD Member countries:
a) use the existing considerable data on the environmental and human health effects of
living organisms to guide risk assessments;
b) ensure that recombinant DNA organisms are evaluated for potential risk, prior to
applications in agriculture and the environment by means of an independent review of
potential risks on a case-by-case basis;2
c) conduct the development of recombinant DNA organisms for agricultural or
environmental applications in a stepwise fashion, moving, where appropriate, from the
laboratory to the growth chamber and greenhouse, to limited field testing and finally,
to large-scale field testing;
d) encourage further research to improve the prediction, evaluation, and monitoring of
the outcome of applications of recombinant DNA organisms.
1 World Health Organization (WHO); Commission of the European Communities (CEC);
International Standards Organization (ISO); Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); Microbial
Strains Data Network (MSDN).
2 Case-by-case means an individual review of a proposal against assessment criteria which are
relevant to the particular proposal; this is not intended to imply that every case will require review
by a national or other authority since various classes of proposals may be excluded.
Regulatory Aspects
155
small-scale field research with GMOs.2 The key safety factors in determining the safety of
any experiment were: i) the characteristics of the organism(s) used, including the introduced genome; ii) the characteristics of the research site and the surrounding environment;
and iii) the use of appropriate experimental conditions. The characteristics of importance
for the microorganism included dispersal, survival, multiplication and the potential for gene
transfer. The document also considered the mode of action of the GMM, including persistence and degradation of any newly acquired toxic metabolite. Additional important characteristics of the GMM, including interactions with other species and/or biological systems,
were also considered.
In 1995, the OECD initiated an Expert Group to manage the implementation of OECDs
Programme for the Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology. In 1998, the
group was renamed as a Working Group. The Group is currently made up of experts
involved in the regulation of biotechnology who have been nominated by their Member
State. The Working Group is a subsidiary body to the Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Group
and Management Committee of the Special Programme on the Control of Chemicals within
the OECD. The main focus of the Work Programme is the international harmonization of
regulatory oversight in biotechnology which will ensure that environmental health and safety
aspects are properly evaluated, while avoiding nontariff trade barriers to products of the
technology. The main areas of work are: i) the development of Consensus Documents on
specific scientific issues related to biotechnology; ii) outreach activities, including the development and maintenance of Biotrack Online, that makes information on the
Harmonisation Programme available to anyone interested; and iii) general issues associated
with harmonization of biotechnology regulation.a The regulatory developments in Member States can be found via Biotrack Online.b
12.3. The European Union and the European Free Trade Association
The European Union has chosen to regulate GMOs mainly via a directive on the contained use of genetically modified microorganisms3 and a directive on the deliberate release
into the environment of genetically modified organisms.4 The directives were modeled on
the chemicals notification directives.c These GMO directives also have impact on the regulation of GMMs within the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).
The responsible institution for Horizontal Legislation concerning GMOs within the
EU is Directorate-General XI: Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection.d For specific product legislation, the responsibility is shared by other Directorates as follows: DG III
(Industry) and DG VI (Agriculture). Other Directorates involved in regulation of GMOs
are DG VII (Transport)responsible for the safe transport of GMO, and DG XII (Science,
Research and Development) and The European Commission Joint Research Centre (Institute for Systems, Informatics and Safety) are responsible for information on research and
development of GMOs.
Apart from the above mentioned directives, other relevant regulations concern the protection of workers from the risks of exposure to biological agents (Council Directives
90/679/EEC and 93/88/EEC). For some products, there are other relevant legislations: for
additives in feeding stuffs (Council Directive 93/114/EEC); for medicinal products (Council
http://www.oecd.org/ehs/service.htm
http://www.oecd.org/ehs/country.htm
c
http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg11/guide/part2g.htm
d
http://www.oecd.org/ehs/cecreg.htm
b
156
Directive 93/41/EEC); and for novel food (European Parliament and Councils Regulation
No 258/97).
Directive 90/219/EEC lays down common measures for the contained use of GMMs
with a view to protecting human health and the environment. Directive 90/219/EEC was
amended in October 1998.5
The objective of Directive 90/220/EEC is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the EU Member States and to protect human health and the environment:
when carrying out deliberate releases of GMOs into the environment for research
and development purposes - Part B;
when placing products on the market that contain, or consist of, GMOs intended
for subsequent deliberate release into the environmentPart C.
Since disparity between rules concerning GMOs in the Member States may cause unequal conditions of competition or trade barriers it is necessary to approximate the laws in
the different Member States. Although the objective of the directive is the establishment
and maintenance of the internal market, nevertheless health and environmental safety aspects, as well as consumer protection should be at a high level of consideration.
Before a deliberate release of a GMO into the environment is performed, the responsible person must submit a notification to the competent authority in the EU Member State
where the release is going to take place. Such research and development experiments are
notified according to Part B of directive 90/220/EEC. The notification must also be circulated among other Member States and EFTA states via the European Commission (further
on referred to as the Commission). All countries are allowed to comment on the circulated
summary notification information format (SNIF), although the comments from other states
do not have a decisive effect on the decision. It has to be noted that the competent national
authority takes its decision independently. The authority giving the consent must have evaluated the information and have made itself sure that the release will be safe for human health
and the environment.
A company that wants to place a product containing a GMM(s) on the market has to
notify the product. The notification can be sent to a competent authority in any of the EU
Member States before the product is for the first time placed on the EU market. Products
are notified under Part C of directive 90/220/EEC. The notification must be circulated among
other Member States and EFTA states via the Commission. All countries can comment on
the circulated summary notification information format (SNIF). A joint decision is thereafter taken among EU Member States according to specified rules in the directive and the
decision taken will be valid in all EU Member States and EFTA states.
The Commission has now presented a proposal to the European Council concerning
amendments of directive 90/220/EEC.6 Some main improvements suggested include:
i. simplified administrative procedures;
ii. the possibility for the Commission to consult a scientific committee concerning
ethical consequences of biotechnology;
iii. mutual principles on risk assessment;
iv. monitoring of products placed on the market; and
v. marketing approvals for a fixed time period. The Economic and Social Committee
of the European Commission has given its diversified opinion on the proposal.7
12.4. Canada
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) requires that all new substances,
including those that are living organisms, are to be assessed for their potential to harm the
e
http://www.ec.gc.ca/cceb1/eng/97brochuree.html
Regulatory Aspects
157
environment, the environment on which life depends, or human life or health, prior to
being imported or manufactured in Canada.e The CEPA New Substances Notifications
(NSN) Regulations describe the information that must be provided to Environment Canada
in order for this assessment to be done. The NSN regulations covering substances like chemicals or polymers, have been in effect since 1994 and the 1997 amendment covers substances
that are organisms, or products of microorganisms (biochemicals and biopolymers). The
amendment was published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, on March 5, 1997 and came into
effect on September 1, 1997.
12.5. Switzerland
On July 1, 1997, a series of amendments to the Federal Law on Environmental Protection and to the Federal Law on Epidemics were enforced concerning the use of organisms
used in modern biotechnology.f The amendments provide the legal basis for specific regulations of environmental health and safety issues associated with GMOs. The new legislation covers all types of organisms and applications on the basis of the self-responsibility of
the user. For the environmental use of GMOs and/or pathogenic organisms, special provisions, including risk assessment and notification or authorization procedures are requested.
The legislation can be applied directly. However, regulations are needed to fully establish
the new procedures and to define the role and responsibilities of the various authorities. A
regulation has been proposed by the government on the use of organisms in the environment. The regulation is harmonized with the corresponding directive of the European Union
90/220/EEC.
12.6. United States

The responsible agency for regulatory developments in biotechnology in the US is the
United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA) concerning microbial/plant pesticides,
new uses of existing pesticides and novel microorganisms.g The relevant laws are the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA).
In 1986, the US Office of Science and Technology Policy published a co-ordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology in the Federal Register of June 26. Within the policy it
was noted which regulations could be amended to include GMMs.
Microbial pesticides including GMMs are currently registered under FIFRA. On September 1, 1994, the final rule on Microbial Pesticides; Experimental Use Permits (EUP) and
Notifications under FIFRA was published in the Federal Register. These regulations clarify
the circumstances under which an EUP is presumed not to be required and implement a
screening procedure that requires notification to the EPA before initiation of small-scale
field testing of certain microbial pesticides. The EPA believes that small-scale tests in the
environment with some microbial pesticides may pose sufficiently different risk considerations from conventional chemical pesticides that a closer evaluation at the small-scale testing stage may be warranted. Any person who plans to conduct small-scale testing of a
microbial pesticide must submit a notification to the EPA and obtain approval for small-scale
field testing involving microbial pesticides whose pesticidal properties have been imparted or
enhanced by the introduction of genetic material that has been deliberately modified.
The regulation under which the TSCA Biotechnology Program functions is titled
Microbial Products of Biotechnology; Final Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control
f
http://www.oecd.org/ehs/swireg.htm
http://www.oecd.org/ehs/usareg.htm
h
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/biotech/biorule.htm
g
158
Act; Final Rule and was published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1997. An Internet
website has been created to allow more efficient public, governmental and educational
access to the TSCA Biotechnology Program.h
The final regulation of microbial products of biotechnology under the TSCA regard
commercial biotechnology research and development activities using intergeneric microorganisms for e.g., biofertilizers, biosensors, biotechnology reagents, commodity or specialty chemical production, energy applications, waste treatment or pollutant degradation
and commercial biotechnology products.
Persons that intend to use intergeneric microorganisms (microorganisms formed by
combining genetic material from organisms in different genera) for commercial purposes
in the United States should submit a Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN) to the
EPA at least 90 days before such use. To test new microorganisms for commercial research
and development purposes in the environment, a TSCA Experimental Release Application
(TERA) should be submitted to the EPA 60 days prior to initiating field trials.
New microorganisms include intergeneric microorganisms. The EPA believes that
intergeneric microorganisms have a sufficiently high likelihood of expressing new traits or
new combinations of traits to be termed new and warrant review. Microorganisms that
are not intergeneric would therefore not be new and thus would not be subject to reporting under Section 5 of TSCA.
12.7. Risk Assessment
In 1993, a comparison was made between some selected risk assessment strategies.8
The necessary information generally demanded for an ecological risk assessment could be
generalized as:
Biology of the organism and characteristics of the genome
Fate of the organism and the genome in the ecosystem
Impact of the organism and the genome on the ecosystem
Effects of the organism and the genome on other organisms in the ecosystem
By including humans as organisms in the ecosystems, the above generalizations are
also valid for effects and impact on humans.
With regard to chemicals, the discussions on risks and assessment of risk started mainly
after disasters had started to occur. With regard to radiation, the discussions on risks have
occurred basically parallel with the development of the technique. However, with modern
biotechnology and the use of GMOs, the risk discussions were initiated before the full
impact of the technique was known. Therefore the discussions on risks of GMOs sometimes lack connection to real examples and technique development within the area of
research. The development might actually be slowed down due to the pro-active risk discussions. With continuous risk discussions during the notification process of field trials and
GMO products, the research and development rate might be slowed down. However, obvious
risk aspects can easier be discovered due to the risk discussions and should be managed
early in the research and development process, and this will be of benefit for the companies,
the scientists and the public.
In October 1998, a workshop was held in Stockholm, Sweden, which focussed on the
scientific basis for risk assessment of microbiological plant protection products charged by
the European Commission, DG VI.i,9 There was a general apprehension that risk assessment of GMMs and risk assessment of microbiological plant protection products have very
much in common. Microorganisms intended for deliberate release are regulated in different ways according to the purpose of the release; nevertheless, the risk assessments should
benefit from general multidisciplinary discussions.
Regulatory Aspects
159
12.8. Concern About the Insertion of Genes Coding for Antibiotic

Resistance
There is a general concern about the increase of antibiotic resistant pathogenic bacteria. In that perspective, the introduction of antibiotic resistance selectable marker genes in
GMOs is worrying. So far, most concern has referred to agricultural crops due to the risk for
horizontal gene transfer, even though that risk is likely to be small or theoretical.10 The risk,
even though small, is probably more realistic with GMMs. The significance for gene transfer of antibiotic resistance genes is very difficult to determine. The risk includes the transfer,
the expression of the gene and the consequences followed from that event. In general, Swedish authorities involved in GMO regulation are of the opinion that the risks with using
antibiotic resistance as marker genes are very small.11 Nevertheless, due to the following
arguments Swedish authorities recommend a development to the use of alternative marker
genes:
alternative marker genes are available and new marker genes are being developed
(see for example chapters 5-7 in this book); a health and environmental risk assessment has to be done for those as well;
techniques exist and are being developed to remove unwanted genes, such as antibiotic resistance genes, before placing GMOs on the market;
in some countries, such as Sweden, there is a restrictive use of antibiotics and subsequently a relatively low occurrence of antibiotic resistant bacteria;
there is a strongly expressed consumer worry towards antibiotic resistance marker
genes.
Alternative markers for GMMs, such as luxAB, luc and gfp have been reported to be
promising in a Norwegian report (see also chapters 5, 7, 9 in this book).12 However, it is
stated that the most optimal is probably to use a combination of different marker genes.
During the above mentioned Stockholm workshop, there was agreement on some aspects, one of which concerned the production of antibiosis substances by microorganisms
for use in plant protection.9 Many microorganisms produce some antibiosis substances.
Interference with the use of antibiotics in human and veterinary medicine must be avoided.
The production of antibiosis substances is not the same as the use of antibiotic resistance
marker genes. However, there is a small risk that antibiotic resistance marker genes could
interfere with the use of antibiotics in human and veterinary medicine, and this must be
avoided.
12.9. Concern about the Insertion of Genes Coding for Mercury

Resistance
Mercury resistance is sometimes used for selection of GMMs. However, mercury is a
very toxic compound and also one of the elements which cause waste problems. The use of
mercury to detect the mer operon can be avoided by e.g., using PCR (polymerase chain
reaction). The use of mercury for detecting mercury resistant bacteria is not regulated.
However, many countries make efforts to diminish the use of mercury in general, e.g., Sweden has regulations (SFS 1998:944 and KIFS 1998:8) on commodities containing mercury.i
12.10. Concern on the Use of Hazardous Chemicals in Connection

with the Deliberate Release of a GMM
The use of hazardous chemicals in relation to GMMs raises concern. Concerns and
risk assessments of GMOs tend to be quite broad, which must be due to the accumulated
i
http://www.kemi.se
160
knowledge on risks from other areas. GMMs must often be used in connection with chemicals, e.g., as above due to selectable marker genes or for post-release cleanup. Methyl bromide has been suggested for post-release clean up. The use of very hazardous chemicals
should in general be avoided in post-release treatment after field experiments.
12.11. Ethical Aspects
The proposal for a new EU-directive on the deliberate release of GMOs6 opens up the
possibility for the Commission to consult scientific committees concerning ethical consequences of biotechnology. In the scope of the Swedish legislation, it is claimed that ethical
concerns shall be taken into account in assessments of deliberate releases of GMMs.
There seems to be a general public concern about GMOs, but the concern is dependent
on the product and its usefulness. There is, in general, little concern about improved medicinal drugs, the potential benefit is obvious (for example recombinant insulin). However,
there is generally a lot of concern with GMO food and a lack of usefulness is often claimed.
It is difficult to foresee how GMM products for biodegradation etc. will be received. The
pros and cons for the public, for the companies and/or for science, of using GMMs for
different purposes must be weighed against the use of other technologies.
In 1998, the Swiss voted on an initiative concerning the prohibition of the use of
transgenic animals, of the release of genetically engineered plants into the environment and
of patenting of plants and animals. The result was not in favor of the prohibition, however
the matter illustrates some major concerns about biotechnology.
12.12. Information on Field Releases and Products

Scientists, industries and authorities seem to agree that openness on deliberate releases
of GMMs is of benefit for the development of the area. Therefore, it is possible to get information on releases via OECDs database Biotrack Online on field releases and also on
products.j,k Information on deliberate field trials notified under part B of Directive 90/220/
EEC is available via the Internet and has been summarized in Table 12.2.l However, so far
there have not been many field releases with GMMs nor products composed by GMMs.
Information concerning research in this area is provided via European Commission DG
XII.m Examples of European field releases are given in Chapters 8-11 in this book.
Acknowledgment
K. Gustafsson is a member of the MAREP Concerted Action sponsored by the European
http://www.olis.oecd.org/biotrack.nsf
http://www.olis.oecd.org/bioprod.nsf
l
http://biotech.jrc.it/GMO.htm
m
http://www.cordis.lu/biotech/src/projects.htm
k
Regulatory Aspects
161
Table 12.2. Summary of deliberate field trials in the European Union notified
under part B of Directive 90/220/EEC 21 October 199115 March 19991
47 releases with 7 bacterial genera, 1 yeast and 2 viruses have been performed in 7
EU Member States
Country
GMM
Year
Main trait/Purpose
Finland
Streptococcus sp
1995
France
Bacillus sp.
Bacillus sp.
Pseudomonas sp.
Rhizobium sp.
1993
1993
1992, 1994
1995
bioluminescence for monitoring antibiotic

residues in milk
bioinsecticide
gene stability testing
biocontrol of tomato bacterial wilt
marker system
Germany
Rhizobium sp.
1994, 1997
marker system
Italy
Azospirillum sp.
gene interaction; gene stability testing
Pseudomonas sp.
Pseudomonas sp.
Pseudomonas sp.
1994, 1995,
1998, 1999
1994, 1995
1997
1998
Rhizobium sp.
Rhizobium sp.
1994
1994, 1995
Escherichia coli
Pseudomonas sp.
Pseudomonas sp.
1994
1994, 1995
1998
Pseudomonas sp.
Rhizobium sp.
Rhizobium sp.
Rhizobium sp.
Saccharomyces
cerevisiae
Saccharomyces
cerevisiae
Sinorhizobium sp.
1998
1997
1997
1998
1997
biological containment; reduced survival

biological containment; reduced survival
fungal resistance; fungicide synthesis;
phluoro-glucynol synthesis
survival, persistence and dispersal
increase of nodulation competitiveness
interaction studies
hydrogenase synthesis
alpha-amylase secretion
1997
lactose metabolism
1998
increase of nodulation competitiveness
The
Pseudomonas sp.
Netherlands Pseudomonas sp.
1994
1996
Pseudomonas sp.
1998
marker system
chitinase synthesis; phenazine-1carboxylic
acid synthesis
2,4 diacetyl-phloroglucinol synthesis;
phenazine-1-carboxylic acid synthesis
Autographa
californica nuclear
polyhedrosis virus
1993, 1994
efficacy
Bacteriophage M13
Pseudomonas sp.
Rhizobium sp.
1994
1993, 1994
1993, 1994
pollution tracing
survival, persistence and dispersal
marker system
Spain
United
Kingdom
gene interaction; gene stability testing

interaction studies
fungal resistance; fungicide synthesis;
phluoro-glucynol synthesis
gene detection; gene stability testing
interaction studies
162
References
1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Recombinant DNA Safety
Considerations. 1986; 69. Paris: OECD Publications.
2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Safety considerations for biotechnology. 1992; 50. Paris: OECD Publications.
3. The Council of the European Communities. Council Directive of 23 April 1990 on the
contained use of genetically modified microorganisms (90/219/EEC). Official Journal of
the European Communities 1990; L(117):1-14.
4. The Council of the European Communities. Council Directive of 23 April 1990 on the
deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (90/220/EEC).
Official Journal of the European Communities 1990; L(117):15-27.
5. The Council of the European Union. Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998
amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified microorganisms. Official Journal of the European Communities 1998; L(330):13-31.
6. Commission of the European Communities. Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically. Official Journal of the European Communities 1998; C(139):1-24.
7. Economic and Social Committee. Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the
Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 90/220/
EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms.
Official Journal of the European Communities 1998; C(407):1-6.
8. Gustafsson K, Jansson JK. Ecological risk assessment of the deliberate release of genetically
modified microorganisms. Ambio 1993; 22(4):236-242.
9. KemI. Proceedings Microbiological Plant Protection Products - Workshop on the Scientific Basis for Risk Assessment. 1999:1-77. Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate, Solna.
10. Nielsen KM et al. Horizontal gene transfer from transgenic plants to terrestrial bacteria
a rare event? FEMS Microbiology Reviews 1998; 22:79-103.
11. Ljungquist S, Andrn R, Fermr C. Risk att resistens mot antibiotika sprids frn GMO?
1999; 99(1):1. 25. Kemikalieinspektionen, Stockholm.
12. Kruse H, Jansson J. The use of antibiotic resistance genes as marker. 1997; 97(3):1-47.
Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, Oslo, Norway.
Index
A
Antibiotic resistance 17, 18, 20, 22-24, 159

Antibiotics 17, 18, 20-24
Azospirillum 87, 93-97
Gene transfer 17, 22, 24, 150

Genetically modified microorganisms 128,
155
GFP 101, 102, 104, 105, 110-112
Gfp 13, 14
Gfp gene 104, 105, 110, 112
GFP mutant 102-109
GMMs 128, 130-136, 155-160
GMO 153, 155-160
GUS 87-91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 145-150
GusA gene 87-89, 91-94, 97
B
-galactosidase 141, 144
-glucuronidase 87-90, 94
Biocontrol 123
Bioluminescence 70, 72, 75, 81
Biomarker 101, 102, 104-106, 112
Bioreporter 101, 102, 104, 106, 111, 112
Biosensors 80, 81, 85
Biotechnology 153, 155-158, 160
H
Heavy metal sensor 81
C
Cell extraction 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 39
Confocal microscopy 102, 110, 111
Cross-resistance 21
Culturable cells 1, 5, 6, 9
I
Intrinsic markers 53, 63, 64
Kanamycin 20-22, 24
Deliberate release 153, 155, 156, 158-160

DNA 30, 32, 33, 35-45
DNA extraction 30, 32, 39, 44
Dormant cells 14
E
Environmental monitoring 29
European Commission 155, 156, 158, 160
F
Field lysimeters 129-134
Field release 117, 118, 122, 123, 128, 129,
133, 135, 136, 139, 143-145, 147
Field trials 141, 143, 158, 160, 161
Fingerprinting method 54, 55, 64
LacZ 139-141, 144

Luc gene 73-78, 129
Luciferase 69-78, 80, 81, 128, 134
Luminescence 69, 71, 73-82
Luminometry 75, 76, 79
LuxAB 72, 76
M
Mercury resistance 139-141, 144
Metabolically active cells 1, 13
N
Neomycin 18, 21-24
Nucleic acid 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 37-39, 42-44
164
O
OECD 153-155, 160
P
PCR amplification 37, 38, 40, 42-44
Plant-pathogenic bacteria 96
Plasmid transfer 148-150
Promoter probe transposon 89, 91
Pseudomonas fluorescens SBW25 117

Rhizobium 56-58, 60, 61, 78
Rhizobium leguminosarum 139, 140, 143, 145
Risk assessment 154, 156-159
RNA 32, 33, 35-37, 39-42, 44, 45
Root colonization 96
Rothamsted 150
RT-PCR 62, 64
Quantitative PCR 41
Sinorhizobium meliloti 128, 130

Soil columns 129-135
Specific hybridization probe 54, 56, 57
Subtraction hybridization 55, 58, 60
Sugar beet 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122
Regulation 153-159
REP-PCR 61
Reporter gene 139, 143
Reporter system 87, 89, 90, 93
Resuscitation 5-8
Rhizobia 127, 128, 132, 135, 140, 141, 143,
145-150
Thiostrepton 18, 20-23
V
V. vulnificus 1
VBNC (viable but nonculturable) 1-10,
12-14

Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms (Biotechnology Intelligence Unit)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms (Biotechnology Intelligence Unit)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

BIOTECHNOLOGY INTELLIGENCE UNIT

Biotechnology Intelligence Unit

The chapters in this book, as well as the chapters of all of the

Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms

The chapters comprise a comprehensive bioscience and biomedical

JANSSON VAN ELSAS BAILEY

BIOTECHNOLOGY INTELLIGENCE UNIT

Janet K. Jansson Jan Dirk van Elsas Mark J. Bailey

Jan Dirk van Elsas

TRACKING GENETICALLY-ENGINEERED MICROORGANISMS

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Tracking genetically-engineered microorganisms / Janet K. Jansson, J.D. van Elsas,

4. Detection of Bacteria by Their Intrinsic Markers ................................. 53

8. Monitoring Persistence and Risk Assessment Following

11. The Field Release and Monitoring

ability to persist and form a resting stage may be ecologically significant in

fused to appropriate promoter target sequences. The choice of biomarker or

Problems in Detecting Dormant

1.1. The Viable but Nonculturable State

Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms

1.2. Assays Used to Determine Viability

Detection of VBNC Cells

from non-fluorescing (and presumably non-viable) cells by epifluorescent microscopy. Both

1.3. Characteristics of Cells in the VBNC State

Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms

1.4. Inducing Factors

Detection of VBNC Cells

1.5. Bacteria Known to Enter the VBNC State

1.6. Resuscitation from the VBNC State

Table 1.1. Bacteria described to enter the VBNC state

Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms

Detection of VBNC Cells

1.7. In Situ Evidence of the VBNC Response

Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms

Detection of VBNC Cells

1.8. Use of PCR to Detect Cells in the VBNC State

1.9. Effect of Plasmids on Entry into the VBNC State

Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms

Detection of VBNC Cells

Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms

1.10. Significance of the VBNC State in the Release

Detection of VBNC Cells

Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms

Detection of VBNC Cells

The Use of Antibiotic Resistance

Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms

2.2. Cultivation Based Assays

Antibiotic Resistance Gene Markers

Table 2.2. Antibiotic resistance genes used as markers

nptII (Tn501) E.coli

Zeph and Stotzky33

nptII (Tn903) Erwinia carotovora

Hirsch and Stokes2

1SP: Selective plating, MPN-PCR: Most-probable number-PCR.

Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms

2.3. Direct Molecular Monitoring Methods

2.4. Choice of Antibiotic Resistance Gene Markers

Antibiotic Resistance Gene Markers

veterinary science or agriculture. In addition, selection from antibiotic-producing bacteria

2.6. Marking of Bacteria with Antibiotic Resistance Genes

Tracking Genetically-Engineered Microorganisms

2.7. Use of Antibiotic Resistance Genes to Monitor Gene Transfer

Antibiotic Resistance Gene Markers

2.8. Ethical Concerns