spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kelemen, M. V.
Right arrow Articles by Sharpe, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kelemen, M. V.
Right arrow Articles by Sharpe, J. E.

Journal of Cell Science, Vol 35, Issue 1 431-441, Copyright © 1979 by Company of Biologists

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Controlled cell disruption: a comparison of the forces required to disrupt different micro-organisms

MV Kelemen and JE Sharpe

A cell disrupter has been developed which can measure the forces required to disrupt both eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. It operates a continuous process and will disrupt both large and small volumes. Shear forces are set up when a suspension under laminar flow conditions is released under high pressure through a short orifice. If the applied pressure is altered, the shear forces are simultaneously changed so that the amount of cell disruption can be compared under different known and repeatable conditions. The disrupter is now manufactured and supplied by Stansted Fluid Power Limited, Stansted, England. Phase-contrast microscopy has shown that the disrupter will break a variety of organisms including Chlorella, Aspergillus fumigatis, Fusarium sp., Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Escherichia coli, Lactobacillus casei, Bacillus subtilis, Clostridium perfringens, Streptococcus faecalis, Streptococcus zooepidermicus and Staphylococcus aureus. The cells are not all broken at one pressure but a certain pressure must be applied before disruption starts which will then increase rapidly as the applied pressure is increased. The applied pressure required to disrupt half the population in a culture is different from one species to another, rods being disrupted more easily than spheres. The case of disruption seems to be related to the shape and chemical composition of the cell wall. Furthermore, the disrupting process, in an unsynchronized culture is not random and may be related to the statistical size distribution of the cells.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Appl. Environ. Microbiol.Home page
H. Wernerus, J. Lehtio, T. Teeri, P.-A. Nygren, and S. Stahl
Generation of Metal-Binding Staphylococci through Surface Display of Combinatorially Engineered Cellulose-Binding Domains
Appl. Envir. Microbiol., October 1, 2001; 67(10): 4678 - 4684.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Appl. Environ. Microbiol.Home page
P. Samuelson, H. Wernérus, M. Svedberg, and S. Ståhl
Staphylococcal Surface Display of Metal-Binding Polyhistidyl Peptides
Appl. Envir. Microbiol., March 1, 2000; 66(3): 1243 - 1248.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
C. Y. He, B. Striepen, C. H. Pletcher, J. M. Murray, and D. S. Roos
Targeting and Processing of Nuclear-encoded Apicoplast Proteins in Plastid Segregation Mutants of Toxoplasma gondii
J. Biol. Chem., July 20, 2001; 276(30): 28436 - 28442.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


© The Company of Biologists Ltd 1979