Next Article in Journal
Insights into Chlamydia Development and Host Cells Response
Previous Article in Journal
Varietal Susceptibility of Olive to Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. savastanoi and the Antibacterial Potential of Plant-Based Agents
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/microorganisms12071297
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Relationship between Biofilm Phenotypes and Biofilm-Associated Genes in Food-Related Listeria monocytogenes Strains

by
Alexandra Burdová
1,
Adriana Véghová
2,
Jana Minarovičová
2,
Hana Drahovská
1 and
Eva Kaclíková
2,*
1
Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Ilkovičova 6, 84215 Bratislava, Slovakia
2
Food Research Institute, National Agricultural and Food Centre, Priemyselná 4, 82475 Bratislava, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2024, 12(7), 1297; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071297
Submission received: 29 May 2024 / Revised: 11 June 2024 / Accepted: 19 June 2024 / Published: 26 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Food Microbiology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Listeria monocytogenes is an important pathogen responsible for listeriosis, a serious foodborne illness associated with high mortality rates. Therefore, L. monocytogenes is considered a challenge for the food industry due to the ability of some strains to persist in food-associated environments. Biofilm production is presumed to contribute to increased L. monocytogenes resistance and persistence. The aims of this study were to (1) assess the biofilm formation of L. monocytogenes isolates from a meat processing facility and sheep farm previously characterized and subjected to whole-genome sequencing and (2) perform a comparative genomic analysis to compare the biofilm formation and the presence of a known set of biofilm-associated genes and related resistance or persistence markers. Among the 37 L. monocytogenes isolates of 15 sequence types and four serogroups involved in this study, 14%, 62%, and 24% resulted in the formation of weak, moderate, and strong biofilm, respectively. Increased biofilm-forming ability was associated with the presence of the stress survival islet 1 (SSI-1), inlL, and the truncated inlA genes. Combining the phenotypic and genotypic data may contribute to understanding the relationships between biofilm-associated genes and L. monocytogenes biofilm-forming ability, enabling improvement in the control of this foodborne pathogen.

1. Introduction

Listeria monocytogenes is a foodborne pathogen that can cause listeriosis, a severe infection, especially in risk groups of pregnant women, the elderly, infants, and immunocompromised patients [1]. Despite its low incidence, listeriosis is associated with a high fatality rate [2]. The number of deaths from outbreaks in 2022, mainly caused by L. monocytogenes, was the highest ever reported in the EU in the last ten years. Listeriosis continues to be one of the foodborne infections with the highest number of hospitalizations and fatal cases in the EU. The overall EU case fatality rate in 2022 was 18.1% and a total of 35 outbreaks represented a 50% increase compared to 2021. Outbreaks mainly related to the consumption of ready-to-eat foods, such as cold smoked salmon, meat and meat products, dairy products, and frozen vegetables. In Slovakia, 25 confirmed human cases of invasive listeriosis were reported in 2022, corresponding to the highest notification rate (0.46 per 100,000 population) during the previous five years [3].
L. monocytogenes is a ubiquitous environmental bacterium, which can contaminate raw and processed food products at different production stages. Some strains of L. monocytogenes can persist even during food processing, thus increasing the likelihood of food product contamination [4,5]. The growth and survival of L. monocytogenes depend mainly on the ability to quickly adapt to changed conditions through a complex of stress factors [6]. Although the exact mechanism of persistence is still not elucidated, factors that can contribute to L. monocytogenes persistence in food environments include the ability to form biofilms and resistance to sanitizing agents, hygiene and sanitation processes, and refrigeration that suppresses the natural occurrence of less resistant competitive microflora [7,8,9].
Biofilm production of L. monocytogenes is presumed to be one of the ways that confer its increased resistance and persistence in the food chain [10,11]. Some L. monocytogenes strains may form strong biofilms on surfaces, which may contribute to their persistence for a long period in the production environment and therefore can become a permanent source of contamination [12,13]. The formation of biofilms can be affected by several factors, such as temperature, time, type of surface, and nutrient availability [14,15].
Several genetic mechanisms involved in biofilm formation in L. monocytogenes have been revealed [9]. flaA is one of the main biofilm-associated genes in L. monocytogenes encoding flagellin A, which appears to promote initial attachment [16]. The positive regulatory factor A gene, prfA, is involved in the later stages of biofilm development and also in virulence [17,18]. The actA gene encoding the actin-assembly-inducing peptide precursor is another important virulence determinant in L. monocytogenes, promoting bacterial aggregation and biofilm development [19]. The transcriptional regulator of stress response genes encoded by sigB is required for biofilm formation in the later stages of biofilm development [20]. Another biofilm-associated protein, encoded by bapL, appears to be involved in adherence in some L. monocytogenes strains; however, its role has not yet been clarified [16,21]. The virulence proteins internalins A and B have also been implicated in L. monocytogenes biofilm development, whereas inlA or inlB gene deletion in L. monocytogenes has been associated with a significant reduction in adherence [22]. Internalin L has been shown to play a similar role, as inlL deletion has been associated with reduced attachment [23]. The agrBDCA operon is a peptide-based quorum-sensing (QS) system in L. monocytogenes with an important role in biofilm development in the stage of adherence [24]. LuxS is another QS system that has been implicated in L. monocytogenes biofilm development [16], as mutations in luxS led to more readily attachment and production of denser biofilms [25]. Other genes implicated in L. monocytogenes biofilm development represent recO and lmo2504, as both have been shown to be overexpressed in biofilm-associated cells in comparison to planktonic cells [26,27].
Some genes and complexes have been already indicated as associated with increased L. monocytogenes biofilm formation, adhesion capacity, and persistence abilities, in particular, stress survival islet 1 (SS-1) [7,28,29], the arsenite efflux transporter gene (arsD) [30], the internalin L gene (inlL) [7,23], truncated internalin A (inlA) [29,31], or actA genes [19]. An association between L. monocytogenes strains with comK prophage insertion and enhanced biofilm production has also been reported [32].
The ability of some L. monocytogenes strains to persist in food processing facilities for extended periods may be due to many factors. Alongside increased biofilm formation, tolerance to disinfectants such as quaternary ammonium compounds (e.g., bcrABC, qacH, etc.), the presence of prophages and resistance markers on plasmids, and stress survival islands SSI-1 or SSI-2 are also important in a food production environment [33,34]. In this context, whole-genome sequence (WGS) analysis represents a powerful tool to reveal biofilm genotype–phenotype relationships, in terms of the diverse ability of L. monocytogenes strains to produce biofilms and potentially contribute to their persistence.
Understanding the genes involved in biofilm formation and their influence on biofilm structure will help identify new ways to eliminate harmful biofilms in food processing environments [35]. However, further surveys are needed to confirm the importance of certain genetic markers and to identify new ones [36].
The aims of the study were to (1) assess the biofilm formation of L. monocytogenes isolates from a meat processing facility and ewe’s milk farm previously characterized and subjected to whole-genome sequencing and (2) perform comparative genomic analysis for a comparison of biofilm phenotypes and genomes to identify genetic markers potentially associated with increased biofilm formation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bacterial Strains

Characteristics of 37 L. monocytogenes isolates used in this study are summarized in Table 1. The strains were isolated from the production chain of a meat processing facility in years 2011–2014 (20 isolates) and from ewe’s milk farm in years 2019–2021 (17 isolates). All strains were identified and characterized by molecular serogroup, PFGE and MLVA-typing, ST-MLST, and WGS-based cgMLST for persistence, as described in our previous studies [5,37,38].
L. monocytogenes ATCC BAA-679 (EGD-e strain), serotype 1/2a (American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, VA, USA), was used as a reference strain characterized by strong biofilm formation [24,39]. L. monocytogenes NCTC 11994, serotype 4b (National Collection of Type Cultures, RGU Aberdeen, Scotland, UK), was used as a reference strain characterized by weak/moderate formation [40].
The strains were kept in 20% glycerol or lyophilized for long-term storage at −18 °C in the Collection of Microorganisms, National Agricultural and Food Centre—Food Research Institute in Bratislava, Slovakia.

2.2. Quantification of Biofilm Formation

Quantification of biofilm formation was performed in tryptose soy broth (TSB; Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) in a microplate according to the previously described protocol [41], with minor modifications as follows: Briefly, cultures grown in TSB (for 18 h at 37 °C) were adjusted to obtain the optical density (OD) 0.2 at λ = 600 nm in a SmartSpec TM Plus spectrophotometer (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) corresponding to approx. 106 CFU/mL. Then, 200 μL volumes of these bacterial suspensions were added into each well of a sterile 96-well polystyrene microplate (Sarstedt, Nümbrecht, Germany). Negative control wells contained 200 μL of uninoculated TSB. The microplates were statically incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. The contents of each plate were discarded, and the biofilm was left to dry at laboratory temperature. The washing step using 150 μL of sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS; pH 7.3; Merck) added to each well was repeated three times. The biofilms were fixed by adding 150 µL of methanol to each well for 20 min, which was then discarded, and the biofilm was left to dry at laboratory temperature. For staining the bacterial biofilm, 150 μL of 1% w/v crystal violet (Loba Feinchemie, Fischamend, Austria) solution was added to each well and incubated statically for 20 min. After staining, the solution was removed by sharply tapping the plates upside down; the wells were washed three times with distilled water and completely air-dried. To quantify biofilm formation, 150 μL of 96% ethanol was added to dissolve the residual crystal violet, and after 10 min, the absorbance was measured at 600 nm using the Safire 2 Plate Reader (Tecan, Männedorf, Switzerland). Based on the results interpreted according to Stepanović et al. [41], the strains were classified as weak (NC-2xNC), moderate (2xNC-4xNC), or strong (>4xNC) biofilm formers, when the NC cutoff was calculated as mean of negative control wells + 3xSD. Each strain was tested in eight parallel wells in two independent assays, and the results were averaged. The results were processed with GraphPad Prism 5 (GraphPad Prism 5, San Diego, CA, USA).

2.3. Genomic Analysis

Whole-genome sequences of L. monocytogenes strains were obtained in studies aimed at their persistence in two different food processing environments [5,37,38]. Briefly, total bacterial DNA was used for preparing the sequencing library by Nextera XT and sequences were obtained on Illumina NextSeq or MiSeq systems. De novo assembly was performed by SPAdes [42] and contigs longer than 500 bp with coverage higher than 20 were annotated on BV-BRC (https://www.bv-brc.org, accessed on 16 May 2024). The seven loci MLST and specific gene content were determined using the L. monocytogenes MLST database (https://bigsdb.pasteur.fr/listeria/listeria.html, accessed on 10 May 2024) [43]. The presence of biofilm-associated genes and genome islands were checked in the MLST database, and 100% coverage and 90% similarity to known sequences were set as the limit of gene presence. Truncations in inlA were defined as present if a sequence was missing at least ten amino acids from the end of the sequence as compared to the EGD-e reference sequence.

3. Results

3.1. Biofilm Formation

The L. monocytogenes isolates exhibited varying levels of biofilm, from weak to strong production (Figure 1), when evaluated according to Stepanović et al. [41]. In particular, 14% (5/37), 62% (23/37), and 24% (9/37) of the analyzed strains resulted in weak, moderate, and strong biofilm formation, respectively.
The distribution of weak, moderate, and strong biofilm producers according to lineages, serogroups, and STs is shown in Figure 2. All weak producers, including NCTC11994, belonged to lineage I (serogroup IIb and IVb), while all strong producers, including EGD-e strain, belonged to lineage II (serogroups IIa and IIc) (Figure 2a,b). Strong biofilm producers were of ST9, ST20, ST121, ST394, and ST451 sequence types (Figure 2c).

3.2. Genome Analysis

The results of genome analysis are graphically summarized in Figure 3. The main biofilm-associated genes in L. monocytogenes (including those involved in virulence), in particular, flaA, prfA, actA, inlA, inlB, sigB, agrBDCA, luxS, recO, and lmo2504, were found in all but one isolate (absence of agrB was observed). The bapL gene was found in 62% (23/37) of the isolates, all from lineage II, belonging to ST9, ST14, and ST121 and in the EGD-e strain.
Mutations leading to premature stop codons in inlA (truncated inlA) were identified in five (13.5%) isolates, which belonged to ST9 (three isolates) and ST121 (two isolates), and all of them were classified as strong biofilm producers.
The presence of the inlL gene was found in seven L. monocytogenes isolates belonging to lineage II; the majority of them were ST9 (three isolates) and ST394 (two isolates). Six of the seven inlL-positive isolates were classified as strong biofilm producers, the same as the EGD-e strain.
All analyzed strains were found to be positive for the arsD stress gene and contained the full version of the actA gene.
The stress survival islet 1 (SSI-1) was only present in four isolates, which belonged to lineage II, namely ST8 and ST9. The stress survival islet 2 (SSI-2) was exclusively found in ST121 isolates of lineage II. With the exception of one ST8 isolate, all these strains were strong biofilm producers.
The bcrABC cassette was found in five ST14 L. monocytogenes isolates. qacH gene presence was exclusively associated with ST121 isolates possessing strong biofilm production.

4. Discussion

In this study, a comparative genomic analysis using WGS and a biofilm formation assay on the L. monocytogenes isolates collected from a meat processing facility and sheep farm in Slovakia were performed. The relationship between biofilm phenotypes and related genetic markers in 37 L. monocytogenes isolates and two collection strains were evaluated.
All the L. monocytogenes isolates analyzed in this study produced biofilms, but some of them formed significantly more biofilm than others. These results may suggest that due to their ability to form stronger biofilms in the food processing environment, some strains may have a competitive advantage over others. However, in relation to persistence, previous studies provided contradictory results on whether stronger biofilm formation is an indicator of persistence in processing environments [9,35,40].
Previous studies of relationships between lineage and biofilm formation also provided contradictory results, when Takahashi et al. [44] found lineage I strains to form more biofilm than lineage II, while Borucki et al. [45] and Combrouse et al. [46] presented opposite conclusions. Similar results were observed in this study, when all strong producers belonged to lineage II, while all weak producers belonged to lineage I.
Several studies have also suggested a relationship between biofilm production and L. monocytogenes serotypes. It was reported that serotype 4b strains formed higher levels of biofilm compared with serotype 1/2a strains [47]. However, opposite results were also achieved [48], and according to the ability to form a biofilm, L. monocytogenes serotypes were aligned in the order 1/2b, 1/2a, and 4b [28]. In our study, most of the IVb isolates (including the NCTC 11994 collection strain) were classified as weak biofilm producers. The L. monocytogenes isolates of the IIa serogroup, representing the largest portion of the analyzed isolates, showed moderate (21/27) or strong (6/27) biofilm-forming ability. L. monocytogenes IIc isolates, however, all belonged to the same ST9 and were classified as strong biofilm producers.
Several studies demonstrated that L. monocytogenes biofilm formation can be affected by various genes [9]. However, to date, only a few studies have been performed to identify L. monocytogenes biofilm-relevant genes on a genome-wide scale using WGS to reveal genetic factors that contribute to biofilm formation in food-related L. monocytogenes strains [36].
It was demonstrated in several studies that the biofilm is affected by the presence of the stress survival islet (SSI-1), which consists of five genes and is implicated in growth during exposure to stressful conditions in food environments [49]. It was shown that SSI-1 contributes to serotype-specific differences in biofilm formation in L. monocytogenes [29,30]. In this study, analysis of WGS data showed that SSI-1 was present in only 4 of the 30 L. monocytogenes isolates belonging to lineage II and in no isolate from lineage I. This finding is in agreement with the study of Painset et al. [50], where SSI-1 was over-represented in lineage II and absent in all lineage I isolates.
Considering the STs, SSI-1 was present in all strains from ST8 and ST9, which is in correlation with the results of Alvarez-Molina et al. [51] and DiCiccio et al. [36], while it was absent in other lineage II STs, including commonly widespread food-related L. monocytogenes STs 14, 121, and 451. The small number of isolates found to be SSI-1-positive in this study is limiting for confirming the association of SSI-1 presence with increased biofilm formation. However, three of the four isolates with this marker were assessed as strong biofilm formers. Stress survival islet 2 (SSI-2) was exclusively detected in strong biofilm-forming isolates belonging to ST121. This finding is in correlation with other studies [8,10,51].
The arsD gene was found in arsenic resistance operons of various bacteria [52] and has been associated with increased biofilm formation [30,36]. In this study, the stress gene arsD was present in all isolates.
Internalin proteins can affect L. monocytogenes biofilm formation, as well as adhesion, virulence, internalization into eukaryotic cells, and survival in the environment [53,54]. The inlA gene is a major virulence factor of L. monocytogenes, and truncations due to premature stop codons (PMSCs) caused virulence attenuation [55], while it led to significantly enhanced biofilm formation [31]. It has been found that lineage II strains carried inlA PMSC mutations more frequently than lineage I strains [56]. In our study, all L. monocytogenes strains belonging to ST9 and ST121 harbored truncated the inlA gene and were characterized by strong biofilm formation. It was also shown that CC9 and CC121 L. monocytogenes strains were frequently associated with food production sectors and hypovirulent in part due to truncations in the inlA gene [10,57].
Recently, it has been demonstrated that InlL contributes to the attachment of L. monocytogenes to abiotic surfaces and increased biofilm formation [7,23]. In our study, the inlL gene was found only in seven isolates belonging to five STs. Six of the eight inlL-positive isolates were classified as strong biofilm producers, as well as the EGD-e strain, which confirms the association between the presence of the inlL gene and increased biofilm formation. However, in the case of ST9 isolates, except for inlL, inlA truncation may also contribute to significantly increased biofilm formation (unpaired t-test; p < 0.05) in comparison to the rest of the strong biofilm formers.
Five strains were found to be positive for bcrA, bcrB, and bcrC genes, all of which belonged to ST14 isolates from the meat processing facility with increased tolerance to BAC and were considered persistent in our previous study [58]. However, all ST14 strains in this study (6 isolates from the meat plant and 11 isolates from the sheep farm) were characterized by moderate biofilm-forming ability regardless of the presence/absence of the bcrABC cassette. Another multidrug resistance transporter gene, qacH, was found in two ST121 isolates only and was associated with biofilm, as both were classified as strong biofilm producers.
All the strong biofilm producers identified in this study belonged to ST9 (serogroup IIc), as well as ST20, ST121, ST394, and ST451 (all serogroup IIa). Among them, ST9 isolates showing the strongest biofilm-forming ability contained the bapL, SSI-1, inlL, and inlA truncation markers. In ST20, the presence of bapL and inlL was observed, while in ST394, the presence of inlL only, and in ST121, the presence of bapL, inlA truncation, and SSI-2 markers were found. The composition of biofilm-associated genes in these isolates was slightly different from that in the EGD-e reference strain, which possessed bapL, inlL, and SSI-1 and was also a strong biofilm producer, as shown previously [24,39].
Among the analyzed L. monocytogenes isolates, ST2, ST9 (from meat plant), and ST14 (from both facilities) were identified as persistent in our previous studies [5,37] based on less than 10 allelic differences in cgMLST of isolates present during more than one year period of sampling. However, no correlation between persistence and biofilm-forming ability was found, as ST2, ST9, and ST14 isolates were classified as weak, strong, and moderate biofilm producers, respectively.
L. monocytogenes clonal complexes CC9 and CC121 were frequently isolated from food and food processing environments [59]. CC121, as the most prevalent L. monocytogenes CC, followed by CC7, CC8, and CC9, were found in the Norwegian food system and were associated with an increased prevalence of stress survival and resistance determinants [60]. The analysis of fish production chains resulted in the predominant assignment of ST121 isolates from salmon [61]. A persistent ST451 strain was identified in a rabbit meat processing plant in the Czech Republic [62] and was found as the most prevalent CC, particularly in food and animal isolates during the 11-year study in Slovakia [63]. Recently, a large multi-country outbreak of invasive listeriosis by the L. monocytogenes ST394 clone linked to smoked rainbow trout was reported [64]. It can be assumed that these CCs/STs, classified as strong biofilm formers in our study, may be favored in terms of survival and subsequent dissemination in food-related environments.

5. Conclusions

In this study, the biofilm-forming ability of 37 food-related L. monocytogenes isolates collected from two different food processing environments (meat plant and sheep farm) in Slovakia was investigated. The genes potentially associated with biofilm formation were identified using WGS, as a faster and cheaper alternative technology to conventional typing methods. Based on the obtained results, it can be concluded that the presence of the SSI-1, inlL, and the truncated inlA genes, as well as their combination, was associated with increased biofilm-forming ability. The detection of genetic markers related to the biofilm formation of L. monocytogenes strains circulating in food processing environments may provide the opportunity to improve risk assessment for this important foodborne pathogen.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.K. and H.D.; methodology, A.V. and A.B.; formal analysis, A.V., J.M. and A.B.; investigation, E.K. and H.D.; writing—original draft preparation, E.K. and H.D.; writing—review and editing, E.K.; supervision, E.K. and H.D.; funding acquisition, E.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Operational Program Integrated Infrastructure co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund within the project “Demand-driven research for the sustainable and innovative foods, Drive4SIFood”, 313011V336, and by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic, contract No. 720/2023/MPRVSR-930, within the project PVV 11 “Transfer of knowledge and innovations in support of Slovak production of food and food products with higher added value”.

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article are available in the Listeria MLST database under accession numbers 81067-81089 and in GenBank NCBI at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/, accessed on 10 May 2024 as Bioproject PR JNA897729. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Kathariou, S. Listeria monocytogenes virulence and pathogenicity, a food safety perspective. J. Food Prot. 2002, 65, 1811–1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lomonaco, S.; Nucera, D.; Filipello, V. The evolution and epidemiology of Listeria monocytogenes in Europe and the United States. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2015, 35, 172–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Authority, European Food Safety. The European Union One Health 2022 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2023, 21, e8442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rodríguez-Campos, D.; Rodríguez-Melcón, C.; Alonso-Calleja, C.; Capita, R. Persistent Listeria monocytogenes isolates from a poultry-processing facility form more biofilm but do not have a greater resistance to disinfectants than sporadic strains. Pathogens 2019, 8, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Minarovičová, J.; Véghová, A.; Kubicová, Z.; Andrezál, M.; Drahovská, H.; Kaclíková, E. Tracing of persistent Listeria monocytogenes contamination in ewe’s milk farm. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2023, 76, ovad006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lucchini, R.; Carraro, L.; Pauletto, M.; Gallo, M.; Andreani, N.A.; Weiss, G.; Tessaro, C.; Babbucci, M.; Cardazzo, B. Molecular typing and genome sequencing allow the identification of persistent Listeria monocytogenes strains and the tracking of the contamination source in food environments. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2023, 386, 110025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Maggio, F.; Rossi, C.; Chiaverini, A.; Ruolo, A.; Orsini, M.; Centorame, P.; Acciari, V.A.; López, C.C.; Salini, R.; Torresi, M.; et al. Genetic relationships and biofilm formation of Listeria monocytogenes isolated from the smoked salmon industry. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2021, 356, 109353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lakicevic, B.Z.; Den Besten, H.M.W.; De Biase, D. Landscape of Stress Response and Virulence Genes Among Listeria monocytogenes Strains. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 738470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Finn, L.; Onyeaka, H.; O’Neill, S. Listeria monocytogenes Biofilms in Food-Associated Environments: A Persistent Enigma. Foods 2023, 12, 3339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pasquali, F.; Palma, F.; Guillier, L.; Lucchi, A.; De Cesare, A.; Manfreda, G. Listeria monocytogenes sequence types 121 and 14 repeatedly isolated within one year of sampling in a rabbit meat processing plant: Persistence and ecophysiology. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lee, B.-H.; Cole, S.; Badel-Berchoux, S.; Guillier, L.; Felix, B.; Krezdorn, N.; Hébraud, M.; Bernardi, T.; Sultan, I.; Piveteau, P. Biofilm Formation of Listeria monocytogenes Strains Under Food Processing Environments and Pan-Genome-Wide Association Study. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kubi, A.; Langsrud, S.; Møretrø, T. Microbial diversity and ecology of biofilms in food industry environments associated with Listeria monocytogenes persistence. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2021, 37, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Panebianco, F.; Rubiola, S.; Chiesa, F.; Civera, T.; Di Ciccio, P.A. Effect of gaseous ozone on Listeria monocytogenes planktonic cells and biofilm: An in vitro study. Foods 2021, 10, 1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Cherifi, T.; Jacques, M.; Quessy, S.; Fravalo, P. Impact of nutrient restriction on the structure of Listeria monocytogenes biofilm grown in a microfluidic system. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Govaert, M.; Smet, C.; Baka, M.; Janssens, T.; Impe, J.V. Influence of incubation conditions on the formation of model biofilms by Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella typhimurium on abiotic surfaces. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 125, 1890–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Renier, S.; Hébraud, M.; Desvaux, M. Molecular biology of surface colonization by Listeria monocytogenes: An additional facet of an opportunistic Gram-positive foodborne pathogen. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 13, 835–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lemon, P.K.; Freitag, E.N.; Kolter, R. The virulence regulator PrfA promotes biofilm formation by Listeria monocytogenes. J. Bacteriol. 2010, 192, 3969–3976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Zhou, Q.; Feng, F.; Wang, L.; Feng, X.; Yin, X.; Luo, Q. Virulence Regulator PrfA is Essential for Biofilm Formation in Listeria monocytogenes but not in Listeria innocua. Curr. Microbiol. 2011, 63, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Travier, L.; Guadagnini, S.; Gouin, E.; Dufour, A.; Chenal-Francisque, V.; Cossart, P.; Olivo-Marin, J.-C.; Ghigo, J.-M.; Disson, O.; Lecuit, M. ActA promotes Listeria monocytogenes aggregation. Intestinal Colonization and Carriage. PLoS Pathog. 2013, 9, e1003131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. van der Veen, S.; Abee, T. Importance of SigB for Listeria monocytogenes Static and Continuous-Flow Biofilm Formation and Disinfectant Resistance. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 7854–7860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Janež, N.; Škrlj, B.; Sterniša, M.; Klančnik, A.; Sabotič, J. The role of the Listeria monocytogenes surfactome in biofilm formation. Microb. Biotechnol. 2021, 14, 1269–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chen, B.Y.; Kim, T.J.; Silva, J.L.; Jung, Y.S. Positive Correlation Between the Expression of inlA and inlB Genes of Listeria monocytogenes and Its Attachment Strength on Glass Surface. Food Biophys. 2009, 4, 304–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Popowska, M.; Krawczyk-Balska, A.; Ostrowski, R.; Desvaux, M. InlL from Listeria monocytogenes is involved in biofilm formation and adhesion to mucin. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Rieu, A.; Weidmann, S.; Garmyn, D.; Piveteau, P.; Guzzo, J. agr System of Listeria monocytogenes EGD-e: Role in Adherence and Differential Expression Pattern. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 6125–6133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sela, S.; Frank, S.; Belausov, E.; Pinto, R. A mutation in the luxS gene influences Listeria monocytogenes biofilm formation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 5653–5658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Trémoulet, F.; Duché, O.; Namane, A.; Martinie, B.; European Listeria Genome Consortium; Labadie, J.C. Comparison of protein patterns of Listeria monocytogenes grown in biofilm or in planktonic mode by proteomic analysis. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2002, 210, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lourenço, A.; de Las Heras, A.; Scortti, M.; Vazquez-Boland, J.; Frank, J.F.; Brito, L. Comparison of Listeria monocytogenes Exoproteomes from Biofilm and Planktonic State: Lmo2504, a Protein Associated with Biofilms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 6075–6082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Keeney, K.; Trmcic, A.; Zhu, Z.; Delaquis, P.; Wang, S. Stress survival islet 1 contributes to serotype-specific differences in biofilm formation in Listeria monocytogenes. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 67, 530–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mahoney, D.B.J.; Falardeau, J.; Hingston, P.; Chmielowska, C.; Carroll, L.M.; Wiedmann, M.; Jang, S.S.; Wang, S. Associations between Listeria monocytogenes genomic characteristics and adhesion to polystyrene at 8 °C. Food Microbiol. 2022, 102, 103915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mishra, R.; Panda, A.K.; De Mandal, S.; Shakeel, M.; Bisht, S.S.; Khan, J. Natural anti-biofilm agents: Strategies to control biofilm-forming pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 566325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Franciosa, G.; Maugliani, A.; Scalfaro, C.; Floridi, F.; Aureli, P. Expression of internalin A and biofilm formation among Listeria monocytogenes clinical isolates. Int. J. Immunopathol. Pharmacol. 2009, 22, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Verghese, B.; Lok, M.; Wen, J.; Alessandria, V.; Chen, Y.; Kathariou, S.; Knabel, S. comK Prophage Junction Fragments as Markers for Listeria monocytogenes Genotypes Unique to Individual Meat and Poultry Processing Plants and a Model for Rapid Niche-Specific Adaptation, Biofilm Formation, and Persistence. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 5064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Muhterem-Uyar, M.; Ciolacu, L.; Wagner, K.-H.; Wagner, M.; Schmitz-Esser, S.; Stessl, B. New aspects on listeria monocytogenes ST5-ECVI predominance in a heavily contaminated cheese processing environment. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cheng, Y.; Mousavi, Z.E.; Pennone, V.; Hurley, D.; Butler, F. Association between the Presence of Resistance Genes and Sanitiser Resistance of Listeria monocytogenes Isolates Recovered from Different Food-Processing Facilities. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nowak, J.; Cruz, C.D.; Tempelaars, M.; Abee, T.; van Vliet, A.H.M.; Fletcher, G.C.; Hedderley, D.; Palmer, J.; Flint, S. Persistent Listeria monocytogenes strains isolated from mussel production facilities form more biofilm but are not linked to specific genetic markers. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 256, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Di Ciccio, P.; Rubiola, S.; Panebianco, F.; Lomonaco, S.; Allard, M.; Bianchi, D.M.; Civera, T.; Chiesa, F. Biofilm formation and genomic features of Listeria monocytogenes strains isolated from meat and dairy industries located in Piedmont (Italy). Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2022, 378, 109784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Véghová, A.; Minarovičová, J.; Koreňová, J.; Drahovská, H.; Kaclíková, E. Prevalence and tracing of persistent Listeria monocytogenes strains in meat processing facility production chain. J. Food Saf. 2016, 37, e12315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rešková, Z.; Véghová, A.; Minarovičová, J.; Andrezál, M.; Burdová, A.; Drahovská, H.; Kaclíková, E. Molecular typing and discrimination of Listeria monocytogenes associated with production of food of animal origin. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2023, 62, 140–148. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mazaheri, T.; Ripolles-Avila, C.; Rodríguez-Jerez, J.J. Cross-contamination of mature Listeria monocytogenes biofilms from stainless steel surfaces to chicken broth before and after the application of chlorinated alkaline and enzymatic detergents. Food Microbiol. 2023, 112, 104236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Koreňová, J.; Oravcová, K.; Véghová, A.; Karpíšková, R.; Kuchta, T. Biofilm formation in various conditions is not a key factor of persistence potential of Listeria monocytogenes in food-processing environment. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2016, 55, 189–193. [Google Scholar]
  41. Stepanović, S.; Ćirković, I.; Ranin, L.; Svabić-Vlahović, M. Biofilm formation by Salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes on plastic surface. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2004, 38, 428–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bankevich, A.; Nurk, S.; Antipov, D.; Gurevich, A.A.; Dvorkin, M.; Kulikov, A.S.; Lesin, V.M.; Nikolenko, S.I.; Pham, S.; Prjibelski, A.D.; et al. SPAdes: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. 2012, 19, 455–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Moura, A.; Criscuolo, A.; Pouseele, H.; Maury, M.M.; Leclercq, A.; Tarr, C.; Björkman, J.T.; Dallman, T.; Reimer, A.; Enouf, V.; et al. Whole genome-based population biology and epidemiological surveillance of Listeria monocytogenes. Nat. Microbiol. 2016, 2, 16185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Takahashi, H.; Miya, S.; Igarashi, K.; Suda, T.; Kuramoto, S.; Kimura, B. Biofilm formation ability of Listeria monocytogenes isolates from raw ready-to-eat seafood. J. Food Prot. 2009, 72, 1476–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Borucki, M.K.; Peppin, J.D.; White, D.; Loge, F.; Call, D.R. Variation in biofilm formation among strains of Listeria monocytogenes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 7336–7342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Combrouse, T.; Sadovskaya, I.; Faille, C.; Kol, O.; Gu’erardel, Y.; Midelet-Bourdin, G. Quantification of the extracellular matrix of the Listeria monocytogenes biofilms of different phylogenic lineages with optimization of culture conditions. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 114, 1120–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Norwood, D.E.; Gilmour, A. Adherence of Listeria monocytogenes strains to stainless steel coupons. J. Appl. Microbiol. 1999, 86, 576–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nilsson, R.E.; Ross, T.; Bowman, J.P. Variability in biofilm production by Listeria monocytogenes correlated to strain origin and growth conditions. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011, 150, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ryan, S.; Begley, M.; Hill, C.; Gahan, C.G.M. A five-gene stress survival islet (SSI-1) that contributes to the growth of listeria monocytogenes in suboptimal conditions. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 109, 984–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Painset, A.; Bjorkman, J.T.; Kiil, K.; Guillier, L.; Mariet, J.-F.; Félix, B.; Amar, C.; Rotariu, O.; Roussel, S.; Perez-Reche, F.; et al. LiSEQ—Wholegenome sequencing of a cross-sectional survey of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods and human clinical cases in Europe. Microb. Genom. 2019, 5, e000257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Alvarez-Molina, A.; Cobo-Díaz, J.F.; Lopez, M.; Prieto, M.; de Toro, M.; Alvarez-Ordonez, A. Unravelling the emergence and population diversity of Listeria monocytogenes in a newly built meat facility through whole genome sequencing. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2021, 340, 109043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Lin, Y.-F.; Yang, J.; Rosen, B.P. ArsD: An As(III) metallochaperone for the ArsAB As (III)-translocating ATPase. J. Bioenerg. Biomembr. 2007, 39, 453–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Orsi, R.H.; den Bakker, H.C.; Wiedmann, M. Listeria monocytogenes lineages: Genomics, evolution, ecology, and phenotypic characteristics. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2011, 301, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Piercey, M.J.; Hingston, P.A.; Truelstrup Hansen, L. Genes involved in Listeria monocytogenes biofilm formation at a simulated food processing plant temperature of 15 °C. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016, 223, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Li, L.; Wang, Y.; Pu, J.; Chen, J.; Liu, L.; Mao, P.; Sun, H.; Luo, X.; Ye, C. Unveiling the Mutations and Conservation of InlA in Listeria monocytogenes. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Shen, J.; Rump, L.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wang, X.; Meng, J. Molecular subtyping and virulence gene analysis of Listeria monocytogenes isolates from food. Food Microbiol. 2013, 35, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kovacevic, J.; Arguedas-Villa, C.; Wozniak, A.; Tasara, T.; Allen, K.J. Examination of food chain-derived Listeria monocytogenes strains of different serotypes reveals considerable diversity in inlA genotypes, mutability, and adaptation to cold temperatures. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 1915–1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Minarovičová, J.; Véghová, A.; Mikulášová, M.; Chovanová, R.; Šoltýs, K.; Drahovská, H.; Kaclíková, E. Benzalkonium chloride tolerance of Listeria monocytogenes strains isolated from a meat processing facility is related to presence of plasmid-borne bcrABC cassette. Anton. Leeuw. Int. J. Gen. Mol. Microbiol. 2018, 111, 1913–1923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Maury, M.M.; Tsai, Y.-H.; Charlier, C.; Touchon, M.; Chenal-Francisque, V.; Leclercq, A.; Criscuolo, A.; Gaultier, C.; Roussel, S.; Brisabois, A.; et al. Uncovering Listeria monocytogenes hypervirulence by harnessing its biodiversity. Nat. Genet. 2016, 48, 308–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fagerlund, A.; Wagner, E.; Møretrø, T.; Heir, E.; Moen, B.; Rychli, K.; Langsruda, S. Pervasive Listeria monocytogenes Is Common in the Norwegian Food System and Is Associated with Increased Prevalence of Stress Survival and Resistance Determinants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2022, 88, e00861-22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Murr, L.; Huber, I.; Pavlovic, M.; Guertler, P.; Messelhaeusser, U.; Weiss, M.; Ehrmann, M.; Tuschak, C.; Bauer, H.; Wenning, M.; et al. Whole Genome Sequence Comparisons of Listeria monocytogenes Isolated from Meat and Fish Reveal High Inter and Intra-Sample Diversity. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Gelbíčová, T.; Floriánová, M.; Tomaštíková, Z.; Pospíšilová, L.; Koláčková, I.; Karpíšková, R. Prediction of Persistence of Listeria monocytogenes ST451 in a Rabbit Meat Processing Plant in the Czech Republic. J. Food Prot. 2019, 82, 1350–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Kubicová, Z.; Roussel, S.; Félix, B.; Cabanová, L. Genomic Diversity of Listeria monocytogenes Isolates From Slovakia (2010 to 2020). Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 729050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Halbedel, S.; Sperle, I.; Lachmann, R.; Kleta, S.; Fischer, M.A.; Wamp, S.; Holzer, A.; Lüth, S.; Murr, L.; Freitag, C.; et al. Large Multicountry Outbreak of Invasive Listeriosis by a Listeria monocytogenes ST394 Clone Linked to Smoked Rainbow Trout, 2020 to 2021. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e03520-22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Microorganisms 12 01297 g001
Figure 1. Levels of biofilm formation for individual L. monocytogenes strains. The isolates are ordered by MLST-ST. Data are the means ± standard deviation (SD) of eight parallel wells in two independent assays. The results were processed with GraphPad Prism 5.
Figure 1. Levels of biofilm formation for individual L. monocytogenes strains. The isolates are ordered by MLST-ST. Data are the means ± standard deviation (SD) of eight parallel wells in two independent assays. The results were processed with GraphPad Prism 5.
Microorganisms 12 01297 g001
Microorganisms 12 01297 g002
Figure 2. Biofilm production in L. monocytogenes strains belonging to different groups: (a) biofilm formation vs. lineages; (b) biofilm formation vs. serogroups; (c) biofilm formation vs. sequence types.
Figure 2. Biofilm production in L. monocytogenes strains belonging to different groups: (a) biofilm formation vs. lineages; (b) biofilm formation vs. serogroups; (c) biofilm formation vs. sequence types.
Microorganisms 12 01297 g002
Microorganisms 12 01297 g003
Figure 3. Association between biofilm production and presence/absence of biofilm-related genes in Listeria monocytogenes strains. In this study, 100% coverage and 90% similarity to known sequences were set as the limit of gene presence. Truncations in inlA were defined as present if a sequence was missing at least ten amino acids from the end of the sequence as compared to the EGD-e reference sequence.
Figure 3. Association between biofilm production and presence/absence of biofilm-related genes in Listeria monocytogenes strains. In this study, 100% coverage and 90% similarity to known sequences were set as the limit of gene presence. Truncations in inlA were defined as present if a sequence was missing at least ten amino acids from the end of the sequence as compared to the EGD-e reference sequence.
Microorganisms 12 01297 g003
Table 1. Characteristics of L. monocytogenes isolates and collection strains used in this study.
Table 1. Characteristics of L. monocytogenes isolates and collection strains used in this study.
No.Strain DesignationDate of SamplingSourceCategorySamplingLineageSerogroupST
1S/37/052011-06MPNFCwashbasinIIIIa14
2S/54/012012-05MPFCgrinder for raw meatIIIIa14
3S/69/42013-07MPFCchopping blockIIIIc9
4S/69/062013-07MPNFCfloorIIVb2
5S/69/82013-07MPFCmixer for raw meatIIIIa14
6S/74/182013-10MPNFCfloorIIVb2
7S/75/112014-02MPFCgrinder for raw meatIIIIc9
8S/75/122014-02MPFCmixer for raw meatIIIIa14
9S/75/132014-02MPNFCwashbasinIIIIa14
10S/75/152014-02MPFCtableIIIIa8
11S/76/72014-04MPFCgrinder for raw meatIIIIc9
12S/76/15/12014-04MPNFCfloorIIIb195
13S/86/072014-11MPRTEfinal productIIIIa14
14S/86/112014-11MPRTEfinal productIIVb194
15S/86/132014-11MPNFCfloorIIIIa20
16S/87/1/12014-12MPNFCfloorIIIIa121
17S/87/22014-12MPNFCfloorIIIIa121
18S/87/12/22014-12MPRTEfinal productIIVb6
19S/87/13/22014-12MPRTEfinal productIIIb87
20S/88/52014-12MPRPraw pork meatIIVb6
219611-192019-08SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa14
229614-192019-08SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa2833
23114/222019-09SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa14
24115/82019-09SFFCmilk filterIIIIa14
25116/82019-09SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa14
26117/42019-09SFFCmilk filterIIIIa21
27117/92019-09SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa14
28119/102019-12SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa14
29120/52020-01SFFCmilk filterIIIIa91
302224-202020-03SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa14
31121/1B2020-07SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa451
32121/1F2020-07SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa394
33121/22020-07SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa14
349044-202020-08SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa14
35127/12020-09SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa14
369531-202020-09SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa394
3770-212021-01SFRPewe’s milkIIIIa14
ATCC BAA-6791924 rabbit tissueIIIIa35
NCTC 119941926 soft cheeseIIVb1
FC—food contact; NFC—non-food contact; RTE—ready to eat; RP—raw product; MP—meat plant, SF—sheep farm; ST—sequence type.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Burdová, A.; Véghová, A.; Minarovičová, J.; Drahovská, H.; Kaclíková, E. The Relationship between Biofilm Phenotypes and Biofilm-Associated Genes in Food-Related Listeria monocytogenes Strains. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 1297. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071297

AMA Style

Burdová A, Véghová A, Minarovičová J, Drahovská H, Kaclíková E. The Relationship between Biofilm Phenotypes and Biofilm-Associated Genes in Food-Related Listeria monocytogenes Strains. Microorganisms. 2024; 12(7):1297. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071297

Chicago/Turabian Style

Burdová, Alexandra, Adriana Véghová, Jana Minarovičová, Hana Drahovská, and Eva Kaclíková. 2024. "The Relationship between Biofilm Phenotypes and Biofilm-Associated Genes in Food-Related Listeria monocytogenes Strains" Microorganisms 12, no. 7: 1297. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071297

APA Style

Burdová, A., Véghová, A., Minarovičová, J., Drahovská, H., & Kaclíková, E. (2024). The Relationship between Biofilm Phenotypes and Biofilm-Associated Genes in Food-Related Listeria monocytogenes Strains. Microorganisms, 12(7), 1297. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071297

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop