Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of jbacterPermissionsJournals.ASM.orgJournalJB ArticleJournal InfoAuthorsReviewers
J Bacteriol. 1987 January; 169(1): 313–323.
PMCID: PMC211770

Characterization of nonattaching mutants of Agrobacterium tumefaciens.


The first step in tumor formation by Agrobacterium tumefaciens is the site-specific binding of the bacteria to plant host cells. Transposon mutants of the bacteria which fail to attach to carrot suspension culture cells were isolated. These mutants showed no significant attachment to carrot cells with either microscopic or viable cell count assays of bacterial binding. The nonattaching mutants were all avirulent. When revertants of the mutants were obtained by enriching for bacteria which do bind to carrot cells, the bacteria were found to have regained the ability to bind to carrot cells and virulence simultaneously. These results suggest that the ability of the bacteria to bind to plant cells is required for virulence. Like the parent strain, all of the nonattaching mutants synthesized cellulose, but unlike the parent strain, they failed to aggregate carrot suspension culture cells. The transposon Tn5, which was used to obtain the mutants, was located on a 12-kilobase EcoRI fragment of the bacterial chromosomal DNA in all of the nonattaching mutants from strain C58. That the mutant phenotype was due to the Tn5 insertion was shown by cloning the Tn5-containing DNA fragment from the mutant bacteria and using it to replace the wild-type fragment in the parent strain by marker exchange. The resulting bacteria had the same mutant phenotype as the original Tn5 mutants; they did not attach to carrot cells, they did not cause the aggregation of carrot cells, and they were avirulent. No difference was seen between the parent strain and the nonattaching mutants in hydrophobicity, motility, flagella, fimbriae, beta-2-glucan content, size of lipopolysaccharide, or ability of the lipopolysaccharide to inhibit bacterial attachment to tissue culture cells. Differences were seen between the parent strain and the nonattaching mutants in the polypeptides removed from the bacteria during the preparation of spheroplasts. Three of the mutants were lacking a polypeptide of about 34 kilodaltons (kDa). One mutant was lacking the 34-kDa polypeptide and another polypeptide of about 38 kDa. The fifth mutant was lacking a polypeptide slightly smaller than the 34-kDa polypeptide missing in the other four mutants. These missing polypeptides all reappeared in the revertants of the mutants. Thus, bacterial binding to plant cells appears to require the presence of these polypeptides.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (3.9M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Carlson RW, Lee RP. A Comparison of the Surface Polysaccharides from Rhizobium leguminosarum 128C53 smrif with the Surface Polysaccharides from Its Exo Mutant. Plant Physiol. 1983 Feb;71(2):223–228. [PubMed]
  • Douglas CJ, Halperin W, Nester EW. Agrobacterium tumefaciens mutants affected in attachment to plant cells. J Bacteriol. 1982 Dec;152(3):1265–1275. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Laemmli UK. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature. 1970 Aug 15;227(5259):680–685. [PubMed]
  • Lippincott BB, Lippincott JA. Bacterial attachment to a specific wound site as an essential stage in tumor initiation by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. J Bacteriol. 1969 Feb;97(2):620–628. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Matthysse AG. Role of bacterial cellulose fibrils in Agrobacterium tumefaciens infection. J Bacteriol. 1983 May;154(2):906–915. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Matthysse AG, Holmes KV, Gurlitz RH. Elaboration of cellulose fibrils by Agrobacterium tumefaciens during attachment to carrot cells. J Bacteriol. 1981 Jan;145(1):583–595. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Matthysse AG, Wyman PM, Holmes KV. Plasmid-dependent attachment of Agrobacterium tumefaciens to plant tissue culture cells. Infect Immun. 1978 Nov;22(2):516–522. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Merril CR, Goldman D, Sedman SA, Ebert MH. Ultrasensitive stain for proteins in polyacrylamide gels shows regional variation in cerebrospinal fluid proteins. Science. 1981 Mar 27;211(4489):1437–1438. [PubMed]
  • Miller KJ, Kennedy EP, Reinhold VN. Osmotic adaptation by gram-negative bacteria: possible role for periplasmic oligosaccharides. Science. 1986 Jan 3;231(4733):48–51. [PubMed]
  • Ohyama K, Pelcher LE, Schaefer A. In Vitro Binding of Agrobacterium tumefaciens to Plant Cells from Suspension Culture. Plant Physiol. 1979 Feb;63(2):382–387. [PubMed]
  • Puvanesarajah V, Schell FM, Stacey G, Douglas CJ, Nester EW. Role for 2-linked-beta-D-glucan in the virulence of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. J Bacteriol. 1985 Oct;164(1):102–106. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Sonoki S, Kado CI. Proteins conferred by the virulence-specifying plasmid of Agrobacterium tumefaciens C-58. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Aug;75(8):3796–3800. [PubMed]
  • Tanimoto E, Douglas C, Halperin W. Factors Affecting Crown Gall Tumorigenesis in Tuber Slices of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus, L.). Plant Physiol. 1979 Jun;63(6):989–994. [PubMed]
  • Tsai CM, Frasch CE. A sensitive silver stain for detecting lipopolysaccharides in polyacrylamide gels. Anal Biochem. 1982 Jan 1;119(1):115–119. [PubMed]
  • Whatley MH, Bodwin JS, Lippincott BB, Lippincott JA. Role of Agrobacterium cell envelope lipopolysaccharide in infection site attachment. Infect Immun. 1976 Apr;13(4):1080–1083. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Journal of Bacteriology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)