Identifying The Pathogenicity Or Possible Applications For Pharmaceutical Uses

There are many differents ways to identify a bacterial unknown and many different situations where identification would be beneficial. One way to identify bacterial unknowns is to perform biochemical tests. In this experiment multiple biochemical tests were done, by performing these tests on the bacterial unknown received the two different bacteria were then identified. The citrate test is done to test the ability of organisms to use citrate as a carbon source. This test uses Simmons citrate agar, the agar contains sodium citrate as the only carbon source and has bromothymol blue as the pH indicator. The organisms that use citrate as a carbon source use the enzyme to transport the citrate into the cell. The cells converts ammonium dihydrogen

The Unknown Bacteria 36/Bacteria # 2 on a TSA plate was examined by the naked eye and under a dissecting microscope. Bacteria # 2 was approximately 3 - 4 mm in diameter. They were circular in form with an entire margin and a flat elevation. The colonies were rough (granular), translucent, and white brownish color with black granules. The Gram stain resulted in a Gram negative rod. After the Gram stain was completed, the bacteria were streaked on an Eosin -Methylene Blue Agar plate and an Enterotube II was inoculated.

This experiment was conducted to find the genus and species of an unknown bacteria prescribed by the lab teacher, which was unknown bacteria GA3 in my case. Identification of unknown bacteria techniques are used on an every day basis to figure out what type of bacteria it is and to find the best method of how to treat a patient with this bacteria (1). All five “I’s” of Microbiology were used in the testing for the unknown culture. Inoculation was used several times to put the unknown culture into agar plates or into biochemical test tubes. After Inoculation of these tubes or plates, they always were placed into the incubator for further growth and development. Isolation was used to make sure we got the correct bacteria we were testing for. After each further isolation, we gram stained the culture and inspected the culture under a microscope to further help in the identification process of the unknown bacteria. Multiple tests were done on the unknown culture to make sure we were confident in what kind of bacteria the unknown was.

The purpose of the following study is to determine where the two unknown bacteria acquired in Microbiology lab should be classified in regards to temperature, pH level, and osmoregularity. It is important to classify bacteria in order to identify them. Identification of bacteria is important because they are not only useful but potentially dangerous as well. The identification of bacteria can lead to breakthroughs in healthcare regarding treatment of old and new diseases alike. Identifying bacteria can also be used in many other areas from better crop production through microbial pesticides to biological warfare. Their uses are endless as are their abilities to evolve and adapt to changing environments. That is why it is so important

As the flowchart shows, a series of tests were conducted to identify the unknown bacterium #65. Microscopic observation of the gram stain indicated a gram-positive coccus bacterium. S. epidermidis was used as the gram-positive control while E. coli was used as the gram-negative control. This observation led to the elimination of all gram negative and rod-shaped genera: Enterobacter, Citrobacter, Klebsiella, Escherichia, Pseudomonas, Serratia, Alcaligenes, Neisseria, Proteus, Salmonella, Shigella, Erwinia, Veillonella, Flavobacterium, Bacillus, Arthrobacter, Lactobacillus, Listeria and Kurthia (2). By performing the catalase test, it was determined that the bacterium was catalase negative and it did not produce bubbles. M. luteus and E. faecalis were used as positive and negative controls, respectively.

The importance of identification of a certain microorganisms can range between a life threatening diseases to a creation of certain antibiotic. Understanding the principals of living microbes and identifying my unknown bacteria through numerous biochemical and metabolism tests, with the outmost confidence, Proteus vulgaris had the precise qualifications. The point of this report is to further explore the identification of my unknown bacteria by revealing the results of the experiments and comparing them to the other six known bacteria: Micrococcus luteus, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Alcaligenes faecalis, Escherichia coli, and Proteus vulgaris that were used in the lab, as well as comparing and

Identifying microorganisms can provide information on diagnosing diseases and discovering the most beneficial treatment possible. The purpose of this assignment was to identify an unknown microorganism using biochemical tests and various methods that were practiced in the microbiology laboratory. In this paper, I will discuss the processes of how I came to identify my unknown microorganism.

After inoculating an agar plate with the bacteria taken from a phone screen in Durham during winter, various tests were performed to attempt to identify the organism’s genus. We hypothesized that the bacteria was a member of the Staphylococcus genus. The Gram Stain results indicate that the bacterium is either Gram negative, but the KOH test indicates a Gram-positive isolate. Upon further consideration, we decided that the bacterium is a Gram-positive destainer. Gram-positive bacteria have a thick cell wall composed of peptidoglycan. As expected, the Gas Pak and TSA stab results indicate that the bacterium cannot grow in the absence of oxygen. A motility stab indicated that the bacteria were motile. Motility provides an ability to change direction and move away from repellents and toward attractants. Thus, the microbe can avoid unfavorable conditions, and live longer. The positive lysine decarboxylase test indicates that the microbe can use the amino acid lysine as a source of carbon and energy for growth. First, the bacteria use glucose as its primary carbon source, which causes the pH to drop. The enzyme lysine decarboxylase degrades lysine to produce basic products. This change in pH is what causes the broth to turn purple again, a positive result. An endospore stain indicated that the bacterium does not produce spores under stress to protect the cells from dying. Spores are metabolically inactive and

Later down the line I seen that the results on my gram staining technique was coming out opposite from the labels I had placed on each tube. I then realized I needed to swap the negative and positive labels from my tubes to be identical to my gram stains. According to the Enterobacteriaceae biochemical test table the second possible genus and species that could have also been a possibility for my unknown is E. coli. It tests positive for Indole, positive for methyl red and negative for voges-proskauer just like Proteus vulgaris does. One way that differentiates the two is the result that is given by the citrate test. E. coli is negative at all times and Proteus vulgaris is only 10 to 89% positive, which only leaves an 11% chance of being

A great deal of cultural tests and physiological procedures were performed on the unknown before the conclusion of P. aeruginosa was made. The first test preformed was Gram’s staining which involves the use of crystal violet, Gram’s Iodine, Ethyl Alcohol, and Safranin. Gram staining is known as a differentiating stain, since it can determine the presence or absence of peptidoglycan in the cell wall. The unknown bacteria were Gram stain negative. After that the motility of the cell was tested using a hanging drop slide. The slide was examined, but the results were inconclusive due to the inability to make a clear distinction between motility and Brownian motion. This test was not

The strategy used to determine the unknown organism was to first perform a gram stain to determine if the organism was either a gram negative or gram positive bacteria based on the color of cells. A TSA plate was inoculated to streak for isolation and purity. After colonies were incubated characteristics of colony morphology were recorded and a TSB broth and TSA slant were inoculated to determine characteristics of growth in broth and slant. Another TSA plate was inoculated to determine growth under anaerobic conditions. The next step was to look over the class results for biochemical test and create a dichotomous key to determine which test were useful and which were unnecessary to perform. The gram stain helped determine that the organism

Pseudomonas aeruginosa was first discovered in 1882 by Carle Gessard. Gessard was a chemist and bacteriologist who found through experimentation that P aeruginosa had water soluble pigments that turned a blue-green color when exposed to ultraviolet light. Thorough research into this microbe led Gessar to determine many characteristics of P aeruginosa [1]. This bacteria is abundant and prefers moist environments often being seen as a waterborne organism. Pseudomonal species are typically found in soil, plants, water and animals and the colonization of P aeruginosa occurs in more than 50% of humans, making it the most common of the pseudomonal species [1].

The genus Pseudomonas is the most heterogenous and ecologically significant group of known bacteria, and includes Gram-negative motile aerobic rods belonging to the bacterial family Pseudomonadaceae which includes other genera that are wide-spread throughout nature and characterized by elevated metabolic versatility the nutritional requirements of Pseudomonas spp. are very simple, and the genus is found in natural habitats like soil, fresh water, marine environments etc., but it has also been isolated from clinical instruments, aseptic solutions, cosmetics and medical products (152, 30) Pseudomonas species are measuring 0.5 to 0.8, μm by 1.5 to 3.0 μm. Species are distinguished by several tests like biochemical and DNA hybridization

In conclusion unknown number fifty-four is a part of the Enterobacteriaceae family. The unknown is Enterobacter asburiae. Although there were bacteria in which the result was not known of the each test, Enterobacter asburiae best fit the characteristics tested based off what was available via Bergey’s Manual. According to Koth, Boniface, Chancem and Hanes, E. asburiae is one of the bacteria that help with the digestión of food that is normally found in the body and is an opportunist infection (2012). E. asburiae is found in food, wáter, and soil( Koth, et al., 2012). sold According to the Center for Diesease Control and Prevention (CDC), enterobacteriaceae family cause respiratory infections, and uirany tract infections. Most cases caused

Introduction: Through the conduction of numerous experiments, the identity of two bacterial isolates was determined. The tested specimen was an unknown sample of a mixed culture of two different species of bacteria. The first step that was taken was obtaining a pure culture of each species of bacteria by isolating one species from the other. Once isolation was complete, the isolated cultures were tested using procedures and tests that had been performed during previous lab sessions. Each mixed culture that was tested had one gram positive and one gram negative bacterial species. The possible species of bacteria that could have been isolated from the mixtures included the following: Bacillus subtilis, Corynebacterium glutamicum, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Enterobacter aerogenes, Salmonella enterica, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The identities of the unknown species were determined through comparing the experimental data against data acquired from previous experimentation.