Dear All:
here are some additional arguements for the debate relative to the most
recent message of DB Hedrick:
> A single
>bacterium (AKA "lonely") still derives benefits from attachment - often
>higher carbon availability, not being swept away, etc.
** So, in the case of attachement of a single cell, why is the description
"attached cell" not sufficient?? If we call it a biofilm, this implies that
there are other properties that a single attached cell might not have.
Would we need to say "a single-celled non-matrix-enclosed biofilm"?
>How many
>"lonely" bacteria are there in a square centimeter? Isn't it just a
>matter of degree, and a subjective opinion at that, whether 2 bacteria
>are close enough together to qualify as a biofilm?
*** I would argue that in many cases it is NOT a subjective opinion. The
significance of a biofilm being more that one cell is that there is a
potential for "communication" (genetic or chemical exchange) between the
cells; that the cells function as a tissue and have behaviors that the
single cell cannot have. This communication cannot take place if the
bacteria are not sufficiently close and if there is not a vehicle (matrix,
pili, etc) for transporting the message . Hence, I would argue that single,
attached cells that do not have the potential for communication are "single
attached cells".
Cindy E. Morris
INRA - Station de Pathologie Vegetale
B.P. 94
84143 Montfavet, France
tel : (33) 490-31-63-84
fax : (33) 490-31-63-35
e-mail : morris at avignon.inra.fr
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to the group as well as to the originator, make sure that
the address biofilms at net.bio.net is included in the "To:" field.
See the BIOFILMS homepage at http://www.im.dtu.dk/biofilms for info
on how to (un)subscribe and post to the Biofilms newsgroup.
