The MICs of H2O2 and t-BHP were 100 μM and 1 mM, respectively, for IK-1 and 10 and 100 μM, respectively, for IK-1Δ8 (Fig. 1a). IK-1 was more resistant to the two ROS tested than was IK-1Δ8. The same tendency was observed when cells of IK-1 and IK-1Δ8 were treated with various kinds of water-soluble antibiotics including ampicillin sodium, kanamycin sulphate, streptomycin sulphate, and tetracycline hydrochloride. The results are summarized in Table 1. The proton ionophore, CCCP, and the ATP synthase inhibitor, DCCD, are water-insoluble

and ethanol-soluble compounds. CCCP and DCCD were dissolved in absolute ethanol. The final concentration of ethanol in the culture medium was 1% (v/v), and this concentration Selisistat cost of ethanol had no effect on the growth of IK-1 or IK-1Δ8. The MICs of CCCP and DCCD were 1 μM and 1 mM, respectively, for IK-1 and 10 μM and >10 mM, respectively, for IK-1Δ8 (Fig. 1b and Table 1). Although the growth of IK-1Δ8 at 1 and 10 mM DCCD appeared to be lower than that at ≤0.1 mM DCCD selleck inhibitor after 4 days at

20 °C (Fig. 1b), prolonged incubation of all IK-1Δ8 cultures at a DCCD concentration of ≤10 mM produced almost the same turbidity. In contrast, the growth of IK-1 was never observed at a concentration of DCCD of ≥1 mM. The cell surface hydrophobicity is expressed as the percent adhesion of bacterial cells to water measured using the BATH method (Rosenberg et al., 1980). In cells grown at 20 °C, the values were 94±1% and 99±1% for IK-1 and IK-1Δ8, respectively: the surface hydrophobicity was greater

in IK-1 cells, in which EPA comprised 8% of the total fatty acids, than in IK-1Δ8 cells. IK-1 with EPA was more resistant than IK-1Δ8 with no EPA to H2O2 and to t-BHP, an analogue of H2O2 (Fig. 1a and Table 1), suggesting that catalases or other H2O2-decomposing enzymes are not involved in the resistance of IK-1. The finding that IK-1 was slightly more resistant to all the water-soluble antibiotics tested than was IK-1Δ8 (Table 1) suggests that hydrophilic compounds other than ROS may be hindered from entering the cell through the cell membrane by the membrane-shielding effect more efficiently in IK-1 Resminostat than in IK-1Δ8 cells, as was the case for hydrophilic ROS. However, in Gram-negative bacteria, hydrophilic antibiotics with a molecular weight less than about 600 pass nonspecifically through porin channels on the outer membrane and not by diffusion (Nikaido & Vaara, 1985) and the compounds that enter the cells can be pumped out from the cells (Walsh, 2000; Martinez et al., 2009). Therefore, the membrane-shielding effects of EPA are not necessarily involved directly in the higher resistance to these antibiotics in IK-1 cells. However, because the entry of streptomycin sulphate, whose molecular weight (1457.