International journal of food microbiology vol:108 issue:3 pages:355-63
The antibacterial working range of six lysozymes was tested under ambient and high pressure, on a panel of five gram-positive (Enterococcus faecalis, Bacillus subtilis, Listeria innocua, Staphylococcus aureus and Micrococcus lysodeikticus) and five gram-negative bacteria (Yersinia enterocolitica, Shigella flexneri, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Salmonella typhimurium). The lysozymes included two that are commercially available (hen egg white lysozyme or HEWL, and mutanolysin from Streptomyces globisporus or M1L), and four that were chromatographically purified (bacteriophage lambda lysozyme or LaL, bacteriophage T4 lysozyme or T4L, goose egg white lysozyme or GEWL, and cauliflower lysozyme or CFL). T4L, LaL and GEWL were highly pure as evaluated by silver staining of SDS-PAGE gels and zymogram analysis while CFL was only partially pure. At ambient pressure each gram-positive test organism displayed a specific pattern of sensitivity to the six lysozymes, but none of the gram-negative bacteria was sensitive to any of the lysozymes. High pressure treatment (130-300 MPa, 25 degrees C, 15 min) sensitised several gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria for one or more lysozymes. M. lysodeikticus and P. aeruginosa became sensitive to all lysozymes under high pressure, S. typhimurium remained completely insensitive to all lysozymes, and the other bacteria showed sensitisation to some of the lysozymes. The possible applications of the different lysozymes as biopreservatives, and the possible reasons for the observed differences in bactericidal specificity are discussed.