The wetting agent required for swarming in Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium is not a surfactant.

TLDR: No differences were found in the abilities of the media surrounding these cells, either wild type or mutant, to wet a low-energy surface (freshly prepared polydimethylsiloxane); although, their contact angles were smaller than that of the medium harvested from the underlying agar.

Abstract: We compared the abilities of media from agar plates surrounding swarming and nonswarming cells of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium to wet a nonpolar surface by measuring the contact angles of small drops. The swarming cells were wild type for chemotaxis, and the nonswarming cells were nonchemotactic mutants with motor biases that were counterclockwise (cheY) or clockwise (cheZ). The latter strains have been shown to be defective for swarming because the agar remains dry (Q. Wang, A. Suzuki, S. Mariconda, S. Porwollik, and R. M. Harshey, EMBO J. 24:2034-2042, 2005). We found no differences in the abilities of the media surrounding these cells, either wild type or mutant, to wet a low-energy surface (freshly prepared polydimethylsiloxane); although, their contact angles were smaller than that of the medium harvested from the underlying agar. So the agent that promotes wetness produced by wild-type cells is not a surfactant; it is an osmotic agent.