1887

Abstract

(SA) and (SE) are the most common pathogens from the genus causing biofilm-associated infections. Generally, biofilm-associated infections represent a clinical challenge. Bacteria in biofilms are difficult to eradicate due to their resistance and serve as a reservoir for recurring persistent infections.

A variety of protocols for drug activity testing against staphylococcal biofilms have been introduced. However, there are often fundamental differences. All these differences in methodical approaches can then be reflected in the form of discrepancies between results.

In this study, we aimed to develop optimal conditions for staphylococcal biofilm formation on pegs. The impact of peg surface modification was also studied.

The impact of tryptic soy broth alone or supplemented with foetal bovine serum (FBS) or human plasma (HP), together with the impact of the inoculum density of bacterial suspensions and the shaking versus the static mode of cultivation, on total biofilm biomass production in SA and SE reference strains was studied. The surface of pegs was modified with FBS, HP, or poly--lysine (PLL). The impact on total biofilm biomass was evaluated using the crystal violet staining method and statistical data analysis.

Tryptic soy broth supplemented with HP together with the shaking mode led to crucial potentiation of biofilm formation on pegs in SA strains. The SE strain did not produce biofilm biomass under the same conditions on pegs. Preconditioning of peg surfaces with FBS and HP led to a statistically significant increase in biofilm biomass formation in the SE strain.

Optimal cultivation conditions for robust staphylococcal biofilm formation might differ among different bacterial strains and methodical approaches. The shaking mode and supplementation of cultivation medium with HP was beneficial for biofilm formation on pegs for SA (ATCC 29213) and methicillin-resistant SA (ATCC 43300). Peg conditioning with HP and PLL had no impact on biofilm formation in either of these strains. Peg coating with FBS showed an adverse effect on the biofilm formation of these strains. By contrast, there was a statistically significant increase in biofilm biomass production on pegs coated with FBS and HP for SE (ATCC 35983).

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Grantová Agentura České Republiky (Award 20-19638Y)
    • Principle Award Recipient: NotApplicable
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001371
2021-05-28
2022-01-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barsoumian AE, Mende K, Sanchez CJ, Beckius ML, Wenke JC et al. Clinical infectious outcomes associated with biofilm-related bacterial infections: A retrospective chart review. BMC Infect Dis 2015; 15:223 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Donlan RM. Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis 2002; 8:881–890 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Otto M. Staphylococcal biofilms. Microbiol Spectr 2018; 6:GPP3–0023 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Tong SYC, Davis JS, Eichenberger E, Holland TL, Fowler VG Jr. Staphylococcus aureus infections: eEpidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev 2015; 28:603–661 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Archer NK, Mazaitis MJ, Costerton JW, Leid JG, Powers ME et al. Staphylococcus aureus biofilms: properties, regulation, and roles in human disease. Virulence 2011; 2:445–459 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Kırmusaoğlu S. Staphylococcal biofilms: pathogenicity, mechanism and regulation of biofilm formation by quorum-sensing system and antibiotic resistance mechanisms of biofilm-embedded microorganisms. Microbial Biofilms-Importance and Applications Intech 2016 189–209 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Khatoon Z, McTiernan CD, Suuronen EJ, Mah TF, Alarcon EI. Bacterial biofilm formation on implantable devices and approaches to its treatment and prevention. Heliyon 2018; 4:e01067 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Saginur R, StDenis M, Ferris W, Aaron SD, Chan F et al. Multiple combination bactericidal testing of staphylococcal biofilms from implant-associated infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50:55–61 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:1645–1654 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Zheng Y, He L, Asiamah TK, Otto M. Colonization of medical devices by staphylococci. Environ Microbiol 2018; 20:3141–3153 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Raad I. Intravascular-catheter-related infections. Lancet 1998; 351:893–898 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Christensen GD, Simpson WA, Younger JJ, Baddour LM, Barrett FF et al. Adherence of coagulase-negative staphylococci to plastic tissue culture plates: a quantitative model for the adherence of staphylococci to medical devices. J Clin Microbiol 1985; 22:996–1006 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Stepanović S, Vuković D, Holá V, Di Bonaventura G, Djukić S et al. Quantification of biofilm in microtiter plates: overview of testing conditions and practical recommendations for assessment of biofilm production by staphylococci. APMIS 2007; 115:891–899 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lee JY, Monk IR, da Silva AG, Seemann T, Chua KY et al. Global spread of three multidrug-resistant lineages of Staphylococcus epidermidis . Nat Microbiol 2018; 3:1175–1185 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Figueiredo AMS, Ferreira FA, Beltrame CO, Côrtes MF. The role of biofilms in persistent infections and factors involved in ica-independent biofilm development and gene regulation in Staphylococcus aureus . Crit Rev Microbiol 2017; 43:602–620 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Percival SL, Hill KE, Malic S, Thomas DW, Williams DW. Antimicrobial tolerance and the significance of persister cells in recalcitrant chronic wound biofilms. Wound Repair Regen 2011; 19:1–9 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mah TF. Biofilm-specific antibiotic resistance. Future Microbiol 2012; 7:1061–1072 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen P, Abercrombie JJ, Jeffrey NR, Leung KP. An improved medium for Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. J Microbiol Methods 2012; 90:115–118 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Chen X, Thomsen TR, Winkler H, Xu Y. Influence of biofilm growth age, media, antibiotic concentration and exposure time on Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm removal in vitro . BMC Microbiol 2020; 20:1–11 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Allkja J, Bjarnsholt T, Coenye T, Cos P, Fallarero A et al. Minimum information guideline for spectrophotometric and fluorometric methods to assess biofilm formation in microplates. Biofilm 2020; 2:100010 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Pettit RK, Weber CA, Kean MJ, Hoffmann H, Pettit GR et al. Microplate Alamar blue assay for Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm susceptibility testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49:2612–2617 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Singh AK, Prakash P, Achra A, Singh GP, Das A et al. Standardization and classification of in vitro biofilm formation by clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus . J Glob Infect Dis 2017; 9:93–101 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kwasny SM, Opperman TJ. Static biofilm cultures of Gram-positive pathogens grown in a microtiter format used for anti-biofilm drug discovery. Curr Protoc Pharmacol 2010; 13: [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hong Q, Dong X, Chen M, Sun H, Hong L et al. An in vitro and in vivo study of plasma treatment effects on oral biofilms. J Oral Microbiol 2019; 11:1603524 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Cassat JE, Lee CY, Smeltzer MS. Investigation of biofilm formation in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. Methods Mol Biol 2007; 391:127–144 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Beenken KE, Blevins JS, Smeltzer MS. Mutation of sarA in Staphylococcus aureus limits biofilm formation. Infect Immun 2003; 71:4206–4211 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Shanks RM, Meehl MA, Brothers KM, Martinez RM, Donegan NP et al. Genetic evidence for an alternative citrate-dependent biofilm formation pathway in Staphylococcus aureus that is dependent on fibronectin binding proteins and the GraRS two-component regulatory system. Infect Immun 2008; 76:2469–2477 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Arciola CR, Campocci D, Speziale P, Montanaro L, Costerton JW. Biofilm formation in Staphylococcus implant infections. A review of molecular mechanisms and implications for biofilm-resistant materials. Biomaterials 2012; 33:5967–5982 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Reffuveille F, Josse J, Vallé Q, Gangloff CM, Gangloff SC. Staphylococcus aureus biofilms and their impact on the medical field. The Rise of Virulence and Antibiotic Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus 2017; 11:187 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Tsang LH, Cassat JE, Shaw LN, Beenken KE, Smeltzer MS. Factors contributing to the biofilm-deficient phenotype of Staphylococcus aureus sarA mutants. PLoS One 2008; 3:e3361 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Beenken KE, Mrak LN, Griffin LM, Zielinska AK, Shaw LN et al. Epistatic relationships between sarA and agr in Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation. PLoS One 2010; 5:e10790 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Palmer J, Flint S, Brooks J. Bacterial cell attachment, the beginning of a biofilm. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2007; 34:577–588 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Petrova OE, Sauer K. Sticky situations: key components that control bacterial surface attachment. J Bacteriol 2012; 194:2413–2425 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Cardile AP, Sanchez CJ, Samberg ME, Romano DR, Hardy SK et al. Human plasma enhances the expression of staphylococcal microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules promoting biofilm formation and increases antimicrobial tolerance in vitro . BMC Res Notes 2014; 7:457 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kucharíková S, Velde GV, Himmelreich U, Van Dijck P. Candida albicans biofilm development on medically-relevant foreign bodies in a mouse subcutaneous model followed by bioluminescence imaging. J Vis Exp 2015; 95:e52239 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Jefferson KK. What drives bacteria to produce a biofilm?. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2004; 236:163 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Singh S, Singh SK, Chowdhury I, Singh R. Understanding the mechanism of bacterial biofilms resistance to antimicrobial agents. Open Microbiol J 20171153–6253 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lade H, Park JH, Chung SH, Kim IH, Kim JM et al. Biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolates is differentially affected by glucose and sodium chloride supplemented culture media. J Clin Med 2019; 8:1853 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Croes S, Deurenberg RH, Boumans MLL, Beisser PS, Neef C et al. Staphylococcus aureus biofilm formation at the physiologic glucose concentration depends on the S. aureus lineage. BMC Microbiol 2009; 9:1–9 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Leonhard M, Zatorska B, Moser D, Tan Y, Schneider-Stickler B. Evaluation of combined growth media for in vitro cultivation of oropharyngeal biofilms on prosthetic silicone. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2018; 29:4545 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Ceri H, Olson ME, Stremick C, Read RR, Morck D et al. The calgary biofilm device: new technology for rapid determination of antibiotic susceptibilities of bacterial biofilms. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37:1771–1776 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kipanga PN, Luyten W. Influence of serum and polystyrene plate type on stability of Candida albicans biofilms. J Microbiol Methods 2017; 139:8–11 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Harris LG, Tosatti S, Wieland M, Textor M, Richards RG. Staphylococcus aureus adhesion to titanium oxide surfaces coated with non-functionalized and peptide-functionalized poly(L-lysine)-grafted-poly(ethylene glycol) copolymers. Biomaterials 2004; 25:4135–4148 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Vidal L, Thuault V, Mangas A, Coveñas R, Thienpont A et al. Lauryl-poly-L-lysine: a new antimicrobial agent. J Amino Acids 2014; 2014:672367 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Ma Y, Chen M, Jones JE, Ritts AC, Yu Q et al. Inhibition of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm by trimethylsilane plasma coating. Antimicrob Agents Chemother (Bethesda) 2012; 56:5923–5937 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Colville K, Tompkins N, Rutenberg AD, Jericho MH. Effects of poly(L-lysine) substrates on attached Escherichia coli bacteria. Langmuir 2010; 26:2639–2644 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Zapotoczna M, McCarthy H, Rudkin JK, O’Gara JP, O’Neill E. An essential role for coagulase in Staphylococcus aureus biofilm development reveals new therapeutic possibilities for device-related infections. J Infect Dis 2015; 212:1883–1893 [View Article][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Jablonski E, Hulle C. Method of capturing bacteria on polylysine-coated microspheres. U.S. Patent No 9,766,237; 2017
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001371
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001371
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error