1887

Microbiology Society logo

Volume 167, Issue 8

Construction and evaluation of a bioluminescent reporter for use in preservative efficacy testing Open Access

Abstract

Preservative efficacy testing (PET) is a fundamental practice in industrial microbiology used to ensure product shelf-life and quality. To improve on current growth-based PET, bioluminescence was evaluated as a real-time bacterial viability indicator using . Random mutagenesis of an industrial strain with a promoter-less mini-Tn5 was used to select a stable reporter (LUX12H5) with an un-altered growth and preservative susceptibility phenotype. Bioluminescence and viability were measured with and without preservatives (isothiazolinones, phenoxyethanol, and dimethyl dimethylol hydantoin) and an antibiotic comparator (ciprofloxacin). In the absence of antimicrobials, a good correlation between bioluminescence and viability (r=0.92) was established. However, metabolic inhibition by isothiazolinone preservatives caused a rapid decline in light output that did not correlate to a reduced viability. Conversely, after ciprofloxacin exposure, the decline in viability was greater than that of bioluminescence. A positive attribute of the bioluminescence was the early detection of metabolic recovery and re-growth of preservative injured bacteria. Overall, while initial bioluminescence read-outs were less suited to current PET requirements, it shows promise as an early, direct indicator of bacterial regrowth in the context of long-term evaluation of preservative efficacy.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): bioluminescence , Luxreporter , preservative efficacy testing , Pseudomonas aeruginosa and rapid microbiology testing
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • technology strategy board (Award KTP8702)
    • Principle Award Recipient: MahenthiralingamEshwar
© 2021 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001072
2021-08-12
2024-04-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/micro/167/8/mic001072.html?itemId=/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001072&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Kramer M, Suklje-Debeljak H, Kmetec V. Preservative efficacy screening of pharmaceutical formulations using ATP bioluminescence. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2008; 34:547–557 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Russell AD. Challenge testing: Principles and practice. Int J Cosmet Sci 2003; 25:147–153 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Jimenez L. Rapid methods for the microbiological surveillance of pharmaceuticals. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol 2001; 55:278–285
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Connolly P, Bloomfield SF, Denyer SP. A study of the use of rapid methods for preservative efficacy testing of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. J Appl Bacteriol 1993; 75:456–462 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Simpson WJ, Hammond JR. The effect of detergents on firefly luciferase reactions. J Biolumin Chemilumin 1991; 6:97–106 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Waidmann MS, Bleichrodt FS, Laslo T, Riedel CU. Bacterial luciferase reporters: The Swiss army knife of molecular biology. Bioeng Bugs 2011; 2:8–16 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Meighen EA. Bacterial bioluminescence: Organization, regulation, and application of the lux genes. FASEB J 1993; 7:1016–1022 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Wilson T, Hastings JW. Bioluminescence. Annu Rev Cell Biol 1998; 14:197–230 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Stewart G, Williams P. lux Genes and the applications of bacterial bioluminescence. J Gen Microbiol 1992; 138:1289–1300 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Parveen A, Smith G, Salisbury V, Nelson SM. Biofilm culture of Pseudomonas aeruginosa expressing lux genes as a model to study susceptibility to antimicrobials. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2001; 199:115–118 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Beard SJ, Salisbury V, Lewis RJ, Sharpe JA, MacGowan AP. Expression of lux genes in a clinical isolate of Streptococcus pneumoniae: Using bioluminescence to monitor gemifloxacin activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46:538–542 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Robinson GM, Tonks KM, Thorn RMS, Reynolds DM. Application of bacterial bioluminescence to assess the efficacy of fast-acting biocides. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011; 55:5214–5219 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Shah N, Naseby DC. Validation of constitutively expressed bioluminescent Pseudomonas aeruginosa as a rapid microbiological quantification tool. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 2015; 68: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Jimenez L. Microbial diversity in pharmaceutical product recalls and environments. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol 2007; 61:383–399
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Sutton S, Jimenez L. A review of reported recalls involving microbiological control 2004-2011 with emphasis on FDA considerations of "objectionable organisms. Am Pharm Rev 2012; 15:
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cunningham-Oakes E, Weiser R, Pointon T, Mahenthiralingam E. Understanding the challenges of non-food industrial product contamination. FEMS Microbiology Letters 2020; 366:
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Orth DS, Kabara JJ, Denyer SP. Cosmetic and Drug Microbiology New York, London: Informa Healthcare; 2006
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Winson MK, Swift S, Hill PJ, Sims CM, Griesmayr G et al. Engineering the luxCDABE genes from Photorhabdus luminescens to provide a bioluminescent reporter for constitutive and promoter probe plasmids and mini-Tn5 constructs. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1998; 163:193–202 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Lewenza S, Falsafi RK, Winsor G, Gooderham WJ, McPhee JB et al. Construction of a mini-Tn5-luxCDABE mutant library in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1: A tool for identifying differentially regulated genes. Genome Res 2005; 15:583–589 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Weiser R, Green AE, Bull MJ, Cunningham-Oakes E, Jolley KA et al. Not all Pseudomonas aeruginosa are equal: Strains from industrial sources possess uniquely large multireplicon genomes. Microb Genom 2019; 5: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Rushton L, Sass A, Baldwin A, Dowson CG, Donoghue D et al. Key role for efflux in the preservative susceptibility and adaptive resistance of Burkholderia cepacia complex bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57:2972–2980 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. R-Core-Team In R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria: 2013 https://www.r-project.org
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kahm M, Hasenbrink G, Lichtenberg-Fraté H, Ludwig J, Kschischo M. Grofit: Fitting biological growth curves with R. J Stat Softw 2010; 33:1–21
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Krueger F. Trim Galore! a wrapper tool around Cutadapt and Fastqc to consistently apply quality and adapter trimming to FASTQ files; 2012 http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/trim_galore
  25. Magoč T, Salzberg SL. FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2011; 27:2957–2963 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M et al. Spades: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol 2012; 19:455–477 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Seemann T. Prokka: Rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Sullivan MJ, Petty NK, Beatson SA. Easyfig: A Genome Comparison Visualizer Bioinformatics (Oxford, England: 2011 pp 1009–1010
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products, OJ L 342 22.12.2009; 2009
  30. Lear JC, Maillard JY, Dettmar PW, Goddard PA, Russell AD. Chloroxylenol- and triclosan-tolerant bacteria from industrial sources - susceptibility to antibiotics and other biocides. Int Biodeter Biodegr 2006; 57:51–56
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Andrews JM. Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001; 48:5–16 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Agarwala R, Barrett T, Beck J, Benson DA, Bollin C et al. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res 2017; 45:
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Cai J, Salmon K, DuBow MS. A chromosomal ars operon homologue of Pseudomonas aeruginosa confers increased resistance to arsenic and antimony in Escherichia coli. Microbiology 1998; 144:2705–2713 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Weiser R, Donoghue D, Weightman A, Mahenthiralingam E. Evaluation of five selective media for the detection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa using a strain panel from clinical, environmental and industrial sources. J Microbiol Methods 2014; 99:8–14 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Shah N, Naseby DC. Efficacy of benzalkonium chloride against bioluminescent P. aeruginosa ATCC9027 constructs. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 2017; 97:8–15 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Elad T, Almog R, Yagur-Kroll S, Levkov K, Melamed S et al. Online monitoring of water toxicity by use of bioluminescent reporter bacterial biochips. Environ Sci Technol 2011; 45:8536–8542 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: Activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 1999; 12:147–179 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Choi SH, Gu MB. A portable toxicity biosensor using freeze-dried recombinant bioluminescent bacteria. Biosens Bioelectron 2002; 17:433–440 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Denyer SP. Mechanisms of action of antibacterial biocides. Int Biodeter Biodegr 1995; 36:227–245
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Marques CNH, Salisbury VC, Greenman J, Bowker KE, Nelson SM. Discrepancy between viable counts and light output as viability measurements, following ciprofloxacin challenge of self-bioluminescent Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 56:665–671 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001072
Loading
Construction and evaluation of a bioluminescent Pseudomonas aeruginosa reporter for use in preservative efficacy testing
Microbiology 167, 001072 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.001072
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001072
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.001072
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited 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