1887

Abstract

Microbial biofilms have been grown in laboratories using a variety of different approaches. A laboratory biofilm reactor system, called the CDC biofilm reactor (CBR) system, has been devised for growing biofilms under moderate to high fluid shear stress. The reactor incorporates 24 removable biofilm growth surfaces (coupons) for sampling and analysing the biofilm. Following preliminary experiments to verify the utility of the CBR system for growing biofilms of several clinically relevant organisms, a standard operating procedure for growing a biofilm was created. This paper presents the results of a rigorous, intra-laboratory, statistical evaluation of the repeatability and ruggedness of that procedure as well as the results of the experiments with clinically relevant organisms. For the statistical evaluations, the outcome of interest was the density (c.f.u. cm) of viable . Replicate experiments were conducted to assess the repeatability of the log density outcome. The mean log density was 7·1, independent of the coupon position within the reactor. The repeatability standard deviation of the log density based on one coupon per experiment was 0·59. Analysis of variance showed that the variability of the log density was 53 % attributable to within-experiment sources and 47 % attributable to between-experiments sources. The ruggedness evaluation applied response-surface design and regression analysis techniques, similar to those often used for sensitivity analyses in other fields of science and engineering. This approach provided a quantitative description of ruggedness; specifically, the amount the log density was altered by small adjustments to four key operational factors – time allowed for initial surface colonization, temperature, nutrient concentration, and fluid shear stress on the biofilm. The small size of the regression coefficient associated with each operational factor showed that the method was rugged; that is, relatively insensitive to minor perturbations of the four factors. These results demonstrate that the CBR system is a reliable experimental tool for growing a standard biofilm in the laboratory and that it can be adapted to study several different micro-organisms.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.27709-0
2005-03-01
2020-08-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/micro/151/3/mic1510757.html?itemId=/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.27709-0&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Allison D., Maira-Litran T., Gilbert P. 1999; Perfused biofilm fermenters. Methods Enzymol310:232–248
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AOAC 1995; Guidelines for collaborative study procedures to validate characteristics of a method of analysis. J AOAC Int78:143A–160A
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AOAC 1998; AOAC Peer-verified Methods Program Manual on Policies and Procedures Gaithersburg, MD: AOAC International;
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ASTM 2002a; E456-02: Standard terminology relating to quality and statistics. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards vol. 14.02: West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International;
    [Google Scholar]
  5. ASTM 2002b; E1169-02: Standard guide for conducting ruggedness tests. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards vol. 14.02: West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International;
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Camper A., Jones W. L., Hayes J. T. 1996; Effect of growth conditions and substratum composition on the persistence of coliforms in mixed-population biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol62:4014–4018
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ceri H., Olson M. E., Stremick C., Read R. R., Morck D., Buret A. 1999; The Calgary Biofilm Device: a new technology for rapid determination of antibiotic susceptibilities of bacterial biofilms. J Clin Microbiol37:1771–1776
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Characklis W. G., Marshall K. C. 1990; Biofilms New York: Wiley;
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Donlan R. M., Murga R., Carpenter J., Brown E., Besser R., Fields B. 2002; Monochloramine disinfection of biofilm-associated Legionella pneumophila in a potable water model system. In Legionella pp406–410 Edited by Marre R..others Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology;
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Donlan R. M., Piede J. A., Heyes C. D., Sanii L., Murga R., Edmonds P., El-Sayed I., El-Sayed M. A. 2004; A model system for growing and quantifying Streptococcus pneumoniae biofilms in situ and in real time. Appl Environ Microbiol70:4980–4988[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Feldsine P., Abeyta C., Andrews W. H. 2002; AOAC International methods committee guidelines for validation of qualitative and quantitative food microbiological official methods of analysis. J AOAC Int85:1187–1200
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Herigstad B., Hamilton M., Heersink J. 2001; How to optimize the drop plate method for enumerating bacteria. J Microbiol Methods44:121–129[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ISO 1993; Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement Geneva: ISO;
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kharazmi A., Giwercman B., Hoiby N. 1999; Robbins Device in biofilm research. Methods Enzymol310:207–215
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Mittelman M. W., Kohring L. L., White D. C. 1992; Multipurpose laminar-flow adhesion cells for the study of bacterial colonization and biofilm formation. Biofouling6:39–51[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Murga R., Forster T. S., Brown E., Pruckler J. M., Fields B. S., Donlan R. M. 2001; Role of biofilms in the survival of Legionella pneumophila in a model potable-water system. Microbiology147:3121–3126
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Nickel J. C., Wright J. B., Ruseska I., Marrie T. J., Whitfield C., Costerton J. W. 1985; Antibiotic resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonizing a urinary catheter in vitro. Eur J Clin Microbiol4:213–218[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. NIST/SEMATECH 2003; e-Handbook of Statistical Methodshttp://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/
    [Google Scholar]
  19. O'Toole G. A., Kolter R. 1998; Initiation of biofilm formation in Pseudomonas fluorescens WCS365 proceeds via multiple, convergent signaling pathways: a genetic analysis. Mol Microbiol28:449–461[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Stoodley P., Dodds I., Boyle J. D., Lappin-Scott H. M. 1999; Influence of hydrodynamics and nutrients on biofilm structure. J Appl Microbiol Symp Suppl85:19S–28S
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Thompson M. 2000; Towards a unified model of errors in analytical measurement. Analyst125:2020–2025[CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Thompson M., Ellison S., Wood R. 2002; Harmonized guidelines for single-laboratory validation of methods of analysis. Pure Appl Chem74:835–855
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Youden W., Steiner E. 1975; Statistical Manual of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists Gaithersberg, MD: AOAC International;
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Zelver N., Hamilton M., Pitts B., Goeres D., Walker D., Sturman P., Heersink J. 1999; Measuring antimicrobial effects on biofilm bacteria: from laboratory to field. Methods Enzymol310:608–628
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.27709-0
Loading
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.27709-0
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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