This Article  • Abstract  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Bacterial Infections  • Cataracts/ Lens  • Corneal Disorders  • Endophthalmitis  • Ophthalmological Disorders, Other  • Intraocular Lenses  • Infectious Diseases  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Irmgard Behlau, MD; Michael S. Gilmore, PhD

Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(11):1572-1581.

ABSTRACT
Most bacterial infections involve biofilms. Biofilms are collections of microorganisms encased in a matrix that is often composed of both bacterial and host materials. They form on natural surfaces such as heart valves or abiotic surfaces such as contact lenses or intraocular lenses. The biofilm matrix promotes adherence of the microbe to smooth surfaces as well as to other cells. Biofilms thereby form large 3-dimensional microbial communities of complex architecture through cell-to-cell communication and coordinated multicellular behavior. The biofilm architecture promotes the exchange of nutrients and waste products. The ability of microorganisms to attach to abiotic surfaces and grow in highly stable communities greatly confounds the medical use of implantable devices. Much effort is now being invested to understand the molecular nature of biofilms, with a view toward designing biofilm-resistant implantable devices and more effective antimicrobials.

INTRODUCTION

Jump to Section  • Top  • Introduction  • Indwelling devices and biofilm...  • Biofilm infections unrelated to...  • What we know about...  • Conclusions  • Author information  • References

" . . . Tho my teeth are kept usually very clean, nevertheless when I view them in a Magnifying Glass, I find growing between them a little white matter as thick as wetted flower . . . to my great surprise . . . contained very many small living Animalicula, which moved themselves extravagantly . . . hence I conclude, that the Vinegar with which I washt my Teeth, kill’d only those Animalicula which were on the outside of the scurf, but did not pass thro the whole substance of it . . . The number of these Animalicula in the scurf of a mans Teeth, are so many that I believe they exceed the number of Men in a kingdom."—Anthony van Leeuwenhoek^1-2

INDWELLING DEVICES AND BIOFILM INFECTION

Jump to Section  • Top  • Introduction  • Indwelling devices and biofilm...  • Biofilm infections unrelated to...  • What we know about...  • Conclusions  • Author information  • References

A large percentage of biofilm-related infections are associated with indwelling medical devices. About 1 million cases—an estimated 60% of hospital-associated infections—are due to biofilms that have formed on indwelling devices.⁸ Device-related biofilm infections increase hospital stay, on average, 2 to 3 days and add approximately $1 billion per year to US hospitalization costs.⁹ Owing to the aging population and the increasing number of implantable medical devices available, infections associated with biofilms are expected to increase. Currently, approximately 2 million fracture-fixation devices are implanted, accompanied by an infection rate of 5%, with an additional cost of $15 000 per case. Approximately 2% of the 600 000 prosthetic joints implanted per year become infected at a cost of $30 000 per patient, not including months of loss of function or income. Mechanical heart valves (85 000/y), vascular grafts (450 000/y), and pacemaker-defibrillators (300 000/y) have rates of infection of about 4% at a cost of $35 000 to $50 000 per infection and significant morbidity and mortality. Some implantable devices, such as ventricular-assist devices, are associated with infection rates as high as 40% despite their short-term use and inclusion of prophylactic antibiotics. These are associated with a cost of $50 000 per infection, with high rates of morbidity and mortality.⁸ Indwelling prosthetic devices have been instrumental in saving lives and have enhanced the quality of life for a great many more patients, yet the presence of an indwelling foreign body both predisposes to and greatly complicates the eradication of bacterial and fungal infections.

The nature of an indwelling foreign body—either an implanted device or an object entering through trauma—profoundly influences the host-pathogen dynamic.¹⁰ The mere presence of the foreign body (1) enables a smaller bacterial inoculum to lead to infection, (2) permits a nonpathogenic organism to opportunistically colonize the foreign body and infect, (3) allows a pathogen to persist undetected at the site of the infection, (4) induces a chronic local inflammatory response, and (5) limits the induction and effectiveness of a humoral response in the presence of chronic, persistent infection.¹¹ Soon after a foreign body enters a host, an inflammatory response occurs. The magnitude of this response depends on the chemical composition, shape, size, mechanical stability, and the location of the object.¹² Most materials are not inert, and there tends to be some surface decomposition with a release of breakdown products resulting in an allergic or irritative response.

Foreign bodies are quickly covered by host matrix molecules. This surface conditioning layer is composed of fibrinogen, fibronectin, and collagen.¹³ One of the challenges in the design and construction of implanted medical devices is to control the deposition of these host molecules that form host-conditioned surfaces to limit opportunities for adherence of free-floating (planktonic) bacteria via their matrix attachment adhesins. Bacterial biofilms are observable and have been studied on the surface of explanted medical devices at high resolution by electron microscopy.^14-15 Implant infections are notable for being difficult to diagnose because stable communities of bacteria in biofilms are often walled off by components of the human immune system, resulting in chronic low-grade inflammation. As noted above, because of the physiological heterogeneity of the bacteria within the biofilm, they are also extremely difficult to eradicate using existing antimicrobials. Resolution often only occurs with surgical removal of the device followed by prolonged antimicrobial therapy.

Just as for other anatomical sites, the risk of biofilm-related infection of ocular foreign bodies and medical devices depends on location (Table 1). Biofilms have been observed on contact lenses, where they are believed to contribute to the development of microbial keratitis.^16-18 Cataract surgery with intraocular lens (IOL) placement or the introduction of intraocular infusion pumps, glaucoma tubes, stents, keratoplasties, or other ocular prostheses create opportunities for the development of infections involving microbial biofilms.^19-20

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Table 1. Examples of Ocular-Associated Infections Relative to Location and Type of Foreign Body

It is estimated that more than 30 000 cases of microbial keratitis occur annually in the United States and 100 000 cases annually worldwide.²¹ Nonsurgical trauma and contact lens use are the leading predisposing risk factors for microbial keratitis. The mechanism underlying this increased risk is the subject of much interest. A decrease in corneal epithelial barrier function with contact lens wear may be mechanical in origin, stemming from an accumulation of debris under the lens during closed-eye wear and friction and pressure from normal blinking during open-eye wear. Infections may be caused by bacteria present on the ocular surface, adnexa, or colonizing the lens, and these infections may progress through deeper layers of the cornea through an induced epithelial defect or through microtrauma induced by the foreign object itself.²² Contaminated contact lenses, cases, and possibly solutions are known to be the source of infection in some instances.²³ In contrast to non–contact lens–associated microbial keratitis, which is more frequently associated with gram-positive organisms, contact lens–related infections in many geographic locations are more commonly associated with gram-negative bacteria (particularly Pseudomonas aeruginosa).^{18, 23} Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other environmental organisms also cause conjunctivitis associated with punctal plugs. Because Pseudomonas is not a commensal of the ocular surface, it is likely that the abiotic surface of the punctal plug, like the contact lens, provides a site for otherwise transient microbes to attach and form a biofilm, protected from host mucosal defenses while shedding organisms onto the ocular surface, eventually leading to infection.^24-25 The intermittent release of organisms^25-26 or bacterial products such as endotoxin or other bacterial exotoxins from biofilms on the ocular surface may damage the corneal epithelium, rendering it more susceptible to infection.^{25, 27} The specific role of biofilms in the recent contact lens–associated Fusarium keratitis outbreak²⁸ is as yet unknown, but is suggested by in vitro biofilm modeling systems.^29-31 Lens disinfectant systems are mainly tested against organisms in planktonic broth culture; this is an area of increasing concern.³¹

Most cases of endophthalmitis occurring after cataract surgery are due to bacteria entering the eye at the time of surgery. Gram-positive organisms constitute most culture-positive cases of pseudophakic endophthalmitis,³² with many cases being caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci.^{16, 32} Coagulase-negative staphylococcal infection (ie, infection caused by species other than Staphylococcus aureus) often occurs as an indolent low-grade process with more than 55% of cases occurring more than 1 week after surgery and 20% more than 2 months later.³³ Propionibacterium acnes have also long been associated with low pathogenicity and very delayed onset of pseudophakic endophthalmitis,^34-35 yet only recently have biofilmlike deposits been seen on IOLs with polymerase chain reaction confirmation.³⁶ Contact between the lens and external tissues surrounding the incision has been observed to result in 26% of the lenses becoming colonized.³⁷ The IOL appears to provide a niche where bacteria may attach to form a biofilm. Biofilms may occur on the IOL, haptic or capsule, and the composition of the lens appears to influence biofilm development.^{16, 38-39} Because of limited circulation and access to the innate immune system, IOL-associated biofilms are likely stable communities resulting in intermittent release of bacteria and bacterial products. This stability, as well as the prospect that bacteria in a dormant physiology in a biofilm may not readily revert to active growth, may explain the relatively low yield of aqueous and vitreous culture.⁴⁰ The aqueous blood barrier is reestablished within 12 weeks after ocular surgery. This limited access may be responsible for restricting secondary seeding of the IOL from transient organisms in the bloodstream (in contrast to foreign bodies with more direct access to the vascular supply).²²

Other ocular infections associated with abiotic materials and likely involving biofilms include keratitis related to corneal sutures (such as in penetrating keratoplasty)^41-42 and scleral buckle infections, where rates of biofilm formation may be as high as 65%.⁴³ Chronic inflammatory stimulus of bacteria and antigens released from the biofilm may contribute to tissue damage in these infections.^{25, 44}

Staphylococcus aureus is the leading cause of all indwelling device infections,⁸ and these have become a special concern because of the increasing resistance of these organisms to antibiotics,⁴⁵ including the identification of strains resistant to vancomycin.⁴⁶ Staphylococcus aureus strains vary widely in their ability to form biofilms^47-51; this appears to be true for ocular isolates as well (I.B. and M.S.G. unpublished data from ongoing study [2007 to present]).

BIOFILM INFECTIONS UNRELATED TO INDWELLING DEVICES

Jump to Section  • Top  • Introduction  • Indwelling devices and biofilm...  • Biofilm infections unrelated to...  • What we know about...  • Conclusions  • Author information  • References

Native valve endocarditis, cystic fibrosis pneumonia, periodontitis, bladder infections, and otitis media are all examples of biofilm-related diseases that do not involve indwelling devices. Damaged endothelium exposes the underlying basement membrane (collagen, laminin, vitronectin, and fibronectin) that provides a substratum for the adherence of organisms transiently passing through the bloodstream. Ensuing inflammation stimulates the clotting cascade, leading to the deposition of fibrin and the creation of an insoluble clot of fibrin and platelets. Endocarditis vegetations adherent to cardiac valves consist of biofilms formed from aggregates of bacterial cells, platelets, fibrin, fibronectin, and collagen. Several bacteria have fibronectin receptors, including S aureus and several species of streptococci.⁵² Early work demonstrated that Streptococcus sanguis adheres to the surface of sterile vegetations when injected into rabbits that have had catheter-induced damage to the vascular endothelium. The bacteria attach and begin to replicate within 30 minutes.⁵³ Most of the metabolic activity of biofilm bacteria occurs on the surface while bacterial colonies deep within the thrombus were relatively inactive. By 2 days, most bacteria in a vegetation have entered metabolic quiescence.⁵⁴ As a result, this subacute to chronic infection is recalcitrant to antibiotic therapy.^55-56 Parallels to these processes likely occur in biofilm-related infections at other sites.

Infectious crystalline keratopathy may occur in normal or diseased corneas, corneal grafts, or around sutures.^{16, 57-58} In pathology specimens from patients with chronic microbial keratitis, bacteria growing in an apparent biofilm were seen in infectious crystalline keratopathy.^59-60 Fixation with ruthenium red demonstrated bacteria within an exopolysaccharide matrix predominantly in patients with infectious crystalline keratopathy, but not in other patients with chronic keratitis. Infectious crystalline keratopathy is believed to relate to biofilm formation because of the prolonged clinical course, poor antibiotic responsiveness, and difficulty culturing individual organisms.²⁵ A bacterial biofilm concretion has been reported in a patient who had prior pterygium surgery for necrotizing scleritis that required a scleral patch graft 7 years earlier.⁶¹ In this case, a more permissive environment for biofilm formation appears to have been provided by the presence of abnormal tissue with impaired mucosal defenses.²⁵

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT BIOFILM STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT

Jump to Section  • Top  • Introduction  • Indwelling devices and biofilm...  • Biofilm infections unrelated to...  • What we know about...  • Conclusions  • Author information  • References

Structure of Biofilms

Biofilms are mostly water. Because of the extensive hydration and thickness of the EPS in which the microbes are imbedded, they are challenging to image at high resolution by traditional microscopic techniques. Despite the effect of dehydration on structure, scanning electron microscopy (Figure 2 and Figure 3) has been used to visualize the fine details of biofilm surfaces and transmission electron microscopy has provided a detailed understanding of deeper structures.⁶² Advances in cryotechniques, particularly freeze-substitution, which rapidly freezes biofilms in noncrystalline or nanocrystalline ice, have provided much better structural detail of biofilms.⁶³ Advances in confocal scanning laser microscopy (Figure 4) have permitted in situ, high-resolution, real-time study of biofilm formation and structure in native fully-hydrated form.^64-65 Using this tool, biofilms have been revealed to be highly organized and surprisingly dynamic communities of microorganisms, densely packed in the often heterogeneous matrix of extracellular polymeric substances, with open water channels (Figure 1).

View larger version (104K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Figure 2. Microcolonies with early biofilm formation. Scanning electron micrograph of a Staphylococcus aureus clinical ocular isolate grown in vitro on polymethyl methacrylate. Magnification x2000; scale bar, 10 µm.

View larger version (128K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Figure 3. Mature biofilm with associated extracellular polymeric substances and architectural structure. Scanning electron micrograph of a Staphylococcus aureus clinical ocular isolate grown in vitro on polymethyl methacrylate. Magnification x7000; scale bar, 1 µm.

View larger version (417K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Figure 4. Mature biofilm. Laser scanning confocal micrograph of a Staphylococcus aureus clinical ocular isolate grown in vitro on polymethyl methacrylate and stained with acridine orange. Magnification x1000; scale bar, 40 µm.

Extracellular polymeric substances consist of polysaccharides, proteins, nucleic acids, and lesser amounts of lipids and other polymers.^66-69 In addition, bacterial outer-membrane vesicles, flagella, phages, pili, host matrix material, and lysed cell debris may also be present.⁶³ Biofilms consist of approximately 15% bacteria and 85% EPS by volume. Extracellular polymeric substance is highly hydrated and consist of 97% water by mass.⁷⁰ Although highly hydrated, diffusion within the biofilm is not unrestricted, and there is substantial evidence of the occurrence of microniches that vary substantially in oxygen content, osmolarity, pH, and other parameters.^{66, 68, 71-72} Water channels facilitate nutrient uptake and waste exchange.^72-74

Biofilm Development

It is increasingly clear that the microorganisms undergo specifically programmed developmental changes when they transition from free-swimming individual organisms (planktonic) to a sessile surface-associated community (biofilm). The environmental signals that promote biofilm formation include nutritional content, temperature, osmolarity, pH, iron, and oxygen, and vary among species. For example, most species of Pseudomonas will form biofilms under many conditions that are permissive to growth⁷⁵ while the pathogen of food-borne diarrheal outbreaks, Escherichia coli 0157:H7, forms biofilms only in nutrient-poor media.⁷⁶

One of the most thoroughly studied medically relevant organisms with respect to biofilm formation is P aeruginosa. Based on confocal microscopic observations of structural development as well as observed changes in gene expression patterns, a 5-stage life cycle for biofilm formation by Pseudomonas has been proposed⁶⁰ (Figure 1). Stage 1 involves the initial weak nonspecific association of cells to the surface. Stage 2 involves conversion to firm adherence with initial EPS production. Stage 3 occurs with bacterial cell division and aggregation of cells to one another in a microcolony, with further EPS production. Stage 4 results in maturation of the biofilm architecture with vertical growth and formation of water channels dividing bacterial communities. The final stage in the cycle, stage 5, involves dispersion of single cells from the biofilm. Protein expression patterns of dispersing single bacterial cells closely resemble those of planktonic cells rather than those of cells in the aging biofilm structure. Microcolonies of the biofilm may slough, particularly as the EPS degrades. Similar stages of development have been proposed for biofilm formation by other organisms, and the development of multispecies biofilm involving interspecies cross-talk may contribute to variation in the developmental cycle depicted (Figure 1).

Mechanisms of Aggregation and Attachment. Stage 1 represents a reversible association of bacteria with a surface, but at this point they are not committed to biofilm formation and may leave the surface to resume a planktonic lifestyle. On association with the surface, bacteria may exhibit species-specific motility such as rolling, pilus-mediated twitching, gliding, tumbling, and aggregate formation before they begin to exude exopolysaccharide and adhere irreversibly.⁷⁷ For motile bacteria such as Pseudomonas, an event that occurs immediately prior to irreversible attachment to a surface is a switch from flagella-based motility to a lateral surface-associated motility termed twitching motility.^{75, 78-79} This twitching motility allows redistribution of attached cells enabling bacteria to colonize adjacent areas of the surface. Swarming, another mechanism of motility, is also used by some strains.⁸⁰

Nonmotile staphylococci appear to attach to cells of the corneal epithelium through interactions between a fibronectin-binding protein and fibronectin bound to integrins on the cell surface,^{47, 49} followed by a growth-dependent accumulation of cells into a microcolony. Initial attachment of staphylococci to abiotic surfaces appears multifactorial. Staphylococcus aureus mutants lacking either teichoic acids⁸¹ or autolysins^82-84 show altered biofilm formation. In Staphylococcus epidermidis, an autolysin (or peptidoglycan hydrolase), AtlE, contributes to binding vitronectin (a component of the host extracellular matrix [ECM]) and to hydrophobic surfaces such as polystyrene.⁸³ Mutants of AtlE are less virulent in animal models of catheter-associated infection.⁸⁴ Staphylococcus aureus mutants lacking an enzyme that adds d-alanine to teichoic acid (dltA), thereby regulating the surface charge of the organism, are reduced in biofilm formation. Other complex surface polymers and membrane lipids (eg, lysylphosphatidylglycerol) also play a role in attachment of S aureus to biomaterials.⁸⁵

Host matrix factors significantly affect bacterial adhesion to indwelling devices.⁸⁶ Host extracellular matrix components, which naturally support association of host cells in forming tissues and organs, also serve as ligands for pathogenic microorganisms.⁸⁷ This specific bacterial binding of the host matrix is mediated by bacterial surface protein adhesins. Staphylococcus aureus expresses on its surface a family of protein adhesins called microbial surface components recognizing adhesive matrix molecules (MSCRAMMs). These MSCRAMM proteins specifically recognize host matrix components. Fibronectin, a large multifunctional host glycoprotein found either as a soluble form, particularly in plasma,⁸⁵ or as an insoluble form in the extracellular matrix, appears to be a major binding target. Invasive strains of staphylococci have been reported to bind fibronectin more avidly than commensal strains.^88-89 Fibronectin binding may explain the tropism of S aureus for traumatized tissues, blood clots, and abnormal heart valves. Two fibronectin adhesins (fibronectin binding proteins A and B [FnBPA and FnBPB]), or MSCRAMMs, have been identified on strains of S aureus.

Fibrinogen, the blood plasma coagulation protein, also occurs in the ECM. It is the major blood protein deposited on implanted cardiovascular devices such as vascular grafts, catheters, kidney dialyzers, and cardiac assist devices.^87-88 Staphylococcus aureus also expresses 2 fibrinogen-binding proteins that belong to the MSCRAMM family known as clumping factors A and B. Clumping factor A has also been shown to be important in the binding of S aureus in adhesion to both polyethylene and polyvinyl surfaces.⁹⁰ Additional bacterial adhesins bind other host proteins including collagen and laminin (major glycoprotein found in human basement membrane).

Stage 2 is characterized by the production of the biofilm matrix, EPS. One such EPS is alginate, which is produced by some strains of P aeruginosa. The genes responsible for alginate production by this bacterium are upregulated within 15 minutes of attachment. Production of alginate is also triggered by nitrogen limitation, membrane perturbation induced by ethanol, and high osmolarity.^91-94 Alginate has been found in large quantities in mucoid strains of P aeruginosa from the lungs of patients with cystic fibrosis. Mucoid strains of P aeruginosa become the predominant pathogen with time and parallel a worsening clinical prognosis.⁹⁵ Alginate appears to scavenge free radicals and protect bacterial cells from phagocytic clearance. Despite the development of antialginate antibodies, they are ineffective in triggering opsonic killing in patients with cystic fibrosis.^95-99 Overproduction of alginate leads to architectural changes in the biofilm, with resultant increased resistance to antimicrobials and innate immune system.^100-104

Making the issue more complex, it has recently been shown that alginate production is not the only mechanism for biofilm formation by P aeruginosa strains.^{98, 104-105} Some strains produce other extracellular polymers (Psl)^{100, 106} that contribute to cell-to-surface and cell-to-cell adherence.^{100, 107} Not only is Psl required for adherence to mucin-coated surfaces and airway epithelial cells, but it is important for maintenance of the biofilm scaffold.¹⁰⁸ Another Pseudomonas polysaccharide-encoding gene is pel, which is involved in biofilm formation.¹⁰⁹ Both Psl and Pel are highly conserved in Pseudomonas strains and their genes are regulated in response to biofilm formation.^110-113

Adherent cells of staphylococcal species will produce an extracellular polysaccharide, polysaccharide intercellular adhesin for Staphylococcus epidermidis^114-117 or poly-N-acetylglucosamine for S aureus.^{51, 118} These similar polymers are synthesized by enzymes encoded by a group of closely related operons termed the intercellular adhesin (ica) operon.^{51, 119} The ica operon is more commonly associated with invasive than noninvasive strains of S epidermidis¹²⁰ and contributes to foreign body infection in animal models.^{84, 120-122} The relationship between virulence and the ica operon for S aureus is less clear. The ica operon is found in most S aureus strains,^{51, 123-124} and a clear role in virulence has been difficult to demonstrate.¹²⁵ However, it is clear that the gene products of the ica operon contribute to biofilm formation and are tightly regulated.^126-137 In addition to the carbohydrate polymers synthesized by the ica locus, a cell wall protein, accumulation-associated protein, has been implicated in biofilm formation by coagulase-negative staphylococci on polymer surfaces.¹³⁸ Accumulation-associated protein, containing a novel 5-glycine domain (G5 domain), is proposed to play a role in anchoring polysaccharide intercellular adhesin or poly-N-acetylglucosamine to cell surfaces. Accumulation-associated protein mutants produce polysaccharide intercellular adhesin or poly-N-acetylglucosamine that is only loosely attached to the cell surface.^139-141 A second protein, biofilm-associated protein,¹⁴² is expressed by both S aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci and permits these organisms to form biofilms independently of polysaccharide intercellular adhesin and poly-N-acetylglucosamine.

Maturation of the Biofilm. Biofilm stage 3 is characterized by the growth of surface-attached microcolonies that progress to a mature biofilm architecture in stage 4 with increased synthesis of EPS. The mature biofilm is characterized by complex architecture that includes channels, pores, and even a redistribution of the bacteria farther away from the substratum. Growth generally occurs as the result of binary division of attached cells spreading daughter cells upward and outward from the attached surface to form cell clusters.¹⁴³ However, recruitment of cells from the bulk fluid to the aggregating microorganisms has also been observed.¹⁴⁴ There is physiological adaptation of bacteria in the biofilm that includes increased resistance to antibiotics as a more protective environment develops.

The formation of complex higher-order architectures is coordinated through a system of communication between bacteria in the biofilm. Many bacterial species, including Pseudomonas species and S aureus, have communication systems that enable them to produce factors involved in cellular repair, defenses, and virulence in a coordinated way. Expression of these traits usually occurs once a threshold of bacteria are present, signaling the occurrence of a suitable site for colonization. This cell density–dependent communication is known as quorum sensing. Anywhere from 1% to 10% of the genes of a bacterium are regulated by this process. Pseudomonas aeruginosa possess several overlapping quorum-sensing systems.^144-151 Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells deficient in one of these genes, lasI, produce biofilms that are 20% as thick as wild-type and grow as continuous undifferentiated sheets without evidence of EPS. In the biofilm, LasI is maximally expressed in those P aeruginosa cells located nearest the substratum.¹⁴⁷

Biofilm-associated organisms possess distinct characteristics from planktonic bacteria, such as increased resistance to antimicrobial agents. Using microarray technology, Whiteley et al⁹⁴ compared mature P aeruginosa biofilms with planktonic bacteria and found 73 genes that were differentially expressed. Genes expressed at higher levels in mature biofilms included those encoding proteins involved in translation, metabolism, membrane transport and/or secretion, and gene regulation. Similarly, adaptive stress-response functions are upregulated in a P aeruginosa biofilm.^{79, 94, 152} Proteomic analysis has revealed that more than 50% of the detectable proteome (more than 800 proteins) demonstrated a greater than 6-fold difference in expression, with more than 300 proteins detected in the P aeruginosa mature biofilm that were undetectable in extracts from planktonic bacteria. These proteins were involved in metabolism, phospholipid and lipopolysaccharide biosynthesis, membrane transport and secretion, and adaptation and protective mechanisms.¹⁵⁰

Detachment. Detachment, the release of bacteria from a biofilm, appears to be a physiologically regulated event (Figure 1, stage 5). After biofilm maturation, EPS matrix levels appear to go down, perhaps owing to metabolism, with subsequent detachment of clumps and individual cells.^153-154 Increased concentration of inducer molecules may be responsible for the release of matrix polymer–degrading enzymes that results in detachment of cells from biofilms.¹⁵⁵ Alginate lyase causes degradation of alginate in P aeruginosa biofilms. Other mechanisms may involve density-dependent regulation of the release of matrix-degrading enzymes.¹⁵³ Inducing biofilm disaggregation would appear to be a promising area for further research.

Selective Advantage of Biofilm Adaptation

It is becoming increasingly clear that communal life within a biofilm offers multiple advantages (Table 2). The close physical proximity of other bacterial cells favors synergistic interactions, even between members of different species. These include the horizontal transfer of genetic material between microbes, the sharing of metabolic by-products, an increased tolerance to antimicrobials, protection from environmental stresses (ultraviolet radiation, temperature changes, wind, environmental extremes from dryness to humidity), and protection from the host immune system or from predator microorganisms in the environment. Much of this protection is conferred by the EPS matrix, which enables a variety of microscopic niches to form in the biofilm, each with its own distinct environment, fostering the existence of a collection of microorganisms in vastly different physiological states.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Table 2. Differences Between Biofilm and Planktonic Bacteria

Biofilms are notorious for withstanding concentrations of antibiotics 1000 times higher than levels lethal to planktonic cells. The EPS matrix may provide some shield, but it appears that the heterogeneity of bacteria inside the biofilm, including some cells that are nearly dormant, accounts for this difference. Microbes closest to the fluid that surrounds the biofilm have greater access to nutrients and oxygen compared with those in the center of the matrix or near the substratum. Many antibiotics target rapidly dividing or metabolizing bacteria, so the slow-growing or stable bacteria within the biofilm community tend to be spared. The negative charge of the biofilm matrix may initially affect the permeability of antibiotics, but most research indicates that the high level of antibiotic resistance exhibited by biofilms does not stem from a permeability barrier.

CONCLUSIONS

Jump to Section  • Top  • Introduction  • Indwelling devices and biofilm...  • Biofilm infections unrelated to...  • What we know about...  • Conclusions  • Author information  • References

There is a compelling need to understand the nature and role of biofilms in infection. We only now appreciate that microbes in a biofilm behave differently than their planktonic counterparts and, importantly, respond differently to antibiotics. Most antibiotics were discovered because of their ability to inhibit bacterial growth in vitro, but this ability may or may not be related to their effect on cells in a biofilm in vivo. At a time of diminishing options because of the spread of antibiotic resistance, it is imperative that our patients receive the greatest benefit from the antibiotics that we have until new ones are discovered. Understanding how bacteria evade the activity of antibiotics by encapsulating themselves in the cocoon of a biofilm and gaining the knowledge to overcome that will be critical to improving patient outcome for most bacterial infections.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Jump to Section  • Top  • Introduction  • Indwelling devices and biofilm...  • Biofilm infections unrelated to...  • What we know about...  • Conclusions  • Author information  • References

Correspondence: Michael S. Gilmore, PhD, Schepens Eye Research Institute, 20 Staniford St, Boston, MA 02114 (michael.gilmore{at}schepens.harvard.edu).

Submitted for Publication: December 5, 2007; final revision received March 18, 2008; accepted March 21, 2008.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: Portions of this study were supported by grants EY017381 and EY08289 from the National Institutes of Health.

Additional Contributions: Guidance and support of Dr Behlau by Claes H. Dohlman, MD, PhD, of the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts, is gratefully acknowledged.

Author Affiliations: Schepens Eye Research Institute and Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

REFERENCES

Jump to Section  • Top  • Introduction  • Indwelling devices and biofilm...  • Biofilm infections unrelated to...  • What we know about...  • Conclusions  • Author information  • References

1. van Leeuwenhoek A. Microscopical observations about animals in the scurf of the teeth. Philos Trans. 1684;14:568-574. FREE FULL TEXT 2. Brock TD. Microscopical observations about animals in the scurf of the teeth. In: Brock TD, ed. Milestones in Microbiology: 1546-1940. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 1999.3. Hall-Stoodley L, Costerton JW, Stoodley P. Bacterial biofilms: from the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004;2(2):95-108. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 4. Westall F, de Wit MJ, Dann J, van der Gaast S, de Ronde CEJ, Gerneke D. Early Archean fossil bacteria and biofilms in hydrothermally-influenced sediments from the Barberton greenstone belt, South Africa. Precambrian Res. 2001;106:93-116. FULL TEXT | ISI 5. Rasmussen B. Filamentous microfossils in a 3,235 million year-old volcanogenic massive sulphide deposit. Nature. 2000;405(6787):676-679. FULL TEXT | PUBMED 6. National Institutes of Health. SBIR/STTR Study and Control of Microbial Biofilms (PA-99-084). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-99-084.html. Published April 21, 1999. Accessed November 12, 2007.7. National Institutes of Health. Targeted Research on Oral Microbial Biofilms (DE-98-006). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-DE-98-006.html. Published March 6, 1998. Accessed November 12, 2007.8. Darouiche RO. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(14):1422-1429. FREE FULL TEXT 9. Archibald LK, Gaynes RP. Hospital-acquired infections in the United States: the importance of inter-hospital comparisons. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1997;11(2):245-255. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 10. Gristina AG, Dobbins JJ, Giammara B, Lewis JC, DeVreises WC. Biomaterial-centered sepsis and the total artificial heart. JAMA. 1988;259(6):870-874. FREE FULL TEXT 11. Nickel JC, Downey JA, Costerton JW. Ultrastructural study of microbiologic colonization of urinary catheters. Urology. 1989;34(5):284-291. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 12. Christensen GD, Baddour LM, Hasty DL, Lowrance JH, Simpson WA. Microbial and foreign body factors in the pathogenesis of medical device infections. In: Bisno AL, Waldvogel FA, eds. Infections Associated With Indwelling Medical Devices. Washington, DC: American Society of Microbiology; 1989:27-59.13. Inman RD, Gallegos KV, Brause BD, Redecha PD, Christian CL. Clinical and microbial features of prosthetic joint infection. Am J Med. 1984;77(1):47-53. ISI | PUBMED 14. Dougherty SH, Simmons RL. Infections in bionic man: the pathobiology of infections in prosthetic devices—part 1. Curr Probl Surg. 1982;19(5):217-263. PUBMED 15. Gristina AG. Biomaterial-centered infection: microbial adhesion versus tissue integration. Science. 1987;237(4822):1588-1595. FREE FULL TEXT 16. Elder MJ, Stapleton F, Evans E, Dart JKG. Biofilm-related infections in ophthalmology. Eye. 1995;9(pt 1):102-109. ISI | PUBMED 17. Gorlin AI, Gabriel MM, Wilson LA, Ahearn DG. Effect of adhered bacteria on the binding of Acanthamoeba to hydrogel lenses. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114(5):576-580. FREE FULL TEXT 18. McLaughlin-Borlace L, Stapleton F, Matheson M, Dart JKG. Bacterial biofilm on contact lenses and lens storage cases in wearers with microbial keratitis. J Appl Microbiol. 1998;84(5):827-838. FULL TEXT | PUBMED 19. Taban M, Behrens A, Newcomb RL; et al. Acute endophthalmitis following cataract surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(5):613-620. FREE FULL TEXT 20. West ES, Behrens A, McDonnell PJ; et al. The incidence of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery among the U.S. Medicare population increased between 1994 and 2001. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(8):1388-1394. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 21. Pepose JS, Wilhemus KR. Divergent approaches to the management of corneal ulcers. Am J Ophthalmol. 1992;114(5):630-632. ISI | PUBMED 22. Baker AS, Schein OD. Ocular infections. In: Bisno AL, Waldvogel FA, eds. Infections Associated With Indwelling Medical Devices. Washington, DC: American Society of Microbiology; 1989:75-92.23. Galentine PG, Cohen EJ, Laibson PR, Adams CD, Michaud R, Arentsen JJ. Corneal ulcers associated with contact lens wear. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102:891-894. FREE FULL TEXT 24. Soukiasian S. The microbial flora from explanted punctal plugs. Abstract presented at: Ocular Microbiology and Immunology Group 2003 Meeting; November 15, 2003; Anaheim, CA. http://eyemicrobiology.upmc.com/2003Abstracts/2003Abs18.htm. Accessed November 12, 2007.25. Zegans ME, Shanks RMQ, O’Toole GA. Bacterial biofilms and ocular infections. Ocul Surf. 2005;3(2):73-80. ISI | PUBMED 26. Willcox MD, Harmis N, Cowell; et al. Bacterial interactions with contact lenses: effects of lens material, lens wear and microbial physiology. Biomaterials. 2001;22(24):3235-3247. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 27. Yi X, Wang Y, Yu FS. Corneal epithelial tight junctions and their response to lipopolysaccharide challenge. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(13):4093-4100. FREE FULL TEXT 28. Chang DC, Grant GB, O’Donnell K; et al, Fusarium Keratitis Investigation Team. Multi-state outbreak of Fusarium keratitis associated with use of a contact lens solution. JAMA. 2006;296(8):953-963. FREE FULL TEXT 29. Dyavaiah M, Ramani R, Chu DS; et al. Molecular characterization, biofilm analysis and experimental biofouling study of Fusarium isolates from recent cases of fungal keratitis in New York State. BMC Ophthalmol. 2007;7:1-9. FULL TEXT | PUBMED 30. Levy B. Infectious keratitis: what have we learned? Eye Contact Lens. 2007;33(6 pt 2):418-420. FULL TEXT | PUBMED 31. Imamura Y, Chandra J, Mukherjee PK; et al. Fusarium and Candida albicans biofilms on soft contact lenses: model development, influence of lens type, and susceptibility to lens care solutions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(1):171-182. FREE FULL TEXT 32. Recchia FM, Busbee BG, Pearlman RB, Carvalho-Recchia CA, Ho AC. Changing trends in the microbiologic aspects of post-cataract endophthalmitis. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(3):341-346. FREE FULL TEXT 33. Fisch A, Salvanet A, Prazuck T; et al. Epidemiology of infective endophthalmitis in France. Lancet. 1991;338(8779):1373-1376. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 34. Fox GM, Joondeph BC, Flynn HW Jr; et al. Delayed-onset pseudophakic endophthalmitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1991;111(2):163-173. ISI | PUBMED 35. Winward KE, Pflugfelder SC, Flynn HW Jr; et al. Postoperative Propionibacterium endophthalmitis: treatment strategies and long-term results. Ophthalmology. 1993;100(4):447-451. ISI | PUBMED 36. Lai JY, Chen KH, Lin YC, Hsu WM, Lee SM. Propionibacterium acnes DNA from an explanted intraocular lens detected by polymerase chain reaction in a case of chronic pseudophakic endophthalmitis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32(3):522-525. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 37. Vafidis GC, Marsh RJ, Stacey AR. Bacterial contamination of intraocular lens surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 1984;68(8):520-523. FREE FULL TEXT 38. Kodjikian L, Burillon C, Chanloy C; et al. In vivo study of bacterial adhesion to five types of intraocular lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43(12):3717-3721. FREE FULL TEXT 39. Kobayakawa S, Jett BD, Gilmore MS. Biofilm formation by Enterococcus faecalis on intraocular lens material. Curr Eye Res. 2005;30(9):741-745. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 40. Olson JC, Flynn HW Jr, Forster RK, Culbertson WW. Results in the treatment of postoperative endophthalmitis. Ophthalmology. 1983;90(6):692-699. ISI | PUBMED 41. Siganos CS, Solomon A, Frucht-Pery J. Microbial findings in suture erosion after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1997;104(3):513-516. ISI | PUBMED 42. Leahey AB, Avery R, Gottsch JD; et al. Suture abscesses after penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 1993;12(6):489-492. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 43. Holland SP, Pulido JS, Miller D; et al. Biofilm and scleral buckle-associated infections: a mechanism for persistence. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(6):933-938. ISI | PUBMED 44. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science. 1999;284(5418):1318-1322. FREE FULL TEXT 45. Fridkin SK, Hageman JC, Morrison M; et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus disease in three communities. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(14):1436-1444. FREE FULL TEXT 46. Weigel LM, Clewell DB, Gill SR; et al. Genetic analysis of a high-level vancomycin-resistant isolate of Staphylococcus aureus. Science. 2003;302(5650):1569-1571. FREE FULL TEXT 47. Jett BD, Gilmore MS. Host-parasite interactions in Staphylococcus aureus keratitis. DNA Cell Biol. 2002;21(5-6):397-404. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 48. Leid JG, Costerton JW, Shirtliff ME, Gilmore MS, Engelbert M. Immunology of Staphylococcal biofilm infections in the eye: new tools to study biofilm endophthalmitis. DNA Cell Biol. 2002;21(5-6):405-413. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 49. Jett BD, Gilmore MS. Internalization of Staphylococcus aureus by human corneal epithelial cells: role of bacterial fibronectin-binding protein and host cell factors. Infect Immun. 2002;70(8):4697-4700. FREE FULL TEXT 50. Götz F. Staphylococcus and biofilms. Mol Microbiol. 2002;43(6):1367-1378. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 51. Cramton SE, Gerke C, Schnell NF, Nichols WW, Gotz F. The intercellular adhesion (ica) locus is present in Staphylococcus aureus and is required for biofilm formation. Infect Immun. 1999;67(10):5427-5433. FREE FULL TEXT 52. Livornese LL, Korzeniowski OM. Pathogenesis of infective endocarditis. In: Kaye D, ed. Infective Endocarditis. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1992:19-35.53. Durack DT. Experimental bacterial endocarditis IV: structure and evolution of very early lesions. J Pathol. 1975;115(2):81-89. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 54. Durack DT, Beeson PB. Experimental bacterial endocarditis II: survival of bacteria in endocardial vegetations. Br J Exp Pathol. 1972;53(1):50-53. ISI | PUBMED 55. Hook EW III, Sande MA. Role of the vegetation in experimental Streptococcus viridans endocarditis. Infect Immun. 1974;10(6):1433-1438. FREE FULL TEXT 56. Cremieux AC, Maziere B, Vallois JM; et al. Evaluation of antibiotic diffusion into cardiac vegetations by quantitative autoradiography. J Infect Dis. 1989;159(5):938-944. ISI | PUBMED 57. Reiss GR, Campbell RJ, Bourne WM. Infectious crystalline keratopathy. Surv Ophthalmol. 1986;31(1):69-72. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 58. Meisler DM, Langston RH, Naab TJ, Aaby AA, McMahon JT, Tubbs RR. Infectious corneal crystalline formation. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984;97(3):337-347. ISI | PUBMED 59. Elder MJ, Matheson M, Stapleton F, Dart JK. Biofilm formation in infectious crystalline keratopathy due to Candida albicans. Cornea. 1996;15(3):301-304. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 60. Fulcher TP, Dart JK, McLaughlin-Borlace L; et al. Demonstration of biofilm in infectious crystalline keratopathy using ruthenium red and electron microscopy. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(6):1088-1092. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 61. Mihara E, Shimizu M, Touge C, Inoue Y. Case of a large, movable bacterial concretion with biofilm formation on the ocular surface. Cornea. 2004;23(5):513-515. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 62. Costerton JW, Geesey GG, Cheng K-J. How bacteria stick. Sci Am. 1978;238(1):86-95. ISI | PUBMED 63. Hunter RC, Beveridge TJ. High-resolution visualization of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA01 biofilms by freeze-substitution transmission electron microscopy. J Bacteriol. 2005;187(22):7619-7630. FREE FULL TEXT 64. Lawrence JR, Neu TR. Laser scanning microscopy. In: Reddy CA, Beveridge TJ, Breznak JA, Marzluf GA, Schmidt TM, Snyder LR, eds. Methods for General and Molecular Microbiology. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2007.65. Neu TR, Woelfl S, Lawrence JR. Three-dimensional differentiation of photo-autotrophic biofilm constituents by multi-channel laser scanning microscopy (single-photon and two-photon excitation). J Microbiol Methods. 2004;56(2):161-172. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 66. Stoodley P, Sauer K, Davies DG, Costerton JW. Biofilms as complex differentiated communities. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2002;56:187-209. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 67. Branda SS, Vik A, Friedman L, Kolter R. Biofilms: the matrix revisited. Trends Microbiol. 2005;13(1):20-25. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 68. Sutherland I. Biofilm exopolysaccharides: a strong and sticky framework. Microbiology. 2001;147(pt 1):3-9. FREE FULL TEXT 69. Fleming H-C , Wingender J, Griebe T, Mayer C. Physico-chemical properties of biofilms. In: Evans LV, ed. Biofilms: Recent Advances in Their Study and Control. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers; 2000:19-34.70. Zhang X, Bishop PL, Kupferle MJ. Measurement of polysaccharides and proteins in biofilm extracellular polymers. Water Sci Technol. 1998;37(4):345-348. ISI 71. Davey ME, O’Toole GA. Microbial biofilms: from ecology to molecular genetics. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2000;64(4):847-867. FREE FULL TEXT 72. Lewandowski Z, Altobelli SA, Fukushima E. NMR and microelectrode studies of hydrodynamics and kinetics in biofilms. Biotechnol Prog. 1993;9:40-45. FULL TEXT 73. Lewandowski Z. Structure and function of biofilms. In: Evans LV, ed. Biofilms: Recent Advances in Their Study and Control. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers; 2000:1-17.74. Donlan RM. Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(9):881-890. ISI | PUBMED 75. O’Toole GA, Kolter R. Flagellar and twitching motility are necessary for Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm development. Mol Microbiol. 1998;30(2):295-304. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 76. Dewanti R, Wong ACL. Influence of culture conditions on biofilm formation by Escherichia coli 0157:H7. Int J Food Microbiol. 1995;26(2):147-164. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 77. Characklis WG. Biofilm process. In: Characklis WG, Marshall KC, eds. Biofilms. New York, NY: Wiley; 1990:195-231.78. Sauer K, Camper AK. Characterization of phenotypic changes in Pseudomonas putida in response to surface-associated growth. J Bacteriol. 2001;183(22):6579-6589. FREE FULL TEXT 79. Heydorn A, Ersboll B, Kato J; et al. Statistical analysis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm development: impact of mutations in genes involved in twitching motility, cell-to-cell signaling, and stationary-phase sigma factor expression. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002;68(4):2008-2017. FREE FULL TEXT 80. Sun H, Zusman D, Shi W. Type IV pilus of Myxococcus xanthus is a motility apparatus controlled by the frz chemotaxis homologs. Curr Biol. 2000;10(18):1143-1146. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 81. Gross M, Cramton SE, Gotz F, Peschel A. Key role of teichoic acid net charge in Staphylococcus aureus colonization of artificial surfaces. Infect Immun. 2001;69(5):3423-3426. FREE FULL TEXT 82. Allignet J, Aubert S, Dyke KG, El Solh N. Staphylococcus caprae strains carry determinants known to be involved in pathogenicity: a gene encoding an autolysin-binding fibronectin and the ica operon involved in biofilm formation. Infect Immun. 2001;69(2):712-718. FREE FULL TEXT 83. Heilmann C, Hussain M, Peters G, Gotz F. Evidence for autolysin-mediated primary attachment of Staphylococcus epidermidis to a polystyrene surface. Mol Microbiol. 1997;24(5):1013-1024. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 84. Rupp ME, Fey PD, Heilmann C, Gotz F. Characterization of the importance of Staphylococcus epidermidis autolysin and polysaccharide intercellular adhesin in the pathogenesis of intravascular catheter–associated infection in a rat model. J Infect Dis. 2001;183(7):1038-1042. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 85. Fedtke I, Gotz F, Peschel A. Bacterial evasion of innate host defenses: the Staphylococcus aureus lesson. Int J Med Microbiol. 2004;294(2-3):189-194. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 86. Vaudaux PE, Lew DP, Waldvogel FA. Host factors predisposing to foreign body infections. In: Bisno AL, Waldvogel FA, eds. Infections Associated With Indwelling Medical Devices. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 1994.87. Patti JM, Allen BL, McGavin MJ, Hook M. MSCRAMM-mediated adherence of microorganisms to host tissues. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1994;48:585-617. ISI | PUBMED 88. Vaudaux P, Pittel D, Haeberli H; et al. Host factors selectively increase staphylococcal adherence on inserted catheters: a role for fibronectin and fibrinogen or fibrin. J Infect Dis. 1989;160(5):865-875. ISI | PUBMED 89. Vaudaux PE, Francois P, Proctor RA; et al. Use of adhesion-defective mutants of Staphylococcus aureus to define the role of specific plasma proteins in promoting bacterial adhesion to canine arteriovenous shunts [erratum appears in Infect Immun. 1995;63:3239]. Infect Immun. 1995;63(2):585-590. ABSTRACT 90. Moreillon P, Entenza JM, Franciolo P; et al. Role of Staphylococcus aureus coagulase and clumping factor in pathogenesis of experimental endocarditis. Infect Immun. 1995;63(12):4738-4743. ABSTRACT 91. DeVault JD, Berry A, Misra TK, Darzins A, Chakrabarty AM. Environmental sensory signals and microbial pathogenesis: Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in cystic fibrosis. Bio/Technology. 1989;7:352-357. FULL TEXT 92. Davies DG, Geesey GG. Regulation of the alginate biosynthesis gene algC in Pseudomonas aeruginosa during biofilm development in continuous culture. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995;61(3):860-867. ABSTRACT 93. Zielinski NA, Chakrabarty AM, Berry A. Characterization and regulation of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa algC gene encoding phosphomannomutase. J Biol Chem. 1991;266(15):9754-9763. FREE FULL TEXT 94. Whiteley M, Bangera MG, Bumgarner RE; et al. Gene expression in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Nature. 2001;413(6858):860-864. FULL TEXT | PUBMED 95. Govan JRW, Deretic V. Microbial pathogenesis in cystic fibrosis: mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cepacia. Microbiol Rev. 1996;60(3):539-574. FREE FULL TEXT 96. Pier GB. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: a key problem in cystic fibrosis. ASM News. 1998;64:339-347. ISI 97. Pier GB, Boyer D, Preston M; et al. Human monoclonal antibodies to Pseudomonas aeruginosa alginate that protect against infection by both mucoid and nonmucoid strains. J Immunol. 2004;173(9):5671-5678. FREE FULL TEXT 98. Ramsey DM, Wozniak DJ. Understanding the control of Pseudomonas aeruginosa alginate synthesis and the prospects for management of chronic infections in cystic fibrosis. Mol Microbiol. 2005;56(2):309-322. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 99. Leid JG, Wilson CJ, Shirtliff ME, Hassett DJ, Parsek MR, Jeffers AK. The exopolysaccharide alginate protects Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm bacteria from IFN-gamma-mediated macrophage killing. J Immunol. 2005;175(11):7512-7518. FREE FULL TEXT 100. Ryder C, Byrd M, Wozniak DJ. Role of polysaccharides in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm development. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2007;10(6):644-648. ISI | PUBMED 101. Martin DW, Schurr MJ, Mudd MH, Govan JRW, Holloway BW, Deretic V. Mechanism of conversion to mucoidy in Pseudomonas aeruginosa infecting cystic fibrosis patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90(18):8377-8381. FREE FULL TEXT 102. Hentzer M, Teitzel GM, Balzer GJ; et al. Alginate overproduction affects Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm structure and function. J Bacteriol. 2001;183(18):5395-5401. FREE FULL TEXT 103. Tielen P, Strathmann M, Jaeger KE, Flemming HC, Wingender J. Alginate acetylation influences initial surface colonization by mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiol Res. 2005;160(2):165-176. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 104. Nivens DE, Ohman DE, Williams J, Franklin MJ. Role of alginate and its O- acetylation in formation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa microcolonies and biofilms. J Bacteriol. 2001;183(3):1047-1057. FREE FULL TEXT 105. Stapper AP, Narasimhan G, Ohman DE; et al. Alginate production affects Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm development and architecture, but is not essential for biofilm formation. J Med Microbiol. 2004;53(pt 7):679-690. FREE FULL TEXT 106. Wozniak DJ, Wyckoff TJO, Starkey M; et al. Alginate is not a significant component of the extracellular polysaccharide matrix of PA14 and PA01 Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(13):7907-7912. FREE FULL TEXT 107. Friedman L, Kolter R. Two genetic loci produce distinct carbohydrate-rich structural components of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm matrix. J Bacteriol. 2004;186(14):4457-4465. FREE FULL TEXT 108. Ma L, Jackson KD, Landry RM, Parsek MR, Wozniak DJ. Analysis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa conditional Psl variants reveals roles for the Psl polysaccharide in adhesion and maintaining biofilm structure postattachment. J Bacteriol. 2006;188(23):8213-8221. FREE FULL TEXT 109. Friedman L, Kolter R. Genes involved in matrix formation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA14 biofilms. Mol Microbiol. 2004;51(3):675-690. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 110. Hickman JW, Tifrea DF, Harwood CS. A chemosensory system that regulates biofilm formation through modulation of cyclic diguanylate levels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(40):14422-14427. FREE FULL TEXT 111. Goodman AL, Kulasekara B, Rietsch A, Boyd D, Smith RS, Lory S. A signaling network reciprocally regulates genes associated with acute infection and chronic persistence in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Dev Cell. 2004;7(5):745-754. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 112. Yahr TL, Greenberg EP. The genetic basis for the commitment to chronic versus acute infection in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mol Cell. 2004;16(4):497-498. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 113. Ventre I, Goodman AL, Vallet-Gely I; et al. Multiple sensors control reciprocal expression of Pseudomonas aeruginosa regulatory RNA and virulence genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(1):171-176. FREE FULL TEXT 114. Tojo M, Yamashita N, Goldmann DA, Pier GB. Isolation and characterization of a capsular polysaccharide adhesin from Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Infect Dis. 1988;157(4):713-722. ISI | PUBMED 115. Mack D, Nedelmann M, Krokotsch A, Schwarzkopf A, Heesemann J, Laufs R. Characterization of transposon mutants of biofilm-producing Staphylococcus epidermidis impaired in the accumulative phase of biofilm production: genetic identification of a hexosamine-containing polysaccharide intracellular adhesin. Infect Immun. 1994;62(8):3244-3253. FREE FULL TEXT 116. McKenney D, Hubner J, Muller E, Wang Y, Goldmann DA, Pier GB. The ica locus of Staphylococcus epidermidis encodes production of the capsular polysaccharide/adhesin. Infect Immun. 1998;66(10):4711-4720. FREE FULL TEXT 117. Muller E, Hubner J, Gutierrez N, Takeda S, Goldmann DA, Pier GB. Isolation and characterization of transposon mutants of Staphylococcus epidermidis deficient in capsular polysaccharide/adhesion and slime. Infect Immun. 1993;61(2):551-558. FREE FULL TEXT 118. Maira-Litrán T, Kroper A, Abeygunawardana C; et al. Immunochemical properties of the staphylococcal poly-N-acetylglucosamine surface polysaccharide. Infect Immun. 2002;70(8):4433-4440. FREE FULL TEXT 119. Heilmann C, Schweitzer O, Gerke C, Vanittanakom N, Mack D, Gotz F. Molecular basis of intercellular adhesion in the biofilm-forming Staphylococcus epidermidis. Mol Microbiol. 1996;20(5):1083-1091. ISI | PUBMED 120. Ziebuhr W, Heilmann C, Gotz F; et al. Detection of the intercellular adhesion gene cluster (ica) and phase variation in Staphylococcus epidermidis blood culture strains and muscosal isolates. Infect Immun. 1997;65(3):890-896. ABSTRACT 121. Rupp ME, Ulphani JS, Fey PD, Bartscht K, Mack D. Characterization of the importance of polysaccharide intercellular adhesin/hemagglutinin of Staphylococcus epidermidis in the pathogenesis of biomaterial-based infection in a mouse foreign body infection model. Infect Immun. 1999;67(5):2627-2632. FREE FULL TEXT 122. Rupp ME, Ulphani JS, Fey PD, Mack D. Characterization of Staphylococcus epidermidis polysaccharide intercellular adhesion/hemagglutinin in the pathogenesis of intravascular catheter-associated infection in a rat model. Infect Immun. 1999;67(5):2656-2659. FREE FULL TEXT 123. Fowler VG, Fey PD, Reller LB, Chamis AL, Corey GR, Rupp ME. The intercellular adhesin locus ica is present in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus from bacteremic patients with infected and uninfected prosthetic joints. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2001;189(3):127-131. FULL TEXT | PUBMED 124. Arciola CR, Baldassarri L, Montanaro L. Presence of icaA and icaD genes and slime production in a collection of staphylococcal strains from catheter-associated infections. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39(6):2151-2156. FREE FULL TEXT 125. Francois P, Tu Quoc PH, Bisognano C; et al. Lack of biofilm contribution to bacterial colonisation in an experimental model of foreign body infection by Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2003;35(2):135-140. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 126. Conlon KM, Humphreys H, O’Gara JP. Regulation of icaR gene expression in Staphylococcus epidermidis. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002;216(2):171-177. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 127. Conlon KM, Humphreys H, O’Gara JP. icaR encodes a transcriptional repressor involved in environmental regulation of ica operon expression and biofilm formation in Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Bacteriol. 2002;184(16):4400-4408. FREE FULL TEXT 128. Jefferson KK, Pier DB, Goldman DA, Pier GB. The teichoplanin-associated locus regulator (TcaR) and the intercellular adhesin locus regulator (IcaR) are transcriptional inhibitors of the ica locus in Staphylococcus aureus. J Bacteriol. 2004;186(8):2449-2456. FREE FULL TEXT 129. Fitzpatrick F, Humphreys H, O’Gara JP. The genetics of staphylococcal biofilm formation: will a greater understanding of pathogenesis lead to better management of device-related infection? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005;11(12):967-973. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 130. Knobloch JK, Jager S, Horstkotte MA, Rohde H, Mack D. RsbU-dependent regulation of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm formation is mediated via the alternative sigma factor sigmaB by repression of the negative regulator gene icaR. Infect Immun. 2004;72(7):3838-3848. FREE FULL TEXT 131. Conlon KM, Humphreys H, O’Gara JP. Inactivations of rsbU and sarA by IS256 represent novel mechanisms of biofilm phenotypic variation in Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Bacteriol. 2004;186(18):6208-6219. FREE FULL TEXT 132. Valle J, Toledo-Arana A, Berasain C; et al. SarA and not sigmaB is essential for biofilm development by Staphylococccus aureus. Mol Microbiol. 2003;48(4):1075-1087. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 133. Beenken KE, Blevins JS, Smeltzer MS. Mutation of sarA in Staphylococcus aureus limits biofilm formation. Infect Immun. 2003;71(7):4206-4211. FREE FULL TEXT 134. Dunman PM, Murphy E, Haney S; et al. Transcription profiling–based identification of Staphylococcus aureus genes regulated by the agr and/or sarA loci. J Bacteriol. 2001;183(24):7341-7353. FREE FULL TEXT 135. Novick RP. Autoinduction and signal transduction in the regulation of staphylococcal virulence. Mol Microbiol. 2003;48(6):1429-1449. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 136. Vuong C, Saenz HL, Gotz F, Otto M. Impact of the agr quorum-sensing system on adherence to polystyrene in Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis. 2000;182(6):1688-1693. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 137. Vuong C, Kocianova S, Yao Y, Carmody AB, Otto M. Increased colonization of indwelling medical devices by quorum-sensing mutants of Staphylococcal epidermidis in vivo. J Infect Dis. 2004;190(8):1498-1505. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 138. Hussain M, Hermann M, von Eiff C, Perdreau-Remington F, Peters G. A 140 kilodalton extracellular protein is essential for the accumulation of Staphylococcus epidermidis strains on surfaces. Infect Immun. 1997;65(2):519-524. ABSTRACT 139. von Eiff C, Peters G, Heilmann C. Pathogenesis of infections due to coagulase-negative staphylococci. Lancet Infect Dis. 2002;2(11):677-685. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 140. Bowden MG, Chen W, Singvall J; et al. Identification and preliminary characterization of cell-wall–anchored proteins of Staphylococcus epidermidis. Microbiology. 2005;151(pt 5):1453-1464. FREE FULL TEXT 141. Foster TJ. Immune evasion by staphylococci. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005;3(12):948-958. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 142. Lasa I, Penadés JR. Bap: a family of surface proteins involved in biofilm formation. Res Microbiol. 2006;157(2):99-107. PUBMED 143. Heydorn A, Nielsen AT, Hentzer M; et al. Quantification of biofilm structures by the novel computer program COMSTAT. Microbiology. 2000;146(pt 10):2395-2407. FREE FULL TEXT 144. Tolker-Nielsen T, Brinch UC, Ragas PC; et al. Development and dynamics of Pseudomonas sp biofilms. J Bacteriol. 2000;182(22):6482-6489. FREE FULL TEXT 145. Latifi A, Foglino M, Tanaka K, Williams P, Lasdunski A. A hierarchical quorum-sensing cascade in Pseudomonas aeruginosa links the transcriptional activators LasR and RhlR (VsmR) to expression of the stationary-phase sigma factor RpoS. Mol Microbiol. 1996;21(6):1137-1146. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 146. Pearson JP, Pesci EC, Iglewski BH. Roles of Pseudomonas aeruginosa las and rhl quorum-sensing systems in control of elastase and rhamnolipid biosynthesis genes. J Bacteriol. 1997;179(18):5756-5767. FREE FULL TEXT 147. de Kievit T, Seed PC, Nezeson J, Passador L, Iglewski BH. RsaL, a novel repressor of virulence gene expression in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Bacteriol. 1999;181(7):2175-2184. FREE FULL TEXT 148. Holden MT, Ram Chhabra S, de Nys R; et al. Quorum-sensing cross talk: isolation and chemical characterization of cyclic dipeptides from Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other gram-negative bacteria. Mol Microbiol. 1999;33(6):1254-1266. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 149. Pesci EC, Milbank JB, Pearson JP; et al. Quinolone signaling in the cell-to-cell communication system of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96(20):11229-11234. FREE FULL TEXT 150. Sauer K , Camper AK, Ehrlich GD, Costerton JW, Davies DG. Pseudomonas aeruginosa displays multiple phenotypes during development as a biofilm. J Bacteriol. 2002;184(4):1140-1154. FREE FULL TEXT 151. Whiteley M, Lee KM, Greenberg EP. Identification of genes controlled by quorum sensing in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96(24):13904-13909. FREE FULL TEXT 152. Xu KD, Franklin MJ, Park CH, McFeters GA, Stewart PS. Gene expression and protein levels of the stationary phase sigma factor, RpoS, in continuously-fed Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2001;199(1):67-71. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 153. Allison DG, Ruiz B, SanJose C, Jaspe A, Gilbert P. Extracellular products as mediators of the formation and detachment of Pseudomonas fluorescens biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1998;167(2):179-184. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 154. O’Toole G, Kaplan HB, Kolter R. Biofilm formation as microbial development. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2000;54:49-79. FULL TEXT | ISI | PUBMED 155. Lee SF, Li YH, Bowden GH. Detachment of Streptococcus mutans biofilm cells by an endogenous enzymatic activity. Infect Immun. 1996;64(3):1035-1038. ABSTRACT

SECTION EDITOR: LEONARD A. LEVIN, MD, PhD

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?