Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T17:46:05.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observing the Biofilm Matrix of Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC 35984 Grown Using the CDC Biofilm Reactor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2010

Dustin L. Williams  and
Roy D. Bloebaum
Dustin L. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Veterans Affairs, Salt Lake City, UT 84148, USA Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA
Roy D. Bloebaum*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterans Affairs, Salt Lake City, UT 84148, USA Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: roy.bloebaum@hsc.utah.edu
Get access

Abstract

Bacteria flourish in nearly every environment on earth. Contributing to their ability to grow in many esoteric locations is their development into a biofilm structure. In an effort to more accurately model the growth environment of biofilms in nature, a Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) biofilm reactor has been developed that mimics nature-like shear forces and renewable nutrient sources. To date, there has been no confirmation by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) that mature biofilms develop on a surface when grown using the CDC biofilm reactor. Three different SEM methods were used to collect images of Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC 35984 that was to be grown using the CDC biofilm reactor. In addition, two different fixative techniques were used in each of the imaging methods. Results indicated that after 48 hours of growth in the reactor, S. epidermidis ATCC 35984 does produce a significant network of matrix components and 3D mushroom- or pillar-like structures with signs of water channel development. In conclusion, S. epidermidis ATCC 35984 grown using the CDC biofilm reactor does appear to display signs of mature biofilm development. These results could be important for studies wherein mature biofilms are needed for in vitro and/or in vivo applications.

Keywords

biofilmscanning electron microscopyfixationCDC biofilm reactor
Type
Biological Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 143 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ammendolia, M.G., Di Rosa, R., Montanaro, L., Arciola, C.R. & Baldassarri, L. (1999). Slime production and expression of the slime-associated antigen by staphylococcal clinical isolates. J Clin Microbiol 37(10), 3235–3238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, B.E. & Characklis, W.G. (1990). Physical and chemical properties of biofilms. In Biofilms, Characklis, W.G. & Marshall, K.C. (Eds.), pp. 93–130. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Costerton, J.W. (2007a). Bacterial attachment to surfaces. In The Biofilm Primer, Eckey, D.C. (Ed.), pp. 36–43. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costerton, J.W. (2007b). Genetic efficiency of biofilms. In The Biofilm Primer, Eckey, D.C. (Ed.), pp. 74–75. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costerton, J.W. (2007c). The predominance of biofilms in natural and engineered ecosystems. In The Biofilm Primer, Eckey, D.C. (Ed.), pp. 5–13. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costerton, J.W. (2007d). Tertiary structures formed within the matrices of biofilms. In The Biofilm Primer, Eckey, D.C. (Ed.), pp. 27–34. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costerton, J.W., Geesey, G.G. & Cheng, K.-J. (1978). How bacteria stick. Sci Am 238(1), 86–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costerton, J.W., Stewart, P.S. & Greenberg, E.P. (1999). Bacterial biofilms: A common cause of persistent infections. Science 284(5418), 1318–1322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cvitkovitch, D.G. (2001). Genetic competence and transformation in oral streptococci. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 12(3), 217–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Beer, D., Srinivasan, R. & Stewart, P.S. (1994). Direct measurement of chlorine penetration into biofilms during disinfection. Appl Environ Microbiol 60(12), 4339–4344.Google ScholarPubMed
Erlandsen, S.L., Kristich, C.J., Dunny, G.M. & Wells, C.L. (2004). High-resolution visualization of the microbial glycocalyx with low-voltage scanning electron microscopy: Dependence on cationic dyes. J Histochem Cytochem 52(11), 1427–1435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fassel, T.A. & Edminston, C.E. (1999). Bacterial biofilms: Strategies for preparing glycocalyx for electron microscopy. Methods Enzym 310(1), 194–203.Google ScholarPubMed
Goeres, D.M., Loetterle, L.R., Hamilton, M.A., Murga, R., Kirby, D.W. & Donlan, R.M. (2005). Statistical assessment of a laboratory method for growing biofilms. Microbiology 151(Pt. 3), 757–762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, X. & Pace, J.L. (2006). Microbial biofilms. In Biofilms, Infection and Antimicrobial Therapy, Pace, J.L., Rupp, M.E. & Finch, R.G. (Eds.), pp. 3–19. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Little, B., Wagner, P., Ray, R., Pope, R. & Scheetz, R. (1991). Biofilms: An ESEM evaluation of artifacts introduced during SEM preparation. J Industr Microbiol 8(4), 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litzler, P.-Y., Benard, L., Barbier-Frebourg, N., Vilain, S., Jouenne, T., Beucher, E., Bunel, C., Lemeland, J.-F. & Bessou, J.-P. (2007). Biofilm formation on pyrolytic carbon heart valves: Influence of surface free energy, roughness, and bacterial species. J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg 134(4), 1025–1032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinkova, L., Uhnakova, B., Patek, M., Nesvera, J. & Kren, V. (2008). Biodegradation potential of the genus Rhodococcus. Environ Int 35(1), 162–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Modin, O., Fukushi, K. & Yamamoto, K. (2008). Simultaneous removal of nitrate and pesticides from groundwater using a methane-fed membrane biofilm reactor. Water Sci Technol 58(6), 1273–1279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nickel, J.C., Ruseska, I., Wright, J.B. & Costerton, J.W. (1985). Tobramycin resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells growing as a biofilm on urinary catheter material. Antimicrob Agents Chemotherapy 27(4), 619–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Priester, J.H., Horst, A.M., Van De Werfhorst, L.C., Saleta, J.L., Mertes, L.A.K. & Holden, P.A. (2007). Enhanced visualization of microbial biofilms by staining and environmental scanning electron microscopy. J Microbiol Methods 68(3), 577–587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pringault, O. & Garcia-Pichel, F. (2000). Monitoring of oxygenic and anoxygenic photosynthesis in a unicyanobacterial biofilm, grown in benthic gradient chamber. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 33(3), 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaudinn, C., Stoodley, P., Kainović, A., O'Keeffe, T., Costerton, B., Robinson, D., Baum, M., Ehrlich, G. & Webster, P. (2007). Bacterial biofilms, other structures seen as mainstream concepts. Microbe 2(5), 231–237.Google Scholar
Schmitt, J. & Flemming, H.-C. (1999). Water binding in biofilms. Water Sci Technol 39(7), 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thar, R. & Kuhl, M. (2002). Conspicuous veils formed by vibrioid bacteria on sulfidic marine sediment. Appl Environ Microbiol 68(12), 6310–6320.Google ScholarPubMed
Uhlinger, D.J. & White, D.C. (1983). Relationship between physiological status and formation of extracellular polysaccharide glycocalyx in Pseudomonas atlantica. Appl Environ Microbiol 45(1), 64–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed