Biofilms and Their Potential Role in Wound Healing
- 7/9/2004
- 0 Comments
- 7589 reads
Contact with a surface triggers the expression of a panel of bacterial enzymes that catalyze the formation of sticky polymers that promote colonization and protection. The structure of biofilms is such that immune responses may be directed only at those antigens found on the outer surface of the biofilm, and antibodies and other serum proteins often fail to penetrate into the biofilm. In addition, PMNs are unable to effectively engulf bacteria growing within a complex polymer matrix attached to a solid surface. This causes the PMNs to release large amounts of pro-inflammatory enzymes and cytokines, leading to chronic inflammation and destruction of nearby tissues (i.e., chronic inflammation). Bacteria that may be embedded within the wound biofilm matrix are likely to be resistant to both immunological and non-specific defense mechanisms of the body.
2. Biofilms display innate resistance to antimicrobial agents, thus protecting associated bacteria. The reasons for this are not clear, but it is likely that antimicrobial agents are readily inactivated or fail to penetrate into the biofilm. Bacteria within biofilms may be up to 1,000 times more resistant to antimicrobial agents than those in a planktonic state.[17]
3. Biofilms increase the opportunity for gene transfer between and among bacteria. This is important, since bacteria resistant to antibiotics may transfer the genes for resistance to neighboring susceptible bacteria. Also, gene transfer could convert a previous avirulent commensal organism into a highly virulent pathogen.[18]
Antibiotic Resistance
Antibiotics are used to treat bacterial infections. However, biofilm-related infections do not succumb so easily to this form of treatment, because they provide a protective mechanism that renders bacterial cells less susceptible to both antibiotics and biocides. However, on removal of these cells from the matrix of the biofilm, they are equally susceptible to biocides.[19] There have been a number of models used to determine resistance in biofilms, and the results of these studies have highlighted a number of the factors thought to contribute to the ability of a biofilm to tolerate high concentrations of antibiotics. These include:
1. Impaired penetration of an antibiotic into the biofilm matrix.[20,21] Many researchers have investigated the possible lack of antibiotic/biocide penetration as an explanation of biofilm resistance. It was suggested that the antimicrobial agent either reacted chemically with the extracellular components of the biofilm or attached to the anionic polysaccharides. However, since the exopolymer matrix does not form a complete impenetrable barrier to antimicrobial agents, other mechanisms must exist within biofilms aiding bacterial survival.
2. Reduced growth rate of bacteria in biofilms, which renders them less susceptible to antibiotics (they change from being physiologically active in the planktonic state to sessile in the biofilm state). Antibiotics are more effective in killing cells when they are growing actively. Antibiotics, such as ampicillin and penicillin, are not able to kill nongrowing cells.22 Cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones, however, are able to kill nongrowing cells but are nonetheless more effective in killing cells that are rapidly growing and dividing.
References
1. Costerton JW, Lewandowski Z, Caldwell DE, Korber DR, Lappin-Scott HM. Microbial biofilms. Annual Rev Microbiol 1995;49:711–45.
2. Watnick PI, Kolter R. Steps in the development of a Vibrio cholerae El Tor biofilm. Mol Microbiol 1999;34:586–95.
3. Wilson M. Bacterial biofilms and human disease. Science Progress 2001;84:235–54.
4. Marsh PD, Martin MV. Oral Microbiology, Third Edition. London, UK: Chapman and Hall, 1992.
5. Habash M, Reid G. Microbial biofilms: Their development and significance for medical device-related infections. J Clin Pharmacol 1999;39:887–98.
6. Khardori N, Yassien M. Biofilms in device-related infections. J Ind Microbiol 1995;15:141–7.
7. Bayston R. Medical problems due to biofilms: Clinical impact, aetiology, molecular pathogenesis, treatment and prevention. In: Newman HN, Wilson M (eds). Dental Plaque Revisited: Oral Biofilms in Health and Disease. Cardiff, UK: BioLine, 1999:111–24.
8. Lyczak JB, Cannon CL, Pier GB. Establishment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection: Lessons from a versatile opportunist. Microbes Infect 2000;2:1051–60.
9. Pier GB. Peptides, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, polysaccharides and lipopolysaccharides—players in the predicament of cystic fibrosis patients. Trends Microbiol 2000;8:247–50.
10. Moore WE, Moore LV. The bacteria of periodontal diseases. Periodontol 1994;5:66–77.
11. Amann RI, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH. Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiol Rev 1995;59:143–69.
12. Mah T-F, O’Toole GA. Mechanisms of biofilm resistance to antimicrobial agents. Trends in Microbiology 2001;9:34–8.
13. Archibald LK, Gaynes RP. Hospital acquired infections in the United States: The importance of interhospital comparisons. Nosocomial Infect 1997;11:245–55.
14. Williams P. Host immune defences and biofilms. In: Wimpenny J, Nichols W, Stickler D, Lappin-Scott H (eds). Bacterial Biofilms and their Control in Medicine and Industry. Cardiff, UK: BioLine, 1994:93–6.
15. Johnson GM, Lee DA, Regelmann WE, Gray ED, Peters G, Quie PG. Interference with granulocyte function by Staphylococcus epidermidis slime. Infect Immun 1986;54:13–20.
16. Shiau AL, Wu CL. The inhibitory effect of Staphylococcus epidermidis slime on the phagocytosis of murine peritoneal macrophages is interferon independent. Microbiol Immunol 1998;42:33–40.
17. Evans RC, Holmes CJ. Effect of vancomycin hydrochloride on Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm associated with silicone elastomer. Antimicro Agents Chemother 1987;31:889–94.
18. Lewis K. Riddle of biofilm resistance. Antimicrobial Agents Chemother 2001;45:999–1007.
19. Russell AD. Biocide use and antibiotic resistance: The relevance of laboratory findings to clinical and environmental situations. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2003;3:794–803.
20. Lewis K. Riddle of biofilm resistance. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 2001;45:999–1007.
21. Shigeta M, Tanaka G, Komatsuzawa H, Sugai M, Suginaka H, Usui T. Permeation of antimicrobial agents through Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms: A simple method. Chemotherapy (Tokyo) 1997;43:340–5.
22. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: A common cause of persistent infections. Science 1999;284:1318–22.
23. Hengge-Aronis R. Regulation of gene expression during entry into stationary phase. In: Neidhart FC, et al. (eds). Escherichia coli and Salmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology. Washington DC: ASM Press, 1996:1497–512.
24. Brown MR, Barker J. Unexplored reservoirs of pathogenic bacteria: Protozoa and biofilms. Trends Microbiol 1999;7:46–50.
25. Davies DG, Parsek MR, Pearson JP, et al. The involvement of cell-to-cell signals in the development of a bacterial biofilm. Science 1998;280:295–8.
26. Gilbert P, Das J, Foley I. Biofilms susceptibility to antimicrobials. Adv Dent Res 1997;11:160–7.
28. Maira-Litrán T, Allison DG, Gilbert P. An evaluation of the potential of the multiple antibiotic resistance operon (mar) and the multidrug efflux pump acrAB to moderate resistance towards ciprofloxacin in Escherichia coli biofilms. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000;45:789–95.
28. Serralta VW, Harrison-Balestra C, Cazzaniga AL, Davis SC, Mertz M. Lifestyles of bacteria in wounds: Presence of biofilms? WOUNDS 2001;13:29–34.
29. Bowler PG, Pickworth JJ, Lilly HA. Wound microbiology—the effect of occlusion. Presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 48th Annual Meeting, December 2–7, 1989. Poster 80.
30. Bowler PG. The 105 bacterial growth guidelines: Reassessing its clinical relevance in wound healing. Ost Wound Manag 2003;49:44–53.
31. Pellizzer G, Strazzabosco M, Presi S, et al. Deep tissue biopsy vs. superficial swab culture monitoring in the microbiological assessment of limb-threatening diabetic foot infection. Diabetic Medicine 2001;18:822–7.
32. Marsh PD. Host defenses and microbial homeostasis: Role of microbial interactions. Journal of Dental Research 1989;68:1567–75.
_sm.jpg)
Post new comment