Cargando…

Comparative Analysis of Single-Species and Polybacterial Wound Biofilms Using a Quantitative, In Vivo, Rabbit Ear Model

INTRODUCTION: The recent literature suggests that chronic wound biofilms often consist of multiple bacterial species. However, without appropriate in vivo, polybacterial biofilm models, our understanding of these complex infections remains limited. We evaluate and compare the effect of single- and m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seth, Akhil K., Geringer, Matthew R., Hong, Seok J., Leung, Kai P., Galiano, Robert D., Mustoe, Thomas A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3414496/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22905182
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042897
_version_ 1782240219207041024
author Seth, Akhil K.
Geringer, Matthew R.
Hong, Seok J.
Leung, Kai P.
Galiano, Robert D.
Mustoe, Thomas A.
author_facet Seth, Akhil K.
Geringer, Matthew R.
Hong, Seok J.
Leung, Kai P.
Galiano, Robert D.
Mustoe, Thomas A.
author_sort Seth, Akhil K.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The recent literature suggests that chronic wound biofilms often consist of multiple bacterial species. However, without appropriate in vivo, polybacterial biofilm models, our understanding of these complex infections remains limited. We evaluate and compare the effect of single- and mixed-species biofilm infections on host wound healing dynamics using a quantitative, in vivo, rabbit ear model. METHODS: Six-mm dermal punch wounds in New Zealand rabbit ears were inoculated with Staphylococcus aureus strain UAMS-1, Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain PAO1, or both, totaling 10∧6 colony-forming units/wound. Bacterial proliferation and maintenance in vivo were done using procedures from our previously published model. Wounds were harvested for histological measurement of wound healing, viable bacterial counts using selective media, or inflammatory cytokine (IL-1β, TNF-α) expression via quantitative reverse-transcription PCR. Biofilm structure was studied using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). For comparison, biofilm deficient mutant UAMS-929 replaced strain UAMS-1 in some mixed-species infections. RESULTS: Bacterial counts verified the presence of both strains UAMS-1 and PAO1 in polybacterial wounds. Over time, strain PAO1 became predominant (p<0.001). SEM showed colocalization of both species within an extracellular matrix at multiple time-points. Compared to each monospecies infection, polybacterial biofilms impaired all wound healing parameters (p<0.01), and increased expression of IL-1β and TNF-α (p<0.05). In contrast, mixed-species infections using biofilm-deficient mutant UAMS-929 instead of wild-type strain UAMS-1 showed less wound impairment (p<0.01) with decreased host cytokine expression (p<0.01), despite a bacterial burden and distribution comparable to that of mixed-wild-type wounds. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that mixed-species biofilms have a greater impact on wound healing dynamics than their monospecies counterparts. The increased virulence of polybacterial biofilm appears dependent on the combined pathogenicity of each species, verified using a mutant strain. These data suggest that individual bacterial species can interact synergistically within a single biofilm structure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3414496
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34144962012-08-19 Comparative Analysis of Single-Species and Polybacterial Wound Biofilms Using a Quantitative, In Vivo, Rabbit Ear Model Seth, Akhil K. Geringer, Matthew R. Hong, Seok J. Leung, Kai P. Galiano, Robert D. Mustoe, Thomas A. PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: The recent literature suggests that chronic wound biofilms often consist of multiple bacterial species. However, without appropriate in vivo, polybacterial biofilm models, our understanding of these complex infections remains limited. We evaluate and compare the effect of single- and mixed-species biofilm infections on host wound healing dynamics using a quantitative, in vivo, rabbit ear model. METHODS: Six-mm dermal punch wounds in New Zealand rabbit ears were inoculated with Staphylococcus aureus strain UAMS-1, Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain PAO1, or both, totaling 10∧6 colony-forming units/wound. Bacterial proliferation and maintenance in vivo were done using procedures from our previously published model. Wounds were harvested for histological measurement of wound healing, viable bacterial counts using selective media, or inflammatory cytokine (IL-1β, TNF-α) expression via quantitative reverse-transcription PCR. Biofilm structure was studied using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). For comparison, biofilm deficient mutant UAMS-929 replaced strain UAMS-1 in some mixed-species infections. RESULTS: Bacterial counts verified the presence of both strains UAMS-1 and PAO1 in polybacterial wounds. Over time, strain PAO1 became predominant (p<0.001). SEM showed colocalization of both species within an extracellular matrix at multiple time-points. Compared to each monospecies infection, polybacterial biofilms impaired all wound healing parameters (p<0.01), and increased expression of IL-1β and TNF-α (p<0.05). In contrast, mixed-species infections using biofilm-deficient mutant UAMS-929 instead of wild-type strain UAMS-1 showed less wound impairment (p<0.01) with decreased host cytokine expression (p<0.01), despite a bacterial burden and distribution comparable to that of mixed-wild-type wounds. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that mixed-species biofilms have a greater impact on wound healing dynamics than their monospecies counterparts. The increased virulence of polybacterial biofilm appears dependent on the combined pathogenicity of each species, verified using a mutant strain. These data suggest that individual bacterial species can interact synergistically within a single biofilm structure. Public Library of Science 2012-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3414496/ /pubmed/22905182 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042897 Text en © 2012 This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Seth, Akhil K.
Geringer, Matthew R.
Hong, Seok J.
Leung, Kai P.
Galiano, Robert D.
Mustoe, Thomas A.
Comparative Analysis of Single-Species and Polybacterial Wound Biofilms Using a Quantitative, In Vivo, Rabbit Ear Model
title Comparative Analysis of Single-Species and Polybacterial Wound Biofilms Using a Quantitative, In Vivo, Rabbit Ear Model
title_full Comparative Analysis of Single-Species and Polybacterial Wound Biofilms Using a Quantitative, In Vivo, Rabbit Ear Model
title_fullStr Comparative Analysis of Single-Species and Polybacterial Wound Biofilms Using a Quantitative, In Vivo, Rabbit Ear Model
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Analysis of Single-Species and Polybacterial Wound Biofilms Using a Quantitative, In Vivo, Rabbit Ear Model
title_short Comparative Analysis of Single-Species and Polybacterial Wound Biofilms Using a Quantitative, In Vivo, Rabbit Ear Model
title_sort comparative analysis of single-species and polybacterial wound biofilms using a quantitative, in vivo, rabbit ear model
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3414496/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22905182
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042897
work_keys_str_mv AT sethakhilk comparativeanalysisofsinglespeciesandpolybacterialwoundbiofilmsusingaquantitativeinvivorabbitearmodel
AT geringermatthewr comparativeanalysisofsinglespeciesandpolybacterialwoundbiofilmsusingaquantitativeinvivorabbitearmodel
AT hongseokj comparativeanalysisofsinglespeciesandpolybacterialwoundbiofilmsusingaquantitativeinvivorabbitearmodel
AT leungkaip comparativeanalysisofsinglespeciesandpolybacterialwoundbiofilmsusingaquantitativeinvivorabbitearmodel
AT galianorobertd comparativeanalysisofsinglespeciesandpolybacterialwoundbiofilmsusingaquantitativeinvivorabbitearmodel
AT mustoethomasa comparativeanalysisofsinglespeciesandpolybacterialwoundbiofilmsusingaquantitativeinvivorabbitearmodel