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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |