Cargando…

Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria differ in their sensitivity to cold plasma

Cold atmospheric-pressure plasma (CAP) is a relatively new method being investigated for antimicrobial activity. However, the exact mode of action is still being explored. Here we report that CAP efficacy is directly correlated to bacterial cell wall thickness in several species. Biofilms of Gram po...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mai-Prochnow, Anne, Clauson, Maryse, Hong, Jungmi, Murphy, Anthony B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146927/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27934958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep38610
_version_ 1782473582483341312
author Mai-Prochnow, Anne
Clauson, Maryse
Hong, Jungmi
Murphy, Anthony B.
author_facet Mai-Prochnow, Anne
Clauson, Maryse
Hong, Jungmi
Murphy, Anthony B.
author_sort Mai-Prochnow, Anne
collection PubMed
description Cold atmospheric-pressure plasma (CAP) is a relatively new method being investigated for antimicrobial activity. However, the exact mode of action is still being explored. Here we report that CAP efficacy is directly correlated to bacterial cell wall thickness in several species. Biofilms of Gram positive Bacillus subtilis, possessing a 55.4 nm cell wall, showed the highest resistance to CAP, with less than one log(10) reduction after 10 min treatment. In contrast, biofilms of Gram negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa, possessing only a 2.4 nm cell wall, were almost completely eradicated using the same treatment conditions. Planktonic cultures of Gram negative Pseudomonas libanensis also had a higher log(10) reduction than Gram positive Staphylococcus epidermidis. Mixed species biofilms of P. aeruginosa and S. epidermidis showed a similar trend of Gram positive bacteria being more resistant to CAP treatment. However, when grown in co-culture, Gram negative P. aeruginosa was more resistant to CAP overall than as a mono-species biofilm. Emission spectra indicated OH and O, capable of structural cell wall bond breakage, were present in the plasma. This study indicates that cell wall thickness correlates with CAP inactivation times of bacteria, but cell membranes and biofilm matrix are also likely to play a role.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5146927
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51469272016-12-16 Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria differ in their sensitivity to cold plasma Mai-Prochnow, Anne Clauson, Maryse Hong, Jungmi Murphy, Anthony B. Sci Rep Article Cold atmospheric-pressure plasma (CAP) is a relatively new method being investigated for antimicrobial activity. However, the exact mode of action is still being explored. Here we report that CAP efficacy is directly correlated to bacterial cell wall thickness in several species. Biofilms of Gram positive Bacillus subtilis, possessing a 55.4 nm cell wall, showed the highest resistance to CAP, with less than one log(10) reduction after 10 min treatment. In contrast, biofilms of Gram negative Pseudomonas aeruginosa, possessing only a 2.4 nm cell wall, were almost completely eradicated using the same treatment conditions. Planktonic cultures of Gram negative Pseudomonas libanensis also had a higher log(10) reduction than Gram positive Staphylococcus epidermidis. Mixed species biofilms of P. aeruginosa and S. epidermidis showed a similar trend of Gram positive bacteria being more resistant to CAP treatment. However, when grown in co-culture, Gram negative P. aeruginosa was more resistant to CAP overall than as a mono-species biofilm. Emission spectra indicated OH and O, capable of structural cell wall bond breakage, were present in the plasma. This study indicates that cell wall thickness correlates with CAP inactivation times of bacteria, but cell membranes and biofilm matrix are also likely to play a role. Nature Publishing Group 2016-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5146927/ /pubmed/27934958 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep38610 Text en Copyright © 2016, The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Article
Mai-Prochnow, Anne
Clauson, Maryse
Hong, Jungmi
Murphy, Anthony B.
Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria differ in their sensitivity to cold plasma
title Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria differ in their sensitivity to cold plasma
title_full Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria differ in their sensitivity to cold plasma
title_fullStr Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria differ in their sensitivity to cold plasma
title_full_unstemmed Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria differ in their sensitivity to cold plasma
title_short Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria differ in their sensitivity to cold plasma
title_sort gram positive and gram negative bacteria differ in their sensitivity to cold plasma
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5146927/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27934958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep38610
work_keys_str_mv AT maiprochnowanne grampositiveandgramnegativebacteriadifferintheirsensitivitytocoldplasma
AT clausonmaryse grampositiveandgramnegativebacteriadifferintheirsensitivitytocoldplasma
AT hongjungmi grampositiveandgramnegativebacteriadifferintheirsensitivitytocoldplasma
AT murphyanthonyb grampositiveandgramnegativebacteriadifferintheirsensitivitytocoldplasma