Cargando…

Comparison of sonication with chemical biofilm dislodgement methods using chelating and reducing agents: Implications for the microbiological diagnosis of implant associated infection

The diagnosis of implant-associated infections is hampered due to microbial adherence and biofilm formation on the implant surface. Sonication of explanted devices was shown to improve the microbiological diagnosis by physical removal of biofilms. Recently, chemical agents have been investigated for...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karbysheva, Svetlana, Di Luca, Mariagrazia, Butini, Maria Eugenia, Winkler, Tobias, Schütz, Michael, Trampuz, Andrej
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7141651/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32267888
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231389
_version_ 1783519235337617408
author Karbysheva, Svetlana
Di Luca, Mariagrazia
Butini, Maria Eugenia
Winkler, Tobias
Schütz, Michael
Trampuz, Andrej
author_facet Karbysheva, Svetlana
Di Luca, Mariagrazia
Butini, Maria Eugenia
Winkler, Tobias
Schütz, Michael
Trampuz, Andrej
author_sort Karbysheva, Svetlana
collection PubMed
description The diagnosis of implant-associated infections is hampered due to microbial adherence and biofilm formation on the implant surface. Sonication of explanted devices was shown to improve the microbiological diagnosis by physical removal of biofilms. Recently, chemical agents have been investigated for biofilm dislodgement such as the chelating agent ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and the reducing agent dithiothreitol (DTT). We compared the activity of chemical methods for biofilm dislodgement to sonication in an established in vitro model of artificial biofilm. Biofilm-producing laboratory strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis (ATCC 35984), S. aureus (ATCC 43300), E. coli (ATCC 25922) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 53278) were used. After 3 days of biofilm formation, porous glass beads were exposed to control (0.9% NaCl), sonication or chemical agents. Quantitative and qualitative biofilm analyses were performed by colony counting, isothermal microcalorimetry and scanning electron microscopy. Recovered colony counts after treatment with EDTA and DTT were similar to those after exposure to 0.9% NaCl for biofilms of S. epidermidis (6.3 and 6.1 vs. 6.0 log(10) CFU/mL, S. aureus (6.4 and 6.3 vs. 6.3 log(10) CFU/mL), E. coli (5.2 and 5.1 vs. 5.1 log(10) CFU/mL and P. aeruginosa (5.1 and 5.2 vs. 5.0 log(10) CFU/mL, respectively). In contrast, with sonication higher CFU counts were detected with all tested microorganisms (7.5, 7.3, 6.2 and 6.5 log(10) CFU/mL, respectively) (p <0.05). Concordant results were observed with isothermal microcalorimetry and scanning electron microscopy. In conclusion, sonication is superior to both tested chemical methods (EDTA and DTT) for dislodgement of S. epidermidis, S. aureus, E. coli and P. aeruginosa biofilms. Future studies may evaluate potential additive effect of chemical dislodgement to sonication.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7141651
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71416512020-04-09 Comparison of sonication with chemical biofilm dislodgement methods using chelating and reducing agents: Implications for the microbiological diagnosis of implant associated infection Karbysheva, Svetlana Di Luca, Mariagrazia Butini, Maria Eugenia Winkler, Tobias Schütz, Michael Trampuz, Andrej PLoS One Research Article The diagnosis of implant-associated infections is hampered due to microbial adherence and biofilm formation on the implant surface. Sonication of explanted devices was shown to improve the microbiological diagnosis by physical removal of biofilms. Recently, chemical agents have been investigated for biofilm dislodgement such as the chelating agent ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and the reducing agent dithiothreitol (DTT). We compared the activity of chemical methods for biofilm dislodgement to sonication in an established in vitro model of artificial biofilm. Biofilm-producing laboratory strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis (ATCC 35984), S. aureus (ATCC 43300), E. coli (ATCC 25922) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 53278) were used. After 3 days of biofilm formation, porous glass beads were exposed to control (0.9% NaCl), sonication or chemical agents. Quantitative and qualitative biofilm analyses were performed by colony counting, isothermal microcalorimetry and scanning electron microscopy. Recovered colony counts after treatment with EDTA and DTT were similar to those after exposure to 0.9% NaCl for biofilms of S. epidermidis (6.3 and 6.1 vs. 6.0 log(10) CFU/mL, S. aureus (6.4 and 6.3 vs. 6.3 log(10) CFU/mL), E. coli (5.2 and 5.1 vs. 5.1 log(10) CFU/mL and P. aeruginosa (5.1 and 5.2 vs. 5.0 log(10) CFU/mL, respectively). In contrast, with sonication higher CFU counts were detected with all tested microorganisms (7.5, 7.3, 6.2 and 6.5 log(10) CFU/mL, respectively) (p <0.05). Concordant results were observed with isothermal microcalorimetry and scanning electron microscopy. In conclusion, sonication is superior to both tested chemical methods (EDTA and DTT) for dislodgement of S. epidermidis, S. aureus, E. coli and P. aeruginosa biofilms. Future studies may evaluate potential additive effect of chemical dislodgement to sonication. Public Library of Science 2020-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7141651/ /pubmed/32267888 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231389 Text en © 2020 Karbysheva et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Karbysheva, Svetlana
Di Luca, Mariagrazia
Butini, Maria Eugenia
Winkler, Tobias
Schütz, Michael
Trampuz, Andrej
Comparison of sonication with chemical biofilm dislodgement methods using chelating and reducing agents: Implications for the microbiological diagnosis of implant associated infection
title Comparison of sonication with chemical biofilm dislodgement methods using chelating and reducing agents: Implications for the microbiological diagnosis of implant associated infection
title_full Comparison of sonication with chemical biofilm dislodgement methods using chelating and reducing agents: Implications for the microbiological diagnosis of implant associated infection
title_fullStr Comparison of sonication with chemical biofilm dislodgement methods using chelating and reducing agents: Implications for the microbiological diagnosis of implant associated infection
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of sonication with chemical biofilm dislodgement methods using chelating and reducing agents: Implications for the microbiological diagnosis of implant associated infection
title_short Comparison of sonication with chemical biofilm dislodgement methods using chelating and reducing agents: Implications for the microbiological diagnosis of implant associated infection
title_sort comparison of sonication with chemical biofilm dislodgement methods using chelating and reducing agents: implications for the microbiological diagnosis of implant associated infection
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7141651/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32267888
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231389
work_keys_str_mv AT karbyshevasvetlana comparisonofsonicationwithchemicalbiofilmdislodgementmethodsusingchelatingandreducingagentsimplicationsforthemicrobiologicaldiagnosisofimplantassociatedinfection
AT dilucamariagrazia comparisonofsonicationwithchemicalbiofilmdislodgementmethodsusingchelatingandreducingagentsimplicationsforthemicrobiologicaldiagnosisofimplantassociatedinfection
AT butinimariaeugenia comparisonofsonicationwithchemicalbiofilmdislodgementmethodsusingchelatingandreducingagentsimplicationsforthemicrobiologicaldiagnosisofimplantassociatedinfection
AT winklertobias comparisonofsonicationwithchemicalbiofilmdislodgementmethodsusingchelatingandreducingagentsimplicationsforthemicrobiologicaldiagnosisofimplantassociatedinfection
AT schutzmichael comparisonofsonicationwithchemicalbiofilmdislodgementmethodsusingchelatingandreducingagentsimplicationsforthemicrobiologicaldiagnosisofimplantassociatedinfection
AT trampuzandrej comparisonofsonicationwithchemicalbiofilmdislodgementmethodsusingchelatingandreducingagentsimplicationsforthemicrobiologicaldiagnosisofimplantassociatedinfection