Upload
jlafleur
View
799
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation on induced resistance to S. aureus in an environmental biofilm
Citation preview
Induced resistance to S. aureus in marine environmental biofilms
John Lafleur
3/23/09
I. Background a) S. aureus epidemiology & MDR b) Common medical biofilms c) The problem with antibiotics d) Induced antibiosis in bacteria e) Putting it togetherII. Materials and methodsIII. ResultsIV. Australia
a) S. aureus epidemiology & MDR
Crum et al., 2003. The American Journal of Medicine 119:943-51
Crum et al., 2003. The American Journal of Medicine 119:943-51
Turnidge and Bell. 2000. Microbial Drug Resistance. 6(3):223-8
b) Common medical biofilms
Costerton et al.,1999. Science. 284:1318-22
Camargo et al., 2005. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics . 90:148—9
von Eiff et al., Drugs 2005; 65 (2): 179-214
von Eiff et al., Drugs 2005; 65 (2): 179-214
• Central venous catheter related infections in the US:
• ¼ million per year
• ¼ die
• $25,000 each incident
c) The problem with antibiotics
Bacteria in biofilms up to 1000X more resistant to antibotics Costerton et al., 1985. ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY. 27(4):619-24
D'Costa, et al., 2006. Science. 311:374-7
• Bacteria have been around long enough to develop every possible kind of resistance to each other
d) Induced antibiosis in bacteria
Mearns-Spragg et al. 1998. Letters in Applied Microbiology 27:142–146
• If antibacterial activity can be induced in individual strains of bacteria, can it also be induced in whole biofilms?
Is there evidence that a complex, multi-species environmental biofilm might amplify any antibacterial
activity among individual members of its bacterial consortia?
Burmolle et al., 2006. APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY. 76(6):3916– 23
e) Putting it together
• Multi-drug resistant biofilms on implantable medical devices are a growing problem with no obvious solution
a) antibiotics don’t work on biofilms
b) even if they did, there’s growing resistance
• Existing natural models show that nature has solutions to the problem of unwanted biofilm formation, and some of them involves preexisting (‘friendly) biofilms.
• If it is possible to induce resistance in an environmental biofilm to a problematic, biofilm-forming human pathogen, perhaps it would be possible to learn how this could also be done for an inanimate surface—such as the surface of an implantable medical device.
II. Materials and Methods
III. Results
S. aureus agar with biofilm treated with UV
S. aureus agar with biofilm no UV
S. aureus growth, % area per high-powered field
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
baseline S. aureus agarno UV
Plain agar noUV
S. aureus agarpositive UV
Plain agarpositive UV
Agar type and UV exposure
S.
aure
us
gro
wth
% a
rea
Percentage of area per high-powered field covered by S. aureus micro-colonies.
Comparison of percentages of area of S. aureus biofilm growth with associated P values
P value
Baseline (0.05%) vs. S. aureus agar with biofilm, no UV (0.07%) <0.001
S. aureus agar with biofilm no UV (0.07%) vs. Plain agar with biofilm, no UV (0.13%) <0.001
S. aureus agar with biofilm pos. UV (1.56%) vs. Plain agar with biofilm, pos. UV (1.30%)
0.14**
S. aureus agar with biofilm no UV (0.07%) vs. S. aureus agar with biofilm, pos. UV (1.56%)
<0.001
.
base line
Staph aureus biofilm no UV
Plain agar biofilm no UV
Staph aureus biofilm with UV
exposure
Plain biofilm with UV exposure
0
20
40
60
80
100
treatment type
% c
olo
nie
s w
ith
les
s th
an 4
ce
lls
Percentage of S. aureus microcolonies with less than 4 cells at baseline and after incubation by treatment type .
Percentage of S. aureus microcolonies with less than 4 cells at baseline and after incubation by treatment types (Sd =standard deviation).
Percent <4 cells per microcolony Sd
Baseline 78% +/-31%
S. aureus spent medium agar with biofilm
91% +/-24%
Plain agar with biofilm 68% +/-37%
S. aureus agar with biofilm, UV exposed
5% +/-14%
Plainagar with biofilm, UV exposed 53% +/-29%
S. aureus agar no biofilm nd nd
Plain agar no biofilm nd nd
Table 2. Comparison of percentages of microcolonies with fewer than 4 cells per micrcolony with associated p values
P value
Baseline (78%) vs. S. aureus agar with biofilm, no UV (91%) 0.02
Baseline (78%) vs. Plain agar with biofilm, no UV (68%) 0.10 **
S. aureus agar with biofilm no UV (91%) vs. Plain agar with biofilm, no UV (68%)
<0.001
S. aureus agar with biofilm no UV (91%) vs. S. aureus agar with biofilm, pos. UV (5%)
<0.001
IV Australia
Two day incubation--Dapi stain
Percent coverage S. aureus biofilm by treatment type after 48 hours incubation
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Baseline S. aur. ag. pos. biofilm Plain ag. pos. biofilm S. aur. ag. pos. biofilm pos.UV
Plain ag. pos. biofilm pos.UV
Treatment type
Per
cen
t ar
ea c
ove
red
by
S.
aure
us
bio
film
Two day incubation--live/dead stain
Relative area covered by S. aureus biofilm by treatment type--live/dead stain
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
S. aur. ag. pos. biofilm Plain ag. pos. biofilm S. aur. ag. pos. biofilm pods UV Plain ag. pos. biofilm pos. UV
Treatment Type
Rel
ativ
e m
agn
itu
de
of
area
co
vere
d
Two day incubation—live/dead stain
relative area covered by S. aureus biofilm by treatment type--live/dead stain
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Baseline S. aur. ag. pos. biofilm Plain ag. pos. biofilm S. aur. ag. pos. biofilm podsUV
Plain ag. pos. biofilm pos.UV
treatment type
rela
tive
are
a co
vere
d b
y S
. au
reu
s b
iofi
lm
P values for comparison S. aureus area coverage
S. aureus agar versus plain agar:
• #1: P=0.001
• #2: P=0.01
• #3: P=0.02
Next steps
• DGGE to get an idea of differences in biofilm consortia between S. aureus and plain agar
• Isolate members of consortia and attempt to recreate induced S. aureus inhibition in lab-based biofilm culture
• Many thanks to Professors S. Kjelleberg and S. Rice, and to all the kind people on the sixth floor
• Prof. M. Shiaris
• Dr. M. Yasuda
• Prof. G. Burgess
Questions?