Scholarly Work - Center for Biofilm Engineering
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/9335
Browse
5 results
Search Results
Item Coupon position does not affect Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus biofilm densities in the CDC biofilm reactor(Elsevier BV, 2024-08) Buckner, Elizabeth; Buckingham-Meyer, Kelli; Miller, Lindsey A.; Parker, Albert E.; Jones, Christopher J.; Goeres, Darla M.The CDC Biofilm Reactor method is the standard biofilm growth protocol for the validation of US Environmental Protection Agency biofilm label claims. However, no studies have determined the effect of coupon orientation within the reactor on biofilm growth. If positional effects have a statistically significant impact on biofilm density, they should be accounted for in the experimental design. Here, we isolate and quantify biofilms from each possible coupon surface in the reactor to quantitatively determine the positional effects in the CDC Biofilm Reactor. The results showed no statistically significant differences in viable cell density across different orientations and vertical positions in the reactor. Pseudomonas aeruginosa log densities were statistically equivalent among all coupon heights and orientations. While the Staphylococcus aureus cell growth showed no statistically significant differences, the densities were not statistically equivalent among all coupon heights and orientations due to the variability in the data. Structural differences were observed between biofilms on the high-shear baffle side of the reactor compared to the lower shear glass side of the reactor. Further studies are required to determine whether biofilm susceptibility to antimicrobials differs based on structural differences attributed to orientation.Item Α,α-disubstituted β-amino amides eliminate Staphylococcus aureus biofilms by membrane disruption and biomass removal(Elsevier BV, 2023-12) Ausbacher, Dominik; Miller, Lindsey A.; Goeres, Darla M.; Stewart, Philip S.; Strøm, Morten B.; Fallarero, AdyaryBacterial biofilms account for up to 80% of all infections and complicate successful therapies due to their intrinsic tolerance to antibiotics. Biofilms also cause serious problems in the industrial sectors, for instance due to the deterioration of metals or microbial contamination of products. Efforts are put in finding novel strategies in both avoiding and fighting biofilms. Biofilm control is achieved by killing and/or removing biofilm or preventing transition to the biofilm lifestyle. Previous research reported on the anti-biofilm potency of α,α-disubstituted β-amino amides A1, A2 and A3, which are small antimicrobial peptidomimetics with a molecular weight below 500 Da. In the current study it was investigated if these derivatives cause a fast disintegration of biofilm bacteria and removal of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. One hour incubation of biofilms with all three derivatives resulted in reduced metabolic activity and membrane permeabilization in S. aureus (ATCC 25923) biofilms. Bactericidal properties of these derivatives were attributed to a direct effect on membranes of biofilm bacteria. The green fluorescence protein expressing Staphylococcus aureus strain AH2547 was cultivated in a CDC biofilm reactor and utilized for disinfectant efficacy testing of A3, following the single tube method (American Society for Testing and Materials designation number E2871). A3 at a concentration of 90 μM acted as fast as 100 μM chlorhexidine and was equally effective. Confocal laser scanning microscopy studies showed that chlorhexidine treatment lead to fluorescence fading indicating membrane permeabilization but did not cause biomass removal. In contrast, A3 treatment caused a simultaneous biofilm fluorescence loss and biomass removal. These dual anti-biofilm properties make α,α-disubstituted β-amino amides promising scaffolds in finding new control strategies against recalcitrant biofilms.Item Harvesting and Disaggregation: An Overlooked Step in Biofilm Methods Research(MyJove Corporation, 2022-04) Buckingham-Meyer, Kelli; Miller, Lindsey A.; Parker, Albert E.; Walker, Diane K.; Sturman, Paul; Novak, Ian; Goeres, Darla M.Biofilm methods consist of four distinct steps: growing the biofilm in a relevant model, treating the mature biofilm, harvesting the biofilm from the surface and disaggregating the clumps, and analyzing the sample. Of the four steps, harvesting and disaggregation are the least studied but nonetheless critical when considering the potential for test bias. This article demonstrates commonly used harvesting and disaggregation techniques for biofilm grown on three different surfaces. The three biofilm harvesting and disaggregation techniques, gleaned from an extensive literature review, include vortexing and sonication, scraping and homogenization, and scraping, vortexing and sonication. Two surface types are considered: hard non-porous (polycarbonate and borosilicate glass) and porous (silicone). Additionally, we provide recommendations for the minimum information that should be included when reporting the harvesting technique followed and an accompanying method to check for bias.Item Harvesting and Disaggregation: An Overlooked Step in Biofilm Methods Research(MyJove Corporation, 2022-04) Buckingham-Meyer, Kelli; Miller, Lindsey A.; Parker, Albert E.; Walker, Diane K.; Sturman, Paul; Novak, Ian; Goeres, Darla M.Biofilm methods consist of four distinct steps: growing the biofilm in a relevant model, treating the mature biofilm, harvesting the biofilm from the surface and disaggregating the clumps, and analyzing the sample. Of the four steps, harvesting and disaggregation are the least studied but nonetheless critical when considering the potential for test bias. This article demonstrates commonly used harvesting and disaggregation techniques for biofilm grown on three different surfaces. The three biofilm harvesting and disaggregation techniques, gleaned from an extensive literature review, include vortexing and sonication, scraping and homogenization, and scraping, vortexing and sonication. Two surface types are considered: hard non-porous (polycarbonate and borosilicate glass) and porous (silicone). Additionally, we provide recommendations for the minimum information that should be included when reporting the harvesting technique followed and an accompanying method to check for bias.Item Harvesting and Disaggregation: An Overlooked Step in Biofilm Methods Research(MyJove Corporation, 2022-04) Buckingham-Meyer, Kelli; Miller, Lindsey A.; Parker, Albert E.; Walker, Diane K.; Sturman, Paul; Novak, Ian; Goeres, Darla M.Biofilm methods consist of four distinct steps: growing the biofilm in a relevant model, treating the mature biofilm, harvesting the biofilm from the surface and disaggregating the clumps, and analyzing the sample. Of the four steps, harvesting and disaggregation are the least studied but nonetheless critical when considering the potential for test bias. This article demonstrates commonly used harvesting and disaggregation techniques for biofilm grown on three different surfaces. The three biofilm harvesting and disaggregation techniques, gleaned from an extensive literature review, include vortexing and sonication, scraping and homogenization, and scraping, vortexing and sonication. Two surface types are considered: hard non-porous (polycarbonate and borosilicate glass) and porous (silicone). Additionally, we provide recommendations for the minimum information that should be included when reporting the harvesting technique followed and an accompanying method to check for bias.