Adhesion of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus saprophyticus to a Hydrophobic Biomaterial

Abstract

~The relative surface charge and hydrophobicity of 16 strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis showed large variations. For this species no relationship between the two surface parameters was found. A highly negative surface charge was observed in all seven encapsulated strains (one S. epidermidis and six Staphylococcus saprophyticus strains). The adhesion of the staphylococci to fluorinated polyethylene-propylene films was not related to the relative surface charge and the hydrophobicity of the bacteria. On films pre-exposed to human plasma, the bacterial adhesion was substantially reduced. Mechanisms involved in the adhesion of coagulase-negative staphylococci to this biomaterial are discussed.

Multiple linear regression analysis of bacterial deposition to polyurethane coatings after conditioning film formation in the marine environment

“…Coatings that became more hydrophobic appeared to be more attractive for bacteria that were hydrophobic as well, and vice versa, which is in agreement with the observation on the coatings without a conditioning film (Bakker et al, 2003a) and the general notion that bacteria with hydrophobic surface properties prefer hydrophobic material surfaces and those with hydrophilic surface properties prefer hydrophilic surfaces (Hogt et al, 1985;Satou et al, 1988). Furthermore, hydrophobic bacteria adhere to a greater extent than hydrophilic bacteria (Van Loosdrecht et al, 1987), as evidenced by the higher mean initial deposition rate for M. hydrocarbonoclasticus (1582 cm 22 s 21 ) as compared to H. pacifica (825 cm 22 s 21 ).…”

“…Along with changes in the chemical composition of a substratum surface after conditioning film formation (Barth, 1989;Hogt et al, 1985;Oga et al, 1988), physicochemical properties of the surface such as its hydrophobicity, roughness, charge and elasticity may alter (Bakker et al, 2003b). Although many studies have shown relationships between substratum hydrophobicity, charge or roughness with bacterial adhesion, it is still hard to understand how the multiple changes brought about by the adsorption of a conditioning film affect bacterial adhesion.…”

Bacterial adhesion to intravenous cannulae: influence of implantation in the rabbit and of enzyme treatments

“…aeruginosa was large regardless of enzyme treatment and consistent trends were not observed. (Barrett, 1983;Hogt et al 1985). In vivo however, materials are in a position to adsorb a variety of tissue proteins and organized thrombus formation occurs (Gott et al 1961).…”

<em>Vibrio fischeri</em> and <em>Escherichia coli</em> adhesion tendencies towards photolithographically modified nanosmooth poly (<em>tert</em>-butyl methacrylate) polymer surfaces

“…This solid/liquid interface becomes almost immediately conditioned from the aqueous medium, in which it is immersed, resulting in a chemical or physical modifi cation which is thought to aid in bacterial attachment (Loeb and Neihof 1975). Despite numerous studies being undertaken, this process remains poorly understood, primarily because of the vast variety of surface properties possessed by both the bacterial cells and surface of the substrata (Characklis 1973;Reynolds and Wong 1983;Hogt et al 1985;Pringle and Fletcher 1986;Oga et al 1988;Barth et al 1989;An and Friedman 1998;Liang et al 2000;Tegoulia and Cooper 2002). Characteristics such as surface hydrophobicity, surface charge, and surface chemical composition together with the physiological cell features such as fi mbriae, pili, extracellular polymeric substances, and cellular surface charge have been shown to affect the adherence of cells.…”