Dynamics of Bacterial Biofilm Formation

Brading, M G; Jaß, Jana; Lappin‐Scott, Hilary M.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511525353.004

Cited by 53 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the structure of the bio¢lms developed at di¡erent rates over time, so the £uid dynamics and abrasion forces would be di¡erent. Di¡er-ences in £uid dynamics may cause di¡erences in the growth of stacks or the appearance of troughs, while abrasion may cause sloughing and shear removal of the bio¢lm [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural studies of microcosm dental plaques grown under different nutritional conditions

Pratten¹

2000

FEMS Microbiology Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to investigate the structure of intact oral biofilms using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Mixedspecies biofilms were grown on enamel discs in a constant depth film fermentor. The biofilms were fed with a mucin-containing artificial saliva with or without sucrose supplementation. Biofilms were examined using a Wild-Leitz CLSM, operating in reflected light mode. The microstructure of non-supplemented biofilms was revealed to be complex, with stacks of bacteria developing over time, separated by clear channels. Sucrose-supplemented biofilms appeared to colonise the substratum more rapidly. The results of this study have shown that using CLSM it is possible to examine the structure of oral biofilms grown under conditions similar to those which would exist in vivo. ß

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural studies of microcosm dental plaques grown under different nutritional conditions

Pratten¹

2000

FEMS Microbiology Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bacterial exopolysaccharides are the main component of the biofilm glycocalyx, which has also been coined the slime layer (7,16). When fully hydrated, the glycocalyx is predominantly water (16).…”

Section: The Biofilm Glycocalyx: a Bacterial Force Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacterial Adhesion: Seen Any Good Biofilms Lately?

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The process of surface adhesion and biofilm development is a survival strategy employed by virtually all bacteria and refined over millions of years. This process is designed to anchor microorganisms in a nutritionally advantageous environment and to permit their escape to greener pastures when essential growth factors have been exhausted. Bacterial attachment to a surface can be divided into several distinct phases, including primary and reversible adhesion, secondary and irreversible adhesion, and biofilm formation. Each of these phases is ultimately controlled by the expression of one or more gene products. Ultrastructurally, the mature bacterial biofilm resembles an underwater coral reef containing pyramidal or mushroom-shaped microcolonies of organisms embedded within an extracellular glycocalyx, with channels and cavities to allow the exchange of nutrients and waste. The biofilm protects its inhabitants from predators, dehydration, biocides, and other environmental extremes while regulating population growth and diversity through primitive cell signals. From a physiological standpoint, surface-bound bacteria behave quite differently from their planktonic counterparts. Recognizing that bacteria naturally occur as surface-bound and often polymicrobic communities, the practice of performing antimicrobial susceptibility tests using pure cultures and in a planktonic growth mode should be questioned. That this model does not reflect conditions found in nature might help explain the difficulties encountered in the management and treatment of biomedical implant infections

show abstract

“…Significant phenotypic variation has been found to occur within many different biofilm communities (25,32,41,45). Although the biofilm is proposed to provide protection from external stresses, high cell densities inside a biofilm may result in stressful environments characterized by a scarcity of nutrients and oxygen, nonoptimal pH, and accumulation of metabolic by-products (8,16,51). Therefore, the ability to evolve and adapt to the different microniches within biofilms is an important survival strategy to thrive in highly variable and adverse environmental conditions (2,7).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Phenotypic Diversification and Adaptation ofSerratia marcescensMG1 Biofilm-Derived Morphotypes

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report here the characterization of dispersal variants from microcolony-type biofilms of Serratia marcescens MG1. Biofilm formation proceeds through a reproducible process of attachment, aggregation, microcolony development, hollow colony formation, and dispersal. From the time when hollow colonies were observed in flow cell biofilms after 3 to 4 days, at least six different morphological colony variants were consistently isolated from the biofilm effluent. The timing and pattern of variant formation were found to follow a predictable sequence, where some variants, such as a smooth variant with a sticky colony texture (SSV), could be consistently isolated at the time when mature hollow colonies were observed, whereas a variant that produced copious amounts of capsular polysaccharide (SUMV) was always isolated at late stages of biofilm development and coincided with cell death and biofilm dispersal or sloughing. The morphological variants differed extensively from the wild type in attachment, biofilm formation, and cell ultrastructure properties. For example, SSV formed two-to threefold more biofilm biomass than the wild type in batch biofilm assays, despite having a similar growth rate and attachment capacity. Interestingly, the SUMV, and no other variants, was readily isolated from an established SSV biofilm, indicating that the SUMV is a second-generation genetic variant derived from SSV. Planktonic cultures showed significantly lower frequencies of variant formation than the biofilms (5.05 ؋ 10 ؊8 versus 4.83 ؋ 10 ؊6 , respectively), suggesting that there is strong, diversifying selection occurring within biofilms and that biofilm dispersal involves phenotypic radiation with divergent phenotypes.

show abstract

Dynamics of Bacterial Biofilm Formation

Cited by 53 publications

References 0 publications

Structural studies of microcosm dental plaques grown under different nutritional conditions

Structural studies of microcosm dental plaques grown under different nutritional conditions

Bacterial Adhesion: Seen Any Good Biofilms Lately?

Phenotypic Diversification and Adaptation ofSerratia marcescensMG1 Biofilm-Derived Morphotypes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About