Effects of cell surface damage on surface properties and adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Bruinsma, Gerda M.; Rustema-Abbing, Mina; Mei, HC van der; Busscher, Hj

doi:10.1016/s0167-7012(01)00238-x

Cited by 83 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, bacterial cell surface damage can be expected to affect surface-sensitive phenomena, such as their adhesion to surfaces. Chemical and physical surface damage to Pseudomonas aeruginosa, for instance, yielded lower initial deposition rates to substratum surfaces than were observed for undamaged bacteria (2). In general, harvesting by the high-speed centrifugation (15,000 ϫ g) of bacterial cultures was found to reduce the surface charge of organisms not protected by a dense layer of extracellular polymeric substances (9).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacterial Cell Surface Damage Due to Centrifugal Compaction

Peterson

Sharma

Mei

et al. 2012

Appl Environ Microbiol

Self Cite

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Centrifugal damage has been known to alter bacterial cell surface properties and interior structures, including DNA. Very few studies exist on bacterial damage caused by centrifugation because of the difficulty in relating centrifugation speed and container geometry to the damage caused. Here, we provide a simple, versatile method of analysis for describing the compaction of bacteria during centrifugation based on a proposed centrifugation coefficient, C. Values of C can be related to different bacterial cell surface properties. Changing the geometry of the centrifugation container or centrifugation speeds changed the value of C significantly. Initial deposition rates of Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 12600 to a glass surface decayed exponentially from 4,217 to 1,478 cm ؊2 s ؊1 with increasing C, while the proportion of staphylococci with a zeta potential of around ؊15 mV decreased from 97 to 58%. These surface-sensitive parameters were used independently to derive a critical centrifugation coefficient (0.040), above which centrifugation was considered to impact the outcome of surface-sensitive experiments due to cell surface damage. The critical centrifugation coefficient could successfully predict staphylococcal cell surface damage, i.e., a significant change in initial deposition rate or zeta potential distribution, in 84% of all cases included here, whereas the centrifugation speed could predict damage in only 58% of all cases. Moreover, controlling the centrifugation coefficient within narrow limits over a series of experiments yielded 43% smaller standard deviations in initial staphylococcal deposition rates than with centrifugation at fixed speeds for replicate experiments. C entrifugation is a common laboratory practice used for harvesting planktonic bacteria. For harvesting, a wide variety of forces (roughly ranging from 1,000 to 12,000 ϫ g) (1, 10-12) is used without mentioning a reason for a particular choice. Centrifugation in essence involves compacting bacteria into a pellet, causing collisions against each other that result in shear forces on the bacterial cell surface, which may easily lead to cell surface damage with a potential effect on the outcome of surface-sensitive experiments. Many experimental protocols choose high centrifugation speeds to collect as many bacteria as possible while assuming that it does not cause any bacterial cell damage or cell death (4, 10). However, cell surface damage during bacterial centrifugation at 15,000 ϫ g was demonstrated to cause significant reductions in Escherichia coli viability compared to centrifugation at 5,000 ϫ g, while little effect was detected on the viability of Psychrobacter sp. strain SW8 or Staphylococcus epidermidis (9). Moreover, bacterial cell surface damage can be expected to affect surface-sensitive phenomena, such as their adhesion to surfaces. Chemical and physical surface damage to Pseudomonas aeruginosa, for instance, yielded lower initial deposition rates to substratum surfaces than were observed for undamaged bacteria (2). In general, ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacterial Cell Surface Damage Due to Centrifugal Compaction

Peterson

Sharma

Mei

et al. 2012

Appl Environ Microbiol

Self Cite

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The outer proteins of bacteria that existed in EPS are mostly hydrophilic, which decreases cell surface hydrophobicity (Nikaido, 2003;Walker et al, 2005b). Further evidence of the sensitivity of bacterial hydrophobicity to proteins in extracellular polymers can be found in previous studies (Bruinsma et al, 2001;Chavant et al, 2002). The FTIR spectra in Fig.…”

Section: Surface Hydrophobicity Of Bacteria and Soilmentioning

confidence: 63%

Contrasting effects of extracellular polymeric substances on the surface characteristics of bacterial pathogens and cell attachment to soil particles

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus, depending on the surface thermodynamics, hydrophilic strains seem to preferentially adhere to hydrophilic surfaces, while more hydrophobic strains have a preference for hydrophobic surfaces. (Bos et al, 1999;Bruinsma et al, 2001)Also, the results of several in vivo studies suggest that a rougher CL surface will be prone to more extensive bacterial adhesion (Bruinsma et al, 2002;Bruinsma et al, 2003) since imperfections in the lens surface is where deposits are likely to form. (Hosaka et al, 1983) Microbial colonization can be quantified by enumerating colony-forming units (CFU) using different bacterial strains, as the P. aeruginosa strain CECT 110 or S. epidermidis strain CECT 4184 (both from the Spanish Type Culture Collection).…”

Section: Bacterial Adhesion To Contact Lensesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bacterial adhesion initiates on surface irregularities that serve as microenvironments where bacteria are sheltered from unfavorable environmental factors and then promote their survival (Shellenberger and Logan, 2002;Chae et al, 2006;Jones and Velegol, 2006). The effects of surface roughness have been examined over a wide range of physical scales (Bruinsma et al, 2001;Li and Logan, 2004;Li and Logan, 2005;Emerson et al, 2006;Mitik-Dineva et al, 2008;Park et al, 2008) and previous studies suggest that nanoscale surface roughness may greatly influence bacterial adhesion (Mitik-Dineva et al, 2008).…”

Section: Effect Of Hydrophobicity and Surface Roughnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the results of several in vivo studies suggest that a rougher CL surface is prone to more extensive bacterial adhesion (Bruinsma et al, 2002;Bruinsma et al, 2003) since imperfections in the lens surface is where deposits are likely to form (Hosaka et al, 1983). Also, depending on the surface thermodynamics, hydrophilic strains seem to preferentially adhere to hydrophilic surfaces, while more hydrophobic strains have a preference for hydrophobic surfaces (Bos et al, 1999;Bruinsma et al, 2001). Apart from lens surface factors, adhesion is also conditioned by features of the bacterial surface including flagella and fimbriae (Fletcher et al, 1993a;Fletcher et al, 1993b;Gupta et al, 1994;Gupta et al, 1996;Willcox et al, 2001;Donlan, 2002;Donlan, 2002;Kogure et al, 1998;Morisaki et al, 1999) or the presence or release of extracellular substances such as polysaccharides, proteins and biosurfactants (Mack et al, 1999;Mack et al, 1996;Mack et al, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation