Microcosm biofilms cultured from different oral niches in periodontitis patients

Zaura, Egija; Brandt, Bernd W.; Buijs, Mark J.; Buchalla, Wolfgang; Laine, Marja L.; Deng, Dongsheng; Exterkate, R.A.M.

doi:10.1080/20022727.2018.1551596

Cited by 42 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…gingivalis/low SDI) would still be pathogenic. Since serum is probably enriching for P. gingivalis (Cieplik et al 2019;Naginyte et al 2019), lowering its concentration may overcome this limitation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Normal and Dysbiotic Subgingival Microbiomes: Effect of Nutrients

Baraniya

Naginyte

Chen³

et al. 2020

J Dent Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Screening for microbiome modulators requires availability of a high throughput in vitro model that replicates subgingival dysbiosis and normobiosis, along with a tool to measure microbial dysbiosis. Here, we tested various formulations to grow health-and periodontitis-associated subgingival microbiomes in parallel, and describe a new subgingival dysbiosis index. Subgingival plaque samples pooled from five healthy, and separately, five periodontitis subjects were used to inoculate a Calgary Biofilm device containing saliva-conditioned, hydroxyapatite-coated pegs. Microbiomes were grown for 7 days on either nutrient-rich media, including a modification of SHI (mSHI), BHI supplemented with hemin and vitamin K (sBHI), and a blend of SHI and BHI (BSHI), each at three sucrose concentrations (0%, 0.05% and 0.1%), or nutrient-limited media (saliva with 5%, 10% or 20% inactivated human serum). The microbiomes were assessed for biomass, viability, and 16S rRNA profiles. In addition to richness and diversity, a dysbiosis index was calculated as the ratio of the sum of relative abundances of diseaseassociated species to that of health-associated species. sBHI and BSHI resulted in the highest biomass, whereas saliva-serum maximized viability. Distinct groups of bacteria were enriched in the different media. Regardless of medium type, the periodontitis-derived microbiomes showed higher species richness and alpha diversity and clustered with the respective inoculum separately from the healthderived microbiomes. Microbiomes grown in saliva-serum showed the highest species richness, and the highest similarity to the clinical inocula, both in health and disease. However, inclusion of serum reduced alpha diversity and increased dysbiosis in healthy microbiomes in a dose-dependent manner, mainly due to over-enrichment of Porphyromonas species. mSHI, stood second in terms of species richness and diversity, but resulted in low biomass and viability, and significantly worsened dysbiosis in the periodontitis-derived microbiomes. Overall, saliva with 5% human serum was optimal for replicating subgingival microbiomes from health and disease.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Normal and Dysbiotic Subgingival Microbiomes: Effect of Nutrients

Baraniya

Naginyte

Chen³

et al. 2020

J Dent Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The AAA model offers the advantage of active attachment (rather than sedimentation) of the bacteria onto the substrate, and also facilitates controlling the periods which the biofilms are exposed to the tested compounds [34]. Choice of inoculum and growth conditions are crucial aspects for microcosm biofilms [40,[42][43][44][45]. In the present study, human saliva was chosen as inoculum source because it can be collected easier and in higher quantities as compared with dental plaque [40].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, we could recently show that the choice of inoculum donors may be more important than the choice of the respective niche in those donors (e.g., saliva, subgingival plaque, or tongue scrapings) [40]. In contrast to this previous study, which aimed to mimic periodontitis-associated microbial communities [40], we chose to sample from one healthy donor here for growing biofilms that resemble microbial communities in a rather early stage of dysbiosis. Sampling from only one donor may be a drawback and potentially has an influence on the results because there may be donor-dependent effects with regard to the antimicrobial susceptibility of the biofilms, as it was recently shown by Chatzigiannidou et al for microcosm biofilms from tongue swabs and treatment with CHX [45].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limited antimicrobial efficacy of oral care antiseptics in microcosm biofilms and phenotypic adaptation of bacteria upon repeated exposure

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aims of this study were to investigate the antimicrobial efficacy of antiseptics in saliva-derived microcosm biofilms, and to examine phenotypic adaption of bacteria upon repeated exposure to sub-inhibitory antiseptic concentrations. Methods Saliva-derived biofilms were formed mimicking caries- or gingivitis-associated conditions, respectively. Microbial compositions were analyzed by semiconductor-based 16S rRNA sequencing. Biofilms were treated with CHX, CPC, BAC, ALX, and DQC for 1 or 10 min, and colony forming units (CFU) were evaluated. Phenotypic adaptation of six selected bacterial reference strains toward CHX, CPC, and BAC was assessed by measuring minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) over 10 passages of sub-inhibitory exposure. Protein expression profiles were investigated by SDS-PAGE. Results Both biofilms showed outgrowth of streptococci and Veillonella spp., while gingivitis biofilms also showed increased relative abundances of Actinomyces, Granulicatella, and Gemella spp. Antiseptic treatment for 1 min led to no relevant CFU-reductions despite for CPC. When treated for 10 min, CPC was most effective followed by BAC, ALX, CHX, and DQC. Stable adaptations with up to fourfold MIC increases were found in E. coli toward all tested antiseptics, in E. faecalis toward CHX and BAC, and in S. aureus toward CPC. Adapted E. coli strains showed different protein expression as compared with the wildtype strain. Conclusion Antiseptics showed limited antimicrobial efficacy toward mature biofilms when applied for clinically relevant treatment periods. Bacteria showed phenotypic adaptation upon repeated sub-inhibitory exposure. Clinical relevance Clinicians should be aware that wide-spread use of antiseptics may pose the risk of inducing resistances in oral bacteria.

show abstract

“…Some studies have attempted to construct in vitro models of multispecies or mixed‐species biofilms with various bacteria, or to extract biofilms from specific parts of the human or animal mouth for in vitro culture, but there are limitations to these studies. A multispecies model simply mixes a variety of bacteria together, but the arrangement is not orderly .…”

Section: Limitations and Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanoparticles for the Treatment of Oral Biofilms: Current State, Mechanisms, Influencing Factors, and Prospects

Wang

Yuan

et al. 2019

Adv Healthcare Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to their excellent size, designability, and outstanding targeted antibacterial effects, nanoparticles have become a potential option for controlling oral biofilm‐related infections. However, the formation of an oral biofilm is a dynamic process, and factors affecting the performance of antibiofilm treatments are complex. As such, when examining the existing literature on the antibiofilm effects of nanoparticles, attention should be paid to the specific mechanisms of action at different stages of oral biofilm formation, as well as relevant influencing factors, in order to achieve an objective and comprehensive evaluation. This review is intended to detail the antibacterial mechanisms of nanoparticles during the four stages of the formation of oral biofilms: 1) acquired film formation; 2) bacterial adhesion; 3) early biofilm development; and 4) biofilm maturation. In addition, factors influencing the antibiofilm properties of nanoparticles are summarized from the aspects of nanoparticles themselves, biofilm models, and host factors. The limitations of current research and possible trends for future research are also discussed. In summary, nanoparticles are a promising antioral biofilm strategy. It is hoped that this review can serve as a reference and inspire ideas for further research on the application of nanoparticles for effectively targeting and treating oral biofilms.

show abstract

Microcosm biofilms cultured from different oral niches in periodontitis patients

Cited by 42 publications

References 56 publications

Modeling Normal and Dysbiotic Subgingival Microbiomes: Effect of Nutrients

Modeling Normal and Dysbiotic Subgingival Microbiomes: Effect of Nutrients

Limited antimicrobial efficacy of oral care antiseptics in microcosm biofilms and phenotypic adaptation of bacteria upon repeated exposure

Nanoparticles for the Treatment of Oral Biofilms: Current State, Mechanisms, Influencing Factors, and Prospects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About