Surface-attached molecules control Staphylococcus aureus quorum sensing and biofilm development

Kim, Minyoung Kevin; Zhao, Aishan; Wang, Ashley; Brown, Zachary Z.; Muir, Tom W.; Stone, Howard A.; Bassler, Bonnie L.

doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.80

Cited by 107 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In response to these limitations, innovations in genomics and the identification of new sources of antibacterial potential are being proposed to fill the classic antibacterial agents gap . Interfering with bacterial quorum sensing communication is another emerging strategy with potential to inhibit biofilm formation on biomaterials . Incorporation of such novel antibacterial drugs on biomaterials might well decrease the risk of bacterial resistance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multifunctional Coatings and Nanotopographies: Toward Cell Instructive and Antibacterial Implants

Mas‐Moruno

Dalby

2018

Adv Healthcare Materials

187

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In biomaterials science, it is nowadays well accepted that improving the biointegration of dental and orthopedic implants with surrounding tissues is a major goal. However, implant surfaces that support osteointegration may also favor colonization of bacterial cells. Infection of biomaterials and subsequent biofilm formation can have devastating effects and reduce patient quality of life, representing an emerging concern in healthcare. Conversely, efforts toward inhibiting bacterial colonization may impair biomaterial–tissue integration. Therefore, to improve the long‐term success of medical implants, biomaterial surfaces should ideally discourage the attachment of bacteria without affecting eukaryotic cell functions. However, most current strategies seldom investigate a combined goal. This work reviews recent strategies of surface modification to simultaneously address implant biointegration while mitigating bacterial infections. To this end, two emerging solutions are considered, multifunctional chemical coatings and nanotopographical features.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multifunctional Coatings and Nanotopographies: Toward Cell Instructive and Antibacterial Implants

Mas‐Moruno

Dalby

2018

Adv Healthcare Materials

187

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the molecular level, the secretion of bacterial autoinducers allows bacteria to sense and respond to changes in bacterial density accordingly. [293,294] Although following the same principle, there are differences in the QS systems utilized by Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Small N-acylated homoserine lactones (AHL) are the main autoinducer molecules in Gram-negative species, and are produced by a Luxl type protein, which binds to the LuxR protein.…”

Section: Targeting Quorum Sensing As An Anti-biofilm Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[295,298] Figure 4B summarizes the main QS therapeutic targets currently identified in anti-biofilm strategies: 1) inhibition of AIP synthesis (e.g., using RNAIII-inhibiting peptides), [299,300] 2) AI-2 pathway inhibitors (e.g., using fimbrolides and derivatives), [301,302] 3) blocking of autoinducer receptor binding or the signal transduction cascade (e.g,. using TrAIP-II), [294,303] and 4) inactivation of autoinducers (e.g., using enzymes degrading AHL molecules. [295,296] Orthopedic implants most often fail due to Staphylococcal infections [3] with the accessory gene regulator (agr) QS system playing a key regulatory role in their pathogenic phenotype.…”

Section: Targeting Quorum Sensing As An Anti-biofilm Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combating Implant Infections: Shifting Focus from Bacteria to Host

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

commensal skin bacteria, Staphylococci, and in particular Staphylococcus aureus, have a strong tendency to colonize foreign bodies and cause IAI. [3,4] Important for the underlying pathophysiology, Staphylococci are highly competent at producing biofilms on implant surfaces, which encapsulate the bacterial niche from the outside environment, [5,6] thereby protecting the bacteria from host defense systems and antibiotics. [7] Antibiotics are administered as a routine procedure. [8] However, as a consequence of widespread antibiotics usage, bacteria are exposed to subinhibitory concentrations of antibiotics at a larger scale, driving their development toward antibiotic resistance, [9] as illustrated by the emergence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). [10,11] As an improvement over current clinically applied local antibiotics delivery systems, [12] the recent developments in implant surface engineering approaches allow better antimicrobial functionalities to be incorporated to allow for more tunable and controlled drug release. [13-15] The "race to the surface" model is popular among biomaterials researchers to predict the biomaterials fate, resulting from the competition between eukaryotic cells and bacteria at the material surface. [16] Using this template, implant antibacterial properties are being stemmed from direct contact killing mechanisms due to implant surface modifications [17,18] or firm immobilization of drugs, [19,20] as they both "shield" the implant from bacterial adhesion. The current anti-infective biomaterials strategies being explored can be categorized as: 1) implant functionalization with antibiotics or antibacterial drugs such as host defense peptides (HDPs), inorganic materials (e.g., chitosan and derivatives), and inorganics (e.g., silver, copper, and zinc metal nanoparticles (NPs)), 2) anti-biofilm surface modification (e.g., coating with antifouling polymers or quorum sensor inhibitors), or 3) physical surface changes for direct contact-killing properties (e.g., nanotubes, nanopillars, and metal implantation). [15,21] Emerging as a serious alternative or adjuvant therapy to antibiotics, bacteriophage (phage) therapy uses viruses responsible for the lysis of specific bacterial strains. [22,23] As a natural predator of bacteria, phages employ different killing mechanisms, making multidrug resistant bacteria susceptible for phages. [24] Moreover, phages are highly specific for pathogenic cells, which can eliminate disastrous off-target effects in the host. [25] As a limitation, the use of phage cocktails is needed for therapeutic efficacy, [26] while there is currently is no conclusive data on possible long-term side effects of phage therapy in The widespread use of biomaterials to support or replace body parts is increasingly threatened by the risk of implant-associated infections. In the quest for finding novel anti-infective biomaterials, there generally has been a one-sided focus on biomaterials with direct antibacterial properties, which leads to excessive use of antibacterial ag...

show abstract

“…MDs can be fabricated from a wide range of materials, including glass, thermoplastic materials, and flexible elastomer-like polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). The latter is routinely used in biofilm studies as it allows for the customization and functionalization of its surface [123][124][125].…”

Section: Flow Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods Used for the Eradication of Staphylococcal Biofilms

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Staphylococcus aureus is considered one of the leading pathogens responsible for community and healthcare-associated infections. Among them, infections caused by methicillin-resistant strains (MRSA) are connected with ineffective or prolonged treatment. The therapy of staphylococcal infections faces many difficulties, not only because of the bacteria’s resistance to antibiotics and the multiplicity of virulence factors it produces, but also due to its ability to form a biofilm. The present review focuses on several approaches used for the assessment of staphylococcal biofilm eradication. The methods described here are successfully applied in research on the prevention of biofilm-associated infections, as well as in their management. They include not only the evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of novel compounds, but also the methods for biomaterial functionalization. Moreover, the advantages and limitations of different dyes and techniques used for biofilm characterization are discussed. Therefore, this review may be helpful for those scientists who work on the development of new antistaphylococcal compounds.

show abstract

Surface-attached molecules control Staphylococcus aureus quorum sensing and biofilm development

Cited by 107 publications

References 58 publications

Multifunctional Coatings and Nanotopographies: Toward Cell Instructive and Antibacterial Implants

Multifunctional Coatings and Nanotopographies: Toward Cell Instructive and Antibacterial Implants

Combating Implant Infections: Shifting Focus from Bacteria to Host

Methods Used for the Eradication of Staphylococcal Biofilms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About