4.7 Article

Optimization of nitric oxide donors for investigating biofilm dispersal response inPseudomonas aeruginosaclinical isolates

Journal

APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 104, Issue 20, Pages 8859-8869

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-020-10859-7

Keywords

Nitric oxide; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Biofilm; Cystic fibrosis; Chemiluminescence

Funding

  1. BBSRC
  2. Innovate UK

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pseudomonas aeruginosabiofilms contribute heavily to chronic lung infection in cystic fibrosis patients, leading to morbidity and mortality. Nitric oxide (NO) has been shown to disperseP. aeruginosabiofilms in vitro, ex vivo and in clinical trials as a promising anti-biofilm agent. Traditional NO donors such as sodium nitroprusside (SNP) have been extensively employed in different studies. However, the dosage of SNP in different studies was not consistent, ranging from 500 nM to 500 mu M. SNP is light sensitive and produces cyanide, which may lead to data misinterpretation and inaccurate predictions of dispersal responses in clinical settings. New NO donors and NO delivery methods have therefore been explored. Here we assessed 7 NO donors usingP. aeruginosaPAO1 and determined that SNP and Spermine NONOate (S150) successfully reduced > 60% biomass within 24 and 2 h, respectively. While neither dosage posed toxicity towards bacterial cells, chemiluminescence assays showed that SNP only released NO upon light exposure in M9 media and S150 delivered much higher performance spontaneously. S150 was then tested on 13 different cystic fibrosisP. aeruginosa(CF-PA) isolates; most CF-PA biofilms were significantly dispersed by 250 mu M S150. Our work therefore discovered a commercially available NO donor S150, which disperses CF-PA biofilms efficiently within a short period of time and without releasing cyanide, as an alternative of SNP in clinical trials in the future.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available