4.7 Article

Adenoid Reservoir for Pathogenic Biofilm Bacteria

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 4, 页码 1411-1420

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00756-10

关键词

-

资金

  1. Allegheny General Hospital/Allegheny Singer Research Institute
  2. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [DC05659, DC04173, DC02148]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biofilms of pathogenic bacteria are present on the middle ear mucosa of children with chronic otitis media (COM) and may contribute to the persistence of pathogens and the recalcitrance of COM to antibiotic treatment. Controlled studies indicate that adenoidectomy is effective in the treatment of COM, suggesting that the adenoids may act as a reservoir for COM pathogens. To investigate the bacterial community in the adenoid, samples were obtained from 35 children undergoing adenoidectomy for chronic OM or obstructive sleep apnea. We used a novel, culture-independent molecular diagnostic methodology, followed by confocal microscopy, to investigate the in situ distribution and organization of pathogens in the adenoids to determine whether pathogenic bacteria exhibited criteria characteristic of biofilms. The Ibis T5000 Universal Biosensor System was used to interrogate the extent of the microbial diversity within adenoid biopsy specimens. Using a suite of 16 broad-range bacterial primers, we demonstrated that adenoids from both diagnostic groups were colonized with polymicrobial biofilms. Haemophilus influenzae was present in more adenoids from the COM group (P = 0.005), but there was no significant difference between the two patient groups for Streptococcus pneumoniae or Staphylococcus aureus. Fluorescence in situ hybridization, lectin binding, and the use of antibodies specific for host epithelial cells demonstrated that pathogens were aggregated, surrounded by a carbohydrate matrix, and localized on and within the epithelial cell surface, which is consistent with criteria for bacterial biofilms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据