4.1 Article

Biofilm formation by Staphylococcus epidermidis on peritoneal dialysis catheters and the effects of extracellular products from Pseudomonas aeruginosa

期刊

PATHOGENS AND DISEASE
卷 67, 期 3, 页码 192-198

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/2049-632X.12035

关键词

peritoneal dialysis catheter; flow-cell model; bacterial adherence; biofilm; rhamnolipid

资金

  1. SHEFC
  2. BBSRC
  3. University of Aberdeen
  4. Knowledge Foundation, Sweden
  5. Hjalmar Svenssons Research Foundation, The Royal Society of Arts and Sciences, Gothenburg, Sweden
  6. Danish Council for Independent Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biofilm formation by Staphylococcus epidermidis is a cause of infections related to peritoneal dialysis (PD). We have used a PD catheter flow-cell model in combination with confocal scanning laser microscopy and atomic force microscopy to study biofilm formation by S. epidermidis. Adherence to serum-coated catheters was four times greater than to uncoated ones, suggesting that S. epidermidis binds to serum proteins on the catheter surface. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm supernatant interfered with the formation of a serum protein coat thereby reducing the capacity for biofilm formation in S. epidermidis. Supernatants from Delta pelA, Delta pslBCD and Delta rhlAB strains of P. aeruginosa showed no differences from the wild-type supernatant indicating that the effect on serum coat formation was not due to rhamnolipids or the PelA and PslBCD polysaccharides. Supernatant from P. aeruginosa also dispersed established S. epidermidis biofilms. Supernatants lacking PelA or PslBCD showed no differences from the wild type but that from a DrhlAB strain, showed reduced, but not abolished, capacity for dispersal. This suggests that rhamnolipids are involved but not wholly responsible for the effect. Thus, supernatants from P. aeruginosa contain promising substances for the prevention and treatment of biofilm infections, although further work is required to identity more active components.

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

4.1
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