4.6 Article

Characterization of biofilm formation by clinically relevant serotypes of group A streptococci

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 72, 期 4, 页码 2864-2875

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.72.4.2864-2875.2006

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Streptococcus pyogenes (group A streptococcus [GAS]) is a frequent cause of purulent infections in humans. As potentially important aspects of its pathogenicity, GAS was recently shown to aggregate, form intratissue microcolonies, and potentially participate in multispecies biofilms. In this study, we show that GAS in fact forms monospecies biofilms in vitro, and we analyze the basic parameters of S. pyogenes in vitro biofilm formation, using Streptococcus epidermidis as a biofilm-positive control. Of nine clinically important serotype strains, M2, M6, M14, and M18 were found to significantly adhere to coated and uncoated polystyrene surfaces. Fibronectin and collagen types I and IV best supported primary adherence of serotype M2 and M18 strains, respectively, whereas serotype M6 and M14 strains strongly bound to uncoated polystyrene surfaces. Absorption measurements of safranin staining, as well as electron scanning and confocal laser scanning microscopy, documented that primary adherence led to subsequent formation of three-dimensional biofilm structures consisting of up to 46 bacterial layers. Of note, GAS isolates belonging to the same serotype were found to be very heterogeneous in their biofilm-forming behavior. Biofilm formation was equally efficient under static and continuous flow conditions and consisted of the classical three steps, including partial disintegration after long-term incubation. Activity of the SilC signaling peptide as a component of a putative quorum-sensing system was found to influence the biofilm structure and density of serotype M14 and M18 strains. Based on the presented methods and results, standardized analyses of GAS biofilms and their impact on GAS pathogenicity are now feasible.

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

4.6
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