1887

Microbiology Society logo

Volume 165, Issue 5

Introducing BAIT (Biofilm Architecture Inference Tool): a software program to evaluate the architecture of oral multi-species biofilms Free

Abstract

Biofilm model systems are used to study biofilm growth and predict the effects of anti-biofilm interventions within the human oral cavity. Many biofilm model systems use a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) in conjunction with image analysis tools to study biofilms. The aim of this study was to evaluate an in-house developed image analysis software program that we call BAIT (Biofilm Architecture Inference Tool) to quantify the architecture of oral multi-species biofilms following anti-biofilm interventions using a microfluidic biofilm system. Differences in architecture were compared between untreated biofilms and those treated with water (negative control), sodium gluconate (‘placebo’) or stannous fluoride (SnF). The microfluidic system was inoculated with pooled human saliva and biofilms were developed over 22 h in filter-sterilized 25 % pooled human saliva. During this period, biofilms were treated with water, sodium gluconate, or SnF (1000, 3439 or 10 000 p.p.m. Sn) 8 and 18 h post-inoculation. After 22 h of growth, biofilms were stained with LIVE/DEAD stain, and imaged by CLSM. BAIT was used to calculate biofilm biovolume, total number of objects, surface area, fluffiness, connectivity, convex hull porosity and viability. Image analysis showed oral biofilm architecture was significantly altered by 3439 and 10 000 p.p.m. Sn treatment regimens, resulting in decreased biovolume, surface area, number of objects and connectivity, while fluffiness increased (<0.01). In conclusion, BAIT was shown to be able to measure the changes in biofilm architecture and detects possible antimicrobial and anti-biofilm effects of candidate agents.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): antibiofilm agent , biofilm , confocal laser scanning microscope , image analysis , in vitro model and microfluidics
© 2019 The Authors
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000761
2019-05-01
2024-04-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/micro/165/5/527.html?itemId=/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000761&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Stoodley P, Sauer K, Davies DG, Costerton JW. Biofilms as complex differentiated communities. Annu Rev Microbiol 2002; 56:187–209 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Mah TF, O'Toole GA. Mechanisms of biofilm resistance to antimicrobial agents. Trends Microbiol 2001; 9:34–39 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Foley I, Gilbert P. Antibiotic resistance of biofilms. Biofouling 1996; 10:331–346 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Römling U, Balsalobre C. Biofilm infections, their resilience to therapy and innovative treatment strategies. J Intern Med 2012; 272:541–561 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Akers KS, Mende K, Cheatle KA, Zera WC, Yu X et al. Biofilms and persistent wound infections in United States military trauma patients: a case-control analysis. BMC Infect Dis 2014; 14:190 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Marsh PD, Moter A, Devine DA. Dental plaque biofilms: communities, conflict and control. Periodontol 2000 2011; 55:16–35 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Petersen PE, Bourgeois D, Ogawa H, Estupinan-Day S, Ndiaye C. The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health. Bull World Health Organ 2005; 83:661–669[PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Marcenes W, Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, Flaxman A, Naghavi M et al. Global burden of oral conditions in 1990-2010: a systematic analysis. J Dent Res 2013; 92:592–597 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bridier A, Dubois-Brissonnet F, Boubetra A, Thomas V, Briandet R. The biofilm architecture of sixty opportunistic pathogens deciphered using a high throughput CLSM method. J Microbiol Methods 2010; 82:64–70 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Zijnge V, van Leeuwen MB, Degener JE, Abbas F, Thurnheer T et al. Oral biofilm architecture on natural teeth. PLoS One 2010; 5:e9321 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Hu M, Zhang TC, Stansbury J, Neal J, Garboczi EJ. Determination of porosity and thickness of bgiofilm attached on irregular-shaped media. J Environ Eng 2013; 139:923–931 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Larimer C, Winder E, Jeters R, Prowant M, Nettleship I et al. A method for rapid quantitative assessment of biofilms with biomolecular staining and image analysis. Anal Bioanal Chem 2016; 408:999–1008 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Milferstedt K, Pons MN, Morgenroth E. Analyzing characteristic length scales in biofilm structures. Biotechnol Bioeng 2009; 102:368–379 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bridier A, Meylheuc T, Briandet R. Realistic representation of Bacillus subtilis biofilms architecture using combined microscopy (CLSM, ESEM and FESEM). Micron 2013; 48:65–69 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Shukla SK, Rao TS. Effect of calcium on Staphylococcus aureus biofilm architecture: a confocal laser scanning microscopic study. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2013; 103:448–454 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Heydorn A, Nielsen AT, Hentzer M, Sternberg C, Givskov M et al. Quantification of biofilm structures by the novel computer program COMSTAT. Microbiology 2000; 146:2395–2407 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Mueller LN, de Brouwer JF, Almeida JS, Stal LJ, Xavier JB. Analysis of a marine phototrophic biofilm by confocal laser scanning microscopy using the new image quantification software PHLIP. BMC Ecol 2006; 6:1 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. de Chaumont F, Dallongeville S, Chenouard N, Hervé N, Pop S et al. Icy: an open bioimage informatics platform for extended reproducible research. Nat Methods 2012; 9:690–696 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. de Carvalho CC, da Fonseca MM. Assessment of three-dimensional biofilm structure using an optical microscope. Biotechniques 2007; 42:616–620 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Rojas D, Rueda L, Ngom A, Hurrutia H, Cárcamo G. Image segmentation of biofilm structures using optimal multi-level thresholding. Int J Data Min Bioinform 2011; 5:266–286 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Yerly J, Hu Y, Jones SM, Martinuzzi RJ. A two-step procedure for automatic and accurate segmentation of volumetric CLSM biofilm images. J Microbiol Methods 2007; 70:424–433 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Luo TL, Eisenberg MC, Hayashi MAL, Gonzalez-Cabezas C, Foxman B et al. A sensitive thresholding method for confocal laser scanning microscope image stacks of microbial biofilms. Sci Rep 2018; 8:13013 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Tinanoff N, Hock J, Camosci D, Helldén L. Effect of stannous fluoride mouthrinse on dental plaque formation. J Clin Periodontol 1980; 7:232–241 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Camosci DA, Tinanoff N. Anti-bacterial determinants of stannous fluoride. J Dent Res 1984; 63:1121–1125 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Reilly C, Rasmussen K, Selberg T, Stevens J, Jones RS. Biofilm community diversity after exposure to 0·4% stannous fluoride gels. J Appl Microbiol 2014; 117:1798–1809 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Cheng X, Liu J, Li J, Zhou X, Wang L et al. Comparative effect of a stannous fluoride toothpaste and a sodium fluoride toothpaste on a multispecies biofilm. Arch Oral Biol 2017; 74:5–11 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Fleming D, Rumbaugh KP. Approaches to dispersing medical biofilms. Microorganisms 2017; 5:15 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Samarian DS, Jakubovics NS, Luo TL, Rickard AH. Use of a high-throughput in vitro microfluidic system to develop oral multi-species biofilms. J Vis Exp 2014; 94: [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Iorgulescu G. Saliva between normal and pathological. Important factors in determining systemic and oral health. J Med Life 2009; 2:303–307[PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Collins LM, Dawes C. The surface area of the adult human mouth and thickness of the salivary film covering the teeth and oral mucosa. J Dent Res 1987; 66:1300–1302 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Luo TL, Rickard AH, Srinivasan U, Kaye KS, Foxman B. Association of blaOXA-23 and bap with the persistence of Acinetobacter baumannii within a major healthcare system. Front Microbiol 2015; 6:182 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Xu Z, Liang Y, Lin S, Chen D, Li B et al. Crystal violet and XTT assays on Staphylococcus aureus biofilm quantification. Curr Microbiol 2016; 73:474–482 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Bester E, Kroukamp O, Hausner M, Edwards EA, Wolfaardt GM. Biofilm form and function: carbon availability affects biofilm architecture, metabolic activity and planktonic cell yield. J Appl Microbiol 2011; 110:387–398 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Stewart PS. Diffusion in biofilms. J Bacteriol 2003; 185:1485–1491 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Battin TJ, Kaplan LA, Newbold JD, Cheng X, Hansen C. Effects of current velocity on the nascent architecture of stream microbial biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003; 69:5443–5452 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Nance WC, Dowd SE, Samarian D, Chludzinski J, Delli J et al. A high-throughput microfluidic dental plaque biofilm system to visualize and quantify the effect of antimicrobials. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013; 68:2550–2560 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Tinanoff N. Progress regarding the use of stannous fluoride in clinical dentistry. J Clin Dent 1995; 6 Spec No:37–40[PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Ellingsen JE, Svatun B, Rölla G. The effects of stannous and stannic ions on the formation and acidogenicity of dental plaque in vivo . Acta Odontol Scand 1980; 38:219–222 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Yoon NA, Berry CW. The antimicrobial effect of fluorides (acidulated phosphate, sodium and stannous) on Actinomyces viscosus . J Dent Res 1979; 58:1824–1829 [View Article][PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. He T, Barker ML, Biesbock AR, Sharma NC, Qaqish J et al. Assessment of the effects of a stannous fluoride dentifrice on gingivitis in a two-month positive-controlled clinical study. J Clin Dent 2012; 23:80–85[PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. White DJ, Kozak KM, Gibb R, Dunavent J, Klukowska M et al. A 24-hour dental plaque prevention study with a stannous fluoride dentifrice containing hexametaphosphate. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006; 7:1–11[PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Friesen LR, Goyal CR, Qaqish JG, He T, Eusebio R et al. Comparative antiplaque effect of two antimicrobial dentifrices: laboratory and clinical evaluations. J Clin Dent 2017; 28:B6–11[PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000761
Loading
Introducing BAIT (Biofilm Architecture Inference Tool): a software program to evaluate the architecture of oral multi-species biofilms
Microbiology 165, 527 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.000761
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000761
/content/journal/micro/10.1099/mic.0.000761
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary File 1

PDF

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error