Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 39, Issue 5, pp 999–1006 | Cite as

Hydrophobic bile salt inhibits bacterial adhesion on biliary stent material

  • J. Y. Sung
  • E. A. Shaffer
  • K. Lam
  • I. Rususka
  • J. W. Costerton
Article

Abstract

Blockage of indwelling biliary stents is caused by biliary sludge, which forms as a result of bacteria adhering to the surface of the stent material and forming adherent biofilm. As the adherence of bacteria on plastic surface involves hydrophobic interaction of the plastic polymer and the bacterial cell wall, we tested if the detergent property of bile salts might retard bacterial adherence. Three common biliary pathogens isolated from the bile of patients suffering from acute suppurative cholangitis were used in this experiment:E. coli (O21:H25) which form pili and a glycocalyx;E. coli (O101:H9), non-piliated but with a glycocalyx, andEnterococcus fecalis without either pili or a glycocalyx. Polyethylene disks (1 cm2 diameter) were used for thein vitro adhesion study. They were continuously perfused by the bacterial suspension, flowing at 50 ml/hr at 37°C for 24 hr. The suspending media used were sterile human bile and tryptic soy broth. Two different bile salts, taurocholate and taurodeoxycholate, were added to the perfusion media. The number of bacteria adhering to the surface was assessed by viable bacterial count, epifluorescence microscopy, and scanning electron microscopy. The results showed thatE. coli (O21:H25) exhibited better adherence than the nonpiliatedE. coli (O101:H9), which in turn was better than the non-pili-, non-glycocalyx-producingEnterococcus fecalis. When a more hydrophobic bile salt, taurodeoxycholate, was added at 25 or 50 mM to the tryptic soy broth or to the human bile, the adherence of the twoE. coli strains were reduced 100-to 1000-fold (P<0.05). The antiadhesion effect was not demonstrated when taurocholate, a more hydrophilic bile salt, was added to the tryptic soy broth or bile. The adherence ofEnterococcus fecalis was not influenced by either bile salts. Thus a hydrophobic bile salt can interfere with the binding of the bacterial cell wall (equipped with pili and/or a glycocalyx) to a polyethylene surface, reducing the adherence of bacteria. Altering the bile salt composition of bile offers a potential treatment in postponing stent blockage.

Key words

bacterial adherence bile salt hydrophobicity biliary stent 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Speer AG, Cotton PB, Rode J, Seddon AM, Neal CR, Holton J, Costerton JW: Biliary stent blockage with bacterial biofilm. Ann Intern Med 108:546–553, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leung JWC, Ling TKW, Kung JLS, Vallance-Owen J: The role of bacteria in the blockage of biliary stents. Gastrointest Endosc 34:19–22, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sung JY, Leung JWC, Shaffer EA, Lam K, Olson ME, Costerton JW: Ascending infection of the biliary tract after surgical sphincterotomy and biliary stenting. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 7:240–245, 1992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sung JY, Shaffer EA, Olson ME, Leung JWC, Lam K, Costerton JW: Biliary invasion of the biliary system by way of the portal-venous system. Hepatology 14:313–317, 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smit JM, Out MMJ, Greon AK, Huibregtse K, Jansen PLM, van Marie J, Tytgat GNJ: A placebo controlled study on the efficacy of aspirin and doxycycline in preventing clogging of biliary endoprotheses. Gastrointest Endosc 35:485–489, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coene PPLO, Groen AK, Cheng J, Out MMJ, Tytgat GNJ, Huibregtse K: Clogging of biliary endoprostheses: A new perspective. Gut 31:913–917, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leung JWC, Lau GTC, Sung JY, Costerton JW: Decreased bacterial adherence to silver-coated material: Anin vitro study. Gastrointest Endosc 38:338–340, 1992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Absolom DR, Lamberti FV, Policova Z, Zingg W, van Oss CJ, Neumann AW: Surface thermodynamics of bacterial adhesion. Appl Environ Microbiol 46:90–97, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fletcher M: The effects of methanol, ethanol, propaol and butanol on bacterial attachment to surfaces. J Gen Microbiol 129:633–641, 1983Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leung JWC, Sung JY, Costerton JW: Bacteriological and electron microscopy examination of brown pigment stone. J Clin Microbiol 27:915–921, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Keighely MRB: Microorganism in the bile. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 59:329–334, 1977Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pitt HA, Postier RG, Cameron JL: Biliary bacteria: Significance and alterations after antibiotic therapy. Arch Surg 117:445–449, 1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cabral DJ, Small DM: Physical chemistry of bile.In Handbook of Physiology. Section 6: The Gastrointestinal System. Vol III. Schultz SG (ed). Bethesda, Maryland. American Physiology Society, 1989, pp 621–662Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roda A, Hofmann AF, Musels KJ: The influence of bile salt structure and aggregation in aqueous solution. J Biol Chem 258:6362–6370, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sung JY, Shaffer EA, Lam K, Costerton JW: Bile salts are not effective as a host defence mechanism against bacterial infection in the biliary tract. Gastroenterology 102:A702, 1992Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Costerton JW, Nickel JC, Ladd TI: Suitable methods for the comparative study of free-living and surface-associated bacterial populations.In Bacteria in Nature. Poindexter JS, Leadbetter ER (eds). New York, Plenum Publishing, 1986, pp 49–83Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baddour LM, Christensen GD, Simpson WA, Beachey EH: Microbial Adherence.In Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed. Mandell GL, Douglas RG, Bennett JE (eds). New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1990, pp. 9–24Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Loosdrecht MCM, Lyklema J, Norde W, et al: Electrophoretic mobility and hydrophobicity as a measure to predict the initial stips of bacterial adhesion. Appl Environ Microbiol 237:1588–1895, 1987Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bergman J, Updike WS, Wood SJ, et al: Attachment factor among enterotoxigenicEscherichia coli from patients with acute diarrhea from diverse geographic area. Infect Immun 32:881–888, 1981PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smyth CJ, Honsson P, Olssoon E, et al: Difference in hydrophobic surface characteristics of porcine enteropathogenicEscherichia coli with or without K88 antigen as revealed by hydrophobic interaction chromatography. Infect Immun 22:462–472, 1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wadstrom T, Faris A, Freer J, Habte D, Hallberg D, Ljungh A: Hydrophobic surface properties of enterotoxigenicE. coli (ETEC) with different colonization factors (CFA/I, CFA/II, K88 and K99) and attachment to intestinal epithelial cells. Scand J Infect Dis suppl 24:148–153, 1980PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Costerton JW, Geesey GG, Cheng KJ: How bacteria stick. Sci Am 238:86–95, 1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klotz SA: Role of hydrophobic interactions in microbial adhesion to plastics used in medical devices.In Microbial Cell Surface Hydrophobicity. Doyle RJ, Rosenberg M (eds). Washington, DC, American Society of Microbiologists, 1990, pp 107–136Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Armstrong MJ, Carey MC: The hydrophobic-hydrophilic balance of bile salts: Inverse correlation between reversephase high performance liquid chromatographic mobilities and micellar cholesterol solubilizing capacities. J Lipid Res 23:70–80, 1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huibregtse K: Late complication of endoscopic stenting.In Endoscopic Biliary and Pancreatic Drainage. Stuttgart, George Thiem Verlag, 1988, pp 124–128Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Davids PHP, Groen AK, Rauws EAJ, Tytgat GNJ, Huibregtse K: Randomized trial of self-expanding metal stents versus polyethylene stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction. Lancet 340:1488–1492, 1992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    St. Dertinger, Ell C, Fleig WE, Hochberger J, Karn M, Gruza L, Hahn EG: Long-term results using self-expanding metal stents for malignant biliary obstruction. Gastroenterology 102:A310, 1992Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schownfiled JL, Lachin JM, The Steering Committee, and the National Cooperative Gallstone Study Group: Chenodiol (chenodeoxycholic acid) for dissolution of gallstones: The National Cooperative Gallstone Study: A controlled trial of efficacy and safety. Ann Intern Med 95:257–282, 1981PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tint GS, Salen G, Colalillo A: Ursodeoxycholic acid: a safe and effective agent for dissolving gallstones. Ann Intern Med 97:351–356, 1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Poupon RE, Balkau B, Eschwege E, Poupon R, and the UDCA-PBC Study Group: A multicenter controlled trial of ursodiol for the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 324:1548–1554, 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Verlardi ALM, Groen AK, Oude Elferink RPJ, van der Meer R, Palasciano F, Tytgat GNJ: Cell type-dependent effect of phospholipid and cholesterol on bile salt cytotoxicity. Gastroenterology 101:457–464, 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Coleman R, Lowe PL, Billington D: Membrane lipid composition and susceptibility to bile salt damage. Biochim Biophys Acta 242:825–834, 1980Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Galle PR, Theilmann L, Raedsch R, Otto G, Stiehl A: Ursodeoxycholate reduces hepatotoxicity of bile salts in primary human hepatocytes. Hepatology 12:486–491, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Roehrkasse R, Fromm H, Malavolta M, Tunuguntla A, Ceryak S: Gallstone dissolution treatment with a combination of chenodeoxycholic and ursodeoxycholic acid. Studies of safety, efficacy and effects on the bile lithogenicity, bile acid pool, and serum lipids. Dig Dis Sci 31:1032–1340, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Y. Sung
    • 2
    • 1
  • E. A. Shaffer
    • 2
    • 1
  • K. Lam
    • 2
    • 1
  • I. Rususka
    • 2
    • 1
  • J. W. Costerton
    • 2
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medicine and Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of CalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Department of Medicine, Prince of Wales HospitalThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations