Biofilm Formation by Avian Pathogenic Escherichia coli is Not Related to In Vivo Pathogenicity
- 166 Downloads
Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) is one of the pathogens that most concerns the poultry industry worldwide due to the economic losses it can cause. APEC persistence and survival, both in the environment and in the host, may be a consequence of biofilm-producing capabilities. The aim of this study was to evaluate APEC strains’ biofilm production and its relationship to in vivo pathogenicity. Two hundred thirty-eight APEC isolates from three different origins (broiler bedding material, cellulite lesions, and respiratory diseases) were selected. The in vivo pathogenicity index (PI) was determined. Biofilm formation was evaluated using a microplate assay with analysis of colony morphology in Congo Red agar in order to detect the phenotypic expression of curli fimbriae and cellulose. Regarding biofilm production, it was observed that 55.8% of the strains produced biofilms. In the morphological test, 88.2% of the isolates expressed one or both components at one of the temperatures at least, and 11.8% of the isolates did not express curli or cellulose. Cellulose production was significantly higher at 25 °C. On the other hand, curli production was significantly higher at 37 °C. The study data indicate that there is no association between biofilm production and in vivo pathogenicity.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
- 2.Nolan LK, Barnes HJ, Vaillancourt JP, Abdul-Aziz T (2013) Colibacillosis. In: Swaine DE (ed) Diseases of poultry, 13th edn. University Press, Ames, pp 751–805Google Scholar
- 4.Bauchart P, Germon P, Brée A, Oswald E, Hacker J, Dobrindt U (2010) Pathogenomic comparison of human extraintestinal and avian pathogenic Escherichia coli—search for factors involved in host specificity or zoonotic potential. Microb Pathog 49:105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2010.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Ferreira AJ, Knöbl T (2009) Colibacilose aviária. In: Berchieri A Jr et al (ed) Doença das aves, 2nd edn. FACTA, Campinas, pp 197–205Google Scholar
- 9.Giaouris E, Heir E, Hébraud M, Chorianopoulos N, Langsrud S, Møretrø T, Habimana O, Desvaux M, Renier S, Nychas GJ (2014) Attachment and biofilm formation by foodborne bacteria in meat processing environments: causes, implications, role of bacterial interactions and control by alternative novel methods. Meat Sci 97:298–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.05.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Rodrigues LB, Dos Santos LR, Tagliari VZ, Rizzo NN, Trenhago G, de Oliveira AP, Goetz F, do Nascimento VP (2010) Quantification of biofilm production on polystyrene by Listeria, Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus isolated from a poultry slaughterhouse. Braz J Microbiol 41:1082–1085. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-838220100004000029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Azevedo NF, Cerca N (2012) Matriz dos biofilmes: o truque para sobreviver nas mais hostis condições ambientais. In: Azevedo NF, Cerca N (eds) Biofilmes: na Saúde, no Ambiente, na Indústria, 1st edn. Publindústria, Porto, pp 23–25Google Scholar
- 13.Gião MS, Vieira MJ, Azevedo NF (2012) Biofilmes em condutas de água potável. In: Azevedo NF, Cerca N (eds) Biofilmes: na Saúde, no Ambiente, na Indústria, 1st edn. Publindústria, Porto, pp 163–171Google Scholar
- 16.Beloin C, Roux A, Ghigo JM (2008) Escherichia coli biofilms. In: Romeo T (ed) Bacterial biofilms, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 250–279Google Scholar
- 23.Souza GF, Rocha SLS, Furian TQ, Borges KA, Salle FO, Moraes LB, Moraes HLS, Salle CTP (2016) Classification of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli by a novel pathogenicity index based on an animal model. Acta Sci Vet 44:1–6Google Scholar
- 24.Lee MD, Nolan LK, Dufour-Zavala L (2008) Colibacillosis. In: Dufour-Zavala L (ed) A laboratory manual for the isolation, identification and characterization of avian pathogens, 5th edn. American Association of Avian Pathologists, Georgia, pp 10–11Google Scholar
- 25.Stepanović S, Vuković D, Hola V, Di Bonaventura G, Djukić S, Cirković I, Ruzicka F (2007) Quantification of biofilm in microtiter plates: overview of testing conditions and practical recommendations for assessment of biofilm production by staphylococci. APMIS 115:891–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0463.2007.apm_630.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Borges KA, Furian TQ, Souza SN, Menezes R, Lima DA, Fortes FBB, Salle CTP, Moraes HLS, Nascimento VP (2018) Biofilm formation by Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium isolated from avian sources is partially related with their in vivo pathogenicity. Microb Pathog 118:238–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2018.03.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Römling U, Bian Z, Hammar M, Sierralta WD, Normark S (1998) Curli fibers are highly conserved between Salmonella Typhimurium and Escherichia coli with respect to operon structure and regulation. J Bacteriol 180:722–731Google Scholar
- 38.Diedrich LN (2017) Avaliação da relação dos grupos filogenéticos com a formação de biofilme em amostras de Escherichia coli uropatogênica (UPEC). Dissertation, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulGoogle Scholar
- 39.Emmery BD, Furian TQ, Pilatti RM, Chitolina GZ, Borges KA, Salle CTP, Moraes HLS (2017) Evaluation of the biofilm formation capacity of Pasteurella multocida strains isolated from cases of fowl cholera and swine lungs and its relationship with pathogenicity. Pesq Vet Bras 37:1041–1048. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-736x2017001000001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar