Effect of biomaterials hydrophobicity and roughness on biofilm development
Most hospitalized patients are carriers of biomedical devices. Infections associated with these devices cause great morbidity and mortality, especially in patients in intensive care units. Numerous strategies have been designed to prevent biofilm development on biodevices. However, biofilm formation is a complex process not fully clarified. In the current study, roughness and hydrophobicity of different biomaterials was analyzed to assess their influences on the biofilm formation of four leading etiological causes of healthcare-associated infections, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus epidermidis and Candida albicans, using a CDC biofilm reactor. Hydrophobic materials allowed the formation of more abundant and profuse biofilms. Roughness had effect on biofilm formation, but its influence was not significant when material hydrophobicity was considered.
We thank Dr Francisco José Álvarez and Dr Hector Lafuente from BioCruces Health Research Institute for their excellent technical assistance as well as Dr Ane Miren Zaldua from Leartiker Polymer R&D for the provision of the polyurethane disks. Our gratitude is extended to the Analytical and High-Resolution Microscopy Service of the Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (Sgiker) for the SEM imaging. ID-l-P received a scholarship from the ZabaldUz program (Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea). This work was supported by the Consejería de Educación, Universidades e Investigación of the Gobierno Vasco-Eusko Jaularitza [GIC 15/78 IT-990-16] and the Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea [UFI 11/25].
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
We have no specific conflicts of interest related to the current manuscript but declare the following: GQ has received research grants from Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Scynexis. GQ has served on advisory/consultant boards for Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and Scynexis, and he has received speaker honoraria from Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, and Scynexis. EE has received grant support from Astellas Pharma and Pfizer SLU. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed above.
- 1.Centers for disease control and prevention. hai and antibiotic use prevalence survey. 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/data/portal/index.html.
- 2.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Annual epidemiological report antimicrobial resistance andhealthcare-associated infections 2014. 2016. http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/antimicrobial-resistance-annual-epidemiological-report.pdf.
- 9.del Pozo JL, Rouse MS, Mandrekar JN, Sampedro MF, Steckelberg JM, Patel R. Effect of electrical current on the activities of antimicrobial agents against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:35–40.Google Scholar
- 11.ASTM E2562-17: Standard test method for quantification of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm grown with high shear and continuous flow using CDC biofilm reactor. 2017. https://www.astm.org/Standards/E2562.htm.
- 14.ISO 25178-2:2012. Geometrical product specifications (GPS)-surface texture: areal - Part 2: terms, definitions and surface texture parameters. 2012. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:25178:-2:ed-1:v1:en.
- 16.Krepsky N, Rocha Ferreira RB, Ferreira Nunes AP, Casado Lins UG, Costa e Silva Filho F, de Mattos-Guaraldi AL. et al. Cell surface hydrophobicity and slime production of Staphylococcus epidermidis Brazilian isolates. Curr Microbiol. 2003;46:280–6.Google Scholar
- 35.Andersen TE, Kingshott P, Palarasah Y, Benter M, Alei M, Kolmos HJ. A flow chamber assay for quantitative evaluation of bacterial surface colonization used to investigate the influence of temperature and surface hydrophilicity on the biofilm forming capacity of uropathogenic Escherichia coli. J Microbiol Methods. 2010;81:135–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar