Effects of Contact Time, Pressure, Percent Relative Humidity (%RH), and Material Type on Listeria Biofilm Adhesive Strength at a Cellular Level Using Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM)
- 264 Downloads
- 9 Citations
Abstract
Whereas the transfer of Listeria from surfaces to foods and vice versa has been well documented, little is known about the mechanism of bacterial transfer. The objective of this work is to gain a better understanding of the forces involved in listerial biofilms adhesion using atomic force microscopy (AFM). L. monocytogenes Scott A was grown as biofilms on stainless steel surfaces by inoculating stainless steel coupons with Listeria and incubating the coupons for 48 h at 32 °C with a diluted 1:20 tryptic soy broth. After growth, biofilms were equilibrated over saturated salt solutions at a constant relative humidity (%RH) before measurement of adhesion forces using AFM. The effects of contact time, loading force, and biofilm relative humidity (%RH) suggested that neither contact time, loading force nor biofilm %RH had a significant effect on biofilm adhesiveness at a cellular level (P > 0.05). In a second set of experiments, the influence of material type on biofilm adhesiveness was evaluated using two different colloidal probes (SiO2 and polyethylene). Results showed that the maximum pull-off force and retraction work needed to retract the cantilever for glass (−85.42 nN and 1.610−15 J, respectively) were significantly lower than those of polyethylene (−113.38 nN and 2.7 × 10–15 J, respectively; P < 0.001). The results of this study suggest that Listeria biofilms adhere more strongly to hydrophobic surfaces than hydrophilic surfaces when measured at a cellular level. These results provide important insights that could lead to new ways to remediate and avoid listerial biofilm formation in the food industry.
Keywords
Listeria monocytogenes AFM Biofilms Colloidal probeNotes
Acknowledgment
This research was funded by USDA National Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2003-35201-13549. The authors want to thank Dr. J. Weiss for his lively discussion and help writing this manuscript, Eric Strom for assistance with AFM testing and Trampas Tenbroek for his assistance with Matlab programming for calculation of forces and total work.
References
- 1.G. Midelet, B. Carpentier, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68, 4015 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.G. Midelet, A. Kobilinsky, B. Carpentier, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 2313 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.A. Rodriguez, W.R. Autio, L.A. McLandsborough, J. Food Prot. 70, 1423 (2007)Google Scholar
- 4.A. Rodriguez, W.R. Autio, L.A. McLandsborough, J. Food Prot. 70, 2480 (2007)Google Scholar
- 5.A. Rodriguez, L.A. McLandsborough, J. Food Prot. 70, 600 (2007)Google Scholar
- 6.K.L. Vorst, E.C.D. Todd, E.T. Ryser, J. Food Prot. 69, 619 (2006)Google Scholar
- 7.K.L. Vorst, E.D. Todd, E. Ryser, J. Food Prot. 69, 2939 (2006)Google Scholar
- 8.G. Binning, C.F. Quate, C. Gerber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 930 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.J.W. Arnold, G.W. Bailey, Poultry Sci. 79, 1839 (2000)Google Scholar
- 10.J.W. Arnold, D.H. Boothe, O. Suzuki et al., J. Microsc. (Oxford) 216, 215 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.R.D. Boyd, D. Cole, D.L. Rowe et al., J. Food Prot. 64, 87 (2001)Google Scholar
- 12.E. Medilanski, K. Kaufmann, L.Y. Wick et al., Biofouling 18, 193 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.J. Verran, D.L. Rowe, R.D. Boyd, J. Food Prot. 64, 1183 (2001)Google Scholar
- 14.M.A. Beckmann, S. Venkataraman, M.J. Doktycz et al., J. Ultramic. 106, 695 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.I.B. Beech, J.R. Smith, A.A. Steele et al., Colloids Surf., B Biointerfaces 23, 231 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.A.V. Bolshakova, O.I. Kiselyova, I.V. Yaminsky, Biotechnol. Prog. 20, 1615 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.A.E. Pelling, Y.N. Li, W.Y. Shi et al., Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 102, 6484 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.K.A. Whitehead, D. Rogers, J. Colligon et al., Colloids Surf., B Biointerfaces 51, 44 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.M.E. Nunez, M.O. Martin, P.H. Chan et al., Environ. Microbiol. Methods Enzym. 397, 256 (2005)Google Scholar
- 20.S. Biggs, R.G. Cain, R.R. Dagastine et al., J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 16, 869 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.R.J. Emerson, C.T.A. Ad. Appl. Microbiol. 70, 6012 (2004)Google Scholar
- 22.X. Li, B.E. Logan, Langmuir 20, 4720 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Y.-L. Ong, A. Razatos, G. Georgiou et al., Langmuir. 15, 2719 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.R. Yongsunthon, S.K. Lower, Ad. Appl. Microbiol. 58, 97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Y.F. Dufrene, C.J. Paert, H.C.Van der Mei, et al., Ultramicroscopy. 70, 113 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.A. Rodriguez, W.R. Autio, L.A. McLandsborough, J. Food Prot. 71, 170 (2008)Google Scholar
- 27.D. Djordjevic, A. Wiedmann, L.A. McLandsborough, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68, 2950 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.M.M.K. Tordonese, Micromachining Imaging. 3009, 53 (1997)Google Scholar
- 29.G.C. Kumar, S.K. Anand, Int. J. Food Microbiol. 42, 9 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.L. McLandsborough, A. Rodriguez, D. Perez-Conesa et al., J. Food Biophysics. 1, 94 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.H.P. Fang, K.Y. Chan, L.C. Xu, J. Microbiol. Methods 40, 89 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.L.J. Rose, R. Donlan, S.N. Banerjee et al., Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64, 2166 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.R.M. Donlan, J.W. Costerton, Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 15, 167 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.G.A. O’Toole, H.B. Kaplan, R. Kolter, Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 54, 49 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.J. Nalaskowski, S. Verramasuneni, J. Hupka et al., J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 13, 1519 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.W.A. Ducker, T.J. Senden, Langmuir. 8, 1831 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.R. Yongsunthon, S.K. Lower, J. Electron Spectroscopy Phenom. 150, 228 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar