BioChip Journal

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 282–288 | Cite as

An in vitro microfluidic gradient generator platform for antimicrobial testing

Original Article


Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (MRSP) biofilm-related infections are currently a leading concern for veterinary hospitals, as these types of infections are highly resistant to assaults by both the immune system and antimicrobial therapies, impeding their clearance. Research suggests that fosfomycin, a low molecular weight bactericidal antibiotic, has the potential to effectively penetrate and subsequently disrupt/destroy biofilm layers. Our study utilized a fabricated microfluidic gradient generator platform as an assay to perform a quantitative assessment of varying concentrations of a selected antimicrobial agent against MRSP biofilm formed under physiologically relevant conditions. Our results verified the feasibility of using a microfluidic device for rapid antimicrobial testing against biofilms, which was successful in demonstrating that fosfomycin is an effective agent that can disrupt established MRSP biofilms. Additionally, Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) analysis revealed that the cell walls of MRSP cells within the biofilms were disrupted by fosfomycin treatment, which speaks to the mechanism of action and the antimicrobial efficacy of this agent. This study provides compelling evident that microfluidic device and nanoscale AFM imaging-based investigations of biofilms can aid in the study of biofilm-related infectious diseases.


Microfluidics Staphylococcus pseudintermedius Fosfomycin Biofilms Microenvironment AFM 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Weese, J.S. A review of multidrug resistant surgical site infections. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 21, 1– (2008).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vasseur, P.B., Levy, J., Dowd, E. & Eliot, J. Surgical wound infection rates in dogs and cats data from a teaching hospital. Vet. Surg. 17, 60–4 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nicholson, M., Beal, M., Shofer, F. & Brown, D.C. Epidemiologic evaluation of postoperative wound infection in clean-contaminated wounds: A retrospective study of 239 dogs and cats. Vet. Surg. 31, 577–81 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eugster, S., Schawalder, P., Gaschen, F. & Boerlin, P. A prospective study of postoperative surgical site infections in dogs and cats. Vet. Surg. 33, 542–50 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parra-Ruiz, J., Vidaillac, C., Rose, W.E. & Rybak, M.J. Activities of high-dose daptomycin, vancomycin, and moxifloxacin alone or in combination with clarithromycin or rifampin in a novel in vitro model of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54, 4329–334 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klapper, I., Rupp, C.J., Cargo, R., Purvedorj, B. & Stoodley, P. Viscoelastic fluid description of bacterial biofilm material properties. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 80, 289–96 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fujimura, S. et al. Combined efficacy of clarithromycin plus cefazolin or vancomycin against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms formed on titanium medical devices. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 32, 481–84 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gortel, K. et al. Methicillin resistance among staphylococci isolated from dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 60, 1526–530 (1999).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vengust, M., Anderson, M.E., Rousseau, J. & Weese, J.S. Methicillin-resistant staphylococcal colonization in clinically normal dogs and horses in the community. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 43, 602–06 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weese, J.S. A review of post-operative infections in veterinary orthopaedic surgery. Vet. Comp. Orthop. Traumatol. 21, 99–05 (2008).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chrobak, D. et al. Molecular characterization of Staphylococcus pseudintermedius strains isolated from clinical samples of animal origin. Folia Microbiol. (Praha) 56, 415–22 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mikuniya, T. et al. Treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms with a combination of fluoroquinolones and fosfomycin in a rat urinary tract infection model. J. Infect. Chemother. 13, 285–90 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kusachi, S., Nagao, J., Yoshihisa, S. & Watanabe, M. Antibiotic time-lag combination therapy with fosfomycin for postoperative intra-abdominal abcesses. J. Infect. Chemother. 17, 91–6 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumon, H., Ono, N., Iida, M. & Nickel, J.C. Combination effect of fosfoymcin and ofloxacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa growing in a biofilm. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 39, 1038–044 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kumar, A. et al. Microscale confinement features can affect biofilm formation. Microfluid Nanofluidi. 14, 895–02 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dicicco, M., Neethirajan, S., Weese, J.S. & Singh, A. In vitro synergism of fosfomycin and clarithromycin antimicrobials against methicillin-resistant. Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. BMC Microbiol. 16473671 91113294 (2014).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Purevdorj, B., Costerton, J.W. & Stoodley, P. Influence of hydrodynamics and cell signaling on the structure and behavior of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68, 4457–464 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weaver, W.M., Dharmaraja, S., Milisavljevic, V. & Di Carlo, D. The effects of shear stress on isolated receptor-ligand interactions of Staphylococcus epidermidis and human plasma fibrinogen using molecularly patterned microfluidics. Lab Chip 11, 883–89 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin, F. & Saadi, W. Generation of dynamic temporal and spatial concentration gradient using microfluidic devices. Lab Chip 4, 164–67 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neethirajan, S. & DiCicco, M. Atomic force microscopy study of the antibacterial effect of fosfomycin on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. App. Nanosci. doi:10.1007/s13204-013-0256-3 (2013).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim, S.P. et al. In situ monitoring of antibiotic susceptibility of bacterial biofilms in a microfluidic device. Lab Chip 10, 3296–299 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Osland, A.M., Vestby, L.K., Fanuelsen, H., Slettemeas, J.S. & Sunde, M. Clonal diversity and biofilm-forming ability of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 67, 841–48 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jenks, P.S., Laurent, M., Mcquarry, S. & Watkins, R. Clinical and economic burden of surgical site infection (SSI) and predicted financial consequences of elimination of SSI from an English hospital. J. Hospital. Infection. 86, 24–3 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stewart, P.S. Convection around biofilms. Biofouling: J. Bioadhe. Biofilm Res. 28, 187–98 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Toh, A.G.G., Wang, Z.P., Yang, C. & Nguyen, N. Engineering microfluidic concentration gradient generators for biological applications. Microfluid. Nanofluid. 16, 1018 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Selimovic, S. et al. Generating nonlinear concentration gradients in microfluidic devices for cell studies. Anal. Chem. 83, 2020–028 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richter, L. et al. Monitoring cellular stress repsonses to nanoparticles using a lab-on-a-chip. Lab Chip. 11, 2551–560 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nauman, E.A. et al. Novel quantitative biosystem for modeling physiological fluid shear stress on cells. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 699–05 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Beeson, J.G. et al. Adhesion of plasmodium falciparum- infected erythrocytes to hyaluronic acid in placental malaria. Nat. Med. 6, 86–0 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ceri, H. et al. The Calgary Biofilm Device: new technology for rapid determination of antibiotic susceptibilities of bacterial biofilms. J. Clin. Microbiol. 37, 1771–776 (1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean BioChip Society and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BioNano Laboratory, School of EngineeringUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations