Differential adhesion, activity, and carbohydrate: Protein ratios ofPseudomonas atlantica monocultures attaching to stainless steel in a linear shear gradient
- 58 Downloads
Biofilm formation on metallic surfaces in marine and freshwater environments often precedes corrosion and other biofouling conditions. Attachment is mediated by such environmental factors as the presence of surface conditioning films, fluid dynamics, bulk-phase nutrient levels, and surface chemistry. In this study, we utilized a Fowler Cell Adhesion Measurement Module to demonstrate that the changes in cellular concentration and composition of a monoculture ofPseudomonas atlantica biofilms on stainless steel were a function of the applied shear force. At shear forces in the range of 3–10 dynes cm−2 (1.0 liter min−1), attachment as measured by acridine orange direct microscopic counts was greatest at the higher shear forces.14C-Acetate uptake activity on the stainless steel surfaces increased with shear stress. Acetate incorporation ranged from 1×10−5 to 19×10−5μmol cm−2 between 0.15 and 30 dynes cm−2 for 30 min uptake periods. On a per cell basis, however, activity decreased with shear, indicating a shift in metabolism. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy revealed that protein and carbohydrate concentrations also increased with the applied shear. Increased biofilm C∶N ratios and total fatty acids were associated with the higher shear stresses. Neither radius of interaction nor biofilm age appeared to significantly influence the relationship between fluid shear and attachment and cellular composition ofP. atlantica biofilms in the range of 1–10 dynes cm−2.
KeywordsShear Force Acridine Acridine Orange Applied Shear Stainless Steel Surface
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 5.Characklis WG, Cooksey KE (1983) Biofilms and microbial fouling. Adv Appl Microbiol 29:93–138Google Scholar
- 6.Costerton JW, Cheng K-J (1985) Phenomena of bacterial adhesion. In: Savage DC, Fletcher M (eds) Bacterial adhesion: Mechanisms and physiological significance. Plenum Press, NewYork, pp 3–43Google Scholar
- 7.Costerton JW, Lashen ES (1984) Influence of biofilm on efficacy of biocides on corrosion-causing bacteria. Materials Performance 23(2):13–17Google Scholar
- 10.Fowler HW, McKay AJ (1980) The measurement of microbial adhesion. In: Berkeley RCW, Lynch JM, Melling J, Rutter PR, Vincent B (eds) Microbial adhesion to surfaces. Harwood, Chichester, pp 143–161Google Scholar
- 11.Marmur A, Ruckenstein E (1986) Gravity and cell adhesion. J Coll Int Sci 114:261–266Google Scholar
- 12.Marshall KC (1988) Adhesion and growth of bacteria at surfaces in oligotrophic environments. Can J Microbiol 34:503–506Google Scholar
- 16.Rosenberg M, Kjelleberg S (1986) Hydrophobic interactions: Role in bacterial adhesion. In: Marshall KC (ed) Advances in microbial ecology, vol 9. Plenum Press, New York, pp 353–393Google Scholar
- 18.Savage DC (1980) Adherence of normal flora to mucosal surfaces. In: Beachey EH (ed) Bacterial adherence, receptors and recognition, vol 6. Chapman and Hill, London, pp 33–59Google Scholar
- 21.van Loosdrecht MCM, Lyklema J, Norde W, Zehnder AJB (1989) Bacterial adhesion: A physiochemical approach. Microb Ecol 17:1–15Google Scholar
- 24.Young LY, Mitchell R (1972) The role of chemotactic response to primary microbial film formation. In: Acker RF (ed) Proc Third Int Congr Mar Corrosion Fouling. Northwestern Univ Press, Evanston, IL, pp 617–624Google Scholar
- 25.Zobell CE (1943) The effect of solid surfaces on bacterial activity. J Bacteriol 46:39–56.Google Scholar