Skip to main content

Relevance of Polymeric Matrix Enzymes During Biofilm Formation

Microbial Ecology volume 56, pages 427–436 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) contribute to biofilm stability and adhesion properties. The EPS matrix might also be a site for free extracellular enzyme activity; however, little is known about participation of enzyme activity in EPS during biofilm formation. In this study, we analyzed the activities of β-glucosidase, leu-aminopeptidase, and β-glucosaminidase during the colonization of artificial substrata (glass tiles) in a stream distinguishing enzyme activity in EPS matrix (matrix-enzymes) and total biofilm extracellular enzyme activity. The 1-h incubation of a biofilm suspension and cation-exchange resin followed by centrifugation seems appropriate to extract the matrix fraction (supernatant) and measure matrix enzymes (including free and linked to EPS) in freshwater biofilms, although there is a methodological limitation for using a biofilm suspension instead of an undisrupted biofilm. Total biofilm activities and matrix-enzyme activities showed similar capabilities to decompose organic matter compounds, with a greater capacity for peptide decomposition (leu-aminopeptidase) than for polysaccharides (β-glucosidase), and a low decomposition of chitin and peptidoglycan (β-glucosaminidase). Matrix-enzyme activity increased with colonization time, but more slowly than that of total enzyme activity. At the beginning of the colonization experiment (days 1–4) matrix enzymes accounted for 65–81% of total biofilm enzyme activity. Higher proportion of polysaccharides in EPS versus total biofilm, and higher matrix-enzyme activities per microgram of polysaccharides in the EPS were measured during the first 1–3 days of biofilm formation, indicating a high rate of enzyme release into the matrix during this period. Relative contribution of matrix-enzyme activities decreased as biofilm matures, but was maintained at 13–37% of total enzyme activity at the 42- to 49-day-old biofilm. These enzymes, retained and conserved in the EPS, may contribute to community metabolism. When analyzing extracellular enzymes in biofilms, the contribution of matrix enzymes must be considered, especially for young biofilms.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

References

  1. Ács E, Kiss KT (1993) Colonization processes of diatoms on artificial substrates in the River Danube near Budapest (Hungary). Hydrobiologia 269/270:307–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barranguet C, VanBeusekom SAM, Veuger B, Neu TR, Manders EMM, Sinke JJ, Admiraal W (2004) Studying undisturbed autotrophic biofilms: still a technical challenge. Aquat Microb Ecol 34:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Battin TJ, Kaplan LA, Newbold JD, Hansen CME (2003) Contributions of microbial biofilms to ecosystem processes in stream mesocosms. Nature 426:439–442

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bayles KW (2007) The biological role of death and lysis in biofilm development. Nature Rev Microbiol 5:721–726

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhaskar PV, Bhosle NB (2005) Microbial extracellular polymeric substances in marine biogeochemical processes. Curr Sci 88:45–53

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Blenkinsopp SA, Lock MA (1992) Impact of storm-flow on electron transport system activity in river biofilms. Freshw Biol 27:397–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chamier AC (1985) Cell-wall-degrading enzymes of aquatic hyphomycetes: a review. Bot J Linn Soc 91:67–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chróst RJ (1991) Microbial enzymes in aquatic environments. Springer, New York, 310 pp

    Google Scholar 

  9. Comte S, Guibaud G, Baudu M (2006) Relations between extraction protocols for activated sludge extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) and EPS complexation properties Part I. Comparison of the efficiency of eight EPS extraction methods. Enzyme Microb Technol 38:237–245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cooksey KE, Wigglesworth-Cooksey B (1995) Adhesion of bacteria and diatoms to surfaces in the sea: a review. Aquat Microb Ecol 9:87–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Costerton WJ, DeBeer D, Lewandowski Z (1994) Biofilms, the customized niche. J Bacteriol 176:2137–2142

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Costerton JW, Lewandowski Z, Caldwell DE, Korber DR, Lappin-Scott HM (1995) Microbial biofilms. Annu Rev Microbiol 49:711–745

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dubois M, Gilles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebers PA, Smith F (1956) Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem 28:350–356

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Francoeur SN, Wetzel RG, Neely RK (2001) New spatially explicit method for detecting extracellular protease activity in biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4329–4334

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Francoeur SN, Wetzel RG (2003) Regulation of periphytic leucine-aminopeptidase activity. Aquat Microb Ecol 31:249–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Freeman C, Lock MA (1992) Recalcitrant high-molecular-weight material, an inhibitor of microbial metabolism in river biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 58:2030–2033

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Freeman C, Lock MA (1995) The biofilm polysaccharide matrix: a buffer against changing organic substrate supply. Limnol Oceanogr 40:273–278

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Frølund B, Griebe T, Nielsen PH (1995) Enzymatic activity in the activated sludge floc matrix. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 43:755–761

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Frølund B, Palmgren R, Keiding K, Nielsen PH (1996) Extraction of extracellular polymers from activated sludge using a cation exchange resin. Water Res 30:1749–1758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hamilton WA (1987) Biofilms: microbial interactions and metabolic activities. In: Fletcher M, Gray TRG, Jones JG (eds) Ecology of microbial communities. Symposium 41. The Society for General Microbiology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 361–385

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hoppe HG (1983) Significance of exoenzymatic activities in the ecology of brackish water: measurement by means of methylumbelliferyl-substrates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 11:299–308

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kreft JU (2004) Biofilms promote altruism. Microbiology 150:2751–2760

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lock MA (1993) Attached microbial communities in rivers. In: Ford TE (ed) Aquatic microbiology: an ecological approach. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 113–138

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lock MA, Wallace RR, Costerton JW, Ventullo RM, Charlton SE (1984) River epilithon: toward a structural-functional model. Oikos 42:10–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Low CSF, White DC (1989) Regulation of external polymer production in benthic microbial communities. In: Cohen Y, Rosenberg E. (eds) Microbial Mats: physiological ecology of benthic microbial communities. American Society for Microbiologypp 228–238

  26. Marshall KC (1971) Mechanism of the initial events in the sorption of marine bacteria to surfaces. J Gen Microbiol 68:337–348

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Marshall KC (1992) Biofilms: an overview of bacterial adhesion, activity, and control at surfaces. ASM News 58:202–207

    Google Scholar 

  28. Neu TR, Lawrence JR (1997) Development and structure of microbial biofilms in river water studied by confocal laser scanning microscopy. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 24:11–25

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Neu TR, Swerhone GDW, Bockelmann U, Lawrence JR (2005) Effect of CNP on composition and structure of lotic biofilms as detected with lectin-specific glycoconjugates. Aquat Microb Ecol 38:283–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ramasamy P, Zhang X (2005) Effects of shear stress on the secretion of extracellular polymeric substances in biofilms. Water Sci Technol 52:217–223

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Romaní AM, Sabater S (1999) Effect of primary producers on the heterotrophic metabolism of a stream biofilm. Freshw Biol 41:729–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Romaní AM, Guasch H, Muñoz I, Ruana J, Vilalta E, Schwartz T, Emtiazi F, Sabater S (2004) Biofilm structure and function and possible implications for riverine DOC dynamics. Microb Ecol 47:316–328

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Romaní AM, Giorgi A, Acuña V, Sabater S (2004) The influence of substratum type and nutrient supply on biofilm organic matter utilization in streams. Limnol Oceanogr 49:1713–1721

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sabater S, Romaní AM (1996) Metabolic changes associated with biofilm formation in an undisturbed Mediterranean stream. Hydrobiology 335:107–113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Stoodley P, Wilson S, Hall-Stoodley L, Boyle JD, Lappin-Scott HM, Costerton JW (2001) Growth and detachment of cell clusters from mature mixed-species biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:5608–5613

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Thompson AJ, Sinsabaugh RL (2000) Matric and particulate phosphatase and aminopeptidase activity in limnetic biofilms. Aquat Microb Ecol 21:151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vrba J, Simek K, Nedoma J, Hartman P (1993) 4-Methylumbelliferyl-β-N-Acetylglucosaminide hydrolysis by a high-affinity enzyme, a putative marker of protozoan bacterivory. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:3091–3101

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Yallop ML, Paterson DM, Wellsbury P (2000) Interrelationships between rates of microbial production, exopolymer production, microbial biomass, and sediment stability in biofilms of intertidal sediments. Microb Ecol 39:116–127

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang X, Bishop PL (2003) Biodegradability of biofilm extracellular polymeric substances. Chemosphere 50:63–69

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Zippel B, Neu TR (2005) Growth and structure off phototrophic biofilms under controlled light conditions. Water Sci Technol 52:203–209

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by an Integrated Action Germany–Spain (project HA2004-0020) and the project CGL2005-06739-C02-02 from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education. Thanks to L. Proia for helping in the live/dead bacterial counting. We also thank the comments and suggestions from four anonymous reviewers on the first version of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Aquatic Ecology, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Girona, Campus de Montilivi, 17071, Girona, Spain

    Anna M. Romaní, Joan Artigas & Sergi Sabater

  2. Department of Environmental Microbiology, Institute for Technical Chemistry—Water Technology and Geotechnology, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, 76344, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany

    Katharina Fund, Thomas Schwartz & Ursula Obst

Authors
  1. Anna M. Romaní
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katharina Fund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joan Artigas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sergi Sabater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ursula Obst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna M. Romaní.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Romaní, A.M., Fund, K., Artigas, J. et al. Relevance of Polymeric Matrix Enzymes During Biofilm Formation. Microb Ecol 56, 427–436 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-007-9361-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-007-9361-8

Keywords

  • Extracellular Polymeric Substance
  • Extracellular Enzyme Activity
  • Polysaccharide Content
  • Total Enzyme Activity
  • Matrix Enzyme