Advertisement

Biotechnology Letters

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 477–485 | Cite as

Time to “go large” on biofilm research: advantages of an omics approach

  • Nuno F. AzevedoEmail author
  • Susana P. Lopes
  • Charles W. Keevil
  • Maria O. Pereira
  • Maria J. Vieira
Review

Abstract

In nature, the biofilm mode of life is of great importance in the cell cycle for many microorganisms. Perhaps because of biofilm complexity and variability, the characterization of a given microbial system, in terms of biofilm formation potential, structure and associated physiological activity, in a large-scale, standardized and systematic manner has been hindered by the absence of high-throughput methods. This outlook is now starting to change as new methods involving the utilization of microtiter-plates and automated spectrophotometry and microscopy systems are being developed to perform large-scale testing of microbial biofilms. Here, we evaluate if the time is ripe to start an integrated omics approach, i.e., the generation and interrogation of large datasets, to biofilms—“biofomics”. This omics approach would bring much needed insight into how biofilm formation ability is affected by a number of environmental, physiological and mutational factors and how these factors interplay between themselves in a standardized manner. This could then lead to the creation of a database where biofilm signatures are identified and interrogated. Nevertheless, and before embarking on such an enterprise, the selection of a versatile, robust, high-throughput biofilm growing device and of appropriate methods for biofilm analysis will have to be performed. Whether such device and analytical methods are already available, particularly for complex heterotrophic biofilms is, however, very debatable.

Keywords

Biofomics High-throughput Systems biology Biofilms Database 

References

  1. Arita M, Robert M, Tomita M (2005) All systems go: launching cell simulation fueled by integrated experimental biology data. Curr Opin Biotechnol 16:344–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo NF, Pacheco AP, Keevil CW, Vieira MJ (2006a) Adhesion of water stressed Helicobacter pylori to abiotic surfaces. J Appl Microbiol 101:718–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo NF, Pinto AR, Reis NM, Vieira MJ, Keevil CW (2006b) Shear stress, temperature, and inoculation concentration influence the adhesion of water-stressed Helicobacter pylori to stainless steel 304 and polypropylene. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:2936–2941PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baillie GS, Douglas LJ (1998) Effect of growth rate on resistance of Candida albicans biofilms to antifungal agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 42:1900–1905PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakke R, Trulear MG, Robinson JA, Characklis WG (1984) Activity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in biofilms—steady-state. Biotechnol Bioeng 26:1418–1424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Battin TJ, Kaplan LA, Newbold JD, Hansen CME (2003) Contributions of microbial biofilms to ecosystem processes in stream mesocosms. Nature 426:439–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bochner BR (2003) New technologies to assess genotype-phenotype relationships. Nat Rev Genet 4:309–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bragança SM, Azevedo NF, Simoes LC, Keevil CW, Vieira MJ (2007) Use of fluorescent in situ hybridisation for the visualisation of Helicobacter pylori in real drinking water biofilms. Water Sci Technol 55:387–393Google Scholar
  9. Burmolle M, Webb JS, Rao D, Hansen LH, Sorensen SJ, Kjelleberg S (2006) Enhanced biofilm formation and increased resistance to antimicrobial agents and bacterial invasion are caused by synergistic interactions in multispecies biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:3916–3923PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Camilli A, Bassler BL (2006) Bacterial small-molecule signaling pathways. Science 311:1113–1116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ceri H, Olson ME, Stremick C, Read RR, Morck D, Buret A (1999) The calgary biofilm device: new technology for rapid determination of antibiotic susceptibilities of bacterial biofilms. J Clin Microbiol 37:1771–1776PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cerqueira L, Azevedo NF, Almeida C, Jardim T, Keevil CW, Vieira MJ (2008) DNA mimics for the rapid identification of microorganisms by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Int J Mol Sci 9:1944–1960CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chavant P, Gaillard-Martinie B, Talon R, Hebraud M, Bernardi T (2007) A new device for rapid evaluation of biofilm formation potential by bacteria. J Microbiol Methods 68:605–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen SC, Zhao T, Gordon GJ, Murphy RF (2007) Automated image analysis of protein localization in budding yeast. Bioinformatics 23:I66–I71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christensen GD, Simpson WA, Younger JJ, Baddour LM, Barrett FF, Melton DM, Beachey EH (1985) Adherence of coagulase-negative staphylococci to plastic tissue culture plates: a quantitative model for the adherence of staphylococci to medical devices. J Clin Microbiol 22:996–1006PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans RC, Holmes CJ (1987) Effect of vancomycin hydrochloride on Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm associated with silicone elastomer. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 31:889–894PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Falush D, Bowden R (2006) Genome-wide association mapping in bacteria? Trends Microbiol 14:353–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feingold EA, Good PJ, Guyer MS, Kamholz S, Liefer L, Wetterstrand K, Collins FS, Gingeras TR, Kampa D, Sekinger EA, Cheng J, Hirsch H, Ghosh S, Zhu Z, Pate S et al (2004) The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia of DNA elements) project. Science 306:636–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ge H, Walhout AJM, Vidal M (2003) Integrating ‘omic’ information: a bridge between genomics and systems biology. Trends Genet 19:551–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert P, Allison DG, Evans DJ, Handley PS, Brown MR (1989) Growth rate control of adherent bacterial populations. Appl Environ Microbiol 55:1308–1311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall-Stoodley L, Stoodley P (2005) Biofilm formation and dispersal and the transmission of human pathogens. Trends Microbiol 13:7–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen SK, Rainey PB, Haagensen JAJ, Molin S (2007) Evolution of species interactions in a biofilm community. Nature 445:533–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hardie KR, Heurlier K (2008) Establishing bacterial communities by ‘word of mouth’: LuxS and autoinducer 2 in biofilm development. Nat Rev Microbiol 6:635–643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrison JJ, Turner RJ, Ceri H (2005) High-throughput metal susceptibility testing of microbial biofilms. BMC Microbiol 5:53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrison JJ, Ceri H, Yerly J, Stremick CA, Hu YP, Martinuzzi R, Turner RJ (2006) The use of microscopy and three-dimensional visualization to evaluate the structure of microbial biofilms cultivated in the Calgary Biofilm Device. Biol Proced Online 8:194–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrison JJ, Ceri H, Turner RJ (2007) Multimetal resistance and tolerance in microbial biofilms. Nat Rev Microbiol 5:928–938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Honraet K, Goetghebeur E, Nelis HJ (2005) Comparison of three assays for the quantification of Candida biomass in suspension and CDC reactor grown biofilms. J Microbiol Methods 63:287–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Joyce AR, Palsson BO (2006) The model organism as a system: integrating ‘omics’ data sets. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7:198–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keevil CW (2001) Continuous culture methods to study pathogens in biofilms. Methods Enzymol 334:104–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keevil CW (2003) Rapid detection of biofilms and adherent pathogens using scanning confocal laser microscopy and episcopic differential interference contrast microscopy. Water Sci Technol 47:105–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kharazmi A, Giwercman B, Hoiby N (1999) Robbins device in biofilm research. Biofilms 310:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kinniment SL, Wimpenny JWT, Adams D, Marsh PD (1996) The effect of chlorhexidine on defined, mixed culture oral biofilms grown in a novel model system. J Appl Bacteriol 81:120–125PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kolter R (2005) Surfacing views of biofilm biology. Trends Microbiol 13:1–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kolter R, Greenberg EP (2006) Microbial sciences: the superficial life of microbes. Nature 441:300–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liolios K, Tavernarakis N, Hugenholtz P, Kyrpides NC (2006) The genomes on line database (GOLD) v.2: a monitor of genome projects worldwide. Nucleic Acids Res 34:D332–D334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McBain AJ, Bartolo RG, Catrenich CE, Charbonneau D, Ledder RG, Gilbert P (2003) Effects of triclosan-containing rinse on the dynamics and antimicrobial susceptibility of in vitro plaque ecosystems. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 47:3531–3538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McLean RJC, Whiteley M, Stickler DJ, Fuqua WC (1997) Evidence of autoinducer activity in naturally occurring biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Lett 154:259–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Merod RT, Warren JE, McCaslin H, Wuertz S (2007) Toward automated analysis of biofilm architecture: bias caused by extraneous confocal laser scanning microscopy images. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:4922–4930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nickel JC, Wright JB, Ruseska I, Marrie TJ, Whitfield C, Costerton JW (1985) Antibiotic-resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonizing a urinary catheter in vitro. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 4:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parsek MR, Greenberg EP (2005) Sociomicrobiology: the connections between quorum sensing and biofilms. Trends Microbiol 13:27–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peeters E, Nelis HJ, Coenye T (2008) Comparison of multiple methods for quantification of microbial biofilms grown in microtiter plates. J Microbiol Methods 72:157–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pepperkok R, Ellenberg J (2006) Innovation—high-throughput fluorescence microscopy for systems biology. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7:690–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pettit RK, Weber CA, Kean MJ, Hoffmann H, Pettit GR, Tan R, Franks KS, Horton ML (2005) Microplate alamar blue assay for Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm susceptibility testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:2612–2617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raes J, Bork P (2008) Molecular eco-systems biology: towards an understanding of community function. Nat Rev Microbiol 6:693–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ram RJ, VerBerkmoes NC, Thelen MP, Tyson GW, Baker BJ, Blake RCII, Shah M, Hettich RL, Banfield JF (2005) Community proteomics of a natural microbial biofilm. Science 308:1915–1920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Silverman AP, Kool ET (2007) Oligonucleotide probes for RNA-targeted fluorescence in situ hybridization. Adv Clin Chem 43 43:79–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stepanovic S, Vukovic D, Dakic I, Savic B, Svabic-Vlahovic M (2000) A modified microtiter-plate test for quantification of staphylococcal biofilm formation. J Microbiol Methods 40:175–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strevett KA, Chen G (2003) Microbial surface thermodynamics and applications. Res Microbiol 154:329–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tote K, Vanden Berghe D, Maes L, Cos P (2008) A new colorimetric microtitre model for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Lett Appl Microbiol 46:249–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tringe SG, von Mering C, Kobayashi A, Salamov AA, Chen K, Chang HW, Podar M, Short JM, Mathur EJ, Detter JC, Bork P, Hugenholtz P, Rubin EM (2005) Comparative metagenomics of microbial communities. Science 308:554–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilmes P, Remis JP, Hwang M, Auer M, Thelen MP, Banfield JF (2008) Natural acidophilic biofilm communities reflect distinct organismal and functional organization. ISME JGoogle Scholar
  52. Xavier JB, Foster KR (2007) Cooperation and conflict in microbial biofilms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:876–881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nuno F. Azevedo
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Susana P. Lopes
    • 1
  • Charles W. Keevil
    • 2
  • Maria O. Pereira
    • 1
  • Maria J. Vieira
    • 1
  1. 1.IBB, Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Centre of Biological EngineeringUniversidade do MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.Environmental Healthcare Unit, Microbiology Group, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations