To the Editor,
Examining microbial biofilms in orthopaedic infections can be difficult because biofilms require robust laboratory methods that allow for accurate diagnoses and appropriate treatment options [1, 5, 8].
Biofilms are complex biological structures dependent on environmental conditions. For those reasons, effective study of biofilms—defined as research that will emulate in vivo conditions—necessarily will involve the evaluation of many different pathogenic bacteria under a variety of experimental conditions. Standardized biofilm methods require all strains of pathogenic bacteria that work in differential local environments [9]. Is this possible?
As bacteria grows in biofilm, it utilizes genes stored within extracellular DNA (eDNA) that are freely available in the biofilm matrix. Additionally, every environmental change influences which bacterial genes are activated or deactivated [4]; this process, called epigenetics, allows the same bacterial genome to be environmentally adaptable [3].
When exposed to antimicrobial substances, bacteria in biofilms are less vulnerable than planktonic bacterial cells. Many in vitro studies use monospecies biofilms produced by staphylococci and Pseudomonas spp, but other bacteria should be considered including Propionibacterium acnes, an emergent pathogen of prosthetic joint infection [6, 7]. Additionally, there is a possibility that multiple bacteria are involved in an in-vivo biofilm infection. Thus, we need a common trait to diagnose and combat bacteria in a biofilm community. As in our study, eDNA is present in all experimental bacterial biofilms [10, 11].
eDNA in clinical settings is less-well understood [6]. Vorkapic and colleagues [10] presented the multifaceted roles of extracellular DNA, as mentioned in your CORR Insights®, in bacterial physiology. For example, eDNA is a nutrition source, which means the degradation of eDNA destabilizes the biofilm and also serves as deprivation of nutrients in important life cycles of bacteria [2, 10]. Therefore, eDNA could be used to combat biofilm-associated infections.
In clinical research, different models reflecting clinical biofilm conditions can provide insight into the complexities of biofilm biology. Models can feature the different characteristics and stages of the in vivo biofilms and the environmental factors, such as architecture of the surroundings, nutrition, temperature, and perhaps others.
However, for clinical diagnosis, robust and well-defined tests with well-known test properties (such as sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, and negative-predictive value) are needed to give comparable results for clinical strategies. Therefore, future in vitro and clinical studies should include reproducible methods, clearly defined case definitions, and end-points that can contribute to the understanding, diagnosis, and improved clinical outcomes of orthopaedic implant infections.
References
Azeredo J, Azevedo NF, Briandet R, Cerca N, Coenye T, Costa AR, Desvaux M, Di Bonaventura G, Hebraud M, Jaglic Z, Kacaniova M, Knochel S, Lourenco A, Mergulhao F, Meyer RL, Nychas G, Simoes M, Tresse O, Sternberg C. Critical review on biofilm methods. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2017;43:313–351.
Beaman TC, Hitchins AD, Ochi K, Vasantha N, Endo T, Freese E. Specificity and control of uptake of purines and other compounds in Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol. 1983;156:1107–1117.
Bierne H, Hamon M, Cossart P. Epigenetics and bacterial infections. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2012;2:a010272.
Casadesus J, Low DA. Programmed heterogeneity: Epigenetic mechanisms in bacteria. J Biol Chem. 2013;288:13929–13935.
Dibartola AC, Swearingen MC, Granger JF, Stoodley P, Dusane DH. Biofilms in orthopedic infections: A review of laboratory methods. APMIS. 2017;125:418–428.
Dusane DH. CORR Insights(R): Does extracellular DNA production vary in staphylococcal biofilms isolated from infected implants versus controls? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:2114–2116.
Kanafani ZA, Sexton DJ, Pien BC, Varkey J, Basmania C, Kaye KS. Postoperative joint infections due to Propionibacterium species: A case-control study. Clin Infec Dis. 2009;49:1083–1085.
Malone M, Goeres DM, Gosbell I, Vickery K, Jensen S, Stoodley P. Approaches to biofilm-associated infections: The need for standardized and relevant biofilm methods for clinical applications. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2017;15:147–156.
Roberts AE, Kragh KN, Bjarnsholt T, Diggle SP. The limitations of in vitro experimentation in understanding biofilms and chronic infection. J Mol Biol. 2015;427:3646–3661.
Vorkapic D, Pressler K, Schild S. Multifaceted roles of extracellular DNA in bacterial physiology. Curr Genet. 2016;62:71–79.
Zatorska B, Groger M, Moser D, Diab-Elschahawi M, Lusignani LS, Presterl E. Does extracellular DNA production vary in staphylococcal biofilms isolated from infected implants versus controls? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:2105–2113.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
(RE: Dusane DH. CORR Insights®: Does extracellular DNA production vary in staphylococcal biofilms isolated from infected implants versus controls? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:2114–2116).
The author certifies that neither they, nor any members of their immediate families, have any commercial associations (such as consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.
All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.
The opinions expressed are those of the writers, and do not reflect the opinion or policy of CORR ® or The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons®.
About this article
Cite this article
Zatorska, B., Presterl, E. Letter to the Editor: CORR Insights®: Does Extracellular DNA Production Vary in Staphylococcal Biofilms Isolated From Infected Implants Versus Controls?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475, 3116–3117 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5509-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5509-0