Advertisement

Improved Diagnosis of Biofilm Infections Using Various Molecular Methods

  • Trine Rolighed Thomsen
  • Yijuan Xu
  • Jan Lorenzen
  • Per Halkjær Nielsen
  • Henrik Carl Schønheyder
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series on Biofilms book series (BIOFILMS, volume 7)

Abstract

Traditional culture-dependent methods and a number of culture-independent molecular methods including 16S rRNA gene polymerase chain reaction, construction of clone libraries, sequencing, phylogeny, fingerprinting, fluorescence in situ hybridization and quantitative PCR were used to describe the microbial composition of two types of biofilm-related infections, namely chronic venous leg ulcers and prosthetic joint infections. Multiple tissue biopsies were taken from each chronic wound, and different specimen types (joint fluid, tissue biopsy, bone biopsy and prosthesis scraping or sonication) were collected from prosthetic joint patients. The obtained results indicate that in these two types of infections the bacterial composition and yield may vary depending on the position and type of samples used for analysis. It emphasizes the need for multiple samplings in order to achieve better diagnosis and treatment of these biofilm-related infections. The most complete picture of microbial composition of biofilms is probably accomplished when several culture and culture-independent methods are used in parallel to characterize the pathogens.

Keywords

Clone Library Molecular Technique Peptide Nucleic Acid Prosthetic Joint Infection qPCR Testing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

Thanks to our colleagues in the Danish cross-disciplinary Prosthesis: Reduction of Infection and Pain consortium. The study was supported by a grant from the Danish Agency of Science and Technology (no. 09-052174).

Thomas Bjarnsholt, Bo Jørgensen and Klaus Kirketerp-Møller are acknowledged for great collaboration in the area of chronic ulcers. The Danish Technical Research Council supported this study under the innovation consortia “BIOMED”.

Martin Aasholm, Vibeke Rudkjøbing, Susanne Bielidt and Masumeh Chavoshi are thanked for their valuable technical assistance.

References

  1. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA et al (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 25:3389–3402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amann RI, Krumholz L, Stahl DA (1990) Fluorescent-oligonucleotide probing of whole cells for determinative, phylogenetic, and environmental studies in microbiology. J Bacteriol 172:762–770PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen A, Hill KE, Stephens P et al (2007) Bacterial profiling using skin grafting, standard culture and molecular bacteriological methods. J Wound Care 16:171–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Birch L, Dawson CE, Cornett JH, Keer JT (2001) A comparison of nucleic acid amplification techniques for the assessment of bacterial viability. Lett Appl Microbiol 33:296–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burmølle M, Thomsen TR, Fazli M et al (2010) Biofilms in chronic infections – a matter of opportunity – monospecies biofilms in multispecies infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 59:324–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies CE, Hill KE, Wilson MJ et al (2004) Use of 16S ribosomal DNA PCR and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis for analysis of the microfloras of healing and nonhealing chronic venous leg ulcers. J Clin Microbiol 42:3549–3557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drancourt M, Bollet C, Carlioz A et al (2000) 16S ribosomal DNA sequence analysis of a large collection of environmental and clinical unidentifiable bacterial isolates. J Clin Microbiol 38:3623–3630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fazli M, Bjarnsholt T, Kirketerp-Moller K, Jorgensen B, Andersen A, Krogfelt K et al (2009) Nonrandom distribution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in chronic wounds. J Clin Microbiol 47:4084–4089PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hellyer TJ, DesJardin LE, Teixeira L et al (1999) Detection of viable mycobacterium tuberculosis by reverse transcriptase-strand displacement amplification of mRNA. J Clin Microbiol 37:518–523PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Horz HP, Scheer S, Huenger F, Vianna ME, Conrads G (2008) Selective isolation of bacteria DNA from human clinical specimens. J Microbiol Methods 72:98–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Horz HP, Scheer S, Vianna ME, Conrads G (2010) New methods for selective isolation of bacterial DNA from human clinical specimens. Anaerobe 16:47–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kamme C, Lindberg L (1981) Aerobic and anaerobic bacteria in deep infections after total hip arthroplasty: differential diagnosis between infectious and non-infectious loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 154:201–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirketerp-Møller K, Jensen PØ, Fazli M et al (2008) The distribution, organization and ecology of bacteria in chronic wounds. J Clin Microbiol 46:2717–2722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kjellerup B, Thomsen TR, Nielsen JL et al (2005) Microbial diversity in biofilms from corroding heating systems. Biofouling 21:19–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klein PG, Juneja VK (1997) Sensitive detection of viable Listeria monocytogenes by reverse transcription-PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:4441–4448PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kobayashi H, Oethinger M, Tuohy MJ et al (2009) Limiting false-positive polymerase chain reaction results: detection of DNA and mRNA to differentiate viable from dead bacteria. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 64:445–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kommedal O, Lekang K et al (2011) Characterization of polybacterial clinical samples using a set of group-specific broad-range primers targeting the 16S rRNA gene followed by DNA sequencing and RipSeq analysis. J Med Microbiol 60:927–936PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manz W, Amann R, Ludwig W, Wagner M, Schleifer KH (1992) Phylogenetic oligodeoxynucleotide probes for the major subclasses of proteobacteria: problems and solutions. Syst Appl Microbiol 15:593–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mikkelsen DB, Pedersen C, Højbjerg T, Schønheyder HC (2006) Culture of multiple perioperative biopsies and diagnosis of infected knee arthroplasties. APMIS 114:449–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Muyzer G, De Waal EC, Uitterlinden AG (1993) Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:695–700PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. PRIS website. https://www.knee.dk/groups/grp_login.php. Accessed Aug 2011
  22. Sheridan GE, Masters CI, Shallcross JA, MacKey BM (1998) Detection of mRNA by reverse transcription-PCR as an indicator of viability in Escherichia coli cells. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:1313–1318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sheridan GE, Szabo EA, Mackey BM (1999) Effect of post-treatment holding conditions on detection of tufA mRNA in ethanol-treated Escherichia coli: implications for RT-PCR-based indirect viability tests. Lett Appl Microbiol 29:375–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sung K, Hiett KL, Stern NJ (2005) Heat-treated Campylobacter spp. and mRNA stability as determined by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2:130–137. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2005.2.130 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thomsen TR, Aasholm MS, Rudkjøbing V et al (2010) The bacteriology of chronic venous leg ulcer examined by culture-independent molecular methods. Wound Repair Regen 18:38–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tzeneva VA, Heilig HG, van Vliet WA et al (2008) 16S rRNA targeted DGGE fingerprinting of microbial communities. Methods Mol Biol 410:335–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wolcott R, Gontcharova V, Sun Y, Dowd S (2009) Evaluation of the bacterial diversity among and within individual venous leg ulcers using bacterial tagencoded FLX and titanium amplicon pyrosequencing and metagenomic approaches. BMC Microbiol 9:226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yaron S, Matthews KR (2002) A reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of viable Escherichia coli O157:H7: investigation of specific target genes. J Appl Microbiol 92:633–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhao W, Yao S, Hsing IM (2006) A microsystem compatible strategy for viable Escherichia coli detection. Biosens Bioelectron 21:1163–1170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trine Rolighed Thomsen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yijuan Xu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jan Lorenzen
    • 2
  • Per Halkjær Nielsen
    • 1
  • Henrik Carl Schønheyder
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biotechnology, Chemistry, and Environmental EngineeringAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Life Science DivisionThe Danish Technological InstituteAarhusDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Microbiology, Aalborg HospitalAarhus University HospitalAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations