| Literature DB >> 19460161 |
Marc M Baum1, Aleksandra Kainović, Teresa O'Keeffe, Ragini Pandita, Kent McDonald, Siva Wu, Paul Webster.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microbial biofilEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19460161 PMCID: PMC2697165 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-9-103
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Figure 1. (A) Gentle disruption of the biofilm revealed a fragile mass of amorphous material connected to a parachute-like structure. (B) The structures were either well-defined packets (arrowheads) or aggregated flocs (asterisk) anchored to a fibrillary core (arrow). (C) The parachute-like structure was made up of 5 or 6 compartments. (D) Backlighting highlighted the fibrous nature of the parachute-like structure (arrow). Scale bars = 1.5 mm.
Figure 2Scanning electron micrographs of . (A). Fibrillary structures appeared to be made up of twisted fibers (arrow) scale bar = 1 μm. (B). Flat sheets of material (arrowhead) also were observed. Some of the sheets seemed to be wrapped around other structures (arrow); scale bar = 20 μm. (C) The inside core of the "wrapped" structures consisted of bacteria, [B], embedded in an extracellular matrix of particulate matter and a thin sheet of material (arrow); scale bar = 1 μm. (D) The outer sheet (arrowheads) enveloped an inner core consisting of fibers forming irregular network-like structures (arrow); scale bar = 10 μm. (E) The network consisted of fibers arranged in a periodic pattern. The bacteria (arrows) were two to three times larger than the spaces in the network; scale bar = 2 μm. (F) A sheet of material, [S], covered the fiber network and was attached to it. The fibers were associated with bacteria, [B], and particulate matter, [P]; scale bar = 2 μm.
Figure 3Transmission electron microscopy images of . Specimens were prepared using cryomethods and embedded in resin. The sections represent regions of biofilm containing structured networks of fibers and sheets, but few bacteria. (A) The walls consisted of thin laminar structures (arrowhead) with globular material (arrow) accumulating in branching regions; scale bar = 500 nm. (B) In other regions of the biofilm, the wall-like structures had different thicknesses. The thin walls (arrowhead) were attached to thicker walls (arrow); scale bar = 500 nm. (C) Different wall morphologies consisted of thin, straight walls (arrowhead) branching from thicker walled structures (arrows); scale bar = 500 nm. (D) The thicker walls were composed of globular amorphous masses (arrows) covered in part by a distinct coating (arrowheads); scale bar = 200 nm. (E) and (F) The different components of the thicker walls consisted of globular masses (arrows) separated by and covered with thin coatings (arrowheads); scale bar = 500 nm.
Biofilm chemical composition.
| Analyte | Analysis method | Mass concentration (μg mg-1)a |
|---|---|---|
| Calcium | ICP-AES | 29.9 |
| Magnesium | ICP-AES | 10.1 |
| Total proteins | UV absorption | 490 |
| Total proteinsb | Folin reaction (Lowry assay) | 240 |
| Acidic polysaccharidesc | Phenol-sulfuric acid reaction | 79 |
| Neutral polysaccharidesc | Phenol-sulfuric acid reaction | 67 |
| Nucleic acids | UV absorption | 46 |
| DNA | DAPI-fluorescence | 5.4 |
aDry material.
bMeasured as BSA.
cMeasured as dextrose monohydrate.
Figure 4Confocal images of . (A) Propydium iodide labeled dead bacteria. (B) Syto 9 labeled live bacteria. (C) The two images merged; scale bar = 50 μm. (D) Concanavalin A labeled coiled structures (arrow). (E) Syto 9 labeled bacteria. (F) The two images merged; scale bar = 50 μm.