OBJECTIVE: Most chronic wound biofilms have been shown to have significant populations of anaerobes. In order to better screen antimicrobial and antibiofilm therapeutics, we evaluated the ability of key anaerobes to incorporate and propagate within our aerobic chronic wound biofilm. METHOD: We had previously developed a rapid model to simulate polymicrobial chronic wound biofilms. This model incorporated meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis (VRE) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The model was used along with a variety of anaerobes to determine whether this biofilm model would support propagation of anaerobes similar to that we have identified in chronic wounds. RESULTS: Using our previously defined Lubbock Chronic Wound Biofilm (LCWB) model combined with quantitative PCR, anaerobic bacteria were shown to proliferate through integration into the biofilm under aerobic conditions. Using electron microscopy we show close association between aerobes and anaerobes within the biofilm suggesting a synergistic relationship. CONCLUSION: We have expanded the utility of the LCBW to show the ability of clinically significant anaerobic bacteria to thrive in aerobic conditions. The expansion of this model can further simulate the functional characteristics of chronic wound pathogenic biofilms and the species that dwell within them allowing improved ability to evaluate therapeutics that target anaerobes.
OBJECTIVE: Most chronic wound biofilms have been shown to have significant populations of anaerobes. In order to better screen antimicrobial and antibiofilm therapeutics, we evaluated the ability of key anaerobes to incorporate and propagate within our aerobic chronic wound biofilm. METHOD: We had previously developed a rapid model to simulate polymicrobial chronic wound biofilms. This model incorporated meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis (VRE) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The model was used along with a variety of anaerobes to determine whether this biofilm model would support propagation of anaerobes similar to that we have identified in chronic wounds. RESULTS: Using our previously defined Lubbock Chronic Wound Biofilm (LCWB) model combined with quantitative PCR, anaerobic bacteria were shown to proliferate through integration into the biofilm under aerobic conditions. Using electron microscopy we show close association between aerobes and anaerobes within the biofilm suggesting a synergistic relationship. CONCLUSION: We have expanded the utility of the LCBW to show the ability of clinically significant anaerobic bacteria to thrive in aerobic conditions. The expansion of this model can further simulate the functional characteristics of chronic wound pathogenic biofilms and the species that dwell within them allowing improved ability to evaluate therapeutics that target anaerobes.
Authors: Urvish Trivedi; Jonas S Madsen; Jake Everett; Cody Fell; Jakob Russel; Jakob Haaber; Heidi A Crosby; Alexander R Horswill; Mette Burmølle; Kendra P Rumbaugh; Søren J Sørensen Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Adrienne A Hammond; Kyle G Miller; Cassandra J Kruczek; Janet Dertien; Jane A Colmer-Hamood; John A Griswold; Alexander R Horswill; Abdul N Hamood Journal: Burns Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 2.744
Authors: Theodoros Kelesidis; Angela L P Chow; Romney Humphries; Daniel Z Uslan; David Pegues Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 5.938
Authors: Trevor Dalton; Scot E Dowd; Randall D Wolcott; Yan Sun; Chase Watters; John A Griswold; Kendra P Rumbaugh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-11-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: J Z Alex Cheong; Chad J Johnson; Hanxiao Wan; Aiping Liu; John F Kernien; Angela L F Gibson; Jeniel E Nett; Lindsay R Kalan Journal: ISME J Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 10.302
Authors: Karen Smith; Andrew Collier; Eleanor M Townsend; Lindsay E O'Donnell; Abhijit M Bal; John Butcher; William G Mackay; Gordon Ramage; Craig Williams Journal: BMC Microbiol Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 3.605