| Literature DB >> 28369127 |
Manu N Capoor1,2, Filip Ruzicka3, Jonathan E Schmitz4, Garth A James5, Tana Machackova2, Radim Jancalek6, Martin Smrcka7, Radim Lipina8, Fahad S Ahmed2, Todd F Alamin9, Neel Anand10, John C Baird2, Nitin Bhatia11, Sibel Demir-Deviren12, Robert K Eastlack13, Steve Fisher5, Steven R Garfin14, Jaspaul S Gogia15, Ziya L Gokaslan16, Calvin C Kuo17, Yu-Po Lee11, Konstantinos Mavrommatis18, Elleni Michu2, Hana Noskova2, Assaf Raz1, Jiri Sana2, A Nick Shamie19, Philip S Stewart5, Jerry L Stonemetz20, Jeffrey C Wang21, Timothy F Witham22, Michael F Coscia23, Christof Birkenmaier24, Vincent A Fischetti1, Ondrej Slaby2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In previous studies, Propionibacterium acnes was cultured from intervertebral disc tissue of ~25% of patients undergoing microdiscectomy, suggesting a possible link between chronic bacterial infection and disc degeneration. However, given the prominence of P. acnes as a skin commensal, such analyses often struggled to exclude the alternate possibility that these organisms represent perioperative microbiologic contamination. This investigation seeks to validate P. acnes prevalence in resected disc cultures, while providing microscopic evidence of P. acnes biofilm in the intervertebral discs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28369127 PMCID: PMC5378350 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174518
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Summary of the microorganisms isolated in 162 cases from 368 patient intervertebral disc specimens by anaerobic culture.
| ≥ 1000 CFU/g | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aggregate of | ||||||
| Positive Cases | Other Bacteria | |||||
| Isolated microorganism | N | % | N | % | N | % |
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 2 | 0.5% | ||||
| | 4 | 1.1% | 1 | 0.3% | ||
| | 4 | 1.1% | 2 | 0.5% | 1 | 0.3% |
| | 4 | 1.1% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.3% |
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 4 | 1.1% | 1 | 0.3% | 2 | 0.5% |
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.3% |
| | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.3% | ||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 7 | 1.9% | 2 | 0.5% | ||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.3% | ||
| | 3 | 0.8% | ||||
| | 2 | 0.5% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 2 | 0.5% | ||||
| | 11 | 3.0% | ||||
| | 2 | 0.5% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.3% | ||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.3% | ||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.3% | ||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.3% | ||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
| | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 0.3% | ||
| | 1 | 0.3% | ||||
for P. acnes ≥ 1000 CFU/g applies to that species; for all other bacteria listed, an aggregate of the species found is used. “(unspecified)” refers to a species not identified within the preceding genus.
Fig 1Distribution of P. acnes colony counts in culture-positive disc tissue specimens.
Characteristics of the disc samples evaluated by microscopic methods.
| Previous | Sample | SYTO-9 | FISH | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | CFU/ | Sample | Spine | Weight | Biofilm | Biofilm |
| Number | gram | Description | Surgery | mg | observed | observed |
| 3 | 1097 | No | 2480 | Yes | No | |
| 4 | 9016 | No | 1930 | Yes | Yes | |
| 5 | 3977 | No | 1770 | Yes | Yes | |
| 6 | 1378 | No | 900 | Yes | Yes | |
| 7 | 2069 | No | 580 | Yes | Yes | |
| 8 | 1193 | No | 570 | Yes | Yes | |
| 9 | 3482 | No | 1700 | No | Yes | |
| 10 | 4073 | No | 550 | Yes | No |
* Individual bacteria were observed.
Fig 2Visualization of bacterial biofilm in the disc tissue by CSLM and confirmation of P. acnes by FISH.
A. Three dimensional reconstructed CSLM image of biofilm bacteria stained with a DNA stain (SYTO9, green) in a disc tissue sample (#4, Table 2). B-C. The presence of P. acnes biofilms in this sample verified using FISH. Epifluorescence micrographs of a biofilm cluster showing red fluorescence from the CY5-labeled EUB338 general eubacterial probe (B) and green fluorescence from the CY3-labled P. acnes-specific probe (C). Co-localization of the red and green fluorescence indicates that all of the bacteria in this biofilm were P. acnes.
Fig 3Visualization of P. acnes biofilm in the disc tissue by use of FISH.
A. This color-combined image shows the “pocket” of green fluorescent P. acnes cells (biofilm) near the center right of the image (disc tissue sample #8, Table 2). The presence of P. acnes biofilms in this sample was verified using FISH. B-C. Red fluorescence is the general eubacterial probe (B) and green is the P. acnes probe (C). The B/C image is a zoom of A showing fluorescence from the red and green channels separately. Almost all of the cells in A are emitting both red and green fluorescence indicating that they are P. acnes.
Patient and clinical characteristics in relation to P. acnes positivity.
| Positive | Negative | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | N | % | N | % | N | % | p-value | ||||||
| 368 | 100% | 119 | 32% | 249 | 68% | ||||||||
| Male | 222 | 60% | 86 | 39% | 136 | 61% | |||||||
| Female | 146 | 40% | 33 | 23% | 113 | 77% | |||||||
| Median ± SD | 49.3 | ± | 13.6 | y | 46.7 | ± | 12.4 | y | 50.5 | ± | 13.7 | y | |
| Yes | 58 | 16% | 20 | 34% | 38 | 66% | |||||||
| No | 310 | 84% | 99 | 32% | 211 | 68% | |||||||
| Protrusion | 55 | 15% | 15 | 27% | 40 | 73% | |||||||
| Extrusion | 181 | 49% | 57 | 31% | 124 | 69% | |||||||
| Sequestration | 132 | 36% | 47 | 36% | 85 | 64% | |||||||
| Multiple level procedures | 17 | 5% | 7 | 41% | 10 | 59% | |||||||
| L1/L2 | 1 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 1 | 100% | |||||||
| L2/L3 | 9 | 2% | 0 | 0% | 9 | 100% | |||||||
| L3/L4 | 28 | 8% | 6 | 21% | 22 | 79% | |||||||
| L4/L5 | 149 | 40% | 55 | 37% | 94 | 63% | |||||||
| L5/L6 | 5 | 1% | 2 | 40% | 3 | 60% | |||||||
| L5/S1 | 159 | 43% | 49 | 31% | 110 | 69% | |||||||
| Number of patients | 298 | 81% | 106 | 36% | 192 | 64% | |||||||
| Duration, Months ± SD | 16.2 | ± | 41.1 | m | 15.8 | ± | 35.2 | m | 16.5 | ± | 44.2 | m | |
| Number of patients | 67 | 18% | 15 | 22% | 52 | 78% | |||||||
| Duration, Months ± SD | 6.1 | ± | 8.9 | m | 7.5 | ± | 14.8 | m | 5.6 | ± | 6.5 | m | |
| Number of patients | 79 | 21% | 18 | 23% | 61 | 77% | |||||||
| Φ NRS Score, Median ± SD | 4.8 | ± | 2.1 | 5.4 | ± | 2.3 | 4.6 | ± | 2.1 | ||||
| Number of patients | 71 | 19% | 17 | 24% | 54 | 76% | |||||||
| Φ NRS Score, Median ± SD | 6.1 | ± | 1.8 | 6.4 | ± | 2.2 | 6.0 | ± | 1.7 | ||||
| Number of patients | 85 | 23% | 21 | 25% | 64 | 75% | |||||||
| Oswestry Score, Median ± SD | 40.3 | ± | 17.7 | 45.4 | ± | 18.2 | 42.9 | ± | 17.7 | ||||
A These procedures are excluded in the disc levels that follow.