| Literature DB >> 28397751 |
Changhyun Roh1, Jaewoong Lee2, Mayank Kinger3, Chankyu Kang4.
Abstract
This paper describes the use of an analytical microfluidic sensor for accelerating chemo-repellent response and strong anti-bacterial 1-(Thien-2-yl)-3-(2, 6-difluoro phenyl) prop-2-en-1-one (1-TDPPO). The chemically-synthesized antimicrobial agent, which included prop-2-en-1-one and difluoro phenyl groups, was moving through an optically transparent polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) microfluidic sensor with circular obstacles arranged evenly. The response, growth and distribution of fluorescent labeling Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 against the antimicrobial agent were monitored by confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). The microfluidic sensor along with 1-TDPPOin this study exhibits the following advantages: (i) Real-time chemo-repellent responses of cell dynamics; (ii) Rapid eradication of biofilm by embedded obstacles and powerful antibacterial agents, which significantly reduce the response time compared to classical methods; (iii) Minimal consumption of cells and antimicrobial agents; and (iv) Simplifying the process of the normalization of the fluorescence intensity and monitoring of biofilm by captured images and datasets.Entities:
Keywords: 1-TDPPO; PDMS microfluidic sensor; Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1; confocal laser scanning microscope; fluorescence intensity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28397751 PMCID: PMC5422164 DOI: 10.3390/s17040803
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1(A) Chemical structure of 1-(Thien-2-yl)-3-(2,6-difluoro phenyl) prop-2-en-1-one (1-TDPPO); (B) chemical response of the antimicrobial agents (20 µM of 1-TDPPO) at day 1 (left) and day 3 (right) in a Petri dish; (C) selection of the optimal concentrations for the antimicrobial effect with 1-TDPPO; and (D) comparison of mixing efficacy between without (a1–a3)/with (b1–b3) circular obstacles using green and red dyes. Here a3 and b3 are images after mixing.
Figure 2(A) Actual image of P. aeruginosa PAO1 inside microfluidic sensor without 1-TDPPO; (B) fluorescence intensity profile after P. aeruginosa PAO1 reacted with 1-TDPPO; (C) antimicrobial activity based on GFP-tagged fluorescence intensity (inlet A: 1-TDPPO; inlet B: P. aeruginosa PAO1); and (D) the fluorescent intensity (RFU) along with the normalized microfluidic channel position.
Figure 3Analysis of biofilm formation in the microfluidic sensor. (A) 3D images after 12 h (left) and 24 h (right); (B) 3D image after 6 days; (C) analysis of P. aeruginosa biofilm thickness using confocal microscopy (red line indicates the actual biofilm thickness); and (D) time-dependent analysis of biofilm thickness.
Figure 4An analysis of P. aeruginosa PAO1 biofilm with two different antimicrobial agents. (A) 20% ethanol solution with a 30-min mixing time; (B) 90% ethanol solution with a 7-min mixing time; (C) 1-TDPPO with a 5-min mixing time; and (D) 1-TDPPO with a 7-min mixing time.
Summary of fluorescence intensity (RFU) with antimicrobial agents.
| 0 min | 5 min | 7 min | 10 min | 30 min | 40 min | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-TDPPO (20 µM) with microstrctures | 771 ± 44 | 196 ± 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1-TDPPO (20 µM) without microstrctures | 731 ± 39 | 512 ± 33 | 357 ± 28 | 258 ± 20 | 0 | 0 |
| Ethanol (20%) with microstrctures | 753 ± 48 | 531 ± 26 | 433 ± 25 | 366 ± 23 | 211 ± 12 | 0 |
| Ethanol (20%) without microstrctures | 767 ± 57 | 681 ± 48 | 598 ± 34 | 511 ± 43 | 458 ± 37 | 0 |
| Ethanol (90%) with microstrctures | 758 ± 36 | 302 ± 17 | 178 ± 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Figure 5Experimental setup for bacterial activity, biofilm growth and eradication with a microfluidic sensor with microstructures.