| Literature DB >> 29204570 |
Judd H Fastenberg1, Wayne D Hsueh1, Ali Mustafa1, Nadeem A Akbar1, Waleed M Abuzeid1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that biofilms are critical to the pathophysiology of chronic infections including chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Until relatively recently, our understanding of biofilms was limited. Recent advances in methods for biofilm identification and molecular biology have offered new insights into the role of biofilms in CRS. With these insights, investigators have begun to investigate novel therapeutic strategies that may disrupt or eradicate biofilms in CRS.Entities:
Keywords: Active immune response; Anti-bacterial agents; Biofilms; Innate immune response; Quorum sensing; Sinusitis; Surface-active agents
Year: 2016 PMID: 29204570 PMCID: PMC5698538 DOI: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2016.03.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg ISSN: 2095-8811
Fig. 1The biofilm life cycle.
Fig. 2Formation of persister cells. A: Administration of antibiotic to a biofilm population resulting in cell death with the continued survival of a subpopulation of persister cells and resistant microbes. B: Frequency of isolation of persister cells as a function of the growth phase of the biofilm culture.
Diagnostic criteria for biofilm-associated infections.
| Pathogenic bacteria must be associated with a surface |
| Direct examination of infected tissue must demonstrate aggregated cell clusters encased in a matrix, which may be of bacterial or host origin |
| Infection must be confined to a particular site of a host |
| Recalcitrance to antibiotic treatment despite demonstrated susceptibility of planktonic bacteria on sensitivity testing |
| Culture-negative results in the setting of a clinically documented high suspicion for infection |
| Evidence of ineffective host clearance as demonstrated by the presence of biofilm colonies in discrete areas in host tissue associated with host inflammatory cells |
Biofilm detection methods in chronic rhinosinusitis.
| Study | Year | Detection method | CRS (%) | Control (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramadan et al | 2005 | SEM | 5/5 (100) | N/A |
| Sanclement et al | 2005 | SEM, TEM | 24/30 (80) | 0/4 (0) |
| Sanderson et al | 2006 | FISH | 14/18 (78) | 2/5 (40) |
| Psaltis et al | 2007 | CSLM | 17/38 (45) | 0/9 (0) |
| Healy et al | 2008 | FISH, epifluorescence microscopy | 9/11 (82) | 2/3 (67) |
| Bezzera et al | 2011 | SEM | 24/33 (73) | 13/27 (48) |