Jakub M Kwiecinski1,2, Gunnar Jacobsson3, Alexander R Horswill2,4, Elisabet Josefsson1, Tao Jin1,5. 1. a Department of Rheumatology and Inflammation Research , Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg , Gothenburg , Sweden. 2. b Department of Immunology and Microbiology , University of Colorado School of Medicine , Aurora , CO , USA. 3. c Department of Infectious Diseases , Skaraborg Hospital , Skövde , Sweden. 4. d Department of Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Healthcare System , Denver , CO , USA. 5. e Department of Rheumatology , Sahlgrenska University Hospital , Gothenburg , Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biofilms are involved in many Staphylococcus aureus infections, but relation of biofilm formation and the infection types or the clinical outcomes remain unclear. METHODS: We measured biofilm formation, with a microtiter plate assay, of a collection of methicillin-sensitive clinical isolates from 159 invasive S. aureus infections, encompassing all cases occurring within a hospital catchment area during two years, and from additional 49 non-invasive skin infections from the same region. Results were related to available clinical and microbiological documentation. RESULTS: Isolates from medical device infections (intravenous line-associated and prosthetic joint infections), as well as isolates from superficial skin infections, were particularly proficient in forming biofilms. No increased biofilm-forming capacity was seen in isolates from endocarditis, osteomyelitis, or other infections. There was also a correlation of biofilm formation with the agr type of the isolates. Thicker biofilms were more resistant to antibiotic treatment in vitro. No correlation between biofilm formation and clinical outcomes was noted. CONCLUSIONS: S. aureus isolates from 'classical' biofilm-related infections, but also from superficial skin infections, are especially proficient in forming biofilms. There is, however, no obvious relation of biofilm-forming capacity of isolates and the clinical outcome of the infection, and more studies on this issue are needed.
BACKGROUND: Biofilms are involved in many Staphylococcus aureus infections, but relation of biofilm formation and the infection types or the clinical outcomes remain unclear. METHODS: We measured biofilm formation, with a microtiter plate assay, of a collection of methicillin-sensitive clinical isolates from 159 invasive S. aureus infections, encompassing all cases occurring within a hospital catchment area during two years, and from additional 49 non-invasive skin infections from the same region. Results were related to available clinical and microbiological documentation. RESULTS: Isolates from medical device infections (intravenous line-associated and prosthetic joint infections), as well as isolates from superficial skin infections, were particularly proficient in forming biofilms. No increased biofilm-forming capacity was seen in isolates from endocarditis, osteomyelitis, or other infections. There was also a correlation of biofilm formation with the agr type of the isolates. Thicker biofilms were more resistant to antibiotic treatment in vitro. No correlation between biofilm formation and clinical outcomes was noted. CONCLUSIONS:S. aureus isolates from 'classical' biofilm-related infections, but also from superficial skin infections, are especially proficient in forming biofilms. There is, however, no obvious relation of biofilm-forming capacity of isolates and the clinical outcome of the infection, and more studies on this issue are needed.
Authors: Virginia Post; Peter Wahl; Ilker Uçkay; Peter Ochsner; Werner Zimmerli; Stéphane Corvec; Caroline Loiez; R Geoff Richards; T Fintan Moriarty Journal: Int J Med Microbiol Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 3.473
Authors: Julia Kalinka; Marie Hachmeister; Jennifer Geraci; Daniel Sordelli; Uwe Hansen; Silke Niemann; Sylvia Oetermann; Georg Peters; Bettina Löffler; Lorena Tuchscherr Journal: Int J Med Microbiol Date: 2014-07-27 Impact factor: 3.473
Authors: G D Christensen; W A Simpson; J J Younger; L M Baddour; F F Barrett; D M Melton; E H Beachey Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1985-12 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Jakub Kwiecinski; Marijke Peetermans; Laurens Liesenborghs; Manli Na; Halla Björnsdottir; Xuefeng Zhu; Gunnar Jacobsson; Bengt R Johansson; Joan A Geoghegan; Timothy J Foster; Elisabet Josefsson; Johan Bylund; Peter Verhamme; Tao Jin Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: M Guembe; B Alonso; J Lucio; M J Pérez-Granda; R Cruces; C Sánchez-Carrillo; A Fernández-Cruz; E Bouza Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Sander Croes; Ruud H Deurenberg; Marie-Louise L Boumans; Patrick S Beisser; Cees Neef; Ellen E Stobberingh Journal: BMC Microbiol Date: 2009-10-28 Impact factor: 3.605
Authors: Jeong-Ok Cha; Jae Il Yoo; Jung Sik Yoo; Hae-Sun Chung; Sun-Hee Park; Hwa Su Kim; Yeong Seon Lee; Gyung Tae Chung Journal: Osong Public Health Res Perspect Date: 2013-10
Authors: Michal Bukowski; Maja Kosecka-Strojek; Anna Madry; Rafal Zagorski-Przybylo; Tomasz Zadlo; Katarzyna Gawron; Benedykt Wladyka Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Amelia Staats; Peter W Burback; Mostafa Eltobgy; Dana M Parker; Amal O Amer; Daniel J Wozniak; Shu-Hua Wang; Kurt B Stevenson; Kenneth L Urish; Paul Stoodley Journal: Microbiol Spectr Date: 2021-09-15