Journal List > J Bacteriol Virol > v.48(3) > 1101861

TOOLS
Park and Lee: Influence of Cell Surface Hydrophobicity on Adhesion and Biofilm Formation in Candida albicans and Several Bacterial Species
Original Article

J Bacteriol Virol 2018;48(3):73-80.

Published online: 9 September 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4167/jbv.2018.48.3.73

Influence of Cell Surface Hydrophobicity on Adhesion and Biofilm Formation in Candida albicans and Several Bacterial Species

Su Jung Park, Kyoung-Ho Lee∗

Department of Microbiology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Gangwon-do, Korea

Corresponding Kyoung-Ho Lee Department of Microbiology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, 20 Ilsan-ro, Wonju, Gangwon-do, 26426, Korea. Phone: +82-33-741-0324 Fax: +82-33-742-5034 E-mail: leekh@yonsei.ac.kr

Received 7 August 201824 August 2018       Accepted 31 August 2018

Copyright © 2018 Journal of Bacteriology and Virology

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the correlation of cell surface hydrophobicity (CSH) and biofilm formation or adhesion in Candida albicans (C. albicans) and several pathogenic bacteria. All of C. albicans (n=82) and 7 bacterial species (Escherichia coli, n=25; Klebsiella pneumoniae, n=33; Morganella morganii, n=21; Proteus mirabilis, n=33; Proteus vulgaris, n=12; Pseudomonas aeruginosa, n=31; Staphylococcus aureus, n=31) were isolated clinically. CSH was quantified with microbial adhesion to hydrocarbons. Biofilm formation was determined by tetrazolium salt reduction assay. Adhesion assay was performed by counting colonies after culture the microbes adhered to HeLa cells. Although high CSH-expressing bacterial species showed greater adherence to HeLa cells and larger amounts of biofilm formation on polystyrene, the significant relationships within same species were not shown. In C. albicans, however, strong positive correlations were observed between CSH and biofilm formation (r=0.708; p < 0.05) or cell adhesion (r=0.509; p < 0.05). These results suggest that hydrophobic force of bacteria may play a minor role in adhesion and biofilm formation, but CSH of C. albicans may be an important factor for adherence on surface and biofilm forming process.

Keywords: Cell surface hydrophobicity, Biofilm formation, Cell adhesion, Candida albicans

REFERENCES

1). O'Toole G, Kaplan HB, Kolter R. Biofilm formation as microbial development. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2000; 54:49–79.
2). Chandra J, Kuhn DM, Mukherjee PK, Hoyer LL, McCormick T, Ghannoum MA. Biofilm formation by the fungal pathogen Candida albicans: development, architecture, and drug resistance. J Bacteriol. 2001; 183:5385–94.
3). Wey SB, Mori M, Pfaller MA, Woolson RF, Wenzel RP. Hospital-acquired candidemia. The attributable mortality and excess length of stay. Arch Intern Med. 1988; 148:2642–5.
crossref
4). Shirtliff ME, Peters BM, Jabra-Rizk MA. Cross-kingdom interactions: Candida albicans and bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2009; 299:1–8.
5). Samaranayake LP, MacFarlane TW, Williamson MI. Comparison of Sabouraud dextrose and Pagano-Levin agar media for detection and isolation of yeasts from oral samples. J Clin Microbiol. 1987; 25:162–4.
crossref
6). Webb BC, Thomas CJ, Willcox MD, Harty DW, Knox KW. Candida-associated denture stomatitis. Aetiology and management: a review. Part 2. Oral diseases caused by Candida species. Aust Dent J. 1998; 43:160–6.
7). Lee KH, Park SJ, Choi S, Uh Y, Park JY, Han KH. The influence of urinary catheter materials on forming biofilms of microorganisms. J Bacteriol Virol. 2017; 47:32–40.
crossref
8). Costerton JW, Lewandowski Z, Caldwell DE, Korber DR, Lappin-Scott HM. Microbial biofilms. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1995; 49:711–45.
crossref
9). Borucki MK, Peppin JD, White D, Loge F, Call DR. Variation in biofilm formation among strains of Listeria monocytogenes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003; 69:7336–42.
10). van Loosdrecht MC, Norde W, Zehnder AJ. Physical chemical description of bacterial adhesion. J Biomater Appl. 1990; 5:91–106.
crossref
11). Ambalam P, Kondepudi KK, Nilsson I, Wadström T, Ljungh A. Bile enhances cell surface hydrophobicity and biofilm formation of bifidobacteria. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2014; 172:1970–81.
crossref
12). Borecká-Melkusová S, Bujdáková H. Variation of cell surface hydrophobicity and biofilm formation among genotypes of Candida albicans and Candida dubliniensis under antifungal treatment. Can J Microbiol. 2008; 54:718–24.
13). Khelissa SO, Jama C, Abdallah M, Boukherroub R, Faille C, Chihib NE. Effect of incubation duration, growth temperature, and abiotic surface type on cell surface properties, adhesion and pathogenicity of biofilm-detached Staphylococcus aureus cells. AMB Express. 2017; 7:216.
crossref
14). Ramage G, Vandewalle K, Wickes BL, López-Ribot JL. Characteristics of biofilm formation by Candida albicans. Rev Iberoam Micol. 2001; 18:163–70.
15). Rosenberg M. Microbial adhesion to hydrocarbons: twenty-five years of doing MATH. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006; 262:129–34.
crossref
16). Pizarro-Cerdá J, Cossart P. Bacterial adhesion and entry into host cells. Cell. 2006; 24(124):715–27.
crossref
17). Hashemizadeh Z, Kalantar-Neyestanaki D, Mansouri S. Association between virulence profile, biofilm formation and phylogenetic groups of Escherichia coli causing urinary tract infection and the commensal gut microbiota: A comparative analysis. Microb Pathog. 2017; 110:540–5.
18). Mirani ZA, Naz S, Khan F, Aziz M, Asadullah , Khan MN, et al. Antibacterial fatty acids destabilize hydrophobic and multicellular aggregates of biofilm in S. aureus. J Antibiot (Tokyo). 2017; 70:115–21.
19). Ton-That H, Schneewind O. Assembly of pili in Gram-positive bacteria. Trends Microbiol. 2004; 12:228–34.
crossref
20). Poimenidou SV, Chrysadakou M, Tzakoniati A, Bikouli VC, Nychas GJ, Skandamis PN. Variability of Listeria monocytogenes strains in biofilm formation on stainless steel and polystyrene materials and resistance to peracetic acid and quaternary ammonium compounds. Int J Food Microbiol. 2016; 237:164–71.
21). Schwarz-Linek U, Werner JM, Pickford AR, Gurusiddappa S, Kim JH, Pilka ES, et al. Pathogenic bacteria attach to human fibronectin through a tandem beta-zipper. Nature. 2003; 423:177–81.
22). Linder M. Hydrophobins: Proteins that self-assemble at interfaces. Curr Coll Inter Sci. 2009; 14:356–63.
23). Kurakado S, Takatori K, Sugita T. Minocycline Inhibits Candida albicans Budded-to-Hyphal-Form Transition and Biofilm Formation. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2017; 70:490–4.
24). Liu T, Xu C, Hong L, Garcia-Godoy F, Hottel T, Babu J, et al. Effects of trimethylsilane plasma coating on the hydrophobicity of denture base resin and adhesion of Candida albicans on resin surfaces. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118:765–70.
25). Lee JA. Robbins N, Xie JL, Ketela T, Cowen LE. Functional genomic analysis of Candida albicans adherence reveals a key role for the Arp2/3 complex in cell wall remodelling and biofilm formation. PLoS Genet. 2016; 12:e1006452.
26). Park SJ, Han KH, Park JY, Choi SJ, Lee KH. Influence of bacterial presence on biofilm formation of Candida albicans. Yonsei Med J. 2014; 55:449–58.

Figure 1.
The relationship between relative CSH and biofilm formation (A) or cell adhesion (B) of 82 Candida albicans. A positive correlation was found between relative CSH and biofilm formation (r=0.708; p < 0.05) or cell adhesion (r=0.509; p < 0.05).
jbv-48-73f1.tif
Figure 2.
Identification of Candida albicans (C. albicans) adhesion with different CSH on phase-contrast microscope images. (A) Images of adhered C. albicans before and after washing were shown. (B) Morphological change of adhered C. albicans during incubation.
jbv-48-73f2.tif
Figure 3.
The relationship between relative CSH and biofilm formation (A) or cell adhesion (B) of bacterial isolates. Regression analysis demonstrated a significant positive correlation between these two parameters (r=0.661, p < 0.05; r=0.648, p < 0.05).
jbv-48-73f3.tif
Table 1.
Relative CSH, biofilms biomass and adherence to HeLa cells of indicated bacteria
Bacterial species CSH (%) Biofilm formation (OD490 nm) Adhesion to HeLa cells (1 × 105 cfu/ml)
K. pneumoniae (n=33) 50.00 ± 10.9 0.133 ± 0.072 166.6 ± 72.0
E. coli (n=25) 57.02 ± 13.8 0.123 ± 0.021 159.0 ± 80.0
P. aeruginosa (n=31) 66.70 ± 19.6 0.159 ± 0.033 183.0 ± 77.2
M. morganii (n=21) 69.31 ± 15.3 0.300 ± 0.059 192.5 ± 30.8
P. mirabilis (n=33) 75.10 ± 18.3 0.362 ± 0.056 285.5 ± 50.3
P. vulgaris (n=12) 77.48 ± 18.8 0.420 ± 0.050 207.5 ± 27.0
S. aureus (n=31) 98.70 ± 0.85 0.968 ± 0.262 966.0 ± 270.0

∗ Values represent mean ± SD

Table 2.
Correlation between relative CSH and biofilm formation or adhesion in indicated bacteria
Bacterial species Correlation coefficient (r)
CSH & Biofilm formation CSH & Adhesion
K. pneumoniae (n=33) 0.067 0.013
E. coli (n=25) 0.037 - 0.082
P. aeruginosa (n=31) 0.187 0.049
M. morganii (n=21) 0.406 0.006
P. mirabilis (n=33) 0.180 0.002
P. vulgaris (n=12) 0.037 0.020
S. aureus (n=31) 0.207 0.043
TOOLS
Similar articles