Impact of probiotics on pathogen survival in an innovative human plasma biofilm model (hpBIOM).
B. lactis
Bacteriotherapy
Chronic wounds
Human plasma biofilm model
L. plantarum
Probiotics
S. cerevisiae
hpBIOM
Journal
Journal of translational medicine
ISSN: 1479-5876
Titre abrégé: J Transl Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 07 2019
25 07 2019
Historique:
received:
11
04
2019
accepted:
17
07
2019
entrez:
27
7
2019
pubmed:
28
7
2019
medline:
10
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite of medical advances, the number of patients suffering on non-healing chronic wounds is still increasing. This fact is attended by physical and emotional distress and an economic load. The majority of chronic wounds are infected of harmful microbials in a protecting extracellular matrix. These biofilms inhibit wound healing. Biofilm-growing bacteria developed unique survival properties, which still challenge the appropriate wound therapy. The present in-vitro biofilm models are not suitable for translational research. By means of a novel in-vivo like human plasma biofilm model (hpBIOM), this study systematically analysed the influence of 3 probiotics on the survival of five clinically relevant pathogenic microorganisms. Human plasma was used to produce the innovate biofilm. Pathogenic microorganisms were administered to the plasma. By stimulating the production of a fibrin scaffold, stable coagula-like discs with integrated pathogens were produced. The five clinically relevant pathogens P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, S. epidermidis, E. faecium and C. albicans were challenged to the probiotics L. plantarum, B. lactis and S. cerevisiae. The probiotics were administered on top of the biofilm and the survival was quantified after 4 h and 24 h of incubation. For statistics, two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey's HSD test was applied. P-value > 0.05 was considered to be significant. SEM micrographs depicted the pathogens on the surface of the fibrin scaffold, arranged in close proximity and produced the glycocalyx. The application of probiotics induced different growth-reducing capacities towards the pathogens. B. lactis and S. cerevisiae showed slight bacteria-reducing properties. The survival of C. albicans was not affected at all. The most antimicrobial activity was detected after the treatment with L. plantarum. This study successfully reproduced a novel human biofilm model, which provides a human wound milieu and individual immune competence. The success of bacteriotherapy is dependent on the strain combination, the number of probiotics and the activity of the immune cells. The eradicating effect of L. plantarum on P. aeruginosa should be emphasized.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite of medical advances, the number of patients suffering on non-healing chronic wounds is still increasing. This fact is attended by physical and emotional distress and an economic load. The majority of chronic wounds are infected of harmful microbials in a protecting extracellular matrix. These biofilms inhibit wound healing. Biofilm-growing bacteria developed unique survival properties, which still challenge the appropriate wound therapy. The present in-vitro biofilm models are not suitable for translational research. By means of a novel in-vivo like human plasma biofilm model (hpBIOM), this study systematically analysed the influence of 3 probiotics on the survival of five clinically relevant pathogenic microorganisms.
METHODS
Human plasma was used to produce the innovate biofilm. Pathogenic microorganisms were administered to the plasma. By stimulating the production of a fibrin scaffold, stable coagula-like discs with integrated pathogens were produced. The five clinically relevant pathogens P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, S. epidermidis, E. faecium and C. albicans were challenged to the probiotics L. plantarum, B. lactis and S. cerevisiae. The probiotics were administered on top of the biofilm and the survival was quantified after 4 h and 24 h of incubation. For statistics, two-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey's HSD test was applied. P-value > 0.05 was considered to be significant.
RESULTS
SEM micrographs depicted the pathogens on the surface of the fibrin scaffold, arranged in close proximity and produced the glycocalyx. The application of probiotics induced different growth-reducing capacities towards the pathogens. B. lactis and S. cerevisiae showed slight bacteria-reducing properties. The survival of C. albicans was not affected at all. The most antimicrobial activity was detected after the treatment with L. plantarum.
CONCLUSIONS
This study successfully reproduced a novel human biofilm model, which provides a human wound milieu and individual immune competence. The success of bacteriotherapy is dependent on the strain combination, the number of probiotics and the activity of the immune cells. The eradicating effect of L. plantarum on P. aeruginosa should be emphasized.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31345229
doi: 10.1186/s12967-019-1990-4
pii: 10.1186/s12967-019-1990-4
pmc: PMC6659307
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
243Références
J Int Med Res. 2009 Sep-Oct;37(5):1528-42
pubmed: 19930861
Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2013 Sep;2(7):389-399
pubmed: 24527355
Nature. 2008 May 15;453(7193):314-21
pubmed: 18480812
Pharm Biol. 2015 Mar;53(3):350-8
pubmed: 25347359
Wound Repair Regen. 2012 Jul-Aug;20(4):552-62
pubmed: 22642376
Eur J Oral Sci. 2002 Jun;110(3):218-24
pubmed: 12120707
J Appl Microbiol. 2001 Sep;91(3):525-32
pubmed: 11556920
Clujul Med. 2016;89(3):365-70
pubmed: 27547055
Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017 Jun 15;104:230-239
pubmed: 28392493
Nature. 2016 Jul 27;535(7613):511-6
pubmed: 27466123
BMC Microbiol. 2014 Apr 27;14:107
pubmed: 24766663
Science. 1999 May 21;284(5418):1318-22
pubmed: 10334980
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2012 May;330(1):56-65
pubmed: 22360699
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1999 May;11(3-4):217-21; discussion 237-9
pubmed: 10394973
Adv Skin Wound Care. 2012 Jul;25(7):304-14
pubmed: 22713781
Med Hypotheses. 2014 Jan;82(1):86-8
pubmed: 24296233
Int J Oral Sci. 2014 Dec;6(4):189-94
pubmed: 25257882
Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2014 Jul 1;3(7):502-510
pubmed: 25032070
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 25;11(10):e0165294
pubmed: 27780258
Lancet. 2001 Jul 14;358(9276):135-8
pubmed: 11463434
Int Wound J. 2010 Apr;7(2):97-102
pubmed: 20529149
Sci Am. 2001 Jul;285(1):74-81
pubmed: 11432197
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2017 Feb/Mar;18(2):119-127
pubmed: 27788042
Recent Pat Antiinfect Drug Discov. 2010 Jun;5(2):124-51
pubmed: 20429870
Wound Repair Regen. 2017 Nov;25(6):912-922
pubmed: 29315980
Wound Repair Regen. 2003 Mar;11 Suppl 1:S1-28
pubmed: 12654015
Wound Repair Regen. 2008 Jan-Feb;16(1):37-44
pubmed: 18086294
Int Immunopharmacol. 2010 Feb;10(2):247-51
pubmed: 19932196
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Mar;18(3):318-327
pubmed: 29276051
J Wound Care. 2017 Dec 2;26(12):727-732
pubmed: 29244967
Int Wound J. 2016 Oct;13(5):729-37
pubmed: 25196349
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005 Jun;11(6):472-9
pubmed: 15882197
Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 16;10(1):4792
pubmed: 32179838
APMIS. 2017 Apr;125(4):392-417
pubmed: 28407425
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014 Oct;71(4):814-21
pubmed: 24906613
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Mar;18(3):e99-e106
pubmed: 29102325
Pathog Dis. 2014 Apr;70(3):401-7
pubmed: 24532590
Clin Dermatol. 2010 Sep-Oct;28(5):519-26
pubmed: 20797512