|
|
|
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, July 2004, p . 4408-4410, Vol . 70, No . 7 Influence of Biosurfactants from Probiotic Bacteria on Formation of Biofilms on Voice ProsthesesLígia Rodrigues,1 Henny C . van der Mei,2 José Teixeira,1* and Rosário Oliveira1 Centro de Engenharia Biológica, Universidade do Minho, Largo do Paço, 4719 Braga Codex, Portugal,1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Groningen, 9713 AV Groningen, The Netherlands2 Received 11 September 2003/ Accepted 31 March 2004 ABSTRACT Biofilms were grown on preconditioned voice prostheses with biosurfactants obtained from probiotic bacteria Lactococcus lactis 53 and Streptococcus thermophilus A in an artificial throat model . Both biosurfactants greatly reduced microbial numbers on prostheses and also induced a decrease in the airflow resistance that occurs on voice prostheses after biofilm formation . This study presents a promising strategy for prolonging the lifespan of voice prostheses . Voice prostheses are used for speech rehabilitation of patients who have undergone a laryngectomy due to a malignant laryngeal tumor and need to breathe through a tracheostomy (1) . The major drawback of voice prostheses involves their colonization within several weeks by a thick biofilm that consists of fungal and bacterial strains . This biofilm causes leakage of food and liquid, and it may block the valves and increase resistance to airflow (10), making it necessary to replace the prosthesis on average every 3 to 4 months . Prolonged administration of antifungal agents to patients is undesirable because of the danger of inducing resistance (7) . The use of biosurfactants from probiotic bacteria as antimicrobial and/or antiadhesive agents is promising as a method of prolonging the lifetimes of voice prostheses, and their ability to inhibit adhesion of various microorganisms isolated from explanted voice prostheses has been demonstrated in a study using parallel-plate flow chambers (11) . The aim of the present study was to evaluate the extent of biofilm formation by a mixture of bacterial and fungal strains isolated from explanted voice prostheses and cultured on silicone rubber voice prostheses with an adsorbed biosurfactant layer . The two tested biosurfactants were obtained from the probiotic bacteria Lactococcus lactis 53 and Streptococcus thermophilus A . A microbial growth inhibition test was first performed in order to estimate the concentration of biosurfactant to be used in the artificial throat experiments . To this end, biofilms were grown on voice prostheses in an artificial throat model (9) . In addition to biofilm evaluation, the effects of biosurfactant adsorption to voice prostheses on resistance to airflow were determined . The biosurfactant was isolated as previously described (2; L . Rodrigues, J . Teixeira, and R . Oliveira, Abstr . 11th Eur . Congr . Biotechnol., p . 76, 2003) for the selected probiotic bacterial strains L . lactis 53 (biosurfactant 1) and S . thermophilus A (biosurfactant 2) . The microorganisms used for the growth inhibition test are listed in Table 1 . The inhibition test was performed as described by Elving et al . (8) . Briefly, fungal strains and bacteria cultured overnight under appropriate conditions were harvested by centrifugation and diluted in reduced transport fluid [0.9 g of NaCl liter1, 0.9 g of (NH4)2SO4 liter1, 0.45 g of KH2PO4 liter1, 0.19 g of MgSO4 liter1, 0.45 g of K2HPO4 liter1, 0.37 g of Na2EDTA liter1, 0.2 g of L-cysteine HCl liter1 (pH 6.8)] to a concentration allowing confluent growth when plated with a cotton swab on the agar . Fungal strains were plated on De Man, Rogosa and Sharpe (MRS) agar (Merck), whereas bacteria were plated on brain heart infusion agar (Oxoid, Basingstoke, England) . Agar plates were dried for 20 min at room temperature, and 5-µl aliquots of biosurfactant 1 or 2 in several concentrations (3, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 mg ml1) were spotted onto the surface of the agar plate . After overnight incubation, the agar plates were screened for growth inhibition zones around the biosurfactant spots .
On the eighth day of an experiment, the airflow resistances and the numbers of CFU on the voice prostheses with a biofilm were determined . Biofilms were removed by scraping, and the collected material was sonicated on ice for 10 s (the material was suspended in reduced transport fluid) and subsequently serially diluted . The sonication procedure did not promote cell lysis . After plating onto blood agar (blood agar from Oxoid supplemented with 5% sheep blood, 0.5% hemin, and 0.1% menadione) for isolation of bacterial strains and onto MRS agar for isolation of fungal strains, plates were incubated at 37°C in an aerobic incubator for 3 days . The numbers of bacterial and fungal CFU on each prosthesis were determined and expressed as percentages of the numbers of the control . The antimicrobial activities of the biosurfactants, at several concentrations, to a variety of bacterial and fungal strains isolated from explanted voice prostheses were evaluated and compared (Table 1) . The two biosurfactants are antimicrobial agents but, depending on the microorganism, have different effective concentrations . It was found that both biosurfactants show a high antimicrobial activity against Candida tropicalis GB 9/9 even at low concentrations . At the highest concentration tested (100 mg ml1), both biosurfactants were active against all bacterial and fungal strains involved in this study, except for Rothia dentocariosa GBJ52/2B, which formed some colonies within the biosurfactant spots . Elving et al . (5) recently demonstrated that R . dentocariosa was the most frequently isolated bacterial strain for a group of patients whose prostheses failed after a short time of use, making replacement necessary, which suggests that the organism may be associated with prosthetic failure . Therefore, the exclusion of this bacterial strain from the oral microflora by selected antibiotics or salivary peptides might well be more effective than the currently applied antimycotic regime, which has no proven clinical efficacy . From the results of the microbial growth inhibition test, a concentration of 100 mg ml1 for each biosurfactant was chosen for preconditioning the voice prostheses . Biosurfactants 1 and 2 decreased significantly the amount of bacteria in the biofilm, to 4 and 13% of the control, respectively (Table 2) . Biosurfactant 1 reduced the amount of fungal organisms to 15% of the control, whereas biosurfactant 2 reduced them to 26% of the control . According to the literature, the consumption of buttermilk, which contains antimycotic-agent-releasing L . lactis, positively affects the lifetime of voice prostheses (3) . Moreover, the biosurfactants released by S . thermophilus interfere with the initial deposition of fungal strains onto silicone rubber (2), as well as on the formation of a mixed fungal-bacterial biofilm on silicone rubber voice prostheses in the modified Robbins device (1) .
The approach developed in this study is a promising strategy, as it was demonstrated that the adsorbed biosurfactants inhibit biofilm formation and the occurrence of increased airflow resistance . As a consequence, the useful lifespan of voice prostheses may be lengthened, an effect which would directly benefit laryngectomized patients .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The FCT provided financial support for L . Rodrigues through doctoral research grant SFRH/BD/4700/2001 .
REFERENCES
What Is Biotechnology?,
What Is Bioengineering?,
What Is Bioremediation?,
What Is Molecular Biology?,
What Is Bioreactor?,
s,
Microorganisms,
n,
Microbiology,
r,
Microorganism,
e,
Bacteria,
c,
Bacteriology,
o,
Salmonella,
n,
Gram negative,
s,
Escherichia coli,
i,
Pichia,
n,
Streptococcal,
r,
Campylobacter,
r,
Ciprofloxacin,
i,
Bacteriological,
a,
Flavobacterium,
i,
Erythromycin,
c,
Microorganisms,
n,
Bacteriophage,
s,
Meningococcus,
r,
Microorganisms,
i,
Fermentations,
n,
Microbial,
a,
Microorganisms,
r,
Escherichia coli,
r,
S. cerevisiae,
o,
Lactobacillus,
i,
Denitrifying
|
© 2005
Transgalactic Ltd (manufacturer of Bioscreen C software) |
Privacy Statement | P.O. Box
1393, 00101 Helsinki, Finland,
Last modified: May 25, 2005
| ||||||