Abstract
Electrochemical scaffolds (e-scaffolds) continuously generate low concentrations of H2O2 suitable for damaging wound biofilms without damaging host tissue. Nevertheless, retarded diffusion combined with H2O2 degradation can limit the efficacy of this potentially important clinical tool. H2O2 diffusion into biofilms and bacterial cells can be increased by damaging the biofilm structure or by activating membrane transportation channels by exposure to hyperosmotic agents. We hypothesized that e-scaffolds would be more effective against Acinetobacter baumannii and Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in the presence of a hyperosmotic agent. E-scaffolds polarized at â600âmVAg/AgCl were overlaid onto preformed biofilms in media containing various maltodextrin concentrations. E-scaffold alone decreased A. baumannii and S. aureus biofilm cell densities by (3.92â±â0.15) log and (2.31â±â0.12) log, respectively. Compared to untreated biofilms, the efficacy of the e-scaffold increased to a maximum (8.27â±â0.05) log reduction in A. baumannii and (4.71â±â0.12) log reduction in S. aureus biofilm cell densities upon 10âmM and 30âmM maltodextrin addition, respectively. Overall ~55% decrease in relative biofilm surface coverage was achieved for both species. We conclude that combined treatment with electrochemically generated H2O2 from an e-scaffold and maltodextrin is more effective in decreasing viable biofilm cell density.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Acinetobacter baumannii and Staphylococcus aureus are important nosocomial pathogens that are commonly found in biofilm-infected wounds of long-term, acute-care patients1,2,3. Antibiotic treatment often does not work against biofilm communities because of their protective biofilm matrix4; consequently, alternative antimicrobial âscaffoldsâ have been developed that incorporate silver, iodide, zinc, honey, or other polysaccharide substance like glycol to treat biofilm infections5,6,7,8,9. Nevertheless, no existing scaffolds are capable of the continuous, controlled delivery of antimicrobials for the complete eradication of biofilm infections. A recently developed electrochemical scaffold (e-scaffold) produces a continuous, localized, low concentration of H2O2 near the biofilm surface that is sufficient to damage biofilm communities with no apparent damage to host tissue10. The e-scaffold functions by partially reducing dissolved oxygen in aqueous solution to form H2O2 as per equation (1)10,11.
This reaction requires a negative polarization potential12. Based on this finding, an e-scaffold was developed using a conductive carbon fabric material that can be overlaid onto biofilm-infected surfaces10. When polarized at â600âmVAg/AgCl, the e-scaffold reduces oxygen to produce a sustained concentration of H2O2 near the fabric surface, which can prevent/delay biofilm growth or remove preformed biofilms10,13. In practical terms, an e-scaffold saturated with an electrolyte can be overlaid on the biofilm-infected wound surface to keep it moist and electrochemically reduce the dissolved oxygen to H2O210. Although this previously developed e-scaffold prevented/delayed or removed biofilm growth, its efficacy can be improved and this is the goal of the present work.
H2O2 damages bacterial DNA and kill bacterial cells by causing irreversible oxidative damage to the thiol groups of bacterial proteins and lipids14,15,16,17,18. Nevertheless, the efficacy of H2O2 is dependent on how the bacterial population responds to oxidative stress and this can differ for Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria19,20,21,22. The entry of H2O2 into bacterial cells can be limited as a function of lipid composition, diffusion-facilitating channel proteins, or both23,24. Furthermore, the presence of catalase can decompose H2O2, and thus catalase effectively serves as a permeability barrier for the bacterial cell25,26,27. The decomposition of H2O2 by catalase in the biofilm matrix was considered a limiting mechanism for e-scaffolds. Nevertheless, recent work has shown that when the H2O2 is delivered continuously at low concentrations (on the order of μM), H2O2 can diffuse into biofilms faster than it decomposes and thus it can be used as an effective biocide at low concentrations10,13.
The rate of H2O2 diffusion into a biofilm is controlled by characteristics of the biofilm such as its density and reactivity with H2O223,25,28,29,30. Furthermore, when exposed to a negative potential (~â700âmVAg/AgCl) bacterial cells respond by generating osmolytes, including trehalose, betaine, proline and glutamate, that can protect cells from external injuries31. These osmolytes likely scavenge e-scaffold-generated H2O2, retard its entry into bacteria and consequently decrease the efficiency of the system32,33,34,35.
It is possible to facilitate H2O2 entry into bacterial cells by activating bacterial membrane transportation channels24,36,37 in a low-osmolarity medium containing a hyperosmotic agent38,39,40. For example, bacteria can respond to conditions of low osmolarity by increasing the density of membrane porins, especially aquaporin41,42,43,44, which in turn can enhance H2O2 entry into cells24,37. A hyperosmotic agent at low osmolarity induces oxidative damage by altering gene expression, including increasing catalase expression may form non-membrane channels permitting water and H2O237,45,46,47,48. It can also enhance H2O2 entry into cells by âstretchingâ the lipid bilayer24. Further increasing the osmolarity of the medium with a hyperosmotic agent, however, can eventually cause blockage of the transportation pathway49. In addition, at higher osmolarities bacteria synthesize more osmolytes that protect the cells by impeding antimicrobial entry50. Therefore, it is expected that there is an optimal hyperosmotic agent concentration for obtaining effective H2O2 entry.
An earlier investigation showed that an e-scaffold produces a constant supply of H2O2 (~25âμM) and that this concentration is sufficient to reduce A. baumannii populations by (4â±â0.28) log for both in vitro biofilms and biofilm-infected porcine explants10. Based on our previous work with hyperosmotic agent treatments49 we hypothesized that operation of an e-scaffold in the presence of maltodextrin, a hyperosmotic agent, would be more effective against A. baumannii and S. aureus biofilms than treatment with either individual application alone. Maltodextrin is a product of hydrolyzed starch and is composed of sugars and polysaccharides. Besides its hypothesized benefits as a hyperosmotic agent, maltodextrin reportedly controls odor from infected wounds and ulcers while promoting the growth of highly vascularized granulation tissue in clinical trials51,52. Because osmotic responses can differ between Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria40,46, we expected the optimal concentration of maltodextrin would vary between A. baumannii and S. aureus biofilms. We treated biofilm samples with maltodextrin or e-scaffold alone or with combination of e-scaffold and maltodextrin and then quantified the changes in cell viability and biofilm surface coverage.
Results
Effect of maltodextrin and e-scaffold on cell recovery
Treatment with an e-scaffold alone reduced the viable A. baumannii biofilm cell density by (3.92â±â0.15) log compared to that of untreated biofilms (Fig. 1). The addition of maltodextrin (5, 10, 20, 30 and 40âmM) changed the average CFU recovery from A. baumannii biofilms compared to that for e-scaffold treatment alone (one-way ANOVA, Pâ<â0.001). This resulted in a âU-shapedâ dose response with respect to log-counts of recovered bacteria (2.85â±â0.17, 0, 5.57â±â0.12, 5.44â±â0.27 and 6.41â±â0.16, respectively). We recovered no viable A. baumannii from biofilms treated with an e-scaffold and 10âmM maltodextrin. A (4.35â±â0.16) log reduction of viable biofilm cell density compared to that for treatment with an e-scaffold alone indicates that the e-scaffold is more effective against A. baumannii biofilms when it is used in combination with 10âmM maltodextrin (one-way ANOVA, Pâ<â0.001).
The cell counts for e-scaffold-treated S. aureus biofilms decreased by (2.31â±â0.12) log compared to those for untreated biofilms (Fig. 2). Compared to biofilms treated with an e-scaffold alone, the addition of 10 or 20âmM maltodextrin in combination with the e-scaffold resulted in a further decrease in log-count of 0.23â±â0.12 or 1.66â±â0.13, respectively (Fig. 2). The addition of 30âmM maltodextrin resulted in an additional (2.40â±â0.17) log reduction in recoverable S. aureus compared to treatment with an e-scaffold alone (one-way ANOVA, Pâ<â0.001).
Overall, the efficacy of the e-scaffold at reducing viable biofilm cell density was enhanced in low-osmolarity maltodextrin media (10âmM for A. baumannii and 30âmM for S. aureus). Among the treatment conditions, the combination of an e-scaffold and 10âmM maltodextrin achieved the maximum reduction in viable A. baumannii biofilm cell density, (8.27â±â0.05) log (nâ=â3, one-way ANOVA, Pâ<â0.001) compared to untreated biofilms. The combination of an e-scaffold and 30âmM maltodextrin was found to be the most effective treatment against S. aureus biofilms with a (4.71â±â0.12) log reduction in viable cell density (nâ=â3, one-way ANOVA, Pâ<â0.001) compared to untreated biofilms. For both strains, maltodextrin alone had no significant effect on viable biofilm cell density. Thus, the combination of an e-scaffold and maltodextrin was more effective against both biofilms than either individual treatment alone. A. baumannii showed the maximum sensitivity to H2O2 generated from an e-scaffold in combination with maltodextrin.
Effects of maltodextrin and e-scaffold treatment on biofilm surface coverage
After 24âh the untreated biofilms and maltodextrin and/or e-scaffold treated biofilms were compared by calculating average relative biofilm surface coverages from inverted microscope images (Figs 3 and 4). The addition of maltodextrin alone (10, 20, 30, or 40âmM) resulted in a dose-dependent reduction in the biofilm surface coverage, but it was not statistically significant compared to untreated biofilms. When A. baumannii biofilms were challenged with both an e-scaffold and 10âmM maltodextrin, maximum decrease in biofilm surface coverage (58.3â±â8.4% compared to untreated biofilms) was observed (Fig. 3). This corresponds to an additional ~17% decrease compared to biofilms treated with an e-scaffold alone, but the difference is not statistically significant (Pâ>â0.05, Studentâs t-test). When we challenged the biofilm with a combination of e-scaffold and â¥â20âmM maltodextrin, biofilm surface coverage increased compared to biofilms treated with an e-scaffold alone (Fig. 3).
When S. aureus biofilms were treated with maltodextrin alone there was no statistically significant effect on biofilms surface coverage compared to untreated biofilms (Fig. 4). When we challenged the biofilm with a combination of e-scaffold and maltodextrin (10, 20 and 30âmM), there was a statistically insignificant decrease in biofilm surface coverage compared to biofilms treated with an e-scaffold alone (Fig. 4B). Compared to biofilms treated with an e-scaffold alone, the addition of 40âmM maltodextrin resulted in an increase in biofilm surface coverage. Overall, the maximum decrease in S. aureus biofilm surface coverage (57.5â±â3.2% compared to untreated biofilms) was observed with the combination of an e-scaffold and 30âmM maltodextrin. This corresponds to an additional ~9.5% decrease compared to the biofilms treated with an e-scaffold alone.
Discussion
The diffusion of e-scaffold-generated H2O2 through the biofilm matrix and its entry through the bacterial membrane are dependent on the osmolarity of the medium53. With increasing maltodextrin concentration, the osmolarity of the solution increases54. At relatively high osmolarities, however, adaptive responses to osmotic stress will limit the rate of H2O2 entry into a cell55. Thus, a âU-shaped,â or âbiphasic,â response should be expected when maltodextrin is used as the osmotic agent. We found that, in combination with an e-scaffold, 10âmM maltodextrin was the most effective against A. baumannii, while 30âmM maltodextrin was the most effective against S. aureus biofilms. Increasing the concentration of maltodextrin up to 40âmM in combination with an e-scaffold did not increase biofilm elimination. This may be due to blockage of H2O2 diffusion pathways through the biofilm matrix at higher concentrations of maltodextrin, since the relative diffusivity of an antimicrobial can decrease with increasing concentrations of maltodextrin, as observed previously49,53.
The image analysis shows that for both biofilms the maximum decrease in biofilm surface coverage (~55% decrease from that of the untreated biofilm) occurred when the biofilm was treated with the combination of an e-scaffold and maltodextrin. The effect on biofilm surface coverage, however, was not statistically significant compared to that for e-scaffold alone. This contrasts with the biofilm cell viability data, which showed a clear treatment benefit when maltodextrin was combined with an e-scaffold. Hence, changes in the biofilm surface coverage (as measured here) are unlikely to be the mechanism enhancing the efficacy of the e-scaffold. The most likely mechanism may be increased permeation of e-scaffold-generated H2O2 into the bacterial membrane due to changes induced by the addition of a low-osmolarity hyperosmotic agent37,43. For example, the overexpression of aquaporin proteins in Gram-negative bacteria has been reported in a low-osmolarity medium containing a hyperosmotic agent33,35,36,37 that facilitates H2O2 entry through membranes38,50. Gram-positive S. aureus has a thicker peptidoglycan layer51 and does not produce porins32,38, which is speculated to be the reason for its lesser sensitivity to this treatment compared to Gram-negative A. baumannii.
Antimicrobial âscaffoldsâ incorporating silver, honey, iodine or other substances have been reported as a promising alternative, antibiotic-free technology for multidrug-resistant bacteria, in particular for biofilm elimination from infected wound surfaces7,56. Nevertheless, inconsistent results have been obtained because of the uncontrolled delivery of the active antimicrobial agent56. For instance, there is a plethora of silver-impregnated dressings available commercially; these show a range of log-reductions of 0â6 for Gram-positive S. aureus, 0.2â8.4 for Gram-negative Acinetobacter spp. and 0.1â6.4 for P. aeruginosa PAO1 planktonic cultures57,58. The efficacy of these dressings against biofilms decreases to a range of 0â4 log-reduction for Gram-positive S. aureus and 0â2 log-reduction for Gram-negative P. aeruginosa59,60. The observed variation in log-reduction has been attributed to inconsistency in the concentration of silver ions released to biofilm58. Silver ions deactivate rapidly when released into the medium58. In addition, silver dressings have been reported to select for silver resistance in bacteria61 and they can cause cytotoxicity to fibroblast cells56,58. Medical-grade honey of 10â40% (v/v) or a honey-impregnated dressing is another alternative, reported to achieve around a 1â5 log-reduction for many Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and biofilms62,63. The exact mechanisms of action of honey-impregnated dressings are still elusive56. Dressings impregnated with iodophores such as cadaxomer iodine and betadine have also been reported to be very effective in biofilm reduction to a range of 0â8 log59,64. Similar to silver, iodine reportedly has toxic effects and a limited timescale for its use65. Thus, none of the currently available antimicrobial dressings can deliver a constant, controlled concentration of antimicrobials to achieve a consistent efficacy in biofilm elimination.
Here, we proposed the combination of an e-scaffold and maltodextrin as an alternative biofilm elimination technology. This achieved an overall log-reduction of 8.27â±â0.05 for Gram-negative A. baumannii and 4.71â±â0.12 for Gram-positive S. aureus biofilms over 24âh, which is significantly more effective than reports for other antimicrobial technologies. Both H2O2 and maltodextrin are individually used in wound care51,66,67,68,69. We previously demonstrated that an e-scaffold generates a low concentration of H2O2 that can be an effective, nontoxic alternate treatment for biofilm-infected wounds10. Maltodextrin benefits wound healing by promoting collagen formation, granulation tissue growth and epithelial proliferation52,69,70,71. The combination of an e-scaffold and maltodextrin clearly enhances the elimination of biofilms of two nosocomial infectious agents, Gram-negative A. baumannii and Gram-positive S. aureus. In practice, the e-scaffold can be overlaid onto a biofilm-infected wound in conjunction with a maltodextrin gel or solution. Such treatment can eliminate biofilms while helping to maintain an environment favorable for wound healing52,70. Overall, our proposed technology offers enhanced effectiveness in biofilm-infected wound treatment.
Materials and Methods
Culture growth
Strains of Acinetobacter baumannii (ATCC #17978) and Staphylococcus aureus (ALC1743) expressing green fluorescent protein (gfp) were used in this study for fluorescence imaging purposes. A. baumannii was provided by Professor Eric P. Skaar of the Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, and an S. aureus strain was provided by Niles Donegan of the Giesel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. Cultures were grown as per published protocols72,73,74. Briefly, cultures were grown in 20âg/L (1Ã) Luria Broth (LB) medium (Sigma-Aldrich, catalog # L3522) supplemented with ampicillin (100âμg/mL; Sigma-Aldrich, catalog #A5354) and in 40âg/L (1Ã) tryptic soy broth (TSB) medium (Fisher Scientific, catalog #211825) supplemented with chloramphenicol (10âμg/mL, catalog #C1919-25G). All cultures were grown overnight at 37â°C at an agitation speed of 70ârpm on a rotary shaker.
Biofilm growth
LB medium (0.05Ã) with ampicillin (100âμg/mL) was used for A. baumannii biofilm culture. TSB medium (0.1Ã) with chloramphenicol (10âμg/mL) was used for S. aureus biofilm culture. Overnight cultures were adjusted to OD600âââ0.5 before use as inocula. Sterile glass-bottom petri dishes (MatTek Corporation, catalog #P35G-1.5-20-C) were inoculated with 2âml of overnight cultures. After 2âh of initial attachment, suspended bacteria were removed by washing twice with fresh medium. Biofilms were allowed to develop on the glass surfaces for 24âh.
Biofilm treatment with maltodextrin and e-scaffold
The electrochemical scaffolds (e-scaffolds) consisted of three electrodes prepared as described in Supplementary information and shown in Fig. 5. Maltodextrin (Sigma Aldrich, catalog #419672) solutions were prepared in the respective growth media. After 24âh of growth, A. baumannii and S. aureus biofilms were imaged to collect baseline data. Fresh media (4âml) with different final concentrations of maltodextrin (0, 5, 10, 20, 30, or 40âmM) were added back to the biofilms. The e-scaffolds were then placed on top of the preformed biofilms on the glass surfaces of the petri dishes (Fig. 5).
Biofilm cell viability measurement
All biofilms exposed to an e-scaffold and/or maltodextrin were collected after 24âh and viable cells were enumerated. E-scaffolds were carefully removed and sonicated in 2âml fresh medium for 30âs at 40âkHz with a power output of 72âW (Bransonic 1510R-MTH; Bransonic Ultrasonic Corp., Danbury, CT). Biofilms on the glass-bottom petri dishes were carefully washed twice with fresh medium to remove loosely attached cells. Biofilms/attached cells were then scraped off the glass surfaces and resuspended in 3âml of fresh medium10. Cell suspensions (total 5âml) recovered from e-scaffolds and glass-bottom petri dishes were mixed by vortexing for 30âs and were centrifuged (4,180Ãâg for 10âmin). Each resulting cell pellet was resuspended in 1âml of medium, and serial dilutions were prepared. Colony forming units (CFU) of viable biofilm cells were quantified using a modified drop-plate method75. Untreated biofilms with non-polarized e-scaffolds were considered to be negative controls.
Imaging and quantifying the biofilm structure
Cells expressing gfp were imaged using an inverted epifluorescence microscope (Nikon Eclipse Ti-S inverted microscope) with a Nikon DS-Qi1Mc camera mounted on it and a CFI Plan Fluor ELWD 40x objective (N.A. 0.60, W.D. 3.72.7âmm). Each biofilm was imaged after 24âh of growth before any treatment (initial biofilm, tâ=â0âh) and after 24âh of treatment. Biofilms were washed twice to remove any planktonic cells and refreshed with medium prior to imaging. The images were evaluated using Image Structure Analyzer (ISA) software76,77. At least ten discrete images were taken for each time point13,78. Biofilm surface coverage was defined as the ratio of the area of biofilm to the total area of the image. Biofilm surface coverage was normalized with the average surface coverage of initial biofilms and reported as relative biofilm surface coverage.
Statistical analysis
At least three independent replicates were completed for each set of experimental conditions. Technical replicates were averaged before analysis using Student t-tests or one-way ANOVA with a Bonferroni pairwise test to identify differences between treatment groups (SigmaPlot, version 13, Systat Software, Inc., San Jose, CA).
Conclusions
Our findings show that a combined treatment with electrochemically generated H2O2 and maltodextrin is more effective in decreasing viable biofilm cell density than either treatment alone. This combination also achieved the maximum decrease in biofilm surface coverage (~55% from the untreated biofilm coverage). Gram-negative A. baumannii biofilm cells were eradicated by the e-scaffold at a lower osmolarity (10âmM) maltodextrin solution, showing they are more sensitive to this treatment than Gram-positive S. aureus biofilms. In the case of S. aureus biofilms, the reduction in viable biofilm cell density by e-scaffold increased with increasing osmolarity and reached a maximum reduction at 30âmM maltodextrin. For both biofilms, after the maximum decrease in viable biofilm cell density was reached, further increase in the maltodextrin concentration reduced the treatment effectiveness, probably by blocking H2O2 diffusion. These results indicate the dose-dependent effect of maltodextrin in enhancing biofilm removal efficacy of e-scaffold. Overall, we found that the combined effect of maltodextrin and H2O2 produced by an e-scaffold enhanced biofilm elimination compared to treatment with either application alone. This combination completely eradicated one-day-old Gram-negative A. baumannii biofilms and produced a ~5 log-reduction in Gram-positive S. aureus biofilms, which is very effective biofilm elimination. Further clinical study would provide better evidence for the potential of this technology as a biofilm-infected wound treatment.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Sultana, S. T. et al. Maltodextrin enhances biofilm elimination by electrochemical scaffold. Sci. Rep. 6, 36003; doi: 10.1038/srep36003 (2016).
Publisherâs note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Furuno, J. P. et al. Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Acinetobacter baumannii in a long-term acute care facility. American Journal of Infection Control 36, 468â471, 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.01.003 (2008).
Dallo, S. F. & Tao, W. Insights into Acinetobacter War-Wound Infections, Biofilms, and Control. Advances in Skin & Wound Care 23, 169â174, 10.1097/01.ASW.0000363527.08501.a3 (2010).
Zhao, G. et al. In Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) Vol. 2, 389â399 (2013).
Bryers, J. D. Medical Biofilms. Biotechnology and bioengineering 100, 1â18, 10.1002/bit.21838 (2008).
Ip, M., Lui, S. L., Poon, V. K. M., Lung, I. & Burd, A. Antimicrobial activities of silver dressings: an in vitro comparison. Journal of Medical Microbiology 55, 59â63, 10.1099/jmm.0.46124-0 (2006).
Al-Waili, N. et al. Differences in Composition of Honey Samples and Their Impact on the Antimicrobial Activities against Drug Multiresistant Bacteria and Pathogenic Fungi. Archives of Medical Research 44, 307â316, 10.1016/j.arcmed.2013.04.009 (2013).
Sweeney, I. R., Miraftab, M. & Collyer, G. A critical review of modern and emerging absorbent dressings used to treat exuding wounds. International Wound Journal 9, 601â612, 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2011.00923.x (2012).
Hampton, S. Malodorous fungating wounds: how dressings alleviate symptoms. Br J Community Nurs 13, S31âS32, S34, S36 passim, 10.12968/bjcn.2008.13.Sup3.29470 (2008).
Banerjee, J. et al. Improvement of Human Keratinocyte Migration by a Redox Active Bioelectric Dressing. Plos One 9, 10.1371/journal.pone.0089239 (2014).
Sultana, S. T. et al. Electrochemical scaffold generates localized, low concentration of hydrogen peroxide that inhibits bacterial pathogens and biofilms. Scientific Reports 5, 14908, 10.1038/srep14908 (2015).
Bard, A. J. & Faulkner, L. R. Electrochemical methods: fundamentals and applications. Vol. 2 (Wiley New York, 1980).
Vetter, K. J. Electrochemical Kinetics: Theoretical and experimental aspects. (Academic Press, 1967).
Istanbullu, O., Babauta, J., Hung Duc, N. & Beyenal, H. Electrochemical biofilm control: mechanism of action. Biofouling 28, 769â778, 10.1080/08927014.2012.707651 (2012).
Davies, K. J. A. Oxidative stress, antioxidant defenses, and damage removal, repair, and replacement systems. Iubmb Life 50, 279â289, 10.1080/15216540051081010 (2000).
Rutala, W. A. & Weber, D. J. & Centers for Disease, C. (Centers for Disease Control (US), 2008).
McDonnell, G. & Russell, A. D. Antiseptics and Disinfectants: Activity, Action, and Resistance. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 12, 147â179 (1999).
Linley, E., Denyer, S. P., McDonnell, G., Simons, C. & Maillard, J. Y. Use of hydrogen peroxide as a biocide: new consideration of its mechanisms of biocidal action. J Antimicrob Chemother 67, 1589â1596, 10.1093/jac/dks129 (2012).
Zubko, E. I. & Zubko, M. K. Co-operative inhibitory effects of hydrogen peroxide and iodine against bacterial and yeast species. BMC research notes 6, 272â272, 10.1186/1756-0500-6-272 (2013).
Brudzynski, K., Abubaker, K., St-Martin, L. & Castle, A. Re-examining the role of hydrogen peroxide in bacteriostatic and bactericidal activities of honey. Frontiers in Microbiology 2, 10.3389/fmicb.2011.00213 (2011).
Painter, K. L. et al. Staphylococcus aureus Adapts to Oxidative Stress by Producing H2O2-Resistant Small-Colony Variants via the SOS Response. Infection and Immunity 83, 1830â1844, 10.1128/iai.03016-14 (2015).
Fiester, S. E. & Actis, L. A. Stress responses in the opportunistic pathogen Acinetobacter baumannii. Future Microbiology 8, 353â365, 10.2217/fmb.12.150 (2013).
Mille, Y., Beney, L. & Gervais, P. Compared tolerance to osmotic stress in various microorganisms: towards a survival prediction test. Biotechnol Bioeng 92, 479â484, 10.1002/bit.20631 (2005).
Sousa-Lopes, A., Antunes, F., Cyrne, L. & Marinho, H. S. Decreased cellular permeability to H2O2 protects Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells in stationary phase against oxidative stress. FEBS Letters 578, 152â156, 10.1016/j.febslet.2004.10.090 (2004).
Bienert, G. P., Schjoerring, J. K. & Jahn, T. P. Membrane transport of hydrogen peroxide. Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta-Biomembranes 1758, 994â1003, 10.1016/j.bbamem.2006.02.015 (2006).
Henzler, T. & Steudle, E. Transport and metabolic degradation of hydrogen peroxide in Chara corallina: model calculations and measurements with the pressure probe suggest transport of H2O2 across water channels. Journal of Experimental Botany 51, 2053â2066, 10.1093/jexbot/51.353.2053 (2000).
Stewart, P. S. et al. Effect of catalase on hydrogen peroxide penetration into Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66, 836â838, 10.1128/aem.66.2.836-838.2000 (2000).
Liu, X. F., Roe, F., Jesaitis, A. & Lewandowski, Z. Resistance of biofilms to the catalase inhibitor 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 59, 156â162, 10.1002/(sici)1097-0290(19980720)59:2<156::aid-bit3>3.0.co;2-g (1998).
Antunes, F. & Cadenas, E. Estimation of H2O2 gradients across biomembranes. Febs Letters 475, 121â126, 10.1016/s0014-5793(00)01638-0 (2000).
Seaver, L. C. & Imlay, J. A. Hydrogen Peroxide Fluxes and Compartmentalization inside Growing Escherichia coli. Journal of Bacteriology 183, 7182â7189, 10.1128/JB.183.24.7182-7189.2001 (2001).
Branco, M. R., Marinho, H. S., Cyrne, L. & Antunes, F. Decrease of H2O2 plasma membrane permeability during adaptation to H2O2 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Journal of Biological Chemistry 279, 6501â6506 (2004).
Ha, P. T. et al. Regulation of electron transfer processes affects phototrophic mat structure and activity. Front Microbiol 6, 909, 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00909 (2015).
Percival, S. L., Hill, K. E., Malic, S., Thomas, D. W. & Williams, D. W. Antimicrobial tolerance and the significance of persister cells in recalcitrant chronic wound biofilms. Wound Repair and Regeneration 19, 1â9, 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2010.00651.x (2011).
Perumal, P. K., Wand, M. E., Sutton, J. M. & Bock, L. J. Evaluation of the effectiveness of hydrogen-peroxide-based disinfectants on biofilms formed by Gram-negative pathogens. J Hosp Infect 87, 227â233, 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.05.004 (2014).
Gill, S. S. & Tuteja, N. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol Biochem 48, 909â930, 10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.08.016 (2010).
Masip, L., Veeravalli, K. & Georgiou, G. The many faces of glutathione in bacteria. Antioxid Redox Signal 8, 753â762, 10.1089/ars.2006.8.753 (2006).
Lu, F. P., Wang, Y., Bai, D. Q. & Du, L. X. Adaptive response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to hyperosmotic and oxidative stress. Process Biochemistry 40, 3614â3618, 10.1016/j.procbio.2005.03.061 (2005).
Bienert, G. P. et al. Specific aquaporins facilitate the diffusion of hydrogen peroxide across membranes. Journal of Biological Chemistry 282, 1183â1192, 10.1074/jbc.M603761200 (2007).
Reuter, M. et al. Mechanosensitive channels and bacterial cell wall integrity: does life end with a bang or a whimper? Journal of the Royal Society Interface 11, 20130850, 10.1098/rsif.2013.0850 (2014).
Martinac, B., Buechner, M., Delcour, A. H., Adler, J. & Kung, C. Pressure-sensitive ion channel in Escherichia coli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 84, 2297â2301 (1987).
Gutierrez, C., Abee, T. & Booth, I. R. Physiology of the osmotic stress response in microorganisms. International journal of food microbiology 28, 233â244 (1995).
Hernandez-Alles, S. et al. Porin expression in clinical isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae. Microbiology 145 (Pt 3), 673â679 (1999).
Bazyleu, A. & Kumar, A. Incubation temperature, osmolarity, and salicylate affect the expression of resistance-nodulation-division efflux pumps and outer membrane porins in Acinetobacter baumannii ATCC19606(T). Fems Microbiology Letters 357, 136â143, 10.1111/1574-6968.12530 (2014).
Hernandez-Castro, R., Rodriguez, M. C., Seoane, A. & Garcia Lobo, J. M. The aquaporin gene aqpX of Brucella abortus is induced in hyperosmotic conditions. Microbiology 149, 3185â3192, 10.1099/mic.0.26678-0 (2003).
Mallo, R. C. & Ashby, M. T. AqpZ-mediated water permeability in Escherichia coli measured by stopped-flow spectroscopy. J Bacteriol 188, 820â822, 10.1128/jb.188.2.820-822.2006 (2006).
Gunasekera, T. S., Csonka, L. N. & Paliy, O. Genome-wide transcriptional responses of Escherichia coli k-12 to continuous osmotic and heat stresses. Journal of Bacteriology 190, 3712â3720, 10.1128/jb.01990-07 (2008).
Csonka, L. N. Physiological and genetic responses of bacteria to osmotic stress. Microbiological reviews 53, 121â147 (1989).
Moat, A. G., Foster, J. W. & Spector, M. P. In Microbial Physiology Ch. 18, 582â611 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002).
Schüller, C., Brewster, J. L., Alexander, M. R., Gustin, M. C. & Ruis, H. The HOG pathway controls osmotic regulation of transcription via the stress response element (STRE) of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae CTT1 gene. The EMBO Journal 13, 4382 (1994).
Kiamco, M. M. et al. Vancomycin and maltodextrin affect structure and activity of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 112, 2562â2570, 10.1002/bit.25681 (2015).
Kempf, B. & Bremer, E. Stress responses of Bacillus subtilis to high osmolarity environments: Uptake and synthesis of osmoprotectants. Journal of Biosciences 23, 447â455, 10.1007/bf02936138 (1998).
Silvetti, A. N. Method and compound for treating wounds with starch hydrolysate medication. US patent US6046178 A (2000).
Silvetti, A. N. An Effective Method of Treating Long-Enduring Wounds and Ulcers by Topical Applications of Solutions of Nutrients. The Journal of Dermatologic Surgery and Oncology 7, 501â508, 10.1111/j.1524-4725.1981.tb00685.x (1981).
Mathai, J. C. & Sitaramam, V. Stretch sensitivity of transmembrane mobility of hydrogen peroxide through voids in the bilayer. Role of cardiolipin. Journal of Biological Chemistry 269, 17784â17793 (1994).
Rong, Y., Sillick, M. & Gregson, C. M. Determination of Dextrose Equivalent Value and Number Average Molecular Weight of Maltodextrin by Osmometry. Journal of Food Science 74, C33âC40, 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00993.x (2009).
Block, S. S. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation. (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001).
Bradshaw, C. E. An in vitro comparison of the antimicrobial activity of honey, iodine and silver wound dressings. Bioscience Horizons 4, 61â70 (2011).
Gallant-Behm, C. L. et al. Comparison of in vitro disc diffusion and time kill-kinetic assays for the evaluation of antimicrobial wound dressing efficacy. Wound Repair and Regeneration 13, 412â421, 10.1111/j.1067-1927.2005.130409.x (2005).
Ong, S.-Y., Wu, J., Moochhala, S. M., Tan, M.-H. & Lu, J. Development of a chitosan-based wound dressing with improved hemostatic and antimicrobial properties. Biomaterials 29, 4323â4332, 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.07.034 (2008).
Hill, K. E. et al. An in vitro model of chronic wound biofilms to test wound dressings and assess antimicrobial susceptibilities. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (2010).
Boekema, B. K. H. L., Pool, L. & Ulrich, M. M. W. The effect of a honey based gel and silver sulphadiazine on bacterial infections of in vitro burn wounds. Burns 39, 754â759, 10.1016/j.burns.2012.09.008 (2013).
Percival, S. L., Bowler, P. G. & Russell, D. Bacterial resistance to silver in wound care. J Hosp Infect 60, 1â7, 10.1016/j.jhin.2004.11.014 (2005).
Phillips, P. L. et al. Antimicrobial dressing efficacy against mature Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm on porcine skin explants. International Wound Journal 12, 469â483, 10.1111/iwj.12142 (2015).
Majtan, J., Bohova, J., Horniackova, M., Klaudiny, J. & Majtan, V. Anti-biofilm Effects of Honey Against Wound Pathogens Proteus mirabilis and Enterobacter cloacae. Phytotherapy Research 28, 69â75, 10.1002/ptr.4957 (2014).
Leaper, D. Appropriate use of silver dressings in wounds: international consensus document. International wound journal 9, 461â464 (2012).
Simon, A. et al. Medical Honey for Wound CareâStill the âLatest Resortâ? Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine: eCAM 6, 165â173, 10.1093/ecam/nem175 (2009).
Drosou, A., Falabella, A. & Kirsner, R. S. Antiseptics on wounds: An area of controversy. Wounds-a Compendium of Clinical Research and Practice 15, 149â166 (2003).
Wasserbauer, S., Perez-Meza, D. & Chao, R. Hydrogen peroxide and wound healing: a theoretical and practical review for hair transplant surgeons. Dermatol Surg 34, 745â750, 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2008.34141.x (2008).
Loo, A. E. K. et al. Effects of hydrogen peroxide on wound healing in mice in relation to oxidative damage. PloS one 7, e49215 (2012).
Hartzell, L. D. et al. Enhanced Tracheostomy Wound Healing Using Maltodextrin and Silver Alginate Compounds in Pediatrics: A Pilot Study. Respiratory Care (2014).
McFadden, E. A. Multidex Gel for use in wound care. J Pediatr Nurs 12, 125, 10.1016/s0882-5963(97)80037-1 (1997).
Mohamed Amin, Z. et al. Efficacy Study of Broken Rice Maltodextrin in In Vitro Wound Healing Assay. BioMed Research International 2015, 12, 10.1155/2015/687694 (2015).
Nayduch, D., Cho, H. & Joyner, C. Staphylococcus aureus in the house fly: temporospatial fate of bacteria and expression of the antimicrobial peptide defensin. J Med Entomol 50, 171â178 (2013).
Peterson, M. M. et al. Apolipoprotein B Is an innate barrier against invasive Staphylococcus aureus infection. Cell Host Microbe 4, 555â566, 10.1016/j.chom.2008.10.001 (2008).
Jacobs, A. C. et al. Inactivation of Phospholipase D Diminishes Acinetobacter baumannii Pathogenesis. Infection and Immunity 78, 1952â1962 (2010).
Chen, C. Y., Nace, G. W. & Irwin, P. L. A 6 x 6 drop plate method for simultaneous colony counting and MPN enumeration of Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, and Escherichia coli. Journal of Microbiological Methods 55, 475â479, 10.1016/s0167-7012(03)00194-5 (2003).
Beyenal, H., Lewandowski, Z. & Harkin, G. Quantifying biofilm structure: Facts and fiction. Biofouling 20, 1â23, 10.1080/0892701042000191628 (2004).
Lewandowski, Z. & Beyenal, H. Fundamentals of Biofilm Research. (CRC Press, 2014).
Ica, T. et al. Characterization of mono- and mixed-culture Campylobacter jejuni biofilms. Applied and environmental microbiology 78, 1033â1038, 10.1128/AEM.07364-11 (2012).
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by NSF-CAREER award #0954186, and additional partial support was provided by a grant (DM110308) from the US Department of Defense. The authors would like to thank Professor Eric P. Skaar of the Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN for providing the A. baumannii strain and Niles Donegan of the Giesel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH for providing the S. aureus strain. The author is also grateful to Jesse Bengtsson for his assistance in e-scaffold fabrication and testing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.T.S. designed and performed experiments and contributed to the manuscript preparation. D.R.C. contributed to the research plan and manuscript preparation. H.B. conceived the idea, contributed to the experimental design and manuscript preparation.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the articleâs Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Sultana, S., Call, D. & Beyenal, H. Maltodextrin enhances biofilm elimination by electrochemical scaffold. Sci Rep 6, 36003 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep36003
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep36003
This article is cited by
-
Hypochlorous-Acid-Generating Electrochemical Scaffold for Treatment of Wound Biofilms
Scientific Reports (2019)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.