Ho­ley Biofilm!

by Gemma Reguera

As a child, I was al­ways fas­ci­nated by the holes (or eyes) in Swiss cheese, al­ways in­spect­ing the tun­nel­ing sys­tem be­fore get­ting a good bite. Al­though the holes are the re­sult of mi­cro­bial ac­tiv­ity (the ac­cu­mu­la­tion of CO2 re­leased by fer­men­ta­tive bac­te­ria), I bring up the Swiss cheese anal­ogy for very dif­fer­ent rea­sons. Try to pic­ture a sim­i­lar land­scape of tun­nels and holes in a bac­te­r­ial biofilm. And that's what today's story is about … a 'ho­ley' biofilm.

Source

Pok­ing Holes in Biofilms

In a re­cent study pub­lished in PNAS, Houry and col­lab­o­ra­tors used time-lapse mi­croscopy to mon­i­tor the biofilms formed by the bac­terium Bacil­lus thuringien­sis and noted that a small sub­set (0.1 to 1%) of all the cells in the biofilm were motile. The rest of the cells were ses­sile and im­mo­bile ex­cept for some mi­nor os­cil­la­tory mo­tions ham­pered by the sur­round­ing biofilm ma­trix. The swim­mers in­fil­trated the biofilms in all di­rec­tions, cre­at­ing a land­scape of tun­nels and holes like in Swiss cheese. By tag­ging plank­tonic cells (that is, cells grow­ing free in the sur­round­ing liq­uid) with the green flu­o­res­cent pro­tein (GFP), the au­thors showed that the biofilm swim­mers were in fact plank­tonic cells. The swim­mers in­fil­trated the biofilms in­de­pen­dently of the flow dy­nam­ics of the sur­round­ing fluid and their tun­nel­ing ac­tiv­ity was ex­clu­sively de­pen­dent on the ro­ta­tional ac­tiv­ity of their fla­gella. De­spite the biofilm bar­rier, the swim­mers had av­er­age ve­loc­i­ties as high as 7.3 μm/s in young (24 h old) biofilms. For a movie show­ing these rapid mo­tions, click here. The swim­ming ve­loc­i­ties de­creased pro­gres­sively as the biofilms aged, with the low­est ve­loc­i­ties (4.2 μm/s) be­ing mea­sured in the old­est (72h old) biofilms. This is be­cause the biofilm ma­trix also be­comes more dense and rigid over time (and, there­fore, more dif­fi­cult to per­me­ate). Still, these speeds are re­mark­able for cells that are swim­ming through a biofilm ma­trix!

B. thuringien­sis biofilms are pierced with holes and tun­nels cre­ated by the plank­tonic swim­mers. The ar­row points at a large hole formed by the col­lec­tive mo­tion of a chain of cells. (Scale bar, 20 μm). The tra­jec­to­ries of the swim­mers that lead to the for­ma­tion of the biofilm holes is shown on the right panel. Source

Al­though the biofilm tun­nels were tran­sient (last­ing 2–5 s), new ones formed as the old ones sealed. They were also large enough to per­mit the pas­sage of a high mol­e­c­u­lar weight (250 kDa), flu­o­res­cently la­beled tracer mol­e­cule (FITC-dex­tran). De­spite their large size, the tracer mol­e­cules reached the bot­tom of the tun­neled biofilm in just a few sec­onds (30–50 s). By con­trast, their per­me­ation was slow and in­com­plete with a non­motile strain, which forms struc­turally sim­i­lar biofilms but with­out tun­nels. This sug­gests that the tun­nels pro­mote biofilm ir­ri­ga­tion, thus al­low­ing nu­tri­ent flow through­out the ses­sile com­mu­nity and dis­si­pa­tion of toxic metabo­lites.

Is Tun­nel­ing Species Spe­cific?

The au­thors also noted that the tun­nel­ing be­hav­ior was strain-spe­cific. One motile strain of Yersinia en­te­ro­co­l­it­ica, for ex­am­ple, formed tun­neled biofilms with swim­mers, whereas one motile strain of Pseudomonas aerug­i­nosa (ATCC 1592) and one of Bacil­lus sub­tilis (strain 168) did not. As the ki­netic en­ergy of fla­gel­lar motil­ity and the type of biofilm ma­trix is strain-spe­cific, the au­thors pro­posed that only those strains with suf­fi­cient fla­gel­lar ro­ta­tional force to break through the biofilm ma­trix can tun­nel ef­fec­tively. They also point out that those un­able to tun­nel may have evolved mech­a­nisms of com­mu­ni­ca­tion such that the fla­gel­lar motil­ity of the plank­tonic re­cruits is turned off by sig­nals se­creted by the ses­sile mem­bers of the com­mu­nity. Al­though only four strains were tested, I could not help but to no­tice that the strains that lacked the tun­nel­ing phe­no­type form highly struc­tured biofilms them­selves. Theirs is the 'clas­si­cal' biofilm ar­chi­tec­ture with pil­lars of cells sur­rounded by chan­nels, which have been pro­posed to pro­mote the flow of nu­tri­ents and the dis­per­sion of waste prod­ucts. How­ever, the biofilms formed by B. thuringien­sis are con­flu­ent and rel­a­tively un­struc­tured. Thus, they may use the tun­nel­ing as an al­ter­na­tive ar­chi­tec­tural strat­egy to max­i­mize biofilm ir­ri­ga­tion.

Biofilm swim­mers: the good, the bad and the ugly

Per­haps most in­trigu­ing is the fact that biofilm tun­nel­ing is a dou­ble-edged sword. By pro­mot­ing biofilm ir­ri­ga­tion, swim­mers also pro­mote the per­me­ation of toxic sub­stances and make the ses­sile com­mu­nity more sus­cep­ti­ble to their dele­te­ri­ous ef­fects. The re­searchers ex­plain this ap­par­ent con­tra­dic­tion within the frame­work of eco­log­i­cal the­ory of 'bi­o­log­i­cal in­sur­ance'. The in­sur­ance hy­poth­e­sis states that bio­di­ver­sity is nec­es­sary for greater whole-sys­tem sta­bil­ity in a fluc­tu­at­ing en­vi­ron­ment. The idea is that the more mem­bers with spe­cial­ized roles in a com­mu­nity, the greater the chances ('in­sur­ance') of hav­ing at least one mem­ber func­tion­ing if all oth­ers fail. In tun­neled biofilms, the di­ver­sity is self-gen­er­ated as ses­sile and motile sub­pop­u­la­tions, which co­ex­ist and co­op­er­ate to in­crease nu­tri­ent flow and solute ex­change and cir­cu­la­tion. The com­mu­nity sta­bil­ity is chal­lenged in ad­verse en­vi­ron­ments. Toxic sub­stances, for ex­am­ple, per­me­ate more eas­ily in the tun­neled biofilms and can ac­cel­er­ate the death of the ses­sile com­mu­nity. Yet, the swim­mers sur­vive and can dis­perse to find more fa­vor­able con­di­tions, where they can col­o­nize new sur­faces and buy new 'in­sur­ance' for the com­mu­nity.
 

An FITC-dex­tran mol­e­cule was used to demon­strate that the tun­nels and pores cre­ated by the bac­te­r­ial swim­mers pro­mote biofilm ir­ri­ga­tion and nu­tri­ent flow. The tracer reached the basal layer of the tun­neled biofilms (red curves) in 30–50 s. By con­trast, its per­me­ation was slow and in­com­plete in biofilms formed by a non­motile mu­tant strain (green), which lack tun­nels. Source

The eco­log­i­cal im­pli­ca­tions of the tun­nel­ing be­hav­ior are even more in­trigu­ing when one con­sid­ers that swim­mers can also in­fil­trate biofilms of other species. B. thuringien­sis swim­mers in­fil­trated biofilms formed by both Gram-pos­i­tive and Gram-neg­a­tive bac­te­ria. Other fla­gel­lated bacilli tested, in­clud­ing four strains iso­lated from clin­i­cal set­tings, were also able to tun­nel into biofilms formed by the Gram-pos­i­tive pathogen Staphy­lo­coc­cus au­reus. Whereas S. au­reus biofilms are rel­a­tively re­sis­tant to ben­za­lko­nium chlo­ride, a dis­in­fec­tant com­monly used in hos­pi­tal and in­dus­trial set­tings, ex­pos­ing the biofilms to B. thuringien­sis swim­mers in­creased their sen­si­tiv­ity to this dis­in­fec­tant. Fur­ther­more, treat­ment with a cock­tail of two Bacil­lus swim­mers had a syn­er­gis­tic ef­fect and biofilm killing was more pro­nounced. Thus, in­fil­trat­ing other biofilms could pro­mote co­op­er­a­tion as well as pre­da­tion.
 

A New De­liv­ery Sys­tem?

An in­ter­est­ing twist of the preda­tory na­ture of the tun­nel­ing be­hav­ior comes when you con­sider swim­mers that can them­selves se­crete an­timi­cro­bial com­pounds. It is well known that many bac­te­ria, es­pe­cially the Fir­mi­cutes to which Bacil­lus be­longs, se­crete mol­e­cules that are bac­te­ri­ci­dal in na­ture (i.e., they can kill an­other bac­terium). Ex­am­ples in­clude hy­dro­gen per­ox­ide, bac­te­ri­ocins, an­tibi­otics, tox­ins and au­tolysins, just to name a few. These mol­e­cules can be ex­pen­sive to syn­the­size and se­crete, es­pe­cially at the high con­cen­tra­tions that are of­ten re­quired to reach a 'killing' dose. This is dif­fi­cult to at­tain in a liq­uid en­vi­ron­ment, where the mol­e­cules are rapidly di­luted and even flushed away by the fluid mo­tions. How­ever, swim­mers could de­liver these mol­e­cules at the heart of an es­tab­lished biofilm to max­i­mize their ac­tion. To test this, the au­thors ge­net­i­cally en­gi­neered a strain of B. thuringien­sis ex­press­ing lysostaphin, an en­zyme that breaks down the cell wall of Gram-pos­i­tive bac­te­ria like S. au­reus. The lysostaphin-pro­duc­ing swim­mers lit­er­ally wiped off the S. au­reus biofilm and took over the sur­face, form­ing their own biofilm. These stealth swim­mers nose­dive into the biofilms, bor­ing tran­sient holes and tun­nels through them and strate­gi­cally drop­ping their 'bombs' (aka, tox­ins, bio­cides, etc.) at the heart of the biofilm com­mu­nity. Their ef­fect, as the ex­per­i­ments show, is dev­as­tat­ing for the tar­geted biofilm. As the tun­nel­ing phe­nom­e­non de­pends ex­clu­sively on the ro­ta­tional force of the fla­gel­lum, bac­te­ria can only be­come re­frac­tive to swim­mers' in­fil­tra­tion by shield­ing them­selves from them. One way to do this is by in­creas­ing the rigid­ity of the biofilm ma­trix. Up­reg­u­lat­ing the syn­the­sis of ma­trix com­po­nents in B. sub­tilis 168, for ex­am­ple, lim­ited the pen­e­tra­tion of the B. thuringien­sis swim­mers and pre­vented the for­ma­tion of tun­nels within the biofilm.

Swim­mer cells of B thuringien­sis ex­press­ing the bio­cide lysostaphin (Bt pLysost) com­pletely wipe out the S. au­reus biofilms (in green) and even­tu­ally take over the sur­face and form biofilms (in red). By con­trast, cells B. thuringien­sis that do not pro­duce the bio­cide (Bt) or are de­fec­tive in fla­gel­lar motil­ity (Bt ∆fla) had no ef­fect. The num­bers in paren­the­sis in the lower left-hand cor­ner of each panel show bio­vol­ume units (μm3), a mea­sure of biofilm bio­mass. Source

Is Tun­nel­ing Mak­ing a Fifth Col­umn?

Biofilms be­ing so rel­e­vant in both in­dus­trial and clin­i­cal set­tings, one can quickly en­vi­sion the de­vel­op­ment of biofilm treat­ments us­ing bac­te­r­ial swim­mers. A hall­mark of the biofilm lifestyle is that cells be­come more re­sis­tant to an­timi­cro­bial agents (typ­i­cally 10- to 1,000-fold more re­sis­tant than plank­tonic cells). How­ever, the ap­pli­ca­tion of a few stealth swim­mers to an es­tab­lished biofilm sen­si­tizes the biofilm pop­u­la­tion to an­timi­cro­bials, greatly im­prov­ing the ef­fi­cacy of com­monly used sur­face dis­in­fec­tants. Fur­ther­more, when en­gi­neered to se­crete their own an­timi­cro­bial com­pounds, swim­mers be­come pow­er­ful tools for biofilm erad­i­ca­tion. Their ac­tion could also be tar­geted to treat spe­cific biofilm in­fec­tions such as those re­spon­si­ble for many skin, nasal and di­ges­tive con­di­tions. Such 'pro­bi­otic' treat­ments are un­likely to re­sult in re­sis­tant strains and min­i­mize the use and en­vi­ron­men­tal re­lease of chem­i­cals and drugs. These are in­deed some ho­ley (holy!) biofilms and, be­cause of them, I will never look at Swiss cheese the same way.

 

Ref­er­ence

Houry A, Go­har M, De­schamps J, Tis­chenko E, Aymerich S, Gruss A, Brian­det R (2012). Bac­te­r­ial swim­mers that in­fil­trate and take over the biofilm ma­trix. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 109 (32), 13088–13093. PMID 22773813

 

Gemma Reguera

Gemma is as­sis­tant pro­fes­sor in the De­part­ment of Mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy and Mol­e­c­u­lar Ge­net­ics, Michi­gan State Uni­ver­sity.

 

Other Posts

3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
13 years ago

Do the swim­mers have "hel­mets" on their lead­ing edges to help them bat­ter through?

Nathan Myers
13 years ago
Rene Kratz
13 years ago

Great ar­ti­cle, thanks! I'll tell my stu­dents about this to­day as we talk about biofilms.