Biofilms are a complex group of microbial cells that adhere to the exopolysaccharide matrix present on the surface of medical devices. Biofilm-associated infections in the medical devices pose a serious problem to the public health and adversely affect the function of the device. Medical implants used in oral and orthopedic surgery are fabricated using alloys such as stainless steel and titanium. The biological behavior, such as osseointegration and its antibacterial activity, essentially depends on both the chemical composition and the morphology of the surface of the device. Surface treatment of medical implants by various physical and chemical techniques are attempted in order to improve their surface properties so as to facilitate bio-integration and prevent bacterial adhesion. The potential source of infection of the surrounding tissue and antimicrobial strategies are from bacteria adherent to or in a biofilm on the implant which should prevent both biofilm formation and tissue colonization. This article provides an overview of bacterial biofilm formation and methods adopted for the inhibition of bacterial adhesion on medical implants
BakkeRTrulearMRobinsonJ. Activity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in biofilms: steady state. Biotechnol Bioeng1984; 26(12): 1418–1424.
2.
UpadhyayulaVKGadhamshettyV. Appreciating the role of carbon nanotube composites in preventing biofouling and promoting biofilms on material surfaces in environmental engineering: a review. Biotechnol Adv2010; 28(6): 802–816.
3.
ChengGZhangZChenS. Inhibition of bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on zwitterionic surfaces. Biomaterials2007; 28(29): 4192–4199.
4.
PangCMHongPGuoH. Biofilm formation characteristics of bacterial isolates retrieved from a reverse osmosis membrane. Environ Sci Technol2005; 39(19): 7541–7550.
5.
GoldbergJ. Biofilms and antibiotic resistance: a genetic linkage. Trends Microbiol2002; 10(6): 264.
6.
PengJ-STsaiW-CChouC-C. Inactivation and removal of Bacillus cereus by sanitizer and detergent. Int J Food Microbiol2002; 77(1): 11–18.
7.
ChenMZhangZBottT. Direct measurement of the adhesive strength of biofilms in pipes by micromanipulation. Biotechnol Tech1998; 12(12): 875–880.
8.
BernierSPSilo-SuhLWoodsDE. Comparative analysis of plant and animal models for characterization of Burkholderia cepacia virulence. Infect Immun2003; 71(9): 5306–5313.
9.
CostertonJStewartPSGreenbergE. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science1999; 284(5418): 1318–1322.
10.
KuninCM. Blockage of urinary catheters: role of microorganisms and constituents of the urine on formation of encrustations. J Clin Epidemiol1989; 42(9): 835–842.
11.
ReidG. Biofilms in infectious disease and on medical devices. Int J Antimicrob Agents1999; 11(3): 223–226.
12.
DickinsonGMBisnoAL. Infections associated with indwelling devices: infections related to extravascular devices. Antimicrob Agents Chemother1989; 33(5): 602–607.
13.
HabashMReidG. Microbial biofilms: their development and significance for medical device-related infections. J Clin Pharmacol1999; 39(9): 887–898.
14.
MullerEHübnerJGutierrezN. Isolation and characterization of transposon mutants of Staphylococcus epidermidis deficient in capsular polysaccharide/adhesin and slime. Infect Immun1993; 61(2): 551–558.
15.
HeilmannCHussainMPetersG. Evidence for autolysin-mediated primary attachment of Staphylococcus epidermidis to a polystyrene surface. Mol Microbiol1997; 24(5): 1013–1024.
16.
TormoMÁKnechtEGötzF. Bap-dependent biofilm formation by pathogenic species of Staphylococcus: evidence of horizontal gene transfer?Microbiology2005; 151(7): 2465–2475.
17.
MackDFischerWKrokotschA. The intercellular adhesin involved in biofilm accumulation of Staphylococcus epidermidis is a linear beta-1,6-linked glucosaminoglycan: purification and structural analysis. J Bacteriol1996; 178(1): 175–183.
18.
AllisonDG. The biofilm matrix. Biofouling2003; 19(2): 139–150.
19.
SutherlandIW. The biofilm matrix—an immobilized but dynamic microbial environment. Trends Microbiol2001; 9(5): 222–227.
20.
DanielsRVanderleydenJMichielsJ. Quorum sensing and swarming migration in bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev2004; 28(3): 261–289.
21.
DonlanRM. Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis2002; 8(9): 881–890.
22.
EberhardABurlingameAEberhardC. Structural identification of autoinducer of Photobacterium fischeri luciferase. Biochemistry1981; 20(9): 2444–2449.
23.
ParsekMRGreenbergE. Sociomicrobiology: the connections between quorum sensing and biofilms. Trends Microbiol2005; 13(1): 27–33.
24.
XiongYLiuY. Biological control of microbial attachment: a promising alternative for mitigating membrane biofouling. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol2010; 86(3): 825–837.
25.
NovickRP. Regulation of pathogenicity in Staphylococcus aureus by a peptide-based density-sensing system. In: DunnyGMWinansSC (eds) Cell-cell signaling in bacteria. Washington, DC: ASM Press, 1999, pp.129–146.
26.
WessonCALiouLEToddKM. Staphylococcus aureus Agr and Sar global regulators influence internalization and induction of apoptosis. Infect Immun1998; 66(11): 5238–5243.
27.
FuquaCWinansSCGreenbergEP. Census and consensus in bacterial ecosystems: the LuxR-LuxI family of quorum-sensing transcriptional regulators. Annu Rev Microbiol1996; 50(1): 727–751.
28.
DaviesDGParsekMRPearsonJP. The involvement of cell-to-cell signals in the development of a bacterial biofilm. Science1998; 280(5361): 295–298.
29.
DunneWM. Bacterial adhesion: seen any good biofilms lately?Clin Microbiol Rev2002; 15(2): 155–166.
30.
BrugnoniLLozanoJCubittoM. Potential of yeast isolated from apple juice to adhere to stainless steel surfaces in the apple juice processing industry. Food Res Int2007; 40(3): 332–340.
31.
GilbertPEvansDBrownM. Formation and dispersal of bacterial biofilms in vivo and in situ. J Appl Bacteriol1993; 74(S22): 67S–78S.
32.
KorberDRLawrenceJRLappin-ScottHM. Growth of microorganisms on surfaces. Microbial Biofilms1995; 15–45.
33.
PrakashBVeeregowdaBKrishnappaG. Biofilms: a survival strategy of bacteria. Curr Sci2003; 85(9): 1299–1307.
34.
BryersJD. Medical biofilms. Biotechnol Bioeng2008; 100(1): 1–18.
35.
DarouicheROFarmerJChaputC. Anti-infective efficacy of antiseptic-coated intramedullary nails. J Bone Joint Surg Am1998; 80(9): 1336–1340.
36.
Hall-StoodleyLCostertonJWStoodleyP. Bacterial biofilms: from the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nat Rev Microbiol2004; 2(2): 95–108.
37.
DaveyMEO’tooleGA. Microbial biofilms: from ecology to molecular genetics. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev2000; 64(4): 847–867.
38.
BlakerJNazhatSBoccacciniA. Development and characterisation of silver-doped bioactive glass-coated sutures for tissue engineering and wound healing applications. Biomaterials2004; 25(7): 1319–1329.
39.
RodriguesLBanatIMTeixeiraJ. Strategies for the prevention of microbial biofilm formation on silicone rubber voice prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater2007; 81(2): 358–370.
40.
DarouicheRO. Device-associated infections: a macroproblem that starts with microadherence. Clin Infect Dis2001; 33: 1567–1572.
LynchASRobertsonGT. Bacterial and fungal biofilm infections. Annu Rev Med2008; 59: 415–428.
43.
ZilbermanMElsnerJJ. Antibiotic-eluting medical devices for various applications. J Control Release2008; 130(3): 202–215.
44.
GristinaAGNaylorPTMyrvikQN.Biomaterial-centered infections: microbial adhesion versus tissue integration. In:WadströmTEliassonIHolderI. (eds) Pathogenesis of wound and biomaterial-associated infections. London: Springer, 1990, pp.193–216.
45.
CastelliPCaronnoRFerrareseS. New trends in prosthesis infection in cardiovascular surgery. Surg Infect2006; 7(Suppl. 2): S45–S47.
46.
IzanoEAAmaranteMAKherWB. Differential roles of poly-N-acetylglucosamine surface polysaccharide and extracellular DNA in Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol2008; 74(2): 470–476.
47.
RohdeHBurandtECSiemssenN. Polysaccharide intercellular adhesin or protein factors in biofilm accumulation of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus isolated from prosthetic hip and knee joint infections. Biomaterials2007; 28(9): 1711–1720.
48.
Pizarro-CerdaJCossartP. Bacterial adhesion and entry into host cells. Cell2006; 124(4): 715–727.
49.
ArciolaCRVisaiLTestoniF. Concise survey of Staphylococcus aureus virulence factors that promote adhesion and damage to peri-implant tissues. Int J Artif Organs2011; 34(9): 771–780.
50.
CampocciaDMontanaroLArciolaCR. The significance of infection related to orthopedic devices and issues of antibiotic resistance. Biomaterials2006; 27(11): 2331–2339.
51.
MontanaroLCampocciaDArciolaCR. Advancements in molecular epidemiology of implant infections and future perspectives. Biomaterials2007; 28(34): 5155–5168.
52.
MontanaroLTestoniFPoggiA. Emerging pathogenetic mechanisms of the implant-related osteomyelitis byStaphylococcus aureus. Int J Artif Organs2011; 34(9): 781–788.
53.
ChangCCMerrittK. Infection at the site of implanted materials with and without preadhered bacteria. J Orthop Res1994; 12: 526–531.
54.
FuxCAStoodleyPHall-StoodleyL. Bacterial biofilms: a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther2003; 1(4): 667–683.
55.
CirioniOGiacomettiAGhiselliR. RNA III-inhibiting peptide significantly reduces bacterial load and enhances the effect of antibiotics in the treatment of central venous catheter-associated Staphylococcus aureus infections. J Infect Dis2006; 193: 180–186.
56.
BalabanNGiacomettiACirioniO. Use of the quorum-sensing inhibitor RNA III inhibiting peptide to prevent biofilm formation in vivo by drug resistantStaphylococcus epidermidis. J Infect Dis2003; 187(4): 625–630.
57.
BavejaJKWillcoxMDHumeEB. Furanones as potential anti-bacterial coatings on biomaterials. Biomaterials2004; 25: 5003–5012.
58.
KuźmaŁRózalskiMWalenckaE. Antimicrobial activity of diterpenoids from hairy roots of Salvia sclarea L.: salvipisone as a potential anti-biofilm agent active against antibiotic resistant staphylococci. Phytomedicine2007; 14: 31–35.
59.
Valencia-BurtonMOkiMJohnsonJ. Different mating-type-regulated genes affect the DNA repair defects of Saccharomyces RAD51, RAD52 and RAD55 mutants. Genetics2006; 174(1): 41–55.
60.
Pérez-GiraldoCCruz-VillalónGSánchez-SilosR. In vitro activity of allicin against Staphylococcus epidermidis and influence of subinhibitory concentrations on biofilm formation. J Appl Microbiol2003; 95(4): 709–711.
61.
AslamSTrautnerBWRamanathanV. Combination of tigecycline and N-acetyl cysteine reduces biofilm-embedded bacteria on vascular catheters. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2007; 51: 1556–1558.
62.
CurtinJJDonlanRM. Using bacteriophages to reduce formation of catheter-associated biofilms byStaphylococcus epidermidis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2006; 50: 1268–1275.
63.
CercaNOliveiraRAzeredoJ. Susceptibility of Staphylococcus epidermidis planktonic cells and biofilms to the lytic action of staphylococcus bacteriophage K. Lett Appl Microbiol2007; 45: 313–317.
McKenneyDPouliotKWangY. Vaccine potential of poly-1-6-beta-D-N-succinylglucosamine, an immunoprotective surface polysaccharide of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. J Biotechnol2000; 83: 37–44.
66.
PeiLPalmaMNilssonM. Functional studies of a fibrinogen binding protein fromStaphylococcus epidermidis. Infect Immun1999; 67: 4525–4530.
67.
PeiLFlockJI. Functional study of antibodies against a fibrogenin-binding protein in Staphylococcus epidermidis adherence to polyethylene catheters. J Infect Dis2001; 184: 52–55.
68.
RennermalmANilssonMFlockJ-I. Fibrinogen binding protein (Fbe) of S. epidermidis is a target for opsonic antibodies. Infect Immun2004; 72: 3081–3083.
69.
RohdeHBurdelskiCBartschtK. Induction of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm formation via proteolytical processing of the accumulation associated protein by staphylococcal and host proteases. Mol Microbiol2005; 55: 1883–1895.
70.
JohansenCFalholtPGramL. Enzymatic removal and disinfection of bacterial biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol1997; 63: 3724–3728.
71.
WuJAKusumaCMondJJ. Lysostaphin disrupts Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms on artificial surfaces. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2003; 47: 3407–3414.
72.
DonelliGFrancoliniIKaplanJB. Synergistic activity of dispersin B and cefamandole nafate in inhibition of Staphylococcal biofilm growth on polyurethanes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2007; 51(8): 2733–2740.
73.
SelanLBerluttiFPassarielloC. Proteolytic enzymes: a new treatment strategy for prosthetic infections?Antimicrob Agents Chemother1993; 37: 2618–2621.
74.
MecikogluMSaygiBYildirimY. The effect of proteolytic enzyme serratiopeptidase in the treatment of experimental implant-related infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am2006; 88: 1208–1214.
75.
BoelensJJvan der PollTDankert1J. Interferon-γ protects against biomaterial-associated Staphylococcus epidermidis infection in mice. J Infect Dis2000; 181(3): 1167–1171.
76.
Lopez-LopezGPascualAPereaE. Effect of plastic catheter material on bacterial adherence and viability. J Med Microbiol1991; 34(6): 349–353.
77.
ShenkmanBVaronDTamarinI. Role of agr (RNAIII) in Staphylococcus aureus adherence to fibrinogen, fibronectin, platelets and endothelial cells under static and flow conditions. J Med Microbiol2002; 51(9): 747–754.
78.
CarratalàJNiubóJFernández-SevillaA. Randomized, double-blind trial of an antibiotic-lock technique for prevention of gram-positive central venous catheter-related infection in neutropenic patients with cancer. Antimicrob Agents Chemother1999; 43(9): 2200–2204.
79.
RaadIHachemRTcholakianRK. Efficacy of minocycline and EDTA lock solution in preventing catheter-related bacteremia, septic phlebitis, and endocarditis in rabbits. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2002; 46(2): 327–332.
80.
VeenstraDLSaintSSahaS. Efficacy of antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection. JAMA1999; 281(3): 261–267.
81.
ManierskiCBesarabA. Antimicrobial locks: putting the lock on catheter infections. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis2006; 13(3): 245–258.
82.
MatlFDObermeierARepmannS. New anti-infective coatings of medical implants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2008; 60: 1551–1571.
83.
SubbiahdossGGrijpmaDWVan der MeiHC. Microbial biofilm growth versus tissue integration on biomaterials with different wettabilities and a polymer-brush coating. J Biomed Mater Res A2010; 94(2): 533–538.
84.
WuPGraingerDW. Drug/device combinations for local drug therapies and infection prophylaxis. Biomaterials2006; 27(11): 2450–2467.
85.
StigterMBezemerJDe GrootK. Incorporation of different antibiotics into carbonated hydroxyapatite coatings on titanium implants, release and antibiotic efficacy. J Control Release2004; 99(1): 127–137.
86.
PriceJSTencerAFArmDM. Controlled release of antibiotics from coated orthopedic implants. J. Biomed Mater Res1996Mar; 30(3): 281–286.
87.
AvésEPEstévezGFSaderMS. Hydroxyapatite coating by sol–gel on Ti–6Al–4V alloy as drug carrier. J Mater Sci Mater Med2009; 20(2): 543–547.
88.
McCannMaureen T.GilmoreBrendan FGormanSean P.Staphylococcus epidermidis device-related infections: pathogenesis and clinical management. J Pharmacy and Pharmacology2008; 60: 1551–1571.
89.
MoroniAHeikkilaJMagyarG. Fixation strength and pin tract infection of hydroxyapatite-coated tapered pins. Clin Orthop Relat Res2001; 388: 209–217.
90.
SandénBOlerudCPetren-MallminM. Hydroxyapatite coating improves fixation of pedicle screws. A clinical study. J Bone Joint Surg Br2002; 84(3): 387–391.
91.
ReadingARooneyPTaylorG. Quantitative assessment of the effect of 0.05% chlorhexidine on rat articular cartilage metabolism in vitro and in vivo. J Orthop Res2000; 18(5): 762–767.
92.
RussellADayM. Antibacterial activity of chlorhexidine. J Hosp Infect1993; 25(4): 229–238.
93.
DeJongMESDeBerardinoMTMBrooksDE. Antimicrobial efficacy of external fixator pins coated with a lipid stabilized hydroxyapatite/chlorhexidine complex to prevent pin tract infection in a goat model. J Trauma2001; 50(6): 1008–1014.
94.
GoshegerG HJAhrensHStreitburgerA. Silver coated mega endoprostheses in a rabbit model—an analysis of the infection rate and toxicological side effects. Biomaterials2004; 25: 5547–5556.
95.
LeeDCohenRERubnerMF. Antibacterial properties of Ag nanoparticle loaded multilayers and formation of magnetically directed antibacterial microparticles. Langmuir2005; 21(21): 9651–9659.
KnetschMLKooleLH. New strategies in the development of antimicrobial coatings: the example of increasing usage of silver and silver nanoparticles. Polymer2011; 3(1): 340–366.
98.
SongWHRyuHSHongSH. Antibacterial properties of Ag (or Pt)-containing calcium phosphate coatings formed by micro-arc oxidation. J Biomed Mater Res A2009; 88(1): 246–254.
99.
FengQWuJChenG. A mechanistic study of the antibacterial effect of silver ions on Escherichia coli andStaphylococcus aureus. J Biomed Mater Res2000; 52(4): 662–668.
100.
WebsterTJErgunCDoremusRH. Enhanced functions of osteoblasts on nanophase ceramics. Biomaterials2000; 21(17): 1803–1810.
101.
FujishimaA. Electrochemical photolysis of water at a semiconductor electrode. Nature1972; 238: 37–38.
102.
MillsALe HunteS. An overview of semiconductor photocatalysis. J Photochem Photobiol A Chem1997; 108(1): 1–35.
103.
SunadaKWatanabeTHashimotoK. Studies on photokilling of bacteria on TiO2 thin film. J Photochem Photobiol A Chem2003; 156(1): 227–233.
104.
BoccacciniAKarapappasPMarijuanJ. TiO2 coatings on silicon carbide and carbon fibre substrates by electrophoretic deposition. J Mater Sci2004; 39(3): 851–859.
105.
SawaseTJimboRBabaK. Photo-induced hydrophilicity enhances initial cell behavior and early bone apposition. Clin Oral Implants Res2008; 19(5): 491–496.
106.
ChengC-LSunD-SChuW-C. The effects of the bacterial interaction with visible-light responsive titania photocatalyst on the bactericidal performance. J Biomed Sci2009; 16(1): 7.
107.
HuangZManessP-CBlakeDM. Bactericidal mode of titanium dioxide photocatalysis. J Photochem Photobiol A Chem2000; 130(2): 163–170.
108.
AitaHHoriNTakeuchiM. The effect of ultraviolet functionalization of titanium on integration with bone. Biomaterials2009; 30(6): 1015–1025.
109.
ChoiJYKimKHChoyKC. Photocatalytic antibacterial effect of TiO2 film formed on Ti and TiAg exposed toLactobacillus acidophilus. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater2007; 80(2): 353–359.
110.
LiuHWebsterTJ. Nanomedicine for implants: a review of studies and necessary experimental tools. Biomaterials2007; 28(2): 354–369.
111.
AinslieKMTaoSLPopatKC. In vitro immunogenicity of silicon-based micro- and nanostructured surfaces. ACS Nano2008; 2(5): 1076–1084.
112.
PopatKCEltgrothMLaTempaTJ. Titania nanotubes: a novel platform for drug-eluting coatings for medical implants?Small2007; 3(11): 1878–1881.
113.
PopatKCLeoniLGrimesCA. Influence of engineered titania nanotubular surfaces on bone cells. Biomaterials2007; 28(21): 3188–3197.
HuangHPierstorffEOsawaE. Active nanodiamond hydrogels for chemotherapeutic delivery. Nano Lett2007; 7(11): 3305–3314.
116.
JolyVPangonBValloisJ. Value of antibiotic levels in serum and cardiac vegetations for predicting antibacterial effect of ceftriaxone in experimental Escherichia coli endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother1987; 31(10): 1632–1639.
117.
HancockE. Artificial valve disease. The heart arteries and veins. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994, pp.1539–1545.
118.
HeldmanAWHartertTVRaySC. Oral antibiotic treatment of right-sided staphylococcal endocarditis in injection drug users: prospective randomized comparison with parenteral therapy. Am J Med1996; 101(1): 68–76.
119.
TrampuzAZimmerliW. Antimicrobial agents in orthopaedic surgery. Drugs2006; 66(8): 1089–1106.
120.
Goeau-BrissonniereOACoggiaM. Arterial prosthetic infections. In: WaldvogelFABisnoAL (eds) Infections associated with indwelling medical devices. Washington, DC: ASM Press, 2000, pp. 127–144.
121.
WaldvogelFABisnoAL. Infections associated with indwelling medical devices. Washington, DC: ASM Press, 2000.
122.
DeverLLJohnsonW. Infections associated with endotracheal intubation and tracheostomy. Washington, DC: ASM Press, 2000, pp.307–324.
123.
OliverMJSchwabS. Infections related to hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. In: WaldvogelFABisnoAL (eds) Infections associated with indwelling medical devices. Washington, DC: ASM Press, 2000, pp.345–372.
124.
HessenMTZuckermanJMKayeD. Infections associated with foreign bodies in the urinary tract. Washington, DC: ASM Press, 2000.
125.
ZhangLJiangYDingY. Investigation into the antibacterial behaviour of suspensions of ZnO nanoparticles (ZnO nanofluids). J Nanopart Res2007; 9(3): 479–489.
126.
ArbabASWilsonLBAshariP. A model of lysosomal metabolism of dextran coated superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanoparticles: implications for cellular magnetic resonance imaging. NMR Biomed2005; 18(6): 383–389.
127.
TaylorEWebsterTJ. Reducing infections through nanotechnology and nanoparticles. Int J Nanomedicine2011; 6: 1463–1473.
128.
FreyNAPengSChengK. Magnetic nanoparticles: synthesis, functionalization, and applications in bioimaging and magnetic energy storage. Chem Soc Rev2009; 38(9): 2532–2542.
129.
GaoJGuHXuB. Multifunctional magnetic nanoparticles: design, synthesis, and biomedical applications. Acc Chem Res2009; 42(8): 1097–1107.
130.
TranNWebsterTJ. Magnetic nanoparticles: biomedical applications and challenges. J Mater Chem2010; 20(40): 8760–8767.
131.
SinhaNYeowJ-W. Carbon nanotubes for biomedical applications. IEEE Trans Nanobioscience2005; 4(2): 180–195.
132.
WebsterTJWaidMCMcKenzieJL. Nano-biotechnology: carbon nanofibres as improved neural and orthopaedic implants. Nanotechnology2004; 15(1): 48.
133.
DoyleRJ. Methods in enzymology volume 310: biofilms. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1999.
134.
HamiltonM. The biofilm laboratory: step-by-step protocols for experimental design, analysis, and data interpretation. Bozeman, MT: Cytergy, 2003.
135.
WolfaardtGKorberDLawrenceJ. Cultivation of microbial consortia and communities. In: HurstCJCrawfordRLGarlandJL. (eds) Manual of environmental microbiology. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press, 2007, pp.101–111.
136.
HeilmannCGerkeCPerdreau-RemingtonF. Characterization of Tn917 insertion mutants of Staphylococcus epidermidis affected in biofilm formation. Infect Immun1996; 64(1): 277–282.
137.
AliLKhambatyFDiachenkoG. Investigating the suitability of the Calgary Biofilm Device for assessing the antimicrobial efficacy of new agents. Bioresour Technol2006; 97(15): 1887–1893.
138.
AmorenaBGraciaEMonzónM. Antibiotic susceptibility assay for Staphylococcus aureus in biofilms developed in vitro. J Antimicrob Chemother1999; 44(1): 43–55.
139.
ChandraJKuhnDMMukherjeePK. Biofilm formation by the fungal pathogen Candida albicans: development, architecture, and drug resistance. J Bacteriol2001; 183(18): 5385–5394.
140.
De PrijckKNelisHCoenyeT. Efficacy of silver-releasing rubber for the prevention of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation in water. Biofouling2007; 23(6): 405–411.
StepanovićSDjukićVDjordjevićV. Influence of the incubation atmosphere on the production of biofilm by staphylococci. Clin Microbiol Infect2003; 9(9): 955–958.
143.
ChavantPGaillard-MartinieBTalonR. A new device for rapid evaluation of biofilm formation potential by bacteria. J Microbiol Methods2007; 68(3): 605–612.
144.
BadelSLarocheCGardarinC. New method showing the influence of matrix components in Leuconostoc mesenteroides biofilm formation. Appl Biochem Biotechnol2008; 151(2–3): 364–370.
145.
Tré-HardyMMacéCEl ManssouriN. Effect of antibiotic co-administration on young and mature biofilms of cystic fibrosis clinical isolates: the importance of the biofilm model. Int J Antimicrob Agents2009; 33(1): 40–45.
146.
SulaemanSLe BihanGRosseroA. Comparison between the biofilm initiation of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli strains to an inert surface using BioFilm Ring Test®. J Appl Microbiol2010; 108(4): 1303–1312.
147.
HonraetKNelisH. Use of the modified Robbins device and fluorescent staining to screen plant extracts for the inhibition of S. mutans biofilm formation. J Microbiol Methods2006; 64(2): 217–224.
148.
KromBPBuijssenKBusscherHJ. Candida biofilm analysis in the artificial throat using FISH. In: CihlarRLCalderoneRA (eds) Candida albicans: Methods and Protocols. Humana Press, a part of Springer Science Business Media, LLC 2009, pp.45–54.
149.
LeunisseCVan WeissenbruchRBusscherH. The artificial throat: a new method for standardization of in vitro experiments with tracheo-oesophageal voice prostheses. Acta Otolaryngol1999; 119(5): 604–608.
150.
SchwandtLQvan WeissenbruchRvan der MeiHC. Effect of dairy products on the lifetime of Provox2 voice prostheses in vitro and in vivo. Head Neck2005; 27(6): 471–477.
151.
CurtinJCormicanMFlemingG. Linezolid compared with eperezolid, vancomycin, and gentamicin in an in vitro model of antimicrobial lock therapy for Staphylococcus epidermidis central venous catheter-related biofilm infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2003; 47(10): 3145–3148.
DonlanRPiedeJHeyesC. Model system for growing and quantifying Streptococcus pneumoniae biofilms in situ and in real time. Appl Environ Microbiol2004; 70(8): 4980–4988.
154.
GoeresDMLoetterleLRHamiltonMA. Statistical assessment of a laboratory method for growing biofilms. Microbiology2005; 151(3): 757–762.
155.
HonraetKGoetghebeurENelisHJ. Comparison of three assays for the quantification of Candida biomass in suspension and CDC reactor grown biofilms. J Microbiol Methods2005; 63(3): 287–295.
156.
NailisHVandenbrouckeRTillemanK. Monitoring ALS1 and ALS3 gene expression during in vitro Candida albicans biofilm formation under continuous flow conditions. Mycopathologia2009; 167(1): 9–17.
157.
Parra-RuizJVidaillacCRoseWE. Activities of high-dose daptomycin, vancomycin, and moxifloxacin alone or in combination with clarithromycin or rifampin in a novel in vitro model of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2010; 54(10): 4329–4334.
158.
AgostinhoAJamesGWazniO. Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms by a novel antibacterial envelope for use with implantable cardiac devices. Clin Transl Sci2009; 2(3): 193–198.
159.
GilmoreBFHamillTMJonesDS. Validation of the CDC biofilm reactor as a dynamic model for assessment of encrustation formation on urological device materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater2010; 93(1): 128–140.
160.
GreenCBChengGChandraJ. RT-PCR detection of Candida albicans ALS gene expression in the reconstituted human epithelium (RHE) model of oral candidiasis and in model biofilms. Microbiology2004; 150(2): 267–275.
161.
WoodworthBATamashiroEBhargaveG. An in vitro model of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms on viable airway epithelial cell monolayers. Am J Rhinol2008; 22(3): 235–238.
162.
VollmerTHinseDKleesiekK. Interactions between endocarditis-derived Streptococcus gallolyticus subsp. gallolyticus isolates and human endothelial cells. BMC Microbiol2010; 10(1): 78.
163.
KimJHegdeMJayaramanA. Microfluidic co-culture of epithelial cells and bacteria for investigating soluble signal-mediated interactions. J Vis Exp. Epub ahead of print 20April2010. DOI: 10.3791/1749.
164.
KimJHegdeMJayaramanA. Co-culture of epithelial cells and bacteria for investigating host–pathogen interactions. Lab Chip2010; 10(1): 43–50.
165.
PompilioACrocettaVConfaloneP. Adhesion to and biofilm formation on IB3-1 bronchial cells by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia isolates from cystic fibrosis patients. BMC Microbiol2010; 10(1): 102.
BenoitMRConantCGIonescu-ZanettiC. New device for high-throughput viability screening of flow biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol2010; 76(13): 4136–4142.
168.
ConantCGSchwartzMAIonescu-ZanettiC. Well plate-coupled microfluidic devices designed for facile image-based cell adhesion and transmigration assays. J Biomol Screen2010; 15(1): 102–106.
169.
DingAMPalmerRJCisarJO. Shear-enhanced oral microbial adhesion. Appl Environ Microbiol2010; 76(4): 1294–1297.
DraceKDarbyC. The hmsHFRS operon of Xenorhabdus nematophila is required for biofilm attachment toCaenorhabditis elegans. Appl Environ Microbiol2008; 74(14): 4509–4515.
173.
ŘičicováMKucharíkováSTournuH. Candida albicans biofilm formation in a new in vivo rat model. Microbiology2010; 156(3): 909–919.
174.
Van WijngaerdenEPeetermansWVandersmissenJ. Foreign body infection: a new rat model for prophylaxis and treatment. J Antimicrob Chemother1999; 44(5): 669–674.
175.
EngelsmanAFVan der MeiHCFrancisKP. Real time noninvasive monitoring of contaminating bacteria in a soft tissue implant infection model. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater2009; 88(1): 123–129.
176.
NakamotoDAHaagaJRBoveP. Use of fibrinolytic agents to coat wire implants to decrease infection: an animal model. Invest Radiol1995; 30(6): 341–344.
177.
NejadnikMREngelsmanAFFernandezICS. Bacterial colonization of polymer brush-coated and pristine silicone rubber implanted in infected pockets in mice. J Antimicrob Chemother2008; 62(6): 1323–1325.
178.
KristianSAGoldaTFerracinF. The ability of biofilm formation does not influence virulence of Staphylococcus aureus and host response in a mouse tissue cage infection model. Microb Pathog2004; 36(5): 237–245.
179.
HandkeLDRuppME. In vivo models for the study of biomaterial-associated infection by biofilm-forming Staphylococci. In: PaceJLRuppMEFinchRG (eds) Biofilms, infections and antimicrobial therapy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2006, pp.289–304.
180.
ZimmerliWWaldvogelFAVaudauxP. Pathogenesis of foreign body infection: description and characteristics of an animal model. J Infect Dis1982; 146(4): 487–497.
181.
GoerkeCFluckigerUSteinhuberA. Impact of the regulatory loci agr, sarA and sae of Staphylococcus aureus on the induction of α-toxin during device-related infection resolved by direct quantitative transcript analysis. Mol Microbiol2001; 40(6): 1439–1447.
182.
MurilloODomenechAGarciaA. Efficacy of high doses of levofloxacin in experimental foreign-body infection by methicillin-susceptibleStaphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2006; 50(12): 4011–4017.
183.
FluckigerUUlrichMSteinhuberA. Biofilm formation, icaADBC transcription, and polysaccharide intercellular adhesin synthesis by staphylococci in a device-related infection model. Infect Immun2005; 73(3): 1811–1819.
184.
KristianSALauthXVictorN. Alanylation of teichoic acids protects Staphylococcus aureus against Toll-like receptor 2-dependent host defense in a mouse tissue cage infection model. J Infect Dis2003; 188(3): 414–423.
185.
CoenyeTVandammeP. Molecular microbiology and genomics. Wymondham: Horizon Bioscience, 2006.
186.
CheungAMossRKurlandG. Chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa endobronchitis in rhesus monkeys: II. A histopathologic analysis. J Med Primatol1993; 22(4): 257–262.
187.
CheungAMossRLeongA. Chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa endobronchitis in rhesus monkeys: I. Effects of pentoxifylline on neutrophil influx. J Med Primatol1992; 21(7–8): 357–362.
188.
GrimwoodKToMRabinHR. Subinhibitory antibiotics reduce Pseudomonas aeruginosa tissue injury in the rat lung model. J Antimicrob Chemother1989; 24(6): 937–945.
189.
YanagiharaKTomonoKSawaiT. Effect of clarithromycin on lymphocytes in chronic respiratory Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1997; 155(1): 337–342.
190.
NagataTMukaeHKadotaJ. Effect of erythromycin on chronic respiratory infection caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa with biofilm formation in an experimental murine model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2004; 48(6): 2251–2259.
191.
YanagiharaKTomonoKSawaiT. Combination therapy for chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa respiratory infection associated with biofilm formation. J Antimicrob Chemother2000; 46(1): 69–72.
192.
HoffmannNJensenPØStubC. Novel mouse model of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa lung infection mimicking cystic fibrosis. Infect Immun2005; 73: 2504–2514.
193.
NickelJOlsonMMcLeanR. An ecological study of infected urinary stone genesis in an animal model. Br J Urol1987; 59(1): 21–30.
194.
MorckDLamKMcKayS. Comparative evaluation of fleroxacin, ampicillin, trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole, and gentamicin as treatments of catheter-associated urinary tract infection in a rabbit model. Int J Antimicrob Agents1994; 4: S21–S27.
195.
MorckDOlsonMMcKayS. Therapeutic efficacy of fleroxacin for eliminating catheter-associated urinary tract infection in a rabbit model. Am J Med1993; 94(3A): 23S–30S.
196.
OlsonMENickelJCKhouryAE. Amdinocillin treatment of catheter-associated bacteriuria in rabbits. J Infect Dis1989; 159: 1065–1072.
197.
FungLMittelmanMThornerP. A novel rabbit model for the evaluation of biomaterial associated urinary tract infection. Can J Urol2003; 10(5): 2007–2012.
198.
DarouicheROMansouriMDGawandePV. Efficacy of combination of chlorhexidine and protamine sulphate against device-associated pathogens. J Antimicrob Chemother2008; 61(3): 651–657.
199.
HachemRReitzelRBorneA. Novel antiseptic urinary catheters for prevention of urinary tract infections: correlation of in vivo and in vitro test results. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2009; 53(12): 5145–5149.
200.
EhrlichGDVeehRWangX. Mucosal biofilm formation on middle-ear mucosa in the chinchilla model of otitis media. JAMA2002; 287(13): 1710–1715.
201.
PostJC. Candidate’s thesis: direct evidence of bacterial biofilms in otitis media. The Laryngoscope2001; 111(12): 2083–2094.
202.
KaplanJBVelliyagounderKRagunathC. Genes involved in the synthesis and degradation of matrix polysaccharide in Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans and Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae biofilms. J Bacteriol2004b;186: 8213–8220.
