Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jul;100(13):5773-9.
doi: 10.1007/s00253-016-7310-5. Epub 2016 Jan 29.

Effect of biosurfactants on Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in a BioFlux channel

Affiliations

Effect of biosurfactants on Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in a BioFlux channel

M A Diaz De Rienzo et al. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2016 Jul.

Abstract

Recent studies have indicated that biosurfactants play a role both in maintaining channels between multicellular structures in biofilms and in dispersal of cells from biofilms. A combination of caprylic acid (0.01 % v/v) together with rhamnolipids (0.04 % v/v) was applied to biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 9144 and a mixed culture under BioFlux flowthrough conditions and caused disruption of the biofilms. The biofilms were also treated with a combination of rhamnolipids (0.04 % v/v) and sophorolipids (0.01 %). Control treatments with PBS 1× had no apparent effect on biofilm disruption. The Gram-positive bacterium (S. aureus ATCC 9144) was more sensitive than P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442 in terms of disruption and viability as shown by Live/Dead staining. Disruption of biofilms of P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442 was minimal. Oxygen consumption by biofilms, after different treatments with biosurfactants, confirms that sophorolipid on its own is unable to kill/inhibit cells of P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442, and even when used in combination with rhamnolipids, under static conditions, no decrease in the cell viability was observed. Cells in biofilms exposed to mono-rhamnolipids (0.04 % v/v) showed behaviour typical of exposure to bacteriostatic compounds, but when exposed to di-rhamnolipids (0.04 % v/v), they displayed a pattern characteristic of bactericidal compounds.

Keywords: BioFlux; Biofilms; Biosurfactants; Rhamnolipids.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Biofilm formation and disruption in a BioFlux channel. The images are phase-contrast images and show fully formed biofilms after 48 h of incubation at 30 °C, and the images were recorded with a microscope Evon (10×) (17 % light). a P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442 biofilm before treatment. b P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442 after treatment with rhamnolipid (0.04 %) and caprylic acid (0.01 %). c S. aureus ATCC 9144 before treatment. d S. aureus ATCC 9144 after treatment with rhamnolipid (0.04 %) and caprylic acid (0.01 %). e Mixed culture (P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442/S. aureus ATCC 9144). f Mixed culture after treatment with rhamnolipid (0.04 %) and caprylic acid (0.01 %). g P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442 before treatment. h P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442 after treatment with PBS 1×
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Effect of rhamnolipids and sophorolipids on Biofilm disruption. Biofilms were grown for 48 h at 30 °C and then stained with Live/Dead BacLight and the images were recorded with a microscope Evon (×10) (17 % light). a P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442 biofilm before treatment. b P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442 after treatment with rhamnolipid (0.04 %) and sophorolipid (0.01 %). c S. aureus ATCC 9144 before treatment. d S. aureus ATCC 9144 after treatment with rhamnolipid (0.04 %) and sophorolipid (0.01 %). e Mixed culture (P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442/S. aureus ATCC 9144). f Mixed culture after treatment with rhamnolipid (0.04 %) and sophorolipid (0.01 %)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Oxygen consumption of P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442 biofilms after 30-min treatment with a combinations of biosurfactants and b mono- and di-rhamnolipids. Shown in a plot of the relative concentration of dissolved oxygen in percentage of saturation concentration versus time after addition of the different substances. Treatment concentrations are indicated

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Banat IM, Diaz De Rienzo MA, Quinn GA. Microbial biofilms: biosurfactants as antibiofilm agents. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;98(24):9915–9929. doi: 10.1007/s00253-014-6169-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Callaghan B, Roelants S, Baccile N, Lydon H, Van Bogaert I, Banat IM, Marchant R, Mitchell CA (2015) Sophorolipid-mediated inhibition of colorectal tumor cell growth in vitro and in vivo Cancer Res 75(15):Abstract nr 2294. doi:10.1158/1538–7445.AM2015-2294
    1. Davey ME, Caiazza NC, O'Toole GA. Rhamnolipid surfactant production affects biofilm architecture in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. J Bacteriol. 2003;185:1027–1036. doi: 10.1128/JB.185.3.1027-1036.2003. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Díaz De Rienzo MA, Banat IM, Dolman B, Winterburn J, Martin P. Sophorolipid biosurfactants: possible uses as antibacterial and antibiofilm agent. New Biotechnol. 2015;32(6):720–726. doi: 10.1016/j.nbt.2015.02.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Díaz De Rienzo MA, Stevenson P, Marchant R, Banat IM. Antibacterial properties of biosurfactants against selected gram positive and negative bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2015 - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources