Publications

Multispecies biofilms are communities composed of different microorganisms embedded in an auto-synthesized polymeric matrix. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cenocepacia are two multidrug-resistant and biofilm-forming opportunistic pathogens often found in the lungs of people living with cystic fibrosis. In this context, planktonic, static, and dynamic biofilms and in vivo models of both species were optimized in this work to understand their population dynamics, disposition, virulence, and antibiotic susceptibility. From the coculture models optimized in this work, we determined that B. cenocepacia grows in a clustered, aggregative manner at the bottom layers of biofilms, in close contact with P. aeruginosa, that tends to occupy the top layers. Their coexistence increases virulence-related gene expression in both species at early stages of coinfection and in in vivo models, while there was a general downregulation of virulence-related genes after longer coexistence periods as they eventually reach a non-competitive stage during chronic infections. When evaluating antimicrobial susceptibility, a decrease of antimicrobial tolerance was observed in both species when co-cultured. These findings shed light on the differential behavior of P. aeruginosa and B. cenocepacia in dual-species systems, stressing the relevance of multispecies studies in the clinical context.

JTD Keywords: Antibiotic, Biofilm spatial distribution, Biofilms, Cepacia, Coinfection, Cystic-fibrosis, Gene expressio, Infection, Persistence, Polymicrobial biofilm, Virulence

Microbial biofilms are complex three-dimensional structures where sessile microbes are embedded in a polymeric extracellular matrix. Their resistance toward the host immune system as well as to a diverse range of antimicrobial treatments poses a serious health and development threat, being in the top 10 global public health threats declared by the World Health Organization. In an effort to combat biofilm-related microbial infections, several strategies have been developed to independently eliminate biofilms or to complement conventional antibiotic therapies. However, their limitations leave room for other treatment alternatives, where the application of nanotechnology to biofilm eradication has gained significant relevance in recent years. Their small size, penetration efficiency, and the design flexibility that they present makes them a promising alternative for biofilm infection treatment, although they also present set-backs. This review aims to describe the main possibilities and limitations of nanomedicine against biofilms, while covering the main aspects of biofilm formation and study, and the current therapies for biofilm treatment. This article is categorized under: Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Nanomedicine for Infectious Disease Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Toxicology of Nanomaterials Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Regulatory and Policy Issues in Nanomedicine.

JTD Keywords: Anti-bacterial agents, Anti-infective agents, Antiinfective agent, Antimicrobial, Antimicrobials, Antimicrobials,bacteria,biofilm,infectious diseases,microorganism, Bacteria, Biofilm, Biofilm infections, Biofilms, Complex three dimensional structures, Diseases, Diverse range, Drug-delivery systems,in-vitro,cellular toxicity,nanoparticles,penetration,model,biocompatibility,perspectives,hyperthermia,diagnosi, Extracellular matrices, Global public health, Health risks, Infectious disease, Infectious diseases, Medical nanotechnology, Microbial biofilm, Microorganisms, Nanomedicine, Polymer, Polymers, Regulatory issues, Roadmap