Characterization of Bacteria–Biomaterial Interactions, from a Single Cell to Biofilms

Abu-Lail, Nehal I.; Beyenal, Haluk

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-415800-9.00006-1

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 189 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Small angle x-ray scattering (SAXS) [59] Topological structure From the nanoscopic through continuum length scales Confocal reflection microscope (CRM) [61] Sensitive to details of network structure Confocal fluorescence microscopy (CFM) [61,64] Higher 3D network topology fidelity Second harmonic microscope (SHG) [60,65] More accurate detection of authentic collagen fiber Scanning electron microscope (SEM) [62] Require scaffolding and drying, alter the collagen network Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) [63] X-ray diffraction technology [66] Molecular level, 3D reconstruction Cryo-electron microscopy (Cryo-EM) [67] Molecular level, 3D reconstruction, the most real in-situ information of samples Atomic force microscopy (AFM) [68,69,[77][78][79][80] Topological structure & Mechanic…”

Section: Instrument Applications Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collagen crosslinking: effect on structure, mechanics and fibrosis progression

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biophysical properties of extracellular matrix (ECM), such as matrix stiffness, viscoelasticity and matrix fibrous structure, are emerging as important factors that regulate progression of fibrosis and other chronic diseases. The biophysical properties of the ECM can be rapidly and profoundly regulated by crosslinking reactions in enzymatic or non-enzymatic manners, which further alter the cellular responses and drive disease progression. In-depth understandings of crosslinking reactions will be helpful to reveal the underlying mechanisms of fibrosis progression and put forward new therapeutic targets, whereas related reviews are still devoid. Here, we focus on the main crosslinking mechanisms that commonly exist in a plethora of chronic diseases (e.g. fibrosis, cancer, osteoarthritis) and summarize current understandings including the biochemical reaction, the effect on ECM properties, the influence on cellular behaviors, and related studies in disease model establishment. Potential pharmaceutical interventions targeting the crosslinking process and relevant clinical studies are also introduced. Limitations of pharmaceutical development may be due to the lack of systemic investigations related to the influence on crosslinking mechanism from micro to macro level, which are discussed in the last section. We also propose the unclarified questions regarding crosslinking mechanisms and potential challenges in crosslinking-targeted therapeutics development.

show abstract

Section: Instrument Applications Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collagen crosslinking: effect on structure, mechanics and fibrosis progression

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, long‐range interactions (> 150 nm) that include van der Waals, Brownian motion, electrostatic and Lewis‐acid base hydrophobic interactions as well as short range forces (< 3 nm) such as hydrogen bonds, ionic, dipolar and hydrophobic interactions dictate bacterial adhesion. This stage is also known as the docking stage . The total free energy of bacterial adhesion can be thermodynamically expressed as –

Δ G_{a d h} = Δ G_{v d w} + Δ G_{d l} + Δ G_{a b}

where ΔG adh is the free energy of adhesion while ΔG vdw , ΔG dl and ΔG ab correspond free energies of van der Waals, electrical double layer and acid‐base interactions.…”

Section: Bacteria—material/tissue Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The magnetic torque related effects become important in case of enzymatic co‐factors of redox systems such as Fe 2+ (d) in iron‐sulphur protein clusters, Cu 2+ (d) and Mn 2+ (d) in superoxide dismutase (SOD), which detoxifies the generated superoxide into hydrogen peroxide and further by catalase into water. Figure is a schematic representation of the reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation and their enzymatic detoxification to non‐toxic products.…”

Section: Strategies Against Prosthetic Infectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This stage is also known as the docking stage. 6 The total free energy of bacterial adhesion can be thermodynamically expressed as -DG adh 5 DG vdw 1 DG dl 1 DG ab (1) where DG adh is the free energy of adhesion while DG vdw , DG dl and DG ab correspond free energies of van der Waals, electrical double layer and acid-base interactions. The above non-specific long and short range forces operate as a function of the biomaterial roughness, wettability (hydrophilic/hydrophobic), surface charge, chemistry and topography.…”

Section: Bacteria-material/tissue Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Engineered biomaterial and biophysical stimulation as combinatorial strategies to address prosthetic infection by pathogenic bacteria

Boda

Basu

2016

J. Biomed. Mater. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A plethora of antimicrobial strategies are being developed to address prosthetic infection. The currently available methods for implant infection treatment include the use of antibiotics and revision surgery. Among the bacterial strains, Staphylococcus species pose significant challenges particularly, with regard to hospital acquired infections. In order to combat such life threatening infectious diseases, researchers have developed implantable biomaterials incorporating nanoparticles, antimicrobial reinforcements, surface coatings, slippery/non-adhesive and contact killing surfaces. This review discusses a few of the biomaterial and biophysical antimicrobial strategies, which are in the developmental stage and actively being pursued by several research groups. The clinical efficacy of biophysical stimulation methods such as ultrasound, electric and magnetic field treatments against prosthetic infection depends critically on the stimulation protocol and parameters of the treatment modality. A common thread among the three biophysical stimulation methods is the mechanism of bactericidal action, which is centered on biophysical rupture of bacterial membranes, the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and bacterial membrane depolarization evoked by the interference of essential ion-transport. Although the extent of antimicrobial effect, normally achieved through biophysical stimulation protocol is insufficient to warrant therapeutic application, a combination of antibiotic/ROS inducing agents and biophysical stimulation methods can elicit a clinically relevant reduction in viable bacterial numbers. In this review, we present a detailed account of both the biomaterial and biophysical approaches for achieving maximum bacterial inactivation. Summarizing, the biophysical stimulation methods in a combinatorial manner with material based strategies can be a more potent solution to control bacterial infections. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 105B: 2174-2190, 2017.

show abstract

“…Many types of measures were proposed to combat biofilms, like conventional usage of antibiotics or surfaces designed to inhibit initial adhesion of cells, for the first stage of biofilm formation [11]. A clear understanding of the initial adhesion mechanisms can lead to the development of ideal biomaterials in which cells are unable to attach and growth of biofilms would be hindered [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fabrication and Hydrodynamic Characterization of a Microfluidic Device for Cell Adhesion Tests in Polymeric Surfaces

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A fabrication method is developed to produce a microfluidic device to test cell adhesion to polymeric materials. The process is able to produce channels with walls of any spin coatable polymer. The method is a modification of the existing poly-dimethylsiloxane soft lithography method and, therefore, it is compatible with sealing methods and equipment of most microfluidic laboratories. The molds are produced by xurography, simplifying the fabrication in laboratories without sophisticated equipment for photolithography. The fabrication method is tested by determining the effective differences in bacterial adhesion in five different materials. These materials have different surface hydrophobicities and charges. The major drawback of the method is the location of the region of interest in a lowered surface. It is demonstrated by bacterial adhesion experiments that this drawback has a negligible effect on adhesion. The flow in the device was characterized by computational fluid dynamics and it was shown that shear stress in the region of interest can be calculated by numerical methods and by an analytical equation for rectangular channels. The device is therefore validated for adhesion tests.

show abstract

Characterization of Bacteria–Biomaterial Interactions, from a Single Cell to Biofilms

Cited by 8 publications

References 189 publications

Collagen crosslinking: effect on structure, mechanics and fibrosis progression

Collagen crosslinking: effect on structure, mechanics and fibrosis progression

Engineered biomaterial and biophysical stimulation as combinatorial strategies to address prosthetic infection by pathogenic bacteria

Fabrication and Hydrodynamic Characterization of a Microfluidic Device for Cell Adhesion Tests in Polymeric Surfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About