Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University of Groningen
Synthesis of quaternary ammonium coated surfacesRoest, Steven
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.
Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:2016
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):Roest, S. (2016). Synthesis of quaternary ammonium coated surfaces: Physico-chemistry, bacterial killingand phagocytosis. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Download date: 28-03-2021
Chapter 6
Comparison of methods to evaluate bacterial contact-killing
on cationic surfaces
Roest, S.; Loontjens, T. J. A.; Busscher, H. J., Van der Mei, H. C.;
To be published.
Chapter 6
- 80 -
6.1 Abstract
Prevention of implant related infections by the design of antimicrobial coatings on biomaterials
implants and devices has attracted an increasing amount of interest. Cationic contact-killing
coatings constitute a special class of antimicrobial coatings. Since they do not rely on release of
antimicrobials but only act upon contact with adhering bacteria, they offer several advantages above
release coatings. However, reliable in vitro evaluation methods for bacterial contact-killing surfaces
do not yet exist, while more importantly results of different evaluation methods are often
conflicting. The aim of this study was to compare five methods to evaluate bacterial contact-killing
surfaces. Our comparison is based on determining the contact-killing efficacy of an established,
contact-killing alkylated hyperbranched polyurea-polyethyleneimine coating upon contact with a
Staphylococcus epidermidis strain. Depending on the method used, different results were obtained in
bacterial contact-killing. We conclude that the Petrifilm® and Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS)
methods are preferable: Petrifilm® is most convenient and possibly more reliable. Like all others,
these methods need a complementary assay to exclude killing resulting from release of
antimicrobial compounds, because even a small release of an antimicrobial compound will have a
large influence on bacterial killing in the small fluid volumes of the assays. The modified JIS method
is acceptable, but does not contain balanced amount of nutrients compared to the Petrifilm®
method and should only be used with respect to a non-contact killing control. ASTM and bacterial
spray methods are not reliable, the main reason being the lack of control over the applied bacterial
challenge.
Methods to compare bacterial contact-killing on cationic surfaces
- 81 -
6.2 Introduction
Bacterial adhesion and subsequent biofilm formation on surfaces of biomaterials implants or
devices such as total hip or knee arthroplasties and catheters, constitute the major cause of implant
or device failure.[1-3] These biomaterial-associated infections (BAI) are difficult to treat with
antibiotics as a result of the protection offered by the biofilm mode of growth and a reduced
efficacy of the host immune system around a biomaterial implant or device.[4-6] Moreover, bacteria
may seek shelter in tissue surrounding biomaterial implants and devices.[7] Initially, clinicians will
try to treat patients suffering from BAI with antibiotics, but often the outcome is revision surgery,
accompanied by great discomfort for the patient[8-9] and treatment costs that on average triple the
costs of the primary implant or device.[10] The lack of antibiotic efficacy and the anticipated growth
in the number of biomaterial implants and devices worldwide[11] increased the development of new
antibacterial or infection-resistant biomaterials.[12-14] However, their downward translation to
clinical use fails for a variety of highly diverse reasons,[2,15] including lack of proper evaluation
methods.
The different coatings that are being considered as antibacterial or infection-resistant are either
non-adhesive to bacteria such as hydrophobic coatings,[16-17] polyethylene glycol (PEG) brush
coatings,[18-19] hydrogel coatings,[20] coatings with nanoparticles[21] or antimicrobial releasing
coatings,[22] which are aimed to yield high particle or antibiotic concentrations around an implant
or device in order to kill the bacteria present.[23] As a drawback of antimicrobial release coatings,
they all show a high-burst release immediately upon insertion in the human body, followed by an
extensive tail-release that can extend to several years and that has been associated with the
development of antibiotic-resistant strains.[24-25]
Cationic coatings possess the unique feature of killing bacteria upon contact [12,26]. Provided the
cationic charge density is above 1014 positive charges per cm2,[27-28] cationically-charged coatings will
kill bacteria upon contact while still facilitating tissue integration. In vivo efficacy of cationic coatings
has been demonstrated in rats[29] and sheep.[30] This negates a common criticism toward cationic
coatings that in the human body layers of dead bacteria and adsorbed proteins will hamper bacterial
contact-killing in vivo. Bacterial debris is indeed cleared by macrophages, although phagocytosis of
adhering staphylococci on a cationically-charged coating was found to be reduced compared with
common, negatively-charged biomaterials.[31] Bacteria adhering to adsorbed protein layers were
equally killed as when adhering to a bare cationically-charged coating,[32] possibly because bacteria
adhering to a protein film slowly sink through the layer[33] to eventually contact the positive charge
facilitating their own death.
No ubiquitously accepted method to evaluate the efficacy of bacterial contact-killing of cationic
surfaces exist. Often applied methods (see also Table 6.1) include the ASTM (American Society
for Testing and Materials),[34] the JIS (Japanese Industrial Standards)[35] and the modified JIS
method,[36] spray-coating of bacteria on a surface[37] and the Petrifilm® assay.[38] A comparison of
methods to establish bacterial contact-killing on cationic surfaces has never been made however.
Therefore the aim of this study is to compare the above five methods with respect to their efficacy
to facilitate bacterial contact-killing of a Gram-positive Staphylococcus epidermidis strain. As a contact-
Chapter 6
- 82 -
killing, cationic surface we used a hyperbranched, alkylated polyethyleneimine coating, with
demonstrated ability to facilitate contact-killing of a variety of different bacterial strains in absence
of leaching antimicrobial compounds (see Figure 6.1 and reference 39).
Table 6.1 Summary of methods applied to compare the efficacy of bacterial contact-killing upon adhesion to a cationic surface.
Method Description Advantages Disadvantages References
Bacterial spray
Spraying of a bacterial suspension onto a surface.
Simple concept. Flexible with regards to size of sample.
Difficult to quantify. Bacteria are partly dehydrated by a drying step.
[14,37,49-50]
ASTM E2149
Incubation of a surface in a bacterial suspension while shaking.
Flexible with regards to shape and size of substratum.
An unknown fraction of the bacteria come into contact with the substratum through diffusion.
[46-47,51-54]
JIS Z 2801
Bacteria are contacted with a surface and covered with Parafilm® for a defined time period.
Fast and reproducible. No nutrient availability during the experiment.
[44,55-56]
Modified JIS
Inoculated filters are placed on a contact-killing surface, with or without the addition of serum.
Fast and reproducible. Nutrient availability during the experiment. Proteinaceous conditioning film is applied.
Bacteria might reside deeper in the filter and not come in contact with the coating.
[36,57]
Petrifilm®
Bacteria are confined between a thin nutrient agar layer and a contact-killing surface.
Bacteria are in direct contact with the surface. In situ enumeration.
High numbers of bacteria cannot be counted.
[58-59]
Figure 6.1 Absence of an inhibition zone around an alkylated hyperbranched polyurea-polyethyleneimine coated glass slide on an agar plate, after 96 h incubation with S. epidermidis ATCC 12228, indicating absence of leaching of antibacterial compounds. Taken from Chapter 4.
Methods to compare bacterial contact-killing on cationic surfaces
- 83 -
6.3 Materials and Methods
6.3.1 Bacterial strains, growth and harvesting
S. epidermidis ATCC 12228, originating from blood of a patient with an intravascular catheter
infection was used in this study. The strain was first streaked on a blood agar plate from a frozen
stock solution (7 v/v% DMSO) and grown overnight at 37°C. One colony was inoculated in 10
mL of tryptone soya broth (TSB, Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. 10 mL
of this culture was used to inoculate a main culture of 200 mL of TSB, which was incubated for 16
h at 37°C. Bacteria were harvested by centrifugation for 5 min at 6500 g and 10°C and subsequently
washed two times with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS; 10 mM potassium phosphate and 150 mM
NaCl, pH 7.0). Bacterial suspensions were prepared as described above, unless stated otherwise
and concentrations adjusted by dilution to the requirements of the specific methods, while
enumerating the number of bacteria in suspension using a Bürker-Türk counting chamber. The
percentage live bacteria in a suspension was determined by plate counting in triplicate.
6.3.2 Preparation and alkylation of hyperbranched polyethylenimine (PEI) coatings
AB2 monomers, consisting of a secondary amino (A) group and two blocked isocyanate (B) groups
separated by hexyl spacers and the corresponding hyperbranched polymer coatings were prepared
as described before.[40] Glass slides were activated with a piranha solution and subsequently
functionalized with 2-oxo-N-[3-(triethoxysilyl)propyl]-1-azepanecarboxamide as a coupling agent.
The pure hyperbranched polymer was obtained by precipitation in cold water and the isolated
polymer was dried under reduced pressure at 40°C. The functionalized glass slides were submerged
in a solution of 5 wt% hyperbranched polymer and subsequently spinned at 2000 rpm for 60 s.
After annealing, non-anchored polymers were removed by a three-step extraction. First, the
functionalized glass slides were sonicated in ethanol at room temperature (RT) for 20 min, followed
by overnight immersion in dimethylformamide at 115°C, sonication in ethanol at RT for 20 min
and finally dried under nitrogen. A solution of 15 wt% PEI in methanol (800 µL) was dropped on
the hyperbranched coating and spin coated. The grafting reactions were carried out on an
aluminum plate heated to 125°C for 52 h under nitrogen, followed by intermittent sonication in
methanol at RT for 2 x 45 min in fresh solvent each 45 min to extract unreacted components.
Next, PEI functionalized hyperbranched coated glass slides were immersed in 150 mL 1-
bromohexane and heated under nitrogen at 90°C overnight for alkylation. A suspension of 0.6 g
potassium hydroxide powder in 50 mL tert-amyl alcohol was added. The reaction was continued
for another 3 h at 90°C. Afterwards, coated samples were three times sonicated in methanol for 20
min at RT and dried under nitrogen. A second alkylation step was done in a round bottom flask
fitted with a reflux condenser. The coated samples were immersed in a solution of 20 mL
iodomethane in 150 mL tert-amyl alcohol. Alkylation was carried out at 42°C for 18 h.
Subsequently, samples were sonicated in 100 mL methanol for 20 min at RT and followed by
extraction in methanol at 65°C for 1 day and another sonication in methanol for 20 min at RT.
Finally, the QUAT-coated glass slides were dried and stored under nitrogen. Thus prepared coated
samples possess a cationic charge density of 5 x 1016 N+ ions per cm2 and have a water contact
angle of 86.[40] Before use all glass slides with and without (control) a QUAT-coating were cut into
Chapter 6
- 84 -
pieces of 26 x 26 mm (6.76 cm2), sterilized with 70% ethanol and dried in a sterile environment.
These glass slides were used in all experiments, except in the bacterial spray method where slides
of 78 x 26 mm were used.
6.3.3 Methods for evaluating bacterial killing upon contact with a surface
In order to provide for a comparable scale valid for all five methods included in this study, we first
determined the maximum log-reduction in the number of live or viable bacteria that could be
achieved in each method. Next, the actual log-reduction achieved in the method was determined
and expressed as a ratio with respect to the maximal reduction that could have been achieved. This
ratio will be called the “percentage contact-killing efficacy” throughout the remainder of this paper.
6.3.4 Bacterial spray method
This protocol was adapted from Haldar et al.[37] A S. epidermidis ATCC 12228 suspension with a
concentration of 1 x 108 bacteria per mL was sprayed for 3 s onto sterile QUAT-coated or control
glass slides from a distance of approximately 15 cm, placed under an angle of 70 with the
horizontal axis against a wall. After spraying, surfaces with adhering bacteria were dried for 2 min
and stained for 15 min in the dark with 20 µL live-dead Baclight viability stain containing SYTO 9
dye (yielding green fluorescence for live bacteria) and propidium iodide (yielding red fluorescence
in cell membrane-damaged bacteria, generally considered to be “dead” bacteria). Confocal laser
scanning microscopy (CLSM) was used to visualize live and dead adhering bacteria and after
enumeration of the number of live bacteria expressed as a percentage contact-killing efficacy, as
defined above. Experiments were performed in triplicate with three separately grown bacterial
cultures.
6.3.5 ASTM method
In the ASTM E2149 protocol[34] 10 mL of a bacterial suspension (3 x 105 bacteria/mL) was added
into test tubes together with sterile QUAT-coated or control glass slides and shaken in an orbital
mixer at 200 rpm for 15 min. After 5, 10 and 15 min aliquots were taken of the suspension, serially
diluted and the numbers of colony forming units (CFUs) were determined by plate counting on
TSB agar and used to calculate the percentage contact-killing efficacy. In one experiment, aliquots
were taken up to 120 min in order to check whether contact-killing continued after 15 min.
Experiments were performed in triplicate with three separately grown bacterial cultures.
6.3.6 Japanese Industrial Standard method
In the JIS Z 2801:2010,[35] 0.1 mL of a staphylococcal suspension (1 × 106 bacteria/mL) was placed
on sterile QUAT-coated and control glass slides and covered with sterilized Parafilm® (24 × 24
mm2) and subsequently left to incubate at 37°C for 24 h under humidified atmosphere. After
incubation, the Parafilm® was peeled off and placed together with the samples in a small Petri dish
and 5 mL 0.1% (v/v) Tween80 in PBS was added, followed by sonication for 30 s and gentle
shaking for 2 min. The resulting suspensions were serially diluted and the numbers of CFUs were
determined by plate counting on TSB agar from which the percentage contact-killing efficacy was
calculated. Experiments were performed in triplicate with three separately grown bacterial cultures.
Methods to compare bacterial contact-killing on cationic surfaces
- 85 -
6.3.7 Modified JIS method
In the modified JIS method,[36] 20 µL of a staphylococcal suspension (1 × 107 bacteria/mL) was
pipetted on sterilized nitrocellulose filters (with a pore size of 0.45 µm cut in squares of 24 x 24
mm2) placed on a TSB agar plate. The liquid was absorbed by the agar while the bacteria retained
on the filter. Next, 20 µL of 1% TSB in 10 mM potassium phosphate buffer, with or without 10%
and 50% fetal calf serum added, was pipetted centrally on the surface of sterile QUAT-coated and
control glass slides after which an inoculated filter was carefully placed on top, with the bacteria
contacting the surfaces and left to incubate at 37°C for 24 h in 100% humidified atmosphere. After
incubation, each glass slide and corresponding filter was placed in 5 mL TSB, sonicated for 30 s
and vortexed for 1 min to dislodge adhering bacteria. Finally the resulting suspensions were serially
diluted and the numbers of CFUs were determined by plate counting on TSB agar and employed
to calculate the percentage contact-killing efficacy. Experiments were performed in triplicate with
three separately grown bacterial cultures.
6.3.8 Petrifilm® method
The Petrifilm® Aerobic Count plate system (3M Microbiology, St. Paul, MN, USA) consists of
two films: a bottom film containing standard nutrients, a cold-water gelling agent and an indicator
dye that facilitates colony counting and a top film enclosing the sample within the system. The
bottom film containing the gelling-agent was first swelled with 1 mL sterile demineralized water
for 40 min and transferred to the transparent top film before use. Next, 40 µL of a staphylococcal
suspension (2 x 106 bacteria/mL) was placed on sterile QUAT-coated and control glass slides and
were placed between the two films of the Petrifilm® system and left to incubate at 37°C for 48 h
after which the numbers of CFUs were counted. Closure of the Petrifilm® system ensured
spreading of the staphylococcal suspension over the surface area of the samples. After 48 h, the
number of CFUs on each sample was counted and used to calculate the percentage contact-killing
efficacy. Experiments were performed in triplicate with three separately grown bacterial cultures.
A summary of the methods applied to compare the efficacy of bacterial contact-killing is given in
Table 6.1.
Chapter 6
- 86 -
6.4 Results
The efficacy of bacterial contact-killing by a cationic, QUAT-coated glass slides was investigated
using five different methods, frequently used in literature. Methods were applied as closely as
possible to the instructions given in the literature, which explains why different bacterial challenges
were applied for different methods. Accordingly, the maximal log reduction that could be achieved
differs for each method as can be seen in Table 6.2, variations running from 3.9 log units maximal
reduction for the Petrifilm® assay to 6.8 log units for ASTM E2149.
On control glass slides, none of the methods demonstrated worthwhile contact-killing efficacy of
S. epidermidis ATCC 12228. The spray method showed 22% contact-killing efficacy, which could be
due to the spraying nature of the method, including a drying step that may affect bacterial viability.
The modified JIS method on the other hand, allowed staphylococci to grow on glass slides in
absence of an adsorbed protein film (see also Table 6.2).
Table 6.2 Comparison of the bacterial (S. epidermidis ATCC 12228) contact-killing efficacy (%) achieved in the various methods compared. For each method, the bacterial challenge applied is given per cm2, from which the maximum log reduction that can be achieved is calculated. Percentage efficacy is defined as the log reduction achieved divided by the maximally possible log reduction. ± Signs indicate the SD over triplicate experiments with separately cultured bacteria.
Method Bacterial spray
ASTM E2149 JIS Z 2801
Modified JIS Petrifilm®
Challenge (CFU cm-2) 2.2 x 106 6.0 x 105 2.2 x 104 3.0 x 104 8.8 x 103
Max log reduction 6.3 6.8 4.3 4.5 3.9
Control glass slide
Log reduction 1.4 ± 0.2 0.1 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.3 -3.4 a b
Efficacy (%) 22.0 ± 3.1 2.0 ± 2.0 5.0 ± 6.7 -51.0a b
QUAT-coating
Log reduction 3.4 ± 0.3 1.7 ± 0.3 4.3 ± 0.0 -0.7 ± 1.1 3.2 ± 0.3
Efficacy (%) 53 ± 4.7 25 ± 5.1 100 ± 0.0 -16 ± 25.1 82 ± 8.9 a single-fold data. b Numbers of CFUs were too many to count.
With respect to the QUAT-coating itself, it can be observed from Table 6.2 that the JIS and
Petrifilm® methods both indicate a high percentage contact-killing efficacy of 100% and 82%,
respectively. The bacterial spray method resulted in an efficacy of 53%, but here it should be taken
into account that also on the control glass surface a killing efficacy of 22% was observed inherent
to spraying method. The ASTM method showed only 25% contact-killing efficacy, while the
modified JIS method demonstrated growth of bacteria adhering to the cationic surface. However,
compared to the glass control, growth is considerably less on the QUAT-coating (-16% versus -
51% contact-killing efficacy, respectively). Since the ASTM method allows relatively little time for
contact-killing to occur, the ASTM method was also applied as a function of the time during which
a bacterial suspension and slides were shaken together. In Figure 6.2 it can be seen that killing
efficacies increase up to 60 min.
The modified JIS method was also applied when the QUAT-coating was covered with an adsorbed
protein film (see Table 6.3). The presence of an adsorbed protein film in this method attenuated
Methods to compare bacterial contact-killing on cationic surfaces
- 87 -
the contact-killing ability further, i.e. it increased staphylococcal growth. These observations do not
necessarily imply that contact-killing in presence of an adsorbed protein film will also be attenuated
in case another method would have been applied, particularly since the modified JIS method always
yields growth rather than killing.
Figure 6.2 The staphylococcal (S. epidermidis ATCC 12228) contact-killing efficacy in ASTM E2149 as a function of time. Error bars indicate the SD over triplicate experiments with separately grown bacteria. Data points without error bars represent single-fold data.
Table 6.3 Comparison of the bacterial (S. epidermidis ATCC 12228) contact-killing efficacy (%) achieved in the modified JIS method in absence or presence of adsorbed serum proteins. For details, see heading of Table 6.2.
No adsorption of serum proteins
Adsorption from 10% serum
Adsorption from 50% serum
Challenge (CFU cm-2) 3.0 x 104 3.0 x 104 3.0 x 104
Max log reduction 4.5 4.5 4.5
Control glass slide
Log reduction -3.4 a -3.4 a -4.7 a
Efficacy (%) -51.0 a -50.0 a -69.0 a
QUAT-coating
Log reduction -0.7 ± 1.1 -1.8 ± 1.2 -1.4 ± 0.5
Efficacy (%) -16.0 ± 25.1 -41.0 ± 26.7 -31.0 ± 10.5 a single-fold data
Chapter 6
- 88 -
6.5 Discussion
Cationically coated surfaces constitute the unique feature of killing bacteria upon contact, which
offers a promising alternative for antibiotic-based approaches, particularly considering the rise in
the number of antibiotic resistant strains and species developing.[24-25] Unfortunately, no
ubiquitously accepted method exists to properly evaluate the contact-killing efficacy of contact-
killing coatings. In addition, results may be obscured by the fact that for many coatings reported
on in the literature, it is not clear whether effects are due to leaching of residual antimicrobial
compounds[41-44] from a contact-killing coating or due to contact-killing itself. Here we have
evaluated the contact-killing efficacy of an established, non-leaking contact-killing alkylated
hyperbranched polyurea-PEI coating on glass using one and the same strain in five different
methods (see Table 6.1). Four out of the five methods evaluated demonstrated clear staphylococcal
contact-killing, which varied from 100% in JIS Z 2801 to being indicative of reduced growth in the
modified JIS method. Percentage staphylococcal contact-killing rank as follow: JIS Z 2801 =
Petrifilm® > Bacterial spraying > ASTM E2149 = modified JIS, of which the latter indicating
growth (The differences are statistically significant with respect to the next in ranking at p <0.05,
Student T-test).
Differences obtained between JIS Z 2801 and Petrifilm® are statistically insignificant and the
methods are in fact highly comparable. In both methods bacteria are contacted with a contact-
killing surface within a very small fluid volume, ensuring contact. However, the Petrifilm® method
may be considered slightly more convenient than JIS Z 2801 because surviving bacteria are grown
into countable colonies during contacting. In JIS Z 2801 bacteria have to be dislodged by sonication
after adhering strongly to the cationic coating through electrostatic attraction,[39] which not only
constitutes an additional step with respect to the Petrifilm® method, but possibly also explaining
the higher contact-killing efficacy of JIS Z 2801 as the forceful sonication required may yield
additional killing. Moreover, microscopic observations have shown that in the order of 104 bacteria
per cm-2 are still adhering to a cationic coating after the washing and sonication, which constitutes
50% of the challenge and therewith a major drawback of this method that can be avoided using
the Petrifilm® method. The small fluid volumes in which bacteria and contact-killing surfaces are
brought together, also constitute a possible danger of these two methods, as extremely small
amounts of antimicrobial leachables may easily cause the build-up of a high concentration of
antimicrobial compounds to interfere with contact-killing. Therefore it is advisable to use JIS Z
2801 and Petrifilm® in combination with an agar zone of inhibition assay to ascertain that there is
no release of antimicrobial compounds with demonstrable biological effects (see Figure 6.1 for the
demonstration of absence of release of antimicrobial compounds for the coating employed here).
The spray method is used in several papers[37,45] and often demonstrated 100% contact-killing, while
it yielded only intermediate contact-killing in the current comparison of methods. Self-admitted by
the designers of the spray method,[37] determination of the challenge number of bacteria that
actually come into contact with a coating is hard to establish and can easily be over- or
underestimated and cause erroneous contact-killing efficacy. Also air-drying, although only 2 min,
may cause bacterial-dehydration and possible leakage of antimicrobial compounds in a slinking
volume, therewith contributing to killing.
Methods to compare bacterial contact-killing on cationic surfaces
- 89 -
The ASTM E2149 method[34] only yielded a small staphylococcal contact-killing efficacy (38%),
although contact-killing efficacies against Escherichia coli after 30 min between 50% to 100% have
been reported for different cationic coatings.[46-47] Experiments carried out as a function of time in
this study demonstrated that killing efficacies did not further increase after 60 min (Figure 6.2).
The advantage of the method is that samples with a variety of shapes and sizes can be used, but
the method fails to control the challenge number of bacteria that actually come into contact with
a surface. Also bacterial enumeration is indirect, since aliquots are taken from the suspension for
CFU analysis, instead of measuring directly on the coated surface. Therewith it is impossible to
directly distinguish between killed and adhering bacteria that are still alive. These drawbacks have
likely been considered quite severe by ASTM and the method was deleted as an official ASTM
method in 2010.
The modified JIS method[36] was developed in order to provide an opportunity to the bacteria to
grow during adhesion to a cationic surface as in the clinical situation, which makes it similar in
principle to the Petrifilm® method. Yet in the modified JIS method, the advantage of growth was
too much: all cationic coatings, as nearly all antimicrobial measures, encounter bacterial individuals
that manage to survive the antimicrobial measures. In the human body this may not necessarily be
a problem, as treatment is often prolonged and the immune system may aid in clearing an infection.
However, in the modified JIS method, survivors are able to grow to the extent that “negative
killing” is measured. Accordingly, the method is only useful in combination with the growth
observed on a non-contact-killing surface such as glass in the current study. Compared with glass,
67% growth reduction was observed on our cationic coating. Interpreting this reduction as contact-
killing, this may yield the conclusion that the modified JIS performs almost comparable with the
original JIS and Petrifilm® methods. Although advocated as an advantage of the method that it
can be applied in the presence of a pre-adsorbed proteinaceous conditioning film, this advantage
is not exclusive to the modified JIS method and can be equally applied in all other methods. In the
current study the modified JIS method was applied in presence of a conditioning film of adsorbed
serum proteins, which further enhanced staphylococcal growth on the cationic coating, or with
respect to the glass non-contact-killing control, reduced contact-killing (see Table 6.3).
Interestingly, on other coatings in presence of a conditioning film of adsorbed salivary proteins, no
reduction in contact-killing was observed,[30,32,48] possibly indicating that staphylococcal growth was
caused by adsorbed serum proteins.
Chapter 6
- 90 -
6.6 Conclusions
This study reveals that depending on the method used, very different results can be obtained in the
evaluation of bacterial contact-killing. We conclude that the Petrifilm® and JIS methods are
preferable: Petrifilm® is most convenient and possibly more reliable. Like all others, these methods
need a complementary assay to exclude killing due to release of antimicrobial compounds, because
even a small release of an antimicrobial compound will have a large influence on bacterial killing in
the small fluid volumes of the assays. The modified JIS method is acceptable, but does not contain
balanced amount of nutrients compared to the Petrifilm® method and should only be used with
respect to a non-contact killing control. ASTM and bacterial spray methods are not reliable, the
main reason being the lack of control over the applied bacterial challenge.
6.7 Acknowledgements
This study was entirely funded by UMCG, Groningen, The Netherlands. H. J. Busscher is also
director of a consulting company SASA BV. The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to authorship and/or publication of this article. Opinions and assertions contained
herein are those of the authors and are not construed as necessarily representing views of the
funding organization or their respective employer(s).
Methods to compare bacterial contact-killing on cationic surfaces
- 91 -
References
[1] Costerton, W.; Veeh, R.; Shirtliff, M.; Pasmore, M.; Post, C.; Ehrlich, G., The Application of Biofilm Science to the Study and Control of Chronic Bacterial Infections. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 2003, 112, 1466-1477.
[2] Busscher, H. J.; Van der Mei, H. C.; Subbiahdoss, G.; Jutte, P. C.; Van den Dungen, J. J. A. M.; Zaat, S. A. J.; Schultz, M. J.; Grainger, D. W., Biomaterial-Associated Infection: Locating the Finish Line in the Race for the Surface. Science Translational Medicine 2012, 4, 153rv10.
[3] Moriarty, T. F.; Grainger, D. W.; Richards, R. G., Challenges in Linking Preclinical Anti-Microbial Research Strategies with Clinical Outcomes for Device-Associated Infections. European cells & materials 2014, 28, 112-28.
[4] Zimmerli, W.; Sendi, P., Pathogenesis of Implant-Associated Infection: The Role of the Host. Seminars in Immunopathology 2011, 33, 295-306.
[5] Boelens, J. J.; Dankert, J.; Murk, J. L.; Weening, J. J.; Van der Poll, T.; Dingemans, K. P.; Koole, L.; Laman, J. D.; Zaat, S. A. J., Biomaterial-Associated Persistence of Streptococcus epidermidis in Pericatheter Macrophages. Journal of Infectious Diseases 2000, 181, 1337-1349.
[6] Broekhuizen, C. A. N.; Schultz, M. J.; Van der Wal, A. C.; Boszhard, L.; de Boer, L.; Vandenbroucke-Grauls, C. M. J. E.; Zaat, S. A. J., Tissue around Catheters Is a Niche for Bacteria Associated with Medical Device Infection. Critical Care Medicine 2008, 36, 2395-2402.
[7] Zaat, S. A. J.; Broekhuizen, C. A. N.; Riool, M., Host Tissue as a Niche for Biomaterial-Associated Infection. Future Microbiology 2010, 5, 1149-1151.
[8] Campoccia, D.; Montanaro, L.; Arciola, C. R., The Significance of Infection Related to Orthopedic Devices and Issues of Antibiotic Resistance. Biomaterials 2006, 27, 2331-2339.
[9] Del Pozo, J. L.; Patel, R., Infection Associated with Prosthetic Joints. New England Journal of Medicine 2009, 361, 787-794.
[10] Hernández-Vaquero, D.; Fernández-Fairen, M.; Torres, A.; Menzie, A. M.; Fernández-Carreira, J.; Manuel; Murcia-Mazon, A.; Guerado, E.; Merzthal, L., Treatment of Periprosthetic Infections: An Economic Analysis. The Scientific World Journal 2013, 2013, 6.
[11] Kurtz, S. M.; Lau, E.; Watson, H.; Schmier, J. K.; Parvizi, J., Economic Burden of Periprosthetic Joint Infection in the United States. The Journal of Arthroplasty 2012, 27, 61-65.e1.
[12] Siedenbiedel, F.; Tiller, J. C., Antimicrobial Polymers in Solution and on Surfaces: Overview and Functional Principles. Polymers 2012, 4, 46-7171.
[13] Kugel, A.; Stafslien, S.; Chisholm, B. J., Antimicrobial Coatings Produced by “Tethering” Biocides to the Coating Matrix: A Comprehensive Review. Progress in Organic Coatings 2011, 72, 222-252.
[14] Tiller, J. C.; Liao, C.-J.; Lewis, K.; Klibanov, A. M., Designing Surfaces That Kill Bacteria on Contact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2001, 98, 5981-5985.
[15] Grainger, D. W.; Van der Mei, H. C.; Jutte, P. C.; Van den Dungen, J.; Schultz, M. J.; Van der Laan, B.; Zaat, S. A. J.; Busscher, H. J., Critical Factors in the Translation of Improved Antimicrobial Strategies for Medical Implants and Devices. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 9237-9243.
[16] Jansen, B.; Kohnen, W., Prevention of Biofilm Formation by Polymer Modification. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology 1995, 15, 391-396.
[17] Brady, R., Clean Hulls without Poisons: Devising and Testing Nontoxic Marine Coatings. Journal of Coatings Technology 2000, 72, 45-56.
[18] Dalsin, J. L.; Messersmith, P. B., Bioinspired Antifouling Polymers. Materials Today 2005, 8, 38-46. [19] Norde, W.; Gage, D., Interaction of Bovine Serum Albumin and Human Blood Plasma with Peo-Tethered
Surfaces: Influence of Peo Chain Length, Grafting Density, and Temperature. Langmuir 2004, 20, 4162-4167. [20] Yao, X.; Hu, Y. W.; Cao, B.; Peng, R.; Ding, J. D., Effects of Surface Molecular Chirality on Adhesion and
Differentiation of Stem Cells. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 9001-9009. [21] Taheri, S.; Cavallaro, A.; Christo, S. N.; Smith, L. E.; Majewski, P.; Barton, M.; Hayball, J. D.; Vasilev, K.,
Substrate Independent Silver Nanoparticle Based Antibacterial Coatings. Biomaterials 2014, 35, 4601-4609. [22] Kazemzadeh-Narbat, M.; Kindrachuk, J.; Duan, K.; Jenssen, H.; Hancock, R. E. W.; Wang, R., Antimicrobial
Peptides on Calcium Phosphate-Coated Titanium for the Prevention of Implant-Associated Infections. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 9519-9526.
[23] Cado, G.; Aslam, R.; Séon, L.; Garnier, T.; Fabre, R.; Parat, A.; Chassepot, A.; Voegel, J. C.; Senger, B.; Schneider, F.; Frère, Y.; Jierry, L.; Schaaf, P.; Kerdjoudj, H.; Metz-Boutigue, M. H.; Boulmedais, F., Self-Defensive Biomaterial Coating against Bacteria and Yeasts: Polysaccharide Multilayer Film with Embedded Antimicrobial Peptide. Advanced Functional Materials 2013, 23, 4801-4809.
[24] Marambio-Jones, C.; Hoek, E. M., A Review of the Antibacterial Effects of Silver Nanomaterials and Potential Implications for Human Health and the Environment. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2010, 12, 1531-1551.
[25] Montali, A., Antibacterial Coating Systems. Injury 2006, 37, S81-S86.
Chapter 6
- 92 -
[26] Klibanov, A. M., Permanently Microbicidal Materials Coatings. Journal of Materials Chemistry 2007, 17, 2479-2482.
[27] Murata, H.; Koepsel, R. R.; Matyjaszewski, K.; Russell, A. J., Permanent, Non-Leaching Antibacterial Surfaces—2: How High Density Cationic Surfaces Kill Bacterial Cells. Biomaterials 2007, 28, 4870-4879.
[28] Kügler, R.; Bouloussa, O.; Rondelez, F., Evidence of a Charge-Density Threshold for Optimum Efficiency of Biocidal Cationic Surfaces. Microbiology 2005, 151, 1341-1348.
[29] Gottenbos, B.; Busscher, H. J.; Van der Mei, H. C., Pathogenesis and Prevention of Biomaterial Centered Infections. Journal of Materials Science-Materials in Medicine 2002, 13, 717-722.
[30] Schaer, T. P.; Stewart, S.; Hsu, B. B.; Klibanov, A. M., Hydrophobic Polycationic Coatings That Inhibit Biofilms and Support Bone Healing During Infection. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 1245-1254.
[31] Da Silva, D. J.; Roest, S.; Wang, Y.; Van der Mei, H.; Libera, M.; Van Kooten, T.; Busscher, H., Macrophage Phagocytic Activity Towards Adhering Staphylococci on Cationic and Patterned Hydrogel Coatings Versus Common Biomaterials. Acta Biomaterialia 2015.
[32] Mei, L.; Ren, Y.; Loontjens, T. J. A.; Van der Mei, H. C.; Busscher, H. J., Contact-Killing of Adhering Streptococci by a Quaternary Ammonium Compound Incorporated in an Acrylic Resin. The International journal of artificial organs 2012, 35, 854-863.
[33] Olsson, A. L. J.; Sharma, P. K.; Van der Mei, H. C.; Busscher, H. J., Adhesive Bond Stiffness of Staphylococcus aureus with and without Proteins That Bind to an Adsorbed Fibronectin Film. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2012, 78, 99-102.
[34] Astm E2149-01, Standard Test Method for Determining the Antimicrobial Activity of Immobilized Antimicrobial Agents under Dynamic Contact Conditions (Withdrawn 2010), Astm International, West Conshohocken, Pa, 2001, Www.Astm.Org.
[35] Japanese Industrial Standard Jis Z 2801: 2010. [36] Necula, B. S.; Fratila-Apachitei, L. E.; Zaat, S. A. J.; Apachitei, I.; Duszczyk, J., In Vitro Antibacterial Activity
of Porous Tio2–Ag Composite Layers against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Acta Biomaterialia 2009, 5, 3573-3580.
[37] Haldar, J.; Weight, A. K.; Klibanov, A. M., Preparation, Application and Testing of Permanent Antibacterial and Antiviral Coatings. Nature Protocols 2007, 2, 2412-2417.
[38] Petrifilm® Aerobic Count Plate System (3m Microbiology, St. Paul, Mn, USA). [39] Asri, L. A. T. W.; Crismaru, M.; Roest, S.; Chen, Y.; Ivashenko, O.; Rudolf, P.; Tiller, J. C.; Van der Mei, H. C.;
Loontjens, T. J. A.; Busscher, H. J., A Shape- Adaptive, Antibacterial- Coating of Immobilized Quaternary- Ammonium Compounds Tethered on Hyperbranched Polyurea and Its Mechanism of Action. Advanced Functional Materials 2014, 24, 346-355.
[40] Roest, S.; Van der Mei, H. C.; Loontjens, T. J. A.; Busscher, H. J., Charge Properties and Bacterial Contact-Killing of Hyperbranched Polyurea-Polyethyleneimine Coatings with Various Degrees of Alkylation. Applied Surface Science 2015, 356, 325-332.
[41] Pasquier, N.; Keul, H.; Heine, E.; Moeller, M., From Multifunctionalized Poly (Ethylene Imine) S toward Antimicrobial Coatings. Biomacromolecules 2007, 8, 2874-2882.
[42] Mellouki, A.; Bianchi, A.; Perichaud, A.; Sauvet, G., Evaluation of Antifouling Properties of Non-Toxic Marine Paints. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1989, 20, 612-615.
[43] Irikura, H.; Hasegawa, Y.; Takahashi, Y., Preparation of Antibacterial Polyimide Film by Vapor Deposition Polymerization. Journal of Photopolymer Science and Technology 2003, 16, 273-276.
[44] Andresen, M.; Stenstad, P.; Møretrø, T.; Langsrud, S.; Syverud, K.; Johansson, L.-S.; Stenius, P., Nonleaching Antimicrobial Films Prepared from Surface-Modified Microfibrillated Cellulose. Biomacromolecules 2007, 8, 2149-2155.
[45] Haldar, J.; An, D.; de Cienfuegos, L. A.; Chen, J.; Klibanov, A. M., Polymeric Coatings That Inactivate Both Influenza Virus and Pathogenic Bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2006, 103, 17667-17671.
[46] Lenoir, S.; Pagnoulle, C.; Detrembleur, C.; Galleni, M.; Jérôme, R., Antimicrobial Activity of Polystyrene Particles Coated by Photo-Crosslinked Block Copolymers Containing a Biocidal Polymethacrylate Block. e-Polymers 2005, 5, 783-793.
[47] Milović, N. M.; Wang, J.; Lewis, K.; Klibanov, A. M., Immobilized N-Alkylated Polyethylenimine Avidly Kills Bacteria by Rupturing Cell Membranes with No Resistance Developed. Biotechnology and bioengineering 2005, 90, 715-722.
[48] Gottenbos, B.; Van der Mei, H. C.; Klatter, F.; Grijpma, D. W.; Feijen, J.; Nieuwenhuis, P.; Busscher, H. J., Positively Charged Biomaterials Exert Antimicrobial Effects on Gram-Negative Bacilli in Rats. Biomaterials 2003, 24, 2707-2710.
[49] Waschinski, C. J.; Zimmermann, J.; Salz, U.; Hutzler, R.; Sadowski, G.; Tiller, J. C., Design of Contact‐Active Antimicrobial Acrylate‐Based Materials Using Biocidal Macromers. Advanced Materials 2008, 20, 104-108.
Methods to compare bacterial contact-killing on cationic surfaces
- 93 -
[50] Tiller, J. C.; Lee, S. B.; Lewis, K.; Klibanov, A. M., Polymer Surfaces Derivatized with Poly(Vinyl-N-Hexylpyridinium) Kill Airborne and Waterborne Bacteria. Biotechnology and bioengineering 2002, 79, 465-471.
[51] Klink, C. D.; Binnebösel, M.; Lambertz, A.; Alizai, H. P.; Roeth, A.; Otto, J.; Klinge, U.; Neumann, U. P.; Junge, K., In Vitro and in Vivo Characteristics of Gentamicin-Supplemented Polyvinylidenfluoride Mesh Materials. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A 2012, 100A, 1195-1202.
[52] Sinclair, K.; Pham, T.; Farnsworth, R.; Williams, D.; Loc‐Carrillo, C.; Horne, L.; Ingebretsen, S.; Bloebaum, R., Development of a Broad Spectrum Polymer‐Released Antimicrobial Coating for the Prevention of Resistant Strain Bacterial Infections. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A 2012, 100, 2732-2738.
[53] Chang, Y.; Chen, W.-C.; Hsieh, P.-H.; Chen, D. W.; Lee, M. S.; Shih, H.-N.; Ueng, S. W., In Vitro Activities of Daptomycin-, Vancomycin-, and Teicoplanin-Loaded Polymethylmethacrylate against Methicillin-Susceptible, Methicillin-Resistant, and Vancomycin-Intermediate Strains of Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 2011, 55, 5480-5484.
[54] Fu, J.; Ji, J.; Yuan, W.; Shen, J., Construction of Anti-Adhesive and Antibacterial Multilayer Films Via Layer-by-Layer Assembly of Heparin and Chitosan. Biomaterials 2005, 26, 6684-6692.
[55] Cleophas, R. T. C.; Sjollema, J.; Busscher, H. J.; Kruijtzer, J. A. W.; Liskamp, R. M. J., Characterization and Activity of an Immobilized Antimicrobial Peptide Containing Bactericidal Peg-Hydrogel. Biomacromolecules 2014, 15, 3390-3395.
[56] Madkour, A. E.; Dabkowski, J. M.; Nusslein, K.; Tew, G. N., Fast Disinfecting Antimicrobial Surfaces. Langmuir 2009, 25, 1060-7.
[57] Necula, B. S.; Van Leeuwen, J. P. T. M.; Fratila-Apachitei, L. E.; Zaat, S. A. J.; Apachitei, I.; Duszczyk, J., In Vitro Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Porous Tio2–Ag Antibacterial Coatings for Human Fetal Osteoblasts. Acta Biomaterialia 2012, 8, 4191-4197.
[58] Neut, D.; Dijkstra, R. J.; Thompson, J. I.; Van der Mei, H. C.; Busscher, H. J., Antibacterial Efficacy of a New Gentamicin‐Coating for Cementless Prostheses Compared to Gentamicin‐Loaded Bone Cement. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 2011, 29, 1654-1661.
[59] Yue, J.; Zhao, P.; Gerasimov, J. Y.; Van de Lagemaat, M.; Grotenhuis, A.; Rustema-Abbing, M.; Van der Mei, H. C.; Busscher, H. J.; Herrmann, A.; Ren, Y., 3d-Printable Antimicrobial Composite Resins. Advanced Functional Materials 2015, 25, 6756-6767.
Chapter 6
- 94 -
