Bacteria: To biofilm or not to biofilm

A new model helps to predict under which conditions a species of bacteria will switch to a static lifestyle.
  1. Shravan Pradeep
  2. Paulo E Arratia  Is a corresponding author
  1. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, United States
  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of Pennsylvania, United States

A trip to the dentist is seldom fun, but it is often necessary to remove the sticky, slimy deposits (or biofilms) that adhere to our teeth and gums. These structures are formed by bacteria that have adopted a static lifestyle in the moist and warm environment of our mouths. In fact, biofilms are common in a range of natural, clinical, and industrial settings, where they can be dangerous for our health or contaminate equipments (Davey and O’Toole, 2000; Hall-Stoodley et al., 2004).

In general, bacteria can either exist in a mobile, ‘planktonic’ state where they freely disperse and explore their environment for nutrients, or stay statically as ‘biofilms’, a communal state where the cells share resources and are protected from harmful conditions (Adler, 1966). What triggers bacteria to transition from a mobile state to a biofilm lifestyle depends on how each species responds to certain environmental conditions. The factors include nutrient availability, production of certain chemical triggers as well as cellular parameters - such as bacterial concentration, proliferation rate, or diffusing behavior (Berg, 2018).

Overall, however, the switch to (immobile) biofilm formation is controlled by bacterial dispersion (which is dependent on nutrient levels), and it occurs when the concentration of bacterial molecules known as autoinducers goes above a certain threshold (Davies et al., 1998; Waters and Bassler, 2005). These signals, which are produced by bacteria, serve as a proxy for the level of other bacterial cells in the environment and trigger intracellular signals which impact the genes a cell expresses, and the lifestyle it will adopt. Once the biofilm is created, it is maintained by the autoinducer molecules produced by the immobilized bacteria (Figure 1).

Visual representation of the model for biofilm formation.

Bacteria can exist in two different states: a motile state in which they can disperse freely around their environment (top), and an immobile state in which they live together in static as a biofilm (bottom). The red gradient in the biofilm box indicates to which extent bacterial density is increasing in the biofilm from left to right alongside rising nutrient concentrations (grey gradient). The motile bacteria move towards increasing nutrient concentration to the right. The concentration of autodiffusers (molecules produced by bacteria which trigger biofilm formation; blue gradient), is highest close to the biofilm and decreases further away.

Yet, how biofilms emerge and the exact conditions that trigger their formation remain a topic of intense research. In general, motile and biofilm lifestyles are studied separately, making it difficult to predict with certainty whether a species of bacteria will form a biofilm under certain conditions. Now, in eLife, Sujit Datta and colleagues at Princeton University – including Jenna Moore-Ott as first author – report having developed a unified framework that can examine both states simultaneously (Moore-Ott et al., 2022).

The team developed a series of equations that describe the transition from planktonic state to biofilm under a range of parameters covering all possible conditions. The resulting model, which describes the behavior of the cells, is governed by two main factors: nutrient consumption and bacterial dispersion in the motile state. Both parameters focus on the competition between bacterial dispersion and the production of autoinducer molecules.

Based on the model, Moore-Ott et al. predict two conditions where the concentration of autoinducers remains under the threshold required for biofilm formation. In the first case, nutrients are consumed at such a high rate that the autoinducers are produced (by bacteria) in limited quantities; there is simply not enough autoinducer ‘production’ time. In the second case, bacteria diffuse and therefore disperse at increased levels (possibly because of environmental conditions), limiting the accumulation of the autoinducers in one location.

In addition, Moore-Ott et al. also pinpointed a third factor the ratio between the time it takes for nutrients to be consumed and for autoinducer to be produced, which affects how fast the biofilm forms and how large they become. For instance, a larger ratio between these two timescales results in the biofilm proliferating, while a smaller ratio slows down the formation of the biofilm. Overall, the combination of these three parameters – nutrient consumption, bacterial dispersion, and ratio of consumption to production time scale – determine which lifestyle a specific species adopts, and at what concentration.

While nutrient consumption and bacterial dispersion vary between different species of bacteria and across environments, they are quantifiable through experiments. This means that the model provides a unique general framework that can be used to predict which state a given bacterial species will adopt under specific circumstances.

Further work should aim to refine the model so it can become closer to real life conditions. For example, the framework assumes that biofilm formation and the production of autoinducers in a nutrient-dependent fashion are irreversible, two assumptions which can be relaxed for certain species of bacteria (Bridges and Bassler, 2019). In addition, more complex elements could be added to tailor the framework to a specific system, such as incorporating how the biofilm is spatially organized, inputting the role of secondary signaling molecules which fine-tune the impact of autoinducers, or acknowledging how individual cells may respond differently to signals (Bhattacharjee et al., 2022; Jenal et al., 2017; Nadezhdin et al., 2020). Nevertheless, this work represents an important step forward in our quantitative understanding of biofilm formation, which in turn will help us in both fighting and harnessing biofilms, which can be useful in wound healing, bioremediation, or functional materials production.

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Shravan Pradeep

    Shravan Pradeep is in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States

    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7483-2385
  2. Paulo E Arratia

    Paulo E Arratia is in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States

    For correspondence
    parratia@seas.upenn.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2566-2663

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: July 21, 2022 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2022, Pradeep and Arratia

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,120
    views
  • 293
    downloads
  • 2
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Shravan Pradeep
  2. Paulo E Arratia
(2022)
Bacteria: To biofilm or not to biofilm
eLife 11:e80891.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80891
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Trine Line Hauge Okholm, Andreas Bjerregaard Kamstrup ... Christian Kroun Damgaard
    Research Article

    Circular RNAs represent a class of endogenous RNAs that regulate gene expression and influence cell biological decisions with implications for the pathogenesis of several diseases. Here, we disclose a novel gene-regulatory role of circHIPK3 by combining analyses of large genomics datasets and mechanistic cell biological follow-up experiments. Using time-course depletion of circHIPK3 and specific candidate RNA-binding proteins, we identify several perturbed genes by RNA sequencing analyses. Expression-coupled motif analyses identify an 11-mer motif within circHIPK3, which also becomes enriched in genes that are downregulated upon circHIPK3 depletion. By mining eCLIP datasets and combined with RNA immunoprecipitation assays, we demonstrate that the 11-mer motif constitutes a strong binding site for IGF2BP2 in bladder cancer cell lines. Our results suggest that circHIPK3 can sequester IGF2BP2 as a competing endogenous RNA (ceRNA), leading to target mRNA stabilization. As an example of a circHIPK3-regulated gene, we focus on the STAT3 mRNA as a specific substrate of IGF2BP2 and validate that manipulation of circHIPK3 regulates IGF2BP2-STAT3 mRNA binding and, thereby, STAT3 mRNA levels. Surprisingly, absolute copy number quantifications demonstrate that IGF2BP2 outnumbers circHIPK3 by orders of magnitude, which is inconsistent with a simple 1:1 ceRNA hypothesis. Instead, we show that circHIPK3 can nucleate multiple copies of IGF2BP2, potentially via phase separation, to produce IGF2BP2 condensates. Our results support a model where a few cellular circHIPK3 molecules can induce IGF2BP2 condensation, thereby regulating key factors for cell proliferation.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    N Suhas Jagannathan, Javier Yu Peng Koh ... Lisa Tucker-Kellogg
    Research Article

    Bats have unique characteristics compared to other mammals, including increased longevity and higher resistance to cancer and infectious disease. While previous studies have analyzed the metabolic requirements for flight, it is still unclear how bat metabolism supports these unique features, and no study has integrated metabolomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics to characterize bat metabolism. In this work, we performed a multi-omics data analysis using a computational model of metabolic fluxes to identify fundamental differences in central metabolism between primary lung fibroblast cell lines from the black flying fox fruit bat (Pteropus alecto) and human. Bat cells showed higher expression levels of Complex I components of electron transport chain (ETC), but, remarkably, a lower rate of oxygen consumption. Computational modeling interpreted these results as indicating that Complex II activity may be low or reversed, similar to an ischemic state. An ischemic-like state of bats was also supported by decreased levels of central metabolites and increased ratios of succinate to fumarate in bat cells. Ischemic states tend to produce reactive oxygen species (ROS), which would be incompatible with the longevity of bats. However, bat cells had higher antioxidant reservoirs (higher total glutathione and higher ratio of NADPH to NADP) despite higher mitochondrial ROS levels. In addition, bat cells were more resistant to glucose deprivation and had increased resistance to ferroptosis, one of the characteristics of which is oxidative stress. Thus, our studies revealed distinct differences in the ETC regulation and metabolic stress responses between human and bat cells.