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.
- Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, United States
- 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).
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
-
Microbial biofilms: from ecology to molecular geneticsMicrobiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 64:847–867.https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.64.4.847-867.2000
-
Bacterial biofilms: from the natural environment to infectious diseasesNature Reviews Microbiology 2:95–108.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro821
-
Cyclic di-GMP: second messenger extraordinaireNature Reviews. Microbiology 15:271–284.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.190
-
Quorum sensing: cell-to-cell communication in bacteriaAnnual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 21:319–346.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.21.012704.131001
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
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
-
- 2,455
- views
-
- 311
- 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)
Bacteria: To biofilm or not to biofilm
eLife 11:e80891.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80891
Further reading
-
- Computational and Systems Biology
Live-cell microscopy routinely provides massive amounts of time-lapse images of complex cellular systems under various physiological or therapeutic conditions. However, this wealth of data remains difficult to interpret in terms of causal effects. Here, we describe CausalXtract, a flexible computational pipeline that discovers causal and possibly time-lagged effects from morphodynamic features and cell–cell interactions in live-cell imaging data. CausalXtract methodology combines network-based and information-based frameworks, which is shown to discover causal effects overlooked by classical Granger and Schreiber causality approaches. We showcase the use of CausalXtract to uncover novel causal effects in a tumor-on-chip cellular ecosystem under therapeutically relevant conditions. In particular, we find that cancer-associated fibroblasts directly inhibit cancer cell apoptosis, independently from anticancer treatment. CausalXtract uncovers also multiple antagonistic effects at different time delays. Hence, CausalXtract provides a unique computational tool to interpret live-cell imaging data for a range of fundamental and translational research applications.
-
- Cell Biology
- Computational and Systems Biology
Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technology is revolutionizing cell biology. However, the variability between individual iPSC lines and the lack of efficient technology to comprehensively characterize iPSC-derived cell types hinder its adoption in routine preclinical screening settings. To facilitate the validation of iPSC-derived cell culture composition, we have implemented an imaging assay based on cell painting and convolutional neural networks to recognize cell types in dense and mixed cultures with high fidelity. We have benchmarked our approach using pure and mixed cultures of neuroblastoma and astrocytoma cell lines and attained a classification accuracy above 96%. Through iterative data erosion, we found that inputs containing the nuclear region of interest and its close environment, allow achieving equally high classification accuracy as inputs containing the whole cell for semi-confluent cultures and preserved prediction accuracy even in very dense cultures. We then applied this regionally restricted cell profiling approach to evaluate the differentiation status of iPSC-derived neural cultures, by determining the ratio of postmitotic neurons and neural progenitors. We found that the cell-based prediction significantly outperformed an approach in which the population-level time in culture was used as a classification criterion (96% vs 86%, respectively). In mixed iPSC-derived neuronal cultures, microglia could be unequivocally discriminated from neurons, regardless of their reactivity state, and a tiered strategy allowed for further distinguishing activated from non-activated cell states, albeit with lower accuracy. Thus, morphological single-cell profiling provides a means to quantify cell composition in complex mixed neural cultures and holds promise for use in the quality control of iPSC-derived cell culture models.
