Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Sinusitis / March 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Dispersing biofilms with engineered enzymatic bacteriophage

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Michael - 25 Mar 2008 06:53 GMT
Dispersing biofilms with engineered enzymatic bacteriophage

Timothy K. Lu*,{dagger} and James J. Collins{dagger},{ddagger}
*Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, 77
Massachusetts Avenue, Room E25-519, Cambridge, MA 02139; and
{dagger}Center for BioDynamics and Department of Biomedical
Engineering, Boston University, 44 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02215
Communicated by Hans Kornberg, Boston University, Boston, MA, May 17,
2007 (received for review April 20, 2007)
PNAS | July 3, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 27 | 11197-11202

Synthetic biology involves the engineering of biological organisms by
using modular and generalizable designs with the ultimate goal of
developing useful solutions to real-world problems. One such problem
involves bacterial biofilms, which are crucial in the pathogenesis of
many clinically important infections and are difficult to eradicate
because they exhibit resistance to antimicrobial treatments and
removal by host immune systems. To address this issue, we engineered
bacteriophage to express a biofilm-degrading enzyme during infection
to simultaneously attack the bacterial cells in the biofilm and the
biofilm matrix, which is composed of extracellular polymeric
substances. We show that the efficacy of biofilm removal by this two-
pronged enzymatic bacteriophage strategy is significantly greater than
that of nonenzymatic bacteriophage treatment. Our engineered enzymatic
phage substantially reduced bacterial biofilm cell counts by
{approx}4.5 orders of magnitude ({approx}99.997% removal), which was
about two orders of magnitude better than that of nonenzymatic phage.
This work demonstrates the feasibility and benefits of using
engineered enzymatic bacteriophage to reduce bacterial biofilms and
the applicability of synthetic biology to an important medical and
industrial problem.

Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/27/11197
(with link to full text)

Author contributions: T.K.L. and J.J.C. designed research; T.K.L.
performed research; T.K.L. contributed new reagents/analytic tools;
T.K.L. analyzed data; and T.K.L. and J.J.C. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This article contains supporting information online at
www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0704624104/DC1.
truehawk - 26 Mar 2008 00:36 GMT
> Dispersing biofilms with engineered enzymatic bacteriophage
>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> This article contains supporting information online atwww.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0704624104/DC1.

Would it be too cynical to observe that the FDA does not seem at all
willing to approve an infectious cure.
This kind of bug would seem to be wonderful for countries that have
national care. It could reduce the cost of keeping the population
healthy considerably.
Susan - 26 Mar 2008 00:45 GMT
> Would it be too cynical to observe that the FDA does not seem at all
> willing to approve an infectious cure.
> This kind of bug would seem to be wonderful for countries that have
> national care. It could reduce the cost of keeping the population
> healthy considerably.

Why can't we just irrigated with diluted enzymatic biofilm cleaner, like
the stuff I use in my hot tub?

I couldn't beLIEVE the stuff that came out of those lines when I used
it.   :-)

Susan
Michael - 26 Mar 2008 01:22 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Susan

Why can't we just irrigated with diluted enzymatic biofilm cleaner,
like
the stuff I use in my hot tub?

Because we have to be pretty careful that what we choose to irrigate
with will not have a substantial 'adverse impact' on our own cells and
their processes.  Do you know what the particular enzymes you use in
your hot tub lines are, and what they might do to sinus and other
airway tissue?

What is impressive is that the particular enzyme, DispersinB(TM),  was
only isolated and described in 2005 (See articles I posted to thread
'An article I read to day' 'http://groups.google.com/group/
alt.support.sinusitis/browse_thread/thread/a29d4ba4f844580b)
and but two years later a phage has been created that will  express
specifically this enzyme and that it works to remove a biofilm in
vitro. Will be interesting to see if there is a move to clinical
trials, after animal testing, and how long this might take.

However for what it is worth, my own sense as a non-professional  is
that Staph aureus, and its bacterial cohorts in an airway biofilm,
having lived with and alongside humans for millennia are sufficiently
flexible and adaptive that no singe enzyme will work for very long and
only a multi-pronged approach, possibly using several different
enzymes simultaneously, and  involving different pathways  will have a
chance of long term success -- and these have to be ones that either
separately or together will not impact human cells or their
processes.
Michael - 26 Mar 2008 04:07 GMT
> > x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> separately or together will not impact human cells or their
> processes.

(Synopsis) Structural Insight into a Biofilm Signaling Molecule

Liza Gross

Citation: Gross L (2008) Structural Insight into a Biofilm Signaling
Molecule.  PLoS Biol 6(3): e89 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060089

Published: March 25, 2008

Life as a bacterium presents special challenges--primary among them the
need to sense and respond to the environment--which for an organism
just 3 micrometers long, like Pseudomonas aeruginosa, might seem a
daunting prospect. One way Pseudomonas and other bacteria cope with
the rigors of existence is by forming highly organized communities
called biofilms. As members of a biofilm, microbes gain access to
nutrients, genetic traits, and metabolic processes that are
unavailable to them as individuals. They also find protection from the
elements in the sticky extracellular matrix that holds the cells
together.

Unfortunately, when biofilms underlie chronic infections, as P.
aeruginosa does in the lungs of patients with cystic fibrosis, the
matrix also protects its bacterial inhabitants from host immune
defenses and antibiotic therapies. In a new study, Holger Sondermann
and his colleagues reveal a novel mode of regulation in bacterial
biofilm colonization by solving the structure of an enzyme bound to a
"second messenger" that triggers the cell responses necessary for
biofilm formation.

In bacteria, increased levels of a small signaling molecule with the
ungainly name of bis-(3′-5′)-cyclic dimeric guanosine monophosphate (c-
di-GMP) induce cells to abandon the single life in favor of
multicellular, "social" living as a biofilm colony. Proteins that make
c-di-GMP--a so-called second messenger that triggers cellular responses
by accumulating in the cell--from GTP have a highly conserved module
containing the amino acid motif GGDEF and are called diguanylate
cyclases. Nabanita De et al. first solved the structure of the
diguanylate cyclase WspR, a potent regulator of biofilm formation,
bound to c-di-GMP and then used a series of biochemical experiments to
shed light on the mechanism that WspR uses to regulate its own
activity along with the production of the second messenger.

Bacteria sense and respond to signals in their environment, including
cues from other bacteria, to form biofilms through "two-component
signaling" systems. The first component, a membrane-bound sensor,
receives the signal and transmits it to the second component, the
response regulator protein, which triggers a cellular response, such
as gene expression. These messages are transferred via a chemical
reaction called phosphorylation, which involve the transfer of
phosphates between the proteins.

Response regulators can also change cell behavior by controlling the
second messenger c-di-GMP. Low concentrations of c-di-GMP are found in
motile cells, while high c-di-GMP concentrations lead to the
production of extracellular and adhesive matrix components,
multicellular behavior, and aggregation into a biofilm. In addition to
the most common regulation through phosphorylation, this new study
shows that the response regulator WspR exists in at least three
different states that determine its activity: an active and an
inactive state, bridged by an intermediate form.

Previous studies had identified another response regulator, PleD, that
binds to c-di-GMP and controls the switch from a free-swimming to
stationary lifestyle in marine bacteria. PleD has a similar domain
organization to WspR, containing a diguanylate cyclase module and a
response regulator domain that is regulated by phosphorylation. PleD
is also regulated by c-di-GMP, the product of the enzymatic reaction.
c-di-GMP binds to regions at the diguanylate cyclase and regulatory
domains to inhibit its activity. While both domains occur in WspR,
which formed a four-unit complex (or tetramer) in the solved
structure, they were in a different configuration, leading the
researchers to suspect that WspR might be regulated through a
different mechanism.

To understand what this mechanism might be, the researchers subjected
the enzyme to a number of biochemical analyses. They show that WspR
exists in different configurations depending on its c-di-GMP binding
state. Both nucleotide-tethered and nucleotide-free WspR existed as
bound pairs (called dimers), though with different conformations: the
nucleotide-bound enzyme appeared elongated, while the free species
appeared more compact. The tetramer state emerged spontaneously over
time from the compact dimer.

By analyzing the catalytic capacities of the enzyme's different
states, the researchers demonstrate that the compact configuration is
most active while the elongated c-di-GMP-bound state shows the least
activity. They go on to propose a model through which WspR modulates
its own activity, with a feedback mechanism in which the tetramer
assembles from the active compact species and provides a platform for
disbanding into the inactive elongated species, which is inhibited by
the bound c-di-GMP. The removal of c-di-GMP (by phosphodiesterases
that degrade it) leads to WspR reactivation as the enzyme switches to
the compact state.

By elucidating a novel regulatory mechanism for an enzyme that
controls the synthesis and degradation of a key player in biofilm
formation, these findings suggest new approaches to controlling the
behavior of bacteria that are responsible for chronic infections.
Given that bacteria commonly found in cystic fibrosis patients with
lung infections carry a WspR mutation in a critical site for c-di-GMP
binding, the researchers suspect that this mutation might underlie the
virulence of these pathogenic strains. Future studies can test this
possibility. Since c-di-GMP signaling is found only in bacteria and is
unknown in eukaryotic organisms like humans, the prospect of
developing therapies aimed at disrupting this second messenger to
fight biofilm-mediated infections appears particularly promising.
Tetrameric assembly of the response regulator diguanylate cyclase WspR
from Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The inset shows a close-up of cyclic di-
GMP bound to the inhibitory site.

  1. De N, Pirruccello M, Krasteva PV, Bae N, Raghavan RV, et al.
(2008) Phosphorylation-independent regulation of the diguanylate
cyclase WspR. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060067.

Full text etc. available via:-
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journ
al.pbio.0060089

truehawk - 26 Mar 2008 05:02 GMT
> > > x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 156 lines]
>
> Full text etc. available via:-http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10...

Michael.

Actually the phages do a pretty good job of getting rid of Staph A in
Russia, so I think that if we ever get them in this country , or get
an effective staph vaccine we will be ahead.
And I think that staph and e-coli are mainly associated with cattle
keeping people, and are we probably get a higher dose because or
feedlot crowding.  I believe that peoples that have other predominate
domestic animals, sheep, goats, yaks or chickens, dogs or fish have a
different suite of cultivators of microbiota.
Murray Grossan - 27 Mar 2008 05:49 GMT
On 3/25/08 5:22 PM, in article
af007ac3-ae97-4de9-8e35-16325d6c054a@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, "Michael"
<mfrpersonal@gmail.com> wrote:

>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> separately or together will not impact human cells or their
> processes.

Enzymes administered systemically  are known to thin mucus. Perhaps the are
also loosening up biofilm too? Inhallation of Dornase for CF is therapeutic
for example. .
Systemic enzymes also increase the effectiveness of antibiotics by opening
channels for better penetration.

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.