16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Microscopy Methods for Biofilm Imaging: Focus on SEM and VP-SEM Pros and Cons

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Simple Summary

          Bacterial biofilms cause infections that are often resistant to antibiotic treatments. Research about the formation and elimination of biofilms cannot be undertaken without detailed imaging techniques. In this review, traditional and cutting-edge microscopy methods to study biofilm structure, ultrastructure, and 3-D architecture, with particular emphasis on conventional scanning electron microscopy and variable pressure scanning electron microscopy, are addressed, with the respective advantages and disadvantages. When ultrastructural characterization of biofilm matrix and its embedded bacterial cells is needed, as in studies on the effects of drug treatments on biofilm, scanning electron microscopy with customized protocols such as the osmium tetroxide (OsO 4), ruthenium red (RR), tannic acid (TA), and ionic liquid (IL) must be preferred over other methods for the following: unparalleled image quality, magnification and resolution, minimal sample loss, and actual sample structure preservation. The first step to make a morphological assessment of the effect of the various pharmacological treatments on clinical biofilms is the production of images that faithfully reflect the structure of the sample. The extraction of quantitative parameters from images, possible using specific software, will allow for the scanning electron microscopy morphological evaluation to no longer be considered as an accessory technique, but a quantitative method to all effects.

          Abstract

          Several imaging methodologies have been used in biofilm studies, contributing to deepening the knowledge on their structure. This review illustrates the most widely used microscopy techniques in biofilm investigations, focusing on traditional and innovative scanning electron microscopy techniques such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM), variable pressure SEM (VP-SEM), environmental SEM (ESEM), and the more recent ambiental SEM (ASEM), ending with the cutting edge Cryo-SEM and focused ion beam SEM (FIB SEM), highlighting the pros and cons of several methods with particular emphasis on conventional SEM and VP-SEM. As each technique has its own advantages and disadvantages, the choice of the most appropriate method must be done carefully, based on the specific aim of the study. The evaluation of the drug effects on biofilm requires imaging methods that show the most detailed ultrastructural features of the biofilm. In this kind of research, the use of scanning electron microscopy with customized protocols such as osmium tetroxide (OsO 4), ruthenium red (RR), tannic acid (TA) staining, and ionic liquid (IL) treatment is unrivalled for its image quality, magnification, resolution, minimal sample loss, and actual sample structure preservation. The combined use of innovative SEM protocols and 3-D image analysis software will allow for quantitative data from SEM images to be extracted; in this way, data from images of samples that have undergone different antibiofilm treatments can be compared.

          Related collections

          Most cited references113

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Microbial biofilms.

          Direct observations have clearly shown that biofilm bacteria predominate, numerically and metabolically, in virtually all nutrient-sufficient ecosystems. Therefore, these sessile organisms predominate in most of the environmental, industrial, and medical problems and processes of interest to microbiologists. If biofilm bacteria were simply planktonic cells that had adhered to a surface, this revelation would be unimportant, but they are demonstrably and profoundly different. We first noted that biofilm cells are at least 500 times more resistant to antibacterial agents. Now we have discovered that adhesion triggers the expression of a sigma factor that derepresses a large number of genes so that biofilm cells are clearly phenotypically distinct from their planktonic counterparts. Each biofilm bacterium lives in a customized microniche in a complex microbial community that has primitive homeostasis, a primitive circulatory system, and metabolic cooperativity, and each of these sessile cells reacts to its special environment so that it differs fundamentally from a planktonic cell of the same species.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pseudomonas aeruginosa: all roads lead to resistance.

            Pseudomonas aeruginosa is often resistant to multiple antibiotics and consequently has joined the ranks of 'superbugs' due to its enormous capacity to engender resistance. It demonstrates decreased susceptibility to most antibiotics due to low outer membrane permeability coupled to adaptive mechanisms and can readily achieve clinical resistance. Newer research, using mutant library screens, microarray technologies and mutation frequency analysis, has identified very large collections of genes (the resistome) that when mutated lead to resistance as well as new forms of adaptive resistance that can be triggered by antibiotics themselves, in in vivo growth conditions or complex adaptations such as biofilm growth or swarming motility. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The importance of the viable but non-culturable state in human bacterial pathogens

              Many bacterial species have been found to exist in a viable but non-culturable (VBNC) state since its discovery in 1982. VBNC cells are characterized by a loss of culturability on routine agar, which impairs their detection by conventional plate count techniques. This leads to an underestimation of total viable cells in environmental or clinical samples, and thus poses a risk to public health. In this review, we present recent findings on the VBNC state of human bacterial pathogens. The characteristics of VBNC cells, including the similarities and differences to viable, culturable cells and dead cells, and different detection methods are discussed. Exposure to various stresses can induce the VBNC state, and VBNC cells may be resuscitated back to culturable cells under suitable stimuli. The conditions that trigger the induction of the VBNC state and resuscitation from it are summarized and the mechanisms underlying these two processes are discussed. Last but not least, the significance of VBNC cells and their potential influence on human health are also reviewed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Biology (Basel)
                Biology (Basel)
                biology
                Biology
                MDPI
                2079-7737
                12 January 2021
                January 2021
                : 10
                : 1
                : 51
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Alfonso Borelli 50, 00161 Rome, Italy; giuseppe.familiari@ 123456uniroma1.it (G.F.); orlando.donfrancesco@ 123456uniroma1.it (O.D.)
                [2 ]Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Unit of Vascular Surgery, Sant’Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1039, 00189 Rome, Italy; maurizio.taurino@ 123456uniroma1.it
                [3 ]Key Laboratory of Environmental Medicine Engineering, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China; 101011116@ 123456seu.edu.cn (X.L.); 101011816@ 123456seu.edu.cn (R.C.)
                [4 ]Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy; marco.artini@ 123456uniroma1.it (M.A.); rosanna.papa@ 123456uniroma1.it (R.P.); laura.selan@ 123456uniroma1.it (L.S.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: michela.relucenti@ 123456uniroma1.it ; Tel.: +39-0649918061
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3805-9505
                Article
                biology-10-00051
                10.3390/biology10010051
                7828176
                33445707
                6d67b1a7-b8e7-4a2a-98ae-e0f1e6fb48e5
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 10 December 2020
                : 07 January 2021
                Categories
                Review

                scanning electron microscopy,variable pressure scanning electron microscopy,biofilm

                Comments

                Comment on this article