Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Mechanisms of Resistance

Impact of Bacterial Biofilm Formation on In Vitro and In Vivo Activities of Antibiotics

Silvia Schwank, Zarko Rajacic, Werner Zimmerli, Jürg Blaser
Silvia Schwank
Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zarko Rajacic
Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Werner Zimmerli
Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jürg Blaser
Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.42.4.895
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The impact of bacterial adherence on antibiotic activity was analyzed with two isogenic strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis that differ in the features of their in vitro biofilm formation. The eradication of bacteria adhering to glass beads by amikacin, levofloxacin, rifampin, or teicoplanin was studied in an animal model and in a pharmacokinetically matched in vitro model. The features of S. epidermidis RP62A that allowed it to grow on surfaces in multiple layers promoted phenotypic resistance to antibiotic treatment, whereas strain M7 failed to accumulate, despite initial adherence on surfaces and growth in suspension similar to those for RP62A. Biofilms of S. epidermidis M7 were better eradicated than those of strain RP62A in vitro (46 versus 31%;P < 0.05) as well as in the animal model (39 versus 9%; P < 0.01).

Antibiotic therapy against an established biofilm often fails without removal of the infected implant, despite the use of drugs which are highly active in standard in vitro susceptibility tests (8). In contrast to antibiotic therapy of many bacterial infections, standard in vitro susceptibility tests are not predictive of the therapeutic outcome of device-related infections (26).

Adhesion to biomaterials is assumed to be a crucial step in the pathogenesis of foreign body-related infections. Staphylococcus epidermidis represents the most prominent organism responsible for device-related infections (12, 19), and most S. epidermidis strains are able to attach to polymer surfaces, albeit with quantitative differences between strains (6, 10, 17, 24). Two phases can be kinetically differentiated during the establishment of a biofilm, as documented by scanning electron microscopy. A rapid initial attachment of S. epidermidiscells to the polymer surface is later followed by the accumulation of cells in multilayered cell clusters and glycocalyx production (18). The findings of different investigators suggest that extracellular slime does not play an important role in the early phase of attachment of coagulase-negative staphylococci to a biomaterial surface (7, 10, 17, 23). Colonization of foreign bodies by coagulase-negative staphylococci is likely to be a dynamic process, and the factors that mediate initial bacterial adherence may not be the same as those favoring bacterial persistence, multiplication, and ultimately, clinical infection.

The present study focuses on the impact of bacterial adherence on the in vivo and in vitro activities of antibiotics by considering a pair of isogenic strains that differ with respect to the features of their accumulation on surfaces. In particular, it was the aim of the study (i) to observe the impact of differences in bacterial biofilm formation on the phenotypic resistance of S. epidermidis to the bactericidal activity of antibiotics and (ii) to compare the results obtained with an animal model (30) and those obtained with an in vitro model (25) of treatment of bacterial biofilms with antimicrobial agents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bacteria.Two strains of S. epidermidis have been used: a well-described adherence-positive wild-type strain (S. epidermidis RP62A [ATCC 35984] [4, 14, 15]) and its adherence-negative mutant (S. epidermidis M7, described by Schumacher Perdreau et al. [21]).

Drug susceptibility.MICs and minimum bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) were determined with both suspended and adherent bacteria. MICs were determined in both (i) tryptic soy broth (TSB; Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Mich.) supplemented with 50 μg of Ca2+ per ml and 25 μg of Mg2+ per ml (TSB-S) and (ii) phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)-GCP (PBS-GCP is 2.38 g of Na2HPO4, 0.19 g of KH2PO4, 8.0 g of NaCl, 0.9 g of glucose, 1.0 g of Casamino Acids, and distilled water to 980.0 ml, which was separately autoclaved; 20.0 ml of sterile human plasma was then added to the mixture). The suspended bacteria were tested by a macrodilution method with a standard inoculum of 106 CFU/ml (1). MBCs were determined as described by Amsterdam (2). The lowest antibiotic concentration that reduced the inoculum by ≥99.9% was defined as the MBC. The susceptibility of adherent bacteria was tested by a previously described macrodilution method (25, 29) with an inoculum of 5.5 × 105 CFU/bead. The MBCs were the lowest antibiotic concentrations that killed ≥99.9% of the adherent bacteria.

Animal model.The previously described guinea pig tissue cage model was used (30). In brief, four sterile polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) tubes (32 by 10 mm) perforated with 130 regularly spaced 1-mm-diameter holes (Ciba-Geigy Ltd.) were each filled with six sinter-glass beads (Sikug 023/300 A; Schott Schleifer AG, Muttenz, Switzerland) and were aseptically implanted in the flanks of albino guinea pigs (weight, 600 to 1,100 g). Experiments started after complete healing of the wound (3 weeks after surgery). Prior to each experiment, the interstitial fluid that accumulated in the tissue cages was checked for sterility. Tissue cages were infected by local inoculation of about 107 CFU. Antibiotic therapy was started 16 h after inoculation. At this time the number of suspended bacteria averaged 5.99 ± 0.3 log10 CFU/ml for strain M7 and 6.02 ± 0.44 CFU/ml for strain RP62A. The kinetics of each drug were measured in 10 to 12 tissue cage fluid samples from three animals. The kinetics were determined at up to seven time points (time zero to 24 h). In this report only the peak and the trough levels are given. The average time course of the measured concentrations was used as a reference to stimulate the kinetics in vitro. Therefore, pharmacokinetic measurements were performed for a total of 12 animals.

In vitro model.A previously described one-compartment pharmacokinetic model was used in the present study (22, 25). This model allows periodic assessment of the bactericidal effect of antibiotic dosing against both adherent and suspended bacteria. A peristaltic pump continuously transported sterile culture medium from the reservoir into the 17-ml culture compartment resulting in an exponential decrease in the drug concentration. The bacteria were exposed in the model to oscillating drug levels simulating the kinetics determined in the cages implanted in the animals.

The system was filled with a special culture medium referred to here as PBS-GCP. In contrast to standard culture medium this medium supports growth at only a limited rate and results in a reduced final bacterial density. The generation time in this medium was 64 min for strain M7 and 81 min for strain RP62A, whereas a generation time of 26 min was observed for both strains in TSB.

The intention was to achieve in the in vitro model an inoculum of suspended bacteria with numbers similar to the numbers in vivo at the onset of treatment. To obtain such an in vitro inoculum, glass beads were exposed to the bacteria in a flask for 16 h before the onset of treatment. This simulated the 16-h delay between in vivo inoculation and the start of therapy. Sterile sinter-glass beads (Sikug 023/300 A; Schott Schleifer AG) were placed for 16 h in a bacterial suspension of 25 ml of PBS-GCP inoculated with three bacterial colonies taken from a blood agar plate (working cultures). The beads covered with bacterial biofilm were separated from the PBS-GCP of the overnight culture by filtration and were rinsed with 10 ml of sterile saline solution to wash off the bacteria suspended within the broth carried over from the culture. Subsequently, 10 beads were placed into the culture compartment with a sterile surgical forceps 30 min before the start of antibiotic treatment. The inocula in the suspensions in the model present at the beginning of antibiotic dosing averaged 5.61 ± 0.37 and 5.20 ± 0.26 log10 CFU/ml for strains M7 and RP62A, respectively. The number of adherent bacteria per glass bead averaged 5.91 ± 0.48 and 5.65 ± 0.25 log10CFU/bead for strains M7 and RP62A, respectively. Control experiments demonstrated stationary-phase conditions. The number of suspended bacteria as well as the number of adherent bacteria of both strains did not change by more than 0.66 log over an incubation period of 48 h in the in vitro model. Each drug and both strains have been tested with three animals with four tissue cages containing a total of 24 beads. The numbers of CFU in one animal were determined at the beginning of the treatment, and the numbers of CFU in a second animal not treated with an antibiotic were determined at the same time point. Since only the data for animals with complete eradication of all microorganisms are reported (see Table 2), the data for the control animals are not presented. Overall, drug efficacy was evaluated with 24 animals (3 animals per drug and strain). Since each bead was processed separately 72 individual microbiological determinations were performed per drug and strain. Due to the need to restrict the use of animals, we believe that it would not have been justified to use more animals.

Antibiotic concentrations and dosage regimens.Table1 summarizes the dosing of the antibiotics in vivo and the concentrations achieved in serum and tissue cage fluid. The kinetics of each drug have been measured in 10 to 12 tissue cage fluid samples from three animals. The kinetics were determined at up to seven time points (time zero to 24 h). In this report only the peak and trough levels are given. The average time course of the measured concentrations was used as a reference to simulate the kinetics in vitro. Therefore, pharmacokinetic measurements were obtained for a total of 12 animals. The peak and trough concentrations obtained in vitro are also listed. The concentrations determined in the samples from the animals in the in vivo study were determined in antibiotic medium 1 (Difco Laboratories) by agar diffusion bioassays. Bacillus subtilis 0453-52-9 (Difco) was used as the test strain. Standard curves were generated from pooled heat-inactivated guinea pig serum with a final concentration of 50%. Results were calculated by microcomputer-assisted exponential regression analysis (Hewlett-Packard HP41V). The concentrations achieved in vitro were defined according to the concentrations obtained in vivo in the infected tissue cages. A one-compartment kinetic model was simulated in vitro on the basis of the in vivo observations over the two 12-h dosing intervals (Table 1). Concentration-time profiles for all four drugs were calculated, and the presence of the calculated concentration profiles within the culture compartments was confirmed by spectrophotometric concentration measurements by using fluorescein sodium as the test substance (PBS [pH 7.4], 23°C, 490 nm;r2 = 0.9996; Stasar III; Gilford Instrument Laboratories Inc., Oberlin, Ohio). The kinetics of the in vitro system were determined every 0.5 h over the entire dosing interval. The mean intra-assay and interassay coefficients of variation were less than 5%; the measured concentrations of all four drugs averaged 101% ± 5% of the respective target values.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Dosing and kinetics in the in vivo and in vitro models

Quantification of bactericidal activity. (i) In vivo.Six beads were removed from each cage at each sampling point. The number of bacteria adhering to the beads was determined as described previously (29). Each bead was placed on a filter with a sterile forceps and was washed twice with saline. The number of bacteria adhering to the beads was determined by placing the washed glass beads in 2 ml of physiological saline containing EDTA (0.15%) and Triton X-100 (0.1%), followed by vigorous vortexing three times for 15 s each time to remove the adhering bacteria. Thereafter, the tubes were placed in an ultrasonic bath and sonicated for 3 min at 120 W (Labsonic 2000; Bender & Hobein, Zurich, Switzerland). The specimens containing resuspended bacteria were subsequently diluted 100- to 10,000-fold and were subcultured at 37°C onto tryptic soy agar plates. The detection limit was 20 CFU per bead. The term “sterile” is defined here as no bacterial growth in subcultures of individual beads.

(ii) In vitro.Each bead was removed from the compartment after 24 h of antibiotic treatment. The bacteria adhering to the sinter-glass bead were detached by vortexing as described previously (25). The detection limit was 40 CFU per bead. The term “sterile” is defined here as no bacterial growth in subcultures of individual beads.

Data analysis.Probabilities (P values) of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. The chi-square test was used for analysis of the frequency of bacterial eradication.

RESULTS

Antibiotic efficacy against adherent bacteria.In vivoS. epidermidis M7 was eradicated from 37 of 96 beads (39%), whereas S. epidermidis RP62A was eradicated from 9 of 96 beads (9%) (P < 0.01) (Table2). The difference between the eradication of the two strains was less pronounced in vitro but was still statistically significant (46 of 100 versus 31 of 100 beads;P < 0.05). In vivo, rifampin eradicated both strains of glass bead-adherent bacteria more frequently than each of the other three drugs (P < 0.05), (Table 2). Compared to the in vitro activities of the other three drugs, rifampin was most efficient against strain RP62A (P < 0.05) (Table 2). Compared to rifampin, levofloxacin was insignificantly less active in vitro against strain M7 but was considerably less active against strain RP62A (P < 0.05).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Eradication of adherent bacteria of two isogenic strains of S. epidermidis in an in vitro and in an in vivo model

Impact of culture medium and bacterial adherence on MBCs.The susceptibilities of both strains were determined by the MIC macrodilution method as well as by four different MBC methods (Table3). Only limited differences were observed between the MBCs determined in TSB and those determined in PBS-GCP for either suspended or adherent pathogens. However, major differences were noted in a comparison of the MBCs for adherent and suspended bacteria, particularly with rifampin and teicoplanin. The poor activity of amikacin in both the in vivo and the in vitro models reflected the fact that peak levels in the culture compartments were consistently lower than the MICs and MBCs for both strains (Tables 1and 3). In contrast, the concentrations of the other three compounds in the culture compartments were above the MICs and MBCs determined for suspended bacteria for almost the entire dosing interval. The peak levels but not the trough levels of levofloxacin were above the MBCs determined for adherent bacteria. Similarly, the peak levels but not the trough levels of rifampin were above the MBC for the adherent bacteria determined in PBS-GCP. For teicoplanin even the peak levels were below the MBCs for the adherent bacteria determined in PBS-GCP and in TSB-S.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Antibiotic activity against an isogenic pair of S. epidermidis strainsa

DISCUSSION

This study shows an impaired antimicrobial eradication of a biofilm-forming strain of S. epidermidis compared to the antimicrobial eradication of its biofilm-negative mutant. This phenotypic resistance relates to a multilayered growth on surfaces and was observed despite similar initial levels of adherence on surfaces and similar levels of growth in suspension. The significance of adherent growth of coagulase-negative staphylococci has previously been assessed both in vitro and in an endocarditis model (20, 27). The in vitro study considered various culture conditions that closely mimic the clinical situation with both important clinical isolates and isolates from the skin of volunteers (27). The in vivo study considered the pair of isogenic strains used in the present study (20). In both investigations, the isolates that exhibited accumulative growth when cultured in TSB did not differ with respect to biofilm formation when cultured in the presence of serum. In contrast, the data obtained in the present study suggest that despite the addition of serum to the culture medium, differences in the bactericidal activities of antimicrobial agents can be detected in vivo as well as in vitro.

The enhanced activities of levofloxacin and rifampin compared with the activities of the two other drugs in both the in vivo and the in vitro models are consistent with increased ratios of peak concentrations versus MBCs for adherent bacteria. The MBCs were comparable to the average concentrations obtained in the cages and culture compartments. The MICs and MBCs determined for suspended bacteria were less predictive for the assessment of efficacy in both models. These findings are consistent with those of previous studies documenting that successful treatment of experimental device-related infections cannot be predicted when the trough antibiotic levels exceed the MIC at the site of infection (29). In contrast, in vivo efficacy was predicted if the MBC for the organism in the stationary phase was in the susceptible range and if glass-adherent staphylococci were killed by low drug concentrations.

An interesting difference was noted when comparing the MBCs for suspended bacteria versus those for adherent bacteria for both strains. In contrast to amikacin, rifampin, and teicoplanin, the in vitro activity of levofloxacin was compromised only to a very limited extent by bacterial adherence. The reasons for this observation are not clear.

A recent investigation that considered the same isogenic strains ofS. epidermidis used in this study provided biochemical and functional evidence that a 140-kDa protein present in extracellular material plays a role in the accumulative growth of S. epidermidis RP62A (11). This protein is lacking in mutant M7. The protein could be isolated only by using sessile growth conditions, possibly reflecting an important property of staphylococci, that is, that they can rapidly change specific phenotypic features (phase variants) (4). Various factors that contribute to the primary attachment of S. epidermidis cells to surfaces have been described and isolated. Among these factors, the capsular polysaccharide adhesin (16, 24), the slime-associated antigen (3, 5), and the polysaccharide intercellular adhesin (9, 13, 28) are of particular interest. One may ask of what importance these factors are, considering the impact of culture conditions and recognizing the fact that bacterial growth and persistence must occur in vitro as well as in vivo in changing, hostile environments. So far, the significance of these factors studied either in vitro or ex vivo has not yet been sufficiently documented in a clinical context. Further studies are needed to evaluate a possible correlation between the presence of these factors and the severity of device-associated infections. Only a limited number of investigations have assessed the isolated effects of specific factors in animal models, and even fewer data on the significance of these factors for antibiotic therapy are available.

In conclusion, the findings presented here suggest that differences in the accumulative growth on surfaces may present themselves as phenotypic resistance to antibiotic treatment of biofilm-formingS. epidermidis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are indebted to G. Peters for providing S. epidermidis RP62A and M7 and to Hoechst Pharma AG (A. Steinbach) for an educational grant.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 4 August 1997.
    • Returned for modification 16 December 1997.
    • Accepted 24 January 1998.
  • Copyright © 1998 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Amsterdam D.
    Susceptibility testing of antimicrobials in liquid media Antibiotics in laboratory medicine 4th ed. Lorian V. 1996 73 75 The Williams & Wilkins Co. Baltimore, Md
  2. 2.↵
    1. Amsterdam D.
    Susceptibility testing of antimicrobials in liquid media Antibiotics in laboratory medicine 4th ed. Lorian V. 1996 102 103 The Williams & Wilkins Co. Baltimore, Md
  3. 3.↵
    1. Baldassarri L.,
    2. Donnelli G.,
    3. Gelosia A.,
    4. Voglino M. C.,
    5. Simpson A. W.,
    6. Christensen G. D.
    Purification and characterization of the staphylococcal slime-associated antigen and its occurrence among Staphylococcus epidermidis clinical isolates. Infect. Immun. 64 1996 3410 3415
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Christensen G. D.,
    2. Baddour L. M.,
    3. Simpson W. A.
    Phenotypic variation of Staphylococcus epidermidis slime production in vitro and in vivo. Infect. Immun. 55 1987 2870 2877
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Christensen G. D.,
    2. Barker L. P.,
    3. Mawhinney T. P.,
    4. Baddour L. M.,
    5. Simpson W. A.
    Identification of an antigenic marker of slime production for Staphylococcus epidermidis. Infect. Immun. 58 1990 2906 2911
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Espersen F.,
    2. Wilkinson B. J.,
    3. Gahrn Hansen B.,
    4. Thamdrup Rosdahl V.,
    5. Clemmensen I.
    Attachment of staphylococci to silicone catheters in vitro. APMIS 98 1990 471 478
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Fleer A.,
    2. Verhoef J.
    An evaluation of the role of surface hydrophobicity and extracellular slime in the pathogenesis of foreign-body-related infections due to coagulase-negative staphylococci. J. Invest. Surg. 2 1989 391 396
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Gristina A. G.,
    2. Naylor P.,
    3. Myrvik Q.
    Infections from biomaterials and implants: a race for the surface. Med. Prog. Technol. 14 1988 205 224
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Heilmann C.,
    2. Schweitzer O.,
    3. Gerke C.,
    4. Vanittanakom N.,
    5. Mack D.,
    6. Gotz F.
    Molecular basis of intercellular adhesion in the biofilm-forming Staphylococcus epidermidis. Mol. Microbiol. 20 1996 1083 1091
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    1. Hogt A. H.,
    2. Dankert J.,
    3. Feijen J.
    Adhesion of coagulase-negative staphylococci to methacrylate polymers and copolymers. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 20 1986 533 545
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Hussain M.,
    2. Herrmann M.,
    3. von Eiff C.,
    4. Perdreau Remington F.,
    5. Peters G.
    A 140-kilodalton extracellular protein is essential for the accumulation of Staphylococcus epidermidis strains on surfaces. Infect. Immun. 65 1997 519 524
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Kloos W. E.,
    2. Bannerman T. L.
    Update on clinical significance of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 7 1994 117 140
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Mack D.,
    2. Haeder M.,
    3. Siemssen N.,
    4. Laufs R.
    Association of biofilm production of coagulase-negative staphylococci with expression of a specific polysaccharide intercellular adhesin. J. Infect. Dis. 174 1996 881 884
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. McDermid K. P.,
    2. Morck D. W.,
    3. Olson M. E.,
    4. Dasgupta M. K.,
    5. Costerton J. W.
    Effect of growth conditions on expression and antigenicity of Staphylococcus epidermidis RP62A cell envelope proteins. Infect. Immun. 61 1993 1743 1749
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Mempel M.,
    2. Feucht H.,
    3. Ziebuhr W.,
    4. Endres M.,
    5. Laufs R.,
    6. Gruter L.
    Lack of mecA transcription in slime-negative phase variants of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 38 1994 1251 1255
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Muller E.,
    2. Takeda S.,
    3. Shiro H.,
    4. Goldmann D.,
    5. Pier G. B.
    Occurrence of capsular polysaccharide/adhesin among clinical isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci. J. Infect. Dis. 168 1993 1211 1218
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Pascual A.,
    2. Fleer A.,
    3. Westerdaal N. A.,
    4. Verhoef J.
    Modulation of adherence of coagulase-negative staphylococci to Teflon catheters in vitro. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. 5 1986 518 522
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Peters G.,
    2. Locci R.,
    3. Pulverer G.
    Adherence and growth of coagulase-negative staphylococci on surfaces of intravenous catheters. J. Infect. Dis. 146 1982 479 482
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. Pfaller M. A.,
    2. Herwaldt L. A.
    Laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological aspects of coagulase-negative staphylococci. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1 1988 281 299
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Schumacher Perdreau F.,
    2. Chambers H. F.,
    3. Wilcox M. H.,
    4. Peters G.,
    5. Sande M.,
    6. Pulverer G.
    Staphylococcus epidermidis wild type and its slime-negative mutant equally induce endocarditis in rabbits, abstr. 148 Abstract of the 33rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 1993 146 American Society for Microbiology Washington, D.C
  21. 21.↵
    1. Schumacher Perdreau F.,
    2. Heilmann C.,
    3. Peters G.,
    4. Gotz F.,
    5. Pulverer G.
    Comparative analysis of a biofilm-forming Staphylococcus epidermidis strain and its adhesion-positive, accumulation-negative mutant M7. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 117 1994 71 78
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    1. Schwank S.,
    2. Blaser J.
    Once- versus thrice-daily netilmicin combined with amoxicillin, penicillin, or vancomycin against Enterococcus faecalis in a pharmacodynamic in vitro model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 40 1996 2258 2261
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Timmerman C. P.,
    2. Fleer A.,
    3. Besnier J. M.,
    4. De Graaf L.,
    5. Cremers F.,
    6. Verhoef J.
    Characterization of a proteinaceous adhesin of Staphylococcus epidermidis which mediates attachment to polystyrene. Infect. Immun. 59 1991 4187 4192
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Tojo M.,
    2. Yamashita N.,
    3. Goldmann D. A.,
    4. Pier G. B.
    Isolation and characterization of a capsular polysaccharide adhesin from Staphylococcus epidermidis. J. Infect. Dis. 157 1988 713 722 (Erratum, 158:268.)
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Vergères P.,
    2. Blaser J.
    Amikacin, ceftazidime, and flucloxacillin against suspended and adherent Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus epidermidis in an in vitro model of infection. J. Infect. Dis. 165 1992 281 289
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Widmer A. F.,
    2. Frei R.,
    3. Rajacic Z.,
    4. Zimmerli W.
    Correlation between in vivo and in vitro efficacy of antimicrobial agents against foreign body infections. J. Infect. Dis. 162 1990 96 102
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    1. Wilcox M. H.,
    2. Schumacher Perdreau F.
    Lack of evidence for increased adherent growth in broth or human serum of clinically significant coagulase-negative staphylococci. J. Hosp. Infect. 26 1994 239 250
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Ziebuhr W.,
    2. Heilmann C.,
    3. Gotz F.,
    4. Meyer P.,
    5. Wilms K.,
    6. Straube E.,
    7. Hacker J.
    Detection of the intercellular adhesion gene cluster (ica) and phase variation in Staphylococcus epidermidis blood culture strains and mucosal isolates. Infect. Immun. 65 1997 890 896
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Zimmerli W.,
    2. Frei R.,
    3. Widmer A. F.,
    4. Rajacic Z.
    Microbiological tests to predict treatment outcome in experimental device-related infections due to Staphylococcus aureus. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 33 1994 959 967
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    1. Zimmerli W.,
    2. Waldvogel F. A.,
    3. Vaudaux P.,
    4. Nydegger U. E.
    Pathogenesis of foreign body infection: description and characteristics of an animal model. J. Infect. Dis. 146 1982 487 497
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Impact of Bacterial Biofilm Formation on In Vitro and In Vivo Activities of Antibiotics
Silvia Schwank, Zarko Rajacic, Werner Zimmerli, Jürg Blaser
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Apr 1998, 42 (4) 895-898; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.42.4.895

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Impact of Bacterial Biofilm Formation on In Vitro and In Vivo Activities of Antibiotics
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Impact of Bacterial Biofilm Formation on In Vitro and In Vivo Activities of Antibiotics
Silvia Schwank, Zarko Rajacic, Werner Zimmerli, Jürg Blaser
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Apr 1998, 42 (4) 895-898; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.42.4.895
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Anti-Bacterial Agents
biofilms

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596