The significance of Biofilms in Wound Infections
Three sub-committees for the International Wound Infection Institute (IWII) have been established with a
focus on Education, Evidence and Research. One of the areas that the Research sub-committee is
investigating is the possibility of providing a new biofilm testing protocol to improve detection and
subsequent treatment of wounds colonised with biofilms.
www.woundinfection-institute.com
Thanks to Val Edwards-Jones, Greg Schultz and Jude Douglass of the International Wound Infection
Institute for the development of this paper
Non-healing wounds and biofilms
The widely-accepted definition of an infected wound, as being one which contains >105 colony forming units
per gram of tissue (CFU/g), is a useful rule of thumb, but is not wholly accurate. This was established in
studies on burns and acute wounds, which were usually infected with a single microorganism (for example:
[1]), and is the level at which most microorganisms produce virulence factors and begin the infectious
process. However, many chronic wounds are polymicrobial and can have more or fewer than 105 organisms
without displaying any obvious clinical signs of infection, yet they still fail to heal. These clinical observations
led to the adoption of the term “critical colonisation” to describe wounds that exist in a state between
normal colonisation and frank infection. It is now becoming clear that this term is in fact a euphemism for
colonisation with a polymicrobial community or a biofilm, rather than a true description of a condition lying
somewhere on a linear spectrum between colonisation and infection.[2] The term “critical colonisation” was
in fact only adopted as a functional term to try to describe a situation that was not fully understood at the
time.
Wounds that fail to heal may be impaired due to the presence of a biofilm which slows down the woundhealing process without necessarily inducing any signs of invasive growth.[2]
Research over the last 20 years has suggested that chronic wound infections fail to heal because of the
presence of biofilms [3-7] but there has been little direct evidence to support this theory. Biofilm bacteria
exist as structured polymicrobial communities and are not distributed evenly in the wound. Therefore
standard biopsy or swab techniques may not accurately sample the bacterial community in the wound,
making it difficult to interpret laboratory results. Even if biofilm colonies are captured by the sampling
technique, ‘negative’ results may be obtained as traditional laboratory culturing techniques cannot
determine which of the many microorganisms are responsible for the condition of the wound (a biofilm can
be formed by a single species of bacteria, such as Staphylocossus epidermis on catheters, but when in
chronic wounds, biofilms are typically formed of multiple species.)
If there are no obvious ‘typical’ wound pathogens, a report of ‘no significant growth’ or ‘no pathogens
isolated’ may be issued by the laboratory.
A recently published study by James et al (2008) now provides some of the missing evidence for the
presence of biofilm in chronic wounds. Using light and scanning electron microscopy, they found that about
60% of chronic wounds were colonised with biofilm.[8] Fifty chronic wounds of varying aetiology and of at
The significance of Biofilms in Wound Infections
least 30 days’ duration, and 16 acute wounds were investigated by microscopy, while 27 chronic wounds
were also subject to population analysis using molecular techniques. Microscopic analysis revealed the
presence of densely aggregated colonies of bacteria, often surrounded by extracellular matrix. This was
observed in only one acute wound while 30 of the chronic wounds had clear biofilm formation (p<0.001).
Population studies using molecular techniques revealed diverse polymicrobial communities and in some
specimens, strict anaerobes that were not revealed by standard culture techniques.
Of course, an alternative interpretation of the results is that the material observed in microscopy may not
have been a true biofilm but may simply be slough. However, it is worth asking what is the nature of
“slough”? It consists predominantly of fibrin and necrotic tissue within which is embedded numerous
bacteria. This accumulates on the surface of the chronic wound and is rarely seen in an acute wound. If the
biofilm were not present it is likely there would also not be slough.
Further evidence for the presence of biofilm comes from Bjarnsholt et al (2008) who analysed sections from
chronic wounds using fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH), and found distinct microcolonies, the basic
structures of biofilms.[2]
The development of biofilms
Bacterial biofilms are structured communities of bacterial cells enclosed in a self-produced polymeric matrix
adhering to inert or living surfaces.[9] The cells attached to the surface are called ‘sessile’ and those free
living at the surface of the biofilms are called planktonic bacteria. Biofilms in natural environments are
resistant to bacteriophages (bacterial viruses), amoebae and to the powerful chemical biocides used in the
industrial environment. In man, sessile bacterial cells can resist innate and acquired host immune responses
and are up to 1000 times more resistant to antibiotics than planktonic cells. Whether this is due to a
property of the sessile cells or to a protective effect from the other bacteria in the community is dependent
upon the nature of the biofilm.
It is important to understand the mechanisms by which biofilms form as these may provide opportunities for
the development of medication that could prevent or disrupt their formation. It is generally accepted that
there are a number of phases in the development of a biofilm: initial attachment and formation of
microcolonies; maturation of attached bacteria into a differentiated biofilm; and dispersal of planktonic
bacteria from mature biofilm.
Attachment and formation of microcolonies. When a bacterium encounters a suitable surface it explores
the surface in a process called “twitching”.[10, 11] Specific cell surface components are required for
adhesion to a surface and the very process of attachment initiates synthesis of extracellular matrix.[12] This
was also demonstrated by Davies et al (1995) who showed that, within minutes of attachment of P
aeruginosa to a solid surface, genes that synthesise extracellular polysaccharide (alginate) were upregulated.[13]
During the first hour of attachment, over 800 new proteins can be expressed,[14] radically changing the
phenotype of the bacterium.[15] The attached cells continue to grow and divide while recruiting additional
planktonic cells to the colony. At a certain stage of the biofilm formation, the microcolonies differentiate
into mature biofilms with water-filled channels through which nutrients can flow in and waste products can
be removed. This is an essential stage for the survival of the biofilm which continues to mature.
The significance of Biofilms in Wound Infections
Maturation and differentiation. Research on the behaviour of bacteria when in groups, has shown that
individual bacterial cells communicate via cell-to-cell signalling systems. In Gram-negative bacteria, specific
genes direct the production of extracellular acylhomoserine lactone molecules (acyl-HLSs), that function in a
similar way to hormones, diffusing out of the cell and into other bacterial cells. The acyl-HLSs accumulate in
proportion to the total number of cells present and therefore provide an index of the density of the
population, in effect, a quorum sensor. Gram-positive bacteria use small peptides, around 5 to 17 amino
acids in length, as signalling molecules.[16]
When these “quorum sensing” signals accumulate to a certain critical level, genes are activated that trigger
differentiation of the biofilm into loosely-packed pillar and mushroom like colonies, with the bacterial cells
embedded in thick polymeric walls resistant to biocides.[17] The polymeric wall may contain
polysaccharides, alginate, extracellular DNA and components such as proteins and lipids.[2] Living, fully
hydrated biofilms are composed of around 15% by volume of cells and 85% of matrix material.[3]
Rhoads suggests that the cells at the base of the biofilm are “rooted” to the surface, and that the biofilm will
continue to regenerate so long as the root is still attached to the source of nutrients.[18] Modern methods
(FISH) have demonstrated the architecture and special organisation of the relative species in a multi-soecies
biofilm. In addition, expression studies have shown that there is a variation of activity between sessile and
planktonic forms of the same species [19,20]
Seeding of planktonic bacteria. A mechanism of dispersion is required if bacteria within a biofilm are to
colonise new areas. Pieces of biofilm may be physically detached and carried to new surfaces and it has also
been suggested that sessile bacteria may produce an enzyme that digests the alginate matrix allowing
dispersion of individual bacteria.[21]
The impact of biofilms on wounds
Biofilm formation confers great advantage to the bacteria: the exopolysaccharide shield provides a physical
barrier; bacteria within the biofilm can reduce their metabolic activity and thereby increase their tolerance
to antibiotics; and sub-communities of facultative anaerobes or strict anaerobes can develop within niches
of the biofilm community where nutrients and oxygen may be limited. It has also been suggested that
biofilms modulate their virulence in order to remain attached to their source of nutrients.[22, 23]
Because of this, biofilms often remain in stasis and infections can be slow to produce overt symptoms, if at
all. Biofilms do release antigens that stimulate the production of antibodies, but these are incapable of killing
the protected sessile bacteria and instead cause damage to surrounding tissues.[2] Antibiotics can resolve
the symptoms caused by planktonic cells but have little or no effect on the biofilm itself.[2, 24]
Bacteria in biofilms are protected from systemic and topical agents, from endogenous antibodies and
phagocytic cells[25, 26], and thus are relatively free to cause extensive tissue damage and delay healing.
Biofilms are highly inflammatory, constantly shedding bacteria onto the surface of the wound, exciting an
immunological response which causes tissue damage and maintains chronic inflammation. Biofilms
therefore appear to “recur” despite repeated attempts at antibiotic therapy.
As a result of wound biofilms, keratinocytes are unable to migrate across the wound bed, there is low
oxygen at the wound surface, and host defences are unable to penetrate or remove the biofilm. Bjarnsholt
et al (2008) suggest that this is due to the fact that biofilms disable host defences. In studies on biofilm
microcolonies of P aeruginosa the quorum sensing communication system was shown to regulate
The significance of Biofilms in Wound Infections
production of a rhamnolipid that can eliminate polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNs).[27, 28] This
effectively builds a “PMN shield” around the colony that suppresses the cellular defence system. Killing and
lysis of PMNs result in the release of large quantities of cytotoxic enzymes, free oxygen radicals and
inflammatory mediators that damage host tissue and maintain the chronicity of the wound, without
affecting the biofilm.
Treatment of biofilms
Effect of antibiotics on biofilms
Microorganisms in a biofilm have an inherent lack of susceptibility to antibiotics, compared to planktonic
cultures of the same organism.[29] In 1999, Ceri formed biofilms from NCCLS reference strains of E coli, P
aeruginosa and S aureus and tested the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of a range of antibiotics
indicated for each type of bacteria.[30] While the MIC values for the planktonic form of each strain were as
expected, the minimal biofilm eradication concentrations (MBECs) were generally 100 to 1000 times higher.
Hoyle et al (1992) found that planktonic bacterial cells were 15 times more susceptible to tobramycin than
cells in intact biofilms.[31] These findings have been confirmed by many other studies; some MBECs have
even been found to exceed the maximum allowable prescription level.[27, 30-33]
Mathematical modelling of the processes of diffusion suggests that exopolysaccharide matrices can be highly
effective barriers if the antimicrobial agent can be deactivated faster than it can diffuse through the matrix.
The negatively charged polymeric substances that make up the walls of a biofilm are known to retard the
diffusion of antibiotics. Suci et al (1994) showed that there was delayed penetration of ciprofloxacin into P
aeruginosa biofilms: the normal penetration time of 40 seconds was increased to 21 minutes on a biofilmcontaining surface.[36] A 2% suspension of alginate isolated from P aeruginosa was able to inhibit diffusion
of gentamicin and tobramycin,[33] and Allison and Matthews (1992) observed reduced diffusion and
antimicrobial activity of tobramycin and to a lesser extent of ciprofloxacin through P aeruginosa biofilm.[38]
Using four different antibiotic groups, Koseoglu et al (2006) found that development of E coli biofilms on
urethral catheters could only be delayed, not prevented.[35]
The polymeric barrier is also effective against reactive species, such as hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide
which are produced by phagocytic cells. Alginate is a scavenger of free oxygen radicals, prevents
phagocytosis, and can bind cationic antibiotics such as the aminoglycosides.[36, 37,38, 39]
It has also been shown that biofilm bacteria, like planktonic bacteria, contain efflux pumps that are able to
pump out antimicrobial agents. However, using strains of P aeruginosa with either defective, or overproductive, efflux pumps, Brooun et al (2000) were not able to detect any pumping mechanism and
suggested that this resistance mechanism may be masked by other mechanisms that are also operating in
the biofilm.[25]
Another possibility is that at least some of the cells in a biofilm exist in a slow-growing or semi-starved
state.[29] Evans et al (1990) found that the slowest growing E coli cells in biofilms were the most resistant to
cetrimide.[40] As many antibiotics work by targeting the metabolic processes of bacteria, cells in a state of
reduced metabolism will not be highly susceptible to antimicrobial agents, and a proportion will therefore
always be more likely to survive an attack.
The significance of Biofilms in Wound Infections
A third proposed mechanism is that some of the bacteria in a biofilm develop into a distinct phenotype
which is inherently more resistant to traditional antibiotics. Dagostino et al (1991) suggested that the initial
adhesion to a surface might result in certain genetic changes which could affect the physiological responses
of the bacteria.[41]
The fact that free-floating planktonic bacteria can be susceptible to standard doses of antibiotics can cause
confusion and difficulty in managing wounds that are colonised with biofilms. Planktonic bacteria are shed
from the biofilm and can be eliminated with antibiotics, thereby providing symptomatic relief. However,
because the biofilm is not eliminated, once the antibiotic is stopped, it appears to the clinician that reinfection has occurred.
Antimicrobials and biofilms
Percival et al (2008) demonstrated that a silver hydrogel dressing (ionic silver) was able to kill 90% of all
sessile bacteria within three common biofilms in 24 hours, and total bacterial kill was achieved within 48
hours. The biofilms studied were P aeruginosa, Enterobacter cloacae, S aureus and mixed communities of
more than one type of bacterium.[42] In an earlier paper, the authors demonstrated that sessile bacteria
were far less susceptible than planktonic bacteria to silver dressings.[43] Using an in vitro model they found
that a silver-containing hydrofibre dressing was more effective against strains of P aeruginosa, Candida
albicans and S aureus; while a nanocrystalline silver dressing was more effective against strains of Klebsiella
pneumoniae, Enterococcus faecalis and E coli.
However, these biofilms were immature, only 24 hours old, and further research has shown that silver
hydrogel dressings are less effective on three-day old, mature biofilms.(unpublished thesis, Q Yang, Institute
for Wound Research, University of Florida) This and other research demonstrates that immature biofilms
behave differently to mature biofilms in terms of susceptibility to antimicrobial agents and dressings.
However, it does appear that mature biofilms can be fully killed by iodine releasing dressings.(as above, Q
Yang) Akiyama et al (2006) were able to clear S aureus biofilm in vitro and in vivo using a mouse model.[44]
They suggest that the cadexomer iodine beads adsorb biofilm-protected S aureus cells and that the
protective glycocalyx collapses during dehydration. This is followed by liberation of iodine which is capable
of directly killing the biofilm S aureus cells.
New approaches
Clearly, there are many points in the process of biofilm development which are potential therapeutic
targets: disruption of the cell surface components that are required for adhesion; disruption of the quorum
sensing process; and stimulation of the enzymes that digest alginate.
A number of agents have been developed in industrial and dental sectors to counter biofilm development. In
the food industry, bovine lactoferrin is used as an anti-biofilm agent against P aeruginosa. This substance
prevents the bacteria from attaching to the target surface, rendering them unable to produce biofilm
structures. [10, 45]
A number of studies have proven the validity of the concept of quorum-sensing inhibitors (QSIs) as
antimicrobial treatment. Differentiation and maturation of the biofilm can be disrupted if the cell-to-cell
signalling process is blocked.[25] In P aeruginosa biofilms it has been shown that a synthetic halogenated
furanone compound is capable of interfering with acyl-HLS signalling.[46] The compound can penetrate
The significance of Biofilms in Wound Infections
microcolonies and block cell signalling and quorum sensing. It does not affect initial attachment to the
substrate but it does affect the architecture of the biofilm, enhancing the process of detachment.
Application of the drug to P aeruginosa biofilms in mice inhibited quorum sensing of bacteria and promoted
their clearance by the immune response of the mouse.[47]
Other quorum sensing inhibitors have been identified such as RNA III inhibitory peptide which inhibits the
agr system of Gram-positive bacteria.[48-52]
Debridement of biofilms
Until some of these newer methods reach the stage of commercialisation, the only sure method of treating
biofilm is physical removal through thorough debridement, followed by the application of effective
antimicrobials, antibiotics or antiseptics to prevent re-formation. Disrupting the community through
debridement will not directly kill the bacteria, but the disturbance does allow other concomitant therapies
and natural host defences to work more effectively.[53] The aim of a debride-and-cover strategy is therefore
to remove the nidus of infection that perpetuates a state of chronic inflammation and to give the host
defences the best possible change to recover.[54]
If infection is spreading, then rapid methods of debridement, either surgical or sharp, are to be
preferred.[53] Patients who are unable to undergo surgical debridement may be treated with alternatives
such as absorbent dressings, negative pressure therapy or possibly hydrosurgical debridement.
Following debridement, the wound must be covered to limit further colonisation and cross-contamination.
Topical antibiotics should be avoided in the management of infected wounds: their effectiveness against
biofilms is limited and over-use may result in the emergence of resistance.[52] Silver- and iodine-containing
dressings may have limited effectiveness in killing established biofilm, but are able to delay, or even prevent,
the formation of new biofilm following debridement and have some efficacy against newly established
bioflms. There is a growing body of evidence to support the use of silver and iodine dressings in infected
wounds.[55, 56]
In clinical terms it is important to reject the notion that “critical colonisation” is something benign that is
below the level of infection, and that does not require active intervention. Biofilms need to be reduced or
eliminated for the wound to heal. Until pharmacological agents are available that can reliably and
consistently eliminate biofilm, the role of debridement is crucial. Detailed information on how to deal with
infected or colonised wounds can be found in the consensus document on wound infection published in
2008 by the International Wound Infection Institute.[54]
Methods in development for culturing biofilm bacteria
Clinicians need to know that biofilms are present in order to begin appropriate treatment. Currently, many
clinicians observe the consequences of biofilm in wounds rather than the actual biofilm. Biofilm
microcolonies can not be seen by eye, until they have grown to an enormous size, such as those seen in
dental plaque.
Swabbing results may be misleading as clinical microbiology laboratories use methods that select for
planktonic bacteria, are not always suitable for culture of anaerobic species, and the sampling technique
The significance of Biofilms in Wound Infections
may not capture bacteria protected within a biofilm, thus resulting in a negative or inconclusive culture
report.[55] Methods are currently in development that aim to make the detection of biofilm bacteria more
routine.
The International Wound Infection Institute is providing support to a research project to confirm and
validate techniques that can be made available to all clinicians engaged in the fight against wound infection.
Conclusion
The presence of biofilms in chronic wounds eluded clinicians for many years, largely due to the difficulty in
isolating biofilms with standard sampling and culturing methods. Application of scanning and light
microscopy techniques have now revealed the ubiquitous nature of biofilms, particularly in chronic wounds.
Biofilms have evolved specific survival strategies that make them highly resistant to most forms of antibiotic.
While new pharmacological agents are being developed to disrupt biofilm formation, the most effective
method of eliminating biofilms is physical removal, through debridement. To enable clinicians to rapidly
confirm the presence and nature of biofilm in chronic wounds, the authors propose a modified culturing
method which is currently under development.
Key points

The term “critical colonisation” should be rejected. Wounds that fail to heal are probably colonised
with biofilm.

About 60% of chronic wounds are colonised with biofilm but standard biopsy or swab techniques
may not accurately sample biofilm.

Biofilms are highly inflammatory, shed bacteria into the wound, exciting an immunological response,
tissue damage and chronic inflammation. Planktonic bacteria can be eliminated with antibiotics,
providing symptomatic relief.

Biofilms form through: initial attachment and formation of microcolonies; maturation of attached
bacteria into differentiated biofilm; dispersal of planktonic bacteria.

Individual biofilm bacterial cells communicate via cell-to-cell signalling systems: “quorum sensing”.

Biofilm shields provide a physical barrier; bacteria within the biofilm can reduce their metabolic
activity; and sub-communities of facultative anaerobes or strict anaerobes can develop within
biofilms.

Bacteria in biofilms are protected from systemic and topical agents, from endogenous antibodies
and phagocytic cells.

Biofilms need to be reduced or eliminated for the wound to heal.

Potential therapeutic targets are: disruption of the cell surface components required for adhesion;
disruption of the quorum sensing process; and stimulation of the enzymes that digest alginate.
The significance of Biofilms in Wound Infections

Currently, the only sure method of treating biofilm is physical removal through thorough
debridement, followed by the application of effective antimicrobials, antibiotics or antiseptics to
prevent re-formation: debride-and-cover strategy.

There is a growing body of evidence to support the use of silver and iodine dressings in infected
wounds.

Methods to improve detection of biofilm are currently in development.
The significance of Biofilms in Wound Infections
Key papers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Robson MC, Lea CE, Dalton JB, Heggers JP. Quantitative bacteriology and delayed wound closure.
Surg Forum 1968; 19: 501-2
Bjarnsholt T, Kirketerp-Moller K, Jensen PO, Madsen KG, Phipps R, Krogfelt K, Holby N, Givskov M.
Why chronic wounds will not heal: a novel hypothesis. Wound Repair Regen 2008; 16: 2-10
Donlan RM, Costerton JW. Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin
Microbiol Rev 2002; 15: 167-93
Parsek MR, Singh PK. Bacterial biofilms: an emerging link to disease pathogenesis. Ann Rev Microbiol
2003; 57: 677-701
Serralta VW, Harrison-Balestra C, Cazzaniga AL, Davis SC, Mertz PM. Lifestyles of bacteria in wounds:
presence of biofilms? Wounds 2001; 13: 29-34
Mertz PM. Cutaneous biofilms: friend or foe? Wounds 2003; 15: 129-32
Davis SC, Ricotti C, Cazzaniga A, Welsh E, Eaglstein WH, Mertz PM. Microscopic and physiologic
evidence for biofilm-associated wound colonization in vivo. Wound Repair Regen 2008; 16: 23-9
James GA, Swogger E, Wolcott R, Pulcini Ed, Secor P, Sestrich J, Costerton JW, Stewart PS. Biofilms in
chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen 2008; 16: 37-44
Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections.
Science 1999; 284: 1318-22
Singh PK, Parsek MR, Greenberg EP, Welsh MJ. A component of innate immunity prevents bacterial
biofilm development. Nature 2002; 417: 552-5
Meier-Davis S. Host response to biofilms, foreign implants and devices., in Biofilms, infection and
antimicrobial therapy., Pace JL, Rupp ME, and Roger GF, Editors. 2006, ????: ??? p. 315-7
Boyd A, Chakrabarty AM. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms: role of the alginate exopolysaccharide.
J Ind Microbiol 1995; 15: 162-8
Davies DG, Geesey GG. Regulation of the alginate biosynthesis gene algC in Pseudomonas
aeruginosa during biofilm development in continuous culture. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995; 61: 8607
Sauer K, Camper AK. Characterization of phenotypic changes in Pseudomonas putida in response to
surface-associated growth. J Bacteriol 2001; 183: 6579
Stoodley P, Sauer K, Davies DG, Costerton JW. Biofilms as complex differentiated communities. Ann
Rev Microbiol 2002; 56: 187-209
Lazazzera BA, Grossman AD. The ins and outs of peptide signaling. Trends Microbiol 1998; 6: 288-94
Davies DG, Parsek MR, Pearson JP, Iglewski BH, Costerton JW, Greenberg EP. The involvement of
cell-to-cell signals in the development of a bacterial biofilm. Science 1998; 280: 295-8
Rhoads DD, Wolcott RW, Cutting KF, Percival SL. Evidence of biofilms in wounds and the potential
ramifications., in Biofims: coming of age., Gilbert P, et al., Editors. 2007, The Biofilm Club:
Manchester
Thurnheer T, Gmür R, Guggenheim B. Multiple FISH analysis of a six-species bacterial biofilm. J
Microbiol Methods 2004;56(1):37-47
Lo, AW, Seers CA, Boyce JD, Dashper SG, Slakeski N, Lissel JP, Reynolds EC. Comparative
transcriptomic analysis of Porphyromonas gingivalis biofilm and planktonic cells. BMC Microbiol.
2009;29;9:18
Boyd A, Chakrabarty AM. Role of alginate lyase in cell detachment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Appl
Environ Microbiol 1994; 60: 2355-9
Torres VJ, Stauff DL, Ishchany G, Ezbradica JS, Ordy LE, Turregui J, Anderson KL, Dunman P, Joyce S,
Skaar EP. A staphylococcus aureus regulatory system that responds to host heme and modulates
virulence. Cell Host and Microbe. 2007; 1: 109-19
Reniere ML, Torres VJ, Skaar EP. Intracellular metalloporphyrin metabolism in Staphylococcus
aureus. Biometals 2007; 20: 333-45
The significance of Biofilms in Wound Infections
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Marrie TJ, Nelligan J, Costerton JW. A scanning and transmission electron microscopic study of an
infected endocardial pacemaker lead. Circulation 1982; 66: 1339-41
Brooun A, Liu SH, Lewis K. A dose-response study of antibiotic resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa
biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 640-6
Leid JG, Shirtliff ME, Costerton JW, Stoodley AP. Human leukocytes adhere to, penetrate, and
respond to Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. Infect Immun 2002; 70: 6339-45
Bjarnsholt T, Jensen PO, Burmolle M, Hentzer M, Haagensen JA, Hougen HP, Calum H, Madsen KG,
Moser C, Molin S, Hoiby N, Givskov M. Pseudomonas aeruginosa tolerance to tobramycin, hydrogen
peroxide and polymorphonuclear leukocytes is quorum-sensing dependent. Microbiol 2005; 151:
373-83
Jensen PO, Bjarnsholt T, Rasmussen TB, Calum H, Moser C, Pressler T, Givskov M, Hoiby N. Rapid
necrotic killing of PMNs is caused by quorum sensing controlled production of rhamnolipid by
Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiol 2006; 3: 225-31
Brown MRW, Allison DG, Gilbert P. Resistance of bacterial biofilms to antibiotics: a growth-rate
related effect? J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 22: 777-83
Ceri H, Olson ME, Stremick C, Read RR, Morck D, Buret A. The Calgary biofilm device: new technology
for rapid determination of antibiotic susceptibilities of bacterial biofilms. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37:
1771-76
Hoyle BD, Wong CK, Costerton JW. Disparate efficacy of tobramycin on Ca2+-, Mg2+- and HEPEStreated Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Can J Microbiol 1992; 38: 1214-8
Larsen T, Fiehn N-E. Resistance of Streptococcus sanguis biofilms to antimicrobial agents. APMIS
1996; 104: 280-4
Vorachit M, Lam K, Jayanetra P, Costerton JW. Resistance of Pseudomonsa pseudomallei growing as
a biofilm on silastic disks to ceftazidime and cotrimoxazole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37:
2000-2
Olson ME, Ceri H, Morck DW, Buret AG, Read RR. Biofilm bacteria: formation and comparative
susceptibility to antibiotics. Can J Vet Res 2002; 66: 86-92
Koseoglu H, Aslan G, Esen N, Sen BH, Coban H. Ultrastructural stages of biofilm development of
Escherichia coli on urethral catheters and effects of antibiotics on biofilm formation. Urol 2006; 68:
942-6
Suci PA, Mittelman MW, Yu FP, Geesey GG. Investigation of ciprofloxacin penetration into
Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 2125-33
Hatch RA, Schiller NL. Alginate lyase promotes diffusion of aminoglycosides through the extracellular
polysaccharide of mucoid Pseudomonas aerguinosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 974-7
Allison DG, Matthews MJ. Effect of polysaccharide interactions on antibiotic susceptibility of
Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Appl Bacteriol 1992; 73: 484-8
Simpson JA, Smith SE, Dean RT. Scavenging by alginate of free radicals released by macrophages.
Free Radic Biol Med 1989; 6: 347-53
Evans DJ, Allison DG, Brown MRW, Gilbert P. Effect of growth-rate on resistance of gram-negative
biofilms to cetrimide. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 26: 473-8
Dagostino L, Goodman AE, Marshall KC. Physiological responses induced in bacteria adhering to
surfaces. Biofouling 1991; 4: 113-9
Percival SL, Bowler PG, Woods EJ. Assessing the effect of an antimicrobial wound dressing on
biofilms. Wound Repair Regen 2008; 16: 52-57
Percival SL, Bowler PG, Dolman J. Antimicrobial activity of silver-containing dressings on wound
microorganisms using an in vitro biofilm model. Int Wound J 2007; 4: 186-91
Akiyama H, Oono T, Saito M, Iwatsuki K. Assessment of cadexomer iodine against Staphylococcus
aureus biofilm in vivo and in vitro using confocal laser scannin microscopy. J Dermatol 2004; 31: 52934
Singh PK. Iron sequestration by human lactoferrin stimulates P aeruginosa surface motility and
blocks biofilm formation. Biometals 2004; 17: 267-70
The significance of Biofilms in Wound Infections
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
Hentzer M, Riedel K, Rasmussen TB, Heydorn A, Andersen JB, Parsek MR, Rice SA, Eberl L, Molin S,
Hoiby N, Kjelleberg S, Givskov M. Inhibition of quorum sensing in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm
bacteria by a halogenated furanone compound. Microbiol 2002; 148: 87-102
Hentzer M, Wu H, Andersen JB, Riedel K, Rasmussen TB, Bagge N, Kumar N, Schembri MA, Song Z,
Kristoffersen P, Manefield M, Costerton JW, Molin S, Eberl L, Steinberg P, Kjelleberg S, Hoiby N,
Givskov M. Attenuation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence by quorum sensing inhibitors. EMBO J
2003; 22: 3803-15
Balaban N, Stoodley P, Fux CA, Wilson S, Costerton JW, Dell'Acqua G. Prevention of staphylococcal
biofilm-associated infections by the quorum sensing inhibitor RIP. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 437:
48-54
Cirioni O, Giacometti A, Ghiselli R, Dell'Acqua G, Orlando F, Mocchegiani F, Silvestri C, Licci A, Saba V,
Scalise G, Balaban N. RNAIII-inhibiting peptide significantly reduces bacterial load and enhances the
effect of antibiotics in the treatment of central venous catheter-associated Staphylococcus aureus
infections. J Infect Dis 2006; 193: 180-6
Domenico P, Gurzenda E, Giacometti A, Cirioni O, Ghiselli R, Orlando F, Korem M, Saba V, Scalise G,
Balaban N. BisEDT and RIP act in synergy to prevent graft infections by resistant Staphylococci.
Peptides 2004; 12: 2047-53
Giacometti A, Cirioni O, Gov Y, Ghiselli R, Del Prete MS, Mocchegiani F, Saba V, Orlando F, Scalise G,
Balaban N, Dell'Acqua G. RNA III inhibiting peptide inhibits in vivo biofilm formation by drug-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47: 1979-83
Otto M. Quorum-sensing control in Staphylococci - a target for antimicrobial drug therapy? FEMS
Microbiol Lett 2004; 241: 135-41
Chaignon P, Sadovskaya I, Ragunah C, Ramasubbu N, Kaplan JB, Jabbouri S. Susceptibilty of
staphylococcal biofilms to enzymatic treatments depends on their chemical composition. Appl
Microb Biotech 2007; 75: 125-32
International Wound Infection Institute. Wound infection in clinical practice: an international
consensus. 2008, London: Medical Education Partnership (MEP) Ltd
Leaper D. Silver dressings: their role in wound management. Int Wound J 2006; 3: 282-94
Cooper DA. Iodine revisited. Int Wound J 2007; 4: 124-37
Dowd SE, Sun Y, Secor P, Rhoads DD, Wolcott BM, James GA, Wolcott RD. Survey of bacterial
diversity in chronic wounds using Pyrosequencing, DGGE and full ribosome shotgun sequencing.
BMC Microbiol 2008; 8: 1-15 (ePub)
The significance of Biofilms in Wound Infections