Centre for Biomolecular Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University Park, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom.
Department of Immunology and Microbiology, Københavns Universitet, SUND, Blegdamsvej 3b, Room 24.1, 2200 København, Denmark.
J Mol Biol. 2015 Nov 20;427(23):3646-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2015.09.002. Epub 2015 Sep 5.
We have become increasingly aware that, during infection, pathogenic bacteria often grow in multicellular biofilms that are often highly resistant to antibacterial strategies. In order to understand how biofilms form and contribute to infection, many research groups around the world have heavily used in vitro biofilm systems such as microtitre plate assays and flow cells. Whilst these methods have greatly increased our understanding of the biology of biofilms, it is becoming increasingly apparent that many of our in vitro methods do not accurately represent in vivo conditions. Here we present a systematic review of the most widely used in vitro biofilm systems, and we discuss why they are not always representative of the in vivo biofilms found in chronic infections. We present examples of methods that will help us to bridge the gap between in vitro and in vivo biofilm work so that we can ultimately use our benchside data to improve bedside treatment.
我们越来越意识到,在感染过程中,病原细菌经常在多细胞生物膜中生长,而这些生物膜通常对抗菌策略具有高度抗性。为了了解生物膜的形成方式以及如何导致感染,世界各地的许多研究小组都大量使用了体外生物膜系统,例如微量滴定板测定法和流动细胞。尽管这些方法大大提高了我们对生物膜生物学的理解,但越来越明显的是,我们的许多体外方法并不能准确代表体内条件。在这里,我们对最广泛使用的体外生物膜系统进行了系统评价,并讨论了为什么它们并不总是代表慢性感染中发现的体内生物膜。我们提出了一些方法的示例,这些方法将帮助我们弥合体外和体内生物膜工作之间的差距,以便我们最终可以利用我们的床边数据来改善床边治疗。